Author: Dynamics S Gurumurthy
Publication: Livemint.com
Date: June 18, 2009
URL: http://epaper.livemint.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=18_06_2009_020_003&kword=gurumurthy&mode=1
Whenever an unexpected change occurs, some
scholars excited by the change begin to discourse as if they con- clusively
see the future like the palm of their hand. Their excitement would not allow
them to wait for a while to know what the effect of the change is on the future
before they theorize their conclusions. They immediately settle the text of
the future from the context of the change. The debate in the Indian media
following the election to the 15th Lok Sabha, which resulted in unexpected
victory for the Congress-led alliance, falls in this category. The debate,
which is mostly centred on the Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP, is about whether
ideological politics will work on or not in future for the BJP.
To judge the future, the surest guide is what,
in comparable situations, had happened in the past. It is the sociopolitical
developments in India in future, which is dynamic, that will draw the BJP's
roadmap. The BJP, like any political party, will, and will have to, respond
to such developments. Recall what happened since 1989. The BJP had adopted
Gandhian socialism and genuine secularismin 1980, compelled by the context
of Indira Gandhi's return in 1980. But it discarded both in 1989, responding
to the sociopolitical developments since 1987. The BJP had faced the worst
defeat, with just two electedmembers in the Lok Sabha against the Congress'
406, in 1984. But the developments later ensured that till today the Congress
could not get half the seats it got in 1984, and the BJP emerged as its principal
contender and remains so while displacing the Congress for six years as the
ruling party.
The debate on ideology is only asmeaningful
as the debate initiated by Francis Fukuyama in 1992 saying ideological geopolitics
had come to an end with the fall of the BerlinWall, and the world would thenceforth
be free of conflicts with liberal democracy and free trade as the twin goals
of all nations in the world.
In less than two years Fukuyama was challenged
by Samuel Huntington in 1994 who saw not the end of conflicts and history
but the return of both in theirmost tribal forms.Many geopolitical experts
say the later global developments validated Huntington more than they approved
Fukuyama. The election results of the 15th Lok Sabha is ideologically far
less profound than the fall of the BerlinWall and India is far lessmodern
than theWestern world. Post-BerlinWall fall, a different ideologicalmodel-civilizational
groupings based on religion-has, in the opinion of many, begun influencing
the world. Even the newest face of the modern world, Barack Hussein Obama
has to recall the centuries of relations between the three Abrahamic religions
tomake his ideas politically relevant to the present.
The ideology of the BJP is a continuation
of its earlier avatar, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. The Jana Sangh was born to
fill the political vacuumwhen the Indian Political Congress failed to be the
true inheritor of the values that inspired the freedommovement led by the
Indian National Congress. The political Congress disowned in the public domain
all that had inspired the freedommovement-the worship ofMother India in "Vande
Mataram" ofMaharishi Bankimchandra whichmade thousands to sacrifice their
life and youth for the nation's freedom; the goal of "RamRajya"
set byMahatma Gandhi for independent India which inspiredmillions to follow
him; the ideal of "spiritual nationalism" which Swami Vivekananda
had articulated as the core of India; the spirit of Sanatana Dharma whichMaharishi
Aurobindo saw as the very nationalismof India. The failure of the Congress
created the need and the space for the Jana Sangh. The Jana Sangh was ideologically
no HinduMahasabha, which was the pre-independence adversary of the Congress;
in fact, it had repudiatedMahasabha's views. Had the Congress party not turned
its back on the core values of the freedom movement, the Jana Sanghmight not
have been born and there might not be a BJP at all. For there could not be
two nationalist Congresses. It was Bharatiyata, not Hindutva, which was the
ideologicalmascot of the BJP till 1990, and of the the Jana Sangh earlier.
In the 1990s, Hindutva emerged as the political thrust of the apolitical Hinduismtomeasure
up to the challenges of pseudo-secularismthat had become allergic to Hinduism.
This is where the greatest contribution to
the BJP as well as national polity came fromL.K. Advani's famous rath yatra
and his redefinition of secularism, distinguishing the genuine from the pseudo.With
the Supreme Court's stamp of approval to the idea of Hindutva as being compatible
with secularism, it has become interchangeable with Bharatiyata. But these
are just naming issues. But the content is the real issue and that is the
same in both. If the identity ofmodern America could be asserted in themainline
debate asWASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), which is amix of race and religion,
why can't the BJP define the identity of India in cultural terms when the
forefathersmostMuslimand all Christians belong to that cultural stream? The
BJP exists because the Congress failed to preserve the idea and identity of
India under the pressure of vote bank politics. If the BJP fails like the
Congress did, it knows it will join the ranks of the grand old party as onemore
party. It also knows that if there are two Congress parties, people will chose
the original, and not the carbon copy. There aremany profound minds in the
BJP who know what the failure of the BJPmeans to themand to the country. Not
everyone in the BJP thinks only of the self. There aremany, far toomany, particularlymoving
down the hierarchy, who think of the country as well andmore.
- S. Gurumurthy is a commentator on political
and economic issues and a former convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch
