Vandita Mishra writes: In the Modi government’s third term so far, signs of politics opening up, and remaining frozen

In its third term so far, a few days short of the 100-day mark, the Narendra Modi government, which in its earlier two incarnations took pride in forcing its way, disregarding critics and opponents — with just a few exceptions, such as when it rolled back the three farm laws in its second term, but that happened after a farmers’ movement that had swelled and sustained for a year — has effected a series of conspicuous rollbacks and about-turns without its hand being forced visibly. These range from the withdrawal of the lateral entry proposal, to sending the Waqf Bill to a joint parliamentary committee, to shelving the draft Broadcast Bill and reframing pension reform.

There are some signs of institutional pushback against a weakened executive. The highest court of the land has in more than one significant verdict in recent days underlined the principle that the individual’s right to liberty is sacrosanct, and that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in cases that involve a harsh law with stringent provisions. This reverses the Supreme Court’s own inertness on the issue so far, and it strikes at the ease of government’s misuse of central agencies against political opponents who were then left to battle, in custody, a process that had become the punishment.

This week, the Court also finally spoke up against “bulldozer justice”, the outrageous practice of state governments — following a template established by Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh — of demolishing homes and properties of people accused in crimes, targeting the minority disproportionately. The Court promised to lay down guidelines against this brazen misuse of power that short-circuits all due process and violates the fundamental rights of citizens irreversibly.

There is also push-back within, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat seems to be twisting the knife deeper in the BJP. Speaking at an event in Pune on Thursday, he said: “We should not consider ourselves as God. Let people decide if there is God in you”. Bhagwat chooses his public outings with deliberation, he would not be unaware that his words will be read as a direct riposte to PM Modi. The PM had shared his conviction, during the election campaign in May, that his energy “could not come from biological body, but was bestowed upon me by God”. Earlier, in his first public remarks after the election results, Bhagwat had pointedly spoken of a true sevak as one who has no arrogance or “ahankaar”.

And in Haryana, the BJP’s ongoing troubles with inner rebellion over ticket distribution ahead of the October assembly election, and its apparent difficulties in striking a caste balance in its list of candidates, are telling. They underline a return to normal politics for a party that had taken its own all-conquering image and winning streak for granted, and that must now perform the negotiations and navigations vis a vis individual ambitions and caste claims that are the routine task of parties in a diverse and competitive polity.

And yet, there is another side, or a barely concealed underside, to the story so far.

The Court, even as it has found its voice on “bulldozer justice”, continues to be shown up as ineffectual on hate crimes. In April 2023, it had directed all states and Union Territories to register cases suo motu, without waiting for a complaint, against those making hate speech. “Any hesitation to act… will be viewed as contempt of court and appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officers”, it said. The police fumbling last week after a 72-year old Muslim man on a Mumbai-bound train was beaten up on August 28 by a group of young men who accused him of carrying beef — ironically, three of the assailants were on way to participate in a police recruitment drive — places a serious question mark against the Court’s admonition and authority.

There are wider and deeper complicities in the continuing crime and the unchecked climate of impunity — and these don’t seem to have been ruffled by the electoral verdict.

The video of the assault on the train going viral on social media speaks of the ongoing brutalisation of the public sphere, where violence is performed to an audience of voyeurs. And the police saying, in the aftermath, that a preliminary probe had found that the victim was carrying buffalo meat, which is not banned, raises a disquieting question: Would the vigilante violence have been deemed lawful if the meat was outlawed?

A chilling answer may have come in, at Haryana’s Faridkot. Here, after a 19-year-old on a drive with his friends and family were chased and killed on August 23 by a team of self-proclaimed gau rakshaks, whose team leader runs an organisation against “cattle smuggling”, evidence has been bared of the intimacies between the vigilante and the police. By all accounts, the latter allow the former to take the law into their own hands in the name of the cow. And going by many of the responses in the aftermath, the scandal seems to be not that an innocent was murdered by cow vigilantes, but that a Hindu youth became the victim.

To those who would see a turning point in June 4, the BJP’s unbroken silences on gau rakshak violence — the PM’s expression of anguish, that came in the first term, is much too longago — and the continuing inability of the Opposition to put it on the mat on issues like these, is a reality check and a cautionary note.

Till next week,

Vandita