In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor — India’s recent cross-border strike against terror camps in Pakistan — the Indian government appointed Congress MP Shashi Tharoor to lead a delegation to key global capitals alongside AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi. This bipartisan team’s mission: to present a unified Indian front against terrorism and secure international support.
At first glance, this move appears a refreshing break from partisan politics, and a clear statement that India’s war on terror transcends religious and political divides. But to understand its full significance, we must delve deeper into the carefully crafted narrative that underpins such appointments, and the historical patterns of political image-making that the BJP has perfected over decades.
The Art of PR: Concealing Intentions Behind Representation
India’s geopolitical reality — sandwiched between Western powers and oil-rich Middle Eastern states — constrains its political actors from openly expressing divisive ideologies. The BJP and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have long pursued a vision of India as a Hindu Rashtra, frequently sidelining and alienating its Muslim minority. But blatant declarations of such intent would jeopardize India’s international relations and economic interests.
Thus began a campaign of strategic representation: to mask exclusion and violence behind faces that symbolize inclusion and unity.
Abdul Kalam: The Missile Man as the Muslim Face of India
The 2002 Gujarat riots, where thousands of Muslims were killed under Narendra Modi’s chief ministership, severely tarnished India’s image. In response, the BJP-led establishment turned to A.P.J. Abdul Kalam — a celebrated scientist and Muslim who became the 11th President of India in 2002.
Kalam’s presidency was marketed as proof of India’s secularism and pluralism, a narrative that the BJP’s critics accepted at face value. What was overlooked was that Kalam’s ascent served a dual purpose: showcasing Muslim representation while deflecting attention from the state-sponsored violence occurring concurrently.
As an article in Outlook magazine at the time revealed, Kalam was chosen less for his political stance and more because he fit the image the BJP wished to project — a token Muslim whose loyalty to India could not be questioned. The underlying reality of communal violence was thus elegantly concealed behind his dignified presence.
Dalit Presidents: Optics Over Outcomes
This pattern of symbolic inclusion continued with the appointment of Dalit presidents Ram Nath Kovind in 2017 and later Droupadi Murmu. During this period, caste-based violence and atrocities against Dalits surged significantly, particularly under BJP rule. Yet the government paraded these Dalit leaders as evidence of social progress and caste equality.
Murmu’s presidency also served to counter criticisms of gender-based violence, framing India as a country where marginalized women could rise to the highest office. While such representation is not insignificant in itself, it is disingenuous to celebrate these appointments without acknowledging the persistent inequalities and systemic violence Dalits and women face.
The message is clear: representation is deployed as a strategic narrative, not necessarily as a reflection of substantive change.
Shashi Tharoor and Asaduddin Owaisi: The Latest Chapter in a Long Story
The current decision to send opposition leader Shashi Tharoor and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi to represent India internationally follows this established pattern. It signals an awareness that the world today is not easily fooled — with the internet and social media providing constant scrutiny of India’s internal politics.
Tharoor, as a Congress MP, helps project the image of bipartisan consensus on the war against terrorism, diluting the BJP’s sole ownership of the conflict. Owaisi’s inclusion as a Muslim leader is a deliberate rebuttal to accusations that the government’s actions are communal rather than strategic.
But this is a carefully choreographed performance. Both leaders have been vocal critics of the BJP, and their presence is less about genuine inclusion and more about crafting a narrative that the war is against terrorism, not against a community.
The Larger Implications: Democracy as Theatre
The BJP’s approach reveals a troubling dynamic in Indian democracy: the commodification of identity and representation as political theater. By strategically placing select minorities and opposition figures in prominent roles, the ruling party manufactures a facade of inclusivity that masks underlying exclusion and violence.
This strategy complicates the global understanding of India’s internal challenges. It makes it harder for international observers to call out communalism and human rights violations, as official narratives emphasize diversity and democracy.
Conclusion: Seeing Through the Narrative
India today stands at a crossroads. The BJP’s PR campaigns demonstrate an uncanny ability to manipulate symbols and narratives to serve its political ends — from Abdul Kalam to Droupadi Murmu, and now to Shashi Tharoor and Asaduddin Owaisi.
Recognizing this pattern is crucial. True progress demands moving beyond the veneer of representation and confronting the harsh realities of inequality, communalism, and state violence. Only then can India present an honest narrative to the world — one grounded not in optics, but in justice and genuine inclusivity.