I am told on good authority that far from taking a swipe at India, US President Barack Obama did Narendra Modi a favour by saying "every person has the right to practise his faith without any persecution, fear or discrimination." According to this version, if the prime minister didn't actually ask the president to warn Indians of the dangers of religious fanaticism, he encouraged him to do so. Modi may have felt it might compensate for what the Delhi archdiocese chancellor, Father Mathew Koyickal, has since called his "deafening silence on recurring targeted attacks on our places of worship."
Since any US president is to some extent the prisoner of Bible-thumping and human rights lobbies, Obama's team felt it would be unwise to sweep either their concerns or the rejection of Modi's visa applications for a decade under the carpet. American credibility demanded some reference that the president could then cite at home both to justify Washington's earlier visa refusal and to prove he hadn't sold out on principles that earnest-minded children of the Pilgrim Fathers hold dear.
Apparently, when he sought to whisper a word of caution in his host's ear, Modi turned round and said something like, "Why not say it aloud? Let everyone hear your views on the subject!" Obama obliged, possibly not realising that in discharging his own domestic obligation he was also pulling Modi's chestnuts out of the fire. Indian analysts and television anchors might in their ignorance fume over such seeming impertinence. Significantly, however, there wasn't even a squeak of comment - leave alone protest - from anyone in authority in the party or government.
For all his handsome majority and control of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) he has purged of potential critics, Modi, too, must be wary of his stalwarts. Part of the secret of his success is that he lives - nay thrives - more on perceptions than on verifiable facts. Very few people actually know the prime minister. But everyone nurses an image of the man. It's the image that inspires like and dislike.
Businessmen swear by him as the architect of growth, irrespective of tangible measures to increase GDP. The urban middle classes see him as the pioneer of civic welfare without noticing that in their eagerness to make the headlines, publicity-hungry amateurs in the Swachh Bharat crusade may leave behind more litter than they clear. Many Muslims in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan fear he is a committed foe.
Modi's relationship with religion compounds the paradox. He refuses to wear a Muslim cap and makes a big thing of worshipping Mother Ganga. But he won't oblige Hindutva champions by demolishing mosques and erecting temples to Rama. Yet, he dare not - certainly not on the eve of the Delhi elections - discipline rampaging bigots who desecrate churches, attack discos and dance halls, murder missionaries, rape nuns and force Muslims to convert. It was with their unspoken but powerful backing that he pulled off a coup and worsted BJP veterans who played by conventional rules and enjoyed the confidence even of people who didn't endorse their ideology.
This is where an obliging buddy like Obama comes in handy. As Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told the Carnegie Endowment last year when he was still India's ambassador, the India-US relationship has survived the romance of courtship and arrived, and that Indians and Americans are victims of their own success. Dizzy courtship yields to staid marital stability when partners take each other for granted. Modi's proud boasts on the Mann ki Baat programme and at Hyderabad House left listeners in no doubt he felt he was on terms of the utmost intimacy with the exalted guest whose first name he lovingly trotted out no fewer than 23 times. That being so, it would be only natural for the prime minister to explain his dilemma to Obama and explain that a few words of warning and reproof from him might not come amiss.
A Jawaharlal Nehru would have bristled indignantly at an American president's intervention. But, then, Nehru wouldn't have been so flattered at being matey with a Western leader, especially one who determinedly refused to reciprocate his aggressive familiarity. Nor could any Christian priest ever have said of Nehru, "We are sure he would not have been silent if temples were desecrated."
Since any US president is to some extent the prisoner of Bible-thumping and human rights lobbies, Obama's team felt it would be unwise to sweep either their concerns or the rejection of Modi's visa applications for a decade under the carpet. American credibility demanded some reference that the president could then cite at home both to justify Washington's earlier visa refusal and to prove he hadn't sold out on principles that earnest-minded children of the Pilgrim Fathers hold dear.
Apparently, when he sought to whisper a word of caution in his host's ear, Modi turned round and said something like, "Why not say it aloud? Let everyone hear your views on the subject!" Obama obliged, possibly not realising that in discharging his own domestic obligation he was also pulling Modi's chestnuts out of the fire. Indian analysts and television anchors might in their ignorance fume over such seeming impertinence. Significantly, however, there wasn't even a squeak of comment - leave alone protest - from anyone in authority in the party or government.
For all his handsome majority and control of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) he has purged of potential critics, Modi, too, must be wary of his stalwarts. Part of the secret of his success is that he lives - nay thrives - more on perceptions than on verifiable facts. Very few people actually know the prime minister. But everyone nurses an image of the man. It's the image that inspires like and dislike.
Businessmen swear by him as the architect of growth, irrespective of tangible measures to increase GDP. The urban middle classes see him as the pioneer of civic welfare without noticing that in their eagerness to make the headlines, publicity-hungry amateurs in the Swachh Bharat crusade may leave behind more litter than they clear. Many Muslims in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan fear he is a committed foe.
Modi's relationship with religion compounds the paradox. He refuses to wear a Muslim cap and makes a big thing of worshipping Mother Ganga. But he won't oblige Hindutva champions by demolishing mosques and erecting temples to Rama. Yet, he dare not - certainly not on the eve of the Delhi elections - discipline rampaging bigots who desecrate churches, attack discos and dance halls, murder missionaries, rape nuns and force Muslims to convert. It was with their unspoken but powerful backing that he pulled off a coup and worsted BJP veterans who played by conventional rules and enjoyed the confidence even of people who didn't endorse their ideology.
This is where an obliging buddy like Obama comes in handy. As Subrahmanyam Jaishankar told the Carnegie Endowment last year when he was still India's ambassador, the India-US relationship has survived the romance of courtship and arrived, and that Indians and Americans are victims of their own success. Dizzy courtship yields to staid marital stability when partners take each other for granted. Modi's proud boasts on the Mann ki Baat programme and at Hyderabad House left listeners in no doubt he felt he was on terms of the utmost intimacy with the exalted guest whose first name he lovingly trotted out no fewer than 23 times. That being so, it would be only natural for the prime minister to explain his dilemma to Obama and explain that a few words of warning and reproof from him might not come amiss.
A Jawaharlal Nehru would have bristled indignantly at an American president's intervention. But, then, Nehru wouldn't have been so flattered at being matey with a Western leader, especially one who determinedly refused to reciprocate his aggressive familiarity. Nor could any Christian priest ever have said of Nehru, "We are sure he would not have been silent if temples were desecrated."
Leave aside the demeaning social one-upmanship, what matters is that a tocsin has been sounded. Modi's most ardent camp-followers now know they will be blamed if the Indo-US barque runs aground. Whether they will heed the warning is another matter
No comments:
Post a Comment