Thakur herself is a representative of a new and less apologetic BJP; she has described Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse, as a ‘patriot’. She is also accused of the Malegaon bomb blasts of 2006 which resulted in the death of several Muslim pilgrims. She is the perfect symbol of the aggressive, in-your-face next-generation leadership of the BJP.

Within the party cadres, there is a feeling that the BJP need not be penitent for Sharma stating ‘facts’. Protests by Islamic countries are seen as “over-reaction”. Any action by the party or the government which seems apologetic will make them unhappy. If the party and its government are seen to ‘capitulate’, then questions could be raised about the adequacy of other measures projected by the government as disciplining the minorities. The criminalising of triple-talaq for example or pushing for a Uniform Civil Code despite opposition from the Muslim clergy might simply not cut ice as being sufficiently aggressive.

Perhaps it is the need to prevent offending their “core constituency” which explains the silence of the BJP’s top leadership. That may also be why Iran was persuaded to pull down its version of the meeting between its Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval. Apparently, Doval told the visiting dignitary that those who had made the controversial remark against the Prophet “would be taught a lesson”. Perhaps the visible reminder of the NSA’s alleged assurance on official record might have confused the BJP party cadre. Such tensions arising from the disparity between the outlook of the party’s supporters and the face its representatives in government must put on for international acceptability have to be managed by the top leadership.

Despite the government’s best efforts to balance its domestic Hindutva constituency with the need to maintain good relations with the Muslim world, the Gulf countries are likely to be on a short fuse henceforth. A majority of them are autocracies which survive by partnering with the Islamic clergy. They cannot afford instability or a restive public opinion. If public pressure on the rulers of these countries increases, they may not remain as solicitous of India as they are now.

The BJP will find it extremely difficult to calibrate the utterances of its loudmouths so as not to hurt Muslim sentiment. Its electoral compulsions force the BJP to divide the electorate on religious lines and that can rarely be done gently or genially. Psychologically at least, the Islamic countries have been put on the other side of the fence as long as the BJP is in power.

Over and above these processes is the security implication of Nupur Sharma’s hate speech. Warped notions of vengeance and justice from among the ‘faithful’ as well as from within radicalised Hindutva elements will make the BJP’s balancing act much harder.