Who was Modi trying to fool?

How many of you have asked for a Promotion, Salary Hike or Change of work (project, department, role) in your career and were denied? How many of you asked for a toy that your father cannot afford, for a bike that your father didn’t want to buy for you at that time or for joining a course or program that your parents considered unnecessary? Do you still remember the ingenious way your parents or manager or HR evaded the question? People resort to tricky words and clever replies when they can’t give an honest answer.

I was made to remember of such instances of my life by none other than our Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi yesterday. I came late from office and my wife was watching his interview with Mr. Goswami in Times Now. I just joined her, and then happened to hear this cute little statement – that when BJP said in their manifesto that they welcome all Hindu refugees (and not Sikh or Jain or Muslim or Christian refugees), they meant Hinduism as a “way of life” and they were just following the definition of the Supreme Court of India.

Chooo Chweeet of him!!! Vasudaiva Kudumbakam. Vasudha Eva Kudumbakam. Earth indeed is a family.

He made me to do some research. Which is this Supreme Court judgement that he is talking about? What exactly is the statement from BJP’s manifesto?

Mr. Modi is referring to a Supreme Court judgement involving a case against Bal Thackeray. (http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=10197). Mr. Theckeray had made the below statement – “"We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism. Therefore, we do not care for the votes of the Muslims. This country belongs to Hindus and will remain so."

Following are some relevant passages from the Supreme Court judgement:

“Words `Hinduism' or `Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.”

“Misuse of these expressions to promote communalism cannot alter the true meaning of these terms. the mischief resulting from the misuse of the terms by anyone in his speech has to be checked and not its permissible use. It is indeed very unfortunate, if in spite of the liberal and tolerant features of `Hinduism' recognised in judicial decisions, these terms are misused by anyone during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage.”

“Our conclusion is that all the three speeches of Bal Thackeray amount to corrupt practice under sub-section (3), while the first speech is a corrupt practice also under sub- section (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act. “

So, after all, Bal Thackeray was punished by Supreme Court for using that word for “misusing during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage”.

So, what Mr. Modi claims is that BJP was using the word Hinduism in the sense of “way of life of the Indian people”, not in the sense “persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith”.

Ok. Granted. I am deliberately forgetting the entire history or RSS, BJP and Mr. Modi. Now, let’s see what does the BJP manifesto says. The statement in question comes under the heading Foreign Relations. “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” So, Modi’s claim is that the sentence is to be read as: India shall remain a natural home for persecuted people who follow way of life of Indian people.

Now, I suddenly see another statement in the same manifesto. The very immediately prior statement: “The NRIs, PIOs and professionals settled abroad are a vast reservoir to articulate the national

interests and affairs globally.”

Who is an NRI? Who is a PIO? Are they not “Hindus” in the abstract sense of the word? If yes, why are they not named called as “Hindus”? If not, what is the difference between NRI, PIO and Hindu?

Intrigued by this, I do a search for the term “Indians”. There are 41 places in which the word “Indian” is used in that manifesto. There is only one place where Hindu is used. Why only one reference to the word “Hindu”?  If the intellectually-challenged explanation that the word processor failed to do a Grammar check is set aside, you would have to say that the two terms "Indian" and "Hindu" are not synonymous in the context of this manifesto. Then, Mr. Modi is saying that there are Indians who are not "Hindus (abstract sense)". Who are those people? And how different are those people who are different from "persons who practicing Hindu religion"? (Arnab didn't ask any of these questions, unlike the aggro he showed against Rahul Gandhi. I guess that isn't a surprise for anybody).

In a document where a set of people are referred to as “Indians” 41 times, what if there was a 42^nd reference that says: “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Indians and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.”

OH, NO. THIS IS NOT GOING TO GET ANY VOTES. THIS IS NOT GOING TO PLEASE THE RSS CADRE.

Mr. Modi, who are you trying to fool here? In a general sense, everybody, of course. He can't say that he means what he really means and get away from possible constitutional repercussions. So, he just took the only way out. But that's not really fooling anybody. It is just an open trick. When a magician explains you a magic trick, you may appreciate the cleverness of the trick, but you are neither fooled by nor amazed at the trick itself anymore.

But, I am more intrigued by the question- are there anyone who will get really fooled by this?

Your party cadre? They already know that when you said Hindu, you meant exactly that “persons practicing the Hindu religion” (as opposed to the 41-time-reference to Indians), and they are happy to hear that. No need to fool them. Your detractors? Well, they are also already aware that you meant exactly the same. So, who else?

Ok. Now, I get it. There are a set of facebook-educated political activists that support you. They don’t want to see the obvious. Yet, they worship you. And you can’t let them down. They are like a 9-year old boy who saw a nice red-colored toy car in a shop (that his neighbor uncle owned) which his father cannot afford. He asked his father, and he said no. He cried. He cursed. He didn’t eat. Then the father said he will buy the toy for the boy the next day. Next day, they both went to the shop and the car wasn’t there. The uncle told that it was damaged and the entire pack was returned. Boy believed him. And was happy because he didn’t buy the car the day before. He didn’t know then that the car was still there, undamaged. He didn’t know then that his father asked the neighbor to hide it. He didn’t know then that he was fooled.

Mr. Modi knows that India is full of such people who can’t see the obvious, or don’t want to admit the obvious. He also knows that they are 9-year olds intellectually and can be fooled. He is playing a magic in which both the right and the left can see what the magician is doing. There are some kids at the center whom he is hoping to amaze. And, so far, he is doing a good job in the magic show.