Towards the end of his book on Narendra Modi, Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay relates the story of a shrine in Pirana, on the outskirts of Kutch. It was founded 500 years ago by Imam Shah (whom Mukhopadhyay describes as a deviant from Islam—I gather the implied sense is of deviation from orthodoxy), who established the order of Satyapanthis, drawing his disciples from Patels in the Kutch. Imam Shah ‘ran his religious order on democratic lines with a governing council taking all key [decisions]. The council consisted of ten people—seven Patels and three Syeds and the successors of Imam Shah (called Kaka) were selected by mutual consultation over the past five centuries’.

In the Gujarat of the 1980s, Mukhopadhyay writes, the identity of Satyapanthis, distinct from Hindus and Muslims, started undergoing a transformation. The dargah came frequently to be referred to as a temple to Shri Nishkalanki Narayan Bhagwan, the tombs around the shrine became adorned with Hindu motifs, and rituals at the main shrine, the tomb of Imam Shah, acquired Hindu characteristics. But in 1997, on a visit to the shrine, he still found the Syeds among the regular devotees.

When he returned in 2012, ‘the main gate of the dargah had been shut—which was a typical medieval structure and had a distinct influence of Islamic architecture. The entry to the shrine was now through a huge ornate gate, typical of temples with ample resources’. A building adjacent to the old shrine had become the main temple, and the Syeds had disappeared. In the same year, Modi’s Sadhbhavana mission (the text has a 2002 date, a proofreading error) got derailed when he refused to accept a skullcap from a man the media identified as a Sufi leader, Syed Imam Shahi. Mukhopadhyay notes, ‘He was actually one of the deposed members of the governing council of Satyapanthis. Due to this deposition, Syed now speaks more like a Muslim and less like a believer of a rebel-sect.’...

There is an old fable about the scorpion and the frog, which may or may not have its origins in the Panchatantra. A scorpion asks a frog to ferry him across the river. Afraid of being stung, the frog refuses. The scorpion argues that he would be foolish to sting him as then they would both drown. The frog agrees to ferry him, but midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog. Drowning, the frog seeks an explanation. The scorpion simply tells him that it is in his nature to sting. On the evidence of both these books, when Modi refused the skullcap, he was being true to his nature. He is a bigot and nothing indicates that this will ever change...

Mukhopadhyay, whose book is by far the richer in detail, even if Nag is more pointed in his judgment of Modi, refers to Modi’s 2002 election speech in Mehsana, “Let me ask my Congress friends, if water is brought during Sharavan month…what is paining them? Since we are here, we brought the water in Sabarmati during the month of Shravan, when you are here, you can bring in the month of Ramadan. When we brought water in the month of Shravan, you feel bad. What brother, should we run relief camps? Should I start child-producing centres there? We want to achieve progress by pursuing a policy of family planning with determination. ‘Ame paanch, Amara pachees!’ [we five, our 25]…. Can’t Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibition is coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way?”

Eight years later, deposing before the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, Modi defended himself, “This speech does not refer to any particular community or religion… My speech has been distorted by some elements who misinterpreted it to suit their designs?” The SIT believed him, which says something about its intentions, but that others should continue to hope for a changed Modi defies all available evidence....

THE ONLY MARD IN GUJARAT
The shamelessness of his bigotry, disguised only to the extent that those seeking to whitewash his action, such as the SIT, have an excuse, is the secret of Modi’s appeal in Gujarat. In the aftermath of the riots, Mukhopadhyay notes that ‘support for Modi came from only one section: voices from a communally polarized society which greatly agreed with the action of marauding mobs and believed it was actually time that ‘they’ were taught a lesson’.

Mukhopadhyay does not spell this out, but it is implicit that Modi was backed by the vast majority of Gujarati Hindus. That they believed they needed the support and protection of the administration to mete out a lesson to a community they outnumbered 10 to 1 reflects a deeply insecure masculinity. It is this deep insecurity that connects mobs in the Gujarat of 2002 to the mobs of 1984 in Delhi who attacked Sikhs. The violence in each case was meant to emasculate as much as it was meant to kill.

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/books/the-man-who-is-afraid-of-a-skullcap

http://kafila.org/2013/04/22/on-the-social-fabric-in-narendra-modis-gujarat-nilanjan-mukhopadhyay/