Symbolism matters. Or does it? The shawl and saree exchanges between Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif were celebrated by the otherwise cynical media as important expressions of rapprochement between India and Pakistan. Was that symbolism or something radically different and substantive? Similarly, the "puja" performed in Varanasi by the PM on the banks of the Ganges soon after getting elected and his tweet yesterday for Eid - are these symbolic gestures or do they carry meaningful secular messages? Who is to decide what is symbolic and what is serious?When Modi refused to wear a skull cap, traditionally worn and offered by the Muslims as an expression of affection and respect, he had said that he does not believe in symbolism or tokenism. He suggested he is a man of serious intent and would not like to imitate the opportunistic symbolism that he attributes to the Congress. That was a sort of contemptuous taunt aimed at Sonia Gandhi. One was reminded of his barbs when he tweeted an Eid message of good wishes almost on the same day when Sonia Gandhi had arranged the Iftar party at her home.The PM's Eid message was described by the media as symbolic because Modi had not organized the Iftar party at 7 Race Course Road. This had been a sort of settled convention at the residence of the prime Minister. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Iftar parties were grand affairs, fantastic food extravaganzas at the PM house. That tradition appears to have been abruptly discontinued by Modi.Would it not have been more substantive if he threw a warm Iftar party at the Prime Minister's residence, the first in his tenure, proving his critics and detractors wrong? Or did he fear that the attendance at his party would be compared with that at Sunday's dinner hosted by Sonia Gandhi? That was surely a baseless fear. The party at the PM's house would definitely have been more colorful and dignitaries and celebrities would have vied with each other to feature in photo-ops. That also could have been a genuinely graceful and positive gesture against the backdrop of the tragic riots in Saharanpur.Muslims who are not confident of his commitment to protecting them -as alleged repeatedly by Modi's critics - would have felt reassured. Therefore, one can say that either he has lost an opportunity or he has deliberately displayed his stubbornness in not throwing the Iftar at his residence.Shivraj Chauhan, the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, did not wear the skull cap offered to him a day before by a very young Muslim boy. Chauhan had not displayed this kind of reservation in the past. In fact, his supporters always said that " Chauhan was different than Modi. More tolerant, more liberal and more accommodating ". Then how come he has suddenly found his Hindutva roots? Coincidently, this week, a cabinet minister in Goa, Deepak Dhavlikar, said that India is a Hindu Rashtra, after all. He later apologized. But the "symbolic" comment had already made headlines.Whether Narendra Modi is quietly but systematically pursuing a certain agenda or not could be debated. But the signals are loud and clear from the "Gujarat Model of Education ". In this model, Dina Nath Batra's wild theories of India having airplanes, nuclear weapons and fully developed science of test tube babies during the days of Ramayana and Mahabharata are being taught in the schools. No scientific or historic evidence is required. The PM's nominees on the committees of historical research have already begun rewriting of history to suit the RSS agenda.It should be obvious therefore, that the symbols are shaping the substantive reality! That is why his tweet on the eve of Eid acquires significance. It would be educative in this context to recall what the renowned Swiss psychoanalyst, Carl Gustaf Jung, said nearly 75 years ago. " A primary method for making sense of the world is by interpreting symbols. We decode meaning through images and often, without realizing, are swayed by the power of their attendant associations ". That was his profound observation in his classic " Man and His Symbols ".Modi may claim that he is not interested in symbolic gestures. But what messages he is giving out are clearly manifestations of his not so unconscious beliefs.