Rushdie row takes one back to the politics of 1980s
Is 2011-12, 1988-89 all over again? The near farce over Salman Rushdie's non-appearance in Jaipur, whether in person or even in a videolink, would suggest so. Rewind to the late 1980s. A beleaguered Rajiv Gandhi government, its image dented by the Bofors kickback accusations, chooses to ban Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses'. India, in fact, had the 'distinction' of becoming the first country in the world to ban the book, perhaps before anyone in the country had even read it.
Worse, on the 24th of February 1989, barely 10 days after the infamous fatwa delivered against Rushdie by Ayatollah Khomeini, 12 people were killed in police firing in Bombay. The police claimed it was forced to open fire when a crowd of around 10,000 Muslims protesting outside the British Consulate began to turn violent.
1989 was also the year of the horrific Bhagalpur riots when more than a 1,000 people were killed. The riots were part of a decade of violence with strong communal and sectarian overtones culminating in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. It was also a period when the Congress government at the Centre pussyfooted on a variety of sensitive inter-community issues, from the Shahbano case to opening the locks of the disputed shrine in Ayodhya.
1989 was general election year, a year which marked the ascent of the BJP as a force to reckon with in national politics, as the secular versus pseudo-secular debate began to gather momentum. Riding the twin planks of anti-corruption and a defender of minority-backward caste interests, VP Singh was catapulted into prime ministership. Rajiv Gandhi's mighty majority of 1984 had vanished barely five years later.
Now, switch back to the present. If then it was Bofors that hobbled the Rajiv regime, clearly 2G has had a similar impact on UPA 2. If Bofors scarred Rajiv's 'Mr Clean' image, 2G has chipped away at Dr Manmohan Singh's aura of personal integrity. A scam-tainted government has been desperately looking for a survival ticket. Like 1989, this too is a big election year: Uttar Pradesh is the biggest prize of them all. For more than two decades, the Congress has been steadily wiped off the map of India's most populous state. Now, with Rahul Gandhi at the helm, and with Digvijay Singh as his Sancho Panza, the party has been hoping to effect a spectacular comeback. The only problem is that making big gains in a highly fragmented state, and taking on battle-hardened prize fighters like Mayawati and Mulayam Singh is easier said than done.
When there are no aces left on the table, the Congress historically has tended to play one last card: the minority card. Which is why just days before the UP elections were announced, the Centre flagged off a 4.5 per cent sub-quota for Muslims. If you cant provide them education, jobs, bank loans, or save them from the terror tag, what better way to reach out to UP's 18 per cent Muslims than offer them quotas? The Sachar committee prepared a report of 403 pages, and presented it in the Lok Sabha on 30th November 2006. That report had exposed the pitiable condition of the Indian Muslim (on some parameters even below the Dalits and Adivasis) and had spoken of the need for affirmative action. For five years, the UPA government did not act on many of the Sachar panel recommendations, but then does so 48 hours before the UP poll process begins. If that is not cynical realpolitik, then what is?
A similar cynical statecraft has been on exhibition right through the Rushdie drama in the last fortnight in Jaipur. Like the Centre, the Ashok Gehlot government too in Rajasthan has been lurching from one crisis to another. One of its senior ministers is in jail, accused of conspiring to murder a Dalit nurse in a case that offers a deadly combination of sex, sleaze and power. Gehlot himself has been accused by his rivals of nepotism and corruption. In September last year, Gehlot faced even more criticism when a land-related dispute turned into communal clashes in Bharatpur's Gopalgarh village leaving 10 people dead, all Muslims. A minorities commission report blamed the police for firing on the crowd, including firing on a local masjid.
Gehlot too, has been looking for redemption. Rushdie's planned arrival in Jaipur and a mysterious fatwa issued by the Deoband seminary provided just the opening his government needed. Instead of welcoming the acclaimed author to the Pink City, Gehlot pulled out the red flag. Every possible excuse was conjured up: from the threat of the Mumbai underworld (when in doubt, revive the D Company!) to the fear of mobs entering the venue. Instead of providing security assurances, the government did just the opposite, warning of dire consequences if Rushdie came to Jaipur. The government which could not protect lives of ordinary Muslims in Gopalgarh is now claiming to have preserved Muslim 'sentiments' by ensuring Rushdie was not seen or heard in Jaipur.
So, are we really back to the dangerous politics of the late 80s? Well, not quite. The fact is, that while our politics still drives wedges in civil society, this is also an aspirational India, which has either tasted, or seen, the benefits of eight per cent economic growth. The largest pool of Indians - Hindus and Muslims - don't want law and order disruptions to interfere in their drive for upward mobility. Yes, there will be mischief-mongers in both communities who will look to fish in troubled waters, but it is extremely unlikely that we will see the kind of large scale violence that afflicted the 1980s. At the same time, in an atmosphere of rising intolerance and weak governments, the Rushdie episode is a grim reminder that we still haven't fully succeeded in fashioning a liberal, multi-faith Republic.
More about Rajdeep SardesaiRajdeep Sardesai is the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He comes with 22 years of journalistic experience during which he has covered some of the biggest stories in India and the world. Prior to setting up the IBN network, he was the Managing Editor of both NDTV 24X7 and NDTV India and was responsible for overseeing the news policy for both the channels. He has also worked with The Times of India for six years and was the city editor of its Mumbai edition at the age of 26. During the last 22 years, he has covered major national and international stories, specialising in national politics. He has won numerous other awards for journalistic excellence, including the prestigious Padma Shri for journalism in 2008, the International Broadcasters Award for coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for 2007. He has won the Asian Television Award for best talk show for the Big Fight on two occasions and his current flagship show on CNN-IBN, India at 9, has been awarded the best news show at the Asian awards for the last two years. He has been News Anchor of the year at the Indian Television Academy for seven of the last eight years and won more than 50 awards in this period. He has also been the President of the Editors Guild of India, the only television journalist to hold the post and was chosen a Global leader for tomorrow by the world economic forum in 2000. An alumni of St Xavier's College, Mumbai, he has done his Masters and LLB from Oxford University and has also played first class cricket for the Oxford University team. He has contributed to several books and writes a fortnightly column that appears in seven newspapers.
- + The striking similarities of Modi and Indira's politics
- + AAP and the business of Delhi-centric news
- + Both 1984, 2002 a blot but conviction better in Gujarat
- + Cometh the anti-establishment neta
- + Can Arvind Kejriwal avoid a repeat of the 1989 VP Singh phenomena?
- + India is changing and it's in the positive direction
- + Arvind Kejriwal-AAP success has many lessons for Rahul Gandhi
- + Kejriwal and Modi: Agents of change promising too much, too soon
- + Don't ban opinion polls, but bring in a code of conduct for pollsters