Linking from a discussion on the NaMo thread in GDF:
Carl wrote:Muppalla wrote:I totally disagree with such classification. To me Govindacharya types are just nut cases and if they have brains they are Ambhi Kumars of modern India. By giving them Left, Right, hindutva etc, we are unnecessarily giving them respect which they do not deserve. I really don't care what they did in the past or how brilliant they were. When it matters they have become enemy of the national aspirations of the state.
OK. Could you explain what exactly Govindacharya types are doing that makes them "enemy of the national aspirations of the state"? Thanks.
Supratik wrote:For example, what is this "mukhota, mukhota" business about Vajpayee that he carried on for few years?
Well he denied it, and later said Vajpayee was a "mukut" not "mukhota". But even if he did make such a remark, I want to understand why he did so.
RSS severs links with Govindacharya
Govindacharya was not very comfortable with the coalition style of BJP politics after the National Democratic Alliance Government came to power. The BJP had to virtually give up all its pet issues - Ram temple, abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, and a uniform civil code - which were not accommodated in the NDA manifesto and agenda for governance. An RSS hardliner like Mr. Govindacharya was not convinced that giving up policy for power was politically prudent.
Here's what I think based on the discussion earlier in this thread (
this post) about the iterations along any one human dynamic. I had quoted from
this blogpost:
I think around the year 2000 when the BJP had come to power, it had done so mainly by mobilizing a populist sentiment - the Ram Janma Bhumi issue. In doing so, it had suddenly brought to light the fact that there was a mass sentiment for change from the typical politics of the Nehruvian era. This would be the
inflection point. It is also the
Penultimate step. Being the very first iteration of this Penultimate step of Hindutva politics in independent India, it would trigger a "cycle". Here is my idea on that:
My observation is that, down each column, the ideological tendency one step before balance also acts like an inflection point. We can call it the Penultimate step. At this point, there is a tendency to ripple right back in a sort of reverse peristaltic movement, back to the tendency one step after the balance point. We can call this the Intrapersonal Limit point, for it is the logical conclusion of the drive, taken independently of all other drives with one's body as the reference point. This reverse peristaltic movement vomits all the discontents of the system before a rebuilding can begin. So from this Limit point, one then cycles down through all the other steps, including the Penultimate step, and then one comes out the other side and actually reaches the balance. However -- if one does not have that enlightening cognition on the self and life in the Penultimate step during the first iteration, then one can fall over into excess - one falls into an unenlightened mode of the Intrapersonal Limit!
So, the next logical step (after the populist wave) to pay attention to would be all the way back to "formalism" - i.e., to re-focus on one's ideology, policy, direction, and the most efficient way to effect change. Otherwise ,the danger is that one rides the populist wave and puts together a shabby or "expedient" ideology in order to gain and consolidate power...and AT BEST (if one can continue that successfully) it will ultimately lead to one of two things: (a) "an unenlightened mode of the
Limit point" - IOW it would lead to ideological ossification and divisive communalist "identity politics" (different from
Asmita politics) of loyalty to a particular banner or religion rather than a creative movement. OR (b) Compromise ideology and succumb to becoming just another animal in the same dispensation - no new order is created.
So maybe Govindacharya was wary about the compromises with the NDA that diluted any ideological focus, much less allow it to be fleshed out more equitably and wisely.
Secondly, by not paying the right kind of attention to the Ram Mandir issue, one would even whittle down the populist base one had built up. In this case, it may not lead to ideological polarization, but it would lead to the BJP becoming just another part of the Nehruvian political paradigm.
Not abrogating article 370 undermines the future "nationalim" step from the PoV of a weak foreign policy impinging on domestic policy.
Not implementing a uniform civil code undermines nationalism and betrays the intents expressed in the Preamble.
Govindacharya's insistence at that time and his unhappiness with Vajpayee's charming compromises as part of NDA coalition politics may have seemed excessively "hardline" and raised the spectre of a despotic "Hindu Nazi". It is true that there are despotic tendencies, but that need not necessarily be bad. In fact, according to the table in the blogpost,
that is a logical and necessary step, though a risky one. It is a phase of consolidation and changing of the order in all limbs of society - educational, political, foreign policy, media, etc. So although it has a grain of truth in it, perhaps Govindacharya and his ilk have a wiser, more far-sighted point about the unfolding of "Hindutva". He had mentioned in an interview to Seema Mustafa that he was upset at the lack of "scientific principles" in running the political party. That's why he walked out.
Lastly, perhaps the time was not yet ripe, and there was too much charge around the "despotism" step of the graph. So perhaps the last decade has been a phase where much of that fear has been discharged. Vajpayee was a soft face that helped in that, too. Perhaps the time has come for the kind of politics that Govindacharya types were talking about. But it would be good to see it blossoming into a cordial opposition or counterpoint to the current mainstream Hindutva leadership.
