 |
|
|
In a dramatic yet rare gesture, the Shiv Sena supremo, Mr. Bal
Thackeray, the other day prostrated himself on the stage at a rally
to thank the voters for unprecedented support to the saffron
alliance in the civic elections in the major cities of Maharashtra.
But little did he realise that only a week later, a similar mood
swing was possible among the rural voters too. In the zilla
parishad and panchayat samiti elections, the BJP and the Sena
expanded their reach, putting and end to the Congress(I)'s unbroken
over the three and-a-half decade monopoly hold on these
institutions.
Of the nine municipal corporations, the Congress(I) lost seven.
Of the 29 zilla parishads, the Sena-BJP alliance won four and
deprived the Congress(I) of a majority status in as many as a dozen
of them, allowing it to retain its hold, especially in western
Maharashtra, on the remaining 13. Of course, both the parties are
wrestling to ensure that the support of a phenomenal 202
independents of the total of 1,762 ZP members across Maharashtra
comes their way to deny the rival the opportunity to rule the
districts where a clear majority has not been achieved either by
the BJP-Sena or the Congress(I). All this, despite the strong
anti-Sena posture of the Congress(I) in the past two years.
In the '319 panchayat samitis, the trend is not just about the same
but actually better, with a close to 60 per cent of the wards going
the saffron way though, in the final configuration, the right to
rule vests with the alliance in 75 samitis and no more. Actually,
when the battlelines were being drawn up, the saffron parties had
thought that "anything, a single ZP or d few samitis, would be a
big gain" because all that they had there in the backwoods were the
MLAs who continued to battle the Congress(I) grassroots entrenched
in the co-operatives. In other words, the Congress (I) decline
continues.
But a pointless debate of the half-full or half-empty glass of
water kind is on, with the Congress(I) which is the loser pointing
out that despite two years of its rule, the saffron alliance has
not been able to entrench Itself in the hearts of the voters across
the State and that its victories are not in fact triumphs at all.
It would seem that the Congress(I) would regard it as a loss only
if the Sena-BJP alliance - which had actually not fought the rivals
together but were even splintered in several districts - pitted
against each other, had swamped Maharashtra. But, that is missing
the woods for the trees.
This outcome of the civic polls, which is seen as a mini-general
election, has been quite revealing: the saffron alliance, its
constituents often at daggers drawn behind the curtains and even
openly during the polls, has been given not just a toehold but a
grand entry of sorts it never imagined was possible in the rural
power structure, even after last year's euphoric victory in the
Assembly elections which pitchforked it to power. The latest
elections have broken the myth that the Sena and the BJP are just
urban-based and that they cannot swing the rural voters. Above
all, the polity has been virtually rendered bipolar and the base of
the Left parties eroded, adding depth to the saffron reach, though
the elections were not fought exclusively on the Hindutva or
secularism platform. But the secular and communal import of the
results cannot be glossed over.
Take, for instance, the poll outcome. The Congress(I) has won 858
zilla parishad constituencies. The BJP has won 211 and the Sena
263 but, in alliance, they account for more than half the
Congress(I) strength compared to their negligible presence ever in
the past. Of course. the Congress(I) argues that all the "other
secular parties together account for the rest and when it comes to
us Congress(I) and other Opposition parties together - versus them,
then the span of the secular lineup is larger. Then it is us."
But that is a post-poll, even fallacious, argument and for good
reasons. Even if the Congress(I) had won a larger share of the
votes cast and other centre-left parties had got under six per cent
(according to tentative projections), the fact is that their lower
index of unity actually made the two saffron gain an unprecedented
ground, raising doubts about the oft-proclaimed intent of "keeping
the Hindutva parties out." What happened because of them cannot be
converted into an "in spite of us" kind of alibi, which is often
the case. These post-poll protestations do not help gloss over a
pre-poll lack of conviction, mainly because in the face of the
onslaught of the saffron parties, these smaller parties have been
trying to convince themselves about their continued validity.
These parties have had a continuous decline since 1989 in terms of
voter confidence while the Congress(I) has not helped matters by
not staying purposeful. This time, despite the high stakes, senior
Congress (I),leaders stayed away from poll campaign, save in their
own small domains, pointing to a virtual lack of will and
initiative.
There is an increasing fear among Congressmen that a fact that
stares them in the face has not been recognised as such. That
relates to the concept of secularism and if it means wooing the
electorate on the premise that it is "anti-BJP and anti-Shiv Sena
at the expense of the Hindu voters." Some Congressmen admit that
they are "worried about this aspect" and say that "none is willing
to take a view that is contrary. Therefore, you will see that
anything said about this is muted and in whispers." However, at the
official level, there is an interesting, new assertion. On
Thursday, the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress(I) Committee spokesman,
Mr. Vasant Chavan, made a telling point : "It is a fact that the
left-of-centre voters are moving away towards the Bharatiya Janata
Party, though essentially they are anti-Congress(I) votes."
Apparently, their anti-Congressism is so strong that they are
willing to go along with the BJP-Shiv Sena combine and, no wonder,
Mr. Chavan calls it "a dangerous trend," because this can keep the
Congress(I) on the hook longer than it deserves.
But, secularism "as a dogma remains, and is our credo," he says.
The only danger come from "our being scattered." What he does not
say is that unless the bipolar status of the polity is realised and
others come together for all times, there is trouble ahead for the
secular philosophy as well as the parties which remain scattered
while mouthing opposition to communalism and communal parties. And
what should disenchant Congressmen is not just the results but the
fact that those who won on its label are the people who fought
bravely to sustain their place in the local power structure and,
not wanting to give up their individual turfs, now add up, and only
consequentially, to the organisational satisfaction of a kind. But
come larger electoral opportunities, like the Lok Sabha or Assembly
polls, they tend to devise means to scatter themselves again, and
deny the party its reward. What has been is strength in the local
bodies - whatever its worth - is its weakness on other occasions.
|
|
|