Pavan K Varma | The nationalist's economic argument against hate

R. Jagannathan (RJ) has written an important article for a national daily two days ago.  He is a thinker, writer and economist, and currently the editorial director of Swarajya magazine, which represents right wing politics, and supports the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). For the first time, I think, any important ideologue supportive of the BJP has minced no words in stressing that the policies of religious polarisation being followed by the party are inimical to national interest.

RJ’s argument is straightforward. As the BJP is “the steward of one of the fastest growing economies, it cannot afford to let polarisation rise unchecked as violent eruptions can threaten economic activity”.  He also makes the point that “protecting core Hindu interests does not require communal polarization”. In fact, in my book, The Great Hindu Civilization, I have argued precisely this.  His final conclusion is: “Either way, the BJP must choose governance over pointless polarisation if it wants India to become a $ 5 trillion economy sooner than later. It cannot ultimately win by running with the hare and hunting with the hound.”

RJ’s argument is economic, although there are great social costs too to growing religious divisiveness, including hate, violence, and intolerance. Yet, the economic argument is a very powerful one. There is, I have always stressed, a direct link between social harmony and economic development. A country which is committed to greater economic growth, and to lift hundreds of millions out of the quagmire of poverty and deprivation, cannot be torn apart almost on a daily basis by endemic instability due to communal tensions.

This argument suddenly hit people — including RJ — in the recent Hindu-Muslim riots in Nuh, Haryana, which quickly spilled over to Gurugram, the Millennium city, where almost all of the top global Fortune 500 companies have offices. In other satellite towns of the National Capital Region (NCR), such as Sonipat and Palwal, curfew and prohibitory orders under Article 44, were imposed. In Gurgaon, MNC’s were forced to advise their staff not to come to office and work from home. Schools and colleges in the district were shut. Earlier, another key hub for international business, Bengaluru, also known as India’s Silicon Valley, was hit by religious strife. 

Such a spectacle is bound to cause concern to international investors, for whom India is an attractive destination, but only if safety is ensured, and increasingoutbursts of violence, or simmering tensions due to religious bigotry, do not threaten economic activity. The government takes umbrage every time the foreign media, or foreign commentators, highlight the growing communal threat, the incendiary policies of religious polarisation, and the visible divide between Hindus and Muslims. But this time the critique has come from within the Sangh Parivar from one of its own. 

There appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion between the RSS, which takes a long-term view of pursuing its dominant Hindutva agenda, and the BJP which seeks immediate short-term electoral dividends. The RSS — one can only hope — understands that in a country like India, where the minorities are in such large numbers, a policy of unrelenting exclusion is unsustainable. There are some 200 million Muslims spread all over the country, living cheek by jowl with their Hindu neighbours. Even the Christian minority at two per cent of the population is more than the combined population of Hungary and Greece. In such a situation perpetual inter-faith confrontation is a recipe for constant strife, unrest, lawlessness and insecurity. 

It was perhaps for this reason that RSS supremo, Mohan Bhagwat, took the initiative to meet with some leading Muslim intellectuals, and even visited a masjid. But he was ruthlessly trolled by his own radical supporters who accused him of “appeasement”. Similarly, Mr Bhagwat had made a comment that it is unwise to start digging up every masjid to see if a temple existed there before. For this too, he was attacked. The truth is that Hindu radical groups like the Bajrang Dal, encouraged in their lawlessness by the BJP itself, have become a law unto themselves, and are unwilling to give up their swagger of immunity from the rule of law. Similarly, there are Muslim radicals, who are not willing to see reason. A war between these groups goes on not only on the ground but through grossly provocative videos and speeches on social media. 

What is happening in India cannot be hidden from the world. The reach of the global media and the ubiquitous presence of social media flashes news in any part of the world everywhere. This is especially so for India, which as an emerging major power, with the world’s fastest growing economy, and a huge market, is constantly under observation. With China in bad odour and relative economic decline, India is being looked to as an alternative destination for foreign investors. This is the time to take advantage of this situation, not jeopardise it. 

It is futile to apportion blame between warring religious communities. There are extremists on both sides of the spectrum, Muslims who publicly proclaim “sar tan se juda”, and Hindus in so-called Dharma Sansads, who call for the genocide of Muslims. Communal flare-ups have a ceaseless domino effect. One act of violence or threat provokes a response, which in turn ignites a further reaction in an endless spiral that needs to be short circuited at the start. True, there are legitimate Hindu angsts which need to be rectified, and there is a backlash against earlier vote bank politics. But now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme, where Hindu majoritarianism seems to have state backing. Can we not, in our own self-interest, find a middle ground, a modus vivendi between these two extremes, which allows for civilised discussion and debate, and a resolution to perceived discontents on both sides?

A country at war with itself cannot aspire to be economically prosperous. That is the simple but powerful message given by RJ.  We need to seriously ponder over it.