In Indian political ecosystem, politics of appeasement is one of the most common phrases widely debated for how it has been in use and who is using it, for it can as much translate into “politics of inclusiveness”, say experts from two corners of the spectrum.
Speaking during the opening session of the Festival of Ideas hosted by NewsX, The Sunday Guardian and India News that are a part of itv network, The Daily Guardian Director Aishwarya Pandit Sharma and Prof Badri Narayan debated over «politics of appeasement» that was moderated by journalist and author Rashid Kidwai on Thursday during the two-day program.
The festival of ideas during its various sessions that will deep dive into matters of the state — politics, defence, technology, economy, entertainment, started off with a tribute to the momentous accomplishment of India›s soft landing Chandrayaan 3 on Moon›s South pole on August 23.
Author Badri Narayan raised the point that the majority should be calculated and minority identified. The sense of ignorance, psyche of dis-privilege and political mobilization is what has contributed to the jargon of appeasement that has continued since the 1950s.
Is it institutionlisation of the phrase that has gone ahead and captured our political space?
Appeasement is a title that came to be associated with the Congress since the 1950s, for favouring one group over the other, and BJP was able to raise this bogey against the grand old party without a break, over the last decade more so, and sharply than before as divisions became sharper.
Prof Badri, who authored the books like Kanshiram: Leader of the Dalits and Republic of Hindutva: How the Sangh Is Reshaping Indian Democracy among others, said things have to be contextualized in the 1950s as against today as we have to see how it has been operating and what its impacts are.
Who is operating it and what is the social context Kidwai, who himself is a prolific writer and has authored many books on the Congress party, said as per the Sachar Committee report, a particular community benefitted due to this brand of politics.
The 2006 report brought the issue of Muslim Indian inequality to national attention, sparking discussions that are ongoing.
There is a difference though in representation and engagement, he added. The representation is symbolic and only to certain sections. Only the elite of these sections made it to such merit list as they were visible and had the power to speak.
Like the Pasmanda community very recently were elated at the opportunity of meeting the PM.
The Professor in the Centre for the Study of Discrimination and Exclusion at the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University, said he came across people from the community who could not have been more proud of that moment. “PM took our name,” a man said, elaborating how appeasement can influence.
When PM Modi met the community in June 2023, it showed the BJP’s political acumen at using an opportunity highlighting the marginalised Muslims.
The BJP’s engagement offered the Pasmandas an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of their engagement with the dominant Ashrafs. In his address to BJP workers in Bhopal on June 27, Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined the party’s outreach to Muslims and the work for their welfare. He spoke of the plight of Pasmanda Muslims and Muslim women.
Despite almost a decade in power at the Centre the ruling BJP’s relationship with the Muslim community is among the most contentious and one always politically highlighted by the opposition.
Of late, though similar gestures punctuated by the PM’s outreach to various stratas of the community has showed that Muslim voting have added to electoral success of the BJP even in the politically crucial state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) that can be called a turning point.
Same used to happen with Kanshiram’s politics. He saw the community as a stakeholder not a recipient, explained Narayan. In “appeasement politics››, you are not even watching who is getting the ticket. It also spotlights that rather than focussing on welfare and socio-economic justice there is much greater stress on vote bank politics in their identity issue.
As such most of this turns out to be a symbolic exercise as substantial development does not happen organically, said Narayan.
Dr Pandit Sharma, who has authored “Claiming Citizenship and Nation”, said, “I think we have a colonial legacy that has influenced us. Where we were not seen as individuals but blocks- Hindu blocks, Muslim blocks, Christian blocks and over the time there were blocks we absorbed and then, it wasn›t seen like blocks but community interest like Rajput, Kurmi etc.”
A big part of the reason for appeasement which concentrated power to communities.
Dr Pandit stressed that in Congress’ extensive use of the term secularism that had its own definition for each one, Muslims fell short and were shunted out of services. She underlined that the dichotomy was captured in her book, and that despite Nehru’s advocacy for Muslims, the way development should have translated never happened.
She raised the issue of using ‘gangajal’ (water of river ganga) to take oath to vote congress. She also spoke of the Fatwa of Shahi Imam that is largely an individual’s opinion, and also showed concentration of power in the hands of a few.
So was there oversight on the part of the makers of our Constitution?
Badri Narayan said it depends on how you see that document – a popularity or political discourse, and how a political party uses that discourse.
“More than doing, it is not doing enough, there is always more sound than matter, Social psyches of majority has to be taken into consideration,” he added.
“Nehru had said, ‘I’m not the PM of Allahabad but India,’ that is how the majority community fell off the radar as ignorance transformed into common sense. Public too suffers from this psyche,” said Badri Narayan.
That logic has continued and that is how and why the majority slipped out of the discussion. And this is something that has been going on since the time of Mahabharata, India’s spirit is inclusive despite diversity.
An overwhelming popular narrative post partition till 1996, the politics of appeasement” session remained divided, the moderator, Mr. Kidwai said, “Whatever you say of India, the opposite also always is true.”
Post 1947, everyone has found it easier to appease the minorities than development, thereby choosing shortcuts.
