06-27-2006, 10:38 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Â
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3
 Â
     <b>Why saffron can't be red  </b>   Â
As BJP and CPM have fundamental differences, the former will require a metamorphosis before it can learn from the latter, says Prafull Goradia The valedictory address at the BJP national executive on May 30 by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee contained observations invaluable for the return of Hindutva parties to power. A large number of traditional workers, mostly RSS activists, did not participate in the 2004 general election campaign. Mostly those owing personal allegiance to particular BJP candidates worked. The rest had felt disappointed at the party following the NDA agenda.
 Â
  In this context, there are two sharp differences between the BJP and the CPI(M). The latter has a standing cadre, many of whom are paid a monthly salary. Beyond the party, there are trade unions whose members can also be treated as captive auxiliaries. The BJP has no standing force of workers. Its help is largely confined to RSS activists. They are all unpaid volunteers and are neither professionally nor materially obliged to the party. Â
  The second difference is that the CPI(M) seldom deviates from its manifesto, which is the substance of the topics publicly debated at party conclaves. The result is two fold. All office bearers, cadres and active members are on the same wavelength. Second, there are no disappointments on the party swearing one set of policies and following another.
 Â
  It is not that the Communists do not change directions. They do ever since the early Leninist days. The Russian revolution took place in October 1917. By the spring of 1921, Lenin realised that the USSR needed a change in its economic policy. After full consultations he announced a New Economic Policy, which was criticised as revisionist since it accommodated a dose of capitalist participation. Lenin retorted by saying that any movement needed to take one step back in order to take two steps forward.
 Â
  Communist parties, too, split, as did the CPI in 1964 over who was more right about the 1962 Chinese aggression on India - Moscow or Peking. Whatever happened, it was in the know of the partymen. They, therefore, felt neither excluded nor let down. In contrast, the BJP apparatchik often felt excluded from the making of policy. Not infrequently, what the leadership did was in violation of the ideology on which the RSS activists had been brought up for seven decades. For example, the top leaders wearing skullcaps on Muslim occasion or green pugrees while campaigning seemed utter sacrilege. The NDA Government not even attempting to abrogate the IMDT Act in Assam was an anathema to most members.
 Â
  The contention that the only way to remain in power was to toe the NDA line did not persuade partymen to reject Hindutva. Perhaps quite a few of them might have been won over, if the leaders were prepared to share the fishes and loaves of power with them. There are not many constituencies in West Bengal in which the CPI(M) cadres do not enjoy overriding influence. Even the policemen have to listen to them because they are members of the party-led unions. Communist cadres are not used at election time and then forgotten.
 Â
  Communists respect ideology. They believe it to be the enduring factor that binds the party together. And policy has to be consistent with ideology. That does not mean that ideology was not altered. An outstanding example was when Deng Xiaoping declared that it did not matter whether the cat was black or white so long as it ate mice. It amounted to perestroika without glasnost, in many ways an about-turn or Mao Zedong's orthodoxy of continual revolution. Nevertheless, the CPC members were in step with the change. <b>In contrast, the BJP appear-ed to throw ideology to the wind soon after coming to power. In fact, Mr LK Advani had declared ideology a hindrance to good governance. </b>
 Â
  On coming to power, the BJP admitted many an opportunist who had no Hindutva roots. Apart from governance, the explanation given was that it was the way for the party to capture the centre ground which the Congress had vacated. Critics alleged that it was Mr Vajpayee's strategy of counterweight against the RSS.
 Â
   In the bargain, the BJP fell between two stools: Hindutva on the one hand and Congressism on the other. And its leaders did not show the will to keep away from the lure of ministerial power. The CPI(M), too, has leaders who are old and do not have long to go. But the party did not hesitate in disallowing them from becoming Prime Minister of a coalitional jamboree. The BJP will need a metamorphosis before it can learn from the CPI(M).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=3
 Â
     <b>Why saffron can't be red  </b>   Â
As BJP and CPM have fundamental differences, the former will require a metamorphosis before it can learn from the latter, says Prafull Goradia The valedictory address at the BJP national executive on May 30 by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee contained observations invaluable for the return of Hindutva parties to power. A large number of traditional workers, mostly RSS activists, did not participate in the 2004 general election campaign. Mostly those owing personal allegiance to particular BJP candidates worked. The rest had felt disappointed at the party following the NDA agenda.
 Â
  In this context, there are two sharp differences between the BJP and the CPI(M). The latter has a standing cadre, many of whom are paid a monthly salary. Beyond the party, there are trade unions whose members can also be treated as captive auxiliaries. The BJP has no standing force of workers. Its help is largely confined to RSS activists. They are all unpaid volunteers and are neither professionally nor materially obliged to the party. Â
  The second difference is that the CPI(M) seldom deviates from its manifesto, which is the substance of the topics publicly debated at party conclaves. The result is two fold. All office bearers, cadres and active members are on the same wavelength. Second, there are no disappointments on the party swearing one set of policies and following another.
 Â
  It is not that the Communists do not change directions. They do ever since the early Leninist days. The Russian revolution took place in October 1917. By the spring of 1921, Lenin realised that the USSR needed a change in its economic policy. After full consultations he announced a New Economic Policy, which was criticised as revisionist since it accommodated a dose of capitalist participation. Lenin retorted by saying that any movement needed to take one step back in order to take two steps forward.
 Â
  Communist parties, too, split, as did the CPI in 1964 over who was more right about the 1962 Chinese aggression on India - Moscow or Peking. Whatever happened, it was in the know of the partymen. They, therefore, felt neither excluded nor let down. In contrast, the BJP apparatchik often felt excluded from the making of policy. Not infrequently, what the leadership did was in violation of the ideology on which the RSS activists had been brought up for seven decades. For example, the top leaders wearing skullcaps on Muslim occasion or green pugrees while campaigning seemed utter sacrilege. The NDA Government not even attempting to abrogate the IMDT Act in Assam was an anathema to most members.
 Â
  The contention that the only way to remain in power was to toe the NDA line did not persuade partymen to reject Hindutva. Perhaps quite a few of them might have been won over, if the leaders were prepared to share the fishes and loaves of power with them. There are not many constituencies in West Bengal in which the CPI(M) cadres do not enjoy overriding influence. Even the policemen have to listen to them because they are members of the party-led unions. Communist cadres are not used at election time and then forgotten.
 Â
  Communists respect ideology. They believe it to be the enduring factor that binds the party together. And policy has to be consistent with ideology. That does not mean that ideology was not altered. An outstanding example was when Deng Xiaoping declared that it did not matter whether the cat was black or white so long as it ate mice. It amounted to perestroika without glasnost, in many ways an about-turn or Mao Zedong's orthodoxy of continual revolution. Nevertheless, the CPC members were in step with the change. <b>In contrast, the BJP appear-ed to throw ideology to the wind soon after coming to power. In fact, Mr LK Advani had declared ideology a hindrance to good governance. </b>
 Â
  On coming to power, the BJP admitted many an opportunist who had no Hindutva roots. Apart from governance, the explanation given was that it was the way for the party to capture the centre ground which the Congress had vacated. Critics alleged that it was Mr Vajpayee's strategy of counterweight against the RSS.
 Â
   In the bargain, the BJP fell between two stools: Hindutva on the one hand and Congressism on the other. And its leaders did not show the will to keep away from the lure of ministerial power. The CPI(M), too, has leaders who are old and do not have long to go. But the party did not hesitate in disallowing them from becoming Prime Minister of a coalitional jamboree. The BJP will need a metamorphosis before it can learn from the CPI(M).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->