On secularism, Kejriwal could have taken BJP head-on

Harcharan Bains

It is amazing how the poll mandate in what is not even one of India’s full-fledged states has generated interest far beyond the geographical boundaries of the country. In some measure, the credit for this must go to what the social, political and intellectual luminaries in the country had put together more than 70 years ago — the Constitution, which became the bedrock of a secular democratic experiment in a country with little experience of democracy or secularism.

The only other factor responsible for the worldwide interest in the results of the Delhi poll is the alleged violation of two sacred tenets – secularism and democracy – over the past few years. Looked at purely from this angle, the Delhi poll results will certainly appear to be a setback to what was being seen as the growing “saffronisation” of the Indian polity by the BJP and its cultural nursery, the RSS. But can the mandate be described truly as a categorical victory for the secular ethos? That is something that will be debated for a long time to come. Strangely, despite the raging debate, neither of the two principal contenders in Delhi chose to stake everything on the secular argument.

Although several prominent BJP voices could legitimately be accused of pandering to vulgar communal sloganeering, but did the Aam Aadmi Party, especially its convener, Arvind Kejriwal, show the moral daring to take them on in a black-and-white debate on secularism? How one wishes he had. Instead Kejriwal chose the “duck, dodge, deflect and distract” approach, refusing to lock horns with the BJP in a head-on engagement on secularism alone. One could of course argue that Kejriwal’s ducking was only an electoral strategy. But what should one make of his rushing to ‘Bajrang Bali’ as a shield against BJP’s ‘Ram-baans’? Was he competing with his principal opponent in choosing a symbol – ‘Bajrang Bali’ — that evokes martial aspects of the religious psyche than does the more moderate messiah of peace, Lord Ram, whose image the BJP had sought to use as an electoral icon? The jury is still out on this, and on why Arvind Kejriwal did not show the moral daring needed to take up the BJP gauntlet on the raging “secular” debate.

He can claim that he believed in making the religious juggernaut irrelevant by stepping out of its way, rather than playing to its strength and getting crushed under it – a strategy that proved ‘electorally beneficial.’ Purely as a strategy for electoral benefits, it wasn’t bad maneuvering at all. But in the process, he may have let go of an opportunity to rid the country of the devastating perception that it is thoroughly struck by the communal virus. Also, the benefits were purchased at what seems a dispensable price, because he seemed headed for victory anyway, and was, therefore, in the best position to take a moral high ground. If Kejriwal had faith – as he claims he had – in the work done by his government at the grassroots level, then he could and should have chosen to challenge his opponents purely on the performance narrative, daring them to emerge from behind religious icons and confront him on the secular turf. Kejriwal’s refusal to do so is surprising at best and a sign of political cowardice at worst. His great success lay in making the voters from the majority community realise that they could vote for performance without voting against the Hindu faith. The moment he succeeded in re-crafting the poll narrative, the BJP strategy fell apart.

All he needed was to press the gas and openly seek a vote for performance – and secular vision. He can argue, in the aviation jargon, that stalling occurs precisely when the angle gets too high, but that is the difference between trusting ground realities and flying on “airy nothings.” Kejri chose the latter. To me, there is a larger message here.

Kejriwal’s reluctance could be the result of an inability to understand and trust the infinite secular magnanimity of the Hindu psyche. The soul of India is always more comfortable with the moderate, secular and cosmic view of life, summed up in the untranslatable beauty of the Vedic expression: ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. In 1947, the majority Hindu community of the country, comprising more than 80% of the population, had consciously rejected the great opportunity for turning India into a theological state – a Hind rashtra — and instead opted to keep the country a modern and secular democracy. Even in the Delhi polls, the Hindu electorate just smiled off the Hindutava agenda, refusing to vote as Hindus. They delivered what Kejriwal did not even have the courage to seek: a push for secular ethos. Was Kejriwal the secular hero the country was looking for or did he have secular greatness thrust upon him. A reluctant and accidental hero, perhaps yes, but not a hero who staked all on secularism. It would be more appropriate to say that the Delhi voters proved secular than Kejriwal. In this, the Indian electorate stayed ahead of its leaders. This is the message which one wishes is not lost in time.