Suraj wrote:Very good post nageshks. I would
like the BJP to take up the mantle of the erstwhile Swatantra Party and the Jan Sangh. However they have not really done so. All of their competence and popularity centers upon one man right now, at the national level. They're doing much better at the
state level, where they have a collection of leaders who espouse a similar governance + Indic base - Shivraj Singh Chouhan in MP and Raman Singh in C'garh for example. However, they cannot win at the national level consistently without a broader base of leaders following the same political position.
Between 2004 and 2012-13, can one honestly explain what the difference between BJP and Congress was at the national level, other than names ? They never were a good opposition in Parliament, and I would rate the CPI(M) within UPA-1 as a better opposition party, in fact
The BJP should let go of its inhibitions and take up the right-of-center inclusive Indic position with an emphasis on governance and economic growth, whole heartedly. The Swatantra Party itself may have been too far ahead of its time, without a demographic base to support their stand, but India in 2014 would benefit greatly from a revival of their economic policies.
Suraj-ji,
I quite agree with you about the BJP at the centre. However, you are overlooking two major problems with regard to their failure as the opposition. The men (and women) who led the opposition in the Centre from 2004-2012 were the ones who were associated with Vajpayee, and his agenda. Whether we like it or not, the Vajpayee government came to power on the strength of the Hindutva agenda, and on that score, they all failed dismally. Not one of their promises was accomplished, and with the Hindutva crowd, the BJP leadership at the Centre had totally lost credibility. The men and women associated with Vajpayee (especially the upper echelons of the BJP Central leadership) were, consequently, irrevocably compromised.
To make matters worse, they were pitted against MMS (who had ensured good economic growth in his first term - it may have been the lingering effect of the NDA policies, but nevertheless, people saw no difference in the administrations of the Congress and the BJP) in 2009. The BJP, between 2004 and 2012, was just a pale imitation of the Congress and there was no real difference. The Communists looked like a real opposition, because they could ideologically oppose many of the economic policies of the Centre. The economic disasters of the UPA were yet to bear their bitter fruit in 2009, and very few people had realised the true devastation unleashed by the populist economics of the UPA. The BJP could not really oppose the minority appeasement by the Congress, because they had been too timid when they had been in power. The opposition by the BJP would be credible only if it was led by someone who had impeccable Hindutva credentials, and that someone could not be a man associated with the Vajpayee government.
By 2010-2011, most of the lingering effect of the good administration of the NDA was gone, and the UPA's disastrous policies were beginning to bear fruit. Sop after sop, idiotic populism, and scam after scam began arising. But the BJP could not oppose because a few bad apples in the BJP were unearthed, and a successful campaign to equate the horrendous sins of the Congress with the few of the BJP was unleashed. In comparison to the billions looted by the Congress, the BJP's own crimes were peanuts. Nevertheless, there were a few, and they could not be denied. So, the BJP's opposition looked to be rank opportunism. Consequently, the only effective BJP opposition to the Congress could come from one who was not in the Centre in 2004, and who still carried credibility with the Hindutva folks.
This is where NaMo came. Not only was he an outcast in the political arena for his pro-Hindu sentiments, but also he had a reputation for personal integrity and good business oriented policies. NaMo's popularity is not so much his own doing as the timing too. Fifteen years ago, when the BJP still had recognised Hindutva faces and credibility among the Hindutva afficionados, NaMo would have been unremarkable. Today, Hindutva forces are under siege - false terror charges, evangelism on a grand scale, religious cleansing in regions, etc. They are desperate for a saviour, and the one person who has never compromised on Hindutva, who is never apologetic about his Hindutva outlook, NaMo, is unsurprisingly the leader. Also, his ability to weather the repeated attacks by the secular terrorists worked hugely in his favour, and created a sympathy for him.
The good governance folks are also desperate. Growth is falling, jobs are hit, the economy is in shambles, and people are hoping for a man with good business sense and developmental politics, as opposed to populism of the Congress. Their hopes are also centred around the man who, they hope, can deliver good governance, and set right the ship of state, after the botched experiments of the Congress. Hence the extreme popularity of NaMo.
The BJP leadership in the states did not face the loss of credibility that the BJP in the centre did. That is why you have good leaders in the states. They have credibility with both the Hindutva crowd and the good governance crowd. I am hoping that they will build a pan Indian base with good leaders in all states, who are unapologetic Indics, and focus on good governance. The problem is compounded by the fact that in addition to the above two qualities, you also need leaders who can appeal to the people. A prime example of this problem is Yeddyurappa - he is not apologetic about his Hindutva, and he is a mass leader, but he is not good at governance. I would happily make Yeddyurappa the party chief in Karnataka, but would not make him CM. So - BJP will have to find the best talent in every state and promote it.
When we think of the Swatantra Party, we often think only of their economic policies and focus on individual rights. But most of them were unapologetic Hindus, and did a great deal for Hindutva causes. Honestly, are the contributions of Gayathri Devi, or N G Ranga (the number of people he stopped from becoming Communists and Naxalites is probably his greatest achievement), or K M Munshi (he started Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, which produces some of the best texts about India and joined Jan Sangh after the death of Rajagopalachari), or Rajagopalachari himself any less than the contributions of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee or Deen Dayal Upadhyaya? They may not have been openly Hindutva as the (then) Jan Sangh, but they were Hindu to the core. The amalgamation of the Swatantra Party policies and Jan Sangh ideals is rooted in Indianness itself. It is just that they chose to place greater emphasis on different aspects of policy (the one on economics, the other on socio-cultural aspects), but their merger is a direct natural consequence of the two different aspects of governance merging.
Glad to hear the anecdote about Kozhikode. It is a communist/ML bastion, so the growth of the BJP there is a very heartening development. Kerala has a collection of OBC+UC+non-proselytizing Christian groups who would together constitute a great long term BJP base. It won't happen overnight, but when it does, it will be potent.
Aye - I am hoping that in Malabar, there will be a genuine move towards the BJP this time. The non-proselytising Christians are feeling the heat from both the Muslim League and from the proselytising Christians (who are not shy about poaching on other Christians either). A pan-Indian Indic party based on Indic ethics, culture and economic policies is what I hope the BJP can become.
