I wish I could believe L.K. Advani when he said at the BJP’s conclave this week that the RSS with which the party has links had rejected theocracy, the Hindu Rashtra concept. Then why insist on the word, Hindutva, and why not Bhartvata? At least, the BJP would not be equivocal as it sounds today.
Advani would recall the criticism he had to face for having hailed at Karachi that Qaide Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah as secular. The RSS literally hauled Advani over the coals. He gave many explanations to water down what he said. Not that Advani’s statement was wrong. The RSS was not ready to forgive the person “who had vivisected the limbs of Bharat Mata.”
Advani, I am afraid, may interpret Hindutva differently when he tours the states to explain why the BJP lost. He should realize that the party won in eight states, including Gujarat on the plank of parochialism. Will he reinterpret the victory?
I think the party has once again avoided facing the moment of truth. Surprisingly, it has not struck to the BJP leaders that the party is not selling any more because of divisive credentials it carries. Its Hindutva, soft or hard, is lessening in appeal as pluralism is increasing its space. Over the years, Indias temperament is becoming secular.
The crisis that the BJP faces is not that of image but of identity. The image of Hindutva, despite its limitations, has given the party the recognition it has sought. The new brand does not impart any sharper, popular edge because Hindutva is Hindutva, Hindu in content and appeal. In due course, the soft Hindutva would assume the shape of Hinduism. The presence of leaders like Narendra Modi, who has not changed, is a guarantee that it would happen that way. Whatever the explanation on the basis of cultural heritage or nationalism means, it has little relevance when the expression boils down to Hindutva.
The 15 per cent of the electorate, the Muslims, do not buy this. Nor do the expanding youth that is attuned to science and technology. They do not feel at home with the language of mandir or the new word, inclusive, coined by Advani. They are Hindu and do not feel threatened in a country where they are 80 per cent. The BJP tries to play on the fear which is artificially created to get the vote. But this is having diminishing returns.
Where the BJP gets stumped is on the point of identity. The party is intertwined with the RSS so much that it does not have personality of its own. However liberal the BJP may become, it cannot escape the odium of the RSS philosophy which emanates from Nagpur where some half a dozen persons, never elected by the people or even the BJP members, pronounce judgment on crucial problems facing the country. They are like the Taliban leaders, confined to narrow religious practices expressed in extreme forms.
The BJP has no cadre of its own and depends on the RSS cadre which includes the Bajrang Dal of anti-Christian fame in Orissa and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of the Gujarat carnage. The BJP got a chance to turn a new leaf when it joined the Janata Party after the emergency (1975-77). It promised to sever links with the RSS. But the erstwhile Jana Sangh members went back on the undertaking given to Gandhian Jaya Prakash Narayan who led the movement that ousted Mrs Gandhi. Instead, they constituted a new party, the BJP. When the Janata Party was routed in 1980, one of the causes was that the BJP divided the anti-Congress vote. Together the two might have done better.
 |
After the reverse in the recent Lok Sabha elections, I heard some liberal elements in the BJP renewing the demand for going it alone. But in no time they seem to have realized that they do not have the inclination or determination to build a cadre of their own. This is an arduous job. The youth can do it. Probably, the party can attract them more so on its own, not with the RSS which is attracting less and less of young people at its shakas (morning camps).
The BJP has not yet done any analysis of the causes of its reverses in the elections. When they met last, there were only harsh words exchanged and inflammatory letters written and leaked out. One leader even called those in charge of elections as “conspirators.” Another regretted that the ones who won did not get the reward. It was clear that the acrimonious attacks were made deliberately, in a planned manner, primarily against party president Rajnath Singh and Rajya Sabha Opposition leader Arun Jaitley. Critics sounded like settling personal scores. I wish they had the courage to pursue the matter, but it turned out to be only a storm in the teacup.
That the BJP should have analysed the reasons of its losses is natural. Every defeated political party goes over the exercise as the CPI (M) has also done it. But there is a difference between the two. The politburo of the Communists is the final authority. In the case of the BJP, the buck does not stop at Rajnath Singh or elderly Advani. The high priests are the RSS leaders.
Had the BJP shed off Hindutva and snapped its relations with the RSS it might have provided a much-needed alternative to the Congress. The new formation may have been on the right of centre, but it would have given a platform to those who differed with the Congress and who may have been rubbed on the wrong side..
If the BJP cannot convert itself into a secular party, however rightist, it should not hide itself behind soft Hindutva. In that case, it would have been better for the party to own Hindutva openly. Its hedging is not going to attract Muslims, liberals or the youth. A party avowing Hindusim publicly may also be more recognizable when it says it is related to the culture and ethos of the people—a way of life.
At present the party has the same old image of Hindutva and no identity of its own. It is also a divided house. How can it retrieve the ground it has lost? |
E-mail