Author: Kanchan Gupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 31, 2009
URL: http://dailypioneer.com/179667/Ideology-and-BJP-after-Ides-of-May.html
There was a time when the BJP prided itself
as an 'ideological political party' with clarity of thought. Many of those
who are members or supporters of the party were (and still remain) loyal to
the organisation because its ideology once inspired them. I say many because
not all are ideologically motivated. There are those who are drawn to the
BJP because of its position on certain issues, the appeal of certain leaders,
or simply because it offers a platform for anti-Congress politics. Then there
are opportunists on the lookout for goodies which could range from bagging
contracts to brokering deals to loaves and fishes of office. There are also
those who excel in flattery and massaging the fragile egos of politicians
with a bloated sense of self-importance - their clout should not be under-estimated.
Soon after Mr Shankarsinh Vaghela hijacked
Mr Keshubhai Patel's Government, Mr Narendra Modi one day ruefully told me
how the party was divided in three categories of leaders and cadre - 'Khajurias',
'Hajurias' and 'Majurias'. The 'Khajurias' were the turncoats looking for
an office of profit; the 'Hajurias' were the flatterers who spent their time
doing 'ji hazoori', and the 'Majurias' were those who toiled 24x7 without
any expectations. Ideology, therefore, was limited to the third category.
Since May 16, when the BJP discovered to its
horror that the predictions of its favourite psephologist were way off the
mark, three ideology-related issues have been raised in the debate that is
raging among those who had expected the party to win this summer's general
election. These are people who are not formally associated with the BJP, neither
would they have joined the queue of favour-seekers had the party won. They
would have blown up a lot of money celebrating the party's victory, woken
up the next morning with a massive hangover, and gone back to their dreary
jobs, bleary eyed but pleased as Punch. Of course, the BJP's leaders, who
have decided to skirt any debate on the party's electoral performance lest
it offend sensitivities and disturb the status quo, are least bothered about
what is being discussed in the public domain. That does not, however, diminish
the importance of the ongoing debate which has thrown up the following questions:
1. Has the BJP lost the election because it
has cut itself loose from its ideological mooring?
2. Has the time come for the BJP to take a
hard look at its ideology and decide whether it is relevant for our times?
3. Has 'Hindutva' outlived its appeal and
hence its utility as a tool to mobilise support for the party?
These questions need to be answered by those
who preside over the BJP's destiny. Since none of them appears to be even
remotely eager to tangle with contentious issues at the moment, we must wait
for considered opinion to emerge from the party's 11, Ashoka Road headquarters.
It could be a very long wait. So, here are some possible responses to carry
the informal debate forward.
Ideology should be neither static nor rooted
in dogma. Times change, situations change, people change. There could be nothing
more tragic than the BJP treating its ideology as immutable. It would make
the party similar to the CPI(M) which is irrevocably wedded to Stalinist dogma.
But what exactly is the BJP's ideology?
The ideology of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (1951-1977)
was sort of centred around Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya's exposition of 'Integral
Humanism'. It would, however, be instructive to remember that the BJS was
launched by the RSS as the political front of the Sangh; the first president,
Syama Prasad Mookerjee, was a Hindu Mahasabhaite who subscribed to Savarkar's
political philosophy. Ideology was abandoned when the BJS disbanded and merged
with the Janata Party (1977-1980). After the BJS was reborn as the BJP in
1980, there was a protracted debate on what should be its ideology. Since
some of those who had joined the BJP were 'Congress Socialists', the party
settled for 'Gandhian Socialism' as its ideology. The Jana Sangh component
was appalled; Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia was vocal in opposing it and circulated
a note questioning the very concept of 'Gandhian Socialism', which many people
thought was bunkum. Faced with mounting opposition, 'Gandhian Socialism' was
unceremoniously replaced by 'Integral Humanism'.
In June 1989, the BJP adopted a resolution
at its National Executive meeting in Palampur (popularly referred to as the
'Palampur Resolution'), committing the party to the agitation for the liberation
of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, which was then being spearheaded by the VHP.
It was a presidential resolution, which means it was adopted without any discussion.
There were discordant voices, including that of Mr Jaswant Singh, but these
were drowned in the enthusiastic response to Mr LK Advani's Somnath to Ayodhya
'Ram Rath Yatra'.
It was around this time that Mr Advani introduced
two new terms into India's modern political discourse - 'pseudo-secularism',
linked to the Shah Bano judgement and its fallout; and, 'cultural nationalism'
or (the BJP's version of) 'Hindutva', with elements borrowed from Veer Savarkar's
eponymous treatise, Hindutva. Along with the slogan it appropriated - "One
Nation, One People, One Culture" - and its own stirring formulation,
"Justice for all, Appeasement of none", the BJP refashioned 'Hindutva'
both as an adjunct to its ideology and as an instrument of political mobilisation.
'Cultural nationalism' gave the party its cutting edge in elections since
1989. And the three principled positions it took - abrogation of Article 370
(dating back to SP Mookerjee's agitation for the full and final integration
of Jammu & Kashmir with the Union of India); construction of a Ram Temple
in Ayodhya (this followed the 'Palampur Resolution' of 1989); and, introduction
of a Uniform Civil Code (which was included in the party's charter after it
adopted a resolution in end-1995) - became the symbols of the BJP's 'Hindutva'
or 'Cultural Nationalism'.
In the process, the party adopted a dual political
philosophy, without bothering to figure out its core ideology. Though 'Integral
Humanism' and 'Hindutva' are, at one level, all-embracing and all-inclusive,
they are not one and the same. The time has now come for the BJP to either
integrate them into a modernist worldview, or jettison both and craft an entirely
new, right-of-centre political charter without disowning the party's Hindu
ethos; merely choosing between either will not suffice, nor will grasping
at both provide a lifeline. This is by no means an easy task, not least because
those at the helm of the BJP are rooted in certitudes of the past and the
RSS cannot just be wished away. Cosmetic makeovers do not convince people,
and that is one lesson the party should learn from this election.
