Modi’s next test: The ‘other’ minority issue

File photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi | PTI/Swapan Mahapatra

Much as you detest some old British politicians and their ghisa-pita old cliches, you can’t help falling back on them. It just so happens that nobody has written a better description of the unpredictable nature of democracy than Harold Wilson’s “a week is a long time (in) politics”. And remember, he said this in 1964, when a week wasn’t really such a long period of time.

That is precisely what happened over 48 hours last week. First, Prime Minister Narendra Modi surprised us by accepting an invitation from Christian groups to speak at a commemoration for two Indians recently beatified, and never mind that it was on the day of Mahashivratri. He chose that forum to firmly state what is, after all, no more than a restatement of the central proposition of the Constitution he has been sworn in to protect. This was followed, as if choreographed, by a statement from RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat that Hindu women were not baby-bearing factories and thereby rubbishing Sakshi Maharaj, one of the BJP MPs in saffron.

Sure enough, both correctives were deliberate, if instigated by the setback in Delhi. There was never much love lost between the BJP and Muslims, who vote strategically to defeat it. But now the RSS had opened a new front with Jesus Christ as well. Whether or not there was any pattern in the vandalising of several churches in Delhi, it caused deep discomfort in the Capital. Arvind Kejriwal exploited this fully in his campaign. In fact, his mocking the call for Hindu women to make four babies each drew the loudest sniggers at AAP rallies in predominantly Hindu areas.

The Modi/RSS course-correction is an acknowledgement of India’s diversity, as also an admission that Rajdharma decrees that a ruler go out of his way to look, sound, feel inclusive. That democracy is not merely about parliamentary majorities, and minorities can’t be ignored. In a democracy, the smallest minority also has a voice and, however much you may detest it, a special right to be heard over the din of the majority. Outreach to Christians done now, let’s hope Modi will begin a conversation with our largest minority too, and this year even resume the tradition of the annual iftar by the prime minister, which he unwisely discontinued last year. Symbolism is important in democracies, and it isn’t always appeasement. If symbolism did not matter, why would the prime minister wear a Sikh turban at a Punjab rally, and brilliant Naga headgear, feathers, furs and horns when in distant Nagaland?

 

Modi’s belated intervention and then this one-two punch from him and Bhagwat have calmed down minority fears somewhat, never mind that it confuses lakhs of BJP’s most loyal, often abusive supporters on social media. But if this course correction has to achieve its logical purpose, Modi will need to deal with another minority challenge, in fact a twin minority challenge, as he prepares for his government’s most important budget session next week. This is not merely about the budget. Parliament has to take a call on a huge amount of pending law-making business.

We call it a twin minority problem because in the Lok Sabha Modi has to find a constructive approach towards his main opposition parties, particularly the Congress, no matter how small their strength. On the other hand, in the Rajya Sabha he needs a new approach to the challenge of being in a minority. In fact, the setback in Delhi and an adverse build-up in Bihar have also raised doubts over the arrogant presumption that a creeping acquisition of Rajya Sabha was on, and a majority inevitable as the big states go to the polls. Insults hurled at the opposition in the Lok Sabha will be paid back in equal measure in the Upper House. His approach can’t be to pretend that there is no Congress in the Lok Sabha and that the Rajya Sabha doesn’t exist.

It will be hasty to pronounce that the Modi government’s honeymoon has ended. He still has time. But like all relationships, this too is settling into a normal pattern and his priority has to be to minimise negativity around it, rather than add to it by playing to the gallery. He needs reconciliation in Parliament to ratify his important ordinances and it would be far from ideal to defy the Rajya Sabha to defeat each and call a joint session and railroad them. This will mean too many negative headlines – and also, noise and opportunity for the opposition (now fortified by AAP) to build up street protests and strikes. He has to reach out to his opposition as much as he feels the need to mend his party’s relationship with religious minorities. The key question therefore is, is Modi now willing to seek constructive reconciliation in Parliament as well?

If Modi reflects honestly, he got off to a perfectly wrong start in his relationship with Parliament. My colleague Ravish Tiwari, India Today Associate Editor, underlines to me that you cannot overlook the fact that the first act of Modi’s government was to issue an ordinance. It was merely to amend an earlier law to legitimise the appointment of his Principal Secretary, Nripendra Mishra. Because he enjoyed a decent image and goodwill across parties, Parliament approved it without turning the knife. But it showed his government’s inexperience, if not incompetence. This coincided with his ill-advised denial of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) position. Even on key appointments (Lokpal) that needed the approval of LoP, he preferred to amend the law to substitute it with the leader of the largest opposition party. Constitutionally, he was correct. But morally, it looked arrogant, cussed and politically naive. There was somehow a feeling that the BJP was never going to end up on the other side of that equation. The tally of three out of 70 in the Delhi assembly brought a rude reality check. Of course, AAP completed the humiliation by offering the LoP position even to this three-strong opposition.

This session will answer an important question: Is Modi willing to change tack, mellow down, and work towards a collaborative, participatory relationship with Parliament, or is he resigned to five years of dysfunction? Nothing could be worse than the latter for his government, and for India. Democracy is all about checks and balances and, unlike many strong chief ministers in states where assemblies rarely meet, at the Centre you have to reach out, negotiate, give and take because, as BJP leaders said often when in opposition, responsibility for running Parliament ultimately lies with the government.

 

The Modi government compounded its early errors with more. On land acquisition bill amendments, most contentious of all, it carried out consultations with states in June last year, but never with opposition parties in Parliament. This was read as a deliberate affront. There was no discussion on the insurance act amendment through the six months preceding the passing of the ordinances. Modi lost an entire session because he wouldn’t concede the opposition’s demand that he make a statement on some bigoted statements from his own party leaders. All it needed was for him to say in Parliament something on the lines of what he said at the church event now.

Whatever the numbers, the best approach to Parliament is a collaborative and accommodating one. Majority is a blessing, but not the last word on everything political. There are limitations to that heady number of 282 (in the Lok Sabha) as well. There were limitations even to the 413 Rajiv Gandhi got in 1984. Just over a year later he started to lose it with his cynical and communal handling of the Shah Bano case. By early 1987, he had lost it completely. And remember, in the mid-1980s, a week was still a reasonably long time in politics, unlike the frenetic, connected, digital NOW.

A little humility and generosity towards the opposition doesn’t undermine a government, no matter how brute its majority. A little praise for the UPA for securing the nuclear deal, even if completing a process Vajpayee started, relenting on the LoP issue, an all-party meeting where the opposition is treated with respect will all help. Remember lessons the wily old veterans left behind. When India faced a Western powers– and Pakistan-backed resolution at the UN in Geneva over human rights abuses in Kashmir in 1994, prime minister Narasimha Rao requested his LoP, Vajpayee, to head the delegation. Salman Khurshid, then MoS for external affairs, was to be his deputy. Together, they won the day for India. This magazine reported it in a cover story and the cover picture was a jubilant Vajpayee and Salman hugging each other. Modi also needs to bring back some old decencies.

Postscript: As MPs assemble for the budget session, I have the excuse to tell my favourite story on good law-making getting caught in parliamentary cussedness. In 2003, a Supreme Court bench ruled (in my view erroneously) that privatisation of oil PSUs needed specific parliamentary approval. Vajpayee decided the only way out was to amend the statute book so this judgment would become irrelevant. At a review during that session he asked his parliamentary affairs minister why the amendment could not be railroaded. “We can try Atalji, kintu Sansad mein halla ho jayega (but there will be chaos in Parliament).” So what, said an impatient Vajpayee, “aap usko halle mein hi pass kara dijiye (then get it passed in the din.)”

“I would’ve got it passed in the halla, Atalji, but only if I had conviction in it, but I don’t,” said the minister. Not one PSU has been privatised since, in nearly 12 years.