THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK-
In recent years, the Indian Republic has increasingly felt the oppressive shadow of the ruling party, the BJP, which has transformed the nation into a breeding ground for divisive rhetoric and communal hatred.
On Tuesday, 17th December 2024, during a session in the Rajya Sabha, Shri Amit Shah, Union Home Minister, made remarks about Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar that triggered widespread outrage and condemnation. He said in Hindi,
“Abhi ek fashion ho gaya hai – Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar. Itna naam agar bhagwan ka lete to saat janmon tak swarg mil jata”
Translated: It has become a fashion to invoke Ambedkar’s name repeatedly. Had they taken God’s name so often, they would have secured a place in heaven for seven lifetimes.
Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution and a symbol of social justice, is revered across the political spectrum, particularly among the so-called Dalit communities. Shah’s comments were perceived as dismissive and derogatory, igniting a national debate.
Dalit organizations and political parties of varying shades nationwide organised protests,
expressing deep hurt and anger over Shah’s remarks. Many viewed his statements as not just an attack on Dr Ambedkar’s ideology but also a deliberate affront to the Dalit community and egalitarian forces in the country.
This incident is not an isolated one. Amit Shah has a long history of making controversial and inflammatory statements and is part of a broader strategy to polarise the electorate along religious and caste lines. One of his most infamous remarks came in the context of illegal immigrants, whom he referred to as “termites.” Shah declared that a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government would “pick up infiltrators one by one and throw them into the Bay of Bengal,” a statement that was widely condemned for its dehumanising tone.
During the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections, Shah warned that Karnataka would witness a surge in communal riots if the Congress came to power. Such fear- mongering rhetoric is not new to Shah, who has often employed it during election campaigns to galvanise the BJP’s core voter base. While politically expedient, these statements have serious social repercussions, as they exacerbate communal tensions and undermine the principles of unity and harmony.
Polarisation and Its Impact on Society
Shah’s speeches contribute significantly to the growing polarisation in Indian society under the BJP-RSS hegemony. He reinforces existing divisions by targeting specific communities and political opponents with inflammatory rhetoric and creates new fault lines. His statements often align with the BJP’s broader Hindutva agenda, which marginalises minority groups and challenges India’s secular framework.
Shah’s rhetoric on illegal immigration demonised Muslim communities, particularly those from Bangladesh. This fuelled anti-immigrant sentiments, leading to an increase in hate crimes and discrimination. Similarly, his remarks on political opponents often involve personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations, which lower the level of public discourse and shift the focus away from substantive policy debates.
The normalisation of hate speech in political discourse is one of the most troubling consequences not only of Shah’s rhetoric but also of BJP-led politicians. When a senior leader like the union Home Minister or the Prime Minister uses divisive language, it sets a dangerous precedent. Other politicians and public figures feel emboldened to adopt similar tactics, leading to a cascade of hate speech incidents. This trend is particularly evident during election periods, where the frequency and intensity of such statements increase significantly.
Undermining Democratic Values
India’s democracy is built on inclusivity, diversity, and respect for dissent. Shah’s speeches, however, often challenge these principles. By promoting divisive narratives and targeting minority groups, he undermines the democratic ethos of equality and fraternity enshrined in the Indian Constitution. His rhetoric also erodes trust in democratic institutions, creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.
Shah’s speeches impact beyond the immediate political context. They shape public opinion and influence societal attitudes, often in ways that are detrimental to social cohesion. For example, his portrayal of illegal immigrants as a threat to national security fosters xenophobia and intolerance. Similarly, his attacks on political opponents contribute to the growing polarisation of political discourse, where constructive dialogue is replaced by acrimony and hostility.
Moreover, Shah’s rhetoric has implications for India’s international image. As the world’s largest democracy, India is often seen as a model of pluralism and diversity. However, the rise of divisive politics and hate speech tarnishes this image and raises questions about the country’s commitment to democratic values. International human rights organisations have frequently criticised the Indian government for its handling of communal tensions and its perceived failure to protect minority rights.
The Role of Media and Public Reaction
The media plays a crucial role in amplifying the impact of Shah’s speeches. While some outlets criticise his rhetoric and highlight its divisive nature, others align with the BJP’s narrative and defend his statements. This polarisation in media coverage further complicates the public’s perception of Shah’s speeches. Supporters view him as a strong leader who speaks the truth, but he is a demagogue who prioritises political gains over social harmony.
Public reactions to Shah’s speeches are similarly divided. His supporters often rally around him, interpreting his statements as a defence of national interests and a critique of political opponents. On the other hand, civil society organisations express alarm at the divisive nature of his rhetoric, warning of its long-term implications for India’s social fabric and democratic institutions.
The Need for Accountability
In a democracy, leaders bear a responsibility to uphold the values of inclusivity and respect.
Shah’s speeches, however, often fall short of this standard. While political rhetoric is inevitable in election campaigns, it should not come at the cost of societal harmony and democratic principles. There is a pressing need for accountability, both within the BJP and in the broader political landscape, to ensure that divisive and hate-filled rhetoric is not normalised.
Civil society organisations, the media, and the judiciary have a critical role to play in this regard. By holding leaders accountable for their statements and fostering a culture of constructive dialogue, they can help mitigate the impact of divisive rhetoric. Public awareness and civic engagement are equally important, as an informed and active citizenry is the best defence against the erosion of democratic values. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has developed a bias and curry favour with BJP political leaders.
Hate Speeches by Prime Minister Narendra Modi
Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India and the most prominent leader of the BJP is also guilty of divisive and polarising speeches. While his supporters often laud Modi as a strong and visionary leader, his rhetoric has sparked controversy and contributed to societal tensions in many instances.
One of the earliest and most contentious incidents in Modi’s political career was his role during the 2002 Gujarat riots, which occurred when he was the Chief Minister of the state. Although Modi has consistently denied wrongdoing, his remarks were scrutinised during and after the riots. For instance, his statement that the government’s handling of the violence was akin to the reaction of a driver when a car accident occurs (“If someone else is driving a car and we are sitting behind, and a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not?”) was widely criticised for its insensitivity.
During the 2014 general elections, Modi’s campaign speeches frequently targeted the Congress party and minority communities. He coined the term “Shahzada” to mock Rahul Gandhi, often linking the Congress’s alleged corruption with the privileges of dynasty politics. While his critique of the Congress party’s governance is a legitimate political strategy, some of his remarks veered into communal territory, drawing sharp criticism from civil society and opposition leaders.
Another controversial instance occurred in 2019, during the Lok Sabha elections, when Modi referred to a Congress candidate as being “proud of being a Muslim.” While the statement may seem innocuous on the surface, it was perceived as an attempt to create a narrative of “us versus them” by subtly questioning the loyalty of Indian Muslims. Such rhetoric aligns with the BJP’s broader Hindutva ideology, marginalising minority communities.
Modi’s remarks on Pakistan and terrorism exacerbated communal tensions. His frequent references to the Congress as “pro-Pakistan” and his suggestion that opposition parties were aligning with India’s enemies to undermine national security fostered a climate of suspicion and division. These statements, while resonating with the BJP’s core voter base, contribute to the vilification of specific communities and individuals.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Modi’s rhetoric is the lack of condemnation and silence for hate speech and violence by BJP leaders and supporters. For instance, during the 2020 Delhi riots, Modi’s delayed response and silence on inflammatory speeches by BJP leaders were widely criticized. Similarly, BJP leaders are engaged in Polarisation and dividing the people. We have numerous instances of rises in communal violence and tension under the BJP regime. Modi deliberately stays silent. Violence in Manipur is a glaring example, but numerous other incidents exist.
Media’s Role in Distorting Dr Ambedkar’s Ideas
Dr Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution and a stalwart of social justice, holds an unparalleled position in Indian political and intellectual history.
The Indian media has played a contentious role in shaping the public perception of Dr Ambedkar’s legacy, often distorting his ideas to suit contemporary political narratives. Dr Ambedkar, a fierce critic of both Hinduism and Islam, wrote extensively about the oppressive practices within these religions. However, media outlets aligned with BJP-RSS ideology have frequently highlighted his critique of Islam while downplaying or ignoring his scathing analysis of Hinduism, particularly Caste and Untouchability.
Selective Emphasis on Dr Ambedkar’s Critique of Islam
A recurring pattern in Indian media coverage has been the selective amplification of Dr Ambedkar’s critique of Islam while systematically downplaying or ignoring his analysis of Hinduism. Dr Ambedkar’s book Pakistan or the Partition of India includes a critical examination of Islam’s social structure and political implications, especially in the context of partition. These sections are frequently highlighted by right-leaning media outlets to bolster narratives that portray Islam as incompatible with modernity or secular democracy.
However, this selective emphasis distorts Dr Ambedkar’s broader intellectual project.
Dr Ambedkar’s primary focus was dismantling caste hierarchies and critiquing the Hindu social order that perpetuated untouchability and systemic oppression of Dalits. His seminal work, The Annihilation of Caste, is a scathing indictment of Brahminical Hinduism and its foundational role in maintaining caste discrimination. Yet, this aspect of Dr Ambedkar’s work is often sidelined or sanitised in media discussions, particularly by platforms sympathetic to the Hindutva agenda.
Media Downplaying Dr Ambedkar’s Critique of Hinduism
Dr Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism, particularly its caste system, remains one of his work’s most profound and radical aspects. In The Annihilation of Caste, he argues that Hinduism’s core doctrines are inherently unequal and that true social reform requires a complete overhaul of its religious and social structures. He also rejected calls for merely reforming Hinduism, instead advocating for a complete rejection of the religion in favour of a more egalitarian faith, which ultimately led to his conversion to Buddhism.
Despite the depth and significance of these critiques, media coverage often marginalises them.
When Dr Ambedkar is discussed in the context of caste, his views are frequently diluted or presented in a way that avoids offending dominant caste groups. For instance, mainstream media often celebrates Dr Ambedkar as the “Father of the Constitution” while glossing over his role as a revolutionary thinker who challenged the Hindu social order.
The media’s reluctance to engage with Dr Ambedkar’s critique of Hinduism reflects its broader discomfort with addressing caste as a systemic issue. Instead of fostering a nuanced understanding of Dr Ambedkar’s ideas, media narratives often reduce him to a symbol of Dalit identity politics, stripping his work of its transformative potential.
The Political Motivations Behind Media Narratives
The selective portrayal of Dr Ambedkar’s ideas aligns with the broader political objectives of various factions within India. The ruling BJP, which espouses a Hindutva ideology, has sought to appropriate Dr Ambedkar as a nationalist icon while downplaying his critique of Hinduism.
Media outlets aligned with the BJP’s narrative amplify Dr Ambedkar’s critique of Islam to support policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the abrogation of Article 370, and now public discourse on the Uniform Civil Code, framing them as necessary measures against perceived threats from Muslim communities.
This selective appropriation serves dual purposes. First, it allows the BJP to position itself as a champion of Dalit rights despite its alignment with a Hindutva ideology that Dr Ambedkar vehemently opposed. Second, it diverts attention from Dr Ambedkar’s warnings about the dangers of majoritarianism and the need for secularism, which are increasingly relevant in contemporary Indian politics.
Impact on Public Perception
The media’s distortion of Dr Ambedkar’s ideas has significant implications for public perception. By selectively highlighting certain aspects of his work while ignoring others, the media creates a fragmented and skewed understanding of Dr Ambedkar’s legacy. This, in turn, influences how Dr Ambedkar is perceived and appropriated in political and social discourse.
Dr Ambedkar symbolises resistance and empowerment for many Dalits and marginalised communities. However, the media’s portrayal often reduces him to a figure of historical significance rather than a contemporary thinker whose ideas remain relevant to ongoing struggles for social justice. This de-politicisation of Dr Ambedkar’s legacy weakens the transformative potential of his work and limits its applicability to contemporary challenges.
Shri Amit Shah Must Resign
Reflecting on Amit Shah’s above remarks on Dr Ambedkar, “Abhi ek fashion ho gaya hai— Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar, Ambedkar. Itna naam agar bhagwan ka lete to saat janmon tak swarg mil jata,” we point out that it’s not a question of ‘fashion’ but of Passion. This passion imbibes a spirited commitment amongst his followers to defend and protect the rights of vulnerable and marginalised communities so they may live with decency and self-respect.
Dr Ambedkar did not believe in heaven after death but in a heaven on earth, which he championed to create.
The current nasty political atmosphere created by BJP ideologues in the wake of Shah’s reckless remarks requires a period of calm reflection to avoid divisive politics. No party can govern forever. All empires ultimately crash and fall. No leader is immune or immortal. The moral fibre and conscience of the nation ultimately determine a leader’s legacy. The current political leaders are mere dwarfs compared to the legacy of Dr Ambedkar.
Shah’s hateful persona and demeanour are born out of arrogance and contempt for the “other” based on Hindutva ideology. Therefore, Shah’s position as Union Home Minister is untenable and not conducive to the public good.
Shah must publicly apologise for his remarks on Dr Ambedkar, or he should resign from his position as Union Minister.
