Doninger and the street named Tolerance

Doninger and the street named Tolerance

Recently Penguin Books decided to scrap Wendy Doninger’s controversial book about Hindus, bowing to the demand of Hindu activist groups. The regular p-sec crowd obviously went into an expected paroxysm of faux anguish and decried the ‘creeping onset of Hindu fundamentalism’. One of my p-sec friends promptly bestowed the epithet of ‘Hindu Taliban’ on the groups that made this (IMO eminently desirable and just) denouement possible. Many people with a peculiar understanding of the concept of ‘free speech’ (most of these worthies are Indian-Americans. This, I suppose, makes them eminently eligible to comment on the concept of free speech because they have probably read about the famous 1^st amendment in the US Bill of Rights – at least in their own exalted opinion of themselves.), glibly declared that ‘Hindu Taliban’ are trampling on the free speech. Without getting into the specifics of why this Doninger’s book was found unacceptable by the Hindu groups (I would happily get into the specifics if the p-sec crowd would get their heads out of their nether regions and actually went down to the specifics instead of resorting to slogan-shouting. Fat chance of that ever happening!), this episode still raises important questions that I wish to address. 

First question is on the concept of ‘free speech’ itself. I freely admit that US is truly a society that has actually implemented the concept of free speech in its most enlightened form (there are obviously major issues with that too as evidenced by Citizens United Vs FEC). I bow my head in respect (and express my eternal gratitude) to the founding fathers of America that they made it possible for the inheritors of their republic to implement a really robust, fair and equitable regime of free speech. However, free speech DOES NOT equate to ‘free of consequence speech’, even in America. And this is a very important point that most with a shallow understanding of the 1^st amendment do not grasp. In America, you are free to say whatever you want but you are not free from consequences of whatever you say. Thus when a TV network finds one of its executives, in her private speech that she negligently allowed to become public, denigrated certain demographic groups, she was not prosecuted (because that WOULD be against her 1^st amendment rights) but she was certainly fired. So there can always be consequences to free speech; even in America. 

India does NOT have a free speech guarantee enshrined in its constitution, at least not the same way it is in US constitution. In India, a speech/action that can be deemed to hurt the sentiments of any religion, caste or myriad other demographic groupings is banned by law. Thus in India, a Terry Jones CANNOT burn a copy of the Holy Koran (Which, incidentally, he is constitutionally allowed to do under the 1^st amendment in USA) – legally. Do I want an India where a Terry Jones would be LEGALLY allowed to do that? NO! An emphatic and unequivocal NO! In USA, Dan Brown’s bestseller novel ‘Da Vinci Code’ was celebrated and turned into a movie. In India, the book and the movie are banned because they hurt the sentiments of various Christian groups. In India, Taslima Nasreen’s famous novel ‘Lajja’ is banned because it hurt the sentiments of several Muslim groups. She was hounded out of the country under the able auspices of the current UPA dispensation. And the most famous of them all, Salman Rushdi’s ‘Satanic Verses’ is banned in India and most of the Muslim countries and the author still lives under a threat to his life. 

As against these (and numerous other) examples of Hindus’ commendable sensitivity to the sentiments of the minorities, what do Hindus get in return? There is the example of an M F Hussein, painting the ‘naked’ picture of Hindu goddess Saraswati. There is example of the Southern Baptists, the largest denomination in America (not just some two-bit Terry Jones in some boondocks in Florida) nonchalantly denigrating 1 billion Hindus, on the occasion of Diwali, by claiming that (Without Jesus) they are lost in darkness or some such egregious nonsense. There are numerous examples of images of Hindu deities being plastered over bikinis, shoes, toilet seats and more, by non-Hindu provocateurs. 

Now my question to my masochistic p-sec friends is, is tolerance a one-way street? For those Hindus, for whom nothing is sacred, there is no sacrilege in what Doninger has written. The front cover illustration of her book depicts Lord Krishna sitting on the buttocks of a naked woman. Doninger wades into Ramayana and depicts a sexual relationship between Seeta and Lakshman. She intrepidly ploughs into Mahabharat and claims that Kunti was raped by Surya (Sun God) and made pregnant with Karna. These are just a couple of examples of Doninger’s ‘scholarly’ treatise on Hinduism. If this is not a sacrilege to you, then I suppose you are beyond redemption.

A new case study for the MBA students

This case is about two competing products in the market. Let’s call them B & C. Product C has had an illustrious history, it has been in the market for over a century. There was a time when it had almost a 100% market share. Even today C has the largest market share. Product B also has a rather long history but has always been second (or third or fourth) in terms of national market share. There are geographical niches where B has a larger market share than C. There are other small, geographically niche products out there with locally significant market shares. But really speaking only B and C have national footprints. 

B & C, since they are directly competing against each other in the same national market, have been at loggerheads with each other. C has an innovative marketing strategy, perfected over decades. It doesn’t bother to tout its own product benefits. It simply attacks its rival products, especially B. C claims that product B has highly toxic side-effects, especially for the various customers segments that are ultra-loyal to C. B claims that C promises a lot of benefits but doesn’t actually deliver any of them. The C Company also screws its customers (who are also its shareholders) by skimming off a large part of the product revenue and stashes it away offshore in the name of its directors. But most importantly, B Company has major objections to how C Company markets its products. Though C claims to be a national brand, it has perfected the art of finely dividing its national market on the basis of demographics and appoints its local salesreps that appeal only to their like-demographics and screw everybody else. 

B and C (and the other smaller geographically dispersed competing products) claim to offer the same benefits to the customers, and so do the other products (let’s call them DZ or khichadi, they make you dizzy with their marketing campaign strategies anyway). But there is absolutely no other similarity between B & C. 

But C has been having some problems recently – a couple of decades. A number of C executives have been leaving C to start their own start-ups in various geographies. Most of the geos where non-C (or non-B) products (from DZ khichadi) have captured higher market share, belong to ex-C executives. But C didn’t mind these upstart start-ups. Even though they took away some market share from C, they succeeded in keeping B out of their respective markets. 

Then in the last couple of years everything changed. A new product, let’s call it product A, suddenly burst on the scene. It was a start-up company, headed by a charismatic, brilliant IIT engineer. Product A also offered the same benefits to the customers, but with a twist. They claimed that product A would remove all the wastage that was an intrinsic part of product C. Essentially, ‘A’ offered to lower the cost of the benefits offered by C and also promised to drastically improve the benefits that were claimed by C. Was it competing against product C or product B? Or both? And what about the other D-Z products? Was it competing against all of them? Did ‘A’ actually have any benefits that were different from B or C or D-Z? 

Most interestingly, ‘A’ has adopted an intriguingly disruptive two-pronged marketing strategy. On one hand, it has exclusively focused on the C Company’s skimming activities. ‘A’ claims that it will stop all the skimming. It has also bucketed B Company in the same league. The other interesting aspect of ‘A’s marketing is that it is outdoing C in every aspect of marketing. Since C offers freebies to its customers, A is offering even more freebies. Since C tries to offer reservations to some of the demographic niches, A is offering even more reservations. Since C offers to deport foreign authors who invite the ire of some of its demographic niches, A hobnobs with the leaders of that demographic group and even goes to the extent of befriending the guy who offered a reward for a murder of the said author. In essence, ‘A’ is outdoing C in every respect as its marketing strategy.

Now the questions to discuss for the class are:

-          If ‘A’ is marketing itself as a more pure version of C, is it likely to capture the market share of C or B?

-          If ‘A’ is not offering even a token marketing gimmick that may compete with B’s core campaign, why would B’s loyal customers switch to ‘A’?

-          If ‘A’ is professing to devour the market shares of everybody – from B to Z with special emphasis on C – but going out of the way to ape C and D-Z then why should B take on A?

-          If some of the ‘B’ customers are switching to ‘A’, are they really the customers of B in the first place?

-          And lastly, what happens if ‘A’ gives the same customer experience as C? After all, like any new product, the proof of the pudding is in eating it, no?

Dialog 3: Modi and Secularism

MS1: Do you seriously believe that BJP has a better record (of commitment to the true secular nature of India, demonstrated by a track record) compared to Congress.

MS2: (Why) a Modi led platform is not susceptible to fractured nation along religion/caste lines. This is a genuine worry for minorities.

Me: We are talking of multiple aspects of Indian Union here. 1) Who is (more) secular, Modi/BJP or Congress? 2) Is Modi-brand of secularism (whatever it may be) susceptible to a fracturing of the nation a la 1947? To these two questions raised by my esteemed colleagues, I would add my third question: Is Modi/BJP secularism (or lack of it, as most of the professional Modi-haters are at constant pains to point out without any basis) the greatest and the gravest threat to the well-being of the nation as opposed to the horrendous and disastrous mis-governance offered by Congress/UPA? But before we delve into the discussion of these questions, a primer on ‘secularism’ itself is in order.

What is secularism in the Indian context?

The word ‘secular’ is one of the most misused and misunderstood words in the Indian polity today. The word ‘secular’ did not appear at all in the constitution of India that was drafted by Dr. Ambedkar (one of the finest minds and a truly great leader of the dalits. A true son of Mother India) and adopted on January 26, 1950. The word did not appear because in spite of its absence, the Indian Constitution was fairly secular and had a clear pathway suggested for making it fully secular. The word was added as part of the 42^nd amendment (by Indira Gandhi during the infamous emergency) to the preamble of the constitution. The constitution itself does not define the word nor does it provide a guideline as to how it relates to those articles or parts of the constitution that may have a bearing on the possible meaning of the word or vice versa. This has left the field open to anybody and everybody to interpret/misuse the word in any way he/she pleases. 

Who is 'secularest' of them all?

Thus Congress defines itself as the paragon of ‘secularism’. The communists claim that communism, by definition, is secular. The regional, caste-based parties such as SP, BSP, JD, RJD, DMK claim to be secular while being shamelessly caste-ist. Only thing that all these so-called uber-secular parties agree on is that they claim that BJP is NOT secular. These non-BJP (and hence, congenitally secular) parties then shamelessly have roti-beti relationships with unabashedly non-secular parties such as MIM (Hyderabad, Owaisi), various branches of jamat-e-Islami and so on. Can you find a better example of hypocrisy?

Let’s take a closer look at the record of the so-called ‘secular’ Congress. This, in itself, can be a series of articles if I have to mention even moderately anti-secular activities of Congress while donning the veil of secularism (I have avoided the word ‘burkha’ and substituted it with a more ‘secular’ ‘veil’). So I will restrict myself to only some of the pivotal moments when Congress murdered the secularism while claiming to be uber-secular. 

1. Shah Bano case: The Shah Bano case (1985 SCR (3) 844) was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim, daughter of a police constable^[1] and mother of five from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, was divorced by her husband in 1978 but even after winning the case at the Supreme court of India was subsequently denied alimony because the Indian Parliament reversed the judgment under pressure of Islamic orthodoxy.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} The judgment in favour of the woman in this case evoked criticisms^[7][8][9] among Muslims some of whom cited Qur'an to show that the judgment was in conflict with Islamic law.^[8] It triggered controversy about the extent of having different civil codes for different religions, especially for Muslims in India.^[2][10] This case caused the [congress] government, with its absolute majority, to pass the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 which diluted the judgment of the Supreme Court and, in reality (reference missing), denied even utterly destitute Muslim divorcées the right to alimony from their former husbands. 

So the Congress Govt of Rajiv Gandhi, the paragon of secularism, murdered the secularism in broad daylight and overturned a Supreme Court judgment, by passing a blatantly anti- Muslim-women law using its massive parliamentary majority (which the ‘grateful’ Indian electorate had bestowed upon the prodigal son of a murdered mother). This law adversely affected only the Indian Muslim women, one of the weakest electoral blocks who could be taken advantage of at will. Jai Ho to Congress Secularism!

2.       Congress remains steadfastly opposed to the implementation of a uniform civil code. This means that in India, if you are a Muslim, you get a separate set of laws with respect to civil matters (such as marriage, divorce, inheritance etc.). Nobody has dared to question if these laws provide equal protection of law (a bedrock principle of most of the democratic constitutions all over the world) to Muslim women (obviously they don’t. But hey, Muslim women don’t stop voting for Congress anyway so why bother about the small matter of the original intent of the framers of the constitution? After all India is India, not America, right?)

3.       Congress, in order to fortify its minority voting base, is seriously contemplating introducing reservations based on religion. That would make it hugely ‘secular’ I guess.

4.       Congress has ruled India for most of its post-independence existence (barring a few years of Janata Party, a few years of other jokers such as IK Gujaral, Deve Gowda, VP Singh etc, and one glorious ‘anti-secular’ BJP stint of about 5 years). In spite of this, Muslims have remained one of the most backward communities. Is BJP/Modi responsible for the abject state of minorities in India?

5.       But the crowning glory of Congress’ secularism is the record of its past and present governments in terms of the number of riots and the number of minority lives lost. Except for the Gujarat 2002 riots, EACH AND EVERY COMMUNAL RIOT ALL OVER INDIA in the past and even after 2002 has been under the watch of a Congress-ruled state and under the ever secularly watchful Congress central government. Starting from JL Nehru then Indira, then Rajiv and then Manmohan Singh have the blood of HUDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MUSLIMS and THOUSANDS OF SIKHS. What could be any greater achievement for a ‘secular’ party?

In spite of this utterly horrific record on secularism, why does the Congress get to wear the crown of being a secular party? 

Congress defines secularism in terms of its anti-majority actions and words. Since the days of JL Nehru, for reasons unfathomable, it has always defined a pursuit of secularism by assiduously being anti-Hindu in words, actions and spirit. It is as if secularism, as perceived by Congress, is a zero-sum game. It is as if you cannot be secular if you are not rabidly anti-Hindu. Notice some of the recent utterances by various Congress politicians. Rahul Gandhi, the immature scion of the Gandhi dynasty, wrote to the American envoy that he doesn’t fear the Lashkar e Taiyaba (LeT) or Jaish e Muhammad (JeM) as security threats to India (despite the fact that each and every terrorist attack on India soil and abroad has been linked back to LeT and JeM and other alphabet soup of Islamic terrorists sponsored by Pakistan. Rahul Gandhi fears the threat of terrorism from Hindus! Wow! And he runs to maibaap American Viceroy to air his grievances! Maybe he doesn’t know that on August 15^th, 1947 India actually gained independence. I guess that little fact escaped from his high-priced St. Stephens education. 

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh nonchalantly declares that the minorities in India have the first claim on the resources of the nation. Can the word secularism get any more grotesquely distorted than this? 

Congress is not secular. It is, first and foremost, anti-Hindu. Then it is anti-Sikh, having murdered thousands of Sikhs in the 1984 riots. Then it is anti-Muslim by virtue of having presided over the continuous decline in the living standards of Muslims for over 6 decades. It may don the garb of secularism but it propagates the most virulent brand of anti-secularism with its words, actions and policies.

Modi and Secularism

Now let’s come to the other side of the coin. Is Modi secular? How do you measure the ‘secularism’ of a person or an entity? What yardsticks do you use? How about an equitable distribution of resources regardless of caste, religion or any other identity? How about an equal and impartial administration of justice regardless of caste, religion or any other identity? How about proclaiming equality of all citizens in words and deeds, proven by a track record? How about ensuring that no lives are lost to communal riots?

Modi’s Gujarat has had ZERO communal incidents after 2002. I would like to draw your attention to the Akshardham terrorist attack that happened in Sept 2002. In spite of over 30 Hindus (including security personnel) killed in this gruesome attack, there was not a single incident of riots in Gujarat. Because by this time Modi had acquired a good grip on the state law enforcement machinery and ensured that no untoward incident would occur. If Modi had been anti-Muslim, it would have been easy for him to let loose another orgy of violence, the provocation was grave enough. But there was not a single incident of retaliatory violence. Why is that not secularism? 

Gujarat has had an equitable growth for ALL its citizens, not just the Hindus. Gujarat has seen the largest rise in the average incomes of the largest number of Muslims in the past decade. The amount of zakat contributed by the Gujarati Muslims (a highly correlated indicator of economic prosperity among Muslims. Zakat is the charitable donation that a Muslim is enjoined to give according to the tenets of Islam. Unless the Muslims of Gujarat have experienced one of the largest increases in their incomes in the last decade, how could the amount of zakat have increased?) has increased by leaps and bounds and now accounts for more than half the total zakat collected from all over India. In the last 10 years, Gujarat Govt under Modi has opened the largest number of schools and colleges for Muslim children. It has accorded an equal status to the degrees conferred by the Madrassas. Why is that not secularism?

Modi has always insisted that he represents 6 crore Gujaratis, regardless of caste or religion. Each and every natural calamity that happened in Gujarat after 2002 has had an enviable record of swift and impartial distribution of state help to ALL the affected citizens. Not just the Hindus. It has had an enviable record of providing excellent facilities to Gujaratis regardless of caste or religion. Muslims are some of the most important beneficiaries of the business-friendly policies of the state govt. Why is that not secularism? 

And in spite of this, my friends, Mr. Shuklas of the world, have the temerity to question the credentials of Modi in the secular arena? I am at a loss to understand the logic and the thought process that gives rise to this question itself. 

Modi has been elected 3 times with increasing majority by Gujarati voters. Some of the seats won by BJP in the last elections have more than 25% Muslim population. It is a documented fact that a large section of Gujarati Muslims have voted for Modi. Do you think these Muslims are not secular? Or do you question the voting process itself? My friend Mr. Shukla (the second one) wonders if Modi as PM will lead to a fracturing of the nation’s unity. It hasn’t fractured Gujarat! On the contrary, Gujarat, including its Muslims, have been taking giant strides towards a path of prosperity. What then is the basis of this irrational fear? 

Even the most cynical amateur Modi-haters have reluctantly come round to the view that Modi’s Gujarat development is an outstanding success. But still there is a large majority who are willing to swallow the Congress propaganda that Modi’s governance is ‘not inclusive’. Or that Modi represents something so evil on the ‘secular’ front that all his other achievements mean nothing. And these so-called ‘guardians’ of Indian ‘secularism’ would rather let Congress continue the unprecedented destruction of the nation than ‘risk’ a fractured nation that is surely just round the corner should Modi become the PM.Where is the objectivity in this?

Dialog 2: Modi and the 2002 riots Part II

[I am happy that I have a real Manish Shukla (at least one of the several viewpoints that I am trying to address) in my good friend Jiten. I welcome all the other Manish Shuklas in my FB circle or elsewhere to participate in this dialog so that we can all be richer in information and more (or less) committed to the truth as we perceive it.]

MS: if Modi sanctioned it, do you think he'd have issued a written executive order? Are you kidding me? Just because SIT didn't find any "evidence" he sanctioned it doesn't mean ANYTHING in Indian politics and judicial system….(I have excised the portion in MS’s comments about the Ehsan Jafri case as I will be dealing with it in more detail later.)

Besides, it seems the modi supporters also fall in two categories - 1> Those who implicitly agree that he played a role, but are willing to neglect it due to his other positive records in Gujarat. This category now hides behind SIT ruling because the charges couldn't be "proved" and hence claim he's innocent despite them knowing deep down inside what happened there…

And no many Modi opponents like me don't believe just because you support him, you're anti-Muslim. That has nothing to do with what he didn't do to prevent what happened. It's more about what he didn't do rather than what he probably did as a whisper to his lieutenants. If you recall, during 83 Sikh riots in Delhi, Bal Thackrey is famously known to assure some of the Sikh leaders that he wouldn't let that happen in Mumbai, and he made sure of that. Modi was in same position here and didn't do squat other than ordering some help on paper. If your argument is "only 790 Muslims were killed and that's nothing compared to other riots", then you're just not getting the point or are willfully ignoring that record. Same is true with the ridiculous claim that some idiot tried to claim the the train incident was an accident. Yes, he was an idiot, but proving someone else an idiot is not a defense for Modi.

Me: OK. First things first. My purpose behind this dialog is to firstly lay out the facts that are recorded officially, which, in my opinion, are strong enough to make my case for Modi. It is also to lay out all the opinions that have been made by the so-called ‘amateur’ Modi-haters and address each and every one of them so that it can serve the purpose of at least informing them of the other side of the debate. There are millions of Manish Shuklas out there and several differing shades of opinions ranging from ‘If you like Modi you must be a Muslim-hater’ ( I will call them the ‘irrational’ Modi-haters) to the more balanced ones (like my friend Jiten) such as ‘Modi opponents like me don't believe just because you support him, you're anti-Muslim. That has nothing to do with what he didn't do to prevent what happened. It's more about what he didn't do rather than what he probably did as a whisper to his lieutenants’ (I will call them ‘rational’ Modi-haters). I don’t know the proportion of irrational to rational Modi-haters but if you have spent any time or effort in observing the discourse in the Indian media and social media, you KNOW that there is a vast number of ‘irrational’ Modi-hatred out there – people willing to accuse ME (and any other Modi-supporters) of Muslim-hatred just because I/we support Modi. 

[In fact the entire media strategy of Congress is to foment this guilt complex among ordinary Hindus so that we would rather re-elect a horrendously corrupt, divisive and dynastic Congress than vote for Modi and be considered as anti-Muslim. My Modi-hating friends would rather see the India being subjected to another 5 years of rape by the Congress goons than allow their American friends to wag their fingers at them and make them ashamed. They don’t mind being ashamed for a hobbled, economically devastated India, thanks to another 5 years of Congress mis-rule, but oh, they are so alarmed at the prospect of being called citizens of Modi-nation. Even though they haven’t taken the basic courtesy to verify whether the charges against Modi are true or not. Sorry, yours truly is not taking this bait and not falling for this Goebbelsian propaganda. But I will expand on this particular aspect of Congress strategy later.]

So the first shibboleth that I want to destroy is that just because I support Modi, I must be anti-Muslim. At least (this particular) Mr. Manish Shukla does not believe so. And I am thankful for that. But he then goes ahead and makes a slightly less egregious insinuation. Shuklaji says, “Modi-supporters fall into a single category. Those who implicitly agree that he played a role, but are willing to neglect it due to his other positive records in Gujarat. This category now hides behind SIT ruling because the charges couldn't be "proved" and hence claim he's innocent despite them knowing deep down inside what happened there”. Wow! What an amazing deduction. And how far is this blatant insinuation (that every Modi-supporter KNOWS that Modi is GUILTY but is willing to overlook it due to the great developmental strides in Gujarat) from taking the next step and just outright accusing us Modi-supporters of being Muslim-haters? A very slippery slope and a very fine distinction indeed.

Shuklaji, in your cognitive dissonance, you are not even WILLING to countenance the possibility that Modi is indeed NOT GUILTY. On one hand you pompously aver that you do not consider Modi-supporters to be automatic Muslim-haters but on the other hand you glibly accuse us of being hypocrites because we do not share your ill-arrived-at opinion that Modi IS GUILTY. Where is the fairness that I assumed when I began this dialog? 

You are getting into a Sherlock Holmsian deduction game. The known facts are that,

1.      A thousand people, including 750+ Muslims were killed in riots

2.      Modi was the chief minister of the state

3.      Modi is Hindu and espouses Hindu causes and is branded as ‘anti-secular’ by the designated agents of deciding who is secular in India

Ergo, he must have been complicit in the Muslim-killings. And since there is no proof that he actually had any complicity, you nonchalantly denigrate the SIT constituted by the Supreme Court as incompetent or motivated or both. 

Well, no cigar for you Mr. Holmes. There is no proof against Modi because he is NOT GUILTY. And the highest court of the land says so. You may think that Indian Supreme Court is full of corrupt jokers (as if American Supreme court with its Thomases and Scalias and Alitos are a paragon of objective and impartial jurisprudence) but unless and until proven otherwise, the SIT judgment stands and it completely vindicates Modi.

Now I will take up the next bit of spacious inferential reasoning by you. That of 1984 (not 1983) anti-Sikh riots and the alleged role of Bal Thakaray in shielding the Sikhs of Mumbai from possible retaliation. Firstly, you must understand (and not just spout) the political realities of India, Gujarat and Mumbai. In 1984, 2002 and today. In 1984 and pretty much even until recently, Bal Thakaray (BT)/Shiv Sena was the undisputed king of Mumbai. BT had an iron grip on the Shiv Sena cadres and if he didn’t give a go-ahead, not even one Shiv Sainik would dare to as much as cast an eye on anyone in Mumbai. If BT did indeed assure the Sikhs of his protection and their lives were spared (all this is just hearsay as you have agreed) then my million thanks to BT. But in 1984 Shiv Sena and Congress were not exactly buddies joined at the hips. In fact the complete lack of anti-Sikh riots in Mumbai simply points towards a grisly Congress pogrom of anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi even made an absolutely callous statement when he was asked about the murder of Sikhs. He famously invoked the big tree falling and the ground shaking analogy (look it up in case you don’t know about it). 

In 2002, Modi was a mere transplant into Gujarat politics. He had been anointed the CM for less than 5 months (he was a transplant from national executives of BJP) and had his hands full dealing with the devastating earthquake that happened in January 2001. He had no control over the VHP and Bajrang Dal cadres. It is simply erroneous and even disingenuous to claim that Modi could have prevented the bloodbath of riots by simply flicking a magic wand and he callously refused to do so. It is even more preposterous to compare his grip on VHP, Bajrang cadres to that of BT’s iron grip on Shiv Sainiks. If you study the actual convictions and sentences meted out post 2002 riots, most of the culprits were VHP/Bajrang cadres. Until recently the name of NaMo generated as much anger among VHP cadres as it did among the Congress cadres. Also you need to understand the realities of Gujarat and its Muslim population. There are over 6 million Muslims spread all over Gujarat. In the top cities of Gujarat (Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Bharuch etc.) there are 100,000 plus Muslims, spread over hundreds of localities. As against this vast and spread-out population, there were only 6000 serving police personnel in entire Gujarat. It was physically impossible to protect each and every locality unless hundred thousand plus personnel were requisitioned and deployed. This COULD NOT BE DONE in just a few hours or even a couple of days. (remember that the army was fully deployed in Operation Parakram and the neighboring state CM’s from Congress simply declined to provide additional police resources). You may continue to hold your unresearched, knee-jerk opinions about the complicity of Modi because it is difficult to disown one’s opinions even in face of overwhelming contrary evidence (this is called cognitive dissonance). But that doesn’t make your opinions right.

Lastly I will actually provide a circumstantial, inferential reasoning of my own (I know that I promised to stick to the facts but when the accusations go into the la-la-land of unsubstantiated flights of fancy, one needs to change one’s approach) that will not only absolve Modi of any complicity, but will actually buttress my contention that Modi actively worked his damnedest to bring the riots under control as soon as possible and with God’s grace, succeeded in it.

Here is a partial list of major communal riots in Gujarat prior to 2002 and their duration, the loss of lives and the number of days before the army was called in. In case you are not aware, EACH AND EVERY RIOT IN THE WHOLE OF INDIA prior to 2002 (and mostly since 2002 also) was under the auspices of a Congress Government – at the state level as well as the central level. 

1969 (Ahmedabad+)         5000+ (*)                    Several Months                       Army on day 6

1982 (Surat)                      30+                              10 months                   not immediately

1985 (Ahmedabad)                       300+                            several months                        not immediately

1986 (Ahmedabad)                       50+                              At least a month          not immediately

1990 (Gujarat)                   220+                            9 months                     Not known

1991 (Gujarat)                   30+                              3 months                     not known

1992 (Ahmedabad+)         40+                              at least a month           not known

1999 (Surat)                      10+                              < a month                    army not called in

(The following is a description of the riot-prone nature of Gujarat in the words of Zafar Sareshwala:

The worst riot in post partition India happened in 1969 in Ahmedabad; more than 5000 Muslims were killed in that massacre. But because there was no 24x7 media, no one outside got to know because those earlier riots were not documented. It was a small incident involving a cow but it led to a shocking outburst. At that time, Gujarat was under the Congress Party’s Hitendrabhai Desai’s regime while Indira Gandhi was in power at the Centre. During the 1969 riots our office, factory, everything was burnt down. There is an area called “Kalupur which is the heart of Muslims neighbourhoods. In that locality, the police station is situated on Relief Road.  Right opposite that police station, there is a mosque and several Muslim shops. That mosque and the shops were burnt down. When Mrs Indira Gandhi visited the riot affected area, she visited that spot. I still remember, I was 5 years old, my grandfather was present when Indira Gandhi got down from her car and said, ‘Here is a police station, and 40 metres away, a mosque and Muslim shops are set on fire. She got down from her car, called her sentries and told them to measure the distance. How on earth is it possible that right opposite the police station Muslim shops were burnt? In the 1969 riots Muslims were systematically massacred.

…

“Then there was another major riot in 1985 preceded by several smaller ones. It went on for months on end. Again my factory was set on fire as also our house. In 1985 Madhavji Solanki of Congress Party was in power in Gujarat and Rajiv Gandhi at the Centre. Between 1985 and 2002, people came to expect that after every 2-3 months there would inevitably be a riot. There was curfew for 200 days. During the 1987 riots also Amar Singh Chaudhury of the Congress party was the CM.  This was followed by the 1990 riot.  At that time again Congress Party’s Chimanbhai Patel was the Chief Minister. Again our factory was burnt down. In 1992 also it was burnt, Chimanbhai Patel was the Chief Minister even at that time. 

“Every Dalit riot was converted into an anti-Muslim riot whether in 1981 or in 1985.  In every riot, our office and factory was burnt down and we were subjected to great indignities because the police would not even accept our F.I.R. In those days a Muslim could never get an FIR registered. After that we were humiliated by the insurance company. I remember in 1992, my business was almost in ‘full bloom’. But our entire factory was reduced to ashes.  We had an insurance of Rs 1.5 crores in 1998.The insurance company gave us a cheque for Rs.9 lakh. Has anyone documented what happens to the Muslim establishments that are burnt down? Was every insurance company run by Narendra Modi? )

It should be clear from the above partial list and Mr. Sareshwala’s description that even a small inclident could spark riots in Gujarat and had the potential to take hundreds of lives and the frenzy of violence would go on for months. With the gruesome murder of 58 Hindus in Godhra, the situation could have easily gone to 10000+ lives and months and months of a vicious cycle of violence. It was only Modi’s dedicated and efficient efforts that allowed the situation to be under control in 3 days and with a loss of only 1000+ lives. 

It is easy to pontificate sitting in an armchair that Modi should have saved each and every life lost to the riots. The reality is a little more complicated than that.