Don’t block the ‘Internet Hindus’

That won't silence the clanging bells!

Hindus who are proud to assert their identity and fly the Tricolour high have now found a new platform to have their say, the way they want it, without fear of being shouted down. Tired of being derided by pseudo-secularists in media who see nothing wrong with Muslim communalism and Christian fundamentalism but are swift to pounce upon Hindus for being ‘intolerant’, their cultural ethos crudely denigrated by the Left-liberal intelligentsia as antediluvian, Hindus have begun to harness technology to strike back with deadly effect.

They are bright, they are well-educated, they are not burdened with regional and caste biases, they are amazingly well-informed on national issues and world affairs, they are rooted in Indian culture, and they are politically alert. They hate being told they are wrong when they know they are right. They have a mind of their own and refuse to be led like sheep. Not surprisingly, they hold the Congress, the Left and regional parties in contempt, as they do journalists who cravenly ingratiate themselves with the establishment. For them, India matters — and matters more than anything else. Meet the ‘Internet Hindus’.

In recent days there has been a spate of articles disparaging the ‘Internet Hindus’, variously describing them as “loonies”, “fanatics”, “irrational”, “Hindu Taliban” and, by an enraged news channel anchor, “gutter snipes”. Much of the criticism has come from left-of-centre journalists who believe they have unfettered monopoly over media as their inalienable birth right. Exalted members of Delhi’s commentariat, who are indistinguishable from the city’s la-di-dah socialites, tend to turn up their noses every time they hear the phrase ‘Internet Hindus’ as they would at the suggestion of travelling by public transport. Others are given to contemptuously brushing aside ‘Internet Hindus’ as being irrelevant and describing their views as inconsequential. All this and more has neither dampened the spirit of ‘Internet Hindus’ nor blunted their assertive attitude.

Here are some statistics, culled from an ongoing online survey, which would help create a generic profile of ‘Internet Hindus’. The survey is open to all Hindus who use the Internet; the response has been overwhelming. Of those who have responded, 88.9 per cent have identified themselves as ‘Internet Hindus’, indicating they attach no shame to the term though their critics would want them to feel ashamed. Of the respondents, four per cent are aged 20 years and below; 55 per cent are aged 30 and below; 31 per cent are 40 and below; and, only 10 per cent are aged above 40. In brief, 90 per cent of them are young Indians.

The educational profile of the respondents is awesome: 43 per cent are graduates (most of them from top-notch engineering, science and medical colleges); 46 per cent are post-graduates (a large number of them have MBA degrees from the best B-schools); and, 11 per cent have PhDs. It is understandable that none of them is unemployed. Those without jobs are still studying (17.3 per cent) and can be found in labs and classrooms of the best universities here and abroad. Of the 82.7 per cent who are employed, 3.1 per cent earn up to Rs 2 lakh a year; 18.4 per cent earn up to Rs 6 lakh a year; 34.7 per cent earn up to Rs 12 lakh a year; and, 26.5 per cent earn more than Rs 24 lakh a year. Nearly 60 per cent of them frequently travel abroad on work and holiday. Some 11 per cent have travelled abroad at least once.

Contrary to the impression that is being sought to be created by their critics, ‘Internet Hindus’ are open to ideas, believe in a plural, law-abiding society and swear by the Constitution. They are often appalled by the shenanigans of our politicians, including those of the BJP, and are ruthless in decrying politics of identity and cynical vote-bank policies. They have no gender prejudices and most of them think banning FTV is downright silly in this day and age. The ‘Internet Hindus’ will not countenance denigration of their faith or biased media coverage of events, but 91.9 per cent of them respect and accept other religions. Asked if India is meant only for Hindus, an overwhelming majority of them, responding to the survey, said, ‘Hell, no!’

So why do they infuriate pseudo-secularists in media and make Delhi’s commentariat see red? There are three possible explanations. First, the Net is beyond the control of those who control newspapers and news channels. While the print and audiovisual media have for long excluded contrarian opinion and denied space to those who disagree with absurd notions of ‘secularism’ or question the quality of reportage, the Net has provided space to the ‘other’ voice. Real time blog posts now record the ‘other side’ of the day’s story (“The Prince was shouted down in Bihar, not feted by students!”), Twitter affords instant micro-blogging even as prime time news is being telecast (“That’s not true. I live in Bareilly. This is not how the riots began!”), and YouTube allows unedited amateur videos of events (the Meraj riots, the Islamist violence in Kashmir Valley) to be uploaded, giving the lie to edited and doctored versions shown by news channels.

Second, unlike carefully selected ‘Letters to the Editor’ in newspapers and ‘Feedback’ posted on news channel websites, the reactions of ‘Internet Hindus’, often savage and unflattering, cannot be thrown into the dustbin or deleted with a click of the mouse. English language media journalists, long used to fawning praise from readers and viewers, are horrified that someone can actually call them ‘dumb’ in public space and there’s nothing they can do about it. Third, the established elite, most of them middle-aged, are beginning to feel threatened. Here’s a new breed of Indians who have used merit and not ‘connections’ to make a mark in professional excellence, young men and women who are educated and articulate, and are willing to challenge conventional wisdom as preached by media ‘stars’ who have rarely, if ever, been questioned. The elite who dominate newspapers and news channels are seen by ‘Internet Hindus’ as part of India’s past, not future. As one ‘Internet Hindu’ writes in his blog, “A large number of ex-elite can’t stomach fact that children of bankruptcy are better travelled, better read and dominate the Internet!” Harsh, but true.

We can describe the ‘Internet Hindus’ as the “lunatic fringe”, but that won’t change the fact that their tribe is growing by the day. Soon, those on the fringe will move to the centre and their critics will find themselves precariously perched on the fringe. The Right is gaining ground as is the access and reach of the Net; newspapers and news channels, the Left’s last refuge, no longer command absolute control over information flow. It would be unwise to ‘block’ the voice of ‘Internet Hindus’, as then their clamour to be heard will further increase and there is nothing we can do to silence them. The times they are a-changin’.

[This appeared as my Sunday column Coffee Break in The Pioneer on March 14, 2010. (c) CMYK Printech Ltd. ]

Tiger’s roar turns into a whimper

Friday has come and gone. Shahrukh Khan’s film, My Name is Khan, has been released in theatres across the country and around the world. The Shiv Sena’s protest against the movie has fallen flat. Television channels that went to town over the Shahrukh Khan-Shiv Sena spat are gleefully toting up ratings. Expectedly, the film has received rave reviews. Both Shahrukh Khan and Karan Johar are celebrating their latest success. The tamasha, thankfully, is over and we can get back to less exciting issues like food prices, Maobadi excesses, taxpayer-funded assistance for Islamic terrorists, and the Prime Minister’s renewed grovelling before a smugly arrogant, terror-sponsoring Pakistan at America’s instruction.

It would, however, be instructive to revisit the Mumbai stand-off that turned into a damp squib. Shahrukh Khan (and consequently My Name is Khan) managed to earn the Shiv Sena’s ire by describing Pakistan as a “great neighbour”. The comment was made in the context of IPL franchises not picking up Pakistani cricketers and the subsequent media-generated ‘outrage’ over what was described as a “deliberate snub” which some said was at the Government’s behest, a charge that has since been stoutly denied by Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and lesser worthies of the UPA 2.0 regime. It was frightfully stupid of the Shiv Sena to seize upon Shahrukh Khan’s stray comment, possibly made keeping in mind audience and fans across the Radcliffe Line, and question his patriotism. There is no reason to disbelieve the actor (he describes himself as a “performing artiste”) when he says (as he did on Twitter): “Hate: Anyone or anything that threatens my country… I have never hurt anybody’s sentiments… religious, nationalist or personal wittingly. I am pro-relationship but not at the cost of my nation… Feel awful that Balasaheb and Uddhav have misconstrued my words...”.

Conspiracy theorists would say that Shahrukh Khan (or his publicists) sensed a great opportunity in the brouhaha that followed the IPL franchises ignoring Pakistani cricketers to trigger a controversy on the eve of the release of My Name is Khan. After all, a million dollars and more spent on publicising the film could not have fetched such frenzied and sustained media reportage for nearly a fortnight. They would also slyly point out that perhaps the actor’s run-in with American immigration officials (who are known to be intellectually challenged) on account of the ‘Khan’ part of his name, which resulted in his being detained for two hours at Newark Airport and massive (media-instigated) outpouring of rage in India, may not have been entirely coincidental.

After all, Shahrukh Khan did try to kick-up a similar controversy by claiming security staff at Heathrow Airport asked him to sign prints of his full body scan showing his (what are coyly referred to as) ‘private organs’. Apparently, he was happy to ‘autograph’ the prints. British immigration officials, sharper than their friends across the Atlantic, however, were not too happy about the colourful story finding its way into media reports, and issued a formal statement denying that he had been body-scanned and pointing out that such scanners do not come attached with printers, nor can these images be printed on paper. In brief: It was a cock-and-bull story. But that did not dampen the enthusiasm of his fans, some of whom are believed to have paid as much as a thousand euros to attend the first day, first show of My Name is Khan in European theatres.

Shahrukh Khan (I must, alas, use the actor’s full name since I am neither his fan and have in fact not seen any of his films, nor can I claim, unlike many of my colleagues, to know him socially), of course, describes these conspiracy theorists as “sickos” and wants them to “shut up”. Some would say this does not suggest that he is as tolerant about others as he expects them to be about him. But there really is no percentage in getting involved in a protracted debate on the actor (whose first interview to a mainstream newspaper appeared in The Pioneer at my suggestion some 18 years ago if I am not mistaken; the then editor, now a leading member of the Left-liberal intelligentsia, had squawked: “Shahrukh who? That runt?”) or his latest film.

Nor shall any purpose be served in debating the media’s astounding role in converting the Shahrukh Khan-Shiv Sena spat into a morality play in which the good, the liberal and the tolerant were called upon to take a stand against the bad, the illiberal and the intolerant and protect, of all things, “India’s integrity”. I am still struggling to figure out how a Bollywood film and the nation’s integrity are linked. The media-manufactured outrage, however, was sufficiently effective to make a young woman, allegedly educated enough to be employed as a content writer, pathetically tweet (to @iamsrk) on Thursday night, “Dear Shahrukh I am always being there for you, no need for you being sad. It is kismat! :).” On @iamsrk’s timeline there’s a corresponding tweet which says, “Yipeee!” Presumably such exchanges bear evidence to the correctness of media going berserk over what finally turned out to be a non-event. News judgement couldn’t have been more appropriate in the times we live in.

Yet, the hullabaloo has proved to be useful insofar as it has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Shiv Sena is now a pale shadow of its past, drained of energy and stripped of its legendary clout to shut down Mumbai in less than an hour’s notice. Worse, the Marathi manoos, for whose rights the Shiv Sena claims to be fighting for, is no longer willing to take to the streets at the drop of a hat: The Pramukh’s wish is no longer considered a command, nor is Matoshree any more seen as the centre of real power in Mumbai. Young Indians, increasingly mobile and constantly looking for fresh opportunities in new places, are loath to subscribe to the Shiv Sena’s narrow parochialism, which does not necessarily mean they subscribe to the bogus liberalism propagated by our media either. Successive electoral reverses and desertion from its ranks have only served to defang the ageing ‘tiger’: Many of Balasaheb Thackeray’s storm-troopers are now beneficiaries of Congress largesse.

There’s a message for the BJP in Friday’s abject defeat, if not humiliation, of the Shiv Sena: The party’s oldest ally is now a liability. Politics is largely about popular perceptions, and the most popular perception of the moment is that the Shiv Sena story is over, it’s a relic of the past which has no place in India of the future. The nation, as the RSS has emphasised while berating the Shiv Sena for its hoodlum politics, takes precedence over obscene parochialism. A separation can no longer be put off indefinitely; the BJP must exercise its choice or risk getting tarred by the same brush. This is not about standing by Shahrukh Khan, but upholding the principles of enlightened Hindutva.

[This appeared as my weekly column 'Coffee Break' in The Pioneer on 14/02/10.]

Waffle at BJP National Executive meeting

[Update at the end]

The conventional assessment of the BJP National Executive meeting (June 20-21) is that its primary purpose of providing members with an opportunity to let off post-election steam has been achieved. This will put an end to trading of charges and levelling of allegations. It will be back to business as usual.

It is also being claimed (and I endorse this partially) that those who have been cavilling against the party’s ideology and its core idea, Hindutva, have been silenced. Ideology shall continue to enjoy primacy and Hindutva shall remain the guiding force.

Third, niggling doubts about the leadership issue have been put to rest. The party has asserted the principle of ‘democratic centralism’ and this is the way it shall be. Never mind what the party constitution says about electing leaders from bottom up.

My assessment differs on all these counts and more.

The unabashed finger-pointing that was witnessed marks a departure from the past when sobriety was the norm during National Executive meetings. Little or no purpose has been served by the mutual recrimination that marked the discussions till Sunderlal Patwa intervened with an emotional speech.

Patwa’s intervention may have forced an end to the ugly trading of charges, including between Shahnawaz Hussein and Maneka Gandhi, and diverted attention from the points raised by Arun Shourie, but the internecine war is by no means over. At best it is tactical retreat, not even temporary truce.

It is a pity that two ‘leaders’, whom LK Advani referred to as “two eminent Muslim colleagues of ours”, were allowed to adopt an abrasive tone and level all kinds of charges while others were disallowed to raise issues that are much more fundamental for the party’s well-being.

But I guess it is useful to promote the fiction that the BJP lost the election because of what Varun Gandhi said (or did not say) in Pilibhit. That way, the real reasons shall remain swept under the carpet.

[Sushil Modi in his intervention mentioned that Hindutva upsets the JD(U) and could strain the BJP-JD(U) alliance in Bihar. That’s as unconvincing as Naveen Patnaik’s claim that he parted company with the BJP because of the violence in Kandhamal. If Nitish Kumar is convinced that he can win a majority on his own he will part company with the BJP: Nobody likes to share power. A section of the JD(U) feels that an alliance with the Congress makes better sense because it would fetch political returns at the Centre here and now.]

Here is a fact that should have been the subject of serious discussion but was ignored by the National Executive: Of the sitting MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha who contested this year’s election, only 37 have been re-elected. In 2004, nearly a hundred sitting MPs of the BJP lost the election.

It would be absurd to suggest that barring 37 sitting MPs the remaining lost the 2009 election because of Varun Gandhi’s alleged inflammatory comments or a harsh and narrow interpretation of Hindutva. I don’t think there is any evidence to suggest that Hindutva was even mentioned during their campaign, leave alone giving it a sinister twist.

The reasons why such a large number of sitting MPs lost are four-fold:

. Poor track record of the individuals;
. Poor organisational back-up;
. Poor campaigning at the constituency level; and,
. Poor selection of candidates.

The BJP obviously does not want to discuss these issues as that would result in quite a few red faces at the high table. Patwa has saved them from acute embarrassment.

Second, there is no clarity as yet on either ideology or Hindutva.

Both LK Advani and Rajnath Singh stressed on the inclusiveness of Hindutva and how it militates against bigotry and fanaticism. That’s a nice thought. But what does it stand for?

. LK Advani said “BJP’s understanding of Hindutva is fully in accord with the unanimous judgement given by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on December 11, 1995.”

. Rajnath Singh said “Hindutva … has a sense of respect and a place for everyone and it is a concept of co-existence. It is this cultural consciousness which has made Hindutva so benevolent and flexible.”

. The Political Resolution moved and drafted by Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “Hinduism or Hindutva is not to be understood or construed narrowly confined only to religious practices or expressed in extreme forms. It is indeed related to the culture and ethos of the people of the India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.”

The Indian people’s “way of life” has nothing to do with politics or political campaigns to secure state power. If Hindutva is only what the Supreme Court thinks it is, then it should not be the political creed of any party, least of all the BJP.

The political resolution bizarrely equates Hinduism with Hindutva. This was best avoided. Hinduism is about faith, which is by definition narrow and exclusive. Hindutva is about political mobilisation, which has to be inclusive and all-embracing.

The party should have said:

Hindutva is rooted in India’s cultural and civilisational ethos, of which faith (Hinduism, Islam or Christianity) is only one inter-changeable component; it is representative of India’s identity as an ancient nation and a modern nation state; it links India’s past with its present and mirrors its aspirations for a better future.

It defines Indianness or Bharatiyata. It is the cornerstone of cultural nationalism, the BJP's USP.

It is rooted in egalitarianism, tolerance and compassion. It celebrates democracy. It harmonises differences. It rests on the principle of justice to all, appeasement of none.

Some may perceive merit in waffle we heard at the National Executive meeting, but it will not help remove the confusion that prevails at all levels. The party needs to enunciate Hindutva for our times. I wonder when the BJP’s ‘Blair moment’ will come.

The BJP would have done itself some good had it used this National Executive meeting to also clarify a related point: Core issues of the party are not core elements of Hindutva, they are at best tangentially linked.

Abrogation of Article 370 is to do with integration of the States and Centre-State relations. Retaining Article 370 keeps open the issue of Jammu & Kashmir’s full and final integration with the Union of India and allows others to refer to it as ‘disputed territory’. It also accords to Jammu & Kashmir a special status that is denied to the other States of the Union. None of these is a key component of Hindutva.

Article 44 of the Constitution states: "The state shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code.” This is primarily meant to uphold the republican principles of equality for all, irrespective of gender, religion and caste. It is also aimed at modernising Indian society by ridding it of regressive personal laws. Where does the demand for Uniform Civil Code fit into the concept of Hindutva?

By not separating these two core issues from the core of its ideology, the BJP has failed to put an end to the campaign of calumny by the ‘secular’ political establishment and the ill-informed sections of media. More importantly, it has missed an opportunity to remove misconception in the minds of its cadre.

Advani has talked about organisational weaknesses and the need to address them as well as expand the party’s base in States where it is almost non-existent. The “train compartment” mentality he has referred to is extremely relevant. Hopefully it applies to all in the higher echelons of the party.

As for strengthening the organisation and strategise for the next 20 years, it will require a mindset change across the board at the top: The needless craving for allies and alliances has to be replaced by determination and a can-do spirit.

Unfortunately, those who speak about it are also strong votaries of subjugating State units of the party to allies so that local leaders don’t grow in stature and want a place inside the “train compartment”.

A last point: States representatives at the meeting were unanimous and unambiguous in their praise for Narendra Modi. Every where he visited during the campaign, they said, the cadre were galvanised and supporters enthused. Nothing more need be said.

UPDATE 24/06/09:

. This whole differentiation of 'moderate', 'soft' and 'hard' Hindutva makes little sense. Hindtuva needs to be seen as a concept, an idea, the core of the party's belief and the base of its political positioning. The moment it begins to label Hindutva, it suggests a certain discomfort with everything that this idea stands for.

. There are some in the party who believe that to be one with 'Young India' they must ape the worst trait that manifests itself in urban India among those who feel embarrassed about being an Indian and describe themselves as 'global citizens', which is no more than an imaginary identity as opposed to an identity rooted in the soil of your motherland. Hence, the effort to disown and distance yourself from Hindutva.

. Young India, we must note, lives not only in cities but in villages and district towns. That Young India is not yet a deracinated lot.

. The BJP will (hopefully) never come to resemble a Congress dominated by beautiful people who adorn Page 3 and mesmerise the chattering classes.

. The 'aspirations' that are often referred to in connection with issues the BJP should address to widen its support base cannot exclude Hindu aspirations, especially the aspiration to be treated with honour and dignity in Hindu majority India. This is not about crude majoritarianism but the majority's right not to be treated shabbily and with contempt.

. My own view is that Muslims will never vote (or vote substantially) for the BJP. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was shunned by the Muslims as a 'Hindu' party (Varun Gandhi wasn't born then); the BJP was and continues to be shunned as a 'Hindu party'. The BJP can stand on its head and do a double somersault and a twist-and-turn. There will be applause but no votes. So, let those in the BJP who keep on plugging the secular/Muslim line not waste their breath. Muslims will either consolidate behind the Congress (if the party is seen to be able to practice aggressive appeasement, eg, communal job and education quotas) or they will vote tactically to defeat the BJP. Muslims are believed to be the decisive factor in 54 Lok Sabha constituencies; by 2014, this number will further increase. The mullah and the masjid will ensure the breach is never bridged, not even if Vande Mataram is replaced with qawaali.

. Similarly, the BJP should get rid of its diffidence for being seen as a 'Right-wing party'. Or else it should either disband of fashion itself as a clone of the Congress, a 'B' team, so to say. There is no halfway house on this front. To be 'Right' does not mean to be wrong. Nor is conservative or 'Right-wing' politics 'unenlightened'.

. Meanwhile, in the context of short-sighted political alliances, the BJP should ponder over what it has lost by striking an alliance with the Gorkha Jana Mukti Morcha in Darjeeling district of West Bengal. What it has gained is one Lok Sabha seat, limited to this election.

These are some stray thoughts I felt I should share with you after going through my notes on the National Executive.

BJP leaders feel the heat: A volcano about to erupt?

BJP’s deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, Sushma Swaraj, made an interesting remark in Bhopal on Monday (June 15) while refusing to comment on the apparent mess that prevails in the party at the moment. It seems, going by media reports, that she described the situation as similar to that of a ‘volcano’ and how the smallest of ‘sparks’ could lead to an ‘explosion’.

Despite much effort, I have not been able to get the exact quote of what she said. Did she describe the situation as ‘bisphotak’ (explosive)? Or did she use the word ‘jwalamukhi’ (volcano)? The media versions are conflicting.

If the situation is ‘explosive’, then things could ‘explode’ due to two reasons: External instigation (a ‘spark’) or internal pressure at the top or any level. If it is similar to that of a rumbling ‘volcano’, then it could explode due to extreme pressure from down below – that’s how volcanic eruptions happen.

Which brings me to the question: What’s happening in the BJP? Is pressure building up at the top? Or is the party leadership (LK Advani, Rajnath Singh, et al) feeling the pressure building up at the ground level, that is, among cadre?

There is reason to believe the cadre is getting restless. Vague talk of ‘introspection’ and ‘chintan baithak’ to assess the BJP’s electoral performance has not served to assuage feelings of despondency among karyakartas, disarray in the ranks and disunity at the top.

These feelings have only hardened in recent days with Jaswant Singh raising the three Ps and Yashwant Sinha dramatically resigning from all party posts to ‘set an example for others’, force a discussion on the need to link performance and reward, and generally seize the ‘moral high ground’.

The entire debate over the need for debate within the party is increasingly getting mired in personality issues, ego problems and the despair which comes with successive electoral defeat.

Two points merit attention.

First, after the electoral debacle of 2004 (which was far less expected than the defeat of 2009), there were, if memory serves me right, a series of meetings, at least two of them at exotic locations, to discuss the ‘way forward’. After much deliberation, the ‘way forward’ was decided and the course charted. Surely this is not the destination the party had set its eyes on.

Second, clearly those deliberations were worthless sessions of mutual ego massage and the decisions that followed were naturally flawed.

So, what is the guarantee, cadre are asking, that this time it will be any different? After all,

. The top leaders seem to be in no hurry to roll up their sleeves and sit down with facts and figures;
. There is great pretence of business as usual – you don’t have to go around in sack cloth and ashes but surely there should be visible concern?
. A two-day National Executive, of which half-a-day will go in presidential and valedictory speeches and another half-a-day on passing resolutions (which have increasingly become utterly meaningless and not worth the paper they are written upon), is the best way to fob off early, elaborate and genuine debate.

There is a view that the National Executive need not have been called at this point of time. Instead, the leaders should have gone into retreat for threadbare discussions and come up with a roadmap to rejuvenate the party and recover lost ground, as well as expand its geographical spread.

There is also the other view: Hold a National Executive meeting, give members an opportunity let off steam in a controlled enviroment, and then get back to doing nothing.

I feel that the first course would have been preferable. But before coming up with a conclusive roadmap, there should be intensive interaction with State units of the party, not limited to office-bearers in the capital cities but also with district units and the largest possible cross-section of party members.

Yes, the entire task would take at least three months, but the move could be initiated right away with a predetermined deadline, say by October, to come up with a tentative roadmap. The National Executive could have then deliberated on it, fine-tuned it, and taken it to the National Council for approval and implementation.

No, it won’t happen that way because over the past decade decision-making has become a hazy process with our own versions of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale deciding for all the stake-holders in the BJP what should really be decided at a larger, participatory forum. There is reasonable doubt about it being any different now.

Unlike others who have attributed profound reasons for the BJP’s miserable performance, I feel the causative factors are not that difficult to locate and are known to those who lead the party. I would list them as:

. Organisational problems – the party is in a shambles in most States, especially in those where it has been in alliance with others;
. Wrong choice of candidates – in at least 50-odd constituencies people voted against the party’s candidate and not the party per se;
. A meandering, directionless campaign with no clearly focussed ideas and over-reliance on issues on which the BJP’s record in governance is nothing to write home about;
. Failure to anticipate voting preference/pattern in crucial States like Maharashtra (where MNS’s ability to split votes was grievously under-estimated) and Uttar Pradesh (where the shift in caste alignments was fatally overlooked or not sensed) reflect disconnect with grassroots.
. Letting the media aggressively set the agenda and timidly responding to it, instead of the other way round; and,
. Giving the heave-ho to the concept of collective leadership.

I wonder if Varun Gandhi’s alleged ‘hate speech’ or the reprehensible behaviour of Pramod Muthalik, or, for that matter, the Kandhamal violence, had the kind of impact as is being made out.

After all, in Karnataka the BJP has done exceedingly well; in Orissa the BJD would have gone its own way irrespective of what happened or didn’t happen. I think it’s rather far-fetched to suggest that voters in Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh were influenced by events in Karnataka and Orissa.

Since everybody harps on ‘good governance’ as the over-riding factor which determines voter preference, we should look at Uttarakhand where the BJP has governed well but has been routed in all five seats. Conversely, in Orissa, where Naveen Patnaik has little or nothing to show by way of tangible achievements over 10 years and social development indices remain abysmally low, the BJD has swept the polls.

It’s unfashionable to say so, but I think the outcome in Bihar (which had very low polling – down to 44.3 per cent from 58.02% in 2004) had more to do with getting the caste arithmetic right, Nitish Kumar tactically decimating the RJD’s support base and the Congress-RJD-LJP alliance falling apart, than with ‘good governance’.

As for Delhi, the real story why the party is on the verge of becoming inconsequential can be summed up in one sentence: The BJP’s inability to figure out the demographics of a cosmopolitan city.

The BJP won in 116 seats without aggressively promoting Hindutva; it lost in other places not because it was shy to promote Hindutva; it got its sums wrong because the figures fed to the leadership were horrendously misleading, apart from the reasons cited above.

So, let us not target Hindutva and make it into a bogeyman or an object of derision. On the contrary, the higher ideals of Hindutva – summed up by a stirring slogan no longer heard, ‘Justice for all, appeasement of none’, the essence of Ram Rajya whose contours are defined by egalitarianism, enlightenment and equity – should be reiterated forcefully.

Just because Hindutva is mocked at by the deracinated urban elite does not mean the BJP should disown its own identity. If Hindutva was relevant in the past, it can be made relevant for our times and the future, too.

What all this adds up to is the need for extensive groundwork to collect empirical data, process it intelligently to arrive at possible reasons why the BJP failed, and work on a roadmap to reach firm goals. Of course, this would simultaneously require rejuvenation of the party and regaining the cutting edge which propelled it ahead of the Congress in three successive general elections.

This is a gigantic exercise. And poses a litmus test for the leadership. If it fails, the BJP's situation would be akin to sitting atop a volcano with lava gushing up.

Blame game begins in BJP; knives are out!

[Update posted at the end.]

The blame-game has begun in the BJP. Those who are directly responsible for the party’s disastrous electoral performance are desperately trying to blame others lest their role comes under scrutiny.

The proverbial knives are out. On Wednesday (June 10) evening the ‘core group’ of the BJP met at LK Advani’s residence. There is nothing called the ‘core group’. Membership is extended (and/or withdrawn) depending on whether the ‘core group’ is supposed to massage bruised egos, indulge in collective hand-wringing, participate in self-flagellation, provide for limited expression of contrarian views, or snuff out voices of dissent.

On Wednesday, the ‘core group’ met for a bit of everything, so those who met were quite representative of the BJP as it is today, which is like a fish that has begun to rot head downward. [When we Bengalis buy fish, we check the gills; hence my choice of this metaphor.]

What was discussed at Wednesday’s meeting is really irrelevant and inconsequential. At the end of the meeting, everybody decided to meet again. As always, no decisions were taken. So much for the slogan, “Determined Leader, Decisive Government”. It’s not surprising that voters were not persuaded by it.

Jaswant Singh has made bold to raise the three ‘P’s – Prabandh, Parinam and Puraskar -- which should have engaged the party leadership after the May electoral debacle, but shall never be discussed.

Meanwhile, Sudheendra Kulkarni, 'Political Advisor, BJP', who undid the BJP’s election campaign in 2004 with the ‘India Shining’ slogan and fashioned the 2009 campaign which has taken the BJP to a low of barely-above-100 mark, has written an article for Tehelka, the magazine which tarred the NDA Government, causing it irreparable damage, and is now the favourite perch of those who inhabit the BJP’s inner courtyard, blaming all and sundry except those who are to blame. [Anil Chawla, his classmate at IIT Bombay, has circulated an 'open letter' by way of a rejoinder to Sudheendra Kulkarni's article.]

Sudheendra Kulkarni has made the following points:

. Everybody should own up for the party’s defeat, collectively and individually.

. Disunity among the party leaders contributed to its electoral failure.

. The Parivar (I wish he had shown courage by naming RSS) hobbled the campaign and made LK Advani look weak.

. Negativism ruined the BJP’s chances.

. Hindutva is the real obstacle between victory and defeat.

. BJP has failed to expand its ‘limited’ social base.

. Allies have been abandoned and new alliances haven’t been forged.

Here are my responses:

. The moral responsibility for the defeat is entirely that of those who led from the front. If they failed to enthuse voters, it is because they did not come across as inspirational leaders. The reasons for the credibility-deficit do not merit elaboration.

. Having abandoned the practice of collective leadership and placed individuals above party, not to speak of promoting those who thrive on divisions, groupism and factionalism, no purpose is served by pointing a finger at ‘disunity’ at the top.

. The RSS – as well as the greater Parivar – did nothing to hobble the campaign. The Sangh endorsed LK Advani as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, instructed affiliate organisations to join the campaign, and made every effort to bolster him through word and deed.

. Negativism was the core of the campaign fashioned by Sudheendra Kulkarni and his team vested with over-riding powers. [They came up with a real election-winner: After coming to power, LK Advani's Government will gift a smart phone to every BPL family.]

. Hindutva is the new bogeyman. So blame it for everything wrong under the Sun. There’s a problem though. Even if the BJP were to abandon Hindutva – the Hindu ethos which once made the BJP stand out from others, the pride in India’s cultural heritage and civilisational identity, the unifying concept of nationhood – Muslims wouldn’t vote for the party. Not even after reading 'Advaniji at a glance (in Urdu)' and finding that all mention of Vande Mataram has been erased from the BJP Website by the 'laptop brigade' which was supposed to lead the party to a stunning victory, but instead led it to a humiliating defeat. Fiction: Muslim disquiet with BJP can be resolved. Fact: Muslim hatred of BJP is visceral. Problem: How do you work around it?

. BJP’s failure to expand its social base is directly linked to its Pavlovian response to forging alliances. In every State the BJP has forged an alliance, it has moved from nothingness to nothingness, and not strength to strength. It began with Uttar Pradesh (BSP gained at BJP’s expense). It has been seen in Andhra Pradesh (TDP used BJP’s vote share, weakened the party and then abandoned it). In Orissa, BJD used BJP to consolidate its base and then cast it aside. In West Bengal TMC used BJP, plundered its organisational base and then denounced it as ‘communal’. In Punjab BJP has suffered on account of Akali Dal’s politics. In Bihar we shall witness a repeat of all this and more before the next Assembly election when JD(U) dumps BJP. The best way to stop new leaders emerging from the ranks (and thus posing a challenge to the entrenched leadership of the BJP) is to stump the party in the States by forging alliances and forcing local leaders to don sack cloth and ashes and become grovelling supplicants in the courts of the allies.

Elections come and go but parties remain, at least those who are in politics for more than power at any cost, now or never.

The BJP’s leadership is suffering from a disease called ‘last bus syndrome’: If it can’t catch this bus to power, then it will never get to be in power.

I am tempted to recall what LK Advani once told me, many years ago, before another general election: “As things stand, we could win enough seats to come to power. But I often ask myself, are we prepared for power?”

* * * * * *
[This blog post was reproduced by rediff.com with the headline 'The knives are out in the BJP' on Thursday, June 11. The reader response is revealing. The BJP leadership would do well to glance through them, since those of the respondents living in India are voters.]


UPDATE:


When I found that the link to 'Vande Mataram' had been dropped from the redesigned official Website of the BJP, I had immediately contacted Sudheendra Kulkarni (whose team oversaw the sprucing job) on telephone as well as sent him an e-mail. He expressed great surprise ('How can this be possible! We will immediately have it restored. Don't worry') and was gracious enough to promise early action.

That was about two months ago. Regrettably, nothing was done.

I pointed out the omission in a couple of my articles and column, but I guess the powers-that-be in the BJP were too busy to take note. Then I mentioned it again on this blog post.

Coincidentally, I happened to meet some office-bearers of the party on Thursday (June 11) evening, and one of them, who had seen my post as well as the version published by rediff.com, raised the issue. Everybody was aghast; some were livid; one senior office-bearer said he would raise the 'distortion' at the National Executive meeting.

Instructions were obviously issued subsequently to restore the original link to 'Vande Mataram'.

On Friday, lo and behold, the home page of the BJP Website had a link to 'VANDE MATARAM' -- the all caps display was touching, but not sufficiently so. When I clicked on the link, I found the text had been truncated to less than the 'official' sanitised version (broadcast by AIR) and curiously omitted the words 'Vande Mataram':

Sujalam , Sufalam, Malayj Sheetalam,

Sasyashyamalam, Mataram !

Shubhrajyotsna Pulakitayaminim,

Pullakusumita Drumadal Shobhinim,

Suhasinim, Sumadhur Bhashinim,

Sukhadam, Vardam, Mataram!

This makes no sense. In fact, it is a mockery of India's National Song.

Or does it reflect the hesitation of those in charge of the Website (I am told it is still being overseen by Sudheendra Kulkarni and his team) to post the full text and link it to an mpeg file of the traditional version, as it was in the earlier site, lest it offend the mullahs and blot the party's 'secular' credentials?

I am now told that a hunt is on for the original post and the related files. Let's wait and watch.

June 12, 2009.

Without ideology, BJP is nothing

Kanchan Gupta / Analysis

The responses to my last post have been extremely useful; they have helped clear doubts in my mind. Scintillating debate, even when it gets sharp, is always welcome.

The rise of the BJP between 1989 and 1998 was directly linked to assertive Hindu expectations articulated by an assertive Hindu leadership. These can be briefly summed up as:

. Political: Hindus had begun to tire of Congress's 'pseudo-secularism'; deep within them, Indians nurse a concept of nationhood whose defining contours are Hindu. When I say Hindu, it is not religion specific but culture and civilisation specific. The Ram Janmabhoomi agitation found a resonance across the country because it became a symbol of both bruised Hindu pride and an opportunity to correct a historical wrong. We could debate the merits of such perceived hurt and grievance, but that is not really relevant; what is relevant is that people saw it that way.

. Social: VP Singh's divisive Mandal politics had left middle India aghast and angry. Since anti-Congress feelings were still high, people turned to the BJP for succour. 'Hindutva' was seen as a unifying force.

. Economic: With the world moving towards market economy, middle India was seeking liberation from the statist economic control-and-command structure that had stifled enterprise and restricted growth as well as wealth generation for more than four decades. On this front, too, the BJP offered an alternative economic policy and programme, based on deregulation and reform.

These coalesced into a burst of support for the BJP, taking it to power in 1998. What also helped was the spectre of political instability and Congress's inability to get its act together during the intervening years between the 1996 and 1998 general elections.

This tectonic shift in voter preference towards the BJP would not have been possible without the party's tactical adoption of 'Hindutva' as a component of its ideology (or, as the BJP calls it, 'political philosophy') along with 'Integral Humanism', which the party says "gives us a broader and modern perspective and tries to unshackle our minds from parochial concerns and past baggage".

Deendayal Upadhyaya's enunciation on this aspect was explicit:

“We have to discard the status quo mentality and usher in a new era. Indeed our efforts at reconstruction need not be clouded by prejudice or disregard for all that is inherited from our past. On the other hand, there is no need to cling to past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility."

For the BJP, "A nation state based on Integral Humanism is a secular, non-theocratic state. Also, it repudiates statism and stands up for decentralisation to uphold the twin pillars of individual freedom and national interest."

To this was added 'Hindutva' in the late-1980s, strengthening the Hindu ethos of the party, making it more credible as a representative of Hindu aspirations, and setting it apart from the 'secular' centrist and left-of-centre political parties, especially the Congress.

Criticism of 'Hindutva' as a 'communal' idea was blunted by the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgement which, essentially, said that 'Hindutva' was/is India's 'way of life' and rooted in its civilisational and cultural history.
The Constitution Bench said,

"No precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu', 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions, the term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry..."

The BJP's own articulation of 'Hindutva' is both pithy and sharp:

"Hindutva or Cultural Nationalism presents the BJP's concept of Indian nationhood. It must be noted that Hindutva is a nationalist, and not a religious or theocratic, concept."

Yet, as has been evident during this summer's general election, events and incidents have controverted this 'concept of Indian nationhood', and driven voters away from the BJP, especially in urban India and among the middle classes.

'Hindutva', as enunciated by the BJP, now carries less credibility as a unifying force. On the contrary, it is seen as Hindu bigotry, fanaticism, extremism and 'anti-modernism', and anti-social reform. The instinctive liberal impulse of upwardly mobile Hindus in towns and cities rejects this perception of 'Hindtuva'. We could argue that the perception is flawed and not grounded in reality, but as we all know, perception matters more than reality, especially in politics.

The following have undoubtedly contributed towards the creation of this perception:

. The anti-Christian violence in Orissa and Karnataka;
. The unrestrained utterances of Hindu organisations like the Bajrang Dal and the VHP, among many others.
. The moral policing of dubious outfits like Sri Ram Sene which promote lumpen power.
. The harsh talk of neophytes like Varun Gandhi.
. The inability of the BJP to respond in a cogent and coherent manner when under attack from the 'secular' camp.
. The failure to strategise how to achieve political objectives and adopt tactics accordingly.
. The BJP's proclivity to fudge issues rather than confront them.
. The confusion that has replaced clarity within the party about 'Hindutva', with diverse opinions diluting its essence and disfiguring the concept.
. The absence of any strucured consultative process between the BJP and the various units of the 'Sangh Parivar'.
. The subversion of organisational interests to promote individual interests.

It could well be asked that if Hindus want grievances related to their faith, for instance the threat to Hinduism and Hindu society posed by missionaries of the Christian church, whom should they turn to if not the BJP? And, should the BJP shy away from speaking up for Hindu society?

This is no doubt a tricky question. If the BJP is indifferent to Hindu angst and anger, it will be seen by Hindus as being no different from the 'secular' political class. But if it actively involves itself in the redressal process, it will rile liberal Hindu sensitivities.

Nor can the BJP just disown fraternal organisations like the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. Those who prescribe this course forget that at the grassroots level, there is tremendous interlinking between the supporters of the various Sangh organisations.

Which brings us to three related questions:

Does a possible solution lie in repudiating 'Hindutva' and retaining 'Integral Humanism' as the core ideological belief of the party, as is being suggested by some?

Or, should the BJP reframe the concept of 'Hindutva' and make it more meaningful for our times without 'secularising' the party?

Or, should the BJP revisit both 'Integral Humanism' [conceptualised in a particular social, political and economic context that does not obtain any more] and 'Hindutva' [similarly formulated in a particular social/political situation that no longer exists], cull out the most redeeming features of both, and draft a new charter to guide the party in the next decade?

I personally feel the time has come to opt for the third course of action. [My Sunday column in the Pioneer.] If adopted, it will ensure greater clarity, help purge the party of its gathered malcontents and give it a 'new look' with which 'new India' can connect.

The BJP would be reduced to nothing without an ideology of its own that is uniquely different from what is espoused by others. But ideology must lie at the core of a grand political strategy, which is different from what the Americans refer to as 'the vision thing' and of which some in the BJP (the courtiers) are enamoured because it promotes individuals over organisation.

Can the BJP come up with a grand political strategy in the next five years, more precisely, by 2014?

The answer to this question is linked to the issue of ideology. One without the other is meaningless, if not impossible.

What do you think?

Locating BJP's ideology

Comment
There was a time when the BJP prided itself as an 'ideological political party' with clarity of thought and purpose. Many of those who are members or supporters of the party were/are loyal to the organisation because of its 'ideology'.

I say 'many' because not all are ideologically motivated. There are those who are drawn to the BJP because of its position on certain issues (terrorism), the appeal of its leaders (Narendra Modi) or because it offers a platform for anti-Congress politics.

Then there are those who are time-servers and are on the lookout for goodies which could range from bagging contracts to brokering deals to loaves and fishes of office.

There's a third category: Flatterers whose survival (and prosperity) is linked to their treacly flattery, though it must be said that not all BJP leaders are swayed by what is crudely referred to as chamchagiri. The power wielded by the 'Flatterers Club' is demonstrated by the ease with which a 'psephologist', who now enjoys Government perks and privileges, misled the party leadership with bogus opinion and exit polls. Just how bogus can be gauged from his 'exit poll' estimate, calculated on the eve of May 16, that the NDA would get 217 seats while the UPA would halt at 176! His clout and access remain undiminished.

Soon after Shankarsinh Vaghela had brought down Keshubhai Patel's Government, Narendra Modi had ruefully told me how the party was divided in three categories of leaders/workers -- 'Khajurias', 'Hajurias' and 'Majurias'. The 'Khajurias' were the turncoats looking for an office to profit; the 'Hajurias' were the flatterers who spent their time doing 'jee hazoori', and the 'Majurias' were those who toiled 24x7 without any expectations.

Ideology, therefore, was limited to the third category.

After the BJP's defeat in the 2009 general election, three issues have been raised in the course of the ongoing debate in the public domain, although there is as yet no indication that a similar debate/discussion/deliberation has begun behind the shuttered doors of the leaders' houses in Lutyens' Delhi or at the BJP's 11, Ashoka Road headquarters.

These can be summed up in three questions:

1. Has the BJP lost the election because it has cut itself loose from its ideological mooring?
2. Has the time come for the BJP to take a re-look at its ideology and whether it is relevant for the times we live in?
3. Has Hindutva outlived its appeal, and hence its utility as a tool to mobilise support for the party?

There is nothing frivolous about any of these questions. They need to be answered, preferably by those who preside over the BJP's destiny in the short, medium and long term.

Here are my views:

1. Ideology should be neither static nor rooted in dogma. Times change, situations change, people change. There would be nothing more tragic than the BJP treating its ideology as immutable. It would make the party similar to the CPI(M) which is irrevocably wedded to Stalinist dogma.

2. But what exactly is the BJP's ideology? The ideology of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (1951-1977) was sort of centred around Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya's exposition of 'Integral Humanism.' It would, however, be instructive to remember that the BJS was launched by the RSS as the political front of the Sangh; the first president, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, was a Hindu Mahasabhaite and subscribed to Savarkar's political philosophy. Ideology took a back seat when the BJS disbanded and merged with the Janata Party (1977-1980). When the party was reborn as Bharatiya Janata Party in 1980, there was a protracted debate on what should be its ideology. Since some of those who had joined the BJP were 'Congress Socialists', the party settled for 'Gandhian Socialism' as its ideology. The Jana Sangh component was appalled; Rajmata Vijayraje Scindia was vocal in opposing it and circulated a note questioning the very concept of 'Gandhian Socialism'. Faced with mounting opposition, 'Gandhian Socialism' was unceremoniously replaced by 'Integral Humanism'.

3. In June 1989, the BJP adopted a resolution at its National Executive meeting in Palampur (popularly referred to as the 'Palampur Resolution'), commiting the party to the agitation for the liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, which was then being spearheaded by the VHP. It was a presidential resolution, which means it was adopted without any discussion. There were discordant voices, including that of Jaswant Singh, but these were drowned in the enthusiasm that followed and was visible during LK Advani's Somnath to Ayodhya 'Ram Rath Yatra' (terminated by Lalu Prasad Yadav at Samastipur).

4. It was around this time that LK Advani introduced two new terms into modern political discourse -- 'Pseudo-secularism', linked to the Shah Bano judgement and its fallout; and, 'Cultural Nationalism' or (the BJP's version of) 'Hindutva', with elements borrowed from Veer Savarkar's eponymous treatise, Hindutva.

5. Linked to this was the BJP's stirring slogan, "Justice for all, appeasement of none." And the three principled positions it took -- a) Abrogation of Article 370 (dating back to SP Mookerjee's agitation for the full and final integration of Jammu & Kashmir with the Union of India); b) Construction of a Ram Temple to commemorate Ram Janmasthan in Ayodhya (this followed the Palampur Resolution of 1989); and, introduction of a Uniform Civil Code (which was included in the party's charter after it adopted a resolution in end-1995) -- became the symbols of the BJP's 'Hindutva' or 'Cultural Nationalism'. It was further fleshed out with issues like cow slaughter and Hindu political aspirations. And it became an over-arching national motivator during the bleak days of VP Singh's divisive Mandal politics, getting a further fillip when Islamism erupted with full fury in the Kashmir Valley.

6. It is doubtful whether barring a handful, others in the BJP are fully acquainted with either 'Integral Humanism' or 'Hindutva'. It exists in their consciousness in a nebulous form. For the flatterers, not even that.

7. Which brings us to the question: What, then, is the BJP's ideology? The official Website of the party does not list any 'Ideology', though it has a section on 'BJP Philosophy' listed under 'About Us'. This section lists both 'Integral Humanism' and 'Hindutva', in that order, as the BJP's philosophy.

8. And therein lies the problem. What does the BJP subscribe to as its core value? Though 'Integral Humanism' and 'Hindutva' are, at one level, all-embracing and all-inclusive, they are not one and the same.

9. The BJP has never really tried to explain, and elaborate, on either. Preaching to the converted does not help. It needs to 'sell' ideas contained in both to a wider audience, not necessarily to convert but to convince.

10. The issue really is not one of the BJP 'revisiting' its ideology or revising it; it is of internalising that which it lists as its 'philosophy' and extrapolating from it. To jettison either or both would be to give up its distincitve identity, of which some still remains, and become just another party hankering for power, a clone of the Congress but minus its inherent strengths.

By the way, the revamped and redesigned BJP Website has dropped a key feature of the old Website. There used to be an icon on the side-bar by clicking on which you could hear the full version of Vande Mataram. Since those who are responsible forrevamping and redesigning the Website are also the brains behind the mission to 'secularise' the BJP, I can only assume that it was a considered decision to distance the BJP from Vande Mataram and disown the National Song as being part of its identity. Ironically, it was the BJP's efforts that led to Parliament according equal status to the National Song as that accorded to the National Anthem -- each session of Parliament begins with Jana Gana Mana and ends with Vande Mataram.

There could be two reasons for dropping Vande Mataram from the BJP Website. One, it makes the BJP 'look' Hindu and thus 'offends' Muslim sensitivities. Two, it makes the BJP appear 'old fashioned' and hence prevents it from 'connecting' with the youth. But Muslims aren't exactly tripping over each other to embrace the BJP, nor are the youth rushing to vote for the party.

Interestingly, although perhaps not coincidentally, the redesigned RSS Website has also dropped Vande Mataram.

I guess nationalism, Hindu, cultural or any which way, is no longer a dirty word only for the 'secularists' but also for our so-called 'nationalists'.

Three myths and an election

Kanchan Gupta / Comment

This year’s general election will be remembered for three myths that determined its amazing outcome, catapulting the Congress to an awesome 206 seats and reducing the BJP’s tally to a paltry 116. The first is about the BJP ‘failing’ to break free of its ‘Hindutva agenda’ and coming up with proposals that would appeal to the masses and be in tune with the aspirations of India’s young. This is entirely incorrect. None of the BJP leaders who campaigned across the length and breadth of the country talked about those issues which are identified with what is crudely referred to as the party’s ‘Hindutva agenda’. I don’t recall any leader promising to abrogate Article 370, introduce a Uniform Civil Code and build a ‘grand temple’ dedicated to Sri Ram in Ayodhya. So how did this perception gain ground? The answer to this question lies in the manner in which the media, especially 24x7 news channels, portrayed the thrust of the BJP’s election campaign, wilfully misleading readers and viewers by perpetuating falsehoods in the most brazen manner, beginning with the party’s election manifesto.

Till the day of its release, only the top leaders of the BJP (you can count them on your fingertips) were privy to the contents of the manifesto. To prevent motivated leaks, the manifesto was printed the night before it was released. Yet, for nearly a fortnight before that, newspapers and news channels ran jaundiced stories about how the manifesto would focus on the BJP’s ‘core Hindutva issues’, how the Ram temple would figure prominently in it, how it was meant to revive the ‘Hindu card’, and how all this had caused a rift in the party! I happened to run into one of the peddlers of this fiction a couple of days before the manifesto was released. How do you know all this, I asked him. “Someone who is involved with drafting the manifesto has told me,” he replied haughtily. Really? The poor, pathetic sod and his feckless editor obviously had no clue about who was drafting the manifesto, what were its contents, and yet they manufactured and published stories which they knew were patent lies. I should know because I drafted the manifesto.

And when the manifesto was released, journalists didn’t even bother to read the 48-page document. Instead, they picked up three lines on page 47, which said, “The BJP will explore all possibilities, including negotiations and judicial proceedings, to facilitate the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya,” to put out stories on how the party had returned its “old hardline Hindutva”. During prime time news that evening, anchors aggressively confronted BJP spokespersons with taunting questions like, “So, the BJP, bereft of any issue, has fallen back on Ayodhya? It’s communal politics once again?” They grinned as the party’s representatives, ill-prepared and inarticulate, mumbled inanities. A news service that prides itself on being ‘different’ ran a story that was all about the BJP’s previous manifestoes. Others followed suit. And that was it.

The manifesto talked about the economy, foreign policy, strategic affairs, climate change, education, agriculture, science and technology, gender equality, minority welfare. But all that was overlooked because for media those three lines on Page 47 were of overwhelming importance. Tragically, since media chose to ignore the substantive portions of the manifesto, which would have found a resonance with ‘young India’ had they been publicised, those leading the party’s election campaign also abandoned their own governance agenda. Instead, they talked about frivolous issues far removed from popular concerns — for example, setting up cyber cafés in impoverished villages.

And thus was the perception created that the BJP cares only about building a temple in Ayodhya and nothing else. The power of perception over reality was demonstrated when during a television debate actress Nandita Das, asked by a feisty member of the audience what exactly had Mr Varun Gandhi said in Pilibhit to merit her censure, stuttered and stammered, bit her lips, looked at her nails, tossed her head defiantly and said, “You know all those awful things he has said...” or words to that effect. Where did she read or hear about those ‘awful things’? “It’s all over the place... on TV, in newspapers. Look, we all know what he has said.” End of debate. Clearly she didn’t know what Mr Varun Gandhi had said, nor did those in media who painted him as a monster and thus sought to hobble the BJP.

The second myth that did the BJP in is the so-called ‘consciousness’ of India’s middle class whose concern about real life issues like terrorism, inflation, job loss, credit crunch and corruption, vocally articulated by those who claim to represent ‘civil society’, has turned out to be totally bogus. Nothing else explains why the middle class should have voted for the Congress and thus endorsed its poor record of governance over the past five years. We can only surmise from the voting preference of the middle class that people who are educated, well-informed, and alert to what’s happening around them, are least bothered about corruption in high places, the relentless loot of public money, the sagging physical infrastructure, the dire straits into which the previous Government has led the national economy, the repeated terrorist attacks and India’s diminishing stature. Indeed, middle class ‘morality’ and ‘consciousness’ have turned out to be figments of our collective imagination; the next time you hear somebody waxing eloquent on how Transparency International has rated India as one of the most corrupt nations in the world, or how our country has become the favourite destination of terrorists, kick that person in the face. There is no percentage in being polite.

The third myth is about ‘good governance’ fetching votes and electoral victory. Had this been true, the BJP’s tally in Gujarat would have been much higher than 15 and Mr Naveen Patnaik’s BJD would not have swept the polls in Orissa. It would be gross exaggeration to suggest that the BJD Government has delivered on its promises or turned Orissa into a wonderland of rapid development and galloping progress. India’s single largest FDI, which was to have come by way of Posco’s steel plant, remains on paper. There has been no perceptible decline in poverty in Orissa. Anybody in Bhubaneswar will tell you about rampant corruption in the bureaucracy and how BJD Ministers had their snouts in the trough. Yes, Mr Patnaik’s image remains untarnished, but so does Mr BC Khanduri’s, yet the BJP lost all five seats in Uttarakhand. If quality of governance was really a criterion in deciding the people’s choice, the BSP’s vote share would not have increased in Uttar Pradesh, taking it way ahead of others. That this did not translate into seats is because of the quirks of the first-past-the-post system.

Yes, the Congress has won a stupendous victory. But for all the wrong reasons.

[Reader response to this comment as it appeared in last Sunday's Pioneer has been overwhelming.]