At the minority institution’s centenary celebrations Modi’s love and eulogy for AMU may appear to be as the gesture of his change of heart, but the fact however remains that it is a part of his latest strategy, a post farmers’ movement initiative, to assuage the hurt feelings of the Muslims just ahead of the West Bengal assembly elections. But more than that it is also a sign of caution for the Muslims.

With 27 per cent Muslim population the importance of winning the WB assembly election is known to everyone. Mere polarising the Hindu vote is not sufficient. BJP must walk some extra mile. AMU reach out is an appeasing exercise. Linking his idea of a “naya Bharat (new India)” with the freedom struggle and urging the students and alumni of Aligarh Muslim University to set aside “ideological differences” and align with the “singular aim” of the nation’s interest irrespective of “belief and faith” is the best machination.

Though he called upon the youths of the university to build a “naya Bharat”, he maintained a passive silence on the diatribe and slander by the local MP Satish Gautam who after his re-election last year, had said his “first priority” would be to end the institution’s minority status and also slammed the students for holding protests against the new citizenship regime and the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.

In December 2019, AMU was one of the centres of protest against the Citizenship act, and clashes on the campus had left over 70 people including a large number of students injured.

While he said all good things about the university and students, he refrained from speaking a single word against the Hindu vigilantes and the persons who barely six months back had rampaged the University and vilified the University and the students. A section of senior BJP leaders described the university as the den of the Pakistani supporters and anti-India elements.

Though Modi eulogised the university, hailed its role in the freedom movement, even termed the campus as “mini-India” and said its diversity was the country’s strength, these utterly lacked the element of conviction. These were mere rhetoric in nature. His speech does not give the impression that he felt sorry or regretted for the actions of his party leaders, especially of the chief minister of UP Yogi Adityanath, who at one stage had used all kind of invectives against the institute and the students.

Modi consistently emphasised; “our one and singular aim should be how to make India self-reliant. More important than where and in which family we were born, which belief and faith we grew up on, is how to link each and every citizen’s aspiration with the country’s aspiration,” but unfortunately he refrained from underlining that it should be a two way affair. Of course ideological differences exist in society, it’s normal, but it must not be left to the RSS and the Hindu zealots to use it as a stick to whip the minorities. Amit Shah using the CAA and Citizens Law are the best examples.

Modi’s speech was more of the nature of command than trying to win over the students who are yet to forget the brutality of the Yogi’s police and goons. He was right in saying; “when it’s a matter of achieving national aspirations, then all differences should be set aside,” but he did not commit that those who had perpetrate hatred and repression on them would be punished.

It was intriguing as to what made him to frequently mention “rashtravad (nationalism)”. Does he intended to tell the AMU students that they should embrace nationalism? In a democratic structure, ideological differences are quite normal but this not be given a communal tinge as is being done by the BJP leaders. It is a matter of shame that almost all the leaders, from Amit Shah to down to the level of a street level cadre every one relishes abusing and insulting Muslims.

It is unfortunate that CAA and Citizens Law are being used to terrorise the Muslims. Can Modi explain that a terrorised person would give his or her best for the construction of the society. If Modi really intends that the “new India” would be “self-reliant” and prosperous in all aspects and its fruits would be enjoyed by all citizens, then he must rid the minorities of the fear of communal violence.

He ought to tell his saffron colleagues that there is space beyond siyasat' (politics) and 'satta' (power), which should be explored for existence of peace and trust. He spoke of empowering his “Muslim daughters”, but it is a fact that his friends like Yogi have been busy perpetrating worst type of repression on the Muslim girls and women. A number of highly educated girls are languishing in jails for their mustering courage to speak against citizens law and organizing Shaheen Bagh protest.

Modi must listen to what celebrated historian Irfan Habib has to say “it is not a matter of pride for AMU that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would address the inaugural event of its centenary year celebrations as chief guest. He represents Indian culture in a wrong manner. AMU is for scholars and not for those who believe in their own divisive culture. The PM’s address doesn’t make any difference to the university. It is not a matter of pride for AMU; it will not add anything to the respect the university enjoys because of its academic activities. The RSS was against the Muslims even before Independence, and the BJP believed that it would keep getting votes by following that agenda.”

Mr Prime Minister, it was, indeed, reassuring to hear your assertion that AMU is not a cluster of buildings but an integral part of India’s history. What we know about history is that it doesn’t judge its good, bad, and ugly aspects and remains agnostic. People do. And ill-informed people are adept at twisting history to suit agendas. AMU has seen and suffered it all. (IPA Service)