Media's campaign of calumny

All are equal, media is more equal than all!

Interviewing prospective students for a media school can be a useful experience. It provides you with an insight into how media is perceived among the young who shall inherit the world from us. I usually begin by asking the applicants whether they want to pursue a career in print journalism or in the audio-visual media. During one such interview recently, a young woman told me, “I want to join a news channel.” And do what? “I want to become an anchor.” Why? “I have many things to say and as an anchor I can say anything I want.” What makes you think so? “I watch television regularly. I know.” And why do you think you can actually say whatever you want? That left her slightly flustered. “But we have freedom of expression, right? And media is free in our country, right?” I seemed to have planted doubts in her mind and she wanted me to disabuse her of them. I asked her to tell me about her other interests in life.

I was reminded of that conversation on Friday evening when editors of television news channels, feigning great outrage, queued up to condemn the smashing of glass panes and upturning of potted palms in the lobby of Videocon Tower in Delhi, where the offices of Headlines Today, Aajtak and Mail Today are located, by a crowd of people protesting against the ongoing campaign of calumny against the RSS which is being accused of promoting ‘Hindu terrorism’. The violence was uncalled for, unfortunate and unacceptable. The protest could have been peaceful. Indeed, those leading the protesters should have ensured that no damage was caused on account of the demonstration. Having said that, let us look at what was said in condemnation by editors of other channels.

“This is an attack on freedom of expression. The media is being muzzled. Ideas must be combatted with ideas, not violence. It is despicable and deplorable,” said a news channel editor, virtually frothing at the mouth. Others pitched in with elaborate denunciation of “goons” and “hooligans” — the protesters did not look like either category of social malcontents — and condemned the attack. What was most amusing was to see Ms Ambika Soni, Minister for Information & Broadcasting, waxing eloquent on how the cherished values of our democracy are under assault. Ms Soni heads a Ministry which is a relic of our fake Socialist past when the Government controlled newspapers (there were no news channels then) and information flow by adopting strong-arm tactics — newspapers critical of the Government were denied newsprint quota — and by regulating the release of advertisements — obedience fetched you a greater share. More importantly, her entry into politics was through Sanjay Gandhi’s Youth Congress during the Emergency, when all freedoms and rights, including the right to life, were suspended and journalists who didn’t extol the virtues of the Great Leader were sent to jail. All that and more seems to have been forgotten.

However, we need not be distracted by what certain practitioners of the world’s second oldest profession have to say in defence of their emulating the practices of the world’s oldest profession. It’s a free country and people have the right to say whatever they want. But what is objectionable is the attempt to disguise biased writing and distortion of the truth as “freedom of expression”. The ongoing campaign of calumny to demonise the RSS and denigrate Hindus by painting the first as a sponsor of terrorism and the second as a community of terrorists is by no stretch of the imagination ‘freedom of expression’. Nor does media have the freedom to malign or defame individuals and then seek shelter in its presumed immunity from scrutiny.

Without going into the specifics of the campaign that has been launched to tar the RSS and label Hindus as terrorists, I would like to make three points. First, neither the stories published by some magazines and newspapers nor the reports that have been telecast by some news channels present even a shred of evidence. What we have read, seen and heard so far are aspersions, accusations and alleged admissions, all of it attributed to unnamed sources in the Intelligence Bureau and the Central Bureau of Investigation. These have been neither cross-checked nor corroborated with indisputable facts. Second, it is amazing that in a country which is supposed to be governed by the law of the land, there should be such organised trial by media which is really trial by insinuation. Years later, if nothing is proved in a court of law, media will conveniently choose to forget that they had already declared individuals guilty of horrible crimes. Third, since when has speaking to someone on the phone, irrespective of whether or not that person is guilty of having committed a crime, a crime in itself?

There is, of course, the other aspect about the IB and CBI leaking like sieves with a billion holes. If the alleged offence of planting bombs in Malegaon, Ajmer and Hyderabad is to be treated seriously, shouldn’t the agencies be conducting their investigations in absolute secrecy? If they must go public with titillating tid-bits, then IB and CBI offcials should formally brief the media on record. If they are planting stories, as they are doing, then this is no investigation but a political conspiracy: The RSS is being targeted to weaken the BJP. The conspiracy to defame and demonise Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has now been enlarged to hobble the BJP at the national level. There are no prizes for guessing who are the conspirators. Sadly, sections of the media have offered to play the role of co-conspirators. During Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime, few editors stood up against the criminal abuse of power. Most of them chose to crawl when asked to bend. Tragically, many editors have kept up that tradition, offering space on the front page and time during prime-time news bulletins to the Establishment’s dirty tricks department.

This is not about ideology. Nor is it about political loyalties. To suggest so would be as bogus as those crying themselves hoarse that media’s freedom and freedom of expression are under attack. If anything is under attack, if anything is being questioned, is the peddling of fiction as fact under the garb of ‘investigative reporting’. Had it not been so, our ‘free’ media, a large section of which thrives on ‘paid news’, would have reported that the investigating agencies have failed to come up with any evidence to make their charges against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Colonel Srikant Prasad Purohit stick. That the courts have refused to let them be tried under MACOCA, saying there was nothing on record to justify such a trial. That it’s been two years since they were arrested and have been in jail without being prosecuted or formally charged.

Or shall we just burn them at the stake because ‘free’ media has pronounced them guilty?

[This appeared as my Sunday column Coffee Break in The Pioneer on July 18, 2010.]

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.]

A challenge for BJP’s GenNext

On a late spring evening more than a decade ago, some of us had gathered at Pramod Mahajan’s apartment — he hadn’t moved into a Lutyens’ bungalow till then — to discuss ideas for the 1996 general election campaign. Mr LK Advani had already declared Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and there was a palpable surge of support for the party which corresponded with the waning of the Congress. Despite the framing of Mr Advani and other senior leaders of the BJP in the Jain hawala scandal by a desperate PV Narasimha Rao (he even turned on his colleagues in the Cabinet who in turn turned against him and resigned from the Congress) there was great enthusiasm among party cadre. Mr Advani had seized the moral high ground and converted what Rao had thought would be a disadvantage into a clear advantage. In that election, Mr Advani was the non-playing captain though he led his team from the front.

Over chai and samosas ordered from an eatery downstairs, ideas were tossed around on how to package the BJP’s core message — good governance — and portray it through the persona of Mr Vajpayee. Till then, the BJP had not projected any single leader in any election; it was always the party’s ‘collective leadership’ that was projected as an alternative to the Congress’s dynastic leadership. The tragic assassination of Rajiv Gandhi midway through the 1991 general election had forced a break in the Congress’s tradition, catapulting Narasimha Rao to power. Since the Ram Rath Yatra days, Mr Advani had emerged as the most prominent face of the BJP; to suddenly weave a campaign around Mr Vajpayee posed a challenge to even Pramod Mahajan who was never short of ideas, especially when it came to election campaigns.

Among those invited for that meeting was an impetuous young man representing a big advertising agency which had offered to help plan the campaign — as had some others. This man suddenly said, “It would have been a lot easier had Mr Vajpayee been a younger man.” There was stunned silence. Obviously ignorant of the esteem in which Mr Vajpayee was — and still continues to be — held in the party, he had clearly upset everybody. Pramod Mahajan looked at him coldly and bitingly said, “This isn’t America where young upstarts are elected to high office. We value experience and we respect age. Please tell your agency we aren’t interested in its services.” The poor sod was halfway through his samosa and didn’t know what to say. “Ab aap jaaiye,” Pramod Mahajan added, literally asking him to leave the meeting.

I don’t recall whether anything concrete emerged from that particular meeting, but over the following weeks a campaign was painstakingly put together centred around Mr Vajpayee and based on the theme, ‘The man India awaits’, which, incidentally, was the headline of an interview-based article I had written at that time. That election saw the BJP emerge as the single largest party and form a Government led by Mr Vajpayee. The Government lasted for a fortnight, but it helped the BJP come to power two years later. The rest, to quote a cliché, is history.

The reason I cite this particular incident is to highlight the point that too much is made of a leader’s age by the New Delhi-based commentariat, more so when it comes to the BJP. Voters are less persuaded by a candidate’s age than by his or her perceived ability to deliver on promises. It is the sum total of a leader’s qualities that matters, not his or her age. Equally important is a leader’s ability to connect with the masses, to strike a rapport and secure their confidence.

Mr Vajpayee was not a young man when he became Prime Minister, nor was Mrs Indira Gandhi in the prime of her youth when she swept back to power in 1980. If Mr Manmohan Singh is widely respected at home and abroad, it has nothing to do with his age but his ability to project himself as an earnest and humble person of unimpeachable integrity. And, the BJP’s defeat in last summer’s general election was more on account of a poorly planned campaign and shoddy political management than either Mr Advani’s age or his leadership which has been variously described as ‘uninspiring’ and ‘jaded’ by his critics within and outside the party. But for bogus pollsters, stupidly brash aides and a ‘war room’ whose most creative contribution was the astounding promise of gifting every family living below the poverty line with a smart phone, perhaps the results would have been vastly different. Nor can we overlook the Congress’s surge in States where the BJP is at best a marginal player.

It would, therefore, be self-defeating for the BJP to believe that with Mr Advani standing aside for the next generation of leaders to take charge of the party’s affairs, the 2014 general election will be a cakewalk. Today’s ‘young’ leaders will be five years older when India votes to elect a new Lok Sabha, which means they will be pushing 60. If between now and then those who find themselves propelled to the frontline are unable to tackle the many illnesses that plague the party and fashion an alternative agenda distinctively different from that of the Congress and in tune with the aspirations of today’s voters, the BJP’s tally could dip below the 100 mark. The battle for votes has always been a battle of ideas; in 1996, 1998 and 1999, Mr Advani and Mr Vajpayee had the right ideas largely because they went with their instincts. It’s only when they allowed their ideas to be swamped by the mumbo-jumbo of courtiers and time-servers that they faltered and fell.

Contrary to what is being claimed, the BJP’s main problem is not the RSS but the BJP itself. Last week’s transition will be meaningless unless it is accompanied by a tectonic shift in the way the BJP sees itself. It can either choose to position itself as the only alternative to the Congress by being distinctly, ideationally and ideologically different, or it can persist with fashioning itself as a clone of the Congress, a holdall party with neither beliefs nor commitments but driven by the cynical pursuit of power as an end and not the means to an end. Mr Vajpayee had vision; he was the ‘big picture’ man who couldn’t bother about the details. Mr Advani had ideas; it was his job to fill in the details of Mr Vajpayee’s vision. What the BJP needs to regain its position as an unassailable foe of the Congress is a new generation Vajpayee and a new generation Advani, if not a leader who can combine the qualities of the two stalwarts who still tower above everybody else in the party. Age won’t be a criterion in deciding who qualifies as the new generation Advani or new generation Vajpayee. Nor can the choice be limited to Dilli4.

No end to crisis: Reddys want BSY out

[Update: The so-called 'resolution' of the crisis in Karnataka is at best a temporary truce between the Reddy Brothers and Yeddyurappa. Shettar resigning from Speaker's office to join the Cabinet is only the first step; it's a matter of time before he decides to make a renewed dash for the Chief Minister's chair. The Reddy Brothers will not be satiated by sops like greater say in policy-framing, transfer-postings of bureaucrats (which speaks a lot about our babus and their links with 'businessmen') and easing of cases against them. By the way, since when has the BJP decided to short-circuit the law of the land to remain in power? And with what face will the party now criticise the Congress for short-circuiting the law to favour its own? I think it's a terrible idea to have two central leaders minding Karnataka affairs as it will lead to further groupism in both party and Government. But we will now have Arun Jaitley managing party affairs and Sushma Swaraj minding the Reddy Brothers -- the 'coordination committee' is so much hogwash and no more. The 'resolution' of the crisis only strengthens my contention that organisation now means nothing for those who have the clout to thumb their nose at the party's national leadership, such as it is with its moral authority lying in tatters. Why else would the Reddy Brothers have been allowed to set the terms of engagement via one individual over the party organisation?]

It’s been a week since the ‘Reddy Brothers’ of Bellary rocked the BS Yeddyurappa Government. Not much progress seems to have been made by those working on resolving the crisis and preventing the BJP’s first Government in a southern State from collapsing on account of infighting within its ranks and more than a gentle nudge from those who contested and won the last Assembly election on the BJP symbol but owe no allegiance to either the party or the RSS.

Some points that merit attention:

. Official denials notwithstanding, few are willing to discount media reports (confirmed by unnamed sources within the party) that a national leader of the BJP from Karnataka is involved in fomenting trouble for Yeddyurappa. Details of his reported meeting with the ‘Reddy Brothers’ and travel by a Congress legislator’s plane to meet leading dissident Jagadish Shettar, who is the Assembly Speaker and aspires to become Chief Minister, have not strengthened the image of the party’s central leadership.

. Yeddyurappa no doubt enjoys tremendous support among the people and his popularity is unquestionable. But this alone may not see the BJP through in a mid-term election. In the past, the BJP has lost mid-term elections despite the popularity of leaders like Kalyan Singh and Sunderlal Patwa; Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was barely able to scrape through. The BJP has lost in Himachal Pradesh despite excellent policies and programmes initiated by Shanta Kumar. This was more than a decade ago when the party’s organisation was strong, its central leadership carried credibility and its overall rating was high. None of these three factors obtains today.

. On Tuesday Yeddyurappa held out the proverbial olive branch to the ‘Reddy Brothers’ on their home turf by ‘acknowledging’ their ‘contribution’. But this has not cut any ice with the 'Reddy Brothers' -- till late Tuesday night, they were adamant that Yeddyurappa must go. If by 'acknowledging' the 'contribution' of the 'Reddy Brothers' Yeddyurappa was being pragmatic, he might as well have avoided a flash-point situation. I am no admirer of the ‘Reddy Brothers’, but having supped with them, perhaps Yeddyurappa needed to be more tactful if only to ensure stability of his Government.

. I am intrigued by the importance given to industrialist/entrepreneur Rajeev Chandrasekhar by the BJP Government. What exactly has been his contribution to the party? Does he subscribe to the Sangh’s ideology? Who are his backers? Raising these questions does not amount to questioning his abilities to supervise ‘Operation Lotus’ (the post-flood rehabilitation programme). But why is it that the BJP needs an ‘outsider’ to head a flagship programme?

. Some readers of this blog have outright rejected a Congress hand in the Karnataka shenanigans. I think there have been sufficient revelations since October 29 to bear out the contention that the Congress has been involved. The ‘Reddy Brothers’ are under pressure from the Congress on their mining operations in Andhra Pradesh. Let us not forget that they are businessmen first and politicians second; if push comes to shove they will gladly abandon Yeddyurappa if not the BJP.

. It is entirely possible that a power-sharing formula of sorts will be hammered out after Yeddyurappa arrives in Delhi on Wednesday and the Government will survive this crisis. But that is unlikely to ensure long-term stability. Cabals and groups will not be easily tamed. Having hugely damaged the party at the national level and lost when the stakes were high, these cabals and groups are now busy damaging what remains of the party in the States.Dilli4 is relentless!

As Henry Kissinger famously commented, when the stakes are low, the politics is high.

BSY faces rebellion. BJP Govt in deep crisis

Who's to blame for Karnataka problem?
The BJP Government in Karnataka, by all accounts, finds itself in choppy, if not turbulent, waters.

Chief Minister BS Yeddyurappa has declared war on the cash-rich and powerful ‘Reddy Brothers’ of Bellary, who, in turn, appear to be exerting to bring the Government down. The ‘Reddy Brothers’ virtually control all iron ore mining in Bellary and have similar ‘business interests’ in Andhra Pradesh.

The ‘Reddy Brothers’, Tourism Minister G Janardhana Reddy and his elder brother and Revenue Minister G Karunakara Reddy, have criticised Yeddyurappa for not being sufficiently alert to the woes of the victims of the recent floods. They have launched their own rehabilitation programme and propose to build 50,000 houses for the flood-affected people.

Yeddyurappa, apparently, demanded that they abandon their private project and contribute the money to the official rehabilitation programme. The ‘Reddy Brothers’ not only ignored the Chief Minister’s demand but also refused to invite him for the ‘bhoomi pujan’, apart from lashing out at him in public. They are being supported by Health Minister B Sreeramulu.

An incensed Yeddyurappa retaliated by transferring bureaucrats in the three Ministries and in Bellary who are believed to be close to the Ministers. He wants the party to take action against the three Ministers whom he wants sacked from the Government.

The ‘Reddy Brothers’ and Sreeramulu have retaliated by stoking further dissidence in the BJP legislature party; 15 ‘dissident’ MLAs have been flown out to Hyderabad where they have in put up in a hotel. Sreeramulu says five more will join them soon. The ‘dissident’ MLAs are incommunicado.

Meanwhile, Speaker Jagadish Shettar, a known Yeddyurappa-baiter, has begun flirting with the rebels. One story has it that the ‘Reddy Brothers’ want Shettar to be made Chief Minister. Another story doing the rounds is that Yeddyurappa, in an effort to win over Shettar, offered him the Deputy Chief Minister’s post, but that has been rejected.

Three questions arise:

a) Why did Yeddyurappa choose to precipitate a crisis at this point of time when there are enough fires burning in the BJP? To my mind, his reaction to the defiance of the ‘Reddy Brothers’ has been extremely churlish, if not cussed. He could have done without discovering merit in integrity for some more time.
b) How come the central leadership of the party was unaware of the unfolding crisis till it pushed the Government to the brink of losing majority? The crisis is by no means an overnight development. Does the answer lie in Dilli4 being clueless about what’s happening beyond south Delhi? Or was the situation allowed to drift because one member of the cabal that has converted the party into its fiefdom would like to see Yeddyurappa make an ignominious exit?
c) Who will the so-called national leadership of the BJP blame for the mess in which the party finds itself in Karnataka? Will it look for yet another scapegoat or will it, for a change, look into the mirror? A fish, as I have often said, begins to rot from its head.

The BJP leadership’s incompetence apart, there’s a conspiracy theory which raises an interesting possibility. Apparently Jaganmohan Reddy, said to be close to the ‘Reddy Brothers’ (over-lapping ‘business interests’ are being cited) is involved in the effort to bring down the BJP Government. If he is able to do so, or so the story goes, he will claim the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister’s post as his trophy from the Congress high command.

The situation at the moment, as the cliché goes, is extremely fluid. Arun Jaitley is camping in Bangalore and has been speaking to various groups to find a solution. The RSS is also trying to broker peace among the feuding factions. Yeddyurappa, however, is recalcitrant, as are the ‘Reddy Brothers’ and fellow dissidents, though they have said that they will abide by the decision of the party ‘high command’.

If the crisis snowballs, the BJP will lose its Government in Karnataka where it has been in power for 18 months. The BJP has 117 MLAs in the 224-member Assembly. That majority could disappear if the ‘Reddy Brothers’ walk out with 20 MLAs. Some say if push comes to shove, the number could go up to 40, thus reducing the BJP’s strength to less than 80 MLAs.

There was great jubilation when the BJP won the Assembly election in Karnataka. It marked the party’s coming to power in a southern State for the first time. But coming to power is only half of the power game. The other half is the ability to retain power.

BJP unravelling rapidly. Is anybody concerned?

The BJP just continues to get sucked deeper into the mire of deceitful and duplicitous faction politics. In the process, it continues to get pushed farther to the margins of national politics.

On Thursday evening what used to be the all-powerful but is now a pitifully emasculated Parliamentary Board of the party met for an emergency meeting after LK Advani and his group sought a rethink of party president Rajnath Singh's decision that Vasundhara Raje must resign as Leader of Opposition in Rajasthan Assembly. Rajnath Singh believes she should own up to the party's dismal performance in Rajasthan in the Lok Sabhal election.

It is another matter that not a single central leader of the party has as yet owned up to the party's total, absolute and humiliating rout in the Lok Sabha election. On the contrary, those who fashioned the party's election campaign, which proved to be an unmitigated disaster, have been rewarded. Dilli4 remains as powerful as ever, manipulating every twist and turn in the party's downward spiral.

Vasundhara Raje, who enjoys overwhelming support in the BJP legislature party, has refused to step down as instructed by Rajnath Singh who now finds himself in a minority of one in the parliamentary board. Even the West Bengal unit of the party appears to have cocked a snook at Rajnath Singh.

An unnamed 'senior' BJP leader has been quoted as saying "there are serious differences over the move to oust Vasundhara Raje". It's really now an issue on which Rajnath Singh has virtually no support in the parliamentary board.

At the end of three hours of discussions, the parliamentary board came to the decision that no action is to be initiated at the moment. Instead, status quo will be maintained till Rajasthan Assembly bypolls are over on November 7.

End result: Vasu is smiling; Dilli4 is grinning; Rajnath Singh is smarting. It also reflects on the RSS's say on BJP affairs -- whether it signals dwindling clout or shows confusion is for you to decide.

For all practical purposes, Rajnath Singh is now no more than a lame duck president whose writ doesn't run and whose decisions are being increasingly challenged if not ignored by top, middle and junior leaders in the central and State units of the party. The president's office stands denuded of power and authority.

Conclusion: LK Advani is not going anywhere. Rajnath Singh may have to opt out soon. Dilli4 remains untouched, unchallenged.

Irrespective of Maharashtra Assembly election results (the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance could suffer heavy reverses and losses and be left in the cold yet again)it is likely Nitin Gadkari will be brought in as president. He may want to put together his own team by bringing over young leaders like Manohar Parrikar. Whether he will succeed in doing so or be forced to become putty in Dilli4's hands is anybody's guess at the moment.

Bottom line: More than four months after crushing defeat in Lok Sabha election, BJP's entrenched discredited top leadership, including Dilli4, refuses to wake up to reality. After Thursday's meeting, I find the BJP resembling George Orwell's Animal Farm.

From here to oblivion could be a short journey, unless drastic steps are taken by the RSS. The BJP is fast resembling a tamasha, an embarrassing one at that. A shame and a pity.

The Sangh cannot, indeed must not, wish away its responsibility.

Modi is the future. Dilli4 is the past.

It’s been a great Monday for the BJP and the larger ideological Parivar. In Gujarat, the BJP has won five of the seven Assembly seats where byelections were held on September 12. All five -- Jasdan, Chotila, Dehgam, Danta and Sami-Hariz – were held by the Congress; these are traditional strongholds of the party. Jasdan has been with the Congress since the first general election. Congress has retained Dhoraji. BJP has lost Kodinar.

The byelections have changed the configuration of the 182-member Gujarat Assembly: BJP – 122; Congress – 54; Others – six. That’s three short of what Chief Minister Narendra Modi had aimed to achieve in the 2007 Assembly poll.

In Madhya Pradesh, the BJP has wrested the Tendukheda seat from the Congress. It was considered a stronghold of State Congress president Suresh Pachauri. The Congress has retained Gohad. In the 230-member Madhya Pradesh Assembly, the configuration changes marginally: BJP –144; Congress – 69; BSP – 7; BJSP – 5; Others – four. One seat is vacant.

In Uttarakhand, the BJP has won the Vikasnagar seat, albeit by a wafer-thin margin. This gives the BJP a simple majority of 36 in the 70-member State Assembly.

[The ABVP has swept the MS University, Baroda, election. To get an idea why this is important, please read Defiling Christ is not art]

The most significant results, of course, are from Gujarat. In this summer’s Lok Sabha poll, the BJP won 15 of the 26 seats in this State; the remaining went to the Congress. Subsequently, the party lost the Junagadh Municipal Corporation election which was touted as ‘mainstream’ media as clinching evidence of Modi’s ‘declining popularity’. Some were bold enough to declare that the ‘Modi story is over’.

Not quite. People in the constituencies won on Monday had voted for Congress in 2007 and then again in the 2009 Lok Sabha poll. They have now voted BJP. Modi says the people have seen through the Congress in 100 days of UPA Government. Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi has predictably waved away the results as inconsequential. Had the Congress won, austerity be damned, champagne would have been uncorked. Arun Jaitley says it was imprudent of the Congress to “sympathise with Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices” killed in a police encounter in 2004 on election eve. Reminds me of Sonia Gandhi’s “maut ke saudagar” speech during the 2007 Assembly election.

Modi, however, needs to figure out what went wrong in Kodinar. After all, the MLA who vacated the seat was elected to the Lok Sabha on a BJP ticket from the same constituency. Was it choice of candidate? Or was it poor arithmetic in terms of local party equations?

Some conclusions that can be drawn from Monday’s results:

. BJP still remains popular at the State level. Narendra Modi and Shivraj Singh Chouhan command support and endorsement.
. Modi has reaffirmed his ability to fight back odds, imagined and real. He has demonstrated that he can finesse the Congress in elections. (In this round he didn’t even campaign, though he personally strategised every move.)
. People who voted Congress in LS poll have voted BJP in State elections.
. Endorsement of BJP State leadership highlights rejection of party’s national leadership as it exists.
. Dilli4 can’t claim any credit for Monday’s spectacular win. They had no role (and thankfully so!).

In a sense, Monday’s results have once again proved that Modi is the future. Gujarat understands this better than the BJP’s central leaders do. Will the eventual waning of Dilli4’s clout lead to realisation that the choice for the party is clear? Or will I-shall-grab-all ‘leaders’ have their way once again?

What do you think?

If only Advani had...

[For an expanded version, with insider details of Advani-Vajpayee and Advani-Jaswant relations, see my column Coffee Break in Sunday Pioneer.]
These are not happy times for L K Advani. Colleagues in the BJP who were in total awe of Advani and owe their rise in the party as well as in politics to him have turned bitter critics. Fawning journalists who would call Advani’s office incessantly for an ‘exclusive’ interview or felt privileged to be invited for a cup of tea with him are now busy writing his obituary or ridiculing him pitilessly. The South Delhi commentariat, which has arrogated to itself the task of thinking for the masses, would want us to believe that five decades of public life can be summed up in 33 minutes and 47 seconds of discussion as was witnessed last Monday on NDTV.

When I met him on Tuesday morning, he looked his usual affable self. But his eyes reflected a sense of pain and despair. For a while we talked about books. Advani is a voracious reader although, unlike many of his critics, he does not flaunt intellectual pretensions.

The conversation meandered to what’s happening in the BJP and Advani sounded both upset and pained. “This is not the party I knew… it has changed so much,” he said wistfully. It has changed in many ways.

Thirteen years ago, when Advani was party president, the BJP projected itself as an ‘alternative’ to the Congress not merely in terms of political ideology but also policy and programme. Few people would know about it, and fewer in today’s BJP would care to recall, that he and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were constantly thinking in terms of ideas to craft an alternative agenda of governance. Vajpayee was the big picture man – “We should change the system, otherwise governance cannot change” – while Advani would think in terms of nuts and bolts, the small details, of how to change the system.

Today those who aspire to take charge of the party have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge in ideational thinking. Rhetoric has come to replace crafting of agenda. Any serious effort to engage them in discussing alternative policy ideas fails because they find it boring. It’s easier to outsource that task to lobbies and pressure groups: They come up with ‘alternative policies’ and these are then adopted as party objectives.

Advani was deeply pained about Jaswant Singh’s vituperative personal attacks against him. “He was in the party for 30 years, during which time for nearly 28 years he was an MP. He has held every possible post except that of party president and Prime Minister. Yet he now brushes aside his association with the party as if it does not amount to anything.”

On Kandahar, he sounded distraught that media was making a mountain out of a molehill. “I have merely said I don’t recall, I can’t recall a decision being taken on Jaswant Singh accompanying the terrorists.”

Actually, the Cabinet Committee on Security, as I have written in The Pioneer, did not discuss or decide the issue of Jaswant Singh accompanying the terrorists. What was discussed was his going to Kandahar and doubts were expressed whether it was the right thing to do as he could have ended up a hostage too and then the demands would have been spectacular. Jaswant Singh accompanying the terrorists was the result of last minute changes in travel plans. Pakistan gave over-flight permission for an Indian Airlines aircraft and not the Aviation Research Centre (a R&AW-linked agency) plane in which Jaswant Singh was supposed to travel. This resulted in his travelling on the same plane as the terrorists. Given the tight schedule, the CCS could not have possibly discussed this aspect all over again. In any event, a decade later, Kandahar is a bit of a non-issue.

Advani is equally pained by Yashwant Sinha’s criticism of him: “I have gone out of my way to help him… I have done so much for him... He owes a lot to me.” Sudheendra Kulkarni’s departure has not distressed him as much as his declaration that he was disassociating himself from the BJP due to “ideological differences”. Advani is not amused that it took 13 years for Kulkarni to discover these ‘differences’.

Contrary to popular perception, Advani said he would be more than happy to step aside and retire from active politics. “I could do so many things… read books, write. But there is always this issue of who will take over… There are enough young leaders. After all they have to take charge at some time.”

Each one of us has a fatal flaw. Advani’s fatal flaw, to my mind and reaffirmed after my chat with him, is that he could never assert himself. He admitted as much. Good men often suffer from the inability to force their way; or else Advani would not have succumbed to pressure to stay on, as he did after this summer’s election. Those in the party who persuaded him not to step down were concerned about themselves – not about Advani or the BJP. Advani could have stuck to his instinctive decision, but he did not.

Just as he failed to take a stand on the hasty and ill-considered decision to summarily expel Jaswant Singh from the party. Had he stood firm, the parliamentary board could not have gone ahead and done what it did. Nor could Gujarat have banned Jinnah - India, Partition, Independence. The ban is bound to be set aside by the courts, causing nothing but further embarrassment to the party all because Ananth Kumar clamoured the loudest for "immediate action" at the fateful parliamentary board meeting in Shimla and others thought it expedient to second his demand.

[Although, in all fairness, it must be said that Advani is not alone 'guilty' of letting down and abandoning Jaswant Singh. I have been witness to how Vajpayee was made to drop his name from the list of Ministers the night before the NDA team took oath of office in 1998. The then Sarsanghachalak, K S Sudarshan, did not want him included as he had "just lost the election". I carried the letter to Gopal Gandhi, then secretary to the President of India, an hour before the swearing-in ceremony. Jaswant Singh forgets that episode, just as he forgets that Advani did not forget to include him as Finance Minister in the 13-day Government, although he need not have done so.]

If only Advani had… But then, life is really about a whole lot of ‘if onlys’.

Which brings me to the issue of leadership change. The recent intervention by the RSS and elaborate consultations which took place in Delhi, apart from the comments by the Sarsanghachalak, Mohanrao Bhagwat, have helped bring about clarity on what needs to be done. These are:

. The old guard must step down and step aside. This cannot be delayed any further.
. The choice of future leaders cannot be restricted to those stationed in Delhi.
. The RSS will not interfere by way of micro-managing the party’s affairs.
. The BJP will have to decide for itself what is best for the party.
. The Sangh will provide any assistance that is sought.
. The RSS will play the role of moral compass: The BJP sorely needs this.

It has been decided, according to one of the senior leaders who was involved with the consultation process this past weekend, that the new president will be “young and energetic” with a high integrity quotient. Mohanrao Bhagwat has provided enough hint by saying there are “75 to 80” potential leaders in the BJP. This also broadens the choice for the party.

There will be two major changes in the coming days. Advani will step down as Leader of Opposition and become a party mentor, perhaps chairman of NDA or even chairman of the parliamentary party. Whether Sushma Swaraj will be elevated to the post of Leader of Opposition is anybody’s guess, although she would like to believe it so. I don’t think it’s a settled issue.

[Although not linked, I am curious about what qualifies Sushma Swaraj to head the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs. It would be in order to mention that this committee was once headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The job requires an instinctive feel for foreign affairs, foreign relations and diplomacy, apart from more than passing knowledge of countries and continents. Political officers at foreign missions in Delhi are amused, although what they have to say is not funny.]

I have no confirmed information. But the new president of the BJP could be a proverbial ‘dark horse’. Two names have been mentioned in various discussions – Nitin Gadkari and Manohar Parrikar.

My vote would go to Parrikar. By making him party president, the BJP would signal a tectonic shift. Parrikar can come across as a soft-spoken man, but those who know him will vouch that he cannot be bullied nor will he allow anybody to ride rough-shod over him. He has organisational experience and a clean image; he is ideologically sound and enjoys high credibility with the Sangh; and his youth appeal could prove to be a huge asset for the party among both urban and rural voters.

A new president will also mean a new team of central leaders, a new National Executive and a new set of decision-makers, including organisational general secretary and secretaries.

What needs to be remembered is that the new president’s term will come to an end in the winter of 2012. That is also the time when Assembly election will be held in Gujarat. The result of this poll will be a big factor in deciding Narendra Modi’s future role in the party. The next general election is due in 2014. So, irrespective of whoever holds whichever post today, whether in party or in Parliament, what will matter is the line-up that will emerge in end-2012/early-2013.

During the interregnum, the BJP needs to stabilise and regain the initiative it has lost in the past month. The rest can follow.

BJP's future tense: Don't worry, Advani isn't stepping aside

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
[Abraham Lincoln]

As the BJP’s central office-bearers and members of the so-called ‘core group’ prepare to meet in Shimla from August 19 to 21 for the much-publicised ‘chintan baithak’, two developments have grabbed media attention.
The first pertains to LK Advani. On August 7, Advani held the customary ‘last day of the session’ Press conference, although this ritual has lost its relevance given the extensive coverage of parliamentary proceedings by media, especially television channels. As expected, mediapersons were least interested in the BJP’s performance in Parliament or issues of governance and policy. They were more interested in what has come to be known as the ‘leadership issue’ of the BJP, also described as the BJP’s ‘crisis of leadership’.
Advani was asked what was the road ahead for him. Before he could respond, his deputy, Sushma Swaraj, grabbed the microphone and said, “I will answer this question. He was ‘elected’ leader of the parliamentary party for a full term of five years, not with any deadline.”
But was he remaining in the post of Leader of Opposition reluctantly or under pressure? Mr Advani replied unambiguously: “Whatever I agree to is of my own volition. The kind of political life I have had and the kind of appreciation I have had from the country, I don’t do anything reluctantly.”
There is no ambiguity here. Advani will remain Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The question of his making an exit in the near future does not arise. The impression conveyed at the Press conference is that unless someone else takes over from him, a possibility ruled out categorically, he will lead the party in the 2014 election.
On Monday, August 10, RSS Sarsanghachalak Mohan Bhagwat met Advani in Delhi. It was a one-on-one meeting and apart from them, and anybody else to whom they may have spoken, nobody knows what transpired. But over the past three days, media has been claiming that Advani was confronted on his decision to stay put instead of stepping down for someone else to take over from him. How far this is true is anybody’s guess.
The second development pertains to former Chief Minister of Rajasthan Vasundhara Raje. The BJP’s ‘central leadership’ wants her to step down as Leader of Opposition in the Rajasthan Assembly for two reasons: To own up responsibility for the party’s defeat in the Assembly election; and, to heal the deep fissures in the State party unit on account of reported differences between her and the State unit president who has been hand-picked by Delhi.
Vasundhara is no pushover. She was formally and unanimously elected leader of the legislature party in accordance with the BJP’s constitution after the Assembly poll. She has decided to fight it out, and to demonstrate that she has the majority of the BJP legislators with her, will parade 57 of the 78 MLAs in Delhi before those who have issued marching orders to her. In brief, we haven’t heard the last word yet.
Vasundhara is not alone in being asked to carry the can for the party’s poor electoral performance which was entirely on account of infighting, motivated dissidence and poor organisation. BC Khanduri has had to step down as Chief Minister of Uttarakhand for the same reason.
It can be argued that State leaders must be held accountable for the party’s electoral performance and that they cannot wash their hands of responsibility. As a principle, this is unassailable. But must accountability stop with State level leaders? What about the accountability and responsibility of central leaders who led from the front?
The verdicts in Rajasthan and Uttarakhand, we are told, amount to a rejection of the leadership of Vasundhara and Khanduri; that voters have refused to repose faith in them; and, that they failed to enthuse party cadre and sympathisers as well as hold together factions and groups.
If this is true, what does the national verdict amount to?
Does the stunning 3.32 per cent dip in the BJP’s national vote share reflect popular rejection of the party’s frontline leaders? Who should be held accountable for the fact that the party’s vote share decreased in 21 States? Who is responsible for the national tally falling to 116 seats, 22 short of the 2004 tally? Is the accountability criterion not applicable while judging central leaders?
Three months after the Lok Sabha election results were declared these questions have not disappeared, much as the central leaders of the party would want them to. On the contrary, they have gained currency following the efforts to hold Vasundhara ‘accountable’ for the electoral rout in Rajasthan while glossing over the rout at the national level.
The upcoming ‘chintan baithak’ should be seen in the context of these and other questions that have been raised since May 16. To avoid the questions would render the Shimla conclave a futile exercise.
The BJP’s leaders need to focus on five key areas to revive and rejuvenate the party:

Ideology
Organisation
Policy and programme
Governance
Performance of MPs/MLAs

But any discussion on these and related issues will be meaningless unless the credibility deficit of the leadership is resolved. Leadership flows from clarity of thought and ideas. Clarity flows from political determination to act decisively. Political determination flows from courage and conviction.
At the moment, what is most visible is the absence of courage and conviction. The rest follows.
PS: Has anybody quite figured out the purpose of releasing the Urdu edition of My Country My Life?

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.

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'.

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..."