Anil Anand
Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi was bang on target when he said that India’s heritage cannot be divided on ideological lines. The politically correct (in the context of India’s plurality) statement was made by him on a perfect stage provided by organisers of the birth centenary celebrations of Mr Girdhari Lal Dogra, one of the tallest Congress leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, in July this year.
His statement had a greater relevance as it was made by him from a stage in Hindu majority segment (Jammu) of the otherwise only Muslim majority state of India, Jammu and Kashmir. Some at that point of time felt that his words were meant to justify his presence at a place to pay tributes to a Congress leader who was also father-in-law of Finance Minister Mr Arun Jaitley. To be fair to Mr Modi he must have made these observations out of conviction thereby realising his role as leader of the country.
No one would have realised at that point in time that his words would hold a greater meaning three months down the line. A disturbing corollary of the unfortunate lynching of a middle aged Muslim in Dadri village of UP has been the writers and intellectuals, some say of a particular hue and thought, surrendering their Sahitya Akademi honours in protest against the institutions silence on the killing of three rationalists for which the Dadri killing provided them a trigger to act.
At this juncture comes the relevance of Mr Modi’s sincere thought that the heritage cannot be divided on ideological lines. Cultural and intellectuals pursuits are directly related to heritage in one way or the other since in most of the cases the old heritage becomes the take-off point for new writers and artists. This is another matter that the modern thought process also continues to affix its stamp or create a space in the old heritage firmament.
There is no harm in adhering to an ideology and more so in a bubbling democracy such as India. It is not a hidden fact that most of the writers and artists, having all along played an important role in various political movements in the post Independence era, profess one or the other ideology. So what has happened differently this time around which has not only polarised this community but has brought the proponents of resignation theory face-to-face with the Government.
This was an avoidable situation and secret to prevent this situation from fomenting lies in the Prime Minister’s own lines which he spoke while lauding the persona of a veteran Congress leader. It is a contrast to Mr Modi’s political views of a “Congress mutk Bharat”. The tactics of battlefield have to be different from training during peace times. In the similar vein election time formulations never hold well in the matter of governance.
The writers’ fraternity on course to protest against what they describe as bid to suppress freedom of expression has their ire directed at the Prime Minister no matter whatever they may say that the complaint is against the Sahitya Akadmi for maintaining studied silence on the killings of three rationalists. There is no denying the fact that there is an ideological factor prevalent on both the sides but it is also a fact that the Government of the day has given them a reason to wage the battle on ideological lines. This is another matter that many among the writers and artists have raised their voice from time to time against suppression of freedom of expression no matter which party was in power at a particular point in time.
The Prime Minister could have very well followed his own lines expressed in an auditorium of Jammu University to prevent this situation from happening. He might not be backing the fringe elements either indulging in these killings or going berserk in the name of moral and ideological policing but his silence is being understood or misunderstood as some kind of tacit approval.
A timely expression by Mr Modi when the first such incident took place would not have only acted as a balm but a measure to prevent subsequent incidents. It would have been an ideological victory of a different kind had he taken the centre-stage at the right moment in pursuance of his own thought of not dividing the heritage on ideological lines. Apparently such a move would have satisfied the writers’ fraternity and those still wanting to protest would have exposed themselves in the public eye.
A counter argument being forwarded to this is that the protesting writers have shown their lack of confidence in the Prime Minister by not petitioning him at the first instance. To which they feel that the rightful forum for them to approach was the autonomous Sahitya Akademi.
It is naive to attach the Prime Minister’s office particularly Prime Minister himself to anything which sits on ego hassles. Any initiative by him in resolving such situations, suo motu or otherwise, will only add to the stature of the office.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel