(The writer is a former Editor, BJP Today)
That the grammar of Indian politics would change if Narendra Modi won the elections had been predicted repeatedly over the past months. A number of commentators had made this prognosis but the bugle was sounded by the Congress when the electoral campaign began.
Shankarsinh Vaghela first worshipped at the Bhatti shrine in Fagwel. He then proceeded to the Tantrej temple in Surendranagar district and on to holy Dwarka where he inaugurated his campaign.
Sonia Gandhi was not to be left behind in this endeavour to appear pro-Hindu. She also commenced her canvassing of votes only after praying at the altar of Goddess Ambaji. Meanwhile, her party had given tickets to only four Muslims out of a total of 181 candidates. That is, only 2.2 per cent tickets to represent some ten per cent of the people. Her election stages were consistently draped with saffron cloth.
The Congress invited chhota Murari Bapu to recite a piece from the Ramayana at one meeting. Nearly every Congress candidate on TV wore a red tikka. One of them, Yatin Oza, had had his head shaved at Tirupati before commencing his campaign. All this shows the grand old party had, at the eleventh hour, assessed that it had no alternative but to persuade the Hindus to vote for it. This had probably never happened before. For the BJP, the message of the election outcome is clear. The days of its cultural nationalism are behind and the electoral dawn has broken over Hindu nationalism.
Among the several realignments that must follow inexorably from the Modi victory, a significant one would be the churning in the Sangh parivar. Those who wish to wear saffron must squarely face the fact that it represents Hindu nationalism and not an amalgam of pluralistic pulls. They would have to accept that cultural nationalism is an euphemism for correcting the Nehruvian excesses, as distinct from the call of collective Hindu consciousness.
Although individual Hindu nationalists may sound more militant than others, the central thrust of the ideology wold be the abolition of the ?minority concept?. There would be no special privileges nor any impediment for those whose religion is other than Hindu. The public identity of everyone should be that of an Indian. And only Indian. Religion, language, caste or any other identity would be a matter of private affair. The Hindu view is that if the Muslims needed anything special, different or separate, it was given to them in 1947 in the shape of Pakistan. There is no further case for making any distinction. The two-nation theory was conceded in the country?s vivisection. Thereafter, we must be one nation with equality before one law.
It is possible that there are people in the BJP who may not see eye to eye with this view of Hindu nationalism. For them doors have been opened by the new policy adopted by the Congress in Gujarat. The Congress has, among its membership, a much wider variety of conviction. Not all of them can possibly endorse what their party had to do in order to respond to the call of Modi. They will have to find a way out. Those who are prepared to accept soft saffron may find it convenient to welcome the like-minded from the BJP. Remember, in 1991, although their party had won on a socialistic manifesto, on coming to power P.V. Narasimha Rao took a 180 degree about-turn and plumped for liberalisation. If socialism can be dropped, why not secularism?
So then, there would be a Hindu nationalist party and a middle of the road soft saffronist amalgam. Those who cannot possibly accept even a milder shade of saffron are likely to proceed towards a social democratic formation. A substantial portion of such a formation would comprise the communist parties. It is now 11 years since communism expired in Europe. It has been finally buried last month in China, although the name communist remains as the carving on the tombstone. North Korea does not appear to have long to go while Cuba is likely to endure its Marxist ideology as long as Fidel Castro survives in power. The Indian communists might combine with the secular exodus from the Congress.
There are today several political parties which, for want of a better expression, could be described as ?proprietary?. Be it the Samajwadi Party, be it Laloo Yadav?s RJD, Mamata?s Trinamool, Jayalalitha?s AIADMK, Karunanidhi?s DMK or Chandrababu Naidu?s Telugu Desam. While they may continue to function, they are unlikely to enjoy an indefinite future. A lesson of the recent Gujarat election was that of vote consolidation. The BJP and Congress won votes, but others were not able to get support. Out of the 181 seats, only four were won by independents.
True, Gujaratis have seldom been attracted by a regional pull. Yet, in most elections since 1952, a significant number of independents have got elected. The proprietary formations flourished on a fractured identity. They flourished either on the strength of a language or the call of the caste or the local attraction of an individual. Gujarat has thrown up an identity higher than that of caste, region or language. If a similar message spreads to other parts of the country, the special identities that nurture proprietary parties would weaken.
The impact flowing out of the recent
Gujarat election is likely to be the crystallisation of three national
formations: the Hindu nationalists, the middle of the road soft saffronists
and the anti-saffron social democrats. How many vote or seats, in which
election, are won, will vary from time to time. These three are likely
to benefit at the cost of the smaller local political parties which have
hitherto flourished in the relative absence of higher identities.