The British media gave very wide coverage to the Indian Prime Minister Modi's visit to London. Never in history has Wembley Stadium been booked for 60,000 Indians to meet and greet a Prime Minister, elected as the leader of the world's largest democracy. I was there in the Wembley Stadium on 13th November. Sitting with the audience, gauging their mood, I cannot deny that Modi is anything short of a celebrity, a rock star.
Before Modi reached the stadium, he was asked by a BBC reporter on why India was becoming increasingly intolerant, to which Modi said, “India does not accept intolerance even if it is one or two or three incidents. For a country of 1.25 billion people, whether it is significant or not, it does not matter. For us, every incident is serious. We do not tolerate it.”
A reporter from The Guardian newspaper asked Cameron how ‘comfortable’ he was receiving Modi given that during his first tenure as British Prime Minister, Modi was ‘not permitted’ to visit the UK because of his record as the Gujarat Chief Minister. The reporter then asked Modi about the protests against him on the streets of London.
To this, Cameron replied: “I am pleased to welcome Mr Modi. He comes here with an enormous and historic mandate. As far as the other issue is concerned, there were legal proceedings. Earlier today, he was received by the British government and I discussed with him how the two countries can work together.”
Modi, on his part, said “I want to set the record straight” about the “other issue” raised by the reporter. “In 2003 when I came here, I got an enthusiastic reception even then. The UK never barred me from coming here. There was no bar. It is a wrong perception. I want to set it right.”
The Guardian made it their mission to criticise and attack Mr Modi over and over again- reiterating and reinstating how Mr Modi is not fit to be the head of a state and how Britain should have refrained from making any close alliance with him. The fact remains, it's not their place to make that comment. Not only their unsolicited and unproven allegations harm the Indo-British relationship, but also shock the diaspora largely, who remain an integral and important part of this country.
Well reputed British media, like the Guardian and a few others highlighted on the protesters outside Downing Street or the Wembley Stadium. It's a democratic country. People are allowed to voice their opinion, and media is allowed to report on it. However sensationalizing it, is stooping too low. And evidently the difference in numbers inside and outside the stadium showed where the balance rested. The same media missed to report on representatives from a 4500+ member group called Indian Ladies in the UK, who cheered for Mr Modi outside the Downing Street and handed over a 'blanket of unity' (a hand woven crochet blanket, each square woven by an individual as their symbol of faith) to the Prime Minister. Surely the gesture speaks volume?
Narendra Modi was democratically elected as the Prime Minister by Indian citizens who were aware of his past and the unproven allegations. The election process was impeccably transparent and the turn out was astonishing. Insulting Mr Modi is insulting the people of his country and their choices. And this does not only mean Indians in India, but also those who live here and contribute largely to the British economy. As the elected leader of India, it was right and proper that he got invited by another country's Prime Minister and it was his courtesy to take up on that invitation, befitting his office.
India's democracy is much more complex than what the British understand of it. This is a country who had Abdul Kalam as the President, has Shahrukh, Salman and Aamir Khan as their top film stars, and had Mohammed Azharuddin as their cricket team captain. It's a country where temples and mosques often share walls, Hindus celebrate Iftar as much as Muslims celebrate Diwali.
The Gujarat riot was not the first 'communal violence' that India faced, and as the British media raises their fingers at India's Prime Minister, one could demand an answer for all those British atrocities that took thousands of lives in the name of business, by the rogue traders- the East India Company, consistently over 200 years. The tragedy of 2002 began with burning claim of 59 Hindu pilgrims (mainly women and children) in a train compartment. Some 650 Muslims became victims of the violence by the Hindu crowd and some 400 Hindus were mainly shot dead by Security Forces. On the other hand, Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 resulted to around 1500 lives lost, and the 1947 Partition riots led to at least one million civilian deaths.
What India glimpses now are aberrations - stand alone experiences- it’s not a national trait. The country has a population of 1.25bn. It is home to at least 7 global religions- many of which has primary roots in Indian soil. It has 29 states, that speak different languages or dialects and have their own representative local government- that may or may not be of the same party as the Central government. Britain to that standard is a much simpler system- simple enough to have an unwritten constitution over centuries. Of course the British tolerance and diversity in this day and era are incredibly praise worthy, but if Modi is answerable for Godhra, so are the British for Partition.
A Prime Minister cannot be answerable for everything that happens in a country of billions. What he is ultimately answerable for is what he actually does to avoid something bigger and worse in the future. Penance is a relative idea, different for different people. No one can deny that Modi is progressive and self-evolving. He learns fast and learns right. So one should not yet lose faith in him and his potential. Most importantly one must not lose faith in India, in Indians, their judgement and above all, their democratic will.
