Modi’s imagined Muslim League imprint on Cong manifesto

History shows that if any ideology has been close to the ideology of the Muslim League, it is Hindutva. Both the League and the Hindu Mahasabha supported the two-nation theory—the Hindus and Muslims from two different nationalities. Both wanted the British to stay in India and spread the fear that if the British left the country, the other community would rule

Every move of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is directed towards dismantling democracy. His election speeches only show the contempt he and his team nourish against their opponents. The contempt has its roots in Modi’s ideology. The core of RSS ideology is its hatred for Muslims. Even though the RSS and the BJP have lived in a secular democracy for a major part of their careers, they have failed to imbibe its ethos. The latest attack by the BJP on Congress’ manifesto that it bears the imprint of the Muslim League only testifies to that.

The Congress manifesto shows a clear bias in favor of deprived sections of society, including women, Dalits, OBCs, and minorities. The common theme of inclusiveness flows across the entire document. This is the biggest strength of the manifesto. This is, in fact, the party's return to the long-accepted and practiced creed of non-violence.

The Congress has refined its stances and marched towards modernizing its ideology. The inclusion of social justice is an example. Socialist leader Dr. Rammanohar Lohia was among the leaders who formulated and articulated the theory of the sharing of power by the deprived castes. Since the early 1960s, the Socialist Party has raised the slogan Picchda Pave Sau mein Saath (Backwards should get a sixty percent share of the power). Though his conception of backwards’ empowerment was broad and not limited to only caste boundaries, Lohia’s politics were far different from the politics his followers are now pursuing. It was not the politics of mobilizing people solely based on caste. However, the politics of empowering backward castes now dominate Indian politics. The Congress has been loath to accept social justice as its ideology. This is the reason the party lost much of its mass base to parties of social justice in such States as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The party has just recently integrated the theory of power sharing according to the numerical strength of the social groups into its ideology. The credit goes to Rahul Gandhi, who showed the needed ideological flexibility.

“Congress has been the most vocal and active champion of the progress of the backward and oppressed classes and castes over the last seven decades. However, caste discrimination is still a reality. The people belonging to the SC, ST, and OBC communities have not yet been able to catch up with the rest and are still left behind. While OBC, SC, and ST constitute nearly 70 percent of India’s population, their representation in high-ranking professions, services, and businesses is disproportionately low. No progressive modern society should tolerate such inequality or discrimination based on ancestry and the consequent denial of equal opportunity. Congress will bridge historical inequities,” the party manifesto says.

Integration of social justice into its politics is a big ideological jump, and it could be compared to what Mahatma Gandhi had done through the Champaran Satyagraha and the non-cooperation movement. He transformed the Congress into a party of the masses from a party of elites. The social justice plank will bring the party close to those deprived sections of the masses who have been asserting during the last few decades to get their share of power.

Other aspects of change in the Congress’ stance are also important. One of them is moving closer to Nehruvian ideology. The manifesto reflects a clear inclination towards a strong public sector and the restriction of monopolies.

We need not miss the latest emphasis of the Congress on the issue of corruption. For most of its post-independence career, the party has been ruling the country. It made it the target of all the attacks being made on the issue of corruption. The party has been in opposition for the last ten years, and now it has issues such as electoral bonds and other scams in its hands to politically corner Prime Minister Modi and his party. The Congress has taken up the challenge and rapidly transformed itself into an opposition party from a party that has never dreamt of losing power.

The outburst that has come from the BJP over the Congress’ manifesto reflects the nervousness of the saffron party. The Prime Minister is accusing the Congress of modeling its manifesto on the ideology of the Muslim League, which divided India. BJP president JP Nadda is repeating the same thing and trying to paint a picture that the Congress has been an anti-Hindu party.

The BJP’s repeatedly coming back to the Hindu-Muslim narrative only shows the party's inability to meet the challenges that are coming from the changing Congress. The party does not have an answer to the issue of social justice. The reason is not difficult to understand. The party is hard at work trying to maintain the status quo in society. To strengthen it, it is trying to revive the medieval ethos. The construction of the Ram Temple and the consecration ceremony display the BJP's endeavor to take the country back to medieval discourse.

The Nyay Patra decisively contests the BJP’s revivalist politics. It talks of scientific temper and rights for deprived social groups, including minorities. Both stances are antithetical to the revivalist politics of the BJP. The party wants to divert the discourse by talking of an imagined “imprint of the Muslim League” on the Congress’ manifesto. History shows that if any ideology has been close to the ideology of the Muslim League, it is Hindutva. Both the League and the Hindu Mahasabha supported the two-nation theory—the Hindus and Muslims from two different nationalities. Both wanted the British to stay in India and spread the fear that if the British left the country, the other community would rule. They had the same goal of dividing India, and that is why they came together to form governments in three Muslim-dominated provinces—Bengal, the NWFP, and Sind—during the last days of the British Raj.

They collaborated with the Muslim League and the British and are now accusing Congress of dividing India. Who will believe it?

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)