How Should Rahul Gandhi Have Spoken Abroad?

'I would think that India faces less damage from opinions voiced overseas compared to the damage it suffers if the right to free speech of its citizens is curtailed in the name of image management,' asserts Shyam G Menon.

And so, yet again, Rahul Gandhi has expressed anti-India views abroad.

That's not my opinion.

It's what I am expected to say because if I say anything else, it may hurt the image of India as portrayed by the political Right-Wing and because it is India's political Right-Wing nursed on a diet of rote patriotism any questioning of that cocooned paradigm angers them.

So, for my sake, I agree with the political Right-Wing that Rahul Gandhi said stuff, which painted India in a bad light overseas.

Didn't the political Right alter India's image?

Having said so, I must confess to the patriotic eye in the sky tirelessly surveying for any flawed depiction of India, that there is an itch, in me.

What made Rahul Gandhi's US trip of September 2024 provocative to the Right-Wing were two instances in particular -- his comments on the Sikh community and his meeting with a US Congresswoman, the Right-Wing is wary of.

These acts were seen as lowering India's image overseas. My itch is to know why the Bharatiya Janata Party got ruffled so much by what the Leader of the Opposition did.

After all, the BJP is the country's (some say the world's) biggest political party, also its richest and they have used their cadres and resources (plus that of other Right-Wing outfits) to alter the feel of India.

Despite secularism in the Constitution, thanks to the propaganda and actions of the Right-Wing, India became known as a Hindu majority country.

Whenever the opportunity arose, Hindutva resounded and Right-Wing governments (and their supporters) have showed the willingness to keep the country's biggest minority community on a nervous footing.

All these would seem departures from the spirit of the Constitution we began following soon after independence.

Years ago, when I was in school and college, religion and community were powerful forces but ones that yielded to newer generations wishing to interpret life afresh. Else, what are we alive for? India in those years, was a Third World country but one that stood out for its commitment to democracy and tolerance of diversity.

Aberrations happened, but very importantly the equilibrium the country sought to drift back to or was guided by its leaders to return to, was usually an all-embracing broad-mindedness. We valued that plural space, the melting pot and the tolerance.

One can't say the same about the India of the past decade-and-a-half during which time, the country saw the political ascent and assertiveness of religious majoritarianism.

We held together during this period not because of the Right-Wing but despite them and mainly due to the accrued wisdom of the people.

Perhaps the self-appointed guardians of our patriotism can correct me -- aren't the deviations of the past decade-and-a-half also a departure from the image of India abroad, as etched till then? I suppose, being acts perpetrated by the self-righteous Right-Wing they don't amount to as much damage of India's image, as Rahul Gandhi making a few uncomfortable comments overseas.

How else can one explain the strong protests Rahul Gandhi's statements attracted from India's ruling party?

Would you fuss over image if you are strong and at peace within?

There is another aspect I don't understand and maybe, the learned souls of the political Right can tell me where my pea-sized brain is erring in its understanding of true worth.

For people like me, there is not only a distinction between image and reality but we also prize reality more as the substratum to work on and improve.

Image in contrast, is typically trumped up and synthetic. Image can be deceptive. Reality doesn't lie.

If this yardstick was applied to countries, then one would argue -- like people, nations are built from within.

If a country is strong within and at peace with itself, why should it fuss over its image? By the same yardstick, if a country deems it necessary to micromanage its external image, it points to troubles and potential for trouble, within.

What would you want the government to address -- external image management or whatever it is within that they fear may cause them embarrassment and dent a naturally good image? It's a facet I have never been able to understand about India's Right-Wing -- this obsession with image.

I would think that India faces less damage from opinions voiced overseas compared to the damage it suffers if the right to free speech of its citizens is curtailed in the name of image management.

There are two reasons for saying so. First, speaking freely and voicing opinions is necessary mental outlet in any country.

Stifle it and one gets a frustrated citizenry (with pockets gathering stress, prone to explode) plus a citizenry that the government of the day will find difficult to read because people are forced to put on an act of compliance. They become one thing outside, another inside.

Second, there is the very critical question of how a country -- a dynamic entity - will evolve if people can't speak up and speak freely on serious matters.

One can certainly argue that this is what Parliament is meant for. It exists as a sacred venue to debate grave national concerns. But how will people's representatives raise questions in Parliament or speak on issues if the people they represent are denied the right and the vocabulary to articulate and voice their concerns; raise it in the first place so that parliamentarians (who are essentially the people's representatives) can debate it subsequently in Parliament?

Irrespective of whether Rahul Gandhi speaks of such constraints or not, here or overseas, unreasonable and authoritarian tactics by a government designed to curb freedom of expression will provoke the people.

Especially when the excesses of the Right-Wing over the past decade-and-a-half, which have altered the externally perceived image of India (besides transforming the situation within), were offered little resistance inside the country (mainly because opposition was penalised and the indifferent or condoning response from sections of the population helped normalize some of the excesses).

Could the Right-Wing be stopped from hawking majoritarianism and speaking of Hindu Rashtra? No. Could they be prevented from othering select minorities? No. They bulldozed ahead with their agenda.

Not just that, even today, critics of the Right-Wing don't seek to strip the Right-Wing of its right to speak or prevent them from voicing their opinion.

Why doesn't the Right-Wing return the courtesy? If they have contributed to changing the external image of India, why are they ultra-sensitive to others doing the same?

The significance of 'abroad'

Last but not the least, I suspect that 'abroad' had much to do with the sudden surge in blood pressure for the Right-Wing, upon hearing Rahul Gandhi's statements.

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen how critical overseas support has been for India's Right-Wing, to its conduct in India and its victories in elections.

At least some of the social and cultural conservativeness witnessed in India is fueled by the need of overseas Indians to have an identity and a museum of a country they can cite for reference when pushed into the turbid waters of the global cultural churn.

The more they come under pressure, the greater the expectation on us in India to be traditional and culturally conservative.

For those of us unwilling to be museum pieces, this becomes a trap to avoid. But it isn't simple.

Courtesy currency exchange rates and the Non-Resident Indian's monetary success overseas, Indian political parties find it hard to stay off patronage by NRIs.

Thus, for India's Right-Wing, it's one thing being challenged and sometimes emasculated before a domestic audience (as happened in the last general election).

It's another to be questioned publicly abroad, in what has become a major support base for them. The BJP and its cohorts can ill afford leaving challenges there unanswered. Rahul Gandhi had to be countered.

Maybe that eye in the sky can explain?

From speaking in Parliament to speaking abroad, the Right-Wing has an image in mind for the country it governs, which it is very finicky about preserving and which if questioned, elicits protests easily.

In other words -- the issue is not the image of the country as decided naturally by its diversity and inevitable cacophony (characteristic of democracy) but the image of the country that the Right-Wing as current rulers seeks to project and maintain.

Surely that's asking for too much, for as any democratically elected government should know, there are people within the country who don't agree with the ruling political dispensation's views.

Not to mention -- the Opposition exists mainly to have a difference of opinion with the government.

In fact, it wouldn't be wrong to say that an Opposition, which stands up to the government is valued; one that gets into bed with the government (which some of our present-day nationalists believe is apt behavior for an Opposition) risks eroding democracy.

So, how should Rahul Gandhi have spoken overseas; what should he have spoken of? Praised the Citizenship(Amendment) Act, praised the farm laws, praised majoritarianism, praised how majoritarianism has rendered the country's biggest minority terribly insecure, praised the specter of the political Right leading India from the palms of the country's richest?

My pea-sized brain does not know. Maybe that eye in the sky should explain.

Shyam G Menon is a freelance journalist based in Mumbai.

Feature Presentation: Rajesh Alva/Rediff.com