The general understanding of what is happening under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership in India is that the country is under new management and hindutva is the banner to which all of India must conform. Atleast this is what most people on the other side of the fence believe.
In 2013, then Chief Minister Narendra Modi gave an interesting interview to Reuters news agency. One of the questions was, "People want to know who is the real Modi — Hindu nationalist leader or pro-business chief minister?" to which Modi replied, "I'm nationalist. I'm patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I'm a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So, I'm a Hindu nationalist so yes, you can say I'm a Hindu nationalist because I'm a born Hindu. I'm patriotic so nothing is wrong in it. As far as progressive, development-oriented, workaholic, whatever they say, this is what they are saying. So there's no contradiction between the two. It's one and the same image."
There is no doubt this Indian Prime Minister has shaken the belief that India must only be ruled by a Gandhi family or some other related dynasty. In that sense, he has done a great service to Indian democracy. During the last parliamentary election, Congress party senior leader Mani Shankar Ayer derided him at an AICC meeting in New Delhi when he said, "I promise you in 21st Century Narendra Modi will never become the Prime Minister of the country. ...But if he wants to distribute tea here, we will find a place for him." Ayer's promise, we now know, was not delivered. In fact, the people of India gave Modi a place well above distributing tea at any AICC meeting.
It is true that Modi used to sell tea at train stations as a young boy with his father. He was poor and did not have the luxury of not having to work for low-paid jobs. And he is quite open about it. "I have sold tea at the railway station and in running trains," he once told a crowd in Patna.
From very humble beginnings Narendra Modi rose to become the most powerful man in the biggest democracy in the world. Quite an achievement. The one significant thing that seems to stay with him is his humility. His down-to-earth appeal to people, some would say, is even Reaganesque. Like the great US President of modern era, Modi would often strike the right tone when it comes to giving public speeches on themes related to limiting the size of government and the burden it has on everyday people. At the 70th Indian Independence Day celebration on Monday, he said this of taxation - "We want to change the situation where people are scared of Income Tax authorities, particularly the middle class." Sounds like the Gipper? You bet!
Also known is the fact that the Prime Minister has had his genuine baptism in the waters of Hindu nationalism. At the age of 8, Modi learned about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and started to attend its local shakhas (training sessions). It was there that he met Lakshmanrao Inamdar, also known as Vakil Saheb, who inducted him as an RSS balswayamsevak (junior cadet). Vakil Saheb became his political mentor. During his training, he also met some of the founding members of his state's BJP unit. And the rest is history.
In short, Narendra Modi is a die-hard, Hindutva-favouring Prime Minister who loves his country a little differently than the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru was a secularist and a socialist with good intentions and for the most part he governed the new nation well. Even Modi would agree that Nehru and the other founding fathers of modern India served their country with conviction as dedicated Indian patriots. It was perhaps the prolonged romance the people of India had with the INC leaders that led to the subsequent decadence in the politics of the nation. By the time UPA II finished its term, the people of India were throughly fed up with the Congress and their colleagues and there was a genuine hunger for a total change. And Modi was the perfect candidate to lead a nation that was tortured by the inefficiency of its government. But it did not come without a price. The secular nature of the nation Mahatma Gandhi had envisioned quickly became a subject of revision, not so much by the government but by the forces that held the government together. It was done without remorse.
One of the allegations directed at the BJP-led government is the saffronisation of the country. For a Hindu-nationalist, this is perfectly in line with what a Hindustan should be. But for the millions of Indians (including many Hindus) who subscribe to the idea of a secular India, this is an affront to the heart and soul of a modern, democratic, secular India.
Last week, the BJP leadership decided to honour 10 "forgotten freedom fighters" from the Northeast states. According to The Asian Age, this move by the Central government is a "bid to walk the talk on its 'Act East' policy" that "will honour 10 freedom fighters from the Northeast, who remain forgotten from the narrative of the Indian freedom struggle." There is actually a degree of truth in this assertion.
Among the 10 patriots the BJP Government wanted to honour as "freedom fighters" for the nation of India is Khuangchera, one of the most celebrated martyrs from the village of Reiek under the chieftainship of Sailo Chief Sailianpuia. Reiek is a town near Aizawl. Pasaltha Khuangchera fought the British/Indian army valiantly and died a hero. He was the first among the Mizo people who died defending his people. The year was 1890 and the lands occupied by the various clans of the Mizo people were ruled by sovereign Chiefs.
When BJP Mizoram President Prof JV Hluna was asked by the national BJP leaders to provide names of Indian freedom fighters from Mizoram, he told them that there was none even though Lunglei resident Darthawma, the lone Mizo Indian Freedom Fighter who fought under the Indian National Army is still alive in his mid 90's. The history professor and his party colleagues went ahead and decided to nominate Khuangchera. When the media broke the news about the Central government's plan to honour Mizo patriot Khuangchera as one of the forgotten Indian Freedom Fighters, all hell started to break loose. Pro-Mizo sentiment was quickly aroused among Mizo nationalists who believed it was a great dishonour to honour Khuangchera for the cause he never died for. They also believed it was effectively a rewriting of history along the Hindu or Hindustan-centric narrative. Long story short, the two largest student bodies Mizo Students' Union (MSU) and Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP) immediately mobilised their supporters, held a meeting and issued a strong statement opposing the BJP's plan. They faxed a letter to the Prime Minister's Office and they also met the felicitation program chief guest Union Railways Minister Rajen Gohain at Lengpui airport and told him their strong objection.
According to a PTI report, "Gohain was quoted as saying that he understood the sentiments of the Mizo people and did not want to hurt their sentiments by attending the programme at Khuangchera's native village Ailawng." The Minister cancelled his program but told the student leaders that he wanted to pay his respects to Khuangchera and visit his grave. Crisis was averted, atleast for now. The BJP minister was spared an embarassment, the Mizo student leaders got what they wanted but the state BJP chief and his academic colleague Prof Laltluangliana Khiangte are now seen by many as sell-outs because of their involvement in an apparent attempt to portray Mizo patriot Khuangchera as someone who fought and died for the freedom of India.
While Mizoram is a part of India, the Mizo people were a sovereign independent people in the not-so-distant past. While the Mizo people and other peoples in the state greatly benefit from being part of India, the fact is there are still remnants of Mizo nationalism that will not die as long as the Mizo people live, especially when living relatives of martyrs such as Khuangchera still hold onto the legacies of their beloved ones.
Maybe Modi's government will have to recognise and respect the sincerely held belief of the Mizo people. Maybe Hindutva does not work well in Mizoram. Maybe Mizos prefer to maintain and preserve their identity while embracing their Indian nationality. Maybe that is the way it should be, as Nehru clearly recognised it during the formative years of what has now become a state in the Indian union.
Borrowing Modi's words, Mizos are "nationalists" and "patriotic" and "nothing is wrong" with that. Most Mizos today embrace Christianity and "nothing is wrong." And so you can say, a Mizo is a Christian nationalist. He is a proud member of the Mizo or Zo community and will continue to live in harmony with his Indian brothers and sisters as one nation as long as he feels he is treated with respect and fairness.
I remember watching with a degree of excitement when the Prime Minister came to visit Sydney two years ago and gave a 90-minute speech in front of a 20000-strong audience at Allphones Arena. I wanted to go but I'm glad I watched it streamed live on youtube with English subtitles. I wouldn't have understood a thing because it was all in Hindi except for the first lines - "I like to begin by acknowledging the tradition of this land, and pay my respect to original owners of the land of Sydney, the aborigines and their descendants . My respect to all senior members of the society and community, and my countrymen..."
Statesman Modi did what is commonly accepted as a decent thing to do. It did not cost him anything. He gave his speech, met the Australian leaders and later left Australia with much stronger ties than before.
At the 2nd US Presidential debate, both candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were asked this question by a member of the audience: "Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice?"
Justice Antonin Scalia was a Reagan-appointed Supreme Court Justice who was one of the strongest believers in the process of democracy and a Justice with unwaivering faithfulness to the constitution. When 5 unelected Supreme Court Justices decided for 320 million Americans what marriage should be, he strongly expressed his disapproval and belief in the democratic process of social transformation before such a change. “Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” said Justice Scalia the day the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in America. 
