Economic prosperity and religious intolerance can't co-exist: Wake up, Modi
"India, the world's largest democracy, has a strong civil society, vigorous media, and an independent judiciary, but also serious human rights concerns. The government did little in 2015 to implement promises by newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi to improve respect for religious freedom, protect the rights of women and children, and end abuses against marginalised communities," says the opening paragraph of an annual report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW).
Make in India, Digital India and Start-up India are notable initiatives of the Modi sarkar aimed at boosting economic growth. But what the BJP-led government has repeatedly failed to realise is that economic prosperity and religious intolerance can't co-exist. No matter how blatantly the central government ridicules allegations of saffronisation, the fact of the matter is that it is indeed hurting India's image globally and overshadowing the government's efforts at spurring economic development.
For rational-minded individuals, it is important to mention that Human Rights Watch is an international NGO headquartered in New York with offices spread across various continents. The online bhakt army will certainly raise concerns regarding the objectivity of the organisation. They might accuse HRW of defaming India on the basis of phoney conspiracy theories or allege that HRW is hand in glove with the Congress.
But that doesn't change the reality which rests in the damning indictment of the Modi sarkar by HRW on account of failing to protect the rights of religious minorities. For a change, wouldn't it be encouraging if BJP leaders and sympathisers perused the report prepared by HRW and indulged in some much-needed introspection?
"Four Muslim men were killed by Hindu vigilante groups in separate incidents across the country in 2015 over suspicions that they had killed or stolen cows for beef. The violence took place amid an aggressive push by several BJP leaders and right-wing groups to protect cows, considered sacred by many Hindus and for a ban on beef consumption," says the HRW report.
In the immediate aftermath of Mohammad Akhlaq's lynching and death, several political leaders thronged the streets of Bishara village in Dadri. One among them was BJP's firebrand leader and MLA Sangeet Som. Infamous in the national media for his alleged connection to the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots, Som tried to whip up sentiments at Dadri by speaking of retribution.
Not far off in poll-bound Bihar, former deputy chief minister Sushil Kumar Modi said that the then upcoming assembly election was a "fight between those who eat beef and those who are against cow slaughter". Haryana chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar too emphasised that Muslims must give up eating beef while Union culture minister Mahesh Sharma built on his reputation of being a loose cannon by repeatedly delivering provocative, senseless statements.
All that the prime minister was required to do was to issue an unequivocal condemnation of incidents like the Dadri lynching, call for swift prosecution of the wrongdoers and sack erring ministers and legislators. Instead, Modi went on to absolve the central government of any responsibility whatsoever by suggesting that law and order was a state subject.
While law and order is indeed a state subject, what prevented Modi from acting against the likes of Mahesh Sharma and Sakshi Maharaj who gave an array of irresponsible statements to the press?
Modi didn't do so because he was clandestinely catering to his far-right bevy of supporters. The same bunch of people who found wisdom in the words of Mahesh Sharma and Sakshi Maharaj when they were busy underplaying the Dadri episode and batting for selective, permanent family planning for Christians and Muslims, respectively.
By neglecting anti-Muslim comments made by ministers, legislators and BJP leaders, Modi ended up strengthening the anti-Muslim image of his government. Even attacks on churches in Delhi were dismissed by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley as law and order problems much before the investigations formally concluded.
Taking note of both anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence against churches, HRW said "the authorities did not press robustly for prosecution of those responsible for violent attacks on minorities, and impunity for the assailants contributed to a sense of government indifference to religious minorities."
The report also points out that "dozens of writers protested against sectarianism and the silencing of dissent by returning prestigious literary awards" which was dubbed as Award Wapsi.
Instead of launching a smear campaign against protesting artists and propping up a counter protest march at India Gate through proxy means (led by none other than saffron politics' latest poster boy Anupam Kher), Prime Minister Modi should have come forth and listened to the grievances of the writers.
As we all know, Modi rather chose to meet his proxies who carried out a well-choreographed march accusing the award-winning-cum-award-returning artists of defaming India.
To expect Modi to have acted otherwise is idealistic since his origins can be traced back to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and his own portfolio comprises of remarkably insensitive remarks against the victims of the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat.
Last year, the Modi sarkar was given a wake-up call by US President Barack Obama during his visit to India. He said that India will succeed as long as it is not "splintered" on religious lines.
Thereafter, when he returned home to the US, Obama once again sounded the warning bell by stating that "acts of intolerance" in India "would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped liberate that nation".
This year, HRW has tried to show Modi sakar the mirror. But will Modi and company finally get their act together? If they don't, they would not only be hurting India's prospects internationally but also digging their own graves as a place in public office is not permanent.