New Delhi, Nov. 13: The Congress today dismissed Prime Minister Narendra Modi's assertion in Britain that "intolerance would not be accepted in India", describing the statement as "hypocritical" and "false".
The party accused him of being a "tacit endorser" of communal violence and a dedicated follower of intolerant philosophy.
Senior Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma said this was "typical hypocrisy and doublespeak" that Modi relies on to fool people. Congress general secretary Digvijaya Singh asked the Prime Minister to clarify if he had disowned the intolerant philosophy of M.S. Golwalkar and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
The Congress leaders contended that Modi's "hollow words" were laughable in the absence of any action against the trouble-makers belonging to his party and government.
Sources said Rahul Gandhi had drawn the tough line on the issue, telling party strategists that "Modi had lost the opportunity to redeem himself on the question of secularism".
A source quoted Rahul as saying: "Modi had the chance to speak up and act over the last six months. He can't turn around and say I will not implement the RSS agenda and fight communalism. That bus has gone now."
Digvijaya, who reminded Modi of the 2002 riots and asked if that was an example of tolerance, said: "Punish Giriraj Singh who so often sends opponents to Pakistan and Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti who used the 'Ramzade-haramzade' analogy. They remain ministers and that shows you accept intolerance. Z-plus security is provided to the riot accused, and brazenly communal campaign is run in elections by Modi himself. For how long will he fool the people?"
Sharma recalled that the Prime Minister had neither condemned nor acted against his colleagues and ministers. " Jab woh desh mein rehte hain to kya bhool jaatey hain ki yeh Gandhi aur Buddha ki dharti hai (Does he forget that India is a land of Gandhi and Buddha when he is in the country)? It is his characteristic style and an exercise in hypocrisy and doublespeak. The Prime Minister is himself intolerant to criticism. There cannot be a greater contradiction between what the government does and what the Prime Minister has said in the UK."
Sharma added: "If Modiji is serious about what he said abroad, what prevents him from ensuring the removal of the guilty ministers who have made communal statements? What has prevented him from demanding the removal of BJP office-bearers and RSS leaders who are indicted, who stand exposed and who are complicit in what has been happening in the country?"
Sharma questioned Modi's persistent claim that he has restored the country's credibility and that India's views were heard with respect only after he took over as Prime Minister.
"India's image has suffered in the past 18 months because of the ideology of the ruling party and there is a polarised environment for which his government is solely responsible. We completely reject the claim that he improved India's credibility. This is once again a proof of a mindset of 'I, me, myself, Narendra Modi'," Sharma said.
What used to be a rare occurance - relentless partisan warfare over what the Prime Minister said abroad - is now becoming a routine spectacle.
The tradition of not attacking the Prime Minister when he represents India on foreign soil now lies buried under the heap of political bitterness, though most Opposition leaders feel that Modi should not have started it in the first place.
