What sense can one make out of recent developments within the Bharatiya Janata Party? Should critics of Narendra Modi take up cudgels on behalf of the now almost-marginalised ageing warhorses: Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Jaswant Singh? Is the sidelining of these senior leaders and denial of party nominations to loyalists like Harin Pathak a sign of eclipse of a democratic Right-wing party by an autocratic or authoritarian regime that will overrun democratic processes and institutions? Finally, what does one make of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat endorsing decisions of the Modi-led group by contending that change is inevitable in every organisation?
To begin with, this is not the first time that BJP is undergoing a ruthless process of leadership change. In the early 1970s, there was a bloodless coup within the party when a younger generation of leaders led by Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr Advani assumed power and Bal-raj Madhok was ejected. At that time, the RSS top brass sided with the new leaders — Messrs Vajpayee-Advani — in what was essentially a clash of personalities with peripheral ideological dimension. In a quirky example of what many would argue to be poetic justice, Mr Advani took over as Jan Sangh president in January 1973 and his first act included issuance of a show-cause notice to Mr Madhok seeking an explanation on why he should not be expelled from the party. The expulsion came in March 1973 and in his first reaction, Mr Madhok claimed said that it was the result of a “fascist takeover”.
There were other occasions also when key leaders were sidelined. Some like Nanaji Deshmukh quit party politics altogether and when the BJP decided to nominate him to Rajya Sabha, Mr Vajpayee had to personally request him to accept the offer. In 1993, Mr Joshi was denied a second term as party president because Mr Advani was to be elevated once again. The decision continues to rancour Mr Joshi. Sunder Singh Bhandari, K.N. Govindacharya and Bhai Mahavir are among leaders who have at times been cast aside by the wayside only to get resurrected later and then again shown the door.
It is true that intrigues within the BJP and its previous avatar have been customary, but this does not justify recent developments in the BJP. In the 1970s, Messrs Vajpayee-Advani and Madhok did not have the stature of the dramatis personae involved in the present round. The BJP is not the minor political party with barely 20 seats in the Lok Sabha.
Mr Madhok did not have the halo of present day veterans. The BJP under Mr Modi is making its most definitive charge for regaining power. In the coalition era, riding roughshod over veterans is demonstrative of the ruling clique’s inability to run the party as a coalition. The Sangh Parivar is no longer the ideological and organisational monolith it once was. It is as much a saffron coalition as the Congress was once the rainbow alliance.
Anyone who does not pay respect to the heritage of her or his own party can hardly be expected to be respectful towards the heritage and plurality of the nation. Despite escalating concerns regarding neglect of India’s senior citizens, the Indian family system provides a considerable degree of space and respect for elders. Insults to elders is considered morally incorrect and against the grain of Indian ethos. By going against this sentiment, Mr Modi is questioning age-old values and exhibiting signs of being in a hurry to accomplish goals.
A good leader must draw respect and admiration from people by demonstrating benevolence towards others, especially lesser mortals. Mr Modi’s tactics suggest he does not attempt to gain love of his people. Instead he wants them to be awestruck by his demagoguery and projected super-human powers. Myths pedalled about him by PR machinery are in far excess of his capabilities and capacities and elevate him to a pedestal. Mr Modi’s tenure as Chief Minister demonstrates his tactic of striking fear among those who are not loyalists. This has been done in society by heightening the fear of the unknown and by deepening social prejudice that widens schisms.
Mr Modi’s style of banging his fist heavily on the table while sitting with the adversary across is similar to populist political-bullies holding diverse ideologies who spring up every few years in different parts of the world. From his youth, Mr Modi consciously adopted a Fidel Castro like stance while addressing gatherings. Those who read insightful studies on the political style of Hugo Chavez will be struck by similarities. French scholars find Mr Modi fairly similar in outlook to Nicholas Sarkozy. These resemblances are more potent than the standard view of painting Mr Modi as a contemporary Hitler. The success of his strategy is not because of overt aggression but latent potency now increasingly being shrouded in the course of this campaign.
Mr Modi consistently promised a new form of governance and politics. By choosing to follow in the footsteps of predecessors in the party, even taking a leaf or two out of Indira Gandhi’s manual of tackling the party syndicate, he has shown that he is yet not keen to be a ductile and amiable leader that coalitions require. Regimes have been stable in India only when positioned in the centre of the political firmament.
For almost five years, Mr Modi’s loyalists have argued that he has moved away from the far-Right minority-bashing position of 2002 to a more inclusive centrist plank. Even if we assume merit in this argument — I have disagreement though — the point is that no leader can be ideologically centrist yet run his party without any semblance of internal democracy. Centrism is a political necessity and makes accommodation and a certain amount of give and take necessary. On this score, despite loyalists contending that
Mr Modi does not have an Iron Hand, the evidence is to the contrary. The RSS has historically allowed the leader of its political affiliate a free run but within a hierarchical framework. But, Mr Modi is a greater potential threat for the RSS than any of the previous party bosses. He has the capacity to make the RSS irrelevant the way he did in Gujarat. The BJP’s state unit in Gujarat became a personal appendage and that possibility stares at the party nationally. The RSS leadership is aware of this possibility yet is confronted with the Hobson’s choice. It opted for Mr Modi with his negative munitions because leaders did not wish to risk losing a chance to stage a political comeback.
The extent to which Mr Modi is able to complete the process of marginalisation of other leaders he has set in motion would depend on the numbers that he has in his kitty on May 16.
