The
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) deserves to be congratulated for its massive
victory in the 2014 elections. It is not a mean achievement for a party which
was bedevilled with intra-party conflicts and ideological deficiencies. One has
therefore to look for reasons for victory which lie elsewhere and hope at the
same time that the BJP will rise up to the expectations of the people.
The
foremost reality that must be recognised is that the people of India were
completely disillusioned with the performance of UPA- II government and were
angry with the Congress party for not putting up a strong leader as the face of
the party. They had no option but to vote for the BJP despite the fact that
they had strong reservations about the party and its prime ministerial
candidate.
The
reservations for the BJP stemmed from the fact that ever since its creation in
1980, the party and its earlier incarnation, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh (formed in
1951), were tied to the apron strings of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The
RSS was founded in 1925as a cultural and educational organisation to unite the
Hindu community against British colonialism and Muslim separatism. Over the
years and by virtue of its training it acquired the characteristics of a
para-military organisation and was accused of being involved in the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. The organisation was banned for some
years and the ban was lifted on the assurance that it will confine itself to
purely cultural activities in future.
The BJP came to power at the centre on the strength
of Ram Janmabhoomi movement in 1996, even though only for 13 days. However, it
formed a government at the centre from 1998 to 1999 and from 1999 to 2004 with
the support of coalition partners under the nomenclature of National Democratic
Alliance (NDA). The government was headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, an
enlightened leader who had the gift of evolving a consensus among the coalition
partners on vital issues and pushing under the carpet those issues on which
there were sharp differences. But the BJP was not able to recapture power in
2004 and 2009 because the party could not survive the image of a communal party
responsible for the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 and communal
riots in Gujarat in February 2002.
As
the 2014 election approached, the people of India were faced with difficult
choice. On the one hand the incompetent government headed by the Congress Party
had run into deep trouble because of the allegations of corruption, high
inflation, poor governance, and loss of rapport with the people. On the other
hand was the BJP with the divided leadership, tarnished image, lack of a
futuristic ideology, and unwillingness of coalition partners to support its
communal agenda. It was in these circumstances that the RSS decided that
Narendra Modi will be the prime ministerial candidate of the BJP.
The
choice of Narendra Modi as the prime ministerial candidate sent shock waves
across the country among those sections of society who considered him
responsible for the for allowing and
encouraging the anti-Muslim carnage of 2002. There was widespread demand in the
media that Modi should apologise for his role in 2002 killings before he could
be supported in the Lok Sabha elections. Modi refused to apologise and the BJP
launched a massive multi–media high-tech campaign in his favour. This was
backed by hundreds of well-organised public rallies addressed by Modi across
the country. In a country frustrated by slow economic growth in the last few
years, Modi’s Gujarat model of consistent economic growth carried some
conviction. Back-breaking inflation had acutely sharpened the appetite of the
people for regime change. The BJP gradually succeeded in setting its own agenda
of political discourse during the campaign in which communalism got relegated
to the back burner and development caught people’s imagination.
What
must be noted, however, is that gradual acceptance of BJP discourse and Modi’s
leadership by the people would not have been possible if they had a credible
alternative. The only alternative people could look up to was the Congress
Party. The choice of the Congress Party for prime ministerial role, even though
not stated but obvious, was Rahul Gandhi. It did not require much foresight
from the very beginning that he was a poor choice. This was unfortunate because
there was no dearth of capable leaders in the Congress Party. But the process
of selection of Rahul Gandhi was highly screwed. He was selected for this role
merely because he was born in the Nehru-Gandhi family. By itself this need not
be a disqualification. But every member of a ruling family who inherits power
is not necessarily worthy of it. Reflecting on this phenomenon, Socrates, the
Greek Philosopher told his disciple Plato, “A child of a ruler who has no mind
for ruling and struggles at ‘higher thinking’ even after a rigorous education;
a child like this should not be a ruler. Nevertheless, in a society that is
governed by monarchy the child would become a leader, regardless of how much
damage they may cause to the society.”
The
fact that Rahul Gandhi was elected as General Secretary of the Congress Party
in 2007and Vice-President in 2013 is no testimony to his political acumen or
popularity in the party. Members of the Congress Party who constituted the
electorate for these positions were beholden to Sonia Gandhi as the party
president and it was imperative for them to bestow the ‘crown’ on Rahul Gandhi.
This is no reflection on the intentions of the Congress President or the
desires of her son. This was a natural consequence of the way the Congress
party had shaped itself after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.
To
allow power to be inherited by the scions of the ruling family is neither
objectionable nor unusual. In most professions, succeeding generations find it
easier and profitable to take to the vocations of their parents. But politics
is not private business. In politics, one is dealing with the destiny of the
whole nation. In a large democracy like India, the leader must measure up to
certain minimum standards. Rahul Gandhi cannot be faulted on grounds of age, or
education, or ideology. But Rahul Gandhi’s lack of experience and low acumen
becomes too obvious in his utterances. Even the hard boiled supporters of the
Congress Party bemoaned the fact that their leader was not taken seriously by
the people. And this dissatisfaction with Rahul was totally unrelated to the
performance of the UPA-I and UPA-II. In fact Rahul’s lack of credibility as a
prospective Prime Minister in a Congress led government became an additional
anti-Congress factor, apart from the poor performance of UPA-II, which turned
the people against the Congress Party.
The
Congress Party is so much identified with the birth of independent India and
its growth in the first sixty seven years that it cannot be written off the
Indian political landscape. Its ideology was inherited from the freedom
struggle and was nursed by visionary leadership. If it has to safeguard its
future, it must reinvent itself in terms of leadership style and introduce real
democracy in its proceedings. It would be tragic for the country if the
Congress Party allows itself to be decimated and leaves the country in the
hands of the BJP alone.
The
BJP on the other hand has done well in emerging as a national alternative and
providing to the country a much needed bipartisan political structure. But it
has to go a long way in rounding off its rough edges by distancing itself from
the RSS agenda and shedding its anti-minority image. The party must prove
itself worthy of the trust reposed in it by the people of India if it wants to
rule the country for the next ten years.
___________________________
