.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
For the record books, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ceremonial public address on Thursday was his eleventh Independence Day speech. But as far as realpolitik goes, this was the first he delivered at the head of a government which is a coalition not just in name, as the previous two were.
But, the speech did not mirror this changed political reality. There was little variation in tone and tenor. The address did not reflect a Prime Minister who no longer commands a parliamentary majority of his own and is instead dependent on coalition partners, whose ideological orientation, political objectives, and policies, are certainly not copycat versions of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP).
Instead of sharing with the nation a vision of what he has embarked to do during this term in office, Modi primarily focused on presenting to the people a litany of what has been ‘accomplished’ over the decade he has been in power.
Importantly, he also made several political points which further quite a few of the BJP’s goals.
While it was not necessary for the Prime Minister of a coalition government to get his speech whetted by his partners, one expected that the address would reflect common objectives and not promote partisan politics.
This speech, in ways more than one, drew attention to the fact that the government, even after more than two months in existence, does not have an agreement on the aims and objectives of the coalition. For that matter, there is also no reconstituted coordination committee of the National Development Alliance (NDA).
To remind readers, such a document existed for both regimes that preceded Modi’s: the National Agenda for Governance (NAG) of the government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998-2004) and the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the United Progressive Alliance government headed by Manmohan Singh (2004-14).
It is also apt to draw attention to a speech delivered to both Houses of Parliament by then President APJ Abdul Kalam in June 2004 after the UPA government assumed office. He described the CMP as reflecting “the commitment of all participants (UPA, Left, and other like-minded parties) to implement this programme and making it the foundation for collective maximum performance.”
On Bangladesh
Since Modi is not bound by any formal agreement, he was, thus, free to speak on issues that furthered the BJP and the Sangh Parivar’s political agenda.
For instance, it was politically inept and diplomatically unwise for Modi to use this ceremonial platform to voice concern about the security of Hindus in Bangladesh. Not just that, the Prime Minister actually passed off this as the worry of “140 crore citizens” of India.
It was politically inappropriate for him to speak on behalf of every Indian on an issue over which there are divergent views.
There can be no two views if New Delhi chooses to speak on the persecution and attacks on religious minorities in every nation but to specifically name Hindus at a time when it can be construed as being at the prodding of senior leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was certainly unwarranted.
Modi’s statement on this solemn occasion was diplomatically injudicious. After all, he was speaking just a day or so after Muhammad Yunus, Chief Advisor to the interim government in Bangladesh, visited the historic Dhakeshwari Temple, one of the 51 famous Shakti Peethas in the Indian Subcontinent. After meeting members of the distressed Hindu community, Yunus assured them that Bangladesh belongs to everyone and that each citizen is guaranteed equal rights.
Diplomatically too, Modi’s speech followed a day after the terse expression of annoyance by Bangladesh’s de facto foreign minister, Touhid Hossain, during a 'courtesy meeting' with Indian High Commissioner Pranay Verma.
He pointed out that the former premier Sheikh Hasina’s political statements from Indian soil could only hinder advancing bilateral ties, already under test after recent developments. Modi’s personal intervention would not contribute to easing the situation.
It is clear that Modi’s intervention on this matter has to be seen in the backdrop of the strained ties with the RSS brass over the past few months and General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale urging the Indian government to make every possible effort to ensure the safety of Hindus in Bangladesh. Even the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, said after hoisting the Indian flag on Independence Day that it was India’s responsibility to safeguard Hindus there.
Even otherwise, it politically suits the BJP, smarting under an electoral below-par performance, to arouse resentment against Muslims here because of attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh.
'Secular Civil Code'
In recent weeks, various BJP leaders, including the national leadership, have taken steps that have the potential to polarise people on lines of religious identity.
The Waqf Bill, now referred to as a Joint Parliamentary Committee, is just one of the developments, besides the beefing up of the anti-conversion law and revival of ‘Romeo squads’ in Uttar Pradesh.
In his Independence Day speech, Modi also made a case once again for the passage of a ‘Secular Civil Code’ in place of what he termed, a ‘Communal Civil Code’, which was little but another instance of dog-whistle politics, typically BJP’s style when politically on the back foot.
His decision to denigrate existing laws effectively disparages the Constitution as passed by the Constituent Assembly. It is particularly unfortunate that this has come just months before the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution in November 1949.
Modi also decided to use this occasion to rake up another issue over which there are sharp divergences.
Despite the Ram Nath Kovind Committee on One Nation One Election having submitted its report on how this system can be ushered in, there is considerable opposition to the proposal over fears that this will stifle electoral choices and legitimise the formation of unscrupulous coalitions.
Moreover, multiple changes, including constitutional amendments, will be necessary in the legal framework to change the electoral and governance systems from what prevails at the moment. Furthermore, several experts have asserted that the government should have a two-thirds majority in the House. Given that, even with its coalition partners, these numbers are lacking, Modi’s reference to One Nation One Election was little but political rhetoric aimed at stoking political embers.
Modi Remained True to His Personality
It is not just the issues of a Uniform Civil Code and One Nation One Election that have been part of the BJP’s and Modi’s vocabulary for a long time. Even the viewpoint that the "citizens’ duties" have primacy over the rights enshrined in the Constitution has been part of the Sangh Parivar’s charter for long. Modi, in fact, unambiguously put the cart before the horse by stating that when duties are fulfilled by the people, protection of rights becomes implicit.
This is a dodgy proposition but was made on numerous occasions over the past decade by the Prime Minister as well as the President at that time. It merely underscores that the BJP’s coalition partners have to consider, whether or not, they can allow (at a cost to them) it to pass off its political charter as that of the coalition.
Last but not least, given that Modi was speaking on an occasion that marks a watershed in India’s emergence from colonial rule, one cannot but expect the Prime Minister to present history from the Sangh Parivar’s perspective. It is indeed deeply problematic that Modi lets no opportunity go by, without bunching into one the periods of Indian medieval history and colonial rule.
This was, however, not the first time that Modi has termed the period beginning in the period between the ninth and eleventh century AD, as ‘centuries of slavery’ — he has in fact even made this declaration in June 2023 in his address to the Joint Session of the US Congress.
But then, Modi shall remain true to primary personality – someone used to a commanding parliamentary majority. It is for his coalition partners, besides of course the electors too, who have the option to serve reminders that the equation has been altered for the moment and this calls for moderation on every occasion and on each platform.
(The writer’s latest book is The Demolition and the Verdict: Ayodhya and the Project to Reconfigure India. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)