How the Constitution dominated Modi’s two speeches

What was it that stood out in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two speeches, to two Houses of Parliament, on two consecutive days — July 2 and July 3? What was he conscious about and what was it that he ignored? What aspects of the Opposition’s accusations did Modi acknowledge and what did he choose to overlook?An examination of these questions will tell us that although 60% of Modi’s two speeches, in terms of time spent, was about his government’s ongoing programmes, future plans and accomplishments, the rest was devoted to tackle the exigencies of politics and the post-result predicaments. It is the remaining 40% of the two speeches that reveals the mood in the top echelons of the government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). It leaves us with little doubt that it is focused on regaining its lost electoral territories.Although Rahul Gandhi in his maiden speech as Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha tried to foreground the questions of ideology and religion, Modi did not seem to be unduly worried about it. For instance, Rahul tried to broaden the Hindu idea; listed its inclusive elements; laboured to find commonality between religions; emphasised how a narrow interpretation had led to a milieu of hate, violence and discrimination (Hindutva) and spoke about the institutional arrangements of bigotry. But this did not summon a serious pushback from Modi. The only reaction from Modi was to smartly broaden the scope of the allegation to include all adherents of the religion, and not just the subscribers of Hindutva politics.Even as Rahul spoke, Modi intervened (quite unprecedented in itself) to state without a trace of agitation that Hindus did not represent hate, and the allegations against the religion’s adherents were pretty serious in nature. Even though there was a deliberate stripping of nuance from Rahul’s words, an opportunity was not lost to come across as the protectors of the religion. In his Lok Sabha speech the next day, of course, Modi closed the loop by summoning the words of Swami Vivekananda, spoken over 130 years ago in Chicago, to say that the Hindu religion stood for tolerance and universal brotherhood. medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/b5iFGUtMCWA?si=EWqnB8CHFcGJzXvxPerhaps there were two reasons why Rahul’s ideas on religion did not get Modi’s goat: One, Rahul’s staccato delivery did not serve him well. It allowed for his words to be clipped into 30-second decontextualised videos and sold to an unsuspecting audience as hurting all Hindus. Modi did not stand up in panic but wanted to seize the moment. Instead of hurting Modi, Rahul’s scattered religious discourse ended up helping him. The lack of a narrative flow and a cultural idiom to present such large civilisational ideas has always been his handicap. His staccato style is often subsumed by the puranic ease of Modi’s oratory. What should remain a plain political counter by default enters an esoteric zone in Rahul’s speeches.Two, Modi’s constituency would happily welcome any charge of religious excess against Modi. They would readily attach pride to a project of majoritarian consolidation. To equate the Hindu religion with Hindutva, to see the religion as exclusive, and as a monolith, is not exactly an allegation that they would detest. They would think that Rahul has loitered into their trap. Also, when the Hindu idea unwittingly gets clubbed with the idea of terror, it provokes memories, archetypes and phraseologies of ‘Islamic terror’. That renews their core political purpose to contrast, contradict and keep the commentary going.Modi added muscular nationalism to these wandering ideas in his speeches. He said India under him no longer takes threats lying down: “Ghar me gus ke marenge”. That there were no major incidents of terror under him in 10 years, while the “bombs went off every other day under the Congress”.However, there was one big theme in Modi’s two speeches, distributed in three related threads, on which his political focus was fixated on. This theme was about the Constitution and the “false narratives” of threat to its integrity that the Opposition alliance had built during the election and was creatively continuing with afterwards too (recall the ‘Jai Samvidhan’ slogans and the display of the pocket edition of the Constitution during oath-taking). To this central theme, Modi wove three complementary threads related to Dalits, the Emergency and the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/xFNGuak_bmA?si=ih11zYBAdjq5tPctModi roughly devoted 40% of his time in his two speeches to this Constitution theme and its allied narratives. These parts generated the sharpest political comments and an animated recollection of contemporary history by the prime minister. This was where he was specifically targeting Rahul and the Opposition. It was through this theme that he was also indirectly addressing the diminished numbers the election presented before his party. This theme was indicative of the political strategy he may build in the near future. A certain determination was palpable in his words to snatch away the Constitution idea from the Opposition.In this light, the grand announcement that he made in his Rajya Sabha speech is significant. He said that he intended to create a movement around the Constitution and take it to the nooks and corners of India. In the same breath, he said the Opposition through false narratives, and doctored videos, had spread lies that if the BJP returned to power with 400 seats, it would change the Constitution and end reservations for Dalits and tribals.The mention of Dalits and their treatment by the Congress became central in his two speeches. The primacy of BR Ambedkar with regard to the drafting of the Constitution has made Dalits the principal custodians of the text. Therefore, Modi first pointed out the ‘mistreatment’ of Ambedkar at the hands of Jawaharlal Nehru. Then he alleged that Indira Gandhi had stalled Babu Jagjivan Ram from becoming prime minister. Later, his sympathies were extended to veteran Congress Dalit leaders like Sushil Kumar Shinde and Meira Kumar. He also brought in Kodikunnil Suresh, the one who unsuccessfully contested the Speaker’s post. Finally, he described the tragedy of a seasoned politician like Mallikarjun Kharge who showed no letup in serving the dynasty. He alleged that the Congress never empowered Dalit leaders but used them to either shield the party in moments of difficulty or failure and knowingly pushed them into situations of defeat.The mention of the Emergency also supported the focus of the prime minister. He said it was the Congress which had “bulldozed” over the Constitution and had postponed the election in 1976. He listed the atrocities committed during the Emergency and pointedly asked why the Congress wanted everybody to develop amnesia about it (the Congress had protested the Speaker’s resolution on the Emergency during the session).He said the Constitution for him was to be “lived by” and not “waved at” (something Rahul had done when Modi took oath in the Lok Sabha). Extending the Emergency theme, he asked which Constitution permitted the dynasty (read Sonia Gandhi) to “remote control” a prime minister (reference to Manmohan Singh) and tear up an ordinance (Rahul’s act in 2013). medium nocaptionhttps://youtu.be/hYlfxfd_BtE?si=j6hk9EpqIT84uvaPModi’s reference to the 1977 election after the Emergency was lifted, as the election that saved the Constitution and Indian democracy, was an indirect taunt to the Opposition’s 2024 campaign. Here, Modi could have gone a step ahead and claimed that the proof that he had come back with reduced numbers was testimony to the fact that he had not tampered with the democratic process or rigged the election.In fact, Modi had an opportunity to convert the BJP’s reduced numbers to a kind of strength and to grandstand. Something like: ‘We lost our majority, but our democracy and our Constitution is not under threat. The nation is bigger than a party and a prime minister, we are however happy to be back in government’. He could have asserted that the grandest campaign claim of the Opposition was the biggest lie circulated against him, and the gravest doubt created against the entire system. He could have even demanded the Opposition’s apology. But he chose not to do so. One wonders if it was plain hesitation, fear of looking weak, or did the idea not conceive itself? He only passingly mentioned the “anarchy” created around electronic voting machines.Perhaps it was an extension of this bitterness that made Modi label Rahul as an unabashed purveyor of lies with an anarchist intent. The fact checks offered to his statements on subjects like Agniveer and minimum support price to farmers was to drive home this new ‘liar’ labelling. The rest of the labelling, dismissing him as an unworthy ‘balak buddhi’ was serving the old ‘Pappu’ sting in a new frame. There was also an attempt to pull down Rahul from his moral perch by saying that he was on bail; that he had been convicted (sentence stayed); had offered an unqualified apology in court and was on trial for abusing a patriot (Vinayak Sarvarkar). This characterisation of Rahul by Modi is what will determine their uneasy engagement in the days to come.Anyway, amidst all the speeches, there is one guarantee that emerges from the first session of the new Parliament. Both sides will work to ensure that the Constitution remains intact. With an eye on the Dalit vote, they will both claim to be its biggest protectors. This is a promise that the 2024 election results and the Opposition’s turbulent campaign have ensured. This is a new dynamic.Read more from the author here.