There is nothing special about the current Lok Sabha election; political parties are ready with their lines, barbs, and pledges to win over their various support bases. One such tactic was Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s controversial public address in Rajasthan, where he attacked the Congress party over promises of wealth redistribution.
Modi asserted that, in his 2006 speech, former PM Manmohan Singh had suggested that the Congress would redistribute wealth among Muslims. He claimed that the party would give Muslims the “first right to India’s resources” and redistribute assets among “intruders” and “those with several children”. The troublesome part of his speech really lies in its sequence—it goes from Muslims to illegal immigrants to those with many children. I’m not sure if this was a premeditated move or a mistake, but it was unquestionably a problematic statement coming from the head of the Indian state, the prime minister of over 140 crore people. Some argue that Modi’s remarks were a strategic political move to appeal to Hindu sentiments and contrast BJP’s stance with the Opposition’s, but others view it as a divisive narrative.
Modi supporters vs Opposition
What is interesting is that hard-core Modi supporters will perform acrobatics to defend this specific assertion and question the Opposition about the remainder of the speech while dismissing similar justifications about Manmohan Singh’s statement. The Opposition, too, will clarify their former PM’s statements and point out the problems with Modi’s address.
In political terms, Modi’s controversial speech can be interpreted as a reaction to fears about low voter turnout. It aims to perpetuate the notion that the BJP is the sole protector of Hindu interests while the Opposition solely focuses on appeasing Muslim communities. It also shows the ruling party’s reluctance to rely solely on its developmental achievements. But the Opposition, which often takes issue with Modi’s comments, is never able to bring up any policies that discriminate against minorities. In fact, Modi had discussed in an interview with journalist Smita Prakash how 70 distinct Muslim castes in Gujarat gain from being included in OBC lists and schemes.
Also read:
Fighting appeasement politics
So, the PM made a valid point when he criticised the Congress for categorising the entire Muslim community in Karnataka under the Other Backward Classes (OBC). It is pure appeasement of Ashraaf Muslims and discriminates against Pasmanda Muslims. This is because the Ashraafs, who have no rightful claim to the OBC category, and the impoverished segment of the Ashraaf community that should rightfully be included in the economically weaker section, are instead benefiting from resources intended for the Pasmanda community. As a Pasmanda Muslim, I have been advocating that reservation for Muslims should be based on socio-economic hierarchy rather than religion, because doing otherwise contradicts the Constitution and principles of fairness.
I find any derogatory comment about my identity hurtful; especially when it comes from the head of the Indian state and even if the intention was to address illegal immigration or highlight appeasement politics. However, I prefer to look beyond my emotions and base my judgement on policies and ground realities. Just as I seek fair treatment and solidarity from fellow citizens, I also question whether I can reject the politics of appeasement and discrimination toward other communities. I reflect on whether I can speak out for social justice, gender equality, and secularism – which are often considered majority responsibilities. And I analyse whether I can speak out against statements like “They (Muslims) have the first right over resources”. I see that the BJP is attempting to move away from and question the politics of appeasement. But achieving this objective by making statements that target entire communities is simply condemnable.
In the end, the Pasmanda group suffers most from appeasement politics because we are used as a voting bloc and our rights are frequently disregarded in favour of Ashraaf Muslims. Such politics disproportionately benefit the privileged Ashraafs community as Pasmandas reel under the consequences.
Amana Begam Ansari is a columnist and TV news panelist. She runs a weekly YouTube show called ‘India This Week by Amana and Khalid’. She tweets @Amana_Ansari. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Dear Ms. Amana,
I appreciate you sharing your opinion on political appeasement as an issue worth discussing in its own right. However, I find it highly inappropriate that you have conflated that with the recent controvertial speech. The intended message from the speech is a thousand times more concerning and potentially damaging to the fabric of this great country, compared to a seemingly mundane political phenomenon like minority appeasement. How these two topics of vastly different imports can be linked together is beyond my understanking.
Your opinion almost seems like a justification for the comments made in the speech, which is not only unfortunate but also seems not fully thought through, in my humble opinion.
Amount of disingenuousness to argue something like this …., is beyond me…
Prime Minister made worst kind of dog whistle Even if there was “appeasement” , it was not such a big enough to make fuss about & making this kind of dog whistle…
But yes , patroange demands such things to be justified ….
Appeasement of any group whether it is minorities or backward classes needs to be corrected and only the deserving groups should get benefits. But don’t you think targeting the entire community is worse? Appeasement can be corrected not by attacking the religion as a whole! BJP and PM Modi can talk about the actions they took to correct the appeasement. They are in power for last 10 years, time to stop blaming the previous governments and to show how they are making a difference. If the difference they are making is by targeting the entire community, it is for people like you to decide that’s what you want and to take that into account while voting in this elections.
If Muslims are being “ appeased “, that should show up in some special privileges or benefits that are being conferred upon them by the state. The Haj subsidy was long a visible symbol, but that has been done away with. Their representation in Parliament and state legislatures, also Cabinets at the Centre and states is at a historic low. Membership of the civil service and armed forces, police. Business. Learned professions.