Dr. Devendra Kumar
Eminent historian Shri Ramachandra Guha is well known for his deep insights and research of Indian history and is widely regarded as one of the major contributors to Indian Historical studies while his views on present day politics are much sought after. Thus when Mr Guha recently wrote a piece in Kolkata based reputed English daily – run by a group which also runs a leading Bangla Daily and a clutch of news channels – I went through the article in one go.
As I moved from one paragraph to another, I realised that not only the article was factually incorrect and based on flimsy ground, it was also clearly a lame attempt to paint the BJP leadership with the same brush as Indira-Sanjay duo. Given Shri Guha’s stature, I am nobody to question his assessment but as an independent citizen of India, it is my duty to bring out few facts before the readers and leave the decision on their discretion.
Shri Guha wrote that just like Indira trusted Sanjay, the one person that Modi thoroughly trusts in a political sense is Amit Shah. The trust between Narendra Modi and Amit Shah is certain unquestionable, however while drawing this comparison, the author conveniently forgets that unlike the dynasty-ruled Congress where the mother was keen to pass on the baton to the son, BJP is a democratic set up where Modi and Shah have come together, but not due to an umbilical cord. Instead, they are driven by their unflinching commitment to an ideology that believes in a prosperous & strong India.
Unlike Indira and Sanjay, Shah and Modi were not born with a silver spoon but worked their way up through sheer hard work and have dedicated their lives to an ideology. Both did not work as foot soldiers join of RSS as one wanted to be PM and the other knew that one day he will lead world’s largest political party. In their long association, it is only apparent that Modi trusts Shah and takes his political counsel but this trust has not developed overnight. This faith in Shah’s political acumen and organisational ability has built over the years because he delivered results for his party on various fronts.
But unlike Indira-Sanjay, this trust is not a blind one and driven by emotions but based on rationale and delivery. Shah was elevated to the post of BJP President because he was architecture of BJP’s unprecedented in UP during the 2014 Lok Sabha election. Further, when the author makes this assertion, how does he know that Modi only discusses political strategy with Shah and not with the battery of other bigwigs and grassroots leaders in the party, including Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, Nitin Gadkari, Rajnath Singh and Venkaiah Naidu etc, who have several decades of political experience between them and are giants in their own ways?
Shri Guha also claims that Amit Shah can make influential sections of the media bend to his will even in our professedly democratic, post-Emergency times. As a matter of fact, there are several detractors of Amit Shah in the media, who are not only candid about their ideological leanings but also vicious, uncharitable and disparaging in their remarks. By the author’s logic, if the BJP President was so sensitive to criticism, several columnists and journalists, and not just one, should have been sacked by now. Yet, that is not the case.
On the other hand, just rewind to the emergency period, when media was savagely gagged and both journalists and publishers were thrown behind bars for writing against the government. That was the darkest period for the fourth pillar of India’s democracy. More recently, it is a well known fact that chief minister of a small state but a huge advertisement budget got two journalists of a reputed Hindi daily sacked because they dared to criticise his whimsical and lop sided policies. Will Shri Guha dare to write against this chief minister?
In another part of his article, Shri Guha says that like Sanjay Gandhi, Amit Shah appears to be driven by power and power alone. Single-minded and ruthless are words that apply to Amit Shah as well. While making such comments Shri Guha should have recalled famous American political scientist Hans Morgenthau, who defined political realism as “The Struggle for Power”. It is laughable that an author of Shri Guha’s stature wants to portray quest for power in politics as a crime. As President of a political party, the only task for Amit Shah is to expand BJP’s political base and ensure that it does well at elections. That is the aim for any political party so why find fault with the BJP President. Is aiming for government formation a crime, especially in a country like ours, where elections are held in a free, fair and transparent manner. How can Shah’s focus on winning election through legitimate means be compared with the “emergency” imposed by Indira Gandhi & Sanjay Gandhi?
Further, despite the courts exonerating Shah – even though the then UPA government was so desperate to trap BJP President – Guha is churlish to write that he had a controversial role in undermining justice and the rule of law in Gujarat. To top it, he gives reference of Rana Ayyub’s book, whose visceral hatred and bias against Modi, Shah and BJP is known to all and sundry.
Hurling a baseless allegation, Shri Guha states that now, Amit Shah is set to polarize UP, and India, further and mentions the recent reports of Hindu exodus from Kairana. He then accuses Shah of whipping up passions while claiming that no such exodus has happened. This is yet another sweeping statement by the author as he quotes a report from one of the leading English Daily to buttress his view. However, there is no mention of several other reports that have brought out the ugly truth of Kairana, where people from a community have been forced to flee their ancestral homes due to death threats, ransom demands, and attacks by criminals from the other community.
The point on polarisation during 2014 elections is again a figment of Guha’s wild imagination. Assuming BJP won most seats in Western UP due to polarisation, how did the party manage a near 100% strike rate in eastern and central parts of the state? In his blind pursuit to hang Modi and Shah, Guha forgets that not just western UP but most parts of the country overcame roadblocks of caste and religion and voted decisively for Modi only on the plank of development.
In another twisted comparison, the author states that Indira was blind to Sanjay’s faults, in part because he was her son. Modi may not be bound to Shah in the same way, but he likewise trusts him. He then alleges, “Shah operates with complete disregard for the ethical side of political practice.”
Indira Gandhi was indeed blind and helpless. Sample this. In his book, ‘One Life is not Enough’, former External Affairs Minister and one time Gandhi family loyalist K. Natwar Singh writes, quoting B.K. Nehru that “She (Indira) exercised none of the powers of the Prime Minister, they had all been delegated to Sanjay. It seemed that she did not know what was happening inside the country.” Natwar Singh further writes that when Indira was told by Mrs Fori Nehru about forced sterilisation of young boys and old men and the resultant discontent, the PM took her head in her hands and said, “What I am to do? What I am to do? They tell me nothing.”
Obviously, there is a sea of difference between Indira’s rule and the current government. PM Modi is fully in command and both he and Shah, along with the entire government machinery, are working with never seen before zeal to eradicate the curse of poverty, meet the expectations of aspirational youth, give farmers their rightful due, and build a vibrant and progressive India. Unlike Sanjay running amok and Indira holding her head in despair, the authority of PM is total and there are no clandestine operations, undermining his authority. In fact, Guha himself states that after Modi moved to New Delhi, he has restored respect to the office of prime minister, an office that had been so badly degraded during the 10 years of United Progressive Alliance rule.
It is indeed baffling when Guha, bereft of any proof or example, makes yet another lowly observation that Shah runs BJP with complete disregard for the ethical side of political practice. How does one define ethical side? Is Left aligning with Congress in Bengal ethical? Is Lalu-Nitish alliance ethical? Is Gandhi family’s treatment of Congress as their fiefdom ethical? Is making party leaders to bend on her feet by Mayawati is ethical? Is political power to dozens of his family members by Mulayam Singh is ethical?
On the other hand, Shah has tirelessly worked in the last two years to spread his party’s ideology and establish network of workers in every nook and corner of the country, addressed hundreds of rallies, led all assembly elections from the front and ensured seamless coordination between the government and the party. If such hard work is disregard for the ethical side of political practice, so be it. The way Modi and Shah has empowered grassroots workers by making them ministers and chief ministers is exemplary and bears testimony to their quest for democratising the BJP.
Guha is indeed a celebrated intellectual of our times but as seen in recent years, a section of intelligentsia in India is often trapped in biases and has become a victim of its own ideological slants. I am afraid that in this particular article Shri Guha is no different!
(Dr Devendra Kumar is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The views expressed in the article are that of the author and does not reflect the stand of Network18)