In The Whispering Land, naturalist-writer Gerald Durrell shared a hilarious account of how he came to own Blanco, a beautiful Tucuman Amazon parrot. Helmuth, his guide, took him to an Argentinian village to show him bichos (animals). The guide stopped outside a shack and said that the family had a pet parrot. Durrell summed up the scene in exquisite prose: “Presently, from inside the little shack, erupted a brood of chocolate-coloured children, all dressed in clean but tattered clothing, who lined up like a defending army and regarded us out of black eyes, each, without exception, sucking its thumb vigorously. They were followed by their mother, a short, rather handsome Indian woman with a shy smile.”
Durrell painted the scene vividly, about how much he coveted the red-shirted Blanco, and how Helmuth drove a hard bargain. The woman was in no mood to accept Helmuth’s price, and pulled out a trump card: the bicho can talk! But, Blanco was in no mood. The specimen’s linguistic abilities did not matter to Durrell, but he was curious. After much cajoling and hand-wringing from his mistress, Blanco looked at Durrell and said three words. Hijo de puta.
An angry Helmuth translated: “It tells this good-natured, kindly señor that he is the son of a whore.”
The age of communication. Now, that sums up our times. No? You’re right, everyone is hunched over a silica-metal-plastic slab. They are stroking, poking, preaching, thumbing their collective noses, seducing, flipping the bird, campaigning, cheering… all virtually. They are not talking in the conventional sense, true. But, they are communicating. And, what are they saying? Like what Blanco the Parrot said, much of what is being said is not too sweet. Especially, when it is spiced with politics.
Early this year the Law Commission submitted its 267th report to the law ministry and suggested amendments to the Indian Penal Code to curb hate speech. The report recommended that efforts to create hatred and fear, too, should also be brought under the scope of hate speech. Even if a speech does not specifically incite violence, it has the potential of marginalising sections of society. Currently, inciting violence is a key consideration for penalising speeches.
But, there was a glaring miss in the commission’s submission. In Pravasi Bhalai Sanghatan vs Union of India & Others, March 2014, the Supreme Court had requested the commission to examine whether “the Election Commission should be conferred the power to derecognise a political party [by] disqualifying it or its members” for hate speech. The apex court also asked the commission to consider “defining the expression ‘hate speech’ and make recommendations to Parliament to strengthen the Election Commission to curb the menace of ‘hate speeches’ irrespective of whenever made”. Though judges B.S. Chauhan, M.Y. Eqbal and A.K. Sikri did not stress it, the last four words were crucial.
In a column written for The Quint, lawyer Aman Lekhi pointed out that the Law Commission had not dealt with this issue. It had, instead, recommended “that the model code of conduct framed by the Election Commission prohibit any kind of speech which promotes enmity between classes”. Lekhi’s point was that the model code of conduct, which comes into force only after the announcement of the election schedule, cannot penalise hate speeches delivered before and after campaigning. Hence, it knocks the teeth out of the crucial four words: “irrespective of whenever made”.
For this section, THE WEEK looked at many politicians and their fiery speeches, and found that most of the fire-breathers do so for a season or a reason. The best example could be Varun Gandhi, Lok Sabha member from Pilibhit. His speech of March 2009, while campaigning for the Lok Sabha election, had hogged headlines. The accusation was that Gandhi had allegedly threatened to behead Muslims; he has always denied the charge. Be as it may, Gandhi surprised everyone else and the BJP last month when he said Rohingyas deserved asylum in India. Now, which is the real Gandhi? Or, as we said earlier, was his choice of words in 2009 just the means to an immediate end?
Fire-breathers: Asaduddin Owaisi (second, from left) chats with Maulana Badruddin Ajmal, as Sakshi Maharaj looks on.
Another recent example would be Sangeeth Som and his controversial statement on Taj Mahal. Som used the much-used Mughal barb, studded with a factual error, to needle the Muslim community. In both cases the BJP distanced itself, saying the speaker’s choice of words does not reflect the party’s stand on the issue. In fact, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, quite a sharp-tongued speaker himself, said, “It does not matter who built [the Taj] and for what reason; it was built by the blood and sweat of Indian labourers.”
Akbaruddin Owaisi of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen was quite the fiery speaker. He was booked in January 2013, for allegedly inciting violence against Hindus. He later said that the clip of his speech, which went viral, was doctored. Owaisi has been quite silent of late. Ill health has taken the sting out of him, apparently.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan does not mince words. And, he was at the receiving end when Kundan Chandrawat, RSS sah prachar pramukh in Ujjain, offered 01 crore for his head in March. Chandrawat later retracted the statement, and @RSSorg tweeted on behalf of Dr Manmohan Vaidya, akhil bharatiya prachar pramukh, condemning the statement.
But, on social media, RSS supporters quickly pointed out that Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, Kerala state secretary of the CPI(M), had threatened BJP workers in July 2016. Balakrishnan was quoted thus: “BJP cadres must understand that if they intend violence, they will get back in the same coin.”
Flip-flops, too, happen. For example, Assam Finance Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma left the Congress for the BJP in mid-2016. In 2014 April, the Election Commission of India (ECI) ticked him off for saying that “the blood of Muslims flows through the pipes of Gujarat”. Around the same time the EC recorded its displeasure against Maulana Badruddin Ajmal—perfume baron, Lok Sabha member from Dhubri, and leader of the All India United Democratic Front. Ajmal had said, “BJP is our religious enemy”.
But, undoubtedly, the most prolific shooter of barbs is Sakshi Maharaj, 61. During campaigning and otherwise, he keeps them coming. The member of Parliament from Unnao, UP, goes by many names. The Lok Sabha website identifies him as Dr Sakshi Ji Swami Maharaj. ECI calls him as Shri Sakshi Maharaj, and, the Sakshi Maharaj Group website addresses him as Mandleshwar Dr Swami Sachchidanand Hari Sakshi Ji Maharaj. The Lok Sabha website says the four-time MP is “Acharya Mahamandleshwar of Shri Nirmal Panchayati Akhada, Haridwar”. And, clarifies the protocol, too, in a postscript: “Note: This post is equivalent to Jagad Guru Shankaracharya in Sant Samaj”.
On January 12, the Election Commission of India issued order no. 437/UP-LA/2017 censuring Maharaj for breaching the model code of conduct by issuing a statement that “promoted enmity between different classes of society….” He had said, “Those with four wives and 40 children are responsible for the population increase in the country. Hindus are not responsible for the increase in population.” Maharaj had earlier informed the ECI that the statement was made in a “sant samagam”, and not in public. The ECI said that it did not find the explanation satisfactory, hence, the censure.
To hear it from the horse’s mouth, THE WEEK turned up at his official residence—138 Sakshi Dham, Gadankheda, Unnao. It was 8:30am, and constituents were turning up in droves. Most of them wanted him to turn up at private functions, everything from weddings to thread ceremonies. Maharaj obliged most of them. His staff said that the MP usually spends 15 days of a month in Unnao, and is on the road for the rest.
When he is at the ashram, he wakes up at 3am, and goes to bed at 10pm. One strict rule is that he does not attend calls after 10pm. Sachin Rajput, his personal secretary, said, “Maharaj ji may look strict and stern from the outside, but his heart beats for those close to him.”
At the ashram, Maharaj’s time is divided between attending to his constituency and running the Sakshi Maharaj Group. The group website says that Maharaj has established close to 50 ashrams and 16 educational institutions. When THE WEEK met him, he was chalking out strategies for the civic body elections. But, the controversy was yet to come. On November 22, Maharaj had to return from Gadankheda polling booth as the voters’ list did not carry his name!
“I became a politician because of the sins in my previous birth,” Maharaj told THE WEEK. “Otherwise, I should have been just a dharmacharya (religious teacher). I am the result of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.” But, why does he consider himself unlucky to be in politics? “When I was just a guru, many important political leaders would touch my feet and seek my blessings,” he quipped. “Now, I have to sometimes seek an appointment to see them.”
Interestingly, while he has remained mostly with the BJP, he broke away in 1999 and was with the Samajwadi Party. He reportedly coined the slogan: Baba nahin bawaal hoon; Bhajpa ka kaal hoon (Not a baba, I’m a sensation; and the end of the BJP). SP supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav was looking for a face that could bring in the Lodh community’s votes, and Maharaj fit the bill. But, the marriage did not last long.
He is firmly with the BJP now, and toes the party line, as he always had. “If the work on the Ram temple in Ayodhya does not begin before the 2019 general elections,” he said, “then it would amount to cheating Lord Ram.” He told THE WEEK that there was only one religion in the world. “And, that is the satya sanatan vedic Hindu dharm,” he said. “It does not have a date of birth. It is eternal. How can something that does not have a birthday, die?”
He said he did not regret his public outbursts, because he is proved right, sooner or later. As an example, he cites his statements against madrassas in 2015. “Worldwide, jihadis have killed fellow Muslims,” he said. “So what I said about madrassas holds true. Terrorists have been caught from madrassas and arms, too, have been recovered. If madrassas are giving the right kind of education, why don’t bureaucrats and technocrats send their children there? Madrassas do not produce A.P.J. Abdul Kalams.” He said madrassas should reform themselves and provide modern education.
He said some of his comments were taken out of context and blown up. For example, he said his comment on population growth was said in a larger context. “I repeat,” he said, “There should be a uniform law to control population, which every citizen of this country should follow.” In addition to the comment he made about Muslims, he had also exhorted Hindu women to give birth to four children each.
While the law takes umbrage at Maharaj’s statements, the common man often relates with what he says. After the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris in 2015, UP politician Haji Yakub Qureishi had announced a reward of 051 crore for the shooters. A party-hopper, Qureishi has been with the Uttar Pradesh United Democratic Front, the Bahujan Samaj Party and the Rashtriya Lok Dal.
Maharaj places his statements on the beef ban issue against this backdrop. “So, if any one insults the Quran or Mohammed sahab, will Muslims tolerate it? I consider the cow to be the abode of 56 crore Hindu gods and goddesses. Hindu na to aapni mata ka, na go mata ka aur na Bharat mata ka apmaan bardashat karega (Hindus will not tolerate any insult to their mother, to Mother Cow and to Mother India).”
He said he subscribes to the BJP’s views on the freedom struggle. Hence, his statement in Parliament in 2014, glorifying Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram V. Godse. “I was asked to apologise, but I refused,” he said. “What I meant was people like V.D. Savarkar, Godse sacrificed their lives for the country. There were leaders who were responsible for the death of thousands of Hindus. At least, Godse was not like them. He was a nationalist in his own way.”
Prem Chand Lodhi, who has worked closely with Maharaj for 20 years, said, “You may find him blunt or acerbic. But, the fact is that he will go out of the way to solve the problems of his constituents. It does not matter if they are close to him or not.”
Maharaj has had his share of scandals. He was named in two murders, and was acquitted in both cases. As Rajya Sabha member, he was caught on camera agreeing to allot funds to an organisation, for a consideration. On February 24, 2006, the ethics committee of the Rajya Sabha said he had committed a “gross misdemeanour… [and] compromised the dignity of the House and its members and had acted in a manner which was inconsistent with the standards which the house is entitled to expect of its members”. It recommended his expulsion from the Rajya Sabha, and the house cleared the recommendation.
It is the same with Maharaj and the other politicians. They spew venom because it suits their cause, and their vote bank. As the saying goes, “What Susie says about Sally says more about Susie than about Sally.”
