Transactional politics under the marquee

When the results of the Assembly elections are declared next week, they are likely to show a clean sweep for the Congress in Haryana. The exit polls are unanimous on this point and reports from the ground also suggest a one-sided race.

Whatever anti-incumbency mood exists against the Bhupinder Singh Hooda Government has been dissipated by a three-way split in the opposition votes. A grand alliance against the Congress may be what the doctor ordered but there was never any chance of Om Prakash Chauthala and Kuldeep Bishnoi joining hands. Yet, there could have been a more credible contest had the BJP (which is the fourth party in the race) entered into an alliance with either Chauthala or Bishnoi.

There is a story behind the BJP's suicidal policy of going it alone, a step that may at best yield a couple of seats.

Why was the alliance with Chauthala's INLD broken? There was no decision of the BJP Parliamentary Board and neither was the matter referred to the NDA convenor to resolve.

According to INLD sources, Chauthala was willing for a 61-29 division of seats, the basis on which the earlier Assembly election was fought. Quite inexplicably, the BJP demanded a 45-45 division, a preposterous suggestion, which Chauthala naturally rejected. The BJP then unilaterally announced the end of its alliance with INLD.

However, Bishnoi was also interested in a tie-up with the BJP. He had been interested even during the LS poll. Bishnoi was also more accommodating in terms of seats and there was a harmony between the social bases of both parties.

The BJP, it seems, was not interested. It said that there was no question of acknowledging Bishnoi as a CM candidate in the unlikely event the alliance won. The talks ended without ever becoming serious.

The overall impression was that the BJP was not serious about defeating the Congress. It actually seemed intent on giving Hooda a walkover.

The grapevine in BJP circles now indicate that this partiality towards the Congress didn't stem from ideological pig-headedness but from straight forward commercial compulsions.

At the heart of the matter is a property development company, with capital drawn ostensibly from overseas tax havens but controlled by a NRI relative of a well-known BJP fixer. That company, which has suddenly acquired a high profile in both Haryana and outer Delhi was the instrument by which the Congress neutralised the opposition--by keeping it horribly divided.

The whole thing was a straight-forward commercial quid pro quo.

The same group of carpetbaggers are also behind the persistence with which Vasundhara Raje is being targeted.

The rot is at the top of the BJP. The RSS ombudsmen know about it but choose to keep quiet. No wonder some fixers are happy to deal with these ideological warriors. It's a question of low investments and high returns.

As the BJP drifts into irrelevance, some leaders have decided to mortgage politics to commerce. Haryana is a shining example of the perversions that have crept in.

No wonder the Congress is having a ball. It has managed the BJP. A sobering thought for this festive season.

HAPPY DIWALI.

Technorati Tags: Haryana,Congress,BJP

Takeover hiccups

There appears to be growing unease in the "political" sections of the BJP at the RSS takeover of the organisation.

That the takeover is proceeding gradually isn't in any doubt but it would be inaccurate to say that it is total. In important areas, the political wing retains control and in states where the BJP is in power, the RSS pracharaks have made limited headway (the possible exception is Madhya Pradesh).

The takeover is being actively promoted by RN Singh who wants his malleability to become the basis for his next job after he steps down as president. For example, he is the only one pursuing the attempted removal of Vasundhara Raje as Leader of Opposition in Rajasthan. Most of the other top leaders have veered round to the belief that the removal of Vasundhara is needless.

RN's desperation to toe the Sangh line at any cost saw him securing the removal of Satyabrata (Jolu) Mukherjee as president of the West Bengal unit. Mukherjee's crime was to have issued a show cause notice to the RSS-appointed Sangathan Mantri.

By convention, the Sangathan Mantri is not accountable to the BJP but only to the Sangh. A bizarre arrangement.

There is a section of the Sangh that wants to reward RNS by appointing him Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha (LKA will be made chairman of the parliamentary party). Such an appointment would be tantamount to a cruel joke on the very institution of parliamentary democracy.

The takeover strategists believe that with RNS at the helm in the Lok Sabha, their own man as national president and Nagpur-appointed officers working as sangathan mantri throughout India, the BJP will be a mirror image of the Sangh.

There have been complaints from different states that the sangathan mantris are exercising tight control over the renewal of membership in the districts. They are following Lenin's dictum: "better fewer, but better".

The difference between a voluntary organisation and a political party has been lost sight of. A voluntary organisation is oriented towards its membership; a political party has to take the whole country as its target audience.

So, who is likely to be the next president of the BJP?

As of now, NITIN GADHKARI is the clear favourite.

With his amiable disposition, he has the advantage of being liked by everyone, including the LKA camp. If the BJP-SS does well in Maharashtra, his prospects will improve.

If the takeover falters, the dark horse to look out for is the evergreen M.VENKIAH NAIDU of Nellore.

Repeating a folly

As someone who has been a longtime admirer of LK Advani (even if he regards me as a trenchant critic), I am dismayed and horrified by his recent miscalculations.

In the past six weeks, Advani has been in the news for all the wrong reasons.

First, there was all the fuss over his disclaimer over Jaswant Singh's controversial Kandahar trip in December 1999. Brajesh Mishra, Jaswant Singh and Yashwant Sinha have said that Advani was fully in the know. Advani has not clarified matters and it has has been suggested in the media that his memory is playing tricks with him. Most people (even BJP loyalists) are sceptical of Advani's I-didn't-know claim.

Second, he now says that he was opposed to the silly decision to expel Jaswant from the party. The clarification comes weeks after Jaswant's tirades against him.

On both these controversies, Advani has given the impression that he is ill at ease with the principle of collective responsibility. This is not a happy position for someone who is still Leader of Opposition and the face of the BJP.

There were others who too were opposed to the expulsion. They have maintained silence because, at the end of the day, the principle of collective responsibility is applicable to them.

If Advani was opposed to Jaswant's expulsion--and I have no doubt that he was ill at ease with the decision--he should have used his authority to prevent such a precipitate action. He remained silent and, worse, didn't try to talk things over with Jaswant.

Many people have forgotten that Jaswant was one of the most ardent defenders of Advani during the first Jinnah crisis of 2005. Jaswant cut short a visit to Israel and flew back to Delhi to be by Advani's side. At that time Jaswant let it be known that if action was taken against Advani he would resign from the BJP.

Surely it was obligatory for Advani to do his utmost to prevent Jaswant's humiliation in Shimla. By remaining silent for so long and then choosing to speak up after public opinion tilted quite decisively against the expulsion, Advani has demeaned himself.

His disclaimer now seems like a belated act of self-preservation rather a principled stand.

Advani does not also realise that it is also a tacit admission that his opinions count for very little in the BJP.

Advani has not made any political interventions since the end of the Parliament session. His priorities seem centred on himself.

This was the miscalculation he (and many of us) made during the general election--believing that his individual stature would prevail in the minds of voters. The results showed that the assumption was wrong.

It's best to heed that message than repeat a folly.

Gandhiji read and re-read

Newspaper readers have of late been barraged with extensive passages from Mahatma Gandhi’s Collected Works, and in many instalments.

It reminds me of former British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour’s aside on the publication of yet another book by Winston Churchill: “I hear that Winston has written a big book about himself and called it The World Crisis.”*

-----------

* quoted in Burying Caesar: The Churchill-Chamberlain Rivalry by Graham Stewart. The Overlook Press, Woodstock and New York, 2001, page 40.

Insiders as outsiders

First, a clarification.

There was an understanding between the organisers and the participants of the Thinkers Meet held at the Rambhau Mhlagi Prabodhini last week that the exchanges would remain private. This was not a decision-making meet but one that would facilitate an exchange of ideas and positions. The speculation that the meet debated the succession issue in the BJP and even came to a decision is entirely fanciful. As a participant, I can say without any fear of contradiction that we discussed ideas and philosophy. The BJP was not the subject of discussion, although it did feature tangentially.

Second, a diatribe.

I read in the Sunday editions of Pioneer and Tribune about an attack mounted by an editorial in the BJP's Kamal Sandesh on hitherto "friendly journalists" who have of late been critical of various aspects of the party. The Tribune feels this is a reference to Arun Shourie and me, and I have received numerous phone calls from fellow journalists and BJP activists saying "you have been attacked by Prabhat Jha".

Whether Prabhat Jha, Rajya Sabha MP from Madhya Pradesh, is responsible for the editorial is irrelevant. It's the ideas that matter, not who penned the original article (which, being in Hindi, I confess to not having read). Even if Jha did write the piece doesn't sour my personal relations with him, just as my sharply critical articles doesn't alter my perception that RSS is a key factor in modern Indian nationalism.

Open polemics and debate are a good idea and must be encouraged in public life.

To get back to the issue under debate. I have been viewed as a sympathiser of the BJP, what the liberal media calls a "saffron journalist". That perception is real and I have never made any secret of my voting preferences. In addition, I have helped the BJP in many ways. These include helping some leaders with their speeches and statements, giving inputs during election campaigns and sharing ideas with individuals.

Yet, I have always maintained a functional autonomy from the BJP. I will not support it blindly. Neither will I be hamstrung by my apparent "insider" status. The fact that I have privileged information (which I don't use indiscriminately) is neither here nor there. My sense of what is right or wrong isn't determined by the preferences of either Ashoka Road or Nagpur.

I am sorry that the editor of Kamal Sandesh has been disoriented by the criticisms of those he regarded as "insiders". His priority is, understandably, the party; I am driven by my sense of what is good for India. The ideas may often converge but he should not presume it will always be the same.

What is revealing is that an official BJP organ now feels it imperative to announce to party members that sympathisers should not be treated as insiders and be elevated on a pedestal. This suggests a closing of mind and an inability to deal with contrarian views. It is the nearest thing to an expulsion order for those who don't come under the disciplinary purview of the BJP.

I presume Kamal Sandesh has implicitly advised BJP members to neither read nor be influenced by what the neo-heretics say.

Thank you Mr Kamal Sandesh editor for showing us our place and pointing to the door. You have freed me from the inner pressure to treat the BJP as a body I identified with and felt for--a part of my intellectual parivar. Whether I do so or not is another matter altogether.

My best wishes to you for the future but I promise to remain a nuisance and disturb all your pathetic certitudes.

With loyalists like you, the BJP doesn't need enemies.

Technorati Tags: BJP,Prabhat Jha,RSS

Autonomy of politics

I am reproducing an article of mine published in The Telegraph (Sept 4, 2009) where some issues arising from the latest developments in the BJP are probed. I would be happy to receive feedback that comments on the song rather the imaginary conspiratorial motives of the singer.

By Swapan Dasgupta

Earlier this week, a BJP-watcher in the media proffered the novel suggestion in a web article that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief, Mohan Bhagwat, should hold concurrent charge of the Bharatiya Janata Party. “I would go a step further,” she wrote, “and state that since he is so clearly the Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh of the BJP/RSS he should also take-over the constitutional post of Leader of the Opposition … In fact, Bhagwat should eventually consider being Leader in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha but since that would involve amending the Constitution of India he should first focus on fixing the BJP Constitution to ensure him unlimited power and authority that he seems to enjoy anyway.”

Since irony and sarcasm in the English language tend to go largely undetected, this plea for one-man-all-posts could well be interpreted as a logical extension of Arun Shourie’s theatrical pronouncement that the RSS should “take over” the Bharatiya Janata Party. Conversely, since Bhagwat has affirmed many times over in his media interactions that the RSS is merely a “cultural organization” that doesn’t give gratuitous advice to the BJP, many will view the suggestion as simply insolent.

It is difficult to anticipate how the RSS will react to the suggestion that it shed all pretence and assume a formal political role. It is said that Sardar Vallabbhai Patel once suggested precisely such a course to “Guruji” M.S. Golwalkar, the iconic, second RSS chief. It was rejected because Golwalkar believed that politics is a “cesspool” and jumping into it would contaminate the RSS’ s larger “nation building” project. Since then, keeping an arm’s length from politics has defined RSS orthodoxy. This detachment, however, has never negated the discreet advice of the organization to its swayamsevaks in public life. Occasionally, as happened during the tenure of K.S. Sudarshan, the distinction between advice and instruction was almost obliterated.

Despite Bhagwat’s denial that the RSS was assuming charge of the BJP, there is an impression that last week’s crisis management sessions in Delhi resulted in a coup and the quiet transfer of control of the BJP from the politicians to the RSS. L.K. Advani’s resignation from the post of leader of the Opposition — a post he unwisely held on to after the May 16 defeat — is now a foregone conclusion, as is the non-renewal of Rajnath Singh’s term as party president. More to the point, the RSS appears to have indicated that it has no confidence in the ability of the BJP’s second-rung leadership to steer the party out of its present disarray.

The RSS has mounted a global search for a new face who can undertake the party re-building project. The choice may well be a politician (even one with a mass base), but real decision-making will be vested in the hands of full-time RSS pracharaks on deputation from Nagpur. As things stand, the organization secretaries (deployed at all levels) undertake party responsibilities, but are not subject to the political control of the party. Their appointments and removal are the sole responsibility of the RSS.

It is undeniable that many despondent BJP workers, perhaps a majority of them, have reacted favourably to the RSS chief assuming a pro-active role. The impression that a fractious and ambitious bunch of politicians were incapable of extricating the BJP from the depths to which it has sunk may be over-simplistic, but at the same time it was very real. Since the RSS chief wields both moral and organizational authority within the larger sangh parivar, his no-nonsense intervention has been heartily welcomed, even if it involves replacing dual control with just one power centre.

A comparison of the RSS “takeover” with a military coup ostensibly aimed at saving “the nation” from democratic turbulence is irresistible.

The problem with authoritarian solutions in argumentative societies is that the immediate exhilaration at the restoration of order is invariably replaced by long-term disappointment. Apart from a mismatch between the Sergeant-Major mentality and competitive politics, the honest brokers soon find themselves sucked into the role of participants. The RSS should know the feeling. In 2006, after Advani was removed as party president following his controversial remarks on Jinnah, the RSS sent some 250 pracharaks into the BJP to bolster the organization. They were appointed organizing secretaries at the Central and state levels and the 2008 Uttar Pradesh election was managed almost entirely by pracharaks on special deputation.

The overall experience wasn’t happy. Apart from the uneven quality of personnel deployed, the image of the RSS as a distant moral authority was subsumed by the emergence of the RSS as a faction, often at loggerheads with mass politicians. The factionalism in Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan were a consequence of troubles fermented by those who claimed to speak in the name of the sangh. If the process of pracharak implantation is speeded up without a thorough assessment of the past experience, there is a possibility that the BJP could witness even more strife and major desertions. Bhagwat needs to be mindful that greater RSS control of the BJP is a high-risk strategy.

Secondly, an unstated feature of the RSS intervention is the belief in the vanguard role of the RSS and the superior qualities of those who have dedicated themselves full-time to the sangh. Compared to the “lateral entry” politician who is in the BJP because it is the most meaningful non-Congress formation, the swayamsevak is projected as something akin to a chosen people. Apart from the sheer arrogance of a belief that casts all those who didn’t attend shakhas as lesser beings — and this includes every woman — this caste system runs counter to the very purpose of a political party — to win the support of the majority and create a representative leadership profile. The cultivation of enhanced self-worth may be necessary to nurture commitment to a religious order or a brotherhood, but political leadership cannot be settled on the strength of Indic versions of the old school tie and membership of a Masonic Lodge — at least not in a 21st century where hierarchies are constantly being unsettled.

The fundamental question the BJP has to address is: why is it in existence in the first place? If upholding Hindu interests is its main leitmotif, it is not dissimilar to a grander version of the Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Musalmeen, which controls the Muslim ghettos of Hyderabad and routinely wins a Lok Sabha seat. The MIM, an offshoot of the original Razakars, resonates with nostalgia for a lost sovereignty and an eroding high culture. It will always be a factor in Muslim politics of the Deccan but a non-starter in all calculations of governance.

If the BJP wishes to be a party aspiring to some 80 Lok Sabha seats, with a presence in the Hindi-speaking states, it can persist with the cohesiveness of the erstwhile Jana Sangh. If its ambitions are greater and it seeks to challenge the Congress’s all-India presence, it has to open its doors wider to diverse currents and interests. The RSS is an important input into the BJP, but it is not the only input. If the BJP wishes to mirror the richness of the nationalist experience, it must become a Kumbh Mela of diverse tendencies. With his stature and goodwill, Bhagwat can play a constructive facilitator of such a process. However, the creation of “structures and procedures” he has repeatedly stressed must be premised on the principles of inclusiveness, accommodation and, above all, competence. A one-size-fits-all approach based on loyalty is too eerily reminiscent of the failed ideologies of the 20th century.

The Telegraph, September 4, 2009

Interpreting the oracle

Second-guessing the RSS has become a favourite media preoccupation. Those who believed that Mohan Bhagwat was going to crack the whip and lay down the line in a press conference were quite clearly barking up the wrong tree. Right or wrong, the RSS works far more discreetly.

Yet, even I must confess to being very surprised when the RSS chief chose to persist with his press meet in Delhi. The programme had been made much earlier, as part of the media interaction scheme planned in some 20 places across India. It had nothing to do with the present internecine conflict in the BJP. At the same time, once the BJP imploded, there was a feeling that it would be prudent to quietly drop the Delhi programme. The RSS chief was advised that the Delhi media is a pack of wolves, that it would make it into a political grilling on the BJP and wait for the smallest indiscretion or loose formulation.

It is to the eternal credit of Mohan that he kept his cool, wasn't forced into a rash statement. Despite constant needling, he stuck to the script that it is up to the BJP to decide its own future. The RSS exists in a purely advisory capacity, and that too when asked.

Mohan Bhagwat gave the media no masala. But he won a lot of admirers for his ability to withstand such intensive grilling. He even managed to explain his version of Hindutva without being rubbished. Full marks to him.

Now to the essence of what he said this afternoon and what he told Times Now earlier.

• The RSS favours a generational shift in the leadership but it also favours a role for the elders.
• It shuns attempts to project the RSS as a faction in the BJP--as Arun Shourie rashly demanded. It wants to be seen to be scrupulously neutral.
• The principle of functional autonomy of parivar organisations was reiterated. This was as much to the outside world as to those in the Sangh who are bent on remote control of the BJP. Equally, it is a signal to politicians to stop second-guessing the RSS and acting in its name.

The relationship between the RSS and BJP is quite complex and dynamic. It is shaped by those who are at the helm in both places. Both Vajpayee and Advani used to be exasperated by K.S. Sudarshan's micro-management. Narendra Modi got involved in a full scale war with RSS pracharaks in Gujarat.

Today, there is considerable disquiet in the BJP over the intrusive style of the RSS functionary responsible for interacting with the BJP. It is suggested by many that the RSS has become a faction in the BJP. The competence of many pracharaks assigned by the RSS to the BJP have also been called into question. The outbreak of factional war is being attributed to the distortions in the BJP-RSS relationship.

Can Mohan Bhagwat redefine the relationship and put it on a mature plane? His utterances give considerable reason for optimism but even the RSS chief functions in a collegiate system. Will his functionaries keep a healthy distance from the BJP's day-to-day affairs?

It is going to be a challenging project to ensure functional autonomy. The spectacular turnout at this afternoon's press conference was a clear pointer that while the RSS is the core, it is the BJP where all the glamour resides.

Technorati Tags: RSS,Mohan Bhagwat,Arun Shourie,LK Advani,BJP