Two setbacks for Modi-Shah
On December 23, the Modi-Shah duo suffered a significant setback when the mineral-rich but long-suffering state of Jharkhand voted out its BJP ministry, but the setback a day earlier was at least as serious.
On December 22, Prime Minister Modi signalled a retreat on the threat of a National Register of Citizens requiring every Indian to prove her or his citizenship. The signal came in the form of hard-to-believe denials.
‘We didn’t make [the NRC plan],’ Modi told a rally in Delhi. ‘[The NRC] didn’t come to the Parliament, nor did it come to the [Union] Cabinet. Nor have its rules and regulations been formulated. A bogey is being created.’ (The Hindu, Dec 22)
Some TV channels instantly put out recent clips of Amit Shah waving the NRC before audience after audience. It was to be his weapon for, among other things, throwing out alleged infiltrators (‘termites’ in his phrase) from West Bengal and Mamata Banerjee from the chief minister’s office.
Politicians pointed out that Shah had heralded the NRC in Parliament too.
The retreat was more important, however, than Modi’s undermining of Shah. For the first time, the Modi regime was yielding to protests.
Despite oft-brutal attempts to prevent or punish protests, Indians had streamed out in town after town against the NRC and its precursor, the Citizenship Amendment Act. Unable to accept the blatant exclusion of followers of Islam from support offered by this Act to refugees from neighbouring lands, India’s Muslims displayed their affronted sentiment on India’s streets.
Unwilling to legitimize discrimination, Hindus and other non-Muslims proud of India’s commitment to equality joined the protests in city after city.
In a three-day period, more than twenty protestors were killed in police action, all of them in three BJP-ruled states: UP, Karnataka and Assam.
Voices in the US, Europe and elsewhere also expressed deep concern, and Modi knew that retreat was his best option.
In his Delhi speech, Modi told incredulous viewers that he was surprised by talk of detention centres being built for those unable to prove their citizenship. ‘Where,’ he asked, ‘are these detention centres?
Some TV channels quickly showed pictures of centres in construction in Assam and Karnataka. Circulars sent by New Delhi to state governments asking for the creation of such centres were also recalled.
However, the retreat is more important than the denial of facts. Whether the retreat is a mere tactic remains to be seen.
As for the defeat in Jharkhand, where tribals form a large percentage of the population and their forests a shrinking percentage of the land, the local BJP ministry’s unpopularity may have been more of a factor than the Modi-Shah duo’s performance in Delhi. But it should not be forgotten that Modi and Shah had campaigned hard in the state, suggesting, among other things, that the BJP’s opponents were weak on national security.
The two setbacks constitute only a part of the dynamics of India’s politics. Yet they may hold lessons for the future. The electoral loss is a reminder that every state of the Indian union can serve as a defence against concentration of power.
The other lesson is that protests matter. Even in a seemingly unfriendly climate, speaking out has produced an effect.
