After much hue and cry over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged communal remarks during an election rally in Fatehpur, the Congress backed out from moving the Election Commission against the PM. Earlier in the day on Monday, head of Congress legal cell KC Mittal had said the party would file a complaint with the EC against PM Modi over the latter’s “highly deplorable statement” in Fatehpur rally.

However, by the evening on Monday, the party backed out and, instead, said the EC should itself act against Modi. Explaining the reason for canceling the meeting with EC, Mittal cited some “difficulties” which led the party to back out. Without confirming if the party would move against Modi later, Mittal told IANS, “The meeting got postponed. Today (Monday) it was not possible, there were some difficulties, we’ll see it later. The meeting with the commission was tentative (which was scheduled at 5:30 p.m.) and it was not confirmed. Moreover, some of our senior leaders were not available.”

While Congress decision not to move EC baffled many of its supporters, especially after high-voltage protests through rallies and media by its top members, senior party leader Anand Sharma was non-committal on whether the party would move EC against Modi.

Addressing reporters in New Delhi on Monday, Sharma had said that the poll commission should act on its own against Modi. “It (EC) has a Constitutional mandate… The Election Commission had said earlier that it would not allow such kind of campaign, which is divisive.”

Sharma also accused Modi and BJP of “polarising” the society for political gains. “They wear masks and in a hurry, this mask seems to have fallen. Prime Minister Modi, true to his form, is vitiating the atmosphere during another election time. He has tried to stir communal tension and to polarise the society. The Prime Minister’s speech where he spoke of graveyards and crematoriums shows his mindset,” Sharma said.

However, Congress’ decision not to approach EC against Modi seems to be a well calculated political move. It also shows the party is as shrewd as the BJP or the rest of the parties in reaping benefits of divisive politics. Reasons: a) Moving EC against Modi could have backfired by leading to further polarisation, if there is any, of votes either in the favour or against Modi. In any such case, BJP would have benefitted by the sheer number of the majority.

b) The Congress perhaps understood that there was no case against Modi it could pursue on the basis of his Fatehpur speech. What Modi said was not literally a hate speech. EC doesn’t allow hate speech. It doesn’t act merely on the mention of words like “Kabristaan” or “Shamshaan”. c) Only a part of Modi’s speech was blown out of proportion. When read in its entirety, Modi talked about inclusive development of all sections of society, not the divisive one, he claims, followed by the SP government or its predecessor led by Mayawati.

<iframe width=”660″ height=”515″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/3EYfTG3P1oA&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here’s what PM Modi actually said in the speech:

“Discrimination is the biggest problem in Uttar Pradesh. There is discrimination in the roots of injustice…you tell me, isn’t there a discrimination?

“I am surprised. If you ask a Dalit, he says they (Akhilesh government) are not giving what is my right and it goes to OBCs. When you ask OBCs, they say he (Akhilesh) doesn’t give me what is my right but only to Yadavs. When you ask Yadavs, they say he (Akhilesh) gives only to people associated with his family and the rest to Muslims.

“Everyone is complaining. Brothers and sisters, this discrimination can’t be allowed. …everyone should get what is their right. This is ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’… Brothers and sisters, if a ‘Kabristaan’ is constructed in a village, then the ‘shamshan‘ should also be set up in the village. If one gets electricity during Ramzan, then one should get electricity in Diwali also. If one gets electricity during Holi, then one should get it during Eid also. There should not be any discrimination. It is the duty of the government to run a discrimination-free administration.”

(With agency inputs)

Read Next