Prime Minister’s Tenth Address From Red Fort Makes A Distinctive Political Statement

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Days speech seems to have disappointed two very different kinds of political observers. For Modi admirers, the speech does not offer any new mantra. Except for the slogan, “demography, democracy and diversity”. Modi did not make any extraordinary or unexpected claim that could be highlighted as master stroke by the pro-BJP media.

The speech might have been disappointing for Modi’s opponents as well. Modi was not in campaign mode. His condemnation of the Opposition was implicit and thematic. Without naming any political party, he criticized dynastic rule as an undemocratic phenomenon. This careful criticism does not offer possibilities to Modi’s rivals to use this speech as a political resource.

Yet, this was one of the most important political statement Modi has made in the last ten years as Prime Minister. The speech was not delivered for direct media consumption. Instead, it was a serious attempt to provide a functional thematic outline to the structural political changes introduced by the Modi regime after 2014. More specifically, this speech introduces us to the idea of political time, which goes beyond the BJP’s well known criticism of Indian history. Modi did not merely make an effort to establish a link between the past and present but also tried to offer a different imagination of the political future.

Modi invokes the idea of political time to offer an interesting classificatory schema. The Indian past is divided into two overlapping categories—the period of slavery and the period of skill and liberation. And, India’s present (and future) is described as the “Amrit Kaal”.

The speech begins with ‘here and now’, especially with a minor reference to Manipur violence. This present is located in a different time span—the period of slavery that began around 1,000-1,200 years ago. Modi argues that defeat of one small kingdom at that time was not an insignificant event. However, according to him, this defeat caused serious damage and somehow paved the way for cultural and political subjugation. There was not any specific mention of any ruler or kingdom in this formulation. Yet, Modi was able to communicate the standard criticism of secular history, which makes a crucial distinction between the empires established by the rulers, who happened to be Muslims, and British colonialists.

This revised version of the Indian past is presented to us as a new political commonsense. It is worth noting that unlike other BJP leaders, Modi always remains very careful about the question of history. The speech he delivered in 2020 in Kolkata is relevant in this regard. Underlining the significance of history, he argued: “…… India’s history is not what we study before examinations…..Historians could not see how the society………reacted …. As a result…. many things of history were left behind…. The soul of any land is represented by the feelings of people there… political and military is temporary, but public sentiments expressed through art and culture are permanent. Thus, preserving our rich history…is very important for… every Indian.”

It does not mean Modi completely ignores the established distinction between medieval and modern period of Indian history. His formulation recognizes the political significance of the national movement in a slightly different way. The struggle against British colonialism, he claims, marks the period of struggle and liberation. Modi argues that the struggle for freedom, which started almost a thousand years, found a new political overtone during anti-British national movement. The political independence, which India achieved in 1947, was the successful outcome of this long and uninterrupted freedom struggle. (IPA Service)