Flowers for hate in India, Pakistan

Saba Naqvi  

On January 4, 2011, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of the province of Punjab in Pakistan, was shot down by Mumtaz Qadri, because he had spoken against his nation’s notorious blasphemy laws and sought clemency in the death sentence given to a Pakistani Christian woman. The assassin was part of the governor’s security detail and what subsequently frightened a section of Pakistan society was the spectacle of reverence bestowed on him. Each time Qadri appeared in court, he was showered with rose petals by lawyers and crowds. He was given the death sentence and executed in 2016 but thousands turned up for the funeral procession, again showering rose petals--and underscoring Pakistan’s terrifying descent into the abyss.

On July 6 this year, little over a week ago, the Union Minister of State for Civil Aviation in India, Jayant Sinha, a Harvard graduate and son of a former finance minister, placed marigold garlands across the necks of eight men who had been convicted of lynching a Muslim cattle trader in broad daylight. The men had managed to get their sentences suspended (but not their convictions overturned) and went straight to the minister’s residence in Jharkhand where they were given the sort of welcome reserved for heroes who have done some useful national service. 

Can we find any equivalence between a mass expression in Pakistan in support of a murderer and the individual selfish act of a politician who was possibly trying to get the RSS/BJP cadre united in his Lok Sabha constituency (where the going is getting tough) before a national election? Perhaps not, but there are signs that should worry us. In both cases, minorities were considered easy targets deserving death; in both cases the killers were celebrated by a section of society, larger in Pakistan but growing in India; in both cases, convicted murderers were celebrated.    

True, we have not crossed over to the abyss, but we are staring at it. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor recently created a virtual and TV storm when he suggested that India could become a “Hindu Pakistan”. I understand the spirit of his argument but there are obvious quibbles on details. Pakistan is a theocratic state at its very foundation, a nation born from the two-nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims make separate nations. As an aside, let me also state that since Muslim devours Muslim in Pakistan, the idea has obviously not lived up to the promise of its early promoters. 

Besides Pakistan is fundamentally a military state with a pretence at democracy. India has a remarkable Constitution, the work of great intellect combined with humanitarian compassion. I gather from lawyer friends that for India to legally become a Hindu nation first we would have to drop the following words and phrases from the preamble of the Constitution: secular; democratic; justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression and belief; equality of status and opportunity. Then we move to the fundamental rights and Article 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 would have to go.

There is however the “basic structure doctrine” when a 13-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled by a slender majority (seven against six) in 1973 that the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution did not extend to altering its basic structure. So legally we cannot apparently become a Pakistan. But in spirit we have already accepted a majoritarian norm in society, politics and culture that allows a Jayant Sinha to garland lynching convicts without being removed from the council of ministers. 

He’s only the latest in the hall of shame: he rubs shoulders in the council of ministers with Minister of State for Skill Development Anantkumar Hedge who in December last year said “We are here to change the Constitution of India”, although he later backtracked. Sinha and Hegde enjoy the August company of Giriraj Singh, the Minister of State for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, who once suggested that all Muslims should leave for Pakistan and recently visited riot accused individuals in jail.

What is interesting about the trio is that all three are Lok Sabha MPs. They are targeting voters/cadres who they believe will respond to their public positions as they head to 2019. In the drumbeating by the loyal media, opposition parties are now accused of trying to “divide Hindus” increasingly presented as a monolith, a category till now reserved for Muslims. Tharoor has linked his argument to the 2019 General Election. I would argue that a narrow defeat will not change the course our nation has taken as the BJP sets the discourse even in opposition. Only a huge defeat by a credible opposition would change the narrative. By law we remain a secular nation; in spirit we do not.