Narendra Modi:Is It Anti-National To Be A Nationalist

A person with ‘patriotic feeling, principles or efforts’ is a nationalist, defines Concise Oxford English Dictionary. When Narendra Modi says he is a “Hindu Nationalist” where is any scope or raising hue and cry over using the words ‘Nationalist’ and Hindu. Some critics, the forces opposed to the BJP in particular attacked Modi for using the word ‘Hindu’. According to these critics for Modi it was suffice to say ‘nationalist’ without putting the prefix Hindu. Again is it a crime to be a Hindu or does the word Hindu dilutes the meaning of the word nationalist, certainly not. Why this debate then over Modi calling himself a Hindu Nationalist.

The answer is simple. There is a political class in the country who believe and practice in shying away or feeling ashamed of their identity of being a Hindu. Such posturing or pretence helps this political class to claim that it is secular. Such elements in politics are dangerous for the country and for our democracy. For such people can compromise our national and territorial integrity to remain in power.

There is bigger controversy over Modi’s remarks that he feels sad even when a puppy dies under the wheels and if something bad happen he is sadder. The Congress and its friends in arm have given a twist to the remark by saying that the Gujarat Chief Minister compared the victims of the riots as ‘puppies’. Nothing can be farther from truth and farfetched in dubbing the word puppy as indirect reference to the Muslims.

“What does Modi think that Muslims are worse than even puppies”, says Kamal Farooqi of the Samajvadi Party.

Yet another Muslim leader Zafrul Islam Khan of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat says, “Let us not go into semantics. To compare riot victim with a puppy reflects a mindset that does not look at Muslims as human being”.

Let me tell Kamal Farooqi and Zafrul Khan that they are totally mistaken in interpreting the remark of Narendra Modi. When Modi says that he is pained even when a puppy comes under the wheels, he is talking about his emotions and not the object, the victim. Loss of life is painful. If someone is killed it is sad and painful. I don’t know if the critics of Modi feel the same way.

People are not reading the whole interview of Modi given to Reuters. The puppy remark comes in his response to a question how he felt about the Gujrat riots of 2002. Modi responded by saying,”…if someone else is driving a car and we are sitting behind and if a puppy comes under the wheel will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I am a chief minister or not I am a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad”.

The analogy is not between the puppy and the Muslim victims of the riot, the analogy is expression of emotion and compassion for any loss of life. How then the word Muslim comes into picture?

Modi is also being made the butt of criticism for the analogy of his emotions when he says that he was sitting in the car while someone else was driving while describing the puppy example. Now his critics want that Modi should accept that he was at the wheel and he was driving the car since he was the chief minister when the riots took place in Gujarat in 2002. A chief minister or a prime minister is not directly involved in any particular situation, may be riot or war. When Modi says that someone else was driving the car and he was seated in the rear, he meant that the situation was being handled and controlled by the Police and the Officials who were in the field.  For the December 16 rape case, can the Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde be held responsible? Was he present at the scene or is he expected to wield lathis at protestors in Delhi.

~R. K. Sinha