ARTICLES FROM THE SUNDAY GUARDIAN
Copyright. All rights reserved. Ram Jethmalani. 2019.
Designed and maintained by Naxcent.
The tenor and content of the Congress Party's election campaign seems to be getting increasingly gory and savage as the election is winding its way across the country. Not merely in terms of imagery, but actual vocabulary. Blood seems to have become the word and weapon of last resort that the Congress, its communal allies, and its secured media allies have reserved for hurling against Narendra Modi. This dangerous weapon is being used abusively and irresponsibly, by shooting off inflammatory, divisive accusations against Modi and the BJP, completely without reason, logic or evidence, and with absolute impunity.
Is it just a coincidence that the linguistic pattern of the Congress, its political allies, and its "intellectual" cronies is getting more and more identical — irresponsible abuse, and yes, repeated language that suggests instigation of communal violence? Having tested the potential of communal violence instigated at Godhra as a weapon for destruction of a political rival, the Congress probably sees it as their last weapon of vengeance against Narendra Modi, like Hitler's V1s and V2s.
As the saying goes, "Once is chance; twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action." Let us take a look at the election blood language as it has been developing. Start from Digvijay Singh, who says in July 2013 that BJP was planning to instigate communal riots in Congress-ruled states ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections as part of its "sinister" design to win the elections, by "communalizing" the political atmosphere. This is typical Digvijay Singh, speaking out the mind and intent of his handlers through an imaginary proxy, in his routine sycophancy drill of which the nation has had a surfeit.
Soon after, Karnataka Congress Chief Minister Siddaramaiah takes the cue, and states quite outrageously in November 2013 that there would be bloodshed if Modi becomes PM. How and why he reached his prophetic conclusion, he does not explain. But he seemed certain that "there will be bloodshed if he (Mr Modi) becomes Prime Minister," and urged the people not to give room for that to happen. "It is everybody's responsibility to oust BJP, save India," he said. Perhaps he believed that by echoing the statements or intent of his benefactors, he would acquire greater security of office.
Rahul Gandhi decided to adopt the same blood fetish in his Dehra Dun speech in February 2014, as his campaign by then had turned fairly hopeless, and he had no other weapons he could turn to. He accused the BJP, without an iota of reason or evidence, of practising the "politics of blood" by pitting one religion against another and one caste against another to come to power at any cost, generally summarising the divisive caste and communal policies that the Congress has been practising for decades. This is what he said: "It (BJP) practises the politics of blood. They don't see anything but power ... power at any cost. They can pit communities and castes against each other, they won't hesitate in spilling blood if they find it necessary to usurp power." Childishly transferring his own ideology to the BJP, he knew full well that he as role model was confirming the right trend of slander and incendiary, unsubstantiated accusations. And he was not wrong.
Not far behind, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi, well known for his contribution to the Congress for activities other than of a spokesperson, added in April 2014, "I would like to say that when BJP talks of minority welfare, it sounds like Dracula taking over as the head of the blood bank." Really, Mr Singhvi, I had no idea that you had so much blood imagery in your mind. Is it merely a blind repetition of the hopeless propaganda that your peers and bosses have been shouting, or does the repetition also contain a threat of intent?
Amarinder Singh picked up the general discourse, and recently turned soothsayer predicting that there will be riots within six months if BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi comes to power. Again, he gives no reason or justification for his prediction, or why he fixed a time period of six months.
I have already written about the Economist, which sold its intellectual respectability to unknown sources in adopting the astrologer's role and predicting blood: "Mr Modi might start well in Delhi but sooner or later he will have to cope with a sectarian slaughter or a crisis with Pakistan..." The Economist, with all its intellectual heritage, neither informs us of the basis of its astrology of "a sectarian slaughter", nor why there would be a crisis with Pakistan, from where we are already hearing conciliatory comments. As I have said earlier, there can only be two explanations for this — that the Economist has either lost its journalistic standards of excellence, or its intellectual integrity.
Judging from the consistent substance of what the Congress has been speaking, there appears to be high credibility in the whispers going around that their final weapon of mass destruction during or after the general election is to instigate communal riots in the country, especially in the Congress ruled states. They do, indeed, have a proven record of doing this. Many of my younger readers may not be aware of the communal riots that were instigated in Channapatna, Karnataka in 1990, when Rajiv Gandhi, Congress president, wanted to oust Karnataka Chief Minister Veerendra Patil, only because he did not conform to the Congress principles of subservience to the party high command. Well, communal riots were organised, just about a week after Veerendra Patil suffered a stroke, and were used as an excuse to dismiss him as Chief Minister at Bangalore airport, just before Rajiv Gandhi was about to board a plane for Madras. With such versatile hands on experience with communal riots, the Congress is adept at keeping its communal powder dry, and has no compunction at using it whenever it considers it necessary for its sectarian interest.
The warnings are sinister and the writing is clearly inscribed on the wall. Judging from the recurring vocabulary of the Congress, and whatever subliminal messages it conveys, and also information from the field, there is every possibility of the Congress engineering communal riots, and bloodshed, especially in Congress ruled states, where they control the machinery of government, mainly the police.
I would expect that the most vulnerable period would be the small interregnum that would exist just between the announcement of election results and the formation of the new government. In all probability, it will be a BJP-led government with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister. The interregnum normally witnesses the victors' euphoria, jostling for positions, with the new dispensation not quite in place. It is this small window that would be most exploited for mischief by the losers, particularly communal riots that all Congress honchos have been categorically and consistently forecasting; in other words, what they will attempt, just as they did in Godhra, after Modi's victory in his Rajkot byelection in Gujarat with Muslim support.
The BJP states need to remain acutely vigilant and take every precaution during this period, using their police and intelligence agencies, and their own grassroots networks at village levels to thwart any such malicious attempt at communal riots. In Congress ruled states and states ruled by other parties, the BJP, as the opposition party must use all its resources for precaution and must remain extremely vigilant regarding what is transpiring from grassroots up to the state level about possible communal mischief caused by the Congress or other parties opposed to Modi. They must be in constant contact with the constitutional and statutory authorities, should they apprehend or suspect any attempt to disturb communal harmony, which appears to be the design of the anti Modi communal parties to malign his name, and prove their point. Because their language clearly speaks that there is blood on their minds.