Narendra Modi’s two latest remarks — first hitting out at Rahul Gandhi over Sam Pitroda’s ‘skin colour’ comments, and second charging Ambani and Adani with buying Rahul’s purported silence — have caused furore in the political circles. Not only have they shaken the trust level of the top leaders of the RSS and BJP, these also underscore significant dimensional change in Indian national politics.
Modi accusing Rahul of striking a deal with the corporate moguls Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani — two of most prominent crony capitalists synonymous with the prime minister and influencing his policies — and seeking to know from the Congress leader whether he had received “tempo loads of black money”, has led to speculations if the prime minister was in the right state of mind. Observers also construe that Adani and Ambani have pulled the rug from under the feet of Modi. Nevertheless, Modi’s unwitting and frankly preposterous allegation has one unflattering message, that Ambani and Adani have huge amounts of black money.
Quick to retort, Rahul Gandhi sought to know on a now viral social media post: “Modiji are you scared? Normally you speak of Ambani-Adani in closed rooms. For the first time, you have taken their names in public. You even know that they send money in tempos! Is that your personal experience?” Modi must not have imagined that he would face this nature of high octane rebuke from Rahul, which would harm his image severely in the midst of the elections.
Except his flatterers and hardcore members of the saffron ecosystem, no other BJP or RSS leader has appreciation for Modi’s unhinged remarks. While they fear that Modi’s increasingly uncontrolled and haphazard messaging would send ripples of unrest within the corporate sector, this would further denigrate the image and character of the saffron brigade, which includes RSS and almost other 300 organisations associated with the saffron ecosystem.
Ever since Adani issue surfaced in public, Rahul Gandhi has been seeking to know from Modi, even on the floor of Parliament, about his personal relations with Adani and accused him the PM of protecting his business interests at the expense of the national exchequer. Yet, despite Gandhi’s incessant accusations, never once did Modi take Adani’s name in public, or bother giving any explanation. He maintained a deafening silence in the matter. Even after the publication of the explosive Hindenburg report that depicted how inflated Adani’s wealth and stocks were, Modi stayed mum.
The leaders feel that there was no need for Modi to take a jibe at Rahul in this manner. Popular perception that Modi maintained silence only for reason that he received huge money from Adani, as Rahul obliquely mentioned in his speeches, gradually took hold, denting Modi’s ‘not personally corrupt’ image. Modi even skipped Parliament to avoid questioning.
However, the serious allegation levelled by Modi against Rahul has already backfired and boomeranged. The message that Modi has been getting financial patronage from Adani was revealed to the nation by Rahul by holding up a photo of Modi in a private jet with Gautam Adani in the Lok Sabha on February 7, 2023. Shortly after this, Rahul had to temporarily exit Lok Sabha after a Gujarat court indicted him in a cooked up 2019 poll comment case against Modi, but was eventually reinstated once exonerated by the higher courts.
Nevertheless, some Congress leaders construe this jibe as Modi’s trap to distract Rahul from his mission of presenting Modi as a failed politician. But there are very few takers of this explanation. Even the BJP leaders argue that Modi must not have made this political hara-kiri of a move simply for presenting Rahul in bad light. His pointing fingers at Rahul asking how much has been lifted from Ambani-Adani has demeaned his image further in the eyes of the people.
Additionally, Modi’s remark on Sam Pitroda has been indeed obnoxious. It is open secret that Modi has long been an inveterate liar. Let us look at what Pitroda said. In an interview with a national daily, while reflecting upon the democracy in India, the veteran Congress man commented: “We have survived 75 years in a very happy environment where people could live together, leaving aside few fights here and there. We could hold a country together as diverse as India, where people on the east look like Chinese, people on the West look like Arab, people on the North look like white and maybe people on the South look like Africans.”
How is this a demeaning statement? He was narrating the demographic and geopolitical truth about India’s wide genetic and morphological diversity. It’s a testament and tribute to India’s beautiful history and democracy, imbibing multitudes. But Modi in his usual devious manner tried to relate Pitroda’s statement with election of President Draupadi Murmu. In a clamourous “eureka” moment, Modi fabricated the lie that Congress sought to defeat President Droupadi Murmu in the presidential poll as her ‘skin colour is dark’. He also cautioned Pitroda that the countrymen would not tolerate insult on the basis of skin colour. Pitroda’s throwaway demographic observation made a desperate Modi clutch at the straws by insulting him. True enough Pitroda was not making any attempt to classify the people of the country. Modi tried to give a nasty twist by saying: “Will the ability of people be decided in my country on the basis of skin colour?”
Pitroda never said that these people were not Indians. True enough, this narrative is quite old. Many scholars, veteran politicians and academics have held this view. Yet, Modi jumped at the opportunity to malign Pitroda, Rahul and the whole of Congress once again: “I am angry today. If anyone abuses me, I don’t get angry. I can tolerate that. But, the philosopher of ‘shehzada’ gave such a big abuse which has filled me with anger. India would not tolerate insult to the countrymen on the basis of skin colour. ‘shehzade’ (Rahul Gandhi) must answer.” This is election time and Modi has got a new weapon.
His return to the word Shehzada to describe Rahul simply underscores that it has been his old electoral gimmick, to arouse the nationalist passions of the people. However, Modi quickly turned himself as an object of ridicule by his remark: “I came to know today that an uncle of ‘shehzada’ lives in America. The uncle is his philosopher and guide”. Modi is once again trying to portray Rahul as a naïve and immature player in the theatre of Indian politics. However, this time around, his insinuation against Rahul will not work. He has not succeeded in correlating Sam Pitroda with Rahul, notwithstanding Sam being a friend of the late Rajiv Gandhi.
Essentially, it is the fear of the obliteration of his ‘one nation, Hindu nation’ theory that prompted Modi to speak against Pitroda. Modi has long been espousing the political line of RSS. Pitroda’s remark goes against the spirit of Modi’s Hindutva ideology. RSS and BJP abhor India’s unity in secular diversity. They for long felt that the nation-building project in India is incomplete, with too many fragments. Saffron ecosystem longs for the complete integration of the states and Union territory into one united Hindu India.
Modi has been always supported RSS line of creation of unitary systems, such as one nation-one tax; one nation-one grid; one nation-one mobility card; and the fact that there are now discussions happening around one nation-one election. Pitroda’s observation coming at this stage would jeopardise the unfinished project of Modi-BJP-RSS and strengthen the political line of Rahul on systemic neglect and impoverishing of the Dalits, EBCs and Muslims under Modi’s reign.
Though apparently in the interest of Congress and also Rahul, Sam Pitroda has now resigned as the Chairman of the Indian Overseas Congress. Jairam Ramesh’s observation that the analogy that was given by Sam Pitroda to hammer home the subject of unity in diversity is “unacceptable, unfortunate and absolutely wrong”, may be accepted as a recourse the wriggle out. But the fact is the Congress’ distancing itself from Pitroda’s remark was unwarranted. This has the potential to torpedo RSS and Modi’s political line on one India bringing into question the plural character of India. (IPA Service)
