The thinking artiste voiced the opinion of many Indians. There’s no reason why he should be proclaimed guilty

Just when we thought we had had enough of the fringe this year, who tend to create dismissive nuisance value but claim relevance by the high worth people they target, they have parasitically attached themselves to one of our most versatile artistes and most importantly a Padma Bhushan awardee, Naseeruddin Shah. And what is Shah guilty of? As an independent citizen of a democratic country, he expressed his opinion on polarisation attempts in society with reference to  lynching over cow kills in Bulandshahr, saying human lives — in this case the deaths of two policemen — mattered little compared to the blessed bovine. And in the age of muscular and aggressive variants of nationalism, he feared for his secularist family and children, not sure if they could stake an identity within today’s parameters considering their mixed parentage. He didn’t name or shame anybody but referenced himself, becoming wary of his own existence in the current context, which he found poisonous. A proud Indian, he has even gone on record saying that he wouldn’t leave the country just because he would be defined narrowly by his religiosity. He didn’t rant and kept it civil, deciding to speak up about Bulandshahr, considering he was born and grew up in Uttar Pradesh. Truth be told, Shah is not exactly a poster boy in the sense of an Aamir Khan and Shah Rukh Khan (who too were called out for implying Indian society had become intolerant), devoting himself facelessly to excelling in his craft and chiselling a newer generation in the nuances of performing arts. He never courts fame and yes he is a cricket aficionado with expert views, good, bad or ugly. What he said was not new either, social media being a fertile canvas of such counter-conversations. It can, therefore, be assumed that Shah had riled up sensitivities just because he was seen through the prism of his origin rather than achievement.      

It is true that the ruling dispensation has silently encouraged the rabble-rousers and fence-sitters, allowing them to take a hardliner stance that governance doesn’t allow it to, be it on religion or the temple. This tacit push also allows the BJP to tackle conservatives in its ranks. Sadly, in the process, these hawks have managed to prevail. In Shah’s case they generated a fear psychosis around threats of disturbance if he is allowed to speak at the Ajmer lit fest at his alma mater. Such rants are not new given the Karni Sena’s mischievous propaganda around Padmavaat, a film on the Rajput queen Rani Padmini, which they thought was an assault on Hindu pride. But this time, things have gone a little too far with Uttar Pradesh BJP chief Mahendra Nath Pandey calling Shah a “traitor” like one of the characters he played in his films. Worse, no senior leader of the BJP brass attempted to dissociate him from the party line except follow the time-tested irrelevance of a silence. This amounts to mainline endorsement of the general feeling that a thinking mind ought not to speak out or air alternative opinions if he wants the safety clutch. So long it was ostracisation. But now it is pre-decided alienation of the marked few. The BJP would do well to focus on larger dynamics than dilute its worth with such cheap, pin-up attempts at intimidation so close to the 2019 polls.