‘BJP Under Modi is Vulnerable to the Emergence of Several Dev Kant Barooahs'

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 9 November 2014 under the headline BJP Under Modi Will Become Like Congress Under Indira

KN Govindacharya is not given to making statements merely for effect. Expect plain-speaking from the 71-year-old former RSS pracharak and former BJP ideologue, especially when the issues at hand are something he feels strongly about — the rise and rise of Amit Shah, the pitfalls of being a Narendra Modi or the degeneration of the BJP into an electoral machine. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he also says that the prime minister must be seen to act on black money and that the next Union Budget will be the best indicator yet of the thought process of the NDA government. Edited excerpts from an interview :

"Quote Unquote"

'BJP under Modi is vulnerable to the emergence of several Dev Kant Barooahs'

*******

'Indiscipline will become the order of the day in the BJP. If the party gets degenerated into just an electoral machine and the party, instead of being a party of workers with a mission, gets degenerated into a party of candidates for power — and instead of holistic growth, electoral gains become their parameters — then all this is bound to happen'

*******

'The next Budget will definitely be the indicator of the thought process of the BJP'

*******

'The Modi government has to present itself as pro-Bharat and pro-poor. There is a widespread perception that on certain issues the government is pro-Bharat, but it has to be translated at the policy level'

*******

'The Modi government needs to be much more forthcoming as far as actions are concerned. Just fond wishes won’t do. Just exclamations won’t suffice'

*******

'Mukesh Ambani patting Prime Minister Modi does not go down well with the cadres. The self-respect of the cadres is hurt'

It is nearly six months since Narendra Modi was sworn in as prime minister. How do you view his performance?

After Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, Narendra Modi has proved himself to be the most hardworking prime minister. He is also the most proactive. He has exhibited these two qualities. However, he has yet to learn the ropes of governance at the Centre. Now he is facing the arduous task of taming and then steering the bureaucracy because the whole structure, in spirit, is status-quoist, inert, corrupt and insensitive. Right from the peons to the secretary-level officials, passing-the-buck has been the greatest surviving strength of government employees. So, indecisiveness is another characteristic of the bureaucracy. As far as out-of-the-box thinking or breakthrough thinking is concerned, it is a far, far dream. So, now, Modi is facing this aspect of governance. It will be interesting to see how he fares in this context.

Similarly, you cannot differentiate between the two personalities of Modi and Amit Shah (BJP president) or, for that matter, between the party and the government. All rolled into one is the present picture. And it will continue to be so because Shah will not be seen as having any separate identity of his own. He will be just a shadow. He is yet to make a mark. So, with these things, naturally, there is always a liability or vulnerability of the emergence of several Dev Kant Barooahs. (Barooah was a former Congress president who famously said, “India is Indira. Indira is India.”) Only one was sufficient to damage the reputation. Here, that will become the way of working or the order of the day. So, it will be interesting to see how all these aspects are tackled.

What do you make of Prime Minister Modi’s pro-business image and some of the recent pronouncements by his government, particularly on issues such as black money?

Without imputing motives, I feel that the government needs to be much more forthcoming as far as actions are concerned. Just fond wishes won’t do. Just exclamations won’t suffice, but they have to be in unison with the action also. As Murli Manohar Joshi has also recently said (about politics and corporates), and I agree with him, a (Reliance Industries chairman) Mukesh Ambani patting Prime Minister Modi does not go down well with the cadres. The self-respect of the cadres is hurt. Because in this party, Nanaji Deshmukh (a founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh) used to have the best of relations with the industrialists but none of them could get into so much proximity and they were not given even the primary membership anywhere. But in the past 20 years, corporate houses have won Rajya Sabha seats also for some of their officials or ex-officials. So this nexus of political power and money power will definitely influence the formulation of policies also. It will be difficult for the political parties to strike a different line or mode that will be injurious or harmful to the interests of the corporates. So the people running the government must be aware of it and they should take precautions about it. That is why Modi was categorical that black money (“ek ek pai”; Hindi for every penny) will be brought back because that is the money of the poor. But, you see, this cannot match with his hobnobbing with the corporate sector.

Some view Modi as being autocratic. How would you describe his style of governance?

Modi has been working very smartly, so to say; he is an extraordinary performer when it comes to image, message, signals and politics. Nobody can match (him) and for that (to happen), a structure, technology and resources are needed. He has those things because of the party and the Sangh Parivar structures. Therefore, he is able to synchronise those three ­factors and that is his genius. One has to admit that, but that has to be translated into achievements at the ground level and it is in this context that I mentioned about the bureaucracy.

The Congress party is in disarray. A section of the media does not quite seem to have an appetite for being critical of the government. The judiciary is in need of reforms. In this situation, who do you think can effectively play the role of an Opposition?

The Opposition political parties have failed in their duties and they are not able to put their house in order. They are not able to digest their defeat or accept the reality that they have to rebuild the party; but how, they don’t know. They are also not clear about what should be their future strategy or planks of politics. On that count, the Opposition is nowhere to be seen. The media, for its part, has been rational enough to give time to this government before judging it or criticising it. They are acting fair enough, that is what I feel. As for the judiciary, it has come out openly with strong comments on black money and with regard to many other things; it has been vocal enough, assertive enough in its role. So I think that the media and the judiciary are indeed playing their roles, but the same cannot be said for the Opposition.

Can the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) be more effective as an Opposition than as a government?

They have to acquire more skills for wielding power to protect and promote the interests of the people. So I think it was because of the distress and despair in the minds of the voters against the erstwhile ruling establishment that AAP was successful more than what they also might have expected. They have yet to build themselves into a political instrument. Their movement may have been helpful but consolidation was not there. So go-slow would have been the better strategy but they are the best people to judge for themselves.

Could the BJP-Shiv Sena split have been avoided before the Maharashtra Assembly election?

I think Modi is playing his game of politics in an assertive manner, given the numbers he has. And he has not trampled upon the toes of other political forces per se. Instead, for example, in Amritsar (Navjot Singh) Sidhu was sidelined; by whom? It was totally unfair and the BJP had to gulp it at that moment. About the Shiv Sena, that has not been the case but definitely, because of the split, realities have changed as far as Shiv Sena is concerned and, on the BJP’s side, they have not been unfair in demanding more seats. That was not good politics played by the Shiv Sena. So it is their fault. That fault can’t be heaped upon the BJP.

So where do the BJP and the Shiv Sena go from here?

They (Shiv Sena) also will learn lessons, which it is due for them. Efforts are always there but many a time efforts may not yield desired results. But I don’t think the BJP does not want allies or that it has become arrogant. That will be unfair to say. It depends on both partners; unilaterally, it is not possible. They should also be sensible enough to understand the change in the ground realities and the texture of politics. And it is not the end of the day; they should understand that it is a continuing process. What I am apprehensive about is how politics is turning power-centric and not people-centric, leadership-centric or personality-centric and not issue-centric. Politics is not merely about government or governance. It is about the direction in which the whole nation is to be steered by the State apparatus. It all depends on how you view the role of the State. Just winning elections or numbers is not the end of the road. The State is supposed to protect those who can’t protect themselves. So I see that in this respect, more sensitivity is required by all parties, including the ruling party.The issues of the poor and the deprived have to get more attention in this era of marketism and the State should be weighing itself in favour of the poor and the deprived rather than creating a perception that it is closer to the corporates.

Certain instances of indiscipline reported from Maharashtra have embarrassed the BJP…

It will become the order of the day. If the party gets degenerated into just an electoral machine and the party, instead of being a party of workers with a mission, gets degenerated into a party of candidates for power — and instead of holistic growth, electoral gains become their parameters — then all this is bound to happen.

The government has taken certain measures on the economic front but there is a view that more reforms are needed and quickly at that.

The situation will become clear in the next Budget because the last Budget was an extension of the previous government’s interim Budget. There was no original concept in it. The next Budget will definitely be the indicator of the thought process of the BJP. Till then, we have to wait as far as economic issues are concerned. Having said that, there is the issue of amendments to the Land Acquisition Bill, which the government is expected to bring in the winter session of Parliament. Then there are some cases on fast track against certain politicians… all of which is getting delayed. So I think one should not test the people’s patience beyond a limit. Six months is neither too early nor too late but the government has to present itself as pro-Bharat and pro-poor. There is a widespread perception that on certain issues the government is pro-Bharat, but it has to be translated at the policy level. For example, the ban on cow slaughter is not only an emotional issue; it is as well linked to economic and environmental aspects and also the direction of the development model. Breeding centres are needed. A couple of centuries ago, the cattle-to-man ratio was 7 to 1. At the time of Independence, it became 1 to 1 and now it is the reverse; today, the cattle-to-man ratio is 1 to 7. This is an alarming situation. It will definitely affect the health of the country, lead to malnutrition among children and the socio-psycho atmosphere will be hurt if this ratio further declines. The government can take certain steps such as ensuring that the export of beef and fodder is banned altogether. These seemingly innocuous steps can go a long way in addressing some of the problems. I intend to submit a memo to the government on the issue of cattle, specifically cows and their progeny.

The ‘trickle-down’ development model is a proven failure, so a departure is needed. Whether this government indeed does some out-of-the-box thinking remains to be seen. It will be interesting to see what is there in the Budget.

The government may be emotionally inclined towards being pro-Bharat but I think a lot needs to be done for the government to adopt a pro-poor approach. This aspect has to be geared for not merely lip service but a genuine commitment is needed. Eco-centric development is the need of the hour. fdi (foreign direct investment) and trickle-down theory won’t work and they will be detrimental to those people who are dependent on natural resources. Their livelihood will be threatened. Therefore, sensitivity and continuous exposure to that section of the people is needed, not investor summits.

Instead of practising the failed dictum of trickle-down theory, they should proceed towards eco-centric development and not merely anthropocentric development. An overdependence on the trickle-down theory can be counterproductive as it could encourage disparities and inequalities. Inclusive development and empowerment are needed, not through doles and charities but by the active participation of those sections of society and opening up avenues for that is the task of the government. There is a lot of talk about smart cities but hundreds of villages could vanish or be affected by the development of smart cities. Should smart cities then be a priority?

BJP veterans such as LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi have been sidelined. Could they have been treated differently?

If electoral politics is the approach, then whatever has been done is correct; but if politics is to be viewed holistically, then some more options could have been there. But, then again, there is no use discussing all those options. Gatham Gathaha… what has happened, has happened. One has to move on.

Concerns have been expressed in some quarters over the future of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and the Unique Identification (Aadhaar) Number — two schemes that had been launched by the erstwhile UPA government. Where do you stand on this issue?

Continuity and change are to be blended together. As it is said, old is gold but everything new may not be the best, so change and continuity should go hand in hand. Many alterations to MGNREGA are needed but more changes are needed in the legislation on land acquisition so that agricultural land is saved and the land that protects the interests of animals, birds and other living beings is protected. The interests of jal (water), jameen (land), jungle and jaanvar (animals) should be at least as important as that of humans. So I feel if the approach is altered from an anthropocentric development to eco-centric development, it will do more good.

What are your impressions about the government’s foreign policy?

I think the government is in a learning mode and needs more time to understand the ropes of foreign policy. It could definitely have better diplomatic and economic relations with Russia because they have been natural allies, geopolitically, in the past. China can be a competitor, if not a rival, but we will have to see how far this competition can be healthy.

Shah rides on Modi wave

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 23 October 2014 under the headline Shah rides on Modi wave

Riding on the crest of a wave that catapulted the BJP to an unprecedented win in the May Lok Sabha election, the party swept to power in Haryana and came tantalisingly close to forming a government on its own in Maharashtra — two states that had been ruled by the Congress (along with its allies) for 10 and 15 years, respectively.

Although the BJP’s gamble of going it alone paid off (it won an absolute majority in Haryana and emerged as the single largest party in Maharashtra), it was not enough to push it over the finish line in Maharashtra. By some BJP leaders’ own admission, the tally could have been higher if the BJP-Shiv Sena Mahayuti (or grand coalition) had not broken.

The fact that the Modi juggernaut stopped short of a simple majority of 145 MLAs in the 288-member Legislative Assembly means that the BJP could be forced to cohabit with its estranged ally, the Shiv Sena. Unless, of course, as is being advocated by a section of the BJP’s unit in Maharashtra, the party deems it politically expedient to form a minority government a la Narasimha Rao in 1991 in the belief (hope?) that neither the Shiv Sena nor the NCP would precipitate a crisis at the time of the government seeking a confidence vote.

The NCP’s unilateral decision to offer unconditional, outside support to a BJP government in Maharashtra could come in handy — a scenario that the BJP would have factored in when its 25-year-old alliance with the Shiv Sena was called off on 25 September and, as if on cue, the NCP-Congress split within hours the same day.

The option of forming a minority government is being seen either as a BJP ploy to forestall hard bargaining by Shiv Sena or to avoid the albatross of coalition compulsions, a phrase that Manmohan Singh in New Delhi and Prithviraj Chavan in Mumbai conveniently cited to explain away their inability to call the shots, but which is an anathema to some in the BJP. However, how stable such a government would be is anybody’s guess as the index of Opposition unity will determine how long it lasts.

At the time of writing, the BJP camp was sanguine about forming a government, with or without the Shiv Sena. That Anant Geete of the Shiv Sena attended a dinner that Prime Minister Narendra Modi hosted on 20 October for his council of ministers and that the BJP’s support to the Sena continued in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) suggested that the doors were open for talks.

On balance, while the BJP achieved one of its objectives in Maharashtra, that of maximising its tally of seats, it could well end up with something it wanted to avoid — a coalition of compulsion. The Congress, on the other hand, has been relegated to the third position in both states and it is barely struggling to stay relevant in the national polity, losing more states than it gains. Therefore, to that extent, the Maharashtra results are sobering for the BJP just as they are sombre for the Congress.

In the midst of all the hectic political activity in Maharashtra, Haryana is the lesser-known success story of the BJP where its turnaround is nothing short of spectacular. In a state where the BJP bagged only four seats in 2009, two in 2005 and six in 2000 and where it was fighting on 74 seats for the first time, the party won a record 47 seats. However, unlike Haryana, which contributes only 10 Lok Sabha seats and five Rajya Sabha seats, Maharashtra sends 48 MPs to the Lok Sabha and 19 to the Rajya Sabha. That should explain the disproportionate focus on Maharashtra as opposed to Haryana.

As the results show, the BJP won 122 seats in Maharashtra as compared to 46 in 2009; its vote share rose from 14 percent in 2009 to 28 percent in 2014. After 1990, this is the first time a party has won 100 or more seats in the Maharashtra Assembly. In the 1990 Assembly polls, the Congress had secured 141 seats. Not only has the BJP nearly trebled its tally but it has also appreciably increased its strike rate (ratio or percentage of seats won against contested) and its vote-share and swing. This, when the BJP had never contested more than 119 seats (in 2009) in the state.

Not only did BJP president Amit Shah have to build the party organisation from the ground up in 150-odd constituencies but he also had to find suitable candidates on most of those seats. The BJP coopted some defectors from rival parties, mainly from the NCP and the Congress. However, only about 20 out of the 50-odd turncoats managed to win on a BJP ticket. Compounding matters for the BJP, only one of its allies, the Rashtriya Samaj Paksha, won a lone seat.

Man of the match

A triumphant Shah says the BJP has created history in Maharashtra and Haryana by not only positioning itself to form its own government there but by ensuring that the Congress would not even get the post of the Leader of Opposition in those Assemblies. “We have moved two more steps towards a Congress-Mukt Bharat (Congress-free India),” he says.

Shah feels that the results establish beyond any doubt that the programmes, policies and performance of the Modi government have found universal acceptance among the voters of the two states. He blames “circumstances” for the BJP going it alone in Haryana and Maharashtra.

Apparently, one of those circumstances was the BJP’s urge to capitalise on its performance in the Lok Sabha election by contesting more seats on its own in both the states, which was resisted by the Haryana Janhit Congress (HJC) in Haryana and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra. Doing so would not only have given BJP a better chance at increasing its tally, it would also have helped to strengthen its organisation in those states. An added incentive was to increase its footprint nationally.

While Shah was quick to rebuff the HJC’s suggestion of a 50:50 division of the seats (90 in all), the seat-sharing talks in Maharashtra went down to the wire although a week before the nominations closed on 27 September, it was already being talked about that the two parties can be expected to go their separate ways.

The Shraadh period (8-23 September), which is considered inauspicious for starting anything new, added to the anxieties as four days were lost to it. (The nominations opened on 20 September.) Yet, ironically, the BJP-Shiv Sena split was announced on a day when, as per the Hindu calendar, the Navratris began.

Shah, for one, was confident of a creditable performance by the BJP but chose to play along as he did not want to be seen as a deal-breaker; instead, he waited for the Shiv Sena to make a false move before making the split official. He insists that the decision to go it alone was the Shiv Sena’s, not the BJP’s.

“Neither did we try to break our relations with the Shiv Sena nor did we break it,” he told a news conference at the party headquarters in New Delhi. At the same time, Shah, whom Modi called the man of the match for the BJP’s win in the Lok Sabha election, maintains that the alliance could not have been saved at the expense of, or by sacrificing, the BJP karyakarta (worker.)

Ekla Cholo strategy

As a TEHELKA report (Will Modi’s Big Gamble Pay Off? 18 October) pointed out, a creditable performance by the BJP in Maharashtra and Haryana would come as a shot in the arm for the Modi-Shah duo and re-establish their pre-eminence in the party and beyond.

In Modi and Shah, the BJP has a formidable duo that can lead the party into unchartered territories based on a combination of the former’s administrative skills and the latter’s organisational acumen. It is Shah who devised the party’s strategy of consolidating the non-Maratha and the non-Jat votes in Maharashtra and Haryana, respectively, while projecting Modi’s development agenda to beat the caste and regional arithmetic.

Shah is the perfect foil to a Modi who thrives on challenges and the results have disproved some sceptics who had begun to wonder whether the results of the bypolls in 54 Assembly constituencies across 14 states (Uttarakhand in July; Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka in August; and Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Sikkim in September) since the BJP-led NDA came to power on 26 May were indicative of the waning of the Modi magic. (The BJP and its NDA allies had held 36 of those 54 seats but they managed to retain only 20 of them.)

Predictably, Shah could hardly conceal a chuckle when he told the news conference, “Some people rejected the Modi wave after the bypoll results but I want to tell them that the Modi wave is intact and the tsunami is still capable of vanquishing all opponents.” (However, an editorial in the Shiv Sena’s mouthpiece Saamana dismissed the wave as “nothing more than froth that receded before it reached the shores”.)

Shah asserts that “people have accepted Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the undisputed leader”. Modi had addressed 27 rallies in Maharashtra and 11 in Haryana while Shah had addressed 17 rallies in Maharashtra and 22 in Haryana. (In comparison, Congress president Sonia Gandhi addressed only four rallies in Maharashtra and three in Haryana while her son and vice-president of the party Rahul Gandhi addressed six rallies in Maharashtra and four in Haryana.)

It was anticipated that a BJP win in Maharashtra and Haryana would impart a greater momentum to the government’s promise of a fast-track development agenda in general and economic reforms and foreign and security policies, in particular. It could also nudge Modi to effect a reshuffle of his council of ministers.

Therefore, it did not come as a surprise when Finance Minister Arun Jaitley acknowledged on 20 October that the BJP forming governments in Haryana and Maharashtra will be a big plus for the Centre’s reforms push. Jaitley addressed a press conference in which he announced coal sector reforms; on the same day, Union Minister of State for Commerce and Industry Nirmala Sitharaman said in Bengaluru that the government is closer to finding a solution to approve a legislative scheme that enables the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST). On 18 October, the government announced oil sector reforms, including deregulating diesel prices.

While the results of the Assembly elections may not have an immediate bearing on the composition of the Rajya Sabha (where the BJP has 43 members and the Congress 68), but going forward, it could impact the elections to fill up the vacancies that will arise in the upper House of Parliament. The Rajya Sabha would become even more important when the government seeks to push through legislations.

Marathi Manoos and Asmita

Uddhav Thackeray, who led the Shiv Sena into the first electoral battle after the demise of his father Bal Thackeray in November 2012, acquitted himself better than his cousin Raj Thackeray, chief of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. While Shiv Sena increased its tally from 44 seats in 2009 to 63 this year (the highest number of seats it won was 73 in 1995), the MNS could win only one seat, down from the 13 it won in 2009.

The MNS’ rout has taken the sheen off its slogan of Marathi asmita (pride) just as the BJP’s development agenda has posed a challenge to the Shiv Sena’s and the MNS’ Marathi ‘manoos’ ideology. In contrast, the Hyderabad-based Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) won two seats in the Marathwada region.

Where Uddhav erred was in not reconciling to the new ground realities and insisting on a 151-119 seatsharing arrangement with the BJP, which the latter could accept only at its own peril. Unlike the relationship that existed between the late Thackeray, the late Pramod Mahajan and the late Gopinath Munde, the new men at the helm of the BJP today, Modi and Shah, do not have any affinity towards Uddhav.

Shah was clear from the word go that the BJP, having tasted blood in the Lok Sabha election, would go for broke in Maharashtra. That meant contesting on more seats than the BJP ever has but the Shiv Sena’s reluctance to accommodate what it saw as a junior partner’s excessive demands coupled with Uddhav’s claim to the post of chief minister should the Mahayuti win, unravelled the negotiations.

As the Maharashtra election results poured in, Shah had the last laugh. The BJP had not only won more seats than the Shiv Sena was willing to offer it, the hitherto junior partner in the Mahayuti had become the single largest party in the Assembly. “The results have proved who was correct,” Shah was heard telling reporters afterwards. “The BJP will be forming the government in Maharashtra.”

After an initial burst of bravado, when he asked the BJP to make the first move (“I am sitting at my home peacefully, if somebody thinks our support is needed, they can approach us”), a chastised Uddhav called up Shah and Modi to break the ice. A Saamana editorial sought to strike a conciliatory tone by indicating its willingness to let bygones be bygones.

However, the BJP seems to be in no hurry to reciprocate although the RSS and veteran BJP leader LK Advani made it known that they would like the BJP and Shiv Sena to come together again. A section of the BJP, which feels that Uddhav has earned his spurs in this election, sees it as an ideological necessity to align with the Shiv Sena.

Even before Rajnath Singh and JP Nadda were to fly to Mumbai, the BJP led by Nitin Gadkari had opened informal talks with the Shiv Sena on the possibility of a rapprochement and what it will entail. For one, the Shiv Sena favours a united Maharashtra; it is opposed to the carving out of a separate Vidarbha state. Meatier portfolios in Maharashtra and at the Centre are another bone of contention. For its part, the BJP will have its way on its choice for the post of chief minister.

 

         

 Implications for regional parties

The BJP win in Haryana can be attributed to the BJP strategy of consolidating the non-Jat vote while at the same time ensuring that the Jat vote split between the INLD and the Congress. The fact that an overwhelming majority of the BJP’s MLAs are non-Jats explains the party’s decision to project Manohar Lal Khattar as its chief minister-designate.

The Haryana results are particularly significant for the Janata Parivar as the Janata Dal (United), Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Lok Dal and the Janata Dal (Secular) had sought to come together on a common platform with the INLD to take on the BJP. However, the BJP did one better than them at social engineering and weaned the BJP and Dalit votes away from them, as the election results bear out.

Going forward, an assertive BJP not only poses a threat to regional parties in the states where elections are due in the next year or two but also runs the risk of cannibalising some of its own allies, existing and potential. (Elections are soon due in Jammu and Kashmir and Jharkhand. Bihar in 2015, West Bengal in 2016 and Uttar Pradesh and Punjab in 2017 would be a few of the elections to watch out for.) For its part, the BJP wants to position itself as the default ruling party in key states.

The results of the Maharashtra and Haryana elections have come as an advance warning for the Congress and some regional parties. From a BJP standpoint, they seem to herald a unipolar moment in the Indian political landscape, which its rivals can ignore at their own peril.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has spoken. But is India listening?

  

Amartya Sen

The public discourse in some parts of India today has tended to centre around the politics of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the apparent failure of the ruling Congress-led UPA to revive the economy and the likely consequences or implications of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister, not necessarily in that order. Add to it the talk of a third, fourth or a federal front, and you have a veritable cornucopia of political expression. Lost somewhere in all of this was a “wish” made by a gentleman who answers to the name of Amartya Sen. The 80-year-old Nobel Laureate, who admittedly has no love lost for the Modi brand of politics, said in his keynote address at the Jaipur Literature Festival last month that he would like to see a secular right-wing party emerge in the country. To quote a media report, he said: “My big political wish is to have a strong and flourishing right-wing party that is secular and not communal.” Another media report quoted him extensively, in which he seeks to explain himself by saying: “There is an important role for a clear-headed, pro-market, pro-business party that does not depend on religious politics, and does not prioritise one religious community over all others...the Swatantra Party for example...but the party died. I wish it would be revived.” Sen wished for more: For instance, he said that he would like the “Left parties to be stronger, but also more clear-minded and much more concentrated on removing severe deprivations of the really poor and downtrodden people and not obsessed with American imperialism”; and “the media to be more responsive to the needs of the poorest people, and less single-minded in their coverage of the world of glitzy entertainment and shining business opportunities. They are right to grumble about the way subsidies waste economic resources, but largely fail to denounce subsidies for the better off, in the way subsidies for the unemployed and the hungry are savaged in the press.” 

Now, one may or may not agree with Sen’s political views; one may quarrel with his choice of words and their implication; one may even question their own convictions; but it would not be prudent to reject his remarks out of hand. At the very least they merit a careful consideration. Here’s why:

* To begin with, it is not enough for the AAP to claim that it is neither Left nor Right or that it is not anti-enterprise. For a political party that claims to offer an alternative to the centre-left Congress-led UPA and the centre-right BJP-led coalition, the AAP hopes to be all things to all people all the time. Sample the following statements attributed to AAP’s ideologue Yogendra Yadav, which were published in various publications:

“Unlike traditional political parties, we are not based on the idea of one ideology, we are here to solve problems.”

“[Our] political programme is evolving, that programme refuses to typecast itself into standard ‘Left’ or ‘Right’.”

“Our Constitution talks of socialist principles.”

The AAP remains hydra-headed and ambivalent on certain issues, in spite of its leaders’ recent attempts to clarify their political- and economic vision. “We are not against capitalism, we’re against crony capitalism... It’s a wrong perception that AAP is against business. Of course we need businesses,” AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal said while addressing corporate leaders at a Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) meeting in Delhi. Yet, during his 49-day stint as Chief Minister of Delhi, Mr Kejriwal not only rejected FDI in retail but also increased the subsidies on electricity and water.

* The right-wing politics espoused by the BJP; its ideological mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS); and its affiliates such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal has its own limitations. The lines between what is communal and what is secular may get blurred due to political realignments in the run-up to, or after, an election but the greatness of Indian democracy lies in its ability to moderate or temper any major deviations from the idea of India or its identity as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. Yet every now and then certain fringe elements do manage to raise their ugly head but only so much before they are overcome. It owes much to the fact that the nature of the Indian democracy is such that it militates against such extremist and fissiparous tendencies. The BJP’s Hindutva brand of politics particularly challenges the sense and sensibilities of some sections of the society, who then make common cause with the likes of, say, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party.

C Rajagopalachari

Between, say, a Modi and a Mulayam, there is enough space for a secular centre-right political party to grow and flourish – a party that can harness India’s demographic dividend; give voice to the youths, students and young professionals alike; encourage and promote enterprise; create jobs, wealth and value; and bring out the entrepreneurial spirit in them. If one were to take Sen’s remarks at face value, the India of today could do with a new political entity that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the young people. One need only look at the latest data from the Election Commission in which an estimated 1.79 lakh new young voters would exercise their franchise on an average in each parliamentary constituency. The Swatantra Party founded by C Rajagopalachari gave us a glimpse of how a party that encourages enterprise and liberalism can offer a political alternative. Perhaps it is time for a similar initiative?