Yesterday, after dusk, I had three visitors: the local ward representative and two other respectable-looking men I hadn’t seen before. One was introduced as a scientist or some such figure, but since they announced themselves as BJP representatives soliciting my views and vote, I gave little credence to the science tag. I recalled how Indian scientists sat silently when the Prime Minister spoke of ancient plastic surgery involving an elephant’s head on a human torso.
Having enjoyed a couple of sundowners, I was relaxed and in no mood to discuss politics, especially with strangers. I feared provocation might weaken my resolve—and it did, despite my repeated assurances that there was nothing to discuss and that I respected their request for my vote. They persisted, asking why I wouldn’t support the BJP. I politely explained that their ideology was antithetical to my values, and that bigotry, divisiveness, hate, and falsehood rarely build a nation. I was keen to remain sensitive and restrained, though the Old Monk was stirring some mischief within.
“Oh, look at initiatives like Startup India and GST—see how things are changing!” they countered.
I reminded them that Startup India was stillborn, and GST wasn’t a BJP idea; they had opposed the Manmohan Singh government’s efforts to introduce it. With five or six tax slabs, its hasty and chaotic implementation caused havoc—credit for that mess goes to Modi!
“But it takes time to change the system!” they argued.
“What system are you changing? The BJP seems intent on destroying systems. Do you have credible statistics on GDP, jobs, agricultural output, or farmer suicides? Everything seems concocted, doesn’t it?”
“No, look at Nirav Modi and others who profited with Congress’s help.”
“I don’t know if they profited with anyone’s help, but they fled while the Modi government looked the other way. What did your government do with Raghuram Rajan’s report on NPAs and defaulters?”
“Oh, we’re trying to save Hinduism and Sabarimala! The census shows Hindus are declining in numbers.”
“What’s there to save? Hinduism has survived for over 3,000 years; if left untouched by internal termites, it will endure another millennium. The census tells a different story—Muslim population growth is slowing, yet you stoke fear. As for Sabarimala, the BJP tried to turn it into another Ayodhya.”
“No, we’re protecting the sanctity and holiness of the place.”
“That sanctity was eroded by the Sangh. What were you doing for five months in the name of that shrine? You have a reckless state party president creating chaos. His loose tongue spewed idiocy. You even made a martyr of an alcoholic who doused himself in kerosene and set himself alight. It reminded me of an old Malayalam film where parties vie to claim a corpse. How can we forget the infamy of abusing women in the name of Sabarimala? Didn’t we see a Sanghi poised to smash a coconut on a woman’s head?”
“That was a Marxist man,” came a feeble retort.
“You claim there’s a sinister plot between Christian evangelists and people like Amartya Sen.” I scoffed, unable to help myself, as I would have even fresh from bed.
“Gentlemen, name one significant issue your BJP highlighted in the past six months besides Sabarimala. Did you address the farmer suicides in Wayanad? The havoc caused by the floods and the state’s rebuilding efforts? The alleged lapses in post-flood assistance? Environmental degradation? Any existential issue facing the state? Sabarimala won’t provide anyone a square meal. There are pressing matters begging for introspection and action. You saw Sabarimala as an axe to grind, like Ayodhya.”
“No, the state government was against devotees.”
“The state government opposed troublemakers and Sanghis causing bedlam. The police were unusually restrained. How can you blame the state for following the constitutional court’s ruling? Why didn’t the BJP introduce legislation to resolve the issue? Weren’t the petitioners supporting women’s entry BJP and Sangh functionaries? Come on, you may gain votes through Sabarimala, but not mine nor my family’s. We each have strong convictions about the life we cherish.”
In hindsight, I told them I hadn’t wanted this discussion and hoped there was no rancour. They graciously replied it was their privilege to engage.
“If you vote for our candidate, you won’t regret it; he’s a good choice, you’ll see when he’s an MP.”
I smiled. One gentleman added, “You must also consider the candidate’s moral character.”
“Who are we to judge another’s morality? What is your morality? You’re soliciting my vote—do you know mine?” I forgot to ask what morality justifies abandoning a wife to languish.
No comments:
Post a Comment