Following the recent publication — or rather particular headlining — by the British newspaper Guardian of a US embassy cable from New Delhi released by WikiLeaks, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is teetering on the brink of a major political controversy. The way the publication played the story, Mr Gandhi noted — in a conversation with US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer in July last year — that far-right Hindu extremism in India posed a greater threat than that presented by Islamists

influenced by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, the Pakistan-based terrorist outfit. This naturally gives ample scope for Sangh Parivar organisations to get into top gear. The BJP is already off the blocks, attacking the Gandhi scion for giving comfort to Pakistan by propagating, in effect, what Islamabad propounds. Hindutva organisations have already been carrying out an assiduous campaign to suggest that the very idea of radical Hindu extremism and terrorism is a non-starter in definition terms as India is a Hindu-majority country and the Hindus wouldn’t want to hurt themselves. The logic is thin here. Islamist militants have been active in many Muslim countries for long. Besides, on the ground, several individuals associated with Hindutva outfits are under investigation and scrutiny for terrorist attacks aimed against Muslims. But a political campaign is a political campaign, and the Congress needs to be more up-front in its response.
After some confusion and defensive name-calling by Congress managers, Mr Gandhi sought to clear the air with a statement in his name noting that terrorism and communalism of all types are a threat to India, “no matter who commits them”. This is a salvage operation. Mr Gandhi therefore needs to dwell on his original comments to the US ambassador picked up by WikiLeaks. It is a nuanced averment which calls for airing, if only for the sake of a discussion on a complex issue that can easily become fodder for communal politics. According to WikiLeaks, in response to the ambassador’s query about LeT’s activities in India, Mr Gandhi noted that there was “evidence of some support” for that group among “some elements in India’s indigenous Muslim community”. Then he warned that the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalised Hindu groups “which create religious tensions and political confrontation with the Muslim community”, and said that a “home-grown” extremist front “reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India” was a “growing concern and demanded constant attention”. Seen in their entirety, Mr Gandhi’s comments do not minimise the terror attacks from Pakistan while considering the domestic extremist reaction to these as posing a larger threat as such a response renders fragile the fabric of unity.
This is in consonance with the long-held belief that harmony among communities is a must for our survival and advancement. The corollary is that any tendency that seeks to mar that harmony, even as a gut reaction to Pakistani game-plans, ends up posing a serious threat — conceivably even “the bigger threat”, although veteran politicians might say this differently. Most will accept that Pakistan’s plans can be foiled, in military or other ways, only if Indians remain united and vigilant. The latter requirement is, thus, a sine qua non for progress. Indeed, in the absence of that unity, we are at risk of losing our inherent defences as a society. Mr Gandhi needs to convey this to a political mass in a way different from the way a dinner conversation is conducted.