04-26-2007, 08:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Apr 26 2007, 11:14 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Apr 26 2007, 11:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Would you kindly elaborate on what were the principal differences between "Ekatma Manavatavad" of Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyayji and "Gandhian socialism" of Vajpayee? Also can you educate us on how/why exactly did it result in public's rejection of BJS/BJP at that time?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think "Ekatma Manavtavad" resonated with the hindutva workers and hindutva supporting population. But "Gandhian Socialism" was a dampener. Vajpayee has always been too sensitive about others' negative reactions about RSS/Jana-Sangh, and by talking about "Gandhian Socialism" he thought he was moving BJP towards a more centrist and acceptable level. Unfortunately it was seen as some sort of surrender by the hardcore supporters and workers. There were already gandhians and socialists in the political arena, so BJP recasting itself in that mould reduced its uniqueness and its appeal to its core supporters. A similar situation arose during the NDA rule and 2004 elections. Vajpayee again gave in to his desire to be 'liked' by his adversaries and the campaign was startlingly hindu neutral. Wasn't too much of a surprise to see that hindus (voters who kept hindu identity as of importance during voting, not just nominal hindus) also became neutral towards BJP during that election. So, the same thing was tried by Vajpayee twice and both times it failed. There is a need for BJP to gather more centrist votes. But the lesson has been that BJP can't ignore or take for granted its core supporters.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was only after the Rama-Janma bhumi issue that BJP's stock started to rise again.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to slightly differ on this. In my opinion, Hindutva roughly has had a 15-21% of national vote share, which reflects in 90-110 natural Hindutva seats in Parliament. Such has been the case since 70s till late 80s. (Remember, Hindutva vote was even with Congress many times).
The conversion of votes into seats - sometimes BJP/BJS are able to do it, other times not when others are able to consolidate their votes. Even in Janata Party government, BJS members were these many. This number goes up when they have alliances especially in South, Maharashtra etc. After 1996, they have managed to have an alliance - which muster the overall national share of 30-35% votes, and at the same time the remaining opposition votes are split three-ways at most places and 4-ways at some places. That has been advantageous to BJP too.
So I think, issues like Ram Janma Bhumi have only marginally resulted in vote increase, but certainly reflected well in seat increase. Hindutva votes have, yes, been consolidated after the issue, and BJP emerged as the main hub of it. But more importantly, it resulted in cadre strength and confidence. Now, has it also improved the quality of the cadre and structure? That I seriousely doubt.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My opinion has been that hindus will vote as hindus only when a party specifically asks for "hindu" votes. Otherwise people vote according to whatever local/regional/caste iedentity or issues that may be excercising them at that moment.
The so called "hindu" vote cannot be taken for granted. Politicians have to ask for "hindu" votes by putting forth "hindu" issues. A voter doesn't vote "hindu" by default. The voter has to be convinced/asked to vote as a "hindu". If his/her hindu identity is not canvassed for the politicians, then the same voter will vote according to whatever identity or issues he/she may think is of importance at that point of time.
So, the way I see is that there is a potential hindutva vote of significant percentage, which will translate into a monolithic vote-bank only when politicians put forth hindutva issues. Otherwise that potential hindutva vote gets divided. Rama Janmbhumi issue consolidated the hindutva votes for a single party and translated into seats. But after the NDA rule, BJP became very apologetic about raising hindu issues. So, the hindutva vote fractured.
I think "Ekatma Manavtavad" resonated with the hindutva workers and hindutva supporting population. But "Gandhian Socialism" was a dampener. Vajpayee has always been too sensitive about others' negative reactions about RSS/Jana-Sangh, and by talking about "Gandhian Socialism" he thought he was moving BJP towards a more centrist and acceptable level. Unfortunately it was seen as some sort of surrender by the hardcore supporters and workers. There were already gandhians and socialists in the political arena, so BJP recasting itself in that mould reduced its uniqueness and its appeal to its core supporters. A similar situation arose during the NDA rule and 2004 elections. Vajpayee again gave in to his desire to be 'liked' by his adversaries and the campaign was startlingly hindu neutral. Wasn't too much of a surprise to see that hindus (voters who kept hindu identity as of importance during voting, not just nominal hindus) also became neutral towards BJP during that election. So, the same thing was tried by Vajpayee twice and both times it failed. There is a need for BJP to gather more centrist votes. But the lesson has been that BJP can't ignore or take for granted its core supporters.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It was only after the Rama-Janma bhumi issue that BJP's stock started to rise again.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I beg to slightly differ on this. In my opinion, Hindutva roughly has had a 15-21% of national vote share, which reflects in 90-110 natural Hindutva seats in Parliament. Such has been the case since 70s till late 80s. (Remember, Hindutva vote was even with Congress many times).
The conversion of votes into seats - sometimes BJP/BJS are able to do it, other times not when others are able to consolidate their votes. Even in Janata Party government, BJS members were these many. This number goes up when they have alliances especially in South, Maharashtra etc. After 1996, they have managed to have an alliance - which muster the overall national share of 30-35% votes, and at the same time the remaining opposition votes are split three-ways at most places and 4-ways at some places. That has been advantageous to BJP too.
So I think, issues like Ram Janma Bhumi have only marginally resulted in vote increase, but certainly reflected well in seat increase. Hindutva votes have, yes, been consolidated after the issue, and BJP emerged as the main hub of it. But more importantly, it resulted in cadre strength and confidence. Now, has it also improved the quality of the cadre and structure? That I seriousely doubt.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My opinion has been that hindus will vote as hindus only when a party specifically asks for "hindu" votes. Otherwise people vote according to whatever local/regional/caste iedentity or issues that may be excercising them at that moment.
The so called "hindu" vote cannot be taken for granted. Politicians have to ask for "hindu" votes by putting forth "hindu" issues. A voter doesn't vote "hindu" by default. The voter has to be convinced/asked to vote as a "hindu". If his/her hindu identity is not canvassed for the politicians, then the same voter will vote according to whatever identity or issues he/she may think is of importance at that point of time.
So, the way I see is that there is a potential hindutva vote of significant percentage, which will translate into a monolithic vote-bank only when politicians put forth hindutva issues. Otherwise that potential hindutva vote gets divided. Rama Janmbhumi issue consolidated the hindutva votes for a single party and translated into seats. But after the NDA rule, BJP became very apologetic about raising hindu issues. So, the hindutva vote fractured.