Live Mint, April 09 2014
A moderate BJP?
By singling out Hindus in its policy towards refugees, the BJP underscores the core agenda of representing Hindu interests
by Salil Tripathi
The section on foreign policy in Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) election manifesto reads exactly like what any other party would say about international relations—nation first, friendship towards all. But it ends by saying: “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.”
If anything sets apart the BJP’s thinking on foreign affairs from that of other Indian political parties, it is in that emphasis on persecuted Hindus seeking refuge. No doubt there are Hindus facing persecution in places like Pakistan, Bhutan and Bangladesh. Some suffer state harassment, while vigilantes target others. But in those countries there are other groups too, who face persecution because of who they are or what they believe in. Would India’s doors be open only for Hindus, and not for Ahmediyyas, Shias or Chakmas? What would Tibetans, who continue to seek refuge in India as they flee persecution in China, make of the BJP manifesto? Or Rohingyas from Myanmar, or Sri Lankan Tamils who are Muslims? Granted, there are no queues of such refugees waiting at India’s door, and granted too, that the BJP does not explicitly say that India will grant refuge only to Hindus. But if the BJP offers India as a safe haven to refugees, why focus on Hindus?
It is to remind a certain core constituency of the BJP that the party won’t let Hindus outside India suffer, and that it alone will look after their interests. In that, the sentiment is in line with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s thinking that India is the natural home for Hindus worldwide—not explicit, but the implication is clear: India, a holy land, the land of the pure. You know where that leads.
In equating the land with a specific faith, it transforms a shared geographical construct, which has an inclusive and syncretic cultural identity honed into a composite comprising many faiths and traditions, into a singular, monolithic civilization, the Hindu Rashtra, or Hindu Nation.
Some supporters of Narendra Modi, who are keen to see in him a market-oriented modernist, balk at such an argument. Impatient over the economic sluggishness of the last couple of years and disgusted by the corruption scandals tainting the United Progressive Alliance, they connect many dots in Modi’s speeches to convince themselves that he is a reform-oriented, governance-focused, principle-driven pragmatist. He has now turned moderate; he offers growth (as against false promise of secularism); and, in a backhanded compliment, that he has transformed partly because of the pressure from Indian liberals. They also take comfort from the party accepting constitutional solution to the Ayodhya issue as another sign that the BJP’s agenda will be economic, not cultural, even if it promises to fritter resources on whatever Ayurgenomics means.
By singling out Hindus in its policy towards refugees, the BJP underscores the core agenda of representing Hindu interests. It also reinforces the idea that Hindus outside India are being persecuted. (Indeed, some are; but so are people of other faiths outside India, and the whole point of the 1951 refugee convention is for states to offer refuge to anyone with a well-grounded fear of persecution, regardless of faith, nationality, language, or sex.) True, India has not signed the refugee convention, but as with many other provisions of international laws, it adheres to its spirit, as its generosity over the years to refugees from Tibet, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and the former East Pakistan shows. When fear-struck people reached its border, India did not admit only Hindus.
This is because a host nation cannot pick and choose the refugees it wants. In 2001, a Norwegian freighter saved over 400 Afghans in a stranded fishing vessel and decided to bring them to Australia, because it was nearest to the freighter, as per international law. The Australian government sent special forces on board to prevent it from reaching Australia because it wanted to reserve the right of deciding who deserved asylum. Prime minister John Howard, who was coincidentally by US president George W. Bush’s side on 9/11, quickly passed a border protection Bill. Legal opinion in Australia reminded Howard that he was wrong, but he had an election to win and public opinion supported him, so he disregarded the lawyers and Norwegian criticism, and sent the refugees to Nauru, where they remained in camps. Ultimately, however, Australia accepted many of them, as did New Zealand.
The BJP is not ignorant of international law; nor does it say it wants to rewrite India’s international obligations. Elections are not won and lost on arcane points of interpreting international law. But its manifesto reveals its mindset, which remains consistent with the Hindutva view of the world. You can still conclude that manifestos don’t matter, and hope that power will moderate the party and the man. Or you recall what Humpty Dumpty says in Through the Looking Glass: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London. Your comments are welcome at salil@livemint.com.
|
