2014 vs 2009: How BJP gave 'Hindu' a miss in the LS polls manifesto

You know there’s an election in the horizon when there’s a T20 cricket series on and your Facebook timeline is flooded with agitated rants about what The Economist said about Narendra Modi and what Modi might have said about The Economist, had he bothered to include the publication in his elite hate-list of star son-in-laws, CM’s-sons-turned-CMs, rhinoceros-haters and steak lovers. It is also election season when everyone and their step-mother has a theory about what is really going on. The latest and the juiciest was a Thakur-Gabbar struggle in the BJP backyard over who gets to write/ghost-write/dictate the party’s manifesto. Will Modi approve of a manifesto without the word ‘mitron’? Will Murli Manohar Joshi be rudely evicted once again, this time from his position as a chief manifesto writer? [caption id=“attachment_1471139” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  The cover of the BJP manifesto 2014.[/caption] And then finally, the moment arrived. In the midst of fevered speculation that threatened to eclipse the latest Virat Kohli news-of-the-day, the BJP released their manifesto on the day the election started. Not exactly legal but then do Assam and Tripura really count? Not to BJP apparently despite the many photo-ops of Modi posing with endangered birds on his head. Well, it was certainly worth the wait! The BJP manifesto, with a foreword by Joshi, was astonishingly, completely de-Hindutva-fied! Well, almost completely. The political shift is evident in a quick search on the number of times the word ‘Hindu’ has been used in the 2014 manifesto, as opposed to the party’s last manifesto published in 2009. In 2009, the word Hindu appears 7 times in the entire document, whereas in the latest one, it appears – now hold your breath – just once! But the word count isn’t as significant as the seismic difference between the 2009 preface and that of 2014. In the 2009 version, Joshi, the head of the drafting committee, evocatively reconstructs India’s cultural history, paying a glowing tribute to the India of India as a ‘Hindu’ country: “The civilisational consciousness of India has been well defined by the sages and philosophers and has its roots in Bharatiya or Hindu world view. This world view is holistic and spiritual. It accepts that diversity is inherent in the scheme of creation; it is the manifestation of the same cosmic entity in different forms. Hence it not only accepts diversity but respects it and even more celebrates it. Hindu or Bharatiya view of life seeks unity in diversity. It is an inclusive approach and one can say that Hinduism is the most ennobling experience in spiritual co-existence.” Minorities may not be quite as reassured by such an “inclusive approach” – a reason perhaps why the 2014 introduction foreword steers clear of any discussion of this broad-minded Hinduism. In fact, the new manifesto says: " “Historical records establish the level of progress and prosperity attained by India before the advent of the Europeans. Indian advancement in mathematics, astronomy, physics and chemistry along with the biological sciences has been well recognized. India was a land of abundance, prosperity, affluence, a land of sharing and caring living in perfect harmony and peace with the nature. From ancient times almost all religions practiced in different parts of the world, have existed peacefully in India and will continue to do so. India thus provides the most ennobling experience in spiritual co-existence.” Note how exactly the same sentence, the word “Hinduism” has been replaced with “India”. Ram Setu, once beloved to the BJP, gets short shrift, as well. In 2009 the BJP had sought an ‘alternative alignment’ of the Sethu Samudram Channel project, arguing how the Ram Setu was a cultural heritage and a rich thorium corridor. This time the manifesto merely notes: “Ram Setu is a part of our cultural heritage and also of strategic importance due to its vast thorium deposits. These facts will be taken into consideration while taking any decision on ‘Sethu-Samudram Channel’ project." The tone is unmistakably brusque and non-committal. The truly spectacular difference between the two manifestos is the treatment of Ram Temple in Ayodhya. In 2014, the Ram Mandir gets one, precise sentence that promises nothing, acknowledges nothing. “BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya,” is all that the party is willing to say. Now consider the same section in the 2009 manifesto: ”There is an overwhelming desire of the people in India and abroad to have a grand temple at the birth place of Sri Ram in Ayodhya. The BJP will explore all possibilities, including negotiations and judicial proceedings, to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.” All that “overwhelming desire” seems have to waned over the past 5 years. Not that this change of heart, or at least, change of emphasis, is likely to convert the cussedly suspicious, like say a certain UK magazine which declared, “By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti-Muslim vote, he nurtures it.” Not exactly. That job now belongs to Amit Shah.