Full Text | ‘BJP and Muslims Must Have a Conversation to Bridge the Gap’: Swapan Dasgupta

At a national executive conclave of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Hyderabad last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly called for his party to “reach out” to ‘Pasmanda Muslims’, a term used to refer to a particularly disenfranchised section of the Muslim community.

On July 8, The Wire‘s Karan Thapar had a 35-minute interview with Swapan Dasgupta, a former journalist and Rajya Sabha member and currently, a leader of the ruling BJP.

The following is a transcript of the video interview, edited lightly for style and clarity.

§

It’s been widely reported that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s national executive meeting in Hyderabad, the Prime Minister proposed what’s called: “a reach out to deprived and downtrodden sections of the Muslim community”. These are also sometimes called ‘Pasmanda Muslims’. But it’s taken the country by surprise because this seems to suggest a U-turn on the traditional way the BJP views Muslims and, perhaps, even a key strategic and political change in direction.

That’s the key issue I shall raise today with a well-known journalist, former Rajya Sabha MP and BJP leader, Swapan Dasgupta.

Swapan Dasgupta as I said in that introduction, its widely reported  that the BJP national executive meeting in Hyderabad was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to call for a “reach out” to what has been described by BJP leaders as ‘deprived and downtrodden sections of the Muslim community’. For most people, this seems like a radical new political strategy. Can you start by telling us more about it?

Well let’s put it in context. It was not an appeal specifically towards any particular religious community. It was part of the larger thrust of the Prime Minister; what he called ‘Gareeb Kalyan’.

Now this was in terms of reaching out to all communities who have, in some way or the other, benefited from the social welfare measures of the government – and they are of two different varieties or two different programs.

And I think this particular appeal to the targeting of Pasmanda Muslims was made as an aside. It was not part of his main speech; it was an intervention which he made at the time of the political resolution where he did mention that there are various communities. He said they look for representation; they look for empowerment, and he cited the case of the Pasmanda Muslims.

He said one of the ministers in the Yogi (Adityanath) government who has been appointed, a Muslim minister, belongs to this community and that this is a community which has really been on the margins of existence. He said we have managed to get to them through various welfare measures, but they also look for representation.

It was part of this that the appeal was made, so it was not an appeal specifically that we must target Muslims now. It was mainly in the context of the larger ‘Gareeb Kalyan’ scheme. And he’s been always keen to point out that these welfare schemes do not distinguish between castes, religion, communities, etc. They are on the basis of people’s economic status.

I accept the point that this was an intervention; it wasn’t a formal speech made by the Prime Minister. But it attracted front page headlines in almost every paper right across the country. So let’s focus for a moment on the Pasmanda Muslims who represent, by the way, the Muslim community as a whole, up to 14-15% of the population. 

And let me first bluntly ask you: Is this a response to the widespread criticism India faced, both diplomatically and on social media, in Arab countries after Nupur Sharma’s recent blasphemous comments about the prophet? Is it a way of reassuring critics, not just in the Middle East but also in Europe and America, that India looks after its Muslims, is concerned about them and that the impression that there is an anti-Muslim atmosphere in the country is wrong?

Was that one of the motivations in the PM’s mind? 

That’s an interpretation which you’re free to make if you want. I would look upon it in slightly different ways. I look upon it in terms an electoral strategy which is being crafted, keeping 2024 in mind, which is based on the fact that there are sections of society – they may be Hindus, they may be muslims, they maybe Sikhs, or whatever – who did not vote for the BJP in earlier elections. And there is a very definite geographical dimension to that also, which explains southern thrust, which has also been widely commented on.

In the context of this, the Pasmanda Muslims are one of those which the BJP is also keen to include. It is part of, ‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’. 

And I may just point out one more thing; just as you have seen Pasmanda muslims being referred to by the Prime Minister, you can also take into account the fact that various indigenous Assamese-speaking Muslims have been given a certain indigenous status by the Himanta Biswas Sarma government in Assam. And remember in the Assam elections, if the post-poll figures of agencies are correct, something like between 20-25% of the Assamese-speaking Muslims actually voted for the BJP, which made a critical difference in a highly polarised society. 

Look for a moment at the timing of this attempt to reach out. It happens around the same time as Muslim homes have been bulldozed in places like Jahangirpuri, Khargone and Prayagraj; it happens just about six months after a Dharma Sansad called for a Muslim genocide and every single member of the government was silent, no one had anything to say; and on top of that, it happens after the CAA, beef lynchings, love jihad and it happens after controversies to do with hijab, azan and namaz.

So let me ask you a blunt question once again: Why would Muslims, in these circumstances, given this background, respond? 

Well, the Dharma Sansad is something I can’t speak about, but there are people who make all sorts of wild utterances in these gatherings and I think that’s hardly new. These gatherings sometimes encourage the more unthinking sections of the population to have a general rant.

But if you go into specific programs, like the CAA, it is still very much on the agenda and I refuse to look upon the CAA as something that is’ anti-Muslim’. The CAA does not take away anyone’s citizenship; the CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Parsis and others who have been subjected to religious persecution in some of the neighbouring states of India. So its a very different thing and it’s something specific to Eastern India; most of the problems, as you well know, come from Eastern India; it’s not really something which has got to do with the west or any other part of the country. 

As far as the hijab is concerned, yes, there was a certain fracas; there was a certain kerfuffle in Karnataka and in certain other places about hijab, which went to the courts. And I think that these periodic issues which will come up in times to come.

But the larger question is: there is a political leadership of the Muslim community which believes that the Modi government is inherently and necessarily hostile to Muslims as a community and that it will do everything in its power to marginalise Muslims. Now, it is true that given the nature of representation; given the lack of Muslim participation in the BJP, the Muslim community today is a little marginalised from the political sector. They are not really central to the political sector. This is a lacunae which I think should be addressed in the coming days. But where the issue really lies is that if the BJP is to be treated with a measure of permanent hostility for everything it does, then I think it becomes very difficult.

At different points of time, the Prime Minister has reached out to sections calling for dialogue, but no actual meaningful conversation has yet taken place. I believe that is wrong; a conversation has to happen and that conversation should begin at some point. If it begins with his message on the Pasmanda Muslims, then so be it. It could happen with Himanta (Biswa Sarma) reaching out in other parts; it could begin in all sorts of things. 

Let me take up that point you made about the marginalisation of Muslims. It’s not accidental; it’s deliberate, as Nalin Mehta points out in his new book, The New BJP. Since 2014, the BJP hasn’t fielded a single Muslim candidate in any election in UP, local or regional, despite the fact that UP has a 19% Muslim population. As Aakar Patel has pointed out in his book, since 1998, the BJP has not fielded a single Muslim candidate in Gujarat in any election, and now today, the BJP does not have a single Muslim MP in any house of the Indian parliament.

Also read: From July 7, BJP Will Have No Muslim Representatives in Parliament, Assemblies

So this marginalisation is not accidental; it’s not something that’s happened; it’s deliberate. They’ve been kept at the peripheries and the margins. Why then, when the Prime Minister decides he wants to reach out, should Muslims respond?

Well, let’s put it this way Karan. As you well know, in electoral politics, winnability is a big factor. Do you seriously believe that the Muslim candidate fielded by the BJP in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh or even West Bengal, where they have actually fielded a lot of Muslim candidates; where there is a vibrant minority morcha which exists – Will they win? This community that does not support them.

So you do have a problem; this is a larger problem that I am talking about. That the sense of Muslim participation in the BJP has been minimal. I don’t think really that after Sikandar Bagh then Mukhtar Naqvi, you’ve got individuals who have come in, not so much as part of a community.  

And therefore, communities of Muslims have not yet entered the BJP and without them entering the BJP, it’s difficult to field candidates. The tickets of the BJP are in a very great demand and you’re looking to maximise your seats at every point. You can put up token candidates, which they’ve done at various points, but they are not likely to win.

The problem remains that you can’t just impose something. You can get an individual here and there and they’ve often been nominated to the Rajya Sabha, etc or got elected from different states. But the larger problem remains. And I think that it is an issue; that the social map of the BJP has a big vacuum there.

You know, again Swapan Dasgupta, it’s not just that Muslim candidates put up by the BJP, whether in UP or in other states, will not win. The problem is deeper.

As Nalin Mehta points out, there are 19 Lok Sabha seats in the Hindi heartland where the percentage of Muslum voters is 13% or more. No doubt in 2019, the BJP won 13 of these 19 seats with majorities of 40% of the vote, which is enormous. But – and this is the critical point I’m making – you won that margin by polarising the electorate and consolidating Hindu votes.

What that means is that the BJP, rhetorically and strategically, ‘othered’ the Muslims. Muslims know that; they feel it; they resent it. So, I put it to you again, why would they reach out when they’ve been treated as the other at election times by the BJP? 

May I point out a counter question? In many of these constituencies – and not merely where the Muslim community is 30%; sometimes in constituencies where they are 20-25%, the inclination of a very large section of the overwhelming majority of the Muslim electorate appears to be: defeat the BJP at all costs, regardless of who the candidate is.

I can give you my own personal experience of having generous leads in various booths in West Bengal. But when it came to certain Muslim dominated areas, it was something like Trinamool Congress: 500 votes; BJP candidate – which happened to be me – 12 votes, or something like that, and that’s without a single communal or polarising effect; with nothing polarising having been done in that election.

The point is that the Muslim community, by and large, sees the BJP as an enemy and have done their best to ensure its defeat by polarising in favour of the Samajwadi Party or the Congress or something other party. This is the reality. Now we have to break this mould. To break this mould, you have to begin with certain conversations and that conversation has, unfortunately, not yet begun in any way. I’ve always felt that this conversation has to begin. It will be a slow process, but it has to be done, without compromising on the fundamentals. 

Not for a moment, Swapan Dasgupta, would I ever accuse you – because I’ll admit to the audience that I’ve known you for pretty close to 40-50 years – of being anti-Muslim yourself. But it’s not just that Muslims regard the BJP as enemies; many in the BJP regard the Muslim as enemies.

Let me quote, according to the Hindustan Times, what one BJP MLA, Rajkumar Thukral, said. He’s gone on record, and I’m quoting Mr. Thukral: “We don’t need Muslim votes, I will never go to their doors; never go to meet them on Eid; I will never do any work for any Muslim.”

And Mr. Thukral is not a unique voice; there are many others in the BJP who share these sentiments. They may be more discreet and they may not express themselves as bluntly and crudely as Mr. Thukral.  The problem is, Muslims know this; they know they are resented, which is why I come back to that question – I apologise, this is the third or fourth time I’m putting it to you. Given this background, why would Muslims respond when they know the BJP regards them as enemies?

I can pose the question: why should Mr. Thukral respond when he knows that it’s a sort of dead end and that he’s not likely to get any votes if they (Muslims) are likely to see them (the BJP) as enemies. This is what’s happened in various parts of the country.

But I think there is one point where I would take serious exception to Mr. Thukral, which is, regardless of who votes for you and who doesn’t vote for you, when you are an elected representative, you are obliged to cater to every person, which is Hindu or Muslim or atheist, whatever. If he’s actually said, ‘I will not do anything for Muslims’, I think he’s wrong. He cannot do that as an elected representative and I think the Prime Minister is right there on this point; that when it comes to the services of the government or any schemes of the government, while there might not be any special favours for Muslims, the Muslims are not excluded. I think that’s a defining feature of Indian politics; that you do not exclude people on the strength of their religion. Getting them to vote for you is another matter altogether. 

Of course Mr. Thukral is wrong; he has no business to say he will do nothing for Muslims in his constituency. But the point is, not only did he say it – and he was covered by the Hindustan Times as saying it – but Muslims believe this is the attitude of many BJP people, whether they express it as bluntly or crudely as Mr. Thukral or not, and that’s the point I’m making. The perception that the BJP doesn’t like Muslims has gone so deep into the Muslim community, why would they respond to an outreach, even if outreach is expressed by the PM? 

Karan, by that same logic, those who burnt railway stations during the CAA riots; those who destroyed state property during the various riots that took place – and unpublicised rioting – which took place in the aftermath of Nupur Sharma’s statements. Then you have various other things, such as imminent clerics in Ajmer calling for people to be beheaded. Now if you cherry pick extreme statements from lots of people, you’re bound to get a situation where you’re saying, ‘Oh my god, we are in a state of virtual civil war’, which we are not.

The point is, yes provocative utterances are made by various people, on both sides. But the point that I am trying to get at is yes, there is a fault line which exists; there is a major political fault line which exists which not necessarily always extends into a social fault line. But a political fault line certainly exists. And if that political fault line is to be addressed; if you are going to bridge it, you have to begin with some conversation. It might be very modest in nature, it might be completely backdoor, it might be completely off the record, etc. not in the case of the cameras or anything like that. But this process has got to begin.

And if the Prime Minister has made various attempts to initiate this dialogue… and remember that the Muslim community is not a monolithic one. It’s got lots of linguistic, social, geographical divides.

You are very honest and upfront in saying the fault line exists; it’s a bitter, deep and anguished fault line. But the problem is this: look at Jahangirpuri; look at Khargone; look at Prayagraj. When there was stone pelting, when there were riots, whose houses were demolished in retribution? Whose houses were suddenly discovered within 24 hours to be illegally constructed?

The vast majority were Muslim homes, and in many instances, as the Indian Express pointed out, the people whose homes were demolished were in jail and could not have been throwing stones. One of the homes, in fact, belonged to a widow, which was built under the PM Awas Yojana. It could not have been illegally constructed. In one instance in Prayagraj, a home was demolished and it turns out that, in fact, it wasn’t the property of the man the government claimed it belonged to; it belonged to his wife.

So what I am saying to you is the instinct to seek retribution against Muslims makes that fault line that you honestly admitted to, so much worse; so much deeper; so much more difficult to bridge. 

You can always point out excesses, miscarriages of justice, etc. which have existed – and I’m sure they exist and they’re very unfortunate. But if I go on and on about people who get beheaded; if I go on and on about the type of inflammatory speeches which are given in certain smaller mosques throughout this country, the absolute hate-spewing which goes on there; the emotional estrangement which they advocate from Indian nationhood, that’s very unfortunate.

These things exist, and I’m telling you for a fact that yes they exist. This fault line exists and we can’t do anything about it. I didn’t create the fault line, I realise it lies in certain historical things; it lies in the nature of political mobilisation; it lies in electoral politics. But it exists. Can it continue to exist, is the question which I am asking.

There can be rivalries, of course there can be rivalries, but for a rivalry to extend into hatred and a position of complete non-cooperation with each other, that is very bad.

Now, for example, in Ajmer, some of these clerics have said that any of those shopkeepers who close their shops in opposition of the protest against the Udaipur beheadings, the Muslims should boycott them. That’s an extreme statement. Extreme statements come from both sides.

The moment you start only focusing on how bad the Hindus are; how inherently intolerant the Hindus are – which seems to be a subtext, I’m not saying it’s a conscious one, but it’s the subtext of the secular narrative – then you’re going to get into the position where people take up extreme positions. That conversation; that communication then ceases to become a reality and it just gets stalled again and again.

All right, we’ve knocked this ball back and forth like a long Wimbledon tennis rally. Let me pick up on one of the essential points you repeatedly made. You said there is a need to start a conversation. You interpret the Prime Minister’s reach out as an attempt to start that conversation. You said that conversation can happen upfront, it can happen in public and that it can also happen behind closed doors.

But – and this is a critical point – the prime minister may want to start a conversation with Pasmanda Muslims, but Yogi Adiyanath, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, doesn’t lose a moment to taunt the same people with dog whistles about ‘abba jaan‘ and ’80-20’. Once again, the prime minister wants to reach out to Pasmanda Muslims, but the BJP wants to try and obliterate and eliminate the Islamic heritage of India. Already, the names of Allahabad and Mughal Sarai have changed and now, Modi has started calling Hyderabad ‘Bhagyanagar’.

So, at the same time as wanting a conversation, the signals that are going in terms of name changing or in terms of Adityanath’s dog whistles is to say, ‘Keep back, keep your distance, we don’t want you near us.’

You know Karan, one of the most unfortunate things which has happened in India is that the honest appraisal of what Independence has meant and what we got Independence from; the long history of subordination, has never been frontally addressed. The name changes that you are talking about, whether it’s in Hyderabad or Allahabad or Mughal Sarai or something else, all stem from a refusal to confront the nature of subordination, pre-British.

The British legacy has somewhat been addressed in a guarded sort of way, but not anything which happened before that. This is a big problem and, therefore, a lot of the suppressed emotions of that time have found expression in this. Yogi Adityanath represents one of the articulate voices of that resentment.

Now, it’s the same Yogi Adityanath who tomorrow, is in a better position; has the credibility to actually conduct a meaningful dialogue and communication with the Muslim community. I believe he does. Just as during the time of the Gyanvapi – incident which followed the discovery of the Shivling in the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi – it was the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat, who said lets put a full stop somewhere.

There was an invitation. Was it followed up? When the chief of the RSS, who is an authority ; a very representative voice of the Hindu community, makes that offer, shouldn’t it have been followed up?

It wasn’t. No one took it up. I didn’t see the Muslim Personal Law Board or any of them take it up. Or even Mr (Asaduddin) Owaisi, who I have a respect for because he represents something and he is a very articulate and thinking man. Any of them, did they respond? Did any of them respond and say, ‘Yes, you’ve said something, let’s have a talk about this.”

There is no doubt that the sarsanghchalak of the RSS did make an attempt to reach out, but remember, his predecessors, and sometimes even the present government, have spoken in terms where they seem to be questioning the actual Muslim identity of Indian muslims. They refer to them as ‘Hindu Muslims’. That is something that Muslims find offensive. And you say that Aditynath is in a position to reach out. How do you reach out to people when you keep referring to them as abba jaan? That’s not reaching out, that’s putting them off. 

I refer to some of my Muslim friends as ‘miyan‘ so its all right; its part of a general banter. But, the RSS, what did their predecessors say? Now if I go back and make that whole hoary claim: what were the predecessors of the UP Muslims doing in the 1940s? That was the hotbed of the Pakistan movement, not Punjab, not Bengal. You can go on and on and I think this is a problem. Nobody is willing to make that break.

You put the entire onus on the Hindu community to say ‘make the gesture’, even when the gestures are there. There’s been no reciprocity; there’s been no response. There is always that fond hope that, ‘Okay, if we unite our votes then we will give a big dhakka’. The attitude of some people in West Bengal is that, ‘Okay, we are 30%, so we can call the shots’.

Let me then take your advice, I won’t go on and on. Let me accept that this is intended as a genuine outreach to Muslims. In which case, how does the BJP plan to go about it? What are the specific steps the BJP has in mind? Because otherwise, it would just be campaign or party political rhetoric. What are the steps you have in mind; what is the process in mind to reach out? 

For a start, there are these various programmes that the Prime Minister has launched. Take the Jal mission; take the Awas Yojna or anything. There are concrete issues which are there.

Now, if tomorrow, to begin, with the Muslim leadership comes up and says we need housing here; we need drinking water at our doorstep. These are openings, Karan. A dialogue doesn’t have to start with me having to send an email saying, ‘These are 10 points of agenda which we are going to discuss’. It doesn’t happen like that. It happens at multiple levels; it happens through participation. But it’s the gesture. When people sense that it’s beginning to thaw, then I think a lot of things can happen. The RSS chief has made a gesture; the Prime Minister has made a gesture. Now let’s see. Someone has to reciprocate and you cannot reciprocate by beheading people and celebrating it.

So what you’re saying is that this is a gesture; this is an opening, but there is no road map. There are no specific agenda points to take it forward; those still have to be thought about. The gesture has happened, the conversation invitation has been sent. It’s only when the conversation starts that the road map, thereafter, will fall into place. 

Absolutely, but you and I know very well that it has to start sometime. We can’t go on like this, you know, this sort of permanent enmity. It can be very damaging in the long term and there are short term…

Can I interrupt and put something to you? You’re the first person from the BJP who acknowledges that, “We cannot go on with the enmity like this.” And you’re saying there are two important things: one, that you can’t go on and secondly, that you are accepting that there is enmity. No one else from the BJP is frank enough to say it. You are acknowledging the problem; they don’t acknowledge it even. This is where the big difference is between you and those who you are, in a sense, representing today because you share the same party as them. You acknowledge the problem, they don’t.

No, sorry, everyone recognises that on the ground, there is a problem; a very serious problem. We see that and it’s been, of course, caricatured in different ways. When Friday begins to be called ‘pathharwar’ in certain parts, you sense this is approaching a very big problem. When people in Kolkata tell you, “Don’t go near that area any longer on a Friday,” it’s not a good sign. If the ghettoisation process becomes more marked and intense, that’s one of the very first signs that there is some sort of huge social tension in the offing and that it can just explode any time.

You believe a very important first step, a very important gesture has been made by the Prime Minister in saying that we need to reach out to Pasmanda Muslims. If, and there is a huge if… 

He acknowledged the need to; why it was important to give a representation to them also. He has done that.

It’s that representation point that I was about to touch on, you took the words out of my mouth. If Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, as the papers and channels are speculating, does become the BJP’s nominee for Vice-President, would that be another important gesture. Would that be part of his reaching out? 

I can’t preempt the decision which the BJP parliamentary board will take, but Mukhtar is an immensely amiable person. He was one of the most successful parliamentary affairs ministers who had a reach; a very natural reach to all sections of Parliament, cross party. And without, again, preempting the decision, whatever it may be, Mukhtar, to me, has been always a very amiable person. He is also, incidentally, a Muslim. 

Forgive me for interrupting. It’s not Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi so much as I was talking about, but the fact that a Muslim would be chosen by the BJP as the nominee for Vice-President. Would that be part of the strategy? Would that be a good gesture? Reaching out to Muslims to say “Look, we’re choosing one of you as Vice-President of India, the second highest post in the land.” Would that be part of the reaching out process that we’re discussing? 

Well, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was chosen by the NDA government under Vajpayee to become President and we even wanted him to get a second term. He is considered one of the icons in the BJP gharana, 

Now, whether it’s Arif Mohammad Khan; whether it’s Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, certain important Muslims have been given positions of responsibility in this and I’m sure this distinction… this tradition of actually accommodating and honouring people, regardless of their religious origins, is going to continue.

Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, I wish him all the best and I consider him an amiable person. You may consider him only as a Muslim, whichever way, it doesn’t matter. It’s the same thing. 

We’ve had a wonderful discussion, Swapan Dasgupta. We’ve agreed that a very important gesture has been made by the Prime Minister. We may disagree about the manner in which Muslims are likely to respond, but the important point that you made – and I imagine that you’re not just speaking for yourself, you’re speaking for a large majority, or at least, a large percentage of BJP supporters and members – is that we need to start talking. We need to ensure that the enmity ends. We need to reach out and shake hands and bridge the gap. I thank you.

I’ll just finish it by saying that the priority in India is rapid development where we need the cooperation of every single citizen of this country. And in this sort of situation, I don’t think it helps to have these social tensions. So, whatever needs to be done to mitigate these social tensions, to bridge the gap, to ensure that the fault lines remain within manageable proportions, I think is welcome. 

Swapan Dasgupta, thank you very much for this interview. Take care, stay safe.