Matters around us
BJP's introspection
Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the driving force behind the Coalition that ruled India for several years till its recent electoral debacle, has engaged itself in soul searching for the unexpected defeat and identified several factors for the setback. Most leaders have particularly identified two factors with all seriousnessslackening in drive to reach out the Hindu voters and failure to live upto the expectations of the rural people. But most eyes were focused on the issue of commualism since the Hindutva (Hindu way of life) was at the heart of the soul searching as well as of a raging debate in the post-poll situation in the organisation. BJP grew up in an amazing speed in the last twenty years from relative obscurity to become one of the main political forces in the country. Not too long ago, the BJP had only two seats in the 545-member Lokshaba, the lower house of parliament but it had maximum seats -- 189 -- in the last parliament thus becoming the main political party. However, in the new and present Lokshaba it is the Congress which is the main party followed by the BJP and the decline of the BJP and its allies has led to their loss of power. It is in this background the BJP National Committee met in Mumbai and decided to revamp its policies in a bid to come back to the seat of power. The meeting was preceded by the meeting of parliamentary board, which is smaller but more powerful body for the organisation. The outcome of both the meetings was a matter of interest as it represented the first structured reaction of the party to the defeat in May/June national polls and how it wants to overcome the situation of waning strength.The discussions were also cynosure of many eyes because a debate is also brewing on the reasons of the setback particularly on the issue of communalism as the liberals insist that hardline policy of the party failed to win sufficient votes from all communities while the zealots maintain that Hindutva policy paid dividends in the past but BJP failed this time as party also sought to appease the minorities which resulted in the weaning away of the voters who were responsible for the triumph earlier. On the crucial issue of communalism, the liberals were pushed down by the hardliners and it appears that they will retain their ascendancy in the party in the coming days and this has been adequately exemplified in the Mumbai conclave. The liberals were led by no less a person than Atal Bihari Vajpayee, three-time prime minister for the BJP and also a former president during the formative stage of the organisation. He felt that Gujarat riots and subsequent failure of the BJP and it's government to deal effectively with the perpetrators dealt a blow to the fortunes of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the elections. Vajpayee also made no secret of his view that Narendra Modi, the controversial hardliner BJP chief minister of the western state which was the scene of killing of more than 2000 peoplemostly Muslimsover two years ago should have been removed from his position before the national elections. He said the communal carnage of which Modi is widely seen as a key figure encouraging the anti-minority trouble sent a wrong signal to the voters who wanted remorse of those incidents. But Vajpayee's viewalthough echoed by several other leaderswas sharply contested by two influential persons, chief of the organisation Venkaiya Naidu and most effective leader at the moment Lal Krishna Advani. They, without directly contradicting more elderly and popular Vajpayee, gave enough indications that neither Gujarat carnage nor the Modi factor led to party's failure in the polls. On the contrary, Naidu said the BJP could not fully exploit the Hindu sentiment and Advani shared his views. But Hindu nationalist organisations like the RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad are more explicit on the issue and said it was the policy to appease the minorities that had cost the BJP heavily this time. Some of their leaders were critical of Vajpayee and made no bones of the fact that BJP leaders utterly failed in taking NDA to victory. These organisations form the power base of the BJP and their influence in the NDA or more specifically BJP cannot be taken lightly. As such it is no surprising the Mumbai meeting had to take into account the sentiments of the hardcore communal organisations along with the views of Naidu and Advani. On the main political issue, which is Hindutva, the hardliners prevailed. Naidu said, "Hindutva is synonymous with Indianness" and this cannot be discarded. However, he said any party would not take, anti- minority policy. Vajpayee had wanted that meeting to discuss Modi issue with a view to his removal from Gujarat chief ministership to refurbish the image of the BJP and a former chief minister of the state Keshubhai Patel and several others supported him. But this did not happen as the decision was that Modi would now continue. Considering Vajpayee's stature and mindful of not creating embarrassment for him, the party praised his leadership as "tallest" that would continue to guide them in the future. But it is more a lip service while the effective power has now gone more with Naidu, Advani and the hardliners. But the ascendancy of the hardliners should not come as surprise. As a political party erstwhile "Jansangh" is now effectively in existence in the BJP. The Jansanghpolitical forum for the nationalist Hindushad disappeared in the Janata Party before the 1977 polls when several parties came together to defeat Indira Gandhi's Congress in the aftermath of the Emergency. But the hardliners parted ways following the fall of the Janata Party government and formed the BJP which saw phenomenal growth in emerging as the main political force in India. Advani's "Rath Jatra" and jingoistic postures of the zealotshowsoever controversialpaid dividends for the organisation which tasted power in India briefly for twelve days and later as the head of the NDA twice. Hardliners feel that the BJP must continue with the same policy and spirit that have helped it grow in quick time and not as a non-communal organisation. But Vajpayee and others feel that it was helpful when needed to develop as a strong political force but the same policy cannot continue when it is in power since a government has to govern entire people of the country. The saner sections favoured less aggressiveness for a party in power and this distinction must not be blurred. The tussle went on when the BJP remained at the helm in India and Vajpayee blowing hot and cold on the issue. Finally Vajpayee, seen as a liberal, came out after the poll debacle with strong views but he was not heard much. There was hardly any difference on the economic matters like the NDA government should have given more attention to the rural people, but in the main political agenda the hardliners saw their views to dominate. An ageing Vajpayee, handicapped by physical problems, is relatively less effective in the BJP compared to much younger Naidu and more active Advani even though all call him the most respected figure in the party. The hardliners have triumphed in the Mumbai meeting but the differences on Hindutva will remain since BJP's liberals feel that time has changed since the party took a tough religious line and it has to abandon that approach should it want to enjoy popularity as a mainstream national organisation. The hardliners won in Mumbai but the debate has not died down and this would continue to haunt the BJP and the differences may sharpen if Vajpayee seeks to distance himself further from mainstream leadership of the organisation. Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist.
| 
