Of Bhakts and Bhakti Movements in Indian politics, when The Gods and Goddesses are all too Human

Edited: 28-Oct-18

As most Indians would know, bhakti means devotion to God. The Bhakti Movement, which has its origin in Medieval India, was characterised by complete surrender of oneself to God, the love of a selfless devotee or bhakt. According to an insightful article on Bhakti Movement, “Bhakti poets emphasized surrender to god”.

Let’s shift to a different world – that of post-Independence politics in India.

Indian politics witnessed a landmark development in May 2014. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured power in the Lok Sabha election with a clear majority – a feat not achieved by any government since 1984, and never by any party other than the Indian National Congress (INC). Between the elections of 2009 and 2014, there was a generational shift within the BJP – a generation of politicians who had been its most prominent face since it was formed in 1980, and before that of the Jan Sangh over the previous decades, stepped aside for Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, who became BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 Lok Sabha election. He was sworn in as Prime Minister on 26-May, 2014. But before this momentous occasion, there is over a decade of high visibility and controversy associated with him.

Narendra Modi as Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the riots of 2002

He became Chief Minister of Gujarat in 2001, soon after the devastating earthquake of 2001. He led his party to victory in 2002, 2007 and 2012 elections in the state – a difficult achievement for any party these days in Indian politics.

Many have observed that his rule as Chief Minister led to positive change across the state. The ‘Gujarat Model’ for development was much talked about. Former Deputy Prime Minister Shri LK Advani, one of the most visible and well-respected politicians of India, in his autobiography ‘My Country, My Life’, has praised Narenda Modi. Apart from him many well-regarded voices outside Indian politics had words of praise for the then Chief Minister. Ratan Tata lavished praise on the Chief Minister in the last decade, as did industrialists Anil Ambani and Sunil Mittal. Such praise for a politician is usually difficult to come across in India. Clearly, some of the most prominent Indians saw hope for India with Narendra Modi as its Prime Minister. The INC too seems to have spotted his potential a long time ago.

Apart from its success stories Narendra Modi’s tenure as Chief Minister is also known for the Hindu-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002, which saw the death of about a thousand people, approximately three quarter of them being Muslim, the rest Hindu. Since those months in 2002 till this date, BJP’s opponents (even some allies or former allies) and sections of media have blamed Narendra Modi for those riots. Horrifying stories of the “pogrom” have found their way in the media. International media has long blamed him, and USA went to the extent of denying the Chief Minister a visa for several years – a stand Washington had to climb down on when Narendra Modi became Prime Minister.

There’s so much that has been said and written against him over the 2002 riots, that it’s hard for a whole lot of people to differentiate the truth from lies and damned lies. Shri L K Advani’s autobiography, in which he’s devoted a whole chapter to the riots, gives meaningful context to the 2002 riots in Gujarat. That notwithstanding, Narendra Modi may well be the most attacked Indian politician of all times. But in spite of a sustained vicious campaign against him, he did manage to secure a majority for his party in the Lok Sabha election of 2014, based on what he had delivered in Gujarat over 12 years, and what he promised to deliver to the people of India if he were to become Prime Minister. Given the savage, sustained and widespread campaign against him, this was a tremendous achievement.

To be fair, at least some percentage of votes in favour of BJP could be attributed to the widespread unpopularity the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) had earned over 10 years of rule from 2004-14, with mega scams rolling out during the second term of UPA.

During this period, the UPA also used means a government in a democracy should never use, to malign BJP in general and Narendra Modi in particular. Sections of media were controlled by their political masters in the Congress and its allies. He was morphed by subservient sections of media into a monster, probably because Congress and allies saw him as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate in future. But Prime Minister he did become in spite of the sustained high voltage campaign!

Jogging one’s memories on a few embarrassing moments in history associated with Nehru-Gandhi family

Indira Gandhi was the second longest serving (after her father) Prime Minister of India. Perhaps the strongest negative memory associated with her rule is the Emergency of the mid-seventies. But among her less talked about legacies was her tendancy to surround herself with yes men and reward sycophants. The book ‘All The Prime Minister’s Men’ gives deep insights into this. One of the men by her side, DK Barooah declared in the seventies that “India is Indira and Indira is India”. Not only was he comparing an individual to the largest political party then, but to world’s largest democracy. Lastly, after her father, she gave nepotism in Indian politics a big push by making her son Rajiv, an Indian Airlines pilot, the president of her party, after her politically ambitious son Sanjay died in an air crash.

After Indira was assassinated on the morning of 31-Oct-84,  before sunset Rajiv was sworn in as Prime Minister of India. It is well known that at least one senior minister in the Cabinet who was aspirational of the Prime Minister’s post. Before long he was out of the party, while Rajiv ruled for five years after he was elected to power in December 1984.

In spite of professional experience of being a pilot, and no administrative experience whatsoever, Rajiv was the darling of sections of English press. Few journalists openly questioned his capability as Prime Minister. It’s also worth recalling he presided over a pogrom that resulted in the slaughter of over 3000 Sikhs as Indira’s admirers and worshippers (or so INC would like us to believe) allegedly vented their rage at members of the Sikh community in Delhi since Indira’s assassins themselves were Sikh.

After the unprecedented mandate that Rajiv managed to secure for the INC, he had a dream run with sections of the English media. There were goof-ups galore by the raw Rajiv, who had less-than-elementary knowledge of history, nor any experience in governance. But some sections of media maintained an unwavering commitment towards him. However, the limited media heat did get on him and it was reported that one of his ministers (who in the nineties and 2004-14 was a very powerful Union minister) advised him to introduce the Defamation Bill of 1988. To the credit of Indian media, they protested in large numbers at Delhi’s boat club at the outrageous bill, and in spite of his brute majority in Lok Sabha, Rajiv had to eat humble pie on the anti-democratic bill. Just over a year later, Rajiv’s government was voted out of power.

One may also recall that within a short while after his assassination, there were voices within the INC asking his widow, the Italian born Sonia, to step into the vacuum created by Rajiv’s death. One does not recall the prominent citizens of the intellectual world saying this was a crazy and undemocratic stand by the INC. Nor does one recall journalists whose words carried significant weight writing editorials at the absurdity of the INC’s stand, and embarrassment it was for the largest democracy in the world.

In 1998, the still-mysterious Sonia made a backdoor entry to the president’s post of INC, India’s oldest political party. One doesn’t recall many powerful voices in media commenting on the absurdity of this development. A year later when midterm Lok Sabha elections were to be held, Sonia decided to contest elections and did so from two constituencies. It may also be recalled that at least one media channel hosting a programme called ‘The Big Fight’ in their promotion pitted her against the much admired politician and BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate Atal Behari Vajpayee. This was a serious compliment to Sonia, one which she had in no way earned! Few, including my late father, questioned the audacity of Sonia’s Prime Ministerial aspiration. The original article, published in The Economic Times, is no longer available. I have reproduced its content below my blog post.

Sonia won from both constituencies she contested in, defeating the experienced former minister and outstanding orator, Sushma Swaraj, and became Leader of Opposition of Lok Sabha in 1999. Her conduct was less than becoming of the Leader of Opposition. She once said PM Vajpayee has lost his mental balance. She also accused him of being a liar. Another time, she shouted at LK Advani on conclusion of the Parliament session when he walked up to her to exchange pleasantries.

Six years later, after Bharatiya Janata Party’s defeat in the Lok Sabha election, suddenly the still mysterious Sonia was a step away from becoming Prime Minister of India. These are some visuals associated with her “humbly” declining to become PM, along with the passionate reactions of some MPs who made it to the Cabinet sworn in soon after.

While she declined the constitutional post, she did rule this country by creating an extra-constitutional body called National Advisory Council (NAC), which she headed, and which “advised” the Prime Minister of India – her own appointee who had not even won a Lok Sabha election.

For a very large number of Indians, the string of mega scams the UPA was accused of made it perhaps the most unpopular government since Indira Gandhi’s in mid-seventies. It’s no surprise that the Lok Sabha election of 2014, besides giving a majority to the BJP in Lok Sabha, also gave India’s oldest part, led by Sonia, its most humiliating moment in with just 44 seats to its credit.

The ecosystem established by the Congress over the last 70 years was out of power, but only formal power. The campaign against Narendra Modi in particular stayed. Various choreographed performances kept recurring over the years. With the 40^th year of the Emergency, the darkest, most shameful chapter of independant India’s history round the corner, the “award vapsi” performance began, with writers and other prominent people in some pockets of India returning their awards, given to them by governments much earlier, to protest what they called attacks on minority communities, specifically Muslims and Christians. These “protests” have occurred in some form or the other since 2015 with predictable regularity, often weeks before some state goes for elections. Media has contributed to giving them publicity without asking these protestors questions that would expose their hypocrisy.

The role of social media in Indian politics

During the Emergency, and during the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s rule, the only TV channels available were controlled by the government. Propaganda via these was easy! The nineties saw the rise of several news channels all over India. Quite like print media, these channels have had obvious political alignments. Some have been accused of being PR houses of political parties. For a decade they telecast (probably even helped design) a no holds barred, sustained attack on Narendra Modi, as Gujarat continued to be ruled by his government.

The last decade also saw the rise and popularisation of social media – the free platform to express oneself, with limited control over expression. It also offers people to be faceless, and vanish quickly. Politicians like Narendra Modi joined social media early and have a following of a few crore people on Twitter. With a large following come a variety of comments – ranging from objective support to blind faith and vicious attacks. The option of anonymity that social media gives, helps in the last.

Social media makes it possible for its members to display the ugly side of human nature. And no one on social media is protected from these attacks. Recently, a vocal spokesperson of INC and her family member were issued offensive and dangerous threats, allegedly by a position-holder in BJP. While one hopes the law catches up with him, it’s hard to regulate content on social media. People express themselves in the craziest ways and it’s not easy for anyone to control them directly. But do offensive utterances have to be seen as offensive utterances or should they be force-fitted in the recently fabricated mould of Modi bhakts? They may well be but if they have stepped out of the law, let the law catch up with them.

What’s Bhakti got to do with it?

The last few years have witnessed the introduction of a new term in Indian politics, bhakts. Supporters, objective or otherwise, of Narendra Modi, are often ridiculed as bhakts by many.

So, is this so-called bhakti new to Indian politics? Not quite…

During Indira’s anti-democracy Emergency, countless politicians and party workers were arrested, as was every courageous journalist (including my father) was arrested. Newspapers still were published, but reporting what the government wanted them to report.

What about the man who publicly and unashamedly declared the Indira was as large as the entire country? He did so in 1974 and was the following year became the president of INC.

What about sections of media ecstatic over Rajiv’s Prime Ministership in 1984? He had no experience in administration, his Lok Sabha innings was new, and he was made Congress president because he was Indira’s son. Why did the voices that mattered not raise valid apprehensions about his deliverability as a Prime Minister? And Rajiv did not live up to expectations of the voters of India, with Bofors, Defamation Bill, handling the Shah Bano case, not to mention multiple goof ups is his public statements. One must credit some sections of the media for raising their voices, but the rest, including the largest selling English daily, continued to be soft on him.

Mysterious Sonia’s ascent was generously aided by a subservient media. Many famous faces of Indian media or our so-called liberals and intellectuals haven’t even whimpered a protest over widowhood being the primary criterion for her to become president of India’s oldest political party, or her near brush with Prime Ministership and over her forming an extra-constitutional NAC to advise the Union government. Such developments should embarrass any mature democracy, but didn’t seem to stir the conscience of many very visible Indians. No one in media has raised uncomfortable questions about her late application for citizenship either.

What about the unrelenting attacks on Narendra Modi after the 2002 riots? He has not been found guilty of inciting Hindus, but the attacks by political opponents, aided by sections of media, have sustained. Compare this with no protests against the anti-Sikh pogrom Rajiv presided over in 1984.

Also etched in my memory is the embarrassing spectacle visible in the first 8 minutes of this video on the occasion of Sonia declining Prime Ministership in 2004. It’s worth noting that even before Sonia declared that her “inner voice” prevents her from becoming Prime Minister, the prominent members of her party were on their feet shouting slogans supporting her. How on earth did these people know that she was going to decline to be Prime Minister? Is it such an evolved form of bhakti that they knew what their leader was going to say even before she said it? Also worth watching are the appeals of aspiring ministers, complete with pumped up emotions, in the embarrassing tamasha – one was crying, another was begging her with folded hands, a third (an Ivy Leaguer) forcefully insisting they (Congress) had vishwas in just her, no one else. Yet another equated her with Mahatma Gandhi. All four became Union ministers just days later! Indeed, the PMO was taking orders from Sonia, and the former Prime Minister is subservient to the former and current Congress president to this day.

Talking about the president of the Congress, who believes that he is Prime Minister material? Is he even worthy of the seat he occupies in Lok Sabha? Does one recall even a memorable speech made by him in Parliament, or outside? What is his vision for India? But over ten years ago, India’s largest selling English daily had declared that he is slated to run the country someday. Given his intellectual capability, can anyone have faith in his Prime Ministership? If this isn’t blind devotion, what is? May also be worth recalling a former Union minister holding a pair of slippers for his future boss to wear. Less than a year later he became Chief Minister of Puducherry.

So, when the more sophisticated sections of Indian society ridicule Modi followers, objective and blind, as bhakts, why do they ignore the evolved bhakti of politicians, media professionals, “liberals” and “intellectuals” towards the Nehru Gandhi family? Do they ridicule DK Barooah? It was during Indira’s era that sections of media started to have hard alignments towards her and her party. Do those ridiculing some journalists as Modi bhakts today have harsh words for journalists who bent over backwards during the Emergency? Do they ask hard questions of journalists who extended blind support to a raw Rajiv as Prime Minister? Do they question the spinelessness of Congress members who lie about their confidence in Sonia as Prime Minister? Do they question the lack of objectivity and indeed the dishonesty in the sustained campaign against Narendra Modi? Do many of those people who matter question those in media who have formed a protective shield around the mother-son duo since her formal entry into politics, irrespective of their unbecoming utterances, conduct or even political failures? As for the aspiring Prime Minister in the INC, his capability is known to everyone, but none of these “liberals” and “intellectuals” are willing to say that the king has no clothes. They also have no words of praise for Narendra Modi for anything, even when he takes forward initiatives such as Aadhaar, which were started by UPA.

The disgraced owner of news portal Tehelka once wrote an open letter which sets new standards in spineless subservience. He too was never ridiculed for it. The same “liberals” found Tarun Tejpal too hot to handle only after he was accused of raping one of his junior employees. But Tejpal’s bhakti paid rich dividends even before he wrote this letter, as this report reveals. Perhaps this was the driver behind his open declaration of bhakti.

Why be a Bhakt at all?

In a democracy, everyone is entitled to select the politicians they oppose, hate, support or worship. The last may not be the wisest choice, but no law stops them from doing so. So why does support for Modi, objective or otherwise, have to be ridiculed, while grovelling subservience towards members of the Nehru-Gandhi family have to be celebrated? The answer probably is that those who ridicule Modi supporters are Nehru-Gandhi family devotees themselves! Or else they are people who do not have sufficient context and are largely unaware of the reward-based Bhakti Movement Indira introduced in Indian politics.

Blind faith in any human may not always be desirable. Sometime or the other, the worshipped will let their followers down, either because of circumstances outside their control, or simply because they’re human. This is perhaps inevitable in the complicated world of politics, where it's politicians that sustain, not gods or goddesses. As citizens and voters it's desirable for us to understand decisions and stands taken by politicians, political parties and governments by getting the right context, and take our own stands on them based on broader national interest, not illusion, certainly not blindness.

And perhaps it's most desirable to be committed to a set of values that can we can publicly support.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Sonia's birthplace matter?

The Economic Times
June 1, 1999

K R Malkani

Sonia Gandhi Maino Gandhi has vowed to shed the last drop of her blood for India. The lady is protesting her patriotism too much. India is not her motherland, it is only her mother-in-law-land. She is Indian if at all, only in law, and not in fact. Wearing a sari no more makes her Indian than wearing a suit makes us English.

Italian law permits her to have dual citizenship; Indian law does not. When Chandragupt Maurya married the daughter of Seleucus, he made it clear that neither she nor her progeny will inherit the throne of India. An Indian lady married an Italian film director and took Italian citizenship.

Ten years later she wanted to contest a civic election but was refused permission: she was not a proper Italian. And here an Italian is presuming to become Prime Minister of India!

However, even more serious than her not being an authentic Indian is the fact that nobody seem to know what Sonia is; whether she has any social, political, economic thinking. She has never met the Press. She has never written anything. Her life is a closed book. All that we know is that she went from Italy to England to learn English and that she was working in a restaurant in Cambridge while staying with a local family. When Rajiv fell in love with her, Mrs. Gandhi was not too happy. Her love for India was so great that she applied for India citizenship full fifteen years after her marriage to Rajiv - that is after Sanjay was dead and the way to high office had been opened to her husband. And she got herself registered as a voter three years before she had even applied for citizenship. Earlier, even as a foreign national, she had become Director Maruti Technical Services, in violation of Indian law. She was also doing insurance business - and selling road-rollers - from the Prime Minister's official residence, again violation of Indian law on the subject.

Nor was that all. When 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war was looming large on the horizon, and all IAF, IA and AI pilots' leaves had been cancelled, Rajiv and Sonia flew off to Italy to avoid any duty in the war sector. When Mrs. Gandhi lost the election in 1977, Sonia and her husband abandoned Mrs. Gandhi and sought sanctuary in the Italian Embassy.

The Raisina Road plot was allotted to Congress to build its Central Office there. That building - Javahar Bhawan -was illegally taken over by Rajiv Foundation headed by Sonia Gandhi. Since then countless crores have poured into the coffers of this Foundation from several public sector undertakings.

Too little is known about her - and what little is known, is not very flattering.

Her involvement with Bofors scandal through her Italian friend Quattrocchi, is well known. Sten Lindstrom, head of Sweden's National Bureau of Investigation, has said: "All information we had at the time (1987-88) pointed to a Gandhi link. Sonia Gandhi should place her cards on the table". She has not only not placed her cards on the table, she has tried to topple every government that tried to dig into Bofors.

B. Raman who was intelligence chief in the, Cabinet Secretariat under Rajiv, has said that "India has important national Security interests in Italy because of its past arms, nuclear and technology supply relationships with Pakistan and China" and that, therefore, were Sonia ever to become India's Prime Minister, there would be "serious security and intelligence concerns."

The objection to Sonia Gandhi is not rooted in just her dubious citizenship but in the absolute unsuitability and utter impropriety of this Sphinx in a Sari presuming to seize the Prime Ministership of India.