BJP Extrapolating Trump’s Assassination Attempt to Its Own Fate is Quite Absurd

Amit Malviya will have to explain how any campaign by the Congress against PM Modi has had murderous intent.

Amit Malviya would have to explain how any political campaign by the Congress party against the prime minister has had murderous intent.

(Photo: Arnica Kala/The Quint)

Political assassinations usually reflect a nebulous desire to prevent a leader, representing a different ideology, from coming to power or an attempt to stop those leaders who oppose a prevalent ideology. It could also be an act of vengeance.

Derivative Assassination, written by Lydon LaRouche on the killing of Indira Gandhi, elevates the recounting of the prime minister's assassination to a theoretical level, with ample clues to understand the subsequent killings of politicians all over the world.

All these reasons and more have contributed to an earnest search for the motive behind the attempted assassination of US presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Though he had a providential escape, the attempted murder seemed like a lone wolf operation. The question that most people are asking is — who ordered the killing of the shooter?

If the killer had been kept alive, it would have been easy to ascertain why he took the extreme step of trying to kill Trump. We don’t fully know whether Thomas Matthew Crooks was ideologically inclined or decided to respond to his pathologies. What we do know is that he was a paid member of the Republican party (who had also made a small donation to a Democratic-leaning group)

But why are politicians in India extrapolating Trump’s botched assassination attempt to their own fate? There is a serious attempt to show that the Opposition, which has touted Prime Minister Modi to be anti-democratic, could unleash violent forces against him, quite similar to what Trump claims to have suffered.

Amit Malviya, the BJP’s IT cell head, had the temerity to claim on TV that while Modi’s life was under threat due to the Opposition's campaign during the recently concluded parliamentary elections, the same principle cannot be applied to Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, who, according to him, died due to their own actions and policies.

He was hinting at the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar ordered by India and the role of a peacekeeping force sent by Rajiv to Sri Lanka. He has been tweeting on the issue as well.

This writer testified in the commission of inquiry into Rajiv Gandhi’s death. It is a different matter that conspiracy theories leave a shadow of doubt on the identity of the perpetrators, but are not able to ascertain exactly who was the brain behind the finger that pulled the trigger.

While the BJP’s IT cell chief and the channel that chose to give his words credibility have been roundly criticised by the Congress party, it also has gone to the extent of pulling out from the channel’s programming altogether. The news anchor, Rahul Kanwal, did not stop Malviya; instead, he tweeted his comment.

Meanwhile, Malviya argues that PM Modi’s life is in danger due to the Congress party's campaign to show the BJP leader—like Donald Trump—as a threat to democracy. What does this mean? Is he suggesting that someone will take the prime minister's life to preserve democracy?

If one goes by the assassinations listed above, this is absolute nonsense. Most of those who have been killed are those who opposed majoritarianism and a religion-driver government—Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination by Nathuram Godse is a case in point. Godse was determined to stop Gandhi from showing magnanimity towards Pakistan. The killing of rationalists Narendra Dhabolkar and MM Kalburgi was by those who opposed their progressive and secular visions of politics and society.

There are plenty of examples from abroad. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was killed by a right-wing extremist who opposed his peace plan with the Arab nations. Similarly, an Arab nationalist who opposed Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's peace initiative with Israel and the United States was assassinated. Remember Abraham Lincoln?

And coming back to Indira and Rajiv, both the killings were by religious and national chauvinists, whose fires of revenge were stoked by their handlers. The killers of Indira Gandhi were made to drink amrit chakhna, the holy water from the Golden Temple, before they embarked upon their heinous journey. Rajiv Gandhi’s killers were similarly indoctrinated.

Malviya will have to explain how any political campaign by the Congress party against the prime minister has had murderous intent. Ironically, BJP leaders themselves have been leading a campaign of calumny, calling Rahul Gandhi and other party leaders all kinds of things — anti-national, anti-Hindu (remember Congress-mukt Bharat?) Who will be held responsible if anything happens to any of the Congress leaders?

(The author is the editor of Delhi's Hardnews magazine. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)