Bharatiya Nationalists and Politics
Advani's reaction to the loss of Karnataka
Lal Krishna Advani wrote:I feel sorry that we have lost in Karnataka. But I am not surprised. The surprise would have been if we had won.
As it is, I think the Karnataka results have a profound lesson for the BJP. In a way it has a lesson also for the Congress. The common lesson for both of us is : let’s not take the common man for granted. He himself may occasionally deviate from the norms of ethical conduct, but he does feel extremely angry when he sees those at the helm of national affairs behaving immorally. This is the principal reason why there is such intense allergy towards politicians generally nowadays.
If corruption provokes indignation in Bangalore, why would it not cause the same feeling in New Delhi?
Actually, I hold that it is the Karnataka results that have contributed to clinching action being taken even in the matter of Coalgate and Railgate! Before Karnataka results, the Congress Party seemed determined not to do anything about the two scams even if it meant a total washout of the second half of the Budget Session.
There have been press reports that we lost Karnataka because we threw out Yeddyurappa. I have seen comments by eminent pressmen taunting the BJP: See how Soniaji overlooked the shortcomings of Virbhadra Singh, and earned an advantage for the Congress. BJP prides itself on taking a principled stand in Karnataka. The consequence is that BJP has lost even “the toehold it had acquired in the south.”
Let me first point out that BJP did not throw out Yeddi; it is he who broke away from the BJP and decided to form a factional party of his own, the KJP. In fact, when it became apparent that he was unabashedly indulging in corruption, if the party had immediately taken firm action, the course of events would have been quite different.
But for several months, frantic efforts went on somehow to keep placating him by condoning his peccadilloes. The justification given was that if the party did not adopt such a ‘pragmatic’ approach we would lose the only government that we had in the south.
During these months I often cited to colleagues the crisis the party had faced in its early years in Rajasthan. Jana Sangh, the forerunner of the BJP, was launched in 1951 by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji just before the First General Elections of 1952. Dr. Mookerji was elected President of the Party.
As an office-bearer of the Rajasthan Jana Sangh during the first decade of independence (1947 -57), I was witness first to the remarkable success of the party in the 1952 polls, and then to the crisis it had to confront.
In 1952, the Jana Sangh won three seats in the Lok Sabha and 35 seats in all the State Assemblies. Of the 3 seats in the Lok Sabha, two were from West Bengal (Dr. S.P. Mookerji and Shri Durga Charan Banerjee) and one from Rajasthan (Barrister Uma Shankar Trivedi).
Of the total 35 seats Jana Sangh secured in the State Assemblies, 9 came from West Bengal and 8 from Rajasthan. The crisis faced in Rajasthan owed to the fact that the party, in its election manifesto, had committed itself to abolition of the Jagirdari system; but all the 8 MLAs elected in Rajasthan were themselves Jagirdars!
When the State Assembly met, the Congress Party elected its own Speaker and offered Deputy Speakership to the Jana Sangh. Shri Lal Singh Shaktawat was elected Deputy Speaker of the House.
One of the Bills the Congress Party introduced in this very first session was the Bill to abolish Jagirdari system. When we drew the attention of our party MLAs to our party manifesto and asked them to support this particular legislation, most of them flatly refused.
We rang up Dr. Mookerji in New Delhi, and apprised him of the problem. He said he would come to Jaipur personally and speak to the MLAs.
I can never forget those days and the kind of tension we all were under at the time. The tension only increased when Dr. Mookerji arrived. Six of our eight MLAs quietly went away to their respective constituencies. These included the newly elected Deputy Speaker also. The two MLAs who stayed on met Dr. Mookerji, and conveyed to him that while they would abide by the party’s decision the rest had made up their mind to oppose the proposed Bill.
Dr. Mookerji advised the party’s office bearers to make a last effort to persuade the dissidents, but if they persisted, not to hesitate taking disciplinary action against them.
It wasn’t an easy decision to take. We were constantly in touch with Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya also, who had been named General Secretary. I can never forget that out of the eight MLAs the party decided to expel six. And one of the two who remained was Late Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, who became Chief Minister of Rajasthan three times, and later on rose to become Vice President of the Indian Union. How many parties in the country would have the guts to take this kind of decision? And the Jana Sangh demonstrated such courage even in its infancy!
No wonder, while instances can be cited when other parties do get away with gross misdemeanours, we must realize that the yardstick by which the people judge the BJP is not the same as that by which they judge other parties! Because of the high expectations we have aroused in the people by our excellent track record in all these years, even minor indiscretions can prove costly for us. And our response to the Karnataka crisis was not at all a minor indiscretion. I have consistently maintained that our handling of Karnataka has been absolutely opportunistic.
TAILPIECE
Today’s PIONEER carries on its front page a highlighted box item captioned : SNUB TO PM? It goes on to say that Smt. Sonia Gandhi will be meeting senior party leaders soon to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle.
Has the Prime Minister abdicated his right even to decide about his own cabinet? Today’s news reports about the removal of two Union Ministers generally emphasise that it is Soniaji who has sacked ‘two PM’s men.’
Sheer self-respect demands that the PM calls it a day, and orders an early general election.
L.K. Advani
New Delhi
May 12, 2013
I bring this up because there is a message here for Hindutvavadis, and it is not what Shri Advani ji is trying to say.
Advani is not differentiating between Policies and Politics. The example he brings up is one to do with policy. In 1952, the crisis in Rajasthan Jan Sangh was one to do with policy. The crisis in 2013 in Karnataka BJP is one to do with politics.
1) In the Congress system all Policy is Politics. In the BJP, one representative of the Bharatiya Nationalists, all Politics should be about Policy.
Now let's not misunderstand the meaning here.
Each and every policy that Congress takes is designed to maximize its advantage to remain in power, as such is is all about politics, including the foreign policy. As it is all about power, it revolves around getting maximum money and influence out of the system for the various power-brokers and their minions out of the system. The fact that due to their policies, there is some benefit to the common man or to the nation is purely a collateral benefit. It is not the goal. In fact the Congress system has no national goals.
On the other hand, in BJP ideally it should be the other way round - all politics should be for advancing policies. Remaining in power as such becomes paramount as the means to bring about positive policy change.
That means Bharatiya Nationalist forces should do their utmost to come to power and stay in power in order to advance this nation. In the Bharatiya Nationalist system, profit by the individual from the system is purely a collateral benefit. It is however not the goal. Bharatiya Nationalist forces' primarily goal should be about advancing the civilization and the nation.
And because it is so, using all necessary means to come to and remain in power should be considered sanctioned for Bharatiya Nationalist forces.
2) Having said this, from the outside, for the people, it is difficult to judge who is making policy only to remain in power and thus as a form of politics, and who is trying to get to power and thus use politics as a medium to make policy as part of a nation centered agenda. The rhetoric itself can be manipulated and if one has the media as well on one's side, then it is all the easier for power-hungry to show themselves as policy-inspired and at the same time to portray the policy-inspired as being power-hungry.
The only way to adjudge the difference is through observing the commitment of various politicians to improve the metrics of national growth and strength over a longer period of time.
3) As war among various warlords and kings has stopped being waged in the battlefield, it has solely moved into the realm of politics. Whereas earlier too there used to be politics ranging from palace intrigues; forming blood, marital, military alliances; keeping the priesthood happy, etc., the king's authority and security came from the raw power he wielded rather than from the common man. It doesn't mean that the king did not use to look after the people, that being his duty, but it does mean that he didn't need to conquer his opponents in the court of the people.
As the war has moved into the court of the people, the ruler has become accountable to the people especially regards his revenue and outlays.
That means the politicians are being forced to fight it out in elections for the privilege to rule. Treasure still remains a potent weapon of war, so it is natural that the politicians would try to wield it against their competitors. And in order to collect this weapon of war, one would see more and more corruption, misuse of funds, more power of industrialists to lobbyi, and one can expect increased interference from foreign governments. Similarly the role of media too is of utmost importance and here too one would read more biased analysis and falling journalism standards. Then a contestant for power needs a big machinery which can help the ruler convince the people, which also leads to nepotism and favoritism.
In short, the weapons of war have changed, and politicians are being forced to look for these weapons through their influence when in power or through promises to various lobbies.
That is the downside of democracy, and would need to be accepted as a unavoidable evil.
One cannot allow one contestant for power a free-reign to collect the weapons, and put chains pf morality on the other contestant. The war needs weapons and even the Bharatiya Nationalist platform too would need to collect these.
4) Having said this, it does not give unlimited sanction to the Bharatiya Nationalist forces to indulge in corruption and nepotism or be indebted to industrial lobbies only. Weapons can be collected but Bharatiyas should not have to resort to using the bones of the people as weapons for a political electoral war.
The only way to minimize abuse of power to collect weapons to retain power is to try to minimize the weapons that the enemy can gather. The
more accountability, transparency and people's participation that one can institutionalize, the less would be the ability of the enemy to raise funds through corruption, and thus less would be the need of the Bharatiya Nationalist forces to also resort to the same. So the effort of Bharatiya Nationalist forces to translate these ideas into policies and institutions should continue.
Even as one denies the leeway to oneself to collect weapons, so too one must deny it to the other as well. However a unilateral moratorium on corruption is not the answer either.
5) As long as the enemies of the Bharatiya Nationalist forces indulge in corruption and nepotism and media stranglehold, so too would the Bharatiya Nationalist forces, and that would have to be done through ways and means which does not undermine the leadership. Some part of the forces would have to act beyond the law and do the dirty work.
In order to retain propriety among the leadership, it is important that any form of corruption that takes place, it does not touch the leadership or any office holders. For this the Bharatiya Nationalists too would need
invisible anonymous hands to do the dirty work of collecting funds. One can't have party or government office-bearers like Bangaru Laxman collect the "donations" and be caught in a sting.
6) In the end, there is one dictum that the Bharatiya Nationalist forces would have to follow.
Look after one's own people!
Corruption and Favoritism is part of the milieu in India and the world. This is how one generates the weapons for the good fight - the electoral fight. There is no getting around it, not as long as the anti-national parties have a free reign to indulge in all of this as well. Should an organization, a party-functionary be caught in law's dragnet doing so, and one is clear about his commitment to the cause, e.g. in the case of Kalyan Singh or even Yeddiruppa,
the people simply cannot be thrown out. That is an absolute shame! One doesn't back-stab one's own people, people who have devoted themselves to the cause, to the party and in fact even agreed to do the dirty work of collecting "weapons", collecting money for elections.
Even if the person caught in the dragnet has to be sacrificed, what the party can do is to take the person away from the lime-light and at the same time reward him by bringing in his people into more responsible positions.
Bharatiya Nationalists would have to stand together and not let internal politics bring them down. Their mission is far too important to be sacrificed due to some instrumentalized morality pushed indirectly by the anti-national forces.
Of course all this depends on whether the person in question is committed to the cause or not. If he is committed then no such public immorality can be allowed to break the ranks! If one falls into this urge of morality, one starts playing the game according to the laws determined by the enemy!
7) What should be clear is that for Bharatiya Nationalists corruption cannot be a vehicle for increasing personal wealth nor can favoritism only be visible as nepotism. However these would be morally permissible, even if not legally permitted, if the cause of the Bharatiya Nationalists is kept in the middle and any collections are used to push forward that cause.
All this of course would be deplored by many as a stand, but we should acknowledge reality, even if we don't accept it., and Bharatiya Nationalist forces should not be forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
-----------
Also
cross-posted to
"Statewide and National runup to 2014 General elections" Thread also for discussion if desired.