Preemptive strike: The farce of Rajnath Singh’s ‘anticipatory apology’

The craft of apologizing without saying sorry has been honed and fine-tuned to a fine art by our politicians.

But the Photoshop aftereffects being added to Rajnath Singh's comments to Muslims takes it to an entirely new level.

In an earlier piece for Firstpost, R. Jagannathan had identified "three or more techniques for apology, half-apology or non-apology, and all of them are less about the apology and more about forgetting if not forgiving."

Now with some jaw-dropping display of ham-handed PR the BJP has added a fourth category – the pre-emptive apology for yet-to-be-committed sins.

Rajnath Singh, the BJP president, had initially been quoted by PTI as saying to a gathering of Muslims in Delhi that they should "please note that whenever, wherever, if there has been any mistake and shortcomings on our part, I assure you that we will apologise to you by bowing our heads."

Rajnath Singh may have been offering a apology for the BJP's conduct. PTI

That might sound a bit like the fake humility of the father of the bride to the bridegroom's wedding party. But since Singh had also talked about the 2002 Gujarat violence, though he had vociferously reiterated how Modi had been cleared by the courts, it was interpreted as a gesture of empathy from the BJP. Inching towards the half-apology ("people were killed, homes were burned"), if you will.

But even that was apparently an inch too far for the RSS. Now along with the usual defence of being "misquoted", a source close to Singh has said it should be seen as an "anticipatory apology" for "mistakes" the party might commit in the future towards minorities.

Which PR genius in the BJP thought this one up?

In trying to clumsily backtrack from what was probably a moment of sincerity on Singh's end they turned his overture into a threat. It could have come across as a sheepish half-apology. But now it's morphed into a wolf in sheep's clothing.

In their flatfooted response the BJP handler ended up suggesting exactly what no right-thinking party would want to convey –

a) it might commit mistakes towards minorities in the future and

b) it will feel no need to apologise for those mistakes then because it's already done so now.

As a colleague suggested it sounds like saying, "Sorry, it might hurt when I slap you later." That kind of preemptive warning about pain to come only works for dentists, not political parties.

Sure, an all-out apology is politically risky. Earlier this month the veteran CPI(M) leader and former chief minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee admitted that the killings of nine villagers in Netai in 2009 by armed CPI(M) cadres was a "grave mistake".

"Our men had made a mistake and I admit that. I am really sorry for that. Should I laugh at the death of people?" Bhattacharjee asked.

But the party was unhappy. "Whatever Buddhada said is right. But the demands of real politik are different. Now that the Lok Sabha polls are round the corner, such a candid admission on Netai need not have been made. Even if he felt that admission of guilt would help our party, we cannot deny that it gives ammunition to Trinamul," a CPM state committee member said in response.

But Buddhadeb's apology (and it's a selective apology for Netai was not the only blot on the party's record) comes across as the belated introspection of a humbled giant. Buddhadeb might never be CM again. He has little to lose by playing conscience keeper.Rajnath Singh's statement could have been read as the confidence of a party on the upswing. It could have been interpreted as the sign of a party that was confident about its traditional votebanks and was now reaching out to those suspicious of it.

But the RSS saw weakness where it could have seen strength. Perhaps it was the "bowing your heads" that got their hackles up.

It is true that in politics too much is sometimes made of an apology. The Congress harps on an apology for 2002 because it knows none is forthcoming and it wants to keep rankling Modi. Meanwhile, though Manmohan Singh called what "took place in 1984" "shameful" and a "negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution", the Gandhis have remained studiously silent about the Sikh massacres.

When Rahul Gandhi was asked by Arnab Goswami if he would express deep regret, all he could manage was "First of all I wasn't involved in the riots at all. It wasn't that I was part of it." Of course, Manmohan Singh was not in the cabinet at that time either, yet he had to go and do damage control by expressing his regret in 2005 when Congress leaders were named by the Nanavati commission.

In realpolitik the value of an apology is dubious because even when offered it is self-serving, done with an eye to some kind of electoral gain, not out of genuine contrition. And as R Jagannathan points out the lack of apology works well enough "as people forget, or when old excesses are overwritten by new ones."

So no one would have blinked an eye if Rajnath Singh had uttered the usual platitudes about development for all and the per capita income of Muslims in Gujarat. The man tried to take the dialogue a little further. But what he hoped was one small step forward for the BJP just became one giant leap backwards instead.