SOROOR AHMED analyses the hate speeches made by Varun Gandhi on one hand and Lalu Prasad on the other, and draws a line of distinction between maligning a community and using abusive language against a particular person.
When the BJP leader Varun Gandhi gave venomous speech against the Muslims – and even used the expression Bara Bajey for Sikhs, his mother’s religion – the entire Sangh Parivar, including the accused, said that the CD has been doctored and it should be sent to lab for test. When former Bihar chief minister Rabri Devi said that the state Janata Dal (United) president Lallan Singh, is the sala (brother-in-law) of the Bihar chief minister, Nitish Kumar, and Lalu Prasad gave his roller over Varun’s chest speech they both stood by what they said. They did not charge that the CD has been doctored. They did not say that the faces are theirs but not the words. They later only explained the context of their speeches. Rabri said so because of the alleged live-in relationship between Nitish Kumar and Lallan Singh’s sister.
Herein lies the difference between the Sangh Parivar and company and other parties and personalities. This is not the first time that the BJP and its allies have questioned the CD and tapes, nor is it the last. Be it the tehelka.com scandal showing Bangaru Laxman and the then Janata Dal (United) president, Jaya Jaitley, accepting cash money from the arms dealers or money-bag case on the floor of Parliament in all these cases aspersions have been cast on the CDs and tapes.
The media is subtly and deliberately trying to confuse the two issues. There is a great difference between what Varun uttered and what Lalu or Rabri blurted out. While the former used a foul language against a community – or two (Sikhs too) – the husband-wife duo said so against certain personalities who are alive and can hit back with the same ferocity. After all the BJP leader Sushma Swaraj called Lalu a Jallad (the executioner), Janata Dal (United) president, Sharad Yadav dubbed Ram Vilas Paswan a Behuda (indecent and vulgar person) and the deputy chief minister of Bihar Sushil Kumal Modi passed a very anti-woman remark against Rabri.
Maligning a community is quite different from maligning a personality. Had Varun or other members of the Lal Krishna Advani brigade been in the West and spoken anything remotely related to the Jews, they would have been put behind bars and tried for Anti-Semitism. It is only in India that they can call Muslims Babar ki Aulad – and many more things – in thousands of public meetings and can yet go away unpunished.
Though it is not decent to make personalised below-the-belt attacks on and use an abusive language against the political opponents yet it is in practice in many democracies of the world. In the United States a device has been developed to automatically beep the unprintable words uttered by the speakers in the course of speech. Often extra-marital relationship of Presidential candidates is played up on the eve of election. In the campaign for the French election held a couple of years ago supporters of Nicholas Sarkozy, now President, would ridicule the opposition Socialist woman candidate, Segolene Royal. Many of them in their speeches asked her to go home and rear children and look after household, very much like the deputy chief minister of Bihar, Sushil Modi, said about Rabri Devi.
However, in the modern world politicians in general – not to speak about those having fascist mindset – desist from lampooning and degenerating any community. In India unfortunately one of the biggest parties has been engaged in the hate crimes for the last many years yet no action has been taken against them. If Narendra Modi calls his political opponent Sonia Gandhi, an Italian, the BJP people may, one way or the other, justify it but can call James Michael Lyngdoh, the then Chief Election Commissioner of the country, names. No, not as he cannot strike back verbally.
However, in this great heat of the hate-speeches one issue failed to catch the people’s attention and that is the utterances of the former defence minister, George Fernandes. Ironically they were used against his own estranged wife, Laila Kabir, in full public view. While the TV channels beeped the choicest abuse George used for Laila, the print media reported it but chose to black out the unprintable words. Strangely none of the champions of women’s rights chose to take up the issue. The question remains: Was he entitled to use such a choicest abuse against a woman, not to speak of his estranged wife? George used these words after Laila appealed to the Janata Dal (United) leaders to prevent him from filing his nomination papers as his health is not good. George insisted to fight and finally opted to contest as a rebel Janata Dal (United) candidate.
It is not that political rivals not used to make below-the-belt attacks on each other in the pre-television age. They were common in the past too. Once even the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru lost his cool, not against opponents but against the corrupt bureaucrats. He said on the floor of Parliament that they should be hanged from the lamp-post.