It is never easy to fathom
the devious minds of politicians
-- particularly those
precariously clinging
on to power -- and perhaps
we will never find out
why the National Democratic
Alliance (NDA) or BJP
to be precise decided
to dissolve the parliament
and go for an early poll.
Hubris or Haste?
At one level, the ‘top
leadership’ of
the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), like every
one else, perceived
these elections as an
uneven duel between
the BJP and the Indian
National Congress (INC).
The contest was projected
in simplistic terms
as ‘Atal vs. Sonia’.
To begin with, the odds
were in favour of the
BJP led NDA and Sonia
Gandhi was considered
‘not quite the
heavy weight, great
man’s match’.
This perhaps is the
reason the ‘backroom
boys’ of the saffron
brigade, the self appointed
‘best and the
brightest,’ the
likes of Promod Mahajan
and Sushma Swaraj, could
persuade an initially
reluctant Atal Behari
Vajpayee to go for an
early poll.
The power of auto-hypnosis
should not be underestimated
either. It seems that
the fabricators of ‘fantastic
truths’, the compulsive
mythomaniacs fell victims
to their own lies. ‘There
is no other leader like
Atalji, he is an undisputed
icon -- Gandhi and Nehru
rolled into one,’
‘India is shining
(and this is the best
time to make hay).’
As things turned out
they were proven out
of touch and out of
step with the people
of India.
Another reason that
is often missed is the
impatience of the leaders
in the waiting. Those
nursing ambitions of
stepping into Atal’s
shoes were understandably
getting restless. The
longer Atal remained
in power they would,
in comparison, diminish
in stature lacking any
USP of their own. As
long as Atal appeared
indispensable in foreseeable
future they would remain
‘willing and waiting’
(like poor Mr. Barkis).
Early elections it was
hoped would force an
intra party discussion
of: after elections
and after Atal, who?
Dr M.M. Joshi, the pugnacious
minister for Human Resources
Development, was not
the only one (though
the only one so characteristically
blunt) to state categorically
that there was no official
number two in the party
hierarchy. The younger
elements were also keen
to project themselves
as prime ministerial
material. Managing the
national election campaign
seemed like a tailor
made opportunity to
demonstrate one’s
potential. A ‘high-tech’
campaign was planned
although the ‘high’
in the technology was
restricted to showcasing
laptops in the party
headquarters and forcing
calls on unsuspecting
cell phone subscribers.
Issues and
National Concerns
The major issues casting
their dark shadow on
the lives of ordinary
people were a dangerous
drift towards communalism,
and the criminalisation
of politics. From Bihar
to Gujarat and Uttar
Pradesh (UP) to Tamil
Nadu, the erosion in
good governance was
distressing. Actually,
not many used the term
good governance -- what
concerned the common
citizen was breakdown
of law and order and
the slide towards anarchy.
Chief ministers in many
states of the union
were accused of criminal
conspiracies, defrauding
the public exchequer
and maintaining themselves
in power through patronage
and unabashed deployment
of muscle power. Communal
riots in Gujarat destroyed
the credibility of the
local administration.
The impotence of the
central government to
rein in a recklessly
fanatical satrap disillusioned
many who had been na1ve
enough to believe that
‘the years in
power’ would somehow
make the revivalist
and irredentist BJP
more liberal, tolerant,
responsible and responsive.
The choice seemed stark
-- BJP that condoned
the wilful destruction
of communal harmony
and abetted tearing
apart the social fabric
jeopardising economic
progress versus anyone
else that promised to
oust and keep it out.
Congress, to be sure,
did not appear promising
or capable of shouldering
this burden at most
places. This is what
encouraged the regional
caste chieftains and
custodians of sub-nationalistic
ethnic pride to assert
their power. A secular-democratic
coalition seemed the
best bet.
Regional Issues
In different regions
local issues appeared
to loom large but were
always interrelated
to the central ‘national
concern’ regarding
comunalism. In Andhra
Pradesh, for instance,
the failure of crops
and rural indebtedness
drove hundreds of farmers
to suicide. The Naxalite
(extremist left) violence
remained undiminished
despite the state government’s
highly publicised initiatives
to find a negotiated
settlement. The government
of Chandra Babu Naidu,
an important partner
in the NDA alliance,
developed a strangely
blinkered vision for
the state. It wanted
to leapfrog into the
mid 21st century using
IT as the vehicle and
hoped that other problems
would automatically
be sorted out. Claims
of creation of wealth
remained a mirage for
the rural poor. The
dramatic defeat his
party suffered was largely
the result of alienation
from the people of the
state and the ground
realities. The BJP/NDA
had lavished such praise
on their favourite poster
boy -- did he not reinforce
their liberal-modern
image -- that he lost
all sense of balance.
He could only rue the
‘pact’ with
the forces of communalism,
like Dr Faustus on the
day of reckoning.
This malady was not
confined to the BJP.
The media savvy Congress
chief minister of Madhya
Pradesh suffered an
equally humiliating
defeat in state elections
because he had opted
for ‘soft’
Hindutva to cope with
the challenge posed
by the BJP. He too,
like Chandra Babu Naidu,
had begun as a young
technocratic moderniser
-- an idealist innovator
committed to transparency
and accountability.
His efforts to computerise
the state administration
had drawn international
attention. Foreigners
came in large numbers
to study his innovative
‘best practices.’
Digvijay Singh had announced
with great fanfare that
the devolution of power
to the people would
be accorded priority.
Madhya Pradesh was indeed
in the forefront of
implementation of the
panchayati raj (local
self government) scheme.
Digvijay Singh became
the darling of the Indian
and foreign media. But
when the dynamic technocrat
was constrained due
to political compulsions
(entirely of his own
making) to articulate
unscientific praise
for Gaumata (Mother
Cow) or to make a public
display of personal
devotion and ritual
worship, it made a mockery
of the idea of secular
governance and scientific
outlook. Digvijay Singh
fell into the trap of
‘responding in
kind’ to obscurantist
opponents like Uma Bharati.
He thought that if the
majority Hindu electorate
felt strongly about
some emotional issues
regarding access to
a disputed place of
worship like the Bhojshala
at Dhar, it was better
to ‘pre-empt’
the BJP by adopting
the ‘cause’.
In the event, this strategy
misfired with disastrous
consequences. The image
built over a decade
was badly tarnished.
Not only did Digvijay
Singh lose personally
but his actions also
discredited the secular
credentials of the Congress
Party. People found
it difficult to share
their engineer chief
minister’s enthusiastic
support for inclusion
of jyotish traditional
Indian astrology in
the university syllabus.
Psephologists may argue
that it was voter fatigue,
or the anti incumbency
factor that laid low
the stalwart. However,
what is difficult to
overlook is the neglect
of basic issues like
electricity, roads and
water by the Madhya
Pradesh (MP) government.
The ‘shining example’
which may have impressed
visitors left the residents
totally frustrated and
angered. Only for a
while was it possible
to explain the failure
to make progress at
desired pace by blaming
the division of state
(formation of Chattisgarh
had transferred the
mineral rich areas and
most of the power generating
capacity to the new
state) and the stepmotherly
treatment meted out
by the central government.
Populism, slowly but
surely, pushed pragmatism
to the background.
In Rajasthan, the contending
pulls of the two dominant
castes -- Rajputs and
Jats -- overrode all
else. Ashok Gehlot was
rated as the best chief
minister -- young, modern
in outlook, modest and
efficient- but his performance
in the ultimate analysis
was not enough to save
him. The voters would
not forget that Gehlot
too had equivocated.
Trying to balance the
claims of powerful caste
leaders he had appointed
not one but two deputy
chief ministers. Trying
to take the wind out
of BJP sails he had
found nothing wrong
in attending widely
publicised Hindu religious
functions. He had not
discouraged talk of
reservations for higher
castes. Whenever dalits
were persecuted by the
entrenched vested interests
represented by the so-called
‘higher’
castes, the Gehlot government
failed to punish the
culprits swiftly. The
climate of politics
in Rajasthan remains
more feudal than anywhere
else in India and democratic
roots are yet to become
strong in erstwhile
principalities and fiefdoms.
The overestimation
of the anti-incumbency
or non-performance factor
is underlined by the
example of Orissa. Navin
Patnayak escaped defeat
without exerting to
defend his utterly lacklustre
reign. Dynastic brand
equity sufficed to extend
the popular mandate.
Even the saffron tint
did not blemish his
spotless white attire.
The recent elections
have demonstrated quite
dramatically the north-south
divide. The two parts
of the country have
voted divergently. In
the north the voter
rejected the BJP as
well as the Congress;
in the south, the Congress
rode to victory aligning
itself with regional
parties. It must be
clearly understood that
the gains made by the
United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) are not due to
the exertions or popularity
of the Congress party
but the success of its
local allies and unprecedented
success of the Communist
parties. The total rout
suffered by the NDA
in Tamilnadu resulted
from its partnership
with the All India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazagham
(AIADMK). The unpopularity
of an imperious Jayalalita
cost them the state.
However, this can not
be taken to mean that
people in the state
voted for the Congress
alternative at the national
level. The Congress
tied up opportunistically
(like it did with the
Muslim League in Kerala)
with its sworn enemy,
the Dravida Munneda
Kazagham (DMK) (accused
of supporting and sheltering
the LTTE cadres implicated
in the conspiracy to
assassinate Rajiv Gandhi)
and reaped a rich harvest.
It should not be forgotten
that for almost three
and half decades it
is only the Dravidian
regional parties that
have ruled the state
of Tamil Nadu. Regionalism
raised its head here
and violent opposition
to imposition of Hindi
provided the platform
to articulate ethnic
sub-nationalistic aspirations.
It is in this context
that the ethnic civil
strife in Sri Lanka
becomes extremely important
strategically. The ‘separatist’
tenor of politico cultural
idiom in the melodramatic
politics in Tamil Nadu
becomes harsher at the
time of elections.
Appeasement:
The Prelude to Failure
The national parties,
conscious of their lack
of mass base, have followed
the line of least resistance
and settled for appeasement.
What is referred to
euphemistically as an
‘electoral understanding’
is in fact nothing else
but parting with the
demanded pound of flesh
to the regional parties.
Ostensibly to protect
the state’s interests
in the federal system,
whichever party is out
of power tries to join
hands with those in
power at the centre.
In fact, this is the
insurance for survival
and protection against
a lethal attack by the
political opponents
in power locally. When
the BJP/NDA failed to
provide this protection
to the DMK it literally
pushed Karunadhi, the
DMK leader, into the
lap of the Congress.
After Uttar Pradesh
(UP), Bihar, Madhya
Pradesh (MP) and Rajasthan,
a large number of Lok
Sabha seats are elected
from Andhra Pradesh
and Tamil Nadu. The
perceptions of voters
belonging to the minority
community influenced
the results in many
constituencies. The
failures of the state
government were seen
as the result of the
tie up with the centre
committed to Hindutva.
And, the inability of
the central government
to provide what is required
(demanded is perhaps
the right word- a special
package or a favourable
decision on water dispute
with the neighbour)
was treated as a betrayal.
A short-sighted and
self-centred approach
to placate the intransigent
allies also cost the
BJP dearly.
The ‘moderate’
leaders of BJP failed
to silence the ‘hawks’
in the party whose constant
refrain was that the
party should go back
to its old agenda of
pushing hard core Hindutva
and restoring the pride
to the majority community
by building a grand
temple at the place
of Shri Ram’s
birth, where Babri mosque
stood. Echoes of the
slogans raised in the
north made the Dravidians
in the south apprehensive
about the imposition
of an Aryan hegemony.
The younger generation
of BJP leaders may have
tried hard to change
the image but they failed
to convince the common
man that ‘the
leopard could change
its spots’. The
minorities found themselves
increasingly under pressure
to prove their patriotism
and ‘Indianness’.
The murder of Christian
missionary Graham Steins
in Orissa, a state ruled
by an NDA partner, and
the victimisation of
Christians in the dangs
in Gujarat exposed the
hypocritical hollowness
of the claims of the
NDA government about
treating all religions
equally. The BJP was
anxious to discredit
and malign Sonia Gandhi.
Her foreign origins
and Christian faith
were raked up time and
again to put her on
the defensive. This
only resulted in dealing
yet another mortal blow
to the concept of secularism.
In Uttar Pradesh, the
‘carving out’
of the most populous
state in the Indian
union seemed to have
been completed before
the polls. Mulayam Singh
Yadav appeared to ride
the crest. Like Laloo
Prasad Yadav, a low
caste leader of Rashtriya
Janata Dal, in Bihar
he had managed to keep
intact his base among
fellow Yadavas-an Other
Backward Castes (OBC)
community-and successfully
projected himself as
the protector of the
minorities. His socialist
past (increasingly distant)
allowed him to adopt
suitably populist postures
while criticising the
economic policies of
the central government.
His aid Amar Singh promised
to deliver the thakur
(land holding upper
caste) votes and had
injected a strong dose
of glamour into the
election campaign. Not
only Amitabh Bacchan,
leading icon of the
Indian frilm inductry,
but many other Bollywood
celebrities were yoked
in to work for the Samajwadi
party. Not content with
this, a determined effort
was made to let the
residents and voters
know that the great
leader has also secured
the support of leading
entrepreneurs and industrialists.
Scions of the Ambani,
Birla and Godrej clan
were invited to participate
in the transformation
of the state. With the
removal of Mayavati
(the dalit leader of
the Bahujan Samaj Party
[BSP]) from office charged
with large scale corruption,
the road to power at
the centre seemed clear
of any obstructions.
The Congress Party in
the state was totally
demoralised and the
organisation all but
defunct. It was natural
for Mulayam Singh and
his supporters to believe
that they were placed
advantageously and would
play the key role in
government formation
at the centre. Where
and how then did Mulayam
Singh lose out?
Once again, the temptation
to accept the support
from BJP to oust Mayavati
and form a government
in UP dealt a harsh
blow. The ‘secular’
capital accumulated
so painstakingly over
the years was squandered
in a blink. The Muslims
in UP were forced to
reconsider their moves.
If Mulayam could use
the crutches of BJP
to reclaim power in
the state could he be
trusted in the longer
run? Many, it seems,
decided to go back to
the Congress or vote
tactically to defeat
the BJP candidates.
Amar Singh’s vociferous,
though not equally convincing,
defence of the Prevention
of Terrorism Act 2002
(POTA) detainee Raja
Bhaiyya (a UP MLA with
an unsavoury reputation
and an accused in numerous
criminal cases) heightened
the impression that
the Samajwadi Party
had been hijacked by
powerful newcomers and
was a friend only of
the ‘rich and
the beautiful’.
Old associates found
themselves sidelined
and charges of nepotism
were whispered. Mulayam
Singh and his party
did reasonably well
but fell far short of
the numbers to emerge
as the successors to
the throne. There is
a general impression
that the party has peaked
and that the journey
now will only be downhill.
The Congress did badly
in the state, as was
expected, but the entry
of Rahul Gandhi has
revitalised the party.
The mood today is upbeat
and combative. The Congress
is no longer shy of
confronting the Samajwadi
party (SP) head on.
The charismatic element
in Indian electoral
politics doesn’t
seem to have lost its
potency.
Ironically, no party
this time seemed interested
in publicising programmes
or issuing election
manifestoes. It was
enough to go through
motions and complete
the ritual. At best
it was a fleeting ‘photo
opportunity’ for
the no-more fruitfully
employed party leaders
with intellectual pretensions.
The excuse was that
what matters, in an
alliance, is the common
minimum programme that
alone comprises the
agenda. Securing a majority
to form the government
certainly puts a premium
on diluting ideological
content. Defaulting
repeatedly on redeeming
time bound pledges has
rendered all such exercises
meaningless.
UPA’s
Future Prospects
It is not easy to predict
the prospects of United
Progressive Alliance
(UPA) confidently. The
alliance is undeniably
a motley crowd. The
issue of tainted ministers
has, from the start,
crippled the government.
The ugly bargaining
to secure creamy or
powerful portfolios
brought to surface the
kind of discord that
may be aggravated in
days to come. The alliance
partners have come together
due to their shared
dislike of the BJP and
ostensible desire to
strengthen secularism
and democracy. Secularism
in the present Indian
context is restricted
to opposing the blatant
communalism of the BJP.
Definition of democracy
is, similarly, restricted
to keeping at bay the
BJP brand of fascism.
Representative, responsive
efficient and transparent
governance is seldom
the subject of public
discourse. Crimes against
the weaker section of
society -- women, dalits,
tribals and minorities
-- are as disturbing
in the Congress ruled
states as in non-Congress/BJP
ruled states. The UPA
has come to power with
the support of as disparate
elements as RJD of Laloo
Prasad Yadav and the
Communist Party of India-Marxists
(CPIM). How many compromises
will be made to keep
out the BJP and how
will these compromises
affect the credibility
and efficiency of the
present government?
Much will depend on
how the UPA responds
to the BJP’s challenge.
It is likely that the
BJP reverts to its hard
line and makes a bid
to raise the political
temperature, appeal
to passions rather than
reason, hoping to increase
the vote share. If the
Congress and the UPA
hit back hard they incur
the risk of making BJP
agitators martyrs deserving
sympathy. This may also
drive some mischievous
party workers underground
and make the task of
protecting communal
harmony even more difficult.
Lessons for
Future
One can only hope that
the people of India
have learnt from the
painful lessons of the
past five years. Throughout
this period, the NDA/BJP
government inflicted
almost irreparable damage
on the bodypolitic.
The constitutional scheme
was repeatedly subverted
and the independence
of judiciary and the
media were constantly
under attack. Narendra
Modi, with his fangs
bared all the time,
may have been the ugliest
face of the party but
the smiling villains
were no less dangerous.
The Supreme Court was
recently constrained
to transfer the Best
Bakery case out of the
state and order an unprecedented
retrial (after the High
Court had acquitted
the accused), the persecution
of Tehelka was taken
up as personal-political
vendetta and an ‘exemplary’
punishment was meted
out without due process
of law to deter others
from daring to bring
out skeletons from the
BJP/NDA closet. The
terrorist attacks in
the state of Jammu and
Kashmir continued unabated
and the home minister,
fond of strutting on
stage as an ‘Iron
Man’, was repeatedly
forced to admit his
own inadequacy. He presided
over the investigating
agency Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI)
that absolved him of
any criminal responsibility
or complicity in the
conspiracy to demolish
the Babri Mosque at
Ayodhya. The BJP leadership
may not have been aware
of this but the people
of India were totally
disappointed with a
non-performing, constantly
posturing, and communally
partisan government.
This total disillusionment
with ‘the alternative
to the Congress’
is what dealt the mortal
blow to the BJP.
What the election results
have unmistakably shown
is that the BJP’s
concepts of Bharat and
exclusive Hindu nationalism
are not shared by the
large (hitherto silent)
majority of Indians.
The composite culture
is an integral part
of the shared heritage.
The masses are beginning
to realise that the
slide towards intolerant
dictatorship is inevitable
if the effort to homogenise
a richly diverse tradition
is insisted upon.
The charges of corruption
on persons in power
did not diminish during
the BJP rule nor did
the number of scams
and scandals come down.
The implementation of
economic reforms and
the country’s
integration into the
WTO regime has brought
about a change in the
popular mind-set. Liberalisation
and privatisation have
shifted the focus from
politics to economics.
This change is perceptible
not only among the urban
middle class but the
idea has also filtered
down to small towns.
Different things are
expected of the government
and from the people’s
representatives. Ideology
today seems much less
significant than in
the past. No serious
thought has been given
to the impact of the
reforms on the lives
of people after a few
years. Once India is
integrated into the
world economy, its vulnerability
to global changes will
inevitably increase.
As yet there is no
national consensus except
perhaps on foreign policy
issues. Improvement
of relations with Pakistan
is considered the top
priority. Atal Behari
Vajpayee’s efforts
to achieve a breakthrough
were not an election
issue nor were these
criticised at any time.
The only concern expressed
has been regarding reciprocity.
Unilateral conciliatory
gestures can only be
seen as appeasement
in the long run. There
is talk of reforms with
a human face but the
specifics remain unclear.
Sonia Gandhi’s
renunciation of prime
ministerial office has
won a respite, engendered
lots of goodwill and
saved the country from
divisive acrimony. This
shrewd stroke has deflated
the BJP campaign against
her but it must be remembered
that what will be far
more decisive is how
the UPA uses this respite.
Sonia Gandhi’s
gesture will be futile
if she allows herself
to be persuaded to drive
from the backseat. Will
the UPA be able to forge
itself into a cohesive
combination that can
reinforce democracy
and secularism and strengthen
these at the grassroots?
The role played by the
left parties will be
crucial. The left is
certainly not confused.
It has emerged stronger
and more self confident
than ever before. To
get rid of the communal
BJP, it has joined hands
with the Congress and
the CPI and CPI (M)
have found it possible
to bury their ideological
differences to forge
a common minimum programme.
The reluctance of the
left parties to join
the government or to
sign the Common Programme
is a little disturbing.
Can there be any meaningful
exercise of democratic
power without responsibility?
Surely, the time has
come to think beyond
sectarian electoral
interests in states
like West Bengal and
Kerala and focus on
the national scene.
(Pushpesh Pant teaches
at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi
and is a regular columnist
in both Hindi and English,
contributing to leading
Indian Newspapers. He
is also a political
analyst for radio and
television)
References
