Vir Sanghvi writes in the Print-
BJP is now Modi’s party the way Congress was Indira Gandhi’s.
Indira ensured that Congress would become wholly dynastic. Her heir could dismiss any Chief Minister who rubbed him the wrong way. Modi and Shah are effective leaders but they haven't turned the BJP into their personal property. By contrast, Mamta's nephew will inherit power from her. Stalin's son is his heir. There is a dynasty in Andhra Pradesh though it appears the sister is fighting her brother there. In comparison, the BJP and the Communist parties are cadre based. Leaders can be removed if they don't perform. Can the BSP remove Mayawati? True, Mulayam was removed- but only so that his son could replace him. Clearly, the BJP operates in a different way from other parties- even the Communist ones where ideology can trump pragmatic considerations. Recall that the CPM politburo blocked Jyoti Basu's getting the Prime Minister's position. That is why he persuaded Deve Gowda to accept that poisoned chalice.
Is he prepared for the risks?
Modi knows he will be put out to pasture like Vajpayee and Advani. He is already cultivating spirituality as a dignified way to quit office.
You could argue that some of the things Narendra Modi does or talks about are not meant to win the approval of elders at RSS.
The RSS was always ambivalent about its own core personnel taking power. Indeed, it was formed (as was the Congress Seva Dal) in imitation of Bengal's 'Anushilan samitis'- though it eschewed revolutionary violence. It should be remembered that Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee was a towering figure back when Hegdewar and Hardikar were Medical students in Calcutta. The great Bagha Jatin, the other tiger of Bengal, was related to Ashutosh and it is said that he and MN Roy were able to meet the German Crown Prince through Sir Ashutosh. After partition, the RSS offered its services to Shyam Prasad, Ashutosh's son, who broke with the Mahasabha to create the Jan Sangh. However, core RSS personnel- e.g. Nanaji Deshmukh who did much to give the RSS a foothold in Gorakhpur and UP- tended to fight shy of taking high political office. Vajpayee and Advani were parliamentarians and tolerated as such even though neither could be said to embody the RSS ethos in its entirety. The ABVP was a different story. Some RSS people were uncomfortable with its assertiveness. Indeed, many were content with Indira Gandhi who won wars and established 'Anushasan'. Still, no one could doubt the sterling qualities of Sushma Swaraj or Arun Jaitley.
Turning to Modi, was he pushed towards politics because he tended to be a little too big for his boots? Was it not the case that there was much murmuring against him when he helped Advani with the Gujarat leg of his Rath Yatra or when, at the national level, he helped Murli Manohar Joshi with his Ekta Yatra? Moreover Modi's initial foray into Gujarat politics ended in failure. Vaghela quit the party and Modi was kicked upstairs because he seemed divisive within Gujarat's own Sangh Parivar. One thing he did in his first big TV interview in December of 1998 was to draw an important distinction between 'articles of Faith'- which is what the RSS stood for- and pragmatic political ways and means which had nothing to do with that organization. In other words, Modi was saying that the BJP was autonomous of the RSS though it shared the same 'Faith'. Hindus might say the 'Matam' is the same but the 'Vigyaan' is different. You share the first with others of the same Faith. But you follow the 'Vigyaan'- or practical science of governance- of those who are best at it. Thus the Hindu may have different beliefs from the Jewish scientist but if the latter's science is better, that is the science you yourself try to do.
There were plenty of people who were very unhappy with Modi's 'arrogance' or 'individualism' more particularly when he refused to shift back to Gujarat unless he was made CM and allowed to pick his own team. Because of 9/11 and the attack on the Indian parliament and then the Godhra atrocity and the post Godhra riots, Modi looked a fool for having appointed an inexperienced Home Minister whom he quietly got rid off. But, subsequently, he asserted himself and suddenly people decided he wasn't arrogant. He just knew of a better way of doing things and, perhaps a little bluntly, said so without fear or favor. Yet, the RSS would have had no difficulty with making him a scapegoat and getting rid of him. Perhaps the bitter opposition he faced from a Mahasabha leader, forced the RSS to tolerate this rising star who, however, was pragmatic rather than ideological. But the RSS accepts that politics is a type of business where voter is the customer and it is the customer who knows best.
He is doing them with an eye on his own constituency.
Every politician has to keep an eye on his own constituency. Rahul didn't and lost Amethi. He may lose Wayanad as well.
In every election, Indian politics changes a little.
Sadly, it hasn't changed enough. Modi remains the Messiah who will save us from the Moon-calf.
Not necessarily for the better or worse. But it changes nevertheless and then it’s never quite the same again.
I suppose, if Rahul loses Wayanad and quits politics, then something could be said to have changed.
As we go into the general election, let’s take some of the assumptions about the BJP, which have had to be hastily revised due to the experience of the last few years.
We will soon see that those assumptions were 'revised' long ago when Janata split on the 'dual membership' issue.
The first is the old view that the BJP would never allow a personality cult to emerge around an individual leader.
But you need candidates with big personalities to win elections. Vajpayee wasn't a wall-flower. He was a handsome orator and poet.
When former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee became the party’s most popular leader and his face dominated the billboards and the posters, there was uneasiness within sections of the party as well as in the RSS.
Because Vajpayee was under the influence of a posh Kashmiri Brahmin lady and saw himself as being in the Nehruvian mold. It is said he drank wine. Advani was a rather posh English speaker. Like Vajpayee they were comfortably ensconced in Lutyen's Delhi.
After the BJP’s crushing defeat in the 1984 Lok Sabha elections, Vajpayee was sidelined and the party rallied around LK Advani.
Though Advani could do little till Rajiv fumbled the Ayodhya issue and thus Advani could take out his Rath Yatra. But it looked risky at the time. After all, if the Dynasty had built the Temple, they would have gotten the credit for it. I suppose one could say it was VP Singh and his obsession with 'Mandal' (i.e. reservations for OBCs) which gave 'Mandir' salience for the RSS rank and file.
Advani was never a mass leader at the national level
the Rath Yatra had enabled him to spot talent in the regions- e.g. Modi in Gujarat
and when it became clear that his leadership would be unacceptable to coalition partners, Vajpayee was brought back.
Advani himself insisted on this. He was a 'casteless' Sindhi. Vajpayee was a Brahmin orator and Hindi language poet. Moreover, he had done well as External Affairs Minister.
But throughout his tenure, Vajpayee was constantly needled by the RSS and it was believed that ministers loyal to Advani did not necessarily accept his supremacy.
To be fair, most people thought Brajesh Mishra was running the Government. Vajpayee was a good talker but had no great administrative skills. It was easy to shift the blame onto his shoulders for the widely ridiculed 'India Shining' campaign.
Contrast the experiences of those years with politics in the last decades. The BJP is now Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party in the way that the Congress was once Indira Gandhi’s party.
Indira split the Congress party and, at a later point, jailed some of her former Cabinet colleagues. Her son was her heir. Modi does not control the BJP in the same way. Rather, like Nehru, he is a 'vote-catcher'. But Shah is putting in a lot of work behind the scenes.
He is more popular than his party.
Why? At the State level (save perhaps in Gujarat) there is always an alternative party you can vote for. At the national level, who is there? Rahul? But if he wouldn't take the top job when it was offered to him on a plate, why would he do so now? It appears he prefers to be the Greta Thurnberg of Indian politics.
When he makes claims and promises, he does so in the name of Modi (yes, in the third person)—not so much in the name of the party.
This is because we know he will be PM. In most States, we can't be sure who will be CM or else we are certain it can't be the BJP's candidate.
And while you may hear chants of Jai Shri Ram at rallies and party gatherings, a new chorus has supplemented it: “Modi, Modi, Modi….”
Because Modi is the candidate for the top job and there is no credible alternative. Also, he genuinely is popular. The BJP has never had any difficulty putting up film or sports stars. It is ludicrous to suggest that they are averse to 'personality cults'.
One of the reasons Vajpayee often had a rough ride was that much of the RSS did not really like him.
Vajpayee had a rough ride because he didn't have the numbers. Also, he simply wasn't very effective as an administrator. People believed that Brajesh Mishra, the son of a former Congress CM of Madhya Pradesh was running things. Worse yet, there was the fear that Vajpayee would sell out the kirana shop-keeper to Walmart or some other Multinational Corporation.
Now, nobody knows or even cares what the RSS thinks of Modi.
Which is why 'dual membership' is no longer an issue. A year ago it seemed possible that Nitish would head up a 'Janata parivar' alternative to the 'Sangh parivar'. Now he is back in the BJP fold. Prashant Kishore thinks Modi will be able to win seats in the South and East where there is little RSS presence. On the other hand, Kerala, which does have a lot of shakhas, will be a difficult nut to crack.
The Prime Minister is too popular for any complaint from Nagpur to make much difference.
But Nagpur can force Modi to abandon certain reforms- e.g. the farm laws. True, there has to be a bigger popular agitation but we should not forget that the RSS has its own workers and peasants grass-roots organizations.
You could argue that some of the things Modi does or talks about please the RSS (the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, the Uniform Civil Code, and the abrogation of Article 370 among others).
These are things which please everybody though it must be said it was decisions of the Bench which forced the adoption of CAA and which also cleared the path for abrogation of Article 370. Indeed, it was the Bench which ordered the Center to set up a Trust to build the Ram Temple.
However, he is not trying to win the approval of a cabal of elders at the RSS headquarters.
When did they disapprove of him or try to bring him down?
He is making these moves with an eye on his own constituency.
His constituency is India.
In the Congress era, we would scoff at the idea of a ‘High Command’ to which all decisions would be referred.
No. We knew there was a 'High Command'. Remember the Kamraj plan? Nehru approved it and a lot of CMs and Ministers were rotated back to 'party work'.
Even chief ministers were selected by somebody sitting in Delhi,
that somebody was doing the bidding of the 'High Command'- i.e. the Dynasty or its kitchen cabinet.
not by the state’s MLAs. And all CMs could be sacked and appointed at will.
I think what Sanghvi means is that 'under the Dynasty there was no 'party democracy'. Modi too is trying to defeat anti-incumbency by bringing in fresh faces. We will have to wait and see whether the grass-roots workers are happy with some of Modi's new candidates.
The old BJP was different: it was much harder for the party’s central leadership in Delhi to impose its will. (Remember how Vajpayee lacked the clout to move Modi out of Gujarat?)
Modi had Advani's support. Also, if Modi was sacked, Vaghela or maybe the Mahasabha's Pravin Togadia would have risen. The fundamental problem was that Gujarat BJP was a house divided.
Now, when the Congress has neither an effective High Command nor even a Low Command, that old culture has been passed on to the BJP.
Modi understands anti-incumbency based on complacency on the part of sitting CMs. We can't say Modi has usurped power from a previously existing party democracy. He is the leader by popular acclamation and he is making executive decisions. If they backfire, he will be given the order of the boot.
Modi and Amit Shah are the party’s high command. Every major decision is referred to them. If they want to change a popular chief minister (for example, Shivraj Singh Chouhan after his victory in Madhya Pradesh), nobody will question their decision.
They do question it. Will Mohan Yadav be effective? I don't know. We will have to wait and see. Modi & Shah aren't infallible. They have made mistakes before. It may be that they have been complacent and are taking 'char sau paar' victory for granted. They may get a rude shock at the polls. Surely, some grass-roots workers must feel alienated as defectors and film stars are parachuted in?
Ideological inconsistency
Perhaps the most significant changes in the BJP have been ideological.
They actually look more ideological now than in 2014.
The Congress has always prided itself on being, in Jawaharlal Nehru’s phrase, a banyan tree that offers shelter to people with differing points of view.
Nothing can grow in the shade of the banyan. Nehru's party became dynastic.
The BJP, on the other hand, has been a cadre-based party with strict discipline.
Not that strict. It had its share of defectors. Things seem to have improved because there is no point changing party if you lose your deposit. You might as well pretend you wanted to spend more time with your family.
No deviations from the party line are allowed, and like the CPI(M), the BJP usually chose its leaders from the cadres. There were few walk-ins and very few lateral entries.
Very true. The people of Mathura, who voted for Hema Malini in 2014, fondly recalled her youthful days marching around in khaki knickers wielding a lathi.
That has changed. Fewer and fewer of the top ministers in the central government are men and women who have spent years in cadres or shakhas.
This reflects the fact that Modi can pick and choose talent because there is literally no alternative to him at the center. But he was always known for running a tight ship. He did not accept the 'mandala' theory that you should keep your enemies close to you because those enemies also hate each other or are loathed by their enemies in the outer circle. Modi's idea is that a Cabinet is just a management team picked by the CEO.
They are lateral entrants, experts from outside the party, or favourites of the top leadership. Some are even dynasts, something the BJP used to be committed to fighting against.
Modi may have said so but if you get a chance to poach a royal or a dynast, don't look the gift horse in the mouth. The fact is, if people think you are going to remain CEO for the foreseeable future, then you can take your pick of talent. If you don't the other side will- unless they are stupid. Suppose Rahul hadn't spurned Varun, would Varun have been denied a seat?
Even the old ideological consistency the BJP imposed now operates at two distinct levels. Outspoken chief ministers such as Yogi Adityanath and Himanta Biswa Sarma often say provocative things about Muslims,
because of the situation in their respective States. Provocation doesn't just come from one side and not the other.
sometimes echoing the language of Hindutva groups on social media. But the Prime Minister is always careful, rarely saying much that could be construed as anti-Muslim.
Because he isn't anti-Muslim. Why be against hardworking and decent people of your own? It is a different matter that you may be finding it hard to get their votes but you have to persevere.
So, which is the real ideology of the BJP?
I think what Modi made clear is that there are RSS people in the BJP who share 'articles of Faith' (Matam) but, if they hold political office, they must follow the pragmatic 'Vigyaan' or science of government. If you don't improve governance, voters will pick some other party who promises to do a better job.
The invective hurled against Muslims by important party leaders?
there can be particular problems in particular areas. You have to crack down of crime or illegal activity. But, in the country as a whole, we can't say that any particular group has an undesirable trait. The fact is, if a place is run by Mafia dons, you will vote for the don who is of your community because he may protect you. But India as a whole is not run by a Mafia.
Or the more high-minded stance adopted by the PM?
The PM represents the ideal which less developed or more lawless regions wants to converge to.
And if the PM’s position represents the true ideology of the BJP, then why does nobody tell off those who strongly deviate from that line?
Because the circumstances are different in particular areas.
The once-fabled ideological consistency of the BJP is now no more than a strategic weapon.
The BJP is pragmatic. But so is Vijayan's CPM. He wants to be the Deng Xiaoping of India. But, it must be said, Comrade Buddha tried going down that road but botched things.
Welcoming dodgy politicians
Finally, there is the question of membership. For most of its existence, the BJP has prided itself on the ideological purity of its senior leaders and the financial integrity of its ministers. That claim holds less water now.
Which party proudly boasts of the utter lack of ideals or scruples amongst its senior leaders? Still, the fact is- as happened in Karnataka- if a BJP leader is seen as corrupt and greedy, he gets the order of the boot from the voter- unless the 'High Command' takes timely action and replaces him.
The BJP is now welcoming (actually, it is encouraging) defectors from every party.
This is a risky strategy. Perhaps some of the new CMs retain strong ties with the rank and file and can get across the message that the BJP needs to snap up talent and then exploit that talent so as to improve governance.
Some of them adopt the prejudices of the Hindu Right with the fervour of neo-converts (listen to Sarma talk and you will wonder if he believed all this stuff when he was in Congress)
But we all know the demographic situation in Assam. It was the Bench which forced the compilation of the Nationality register and which opened detention camps. Clearly, politicians can't just sit on their hands waiting for the Bench to solve all the problems of the State. It may also be mentioned that it was a High Court decision- giving ST status to the majority community- which triggered the blood-letting in Manipur. But the deterioration situation in Myanmar meant that sooner or later peace would have been imperiled there.
but others seem a little uncomfortable going down the Hindu-Muslim route.
Because there is no Hindu-Muslim problem across large swathes of the country.
Much worse, from the BJP’s point of view, is that many individuals it has brought into the party are people it told us were crooks. In several cases, newly introduced members of the BJP have faced criminal proceedings from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). (Those cases usually wound up or pushed on a back burner once the accused person joined the BJP.)
There is a wider problem highlighted by Abishek Singhvi. We have an absurd situation where there are draconian punishments related to 'proceeds of crime' even if, in law, no crime is detected! We can well believe that people working for the Agencies don't want to piss off the party which will be in power when the time comes for them to get an extension of service or a plum post-retirement sinecure. The solution is for Parliament to have a grown-up discussion about this and re-frame the laws. The Supreme Court may order the Government to do so in any case.
At present, there are relatively few questions from the electorate about inconsistency and morality because of Modi’s popularity.
Modi has been saying to TV audiences since December 1998 that Governance is a pragmatic affair. It is based on learning from experience and making better choices. There is no inconsistency or immorality involved in abandoning failed policies and implementing those which appear to have a better chance of success.
People want to vote for Modi so they take on all the baggage he brings with him.
No. They reject the false allegations made against him. If some one says you have a suitcase stuffed with black money and you don't have any such thing and can prove this is the case, then you don't have 'baggage'. The guys who maligned you do. They have to explain why they lied or else people will dismiss them as habitual liars.
And the BJP justifies the entry of dodgy politicians by saying that it is more important to cripple the Opposition than to worry about each new entrant.
It may do so to Sanghvi- a senior journalist. It is certainly true that if you don't pick up talent, your rival may do so. Corporate recruitment often works that way. A high-tech company may hire more high quality people than it needs simply so as to prevent them falling into their rival's hands. They may put 'golden handcuffs' on these new recruits or use non-compete clauses or other such methods. This may be against Competition policy.
However, going forward, how will the new members fit into the BJP? What effect will their admission have on cadres who have struggled for the party’s success?
At the State level, much depends on the CM. Perhaps this explains why some of the new faces have been selected. But, it is a risky strategy.
And what will it do for the party’s soul now that, having once boasted of standing for purity and integrity, it is filling its ranks with people who do not believe in the BJP’s ideology or personal integrity, for that matter.
After Independence, many of the new leaders brought in 'loyalists' of the old regime if they had needful skills or experience. It does not damage your soul if you give a chance to people who were against you to show that they will serve the country faithfully.
None of these issues will matter very much in the coming Lok Sabha election.
Unless Modi has miscalculated.
The BJP’s supporters will vote for five more years of Modi regardless.
So will many who vote for other parties in State elections.
But political parties are long-term projects. A single victory or defeat may not amount to much in the long run: this is the same party that won just two Lok Sabha seats in 1984
because of the sympathy vote for Rajiv
and is now talking of winning 400+ seats.
Which is what Rajiv won. But his corruption and incompetence brought him down.
Is the BJP heading for trouble in the future if it loses most of its distinctive characteristics?
Its distinctive characteristic is that it is pro-Hindu. It doesn't care if loses non-Hindu votes.
We have one example before us—Indira Gandhi.
Indira only became PM because she was Nehru's daughter. Did she ever lose this distinctive characteristic? Nope. She doubled down on nepotism and authoritarianism.
She destroyed the old Congress party and its structures
She carried forward Nehru's program in that regard. He had imposed Socialism upon it. Indira gave this Socialism a populist dimension and marginalized the Old Congress.
but was able to win elections in life and death because of her charisma.
No. Like Nehru or Modi, she only won because the alternative was worse. Janata's big mistake (made by JP and Kripalani) was to make Morarji, whom everybody hated, PM.
In the long run, once she was gone, the damage she did to the Congress transformed the party forever and has since made every election an uphill task.
Not really. Rajiv was on his way back to power. It was assassination which tempered the Dynasty's autocracy. Still, had Rahul taken charge of the Commonwealth games, as his father had taken charge of the Asian games, and shouldered aside Manmohan so as to lead his party into the 2014 polls as the sitting PM, he would have won by a landslide. The BJP would have put up Advani as their candidate though the man was twice Rahul's age. It would have been his last hurrah.
Modi is one of the shrewdest politicians in modern Indian history so he must be aware of the risks. But has he done enough to guard against them?
He is taking calculated risks. But he may have miscalculated. Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment