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.

For BJP, ideology is irrelevant. So...

Those who resist the idea of the BJP returning to its ideological moorings argue that:
. Ideology is irrelevant in the 21st century;
. Ideology restricts 'flexibility';
. Ideology and mass politics are incompatible;
. Ideology ties the BJP to its core Hindu ethos; and, hence,
. Ideology causes an allergic rash among the BJP's allies.

(The allies are now reduced to the Shiv Sena, which has shifted from aggressive Hindu majoritarianism to opportunistic Marathi Manoos identity politics; Akali Dal, which remains committed to Khalsa identity politics; and the JD-U, whose politics is shaped by caste and communal identities, namely those of the EBCs, OBCs [Kurmis] and Muslims.)

The purpose of this blog post is not to elaborate on these points, but to underscore the real relevance of ideology: It acts as a restraining force, it serves as a moral compass, it binds you to probity and rectitude, it tempers a politician's penchant for pomp and splendour, it discourages abuse of power, it makes a party shame and shun the morally and physically corrupt.

And what happens when a party begins to dilute its commitment to ideology, distances itself from its core values and abandons morals and ethics to embrace that which is politically expedient, as the BJP has been doing since 1998?

. The party president is caught on camera accepting wads of notes.

. MPs, MLAs, Ministers are accused of having their snouts in the trough.

. Nepotism takes precedence over loyalty to the organisation and ability.

. MPs get caught in cash-for-question and MPLAD scams.

. An MP misuses his diplomatic passport for human trafficking.

[This is by no means a comprehensive list.]

And then when the moral slide gathers speed, stories like this appear in media:

The Times of India
Karnataka mantri spends Rs 20cr on son's shaadi
30 May 2009, TNN

BELLARY: This could easily be included in the list of the fattest weddings ever. Karnataka health minister B Sriramulu pulled out all the stops for the marriage of his 27-year-old MLA son (PTI says nephew), T H Suresh Babu, and is believed to have spent a whopping Rs 20 crore on the event.

Suresh, an MLA from Kampli reserved constituency, tied the knot with N Deepa, a middle class girl, with an extraordinary 40,000 people attending the mammoth ceremony at Bellary Cantonment on Thursday.

Four choppers to ferry VIPs from Bangalore to Bellary kept whirring in the sky all day. The wedding hall hummed with 500 air-conditioners and more than 200 chefs dished out a culinary extravaganza. Bangalore's political power shifted to this dusty sleepy district — including CM B S Yeddyurappa and his cabinet members. Also in attendance were top politicians from Andhra Pradesh.

Spanning 8 acres, the wedding arena had a huge palace-like shamiana and a dining hall to accommodate 5,000 people. There were also VIP and 'VVIP' halls.

Karnataka health minister B Sriramulu is learnt to have spent Rs 20 crore on the marriage of his MLA son, T H Suresh Babu.

All available lodges were booked for guests. Organizers made sure there was ample parking space even as 20 generator vehicles were used for back up. There was a choice of continental and Indian food and even though the reception area was jampacked, everything went smoothly.

VIPs were ushered in through a single door connecting two different halls while others were allowed to enter through the other side. Also, more than 100 ACs were fitted around the reception hall.

There were 130 responses to this news story posted on the Times of India's Website. Here's an unedited sample of what readers, who are also voters, had to say:

Sri,Bengaluru,says:Minister Sriramulu is a mining company owner who has earned crores in the last 5 years. To one estimate he earned crores a day when iron export to China was in peak. Need less to say the politicians should be model for others.

cpkaruppan,chennai,says:Advaniji, pl practice what you have preached. pl first find out how this minister got so much money-whether he paid incomtax! The Indian public did not take your word of bringing back the money from Swiss (banks) etc and that is why you have lost election. now is a chance to show you will practice what you preach!!!!!

Basavalingappa,Bellary,says:Loot the natural resources, exploit the situation & take shelter in god & wasteful rituals, parade ego... The message is who cares? Show must go on. The end result is poverty, conflict, violence & blame game for nothing. Who needs such gods & rituals?

thomas,bangalore,says:oh my god! shameless people.. wasting crores of rupees on nothing! instead he could have made the world a better (if not, at least a littttttle better) place with those 20 crores.

deeno,mumbai,says:Hahaha....Well PM Mr. Manmohan Singh now should ask a CBI to investigate and find out the source of income of the Minister. Normal people who pay tax are used in other's wedding. Black money for sure... 20 Cr. spend.. on Marriage..So many poor could have been fed..

Indian,Mumbai,says:Hahahaha, u think IT people will raid this minister. Forget the IT heads were also present there enjoying lavish wedding thrown by this corrupt minister.

bipin,uae,says:This shows how serious is his conviction towards serving the country and its people by blowing away such a huge amount of money in celebrations when millions are living in poverty. He should be brought to books by verifying the source of income by IT dept and penalised !

Setty,Bangalore,says:It is shame on the part of a clean party leader who is supposed to be model to others and going in a wrong way. It should have been condemned and discouraged by the party high command if they are really interested in giving good governance and maintain transparency. One should learn lesson from Late shri. Byre Gowda (ex. Minister) who performed his sons marriage in a very simple manner limiting the event only to his family members and said that it is a family function and not a public one. The rules and regulations and free advises in this country are only applicable for weak & hapless people and not for mighty persons. The Lokayukta's Net is not strong enough even to go near such mighty persons and only catching small fishes and make media publicity just to show their existence and of no use for the common man. God only has to take one more incarnation to clean this society for which let us all pray in the interest of coming generations. This 20 crores could have been spent for poor boys education especially in rural areas which could have been covered for thousands of people to make their fortunes bright.

narayana,muscat,says:since minsiters like musicians, sportsmen, cricketers, cinema people and other parasites do not produce one grain of rice / salt / a furniture , a home, a cloth or even 1 line of software code, they have got the money by virtual money creation techniques as opposed to creating money by positive value addition. So, why any one who survives on virtual money bother. It is only the hard working and earning tax payers who know the worth of even 1 rupee.

I do not know B Sriramulu and hence I would not question the source of his wealth. But we do know how people perceive such ostentatious display of wealth. And what they expect from the 'party high command'.

Unfortunately, the 'party high command' is not known to have taken a dim view of the event. With ideology at a discount, it couldn't have been any other way.

[My article in The Pioneer, June 4, 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?

BJP must choose between ideology and drift

Comment
The varied response to my last entry, Locating BJP’s Ideology, is also indicative of the lack of unanimity and the confusion that prevails within the party.

There are those who swear by ‘Hindutva’ and believe that the path to electoral success lies through communal polarisation. Their logic: Muslims won’t vote for BJP in any event; the ‘Hindu vote’ is fragile and given to fragmentation along caste lines; and, in the final analysis, emotive and not substantive issues matter during elections.

Then there are those who believe ‘Hindutva’ (in whatever form) has been grafted on the party needlessly. They would rather go along with ‘Integral Humanism’. There’s a problem though: Not too many of those who espouse this line are well-acquainted with Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya’s exposition of ‘Integral Humanism’. Intellectual rigour is not the forte of either this group or any other; political rhetoric is often palmed off as ideological discourse.

There’s a third section in the party which is ‘ideology neutral’, does not have either the time or the inclination to study and internalise the ‘political philosophy’ of the party. They are there for reasons that I have elaborated upon in my previous post.

Confusion on the ideological front is confounded when senior leaders dismiss ideology in the most facile manner. LK Advani has on more than one occasion said that “ideology has no relevance to governance”.

Which perhaps explains why the BJP in power (1998-2004) failed to meet the voters’ expectations while dealing with terrorism, Bangladeshi infiltration and even something as ‘secular’ as reviewing the Constitution or dealing with corruption.

Let us not forget that after promising to detect, detain and deport illegal immigrants, the BJP actually floated the idea of issuing ‘special identity cards’ (work permits) to them. The BJP had pledged to repeal the IMDT Act, but it didn't do so in the six years it was in power. It needed a Supreme Court judgement to spike this monstrosity after the UPA came to power.

The Prime Minister need not have visited the Vatican during the India-EU Summit in Rome only to be castigated by Pope John Paul II and handed over a demarche. A party president who was caught on tape taking cash was merely made to stand in a corner instead of being packed off in sack cloth and ashes. The bar for ministerial probity should have been set much higher. Arrogance came to substitute humility. The BJP played ducks and drakes with the Bofors scam case. Bureaucrats who discovered 'RSS links' were promoted over able and intelligent officers. Navin Chawla was rehabilitated.

The flip-flop over relations with Pakistan (Lahore bus journey-Kargil-Agra-Parliament attack-aar paar ki ladaai – let’s kiss and make up) and the constant hand-wringing made a mockery of the BJP-led Government. It’s not sufficient to distance yourself from the capitulation at Kandahar; it was a collective decision, never mind what certain individuals have to say. I was in the PMO those days and I can vouch for this fact.

Therefore, what is required is clarity of thought. The BJP must decide its ideological direction/orientation, reframe ideology within the matrix of today’s India, and stand by it. Or it must boldly stand up and say, “Ours is an ideology neutral party. We shall sway with the wave.”

The consequences of the former course of action would be three-fold:

. Those allergic to ideological rigour will make an exit. This could debilitate the party in the short and medium term, but strengthen it in the long term.
. The BJP’s integrity quotient will increase.
. The drift which began in 1998 will be arrested.

The consequences of abandoning ideology would also be three-fold:

. Those who lack morals and scruples shall take over the party.
. The BJP will, in due course, become a pale shadow of its past and jostle for space with the RJD and SP.
. The drift will gather speed; integrity quotient (at an all time low) will plummet.

A couple of points merit mention:

a. Commitment to ideology does not amount to shrill enunciation and raucous denunciation.
b. Hindutva does not have to be limited to politics of exclusivism or identity-based politics.

Linked to the issue of ideology are three other important issues:

a. Leadership
b. Organisation
c. Expansion.

I propose to write about these in the coming days. Tomorrow I shall write about 'Hindu expectations' and the BJP's role.

Your feedback is valuable. Comments are not ‘censored’ (an apprehension expressed by a reader) but we should avoid personal attacks and derogatory language.

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'.

BJP after its defeat: Hand-wringing is not introspection

Comment

I came across this story in the Times of India a couple of days ago:

MUMBAI: A section of Muslims is lobbying for the induction of former Minister of Minority Affairs, AR Antulay, into the Union Cabinet. Octogenarian Antulay lost the Lok Sabha election from Raigad to the Shiv Sena's Anant Geete... Antulay was the lone Muslim MP from Maharashtra in the 14th Lok Sabha. With his defeat, there is no Muslim representative from the State in the 15th Lok Sabha and many Muslims feel that his induction into the Cabinet and his subsequent nomination to Parliament through the Rajya Sabha would help reduce discontent in the community... A delegation of Muslims ... is leaving for Delhi soon to meet Congress president Sonia Gandhi... "He is respected among Muslims and if he is made a Minister again, the Congress can ensure Muslim support in the Assembly polls which are a few months away,'' said Sami Khatib, president, Anjuman-e-Islam.

Three points need to be noted.

First, Antulay, who as a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government headed by Manmohan Singh had contested the televised version of 26/11 and insisted that Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and two of his senior colleagues were not felled by terrorist bullets during the siege of Mumbai (thus lending credence to the desi Islamist fiction that it was a plot by Hindus and Zionists to blame Pakistan) could not swing the Muslim and 'secular' Hindu votes. He was defeated by the Shiv Sena's candidate.

Second, Muslims of Maharashtra are loath to accept the verdict of a democratic election since their man has lost and a Hindu has won. So, they want the Congress to get him in somehow or the other. If it doesn't, the Congress can discount Muslim support during the Assembly election later this year. I am not surprised Antulay is 'respected' by those Muslims who are not-so-subtly blackmailing the Congress.

[I read an interesting analysis of the 2009 election from the Muslim perspective:
"The 15th Lok Sabha that would be formally constituted any moment in the ensuing week will have a meager 28 Muslim MPs, far less than needed if compared with the percentage of their population, 13.4 per cent according to the 2001 Census..." The full analysis can be read at www.sahilonline.org.]

Third, for all its 'moderation', 'secularism', 'centrist politics' and 'appeal to the masses', the Congress couldn't squeeze in a Muslim winner from Maharashtra. So much for the hogwash that the BJP should learn from the Congress on how to carry all sections along.

It has been pointed out that the BJP's candidate (a VHP swami) in Hardwar (Uttarakhand) lost miserably, as did another VHP activist who was given the BJP's ticket for North-East Delhi constituency; the BJP candidate was trounced in Kandhamal (Orissa).

What has not been highlighted is the BJP's victory in Malegaon (Maharashtra) which has a huge Muslim population (said to be 50 per cent). There was much expectation that the Congress would wrest this seat from the BJP, courtesy the ATS's dubious case against Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur that they, along with nine other 'Hindu terrorists', plotted and executed the September 29, 2008 motorcycle bombing at Malegaon in which six Muslims were killed.

It is not surprising that this minor detail should have been ignored both by 'secular' media and those in the BJP who are wringing their hands for not sacking Varun Gandhi for his intemperate comments which, they believe, contributed to the party's defeat in the polls.

Of course, such claims amount to nothing but bunkum, and are aimed at deflecting attention from the main reasons why the BJP foundered (or should it be floundered?) so horribly. Till now there are no indications of any honest introspection by the BJP or an attempt to do a proper analysis. Everybody's covering up for everybody, which makes sense: Maintain the status quo so that nobody's affected.

BJP president Rajnath Singh at least has had the courage to state publicly that there were "certain flaws in the working and decisions of our party". Other notables have merely said, "The mandate is for us to sit in the Opposition... we will behave like a responsible Opposition." We would have been in the dark without such profound observations.

Here are some random causative factors that contributed to the BJP's humiliating defeat in Election 2009:

1. BJP lacks credibility. Voters don't trust the BJP, or what its present leaders have to say. For instance, when the BJP talks of terrorism, its record in office tells a different story. LK Advani trying to distance himself from the Kandahar episode has had a recoil effect. Or, when it talks of Bofors, a valid question is raised: What did the party do to fix the scamsters when it was in power? As for the BJP's tall talk on corruption, ah, well, let it be.
2. BJP lacks moral authority. It's not enough to preach. You should be seen to be practising rectitude.
3. BJP is neither fish nor flesh. Desperate to be endorsed by the 'secular' media, the English-speaking commentariat and the social elite of Delhi and Mumbai, the BJP has transmogrified itself into a 'B' team of the Congress. If the choice is between the Congress and its cut-price version, voters will naturally opt for the former.

Frankly, it all boils down to the BJP's 'IQ' -- Integrity Quotient.

The BJP, especially those who selflessly support the party and fly its flag, today reminds me of Sisyphus.

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.]

BJP's mantra: Sit tight, do nothing!

Here's an update from Uttarakhand: Chief Minister BC Khanduri has managed to cling on to his chair. So, all that talk of 'moral responsibility' was so much bunkum and no more. The MLAs are a divided lot. Most of them are unhappy with Khanduri for a variety of reasons, all of which coalesced to cause the BJP's rout in Uttarakhand. But possibly many would want the status quo to be maintained lest they lose their own chairs! Person, power, perquisites, party. That's the new order in the BJP. So much for its high falutin claim that the party comes before individual.

Yashwant Sinha has been upfront with his comment on the election results. "We were not clearly focussed on issues, and we need to define our ideological line." The issues were there, staring the BJP in the face. But it went off on a tangent, hunting for hidden gold in Swiss banks, armed with entries culled from Wikipedia.

In the middle of the campaign, a bright spark came up with a mind-boggling idea: Every BPL family will be supplied with a smart phone when the BJP comes to power! There was no shortage of 'vision' -- strategists were in a trance -- all of which became the focus of the campaign. The issues were ignored.

Arun Jaitley told mediapersons on Friday (May 22), "The biggest challenge for the BJP is to learn from the verdict and conduct itself as a responsible Opposition." Learn what? But you can't ask that question as it would discomfit a whole lot of people and leave the flatterers in the Leader's court distraught.

Rajnath Singh has ruled out any formal, structured inquiry into the BJP's pathetic performance. Instead, according to him, leaders will 'quietly' visit constituencies and get 'reports from the ground'. And then the party will 'quietly' bury the findings of those sent to snoop and sniff around.

The last time the BJP did any honest introspection and made an effort to study the party's performance in a general election was after the 1984 poll when the BJP was reduced to two seats. That report helped the party to strategise and leap frog to the frontline of Indian politics. Others may have forgotten about that report, surely LK Advani hasn't.

The lotus-eaters are content to dream of 2014...

Blame it on the media!

In defeat, don't introspect, just be disingenuous. This appears to be the prevalent view in the BJP post-May 16. We are yet to see any sign of the leadership looking within, shortlisting the strategic blunders it committed and setting themselves to the task of taking corrective measures.

True, it's been less than a week since the BJP was trounced in Election 2009 and reduced to 116 seats (its worst ever performance since 1991) compared to the Congress's 206 in the Lok Sabha. Flatterers in the party will say: You possibly can't review, re-assess and re-strategise in less than seven days. Point conceded: Having taken years to get where the BJP has got, it will take some doing to get out of the rut.

But surely a week is a long time to indicate your intentions? That is, provided you have any.

Instead, we have seen the stalwarts of the BJP's Delhi unit, who having led the party to a wipeout in last winter's Assembly election have now led it to a repeat wipepout in the general election, blaming the BSP for the BJP's defeat! Their logic: If the BSP had not polled so poorly, the BJP would not have lost. So if you must blame anybody, blame BSP. It will take some effort to work this out; I shan't even try to do so.

Similarly, a chorus is now being heard, blaming the media for the BJP's poor performance at the national level. The media, especially television channels, are 'biased', they 'promoted' the Congress, they 'ran down' the BJP, etc, etc. So slyly pass on the buck, don't let it stop with you.

Here's an alternative view, counterpoints to what is now being put out, shared by those who aren't skilled in the art of flattery and are loath to acquire that skill:

1. Media is bad, media is terrible. But those from/on behalf of the BJP who appear on television shows and seemed to have become part of studio fixtures during the election campaign (barring honourable exceptions whom we need not name) deserve the Golden Pumpkin award. Every word they utter turns away voters. They don't do their homework, are weak on ideas, have poor command over language and end up looking silly.

2. Boycott media. That's a scream. Many BJP leaders would have sleepless nights unless they saw themselves on TV channels and their names in newspapers. Never mind the vacuity of what they say.

3. Media abuses BJP. Yes it does, but the BJP leaders seem to love it when journalists snigger at them, the more they snigger, the more they are feted. Anchors and channel owners, editors and senior journalists who have nothing but contempt for the BJP are invited home for breakfast, lunch and dinner, taken on campaign trips, and showered with praise and more. They can walk into a BJP leader's drawing room any time of day and night. But a karyakarta who toils 24x7 for the party because he/she believes in the party's 'ideology' and travels all the way to Delhi for a one minute darshan will be shooed away by guards from the gate.

Meanwhile, it seems there is talk of appointing Mr Shanta Kumar as Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. I guess it's all about being 'first in line', which is determined by age and not ability. Recall the example of Prince Charles, the 'first in line' to the British throne who now spends his time growing lettuce and carrots, waiting to wear the crown one day.

Reach for the remote control...

Update! Hold the remote!

After writing this blog entry, I saw an interesting news story filed by PTI on the messy situation that prevails in the Uttarakhand unit of the BJP. Chief Minister BC Khanduri, after accepting moral responsibility for the party's rout in the State and offering to resign, is now digging in his heels. Here's the PTI report:

New Delhi, May 21BJP president Rajnath Singh today (May 21) appointed two observers to meet party MLAs in Uttarakhand to elicit their views on a possible successor to Chief Minister BC Khanduri who 'quit' taking responsibility for the party's rout in Lok Sabha poll.
Khanduri, in a last-ditch bid to hang on, changed tack today issuing a statement saying the BJP's defeat in the State was due to failure to "educate" voters about his Government's "good work".
Rajnath appointed senior BJP leaders Gopinath Munde and Thawar Chand
Gehlot as 'Central Observers' who will visit Uttarakhand tomorrow (May 22) to
hear the grievances of the party MLAs and report on whether Khanduri
should be replaced.
After the party failed to win even one of the five Lok seats in the State, Khanduri had offered to resign owning "moral responsibility" for the debacle.
However, today Khanduri made a desperate bid to save his post, claiming
though his Government had done "exceptional" development work, "voters had not been educated about it leading to the loss in these elections".
"We were not able to properly educate the people about our development and welfare works to convert our performance into votes," he said in a statement.
"We were not able to reach out fully to the people and propagate our development work due to the election code which remained in force for nine months in the last two years due to various elections," Khanduri added. (PTI)

Now, reach for the remote!

Stumped BJP flounders

Kanchan Gupta / Comment

After losing the 2004 general election, the BJP had gone into denial mode. After comprehensively losing this year's general election and scoring the lowest tally since 1991, the BJP has gone into inaction mode, hoping the problems that led to its defeat will just disappear and the hugely disastrous Election 2009 strategy will turn into a winning gameplan by 2014!

It won't happen that way. It's a pity that the party refuses to accept and internalise the fundamental message of this election: Voters are not enthused by a leadership which cannot connect with India's youth and its aspirations. As a young colleague at my office said, "How can I relate to someone who was in his early 20s when my father was born?"

In sharp contrast, the Congress glitters. It's brimming with youth power.

If presence in the blogosphere could win a party elections, the BJP would be occupying the Treasury Benches in Parliament today. But who is to tell the BJP's leaders that there's a vast difference between virtual reality and reality? When flatterers crowd the court, the story can be no different from that of the emperor without clothes.

As I have written in a previous blog, Mr LK Advani, who led the 2009 campaign and was projected as the BJP's choice for the Prime Minister's post, has reversed his noble decision to step aside as Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. He will now remain Leader of Opposition in the 15th Lok Sabha, and hence the BJP's prime ministerial candidate till such time another name is announced. We are told that he had to give up his decision to step down from the Leader of Opposition's post, which would have raised his stature immensely, under 'pressure from the party'.

Whoever becomes Deputy Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha will remain in the shadows; the others will be mere back-benchers. The so-called 'GenNext', well into its late 50s, will remain 'GenNext' for the foreseeable future. I can't see leadership passing into the hands of 'GenNext' in Parliament and outside any time soon.

A bit like the Prince of Wales who is still waiting to don the crown. His Website says, "The Prince of Wales is first in line to the British Throne." Similarly, many in the BJP are 'in line' for the top job. Charles, by the way, was born in 1948. If he can nurse hope, so can BJP's 'GenNext'.

Sense and sensibility have ceased to matter in the BJP. Look at what's happening in Uttarakhand where the Congress won all the five parliamentary seats. It's a resounding rejection of the incumbent BJP Government in that State.

Chief Minister BC Khanduri was prompt in accepting moral responsibility and offering to step down from office. The party accepted the offer. Five days later, he is still in office.

He could well argue why should he alone be the fall guy for the party's abysmal performance. Others who are clearly to blame for leading the party to its humiliating defeat are sitting pretty, pointing fingers in every direction except at themselves.

Presumably they still hope to make it to power in 2014, by when I will be a grandfather.

And I was born in 1961.

Don't believe it, says Karunanidhi

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK paterfamilias M Karunanidhi on Tuesday (May 19)refused to 'believe' that LTTE supremo Velupillai Prabhakaran had died, saying it is "not yet confirmed".
Referring to news emanating from Colombo about the dreaded terrorist Prabhakaran, a darling of the DMK, being killed by the Sri Lankan Army while he was trying to escape from the war zone in an ambulance, Mr Karunanidhi said, "The news is not yet confirmed. I have nothing to say now on this issue." He added that pro-LTTE leaders in Tamil Nadu have issued a statement saying that it is a "Sri Lankan lie" that Prabhakaran has been killed.
Does Mr Karunanidhi know what the Government of India does not know? The implications are rather serious.
The accompanying visual is an image taken from video footage released by the Sri Lankan Army on Tuesday, May 19, 2009: It shows the body of Velupillai Prabhakaran.

So, Advani won't quit after all!

Kanchan Gupta / Comment

Here's the news of the day from the BJP front, as circulated by PTI:

Advani to continue as Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
New Delhi, May 18 (PTI)
Grappling with the aftermath of the election defeat, BJP today (May 18) persuaded LK Advani to continue as Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha probably with a view to avoiding jockeying for the post among its next rung of leaders.
81-year-old Advani, who had decided to step down from the post after his bid for Prime Minister's post failed, was "requested" by the party to stay on in the new Lok Sabha.
BJP president Rajnath Singh said Advani has agreed to continue as Leader of BJP's Parliamentary Board. "Therefore, it is understood that he will also be the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha," he said.
On Saturday, as the results trickled in Advani had expressed his desire not to become the Leader of the Opposition. He had asked the Parliamentary Board to choose another leader but it did not agree with his request and keeping in view his insistence, the party president was authorised to talk to him to change his decision.
[Ends]

My mailbox is flooded with e-mail from well-meaning individuals, including those who do not vote for BJP, expressing a wide range of emotions, excluding anything that remotely resembles joy, in response to Mr Advani's decision to continue as Leader of Opposition in the 15th Lok Sabha, after declaring that he was stepping down.
Mr Gopi Maliwal's mail, which is the mildest of the lot, reads, "What is the difference between BJP and Congress then?"
Well, I can't answer that question; it's for the BJP to deal with it.
However, here are some points on the issue that come to mind:
1. Mr Advani presumably based his decision to step down from the post of Leader of Opposition after election results were announced last Saturday (May 16) on two factors --
a. Since the BJP campaign was entirely centred around him, and he led from the front, he was obliged to accept moral responsibility for the party's defeat;
b. It is only fair that having failed to win a mandate for the party in 2009, the 'seniors' should make way for the next line of leaders to take over so that they can fashion the strategy for the 2014 electoral battle and the Assembly elections that will be held in between now and then.
Mr Advani's decision to step down was noble and laudable. It was both dignified and morally correct. It was what was expected of him.
2. Between Saturday evening and Monday morning, Mr Advani was 'persuaded' to change his decision. He finally decided to stay put as Leader of Opposition, "bowing to pressure" from the party. A critic said, "Actually, it is the other way round. The party has bowed to pressure..." The crudity of the comment is indicative of what is bound to follow by way of reaction.
3. I personally feel Mr Advani would have gained in stature had he stuck to his decision and gracefully allowed the long-overdue transition to take place. The harsh truth is that young India wishes to see a young BJP. This is one of the seminal messages of Election 2009.
4. I find the reason for Mr Advani being 'persuaded' to reverse his decision, and his 'bowing to pressure' from the party, that is, to "avoid jockeying for the post among its next rung of leaders", rather specious. If true, it shows the 'next rung of leaders' in very poor light. The 'next rung' will now have to live with this slur.
I am reminded of what is popularly attributed to Louis XV: "Après moi, le déluge."
Meanwhile, as Shammi Kapoor famously sang, "Tally ho..."