The Bharatiya Janata Party objects, understandably, to the use of the term ‘Hindu terrorism’. To those who accuse it of duplicity since it does not show the same reticence while talking of ‘Islamic terrorists’, BJP President Rajnath Singh says the party has never identified terrorism with any particular community. Leave aside that suspect claim for the moment; what is important is that, through its actions in the Malegaon case, the BJP is actually creating the grounds for the escalation of what can then only be called Hindu terrorism.
The BJP’s campaign for tougher anti-terror laws argues in favour of putting a lot of power in the hands of the police network; and once the police get confessions (which everyone knows involves torture and other forms of coercion), these are to be admissible in the courts of law. While it is no one’s case that getting convictions in cases of terrorism cases is an easy job, the BJP’s solution lies in putting extraordinary powers in the hands of the police. But now that very police is accusing Sadhvi Pragya Thakur of being a terrorist, and the BJP complains that she is being targeted; that the Maharashtra police is influenced by the fact that the Congress-NCP rules the state. Mr Singh has protested against the brain mapping and narco tests that she has undergone and has been quoted as saying there should be no torture.
All of which may or may not be fine, but why is the sadhvi’s case different from those involving, say, the many members of the Students Islamic Movement of India, who were nabbed, tortured, accused in the media, and then the cases quietly dropped without any apology or compensation? Because she is a Hindu and the others were Muslims? If it is kosher for the BJP president to carry on a campaign in favour of the sadhvi, who may well be innocent like all those Simi members, why is it wrong for Jamia Millia to organise a defence for those accused in the Jamia Nagar case, or for civil rights activists to carry on a campaign in favour of many others who have been accused of being terrorists? Is the BJP now being soft on terrorism—the very charge that it has laid at the Congress door?
While there isn’t enough evidence to conclude that the larger BJP leadership has bought the argument, there are strands within the party who are in favour of giving a new spin to the sadhvi arrest — that, given the ‘soft’ state run by the Congress, people like the sadhvi had no option but to do what she did! This shows confusion about the line of argument—the sadhvi cannot be both innocent of the charge and at the same time be excused for doing what she was provoked into doing! It must be hoped that leaders like LK Advani will come down hard on this kind of nonsense, for the essence of a modern state is that the state has a monopoly on violence. Break that monopoly and what you get is anarchy.
If the BJP says that it is not anti-Muslim, the Malegaon episode offers it a chance to rid itself of the charge that it regards terrorism as a purely Muslim problem, and to assert that terrorists have no religion; all that the party has to do is to say that the law must take its course, and if the sadhvi is indeed guilty as charged, the BJP would welcome her conviction. If not, the Mumbai police should be asked to explain its conduct. The BJP is blowing that opportunity for a secular position by categorising the Malegaon probe as a Congress conspiracy. This is Mr Advani’s Vajpayee moment — will he play a violent Hindu card, or will he be a statesman?