Our ‘liberal’ worries

If, imagine the unimaginable, that Republican presidential aspirant, Donald Trump, is an avatar of an Indian political leader, who would it be The unanimous answer will be — Praveen Togadia, Sakshi Maharaj or any other of their ilk. Like Indian variants, Mr Trump too thrives on fostering Islamophobia on an electorate increasingly getting weary of the war on terror. This has been waged ceaselessly since 9/11 against a hydra-headed monster, a creation of the West, but now completely beyond the control of agencies that acted as incubator. Because the end is not in sight and since the ogre has metamorphosed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, people’s anxiety has multiplied.

Mr Trump, after several failed presidential bids, began his candidacy for the Republican nomination by pledging to make the United States “great again” and with a belief that he will be the “greatest” American President. When his popularity soared on the back of controversial and “politically incorrect” statements appeasing American voters who were phobic of immigrants, Mr Trump realised articulation of extreme right-wing views would facilitate his campaign. He just needed a suitable opening.

Mr Trump secured his chance in the wake of terrorist strikes in Paris followed by San Bernardino shootings that killed 14 people. When investigations revealed that the attack was carried by an American Muslim married couple with no known links to any terrorist group, including the ISIS, and that they had been self-radicalised, Mr Trump concluded that he could feed on growing Islamophobia in the US. Consequently, he called for a ban on Muslims entering the US.

Mr Trump further cited President Franklin Roosevelt’s decision during the Second World War to issue presidential proclamations and arrest, restrain and eventually deport Japanese, German and Italian immigrants, to say that similar measures must be taken against Muslims in the US.

The reaction to Mr Trump’s hyperventilation is indicative of public perception — which is increasingly questioning American constitutional and libertarian beliefs ingrained in social discourse — and how the political system is attempting to counter this. With anti-Muslim statements resulting in surge in

Mr Trump’s popularity, the possibility is no longer bleak that he may secure the Republican nomination purely on the basis of victories in primaries. On most occasions, American nomination conventions of the two main parties are mega ritualistic events and the party ticket is handed out to the person who has won the primaries and caucuses. Mr Trump may be heading to sweep these on the strength of support that he has generated by furthering paranoia among white working class, but reports indicate that the party bosses are apparently favouring behind-the- scenes “brokering” to ensure that he does not secure the nomination. This may be called “tweaking” a democratic process and thereby condemnable. But this is being done because Republican bosses think that Mr Trump as American President is downright abhorrent.

Yet the world has to slowly come to terms with an eventual global summit of President Trump, President Marine Le Pen confabulating with President Vladimir Putin and eagerly awaiting someone from a post-Angela Merkel Germany, while Ultranationalists from other countries like Hungary and Poland await membership to elite clubs. Liberal democracy has reached a stage in the West where mainstream political leaders are increasingly making absolutely outrageous comments about people who are marginalised or targeted either on the basis of religion, race, gender or even on the basis of their abilities.

What is happening in the world now and worrying political custodians is not a new phenomenon in Indian politics. From the time of the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation, statements targeted against religious minorities became part of the Indian political discourse. Though part of the Sangh Parivar, the Bharatiya Janata Party — because it was a political party and had to wage electoral battles within limits of law — did not go beyond the framework of national consensus in the initial period of the agitation. But as the party’s support grew, leaders increasingly resorted to provocative statements and programmes that made minorities more insecure. Schism remained in the party’s declared position — as adopted in resolutions — and actual position, articulated by hardnosed elements within the party. This was most evident when the Babri Masjid was demolished: declarations of December 6 being the “saddest day” were made even as jubilant faces and people jumping on shoulders of peers got widely circulated.

Narendra Modi assumed office amid apprehension. There were fears that Indian pluralism and libertarian values would be under stress in a regime which believed in the credo of “equality for all, but appeasement of none”, euphemism for reversing the Ambedkarite argument that the majority community must to be conscious of its duty not to discriminate against minorities. In the period since — though the Prime Minister at the prodding of at least two Presidents has pledged commitment to constitutional safeguards — the ruling regime has not generated the confidence that has been raised in the US over Republican plans to stymie Mr Trump’s chances of becoming the party’s nominee. The absence of such assurance is a pointer to Indian liberal democracy’s fragility.

The BJP has reached its present position considerably due to the politics of prejudice promotion. It has retained the likes of Donald Trump within its flanks from its onset unleashing them whenever required. Early in tenure as chief minister, Mr Modi was no different but with time he consciously turned his face to present another and more mainstream facade. It may be a matter of debate if he personally still alternates between Vikas Purush and Hindu Hriday Samrat; but there is no avoiding the fact that within his party and political fraternity both views co-exist. They often draw strength from each other and, on occasions, the latter secures credibility from the former. This is a worry that the American voter doesn’t face as a corrective mechanism has evolved over time. Its survival is important for India too.

The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times and Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984