Nitish floats on dream for all India

Some days ago, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar floated the idea of “Sangh-mukt Bharat”. The slogan was a clever spin on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s slogan of “Congress-mukt Bharat” for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. But, while Mr Modi did not seek support from other political parties to push the Congress Party into irrelevance, the Bihar chief minister formally requested all non-Bharatiya Janata Party parties to form a united platform to challenge the saffron party. In politics, any slogan that either replicates an earlier successful one or is a parody of a previous catchphrase does not have the same impact on people. Moreover,

Mr Kumar’s invitation to other non-BJP parties evoked lukewarm response. It did not remotely enthuse parties whose politics is based on Sangh (or BJP) baiting, because in any united front against the BJP, no party or leader is willing to concede the primary position to the other. In Mr Kumar’s call for a broad anti-BJP front to keep the party out of power in 2019, the unstated declaration was not missed by anyone — that Mr Kumar was imagining himself as the leader of this front. That Mr Kumar harbours ambitions beyond the chief ministership of Bihar has never been a secret. The Janata Dal (United) parted ways with the BJP because of intense personal rivalry between Mr Modi and Mr Kumar dating back to the early years of the last decade. This competition arose because
Mr Kumar recognised Mr Modi’s potential not just for his charisma but as a consensus was slowly forming in the Sangh Parivar that Mr Modi was the Parivar’s lead player and the only one who could lead the BJP to power. In contrast,

Mr Kumar headed a rump of a party and, as a satrap, his chances of becoming Prime Minister depended completely on Indian politics remaining fragmented, where uneasy coalitions were necessary to form governments. The 2014 election was transformative. The era of a single party majority returned because of Mr Modi’s charisma and not because the BJP’s social base expanded. Despite the Modi wave, the BJP’s vote was just 31 per cent and its victory was possible because of a handful of strategically cobbled alliances and division of anti-BJP votes. For instance, in Bihar, the BJP forged significant alliances with Ram Vilas Paswan and Upendra Kushwaha’s parties. On the other hand, the anti-BJP votes were divided between JD(U), Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress. The verdict of 2014 demonstrated that a low index of Opposition unity will ensure the largest party winning seats in excess of its vote share.

But non-BJP parties knew that when they pooled resources, they had a real chance at winning. When this strategy was adopted for the Bihar Assembly elections, its overwhelming success established that Mr Modi was not invincible. Initially a Bihar-type grand alliance appeared to be a possibility in Assam, but this move collapsed in the face of refusal of the Congress and All Assam United Front. In contrast, the BJP opted for strategic alliances and this appears to have
paid off.

Mr Kumar was the originator of the grand alliance theory in Assam. But when the Congress did not bite the bait, he should have realised that he required to go slow in attempts to form a nationwide anti-BJP alliance with himself at its helm. The Congress may have been dealt a humiliating blow in 2014, but it still remains the only nationwide Opposition party. The party is unlikely to allow the emergence of a national anti-BJP alliance with another party at its helm. Mr Kumar needs to accept that anti-BJP formulations will work best in states till the next parliamentary polls. The attempt should, therefore, be on forging state-level alliances and pacts. Mr Kumar attempted to do this in Uttar Pradesh and a merger with Ajit Singh-led Rashtriya Lok Dal seemed to be on the cards. But the pause button appears to have been hit for now.

Alliances between parties must benefit all. The JD(U) does not yet have anything significant to offer Mr Singh and with the Congress Party deploying the ideologically agnostic strategist-cum-campaign-manager, Prashant Kishore, leaders like Mr Singh may wish to delay making any commitment to strike a better deal later. Mr Kumar has clearly jumped the gun by attempting to forge an anti-BJP front and it’ll be a while before he recovers from the embarrassment.
But behind Mr Kumar’s call and the factor that led to formation of the mahagathbandhan in Bihar lies the inescapable reality of the rise of the BJP as the most dominant pole of Indian politics. After Independence, the Indian political system was characterised by Rajni Kothari as one-hich exhibited one party dominance (OPD) or the Congress system.

The coalition era which took firm roots from 1989 onward, exited emphatically in 2014, though Opposition did not accept this and portrayed the landmark verdict as a fluke victory for the BJP. Mr Kumar’s call for “Sangh-mukt Bharat” signals his acceptance of the return of OPD, but this time it will be labelled BJP system. The sooner other parties admit this, the easier it will be for them to devise strategy to get out of the morass. Because ties between the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are cordial in this regime as opposed to frequent hostility during the Vajpayee-led regime, Mr Kumar is politically correct for calling for a “Sangh-mukt Bharat” and not a “BJP-mukt Bharat”.

India is technically still a multi-party system with regional parties representing a significant block. But the political ethos and the manner in which the national discourse is cast make national issues distinct from local ones. Consequently, while the BJP may show evidence of slipping in certain parts, Mr Modi still retains his lead over others as the most preferred leader. Whenever non-BJP parties form a united front either under the Congress, Mr Kumar or another satrap, the bonding slogan shall be “Sangh-mukt Bharat”. The Bihar chief minister may have failed in his goal for the moment, but he has been successful in introducing a new concept in India’s political lexicon.