THE PATHOS BEING A NUPUR SHARMA

HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU AREN’T THE FRINGE?

Valson Thampu

?

All of a sudden, Nupur Sharma, the feisty, flamboyant ‘national spokesperson of the BJP’ became ‘a fringe element’ of the party. She was suspended for saying what would have been assumed, behind the closed doors of the party, as mere plain-speaking. ?The question that Nupur would be asking now is: how does one know if one is the fringe or the fauna and flora of the party?

Ironically, what decided the issue was indignant reactions from Muslim countries. And that’s the rub. It is the followers of the very same Prophet, whom Nupur vilified, that enabled the BJP, from a distance, to decide that she belongs to the fringe of the party.

Subramanian Swami is livid. Understandably so. He feels that the Modi government has allowed itself and the country humiliated by buckling under the pressure of tiny governments. Arif Mohammad Khan, the governor of Kerala, who is rumoured to be poised for higher duties, feels that India has nothing to apologise for. But the apology has been tendered and the embarrassment is there all the same.

There is absolutely no doubt that it was, principally, the fear of the economic backlash that jolted the government. Antagonising the Islamic world is not small change. That cost could be multi-faceted and humungous. There is, moreover, the fear of being in the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorism which, since the ascendancy of the Taliban in Afghanistan, is closer home than before. The facile assumptions about establishing stable and permanent peace in Kashmir have proved illusory, despite saturating that region with the might of the State.

So, it turns out that one’s ‘fringe-status’ is a matter of perceptions. And perceptions are proverbially vulnerable to external circumstances. Our perceptions about Sri Lanka, for example, have undergone a sea change because that nation is in utter disarray. The neutrality we posture in relation to the Ukraine crisis has, likewise, more to do with the cost-perception than with our principled convictions to which we would stick in spite of thunder.

Whether one belongs to the fringe or to the centre depends on one’s usefulness or nuisance-quotient. The instrumentality of individuals –the idea that human beings can be used as mere tools- underlies both. The moment you are perceived as a hindrance, you will be pushed to the fringe, irrespective of what valourous services you rendered to the party in the past, and for how long. One is reminded of the heart-breaking words of Cardinal Wolsey, as he was being taken to the London Tower, when he fell out of favour with Henry VIII. ‘Had I served my God with half the fervour with which I served the king, he would not have disowned me in the hour of my peril’. History tells us that where power reigns as the ultimate value, human instrumentality and individual expendability are inevitable consequences.

This works at all levels. Tens and thousands of individuals suffer deep anguish in inter-personal and professional relationships for this very reason. It is a dangerous delusion to assume that a party or system organized hierarchically and hitched to high economic stakes, will value individuals for who they are. They will be valued and tolerated only for the benefits they bring. No one can have intrinsic worth in such a system. That is why belonging to rigidly organised systems extorts a great deal by way of soulless conformity. It excludes freedom to be true to oneself.

Even that is not all.?The ultimate issue is even stranger than that. You have already compromised your personal integrity in belonging to a party of a system. That would have been tolerable, even despite the continuing inner unease it entails, if one had the freedom to stay steadfast in this respect. Circumstances could arise, howsoever infrequently, when pushing the interests of the party could get you into serious trouble, as in Nupur’s case. ?What is the individual to do when the goal posts of party interests shift as per expediency? How is one to cope with the anguish at realizing that one has been used and cast out in knee-jerk expediency?

That pain aggravates even further when one feels, in this very aspect, discriminated against. How can Nupur not compare her plight with that of Anurag Thakkur, who uttered worse words of communal venom? He continues to be in favour. Why is Nupur the fringe, but not Anurag? According to him, those deemed traitors are to be shot in cold blood. And the crowd can decide who is a traitor, and who isn’t (“Desh ke gaddaron ko, goli maaron saalon ko). Interesting enough, a judge in Delhi felt that in so far as Shri. Thakkur said these words with a smile, it did not amount to hate speech. So, Nupur is in trouble, not because she said something blasphemous, but because she forgot to smile while doing so! The moral of the story is simple: ‘Keep smiling, even as you are abusing’. By the same token, smiling assassins should enjoy assured impunity. This has the merit of making criminal trials simpler and speedier.

The issue, ultimately, is not that a national spokesperson lost her self-control and uttered the blasphemous in a moment of heat. The issue is that a pseudo-political ambience exists in which such utterances are possible and popular. They are made, presuming impunity in relation to law, popularity in relation to the masses, and patronage in relation to the party top-brass. The speaker, on such occasions, is not required to utter the truth; for ‘telling the unvarnished truth’ is not the quintessential duty of a party spokespersons. That task is to push party-interests. There is absolutely no doubt that Nupur said what she did, being cocksure that her pronouncement was in the interests of her party. Nupur’s dedication to the BJP, her eagerness to swell party interests, can never be in doubt. And for that, she finds herself relegated to the fringe. It must be excruciatingly painful to be a Nupur Sharma in ?such circumstances. ?