India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

BJP’s National Executive meet

	June 28, 2004

Lessons from past to decide its future

The future of the Bharatiya Janata Party seems to be as uncertain as former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s position in the BJP. At its three-day National Executive meeting in Mumbai last week, the BJP discussed at length the reasons for its electoral debacle and the future course of the party, and passed a political resolution which attacked the Congress-led coalition Government at the Centre. The BJP leadership took care not to overemphasise the word defeat in the Lok Sabha elections and preferred to call the result below its expectations.

Former Prime Minister Vajpayee publicly ticked off high-profile BJP general secretary Pramod Mahajan in Mumbai for running a hi-tech election campaign that failed to enthuse party workers and supporters, well-placed sources said. While analysing the party’s Lok Sabha election defeat in his closing remarks to the National Executive, Vajpayee came down heavily against the expensive public relations drive comprising telephone calls to voters, SMS messages, and glossy posters.

Vajpayee, sources said, mentioned Pramod Mahajan by name while criticising the election campaign. He said most Indians did not possess mobile phones and there was no point sending expensive posters through couriers without contacting ordinary party workers.

Vajpayee then recalled his first election for the Balrampur Lok Sabha seat back in 1957 when he had only two jeeps at his disposal to cover the entire constituency. But though the Jan Sangh (parent body of BJP) was short of resources, it had no dearth of dedicated party workers, he said, adding that “workers win us elections, not resources.” Vajpayee broke down while recalling those good old days of devoted workers and simple campaigns, and moved many of the delegates to tears as well.

Not only did Vajpayee attack the Mahajan campaign model, he obliquely complimented the Congress party’s low-key and “aam aadmi” (common man) focussed approach. Vajpayee told the party delegates that one major reason why the BJP lost the elections was its failure to reach out to the poor. The BJP’s focus on achievements such as telecom and highways made little impact on the vast masses of poor and ordinary Indians who form the bulk of the voters, he pointed out.

The party’s failure to take up issues relating to the everyday concerns of the people had affected it badly. The party had won the Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh precisely because it took up the issues of bijli, sadak, paani, (power, roads and water) and it failed in the Lok Sabha polls because it moved away from these basics.

Vajpayee also underlined that all along his gut feeling was that the BJP would do far worse than everyone was expecting. Vajpayee, on his part, did not make any mention of the Sangh Parivar (RSS family) or the party’s core constituency in his speech. On the ideological front, he only repeated that he saw no difference between Hindutva (Hindu chauvinism) and Bharatiyata (Indianness), sources said.



Advani’s assessment : Ideological failure

Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K. Advani expressed the opinion that the BJP’s “political strategy was not prudent” while they were in the Government and that they had lost touch with their “ideological constituency”. According to him, there was an alienation and weakening of emotional bond in the Sangh Parivar (RSS family). “We were somewhat confused as to how to relate to our ideological family. As a result, a strange irony emerged”. That was interpreted to mean that the BJP coordination with the Sangh Parivar was lacking. The BJP-led Government’s achievements in the national sectors like infrastructure, forex reserves, containing inflation and generating employment opportunities could not be converted into national issues before the elections, Advani emphasised.

Political observers had to agree with Advani’s argument that the BJP lost the elections because it tried to adopt a secular posture that didn’t work. The minorities, with the Gujarat riots weighing heavy on their mind, were not impressed with the BJP leadership’s last-minute change of attitude towards the Muslims and apparently voted en bloc against the party.

The BJP came to power at the Centre because of its Hindutva (Hindu activism) policy but soon began to dilute it at the behest of its partners in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The Vajpayee brand of moderate politics dominated the Advani brand of hardcore politics. The BJP policies were far away from what one could call pro-Hindutva. In fact it was the compulsion of alliance politics that drove the party to do so. The allies could not have permitted the BJP to follow the hardcore Hindutva policies that the BJP was associated with. The BJP thus had to tone down the contentious issues despite the Sangh Parivar’s opposition. From the very beginning, the BJP had worked in tandem with the Sangh Parivar and other Hindu organisations before coming to power. After coming to power, the party had broken off with them, ideologically, to an extent.

Analysts say the BJP as a part of the NDA government focused on developmental issues like any other government, pursued economic reforms and tried to win the support of the Muslim community. The issue of construction of a Ram Temple at Ayodhya which was the main agenda in the pre-election scenario took a backseat. As a result, the party lost its distinct identity. This item on its agenda confused the voters as they could not distinguish between the BJP and the Congress as they were fighting the elections on almost the same agenda.

On the other hand, the Muslims, analysts say, continued their opposition to the BJP as they didn’t want to forget the party’s role in the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in 1992 and the genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in the state sponsored communal riots in 2002.

Thus Advani cannot be faulted for his stand that the BJP became victim of the dichotomy between the Government and politics. He said: “Our opponents in the country called us a `Hindutva Government’. The rest of the world recognised us as a Hindutva Government. However, the two entities that did not see Vajpayee in the same light were our own ideological Parivar (family) and ourselves.” He added: “Our record in governance and on the development front was very good. But, perhaps, our political strategy was not so prudent. Governance and development should always be accompanied by prudent politics.”

Another factor that has been held responsible for the BJP defeat is that its leaders lost their touch with the grassroots workers. While talking about the factors that led to the party’s defeat, Advani was harsh on his party colleagues who were “not available” to ordinary workers over the past few years. This factor, he felt, was responsible for a general lack of enthusiasm during the elections among the Sangh Parivar and party sympathisers who had been supporters of the BJP.

As pointed by Advani, the BJP performed well in the last Lok Sabha elections because it had the support of an “ideological constituency” that has three segments—workers, an ideological Sangh Parivar and the social support base. “We reached where we are today because of the dedicated efforts of lakhs of workers and well-wishers of our ideological parivar. They laboured hard with certain emotional attachment, to put us in the present position. Ours is an ideological party and since the inception of Jan Sangh (parent body of the BJP), there had been a definite and steadily growing section in our society that had been supporting us because of our beliefs and the cause of Hindutva that we espouse,” Advani said.

He said : “Somehow, our political strategy and conduct during the past six years were not oriented to strengthening and enthusing our ideological support base. Indeed there was a sense of alienation in our parivar and a weakening of the emotional bond with our social constituency.” Advani elaborated on this count with a rather simplistic example by saying an MP could be an excellent orator in Parliament but was of no great use if he had lost touch with his constituency and could not get re-elected.

In this connection, he cited the defeat of about 50 per cent of BJP MPs in the Lok Sabha elections. He stressed that since the BJP was a party with a national outlook without having a narrow and exclusive ideology, it was duty-bound to take care of one and all. Advani emphasised that the party must forge a closer partnership with Sangh Parivar workers to widen its mass base. The BJP workers must visit their constituencies regularly and carry out development work.

Exhorting party members to strengthen the organisation and establish a rapport with the people of their constituencies, Advani said: “We will take RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh) along with us in our future journey as RSS is mool sansthan (basic organization) of the BJP.” He ended with making a resolve that with better political conduct, organisational activities and individual behaviour, the BJP would yet again be seen as a “party with a difference”.

After the Mumbai meet, the BJP would organise a chintan baithak (brainstorming session) in July, party president Venkaiah Naidu announced at the inaugural function of the three-day National Executive meeting. Naidu said the July session would focus on expanding the party’s social and political base; ensuring responsibility and accountability at every level of the party; going “back to the basics” in the matter of organisation-building through systematic contacts with the people at the grassroots, especially the rural poor; and, finally, not letting the “virus of individualism” affect party work.

Analysts believe that the BJP’s decision to revive Hindutva does not necessarily mean that it would immediately hype the Ram temple issue again. Rather, it would focus on issues like terrorism and actions of the Congress-led Government. It was significant that the resolution had nothing much to say on its three hardcore issues - constructing a Ram temple at Ayodhya, repealing Article 370 of the Constitution pertaining to special status for Jammu and Kashmir, and introducing a common civil code.

But, according to observers, if the party is going to play the Hindutva card again, then a clash between the Vajpayee brand of politics and the section advocating hardcore Hindutva is obvious. It may be recalled that a visibly-disturbed Vajpayee publicly disclosed on June 23 in the Mumbai conclave that he had come under attack (from within the party) for the first time in his political career and he was in no mood to lead his party once again in the polls, as he had enough of it. Soon the audience shouted: “Agli bari, Atal Bihari” (Next time Atal Bihari). Vajpayee responded quickly in Marathi: “Atta bari nako. Pushkal jali” (I do not need another run. I have had enough). And a visibly hurt and emotional Vajpayee sat down, without saying anything more.

Although Vajpayee has taken his works back, calling it a joke, will a moderate Vajpayee be able to adjust to the hardcore Hindutva policy that his party has clearly decided to follow ? The Sangh Parivar hold on the BJP is complete and the parties like the Shiv Sena and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have gone to the extent of asking Vajpayee to take retirement in the interest of the party. Could a man of his stature compromise just to remain in politics and be the part of the BJP ? The party has attempted to end speculation that it was “downsizing” the stature of Vajpayee in the wake of his position on Chief Minister Narendra Modi. It was Vajpayee’s statement that Modi should have been removed in the wake of the communal violence and that the riots in Gujarat had a significant role in the defeat of the BJP in the Lok Sabha elections that sparked the current debate. Vajpayee found himself isolated as the saffron brigade launched a tirade against him for suggesting that Modi’s biased role had cost the BJP power at the national level.

Although the political resolution passed by the National Executive on June 23 placed on record its appreciation for the “inspiring and visionary” leadership of Vajpayee, observers believe there are indications that he has been sidelined by the hardcore lobby. Though Vajpayee had earlier said the National Executive would discuss Gujarat at its three-day session, the party snubbed him. Venkaiah Naidu clarified that the BJP “does not blame individuals for defeat or praise them for victory.” “Our party does not believe in the blame game and finger-pointing. We believe in the principle of collective responsibility “both in victory and in defeat.”

There is another key question. What would happen to the other allies of the NDA? Are they comfortable with the revival of Hindutva ? Surprisingly, there has been yet no sharp reaction from the BJP allies to the ‘back to basics’ poll plank for upcoming assembly elections. A sense of disquiet was visible among the allies like the Shiromani Akali Dal which said as long Vajpayee remained head of the NDA there was no problem.