06-25-2009, 01:35 PM
Waffle at BJP National Executive meeting
Kanchan Gupta
The conventional assessment of the BJP National Executive meeting (June
20-21) is that its primary purpose of providing members with an
opportunity to let off post-election steam has been achieved. This will
put an end to trading of charges and levelling of allegations. It will
be back to business as usual.
It is also being claimed (and I endorse this partially) that those who
have been caviling against the party's ideology and its core idea,
Hindutva, have been silenced. Ideology shall continue to enjoy primacy
and Hindutva shall remain the guiding force.
Third, niggling doubts about the leadership issue have been put to rest.
The party has asserted the principle of 'democratic centralism' and this
is the way it shall be. Never mind what the party constitution says
about electing leaders from bottom up.
My assessment differs on all these counts and more.
The unabashed finger-pointing that was witnessed marks a departure from
the past when sobriety was the norm during National Executive meetings.
Little or no purpose has been served by the mutual recrimination that
marked the discussions till Sunderlal Patwa intervened with an emotional
speech.
Patwa's intervention may have forced an end to the ugly trading of
charges, including between Shahnawaz Hussein and Maneka Gandhi, and
diverted attention from the points raised by Arun Shourie, but the
internecine war is by no means over. At best it is tactical retreat, not
even temporary truce.
It is a pity that two 'leaders', whom LK Advani referred to as "two
eminent Muslim colleagues of ours", were allowed to adopt an abrasive
tone and level all kinds of charges while others were disallowed to
raise issues that are much more fundamental for the party's well-being.
But I guess it is useful to promote the fiction that the BJP lost the
election because of what Varun Gandhi said (or did not say) in Pilibhit.
That way, the real reasons shall remain swept under the carpet.
[Sushil Modi in his intervention mentioned that Hindutva upsets the
JD(U) and could strain the BJP-JD(U) alliance in Bihar. That's as
unconvincing as Naveen Patnaik's claim that he parted company with the
BJP because of the violence in Kandhamal. If Nitish Kumar is convinced
that he can win a majority on his own he will part company with the BJP:
Nobody likes to share power. A section of the JD(U) feels that an
alliance with the Congress makes better sense because it would fetch
political returns at the Centre here and now.]
Here is a fact that should have been the subject of serious discussion
but was ignored by the National Executive: Of the sitting MPs in the
14th Lok Sabha who contested this year's election, only 37 have been
re-elected. In 2004, nearly a hundred sitting MPs of the BJP lost the
election.
It would be absurd to suggest that barring 37 sitting MPs the remaining
lost the 2009 election because of Varun Gandhi's alleged inflammatory
comments or a harsh and narrow interpretation of Hindutva. I don't think
there is any evidence to suggest that Hindutva was even mentioned during
their campaign, leave alone giving it a sinister twist.
The reasons why such a large number of sitting MPs lost are four-fold:
. Poor track record of the individuals;
. Poor organisational back-up;
. Poor campaigning at the constituency level; and,
. Poor selection of candidates.
The BJP obviously does not want to discuss these issues as that would
result in quite a few red faces at the high table. Patwa has saved them
from acute embarrassment.
Second, there is no clarity as yet on either ideology or Hindutva.
Both LK Advani and Rajnath Singh stressed on the inclusiveness of
Hindutva and how it militates against bigotry and fanaticism. That's a
nice thought. But what does it stand for?
. <b>LK Advani said "BJP's understanding of Hindutva is fully in accord
with the unanimous judgement given by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court on December 11, 1995."</b>
. <b>Rajnath Singh said "Hindutva . has a sense of respect and a place for
everyone and it is a concept of co-existence. It is this cultural
consciousness which has made Hindutva so benevolent and flexible."</b>
. The Political Resolution moved and drafted by <b>Ravi Shankar Prasad
said, "Hinduism or Hindutva is not to be understood or construed
narrowly confined only to religious practices or expressed in extreme
forms. It is indeed related to the culture and ethos of the people of
the India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people."</b>
The Indian people's "way of life" has nothing to do with politics or
political campaigns to secure state power. If Hindutva is only what the
Supreme Court thinks it is, then it should not be the political creed of
any party, least of all the BJP.
The political resolution bizarrely equates Hinduism with Hindutva. This
was best avoided. Hinduism is about faith, which is by definition narrow
and exclusive. Hindutva is about political mobilisation, which has to be
inclusive and all-embracing.
The party should have said:
Hindutva is rooted in India's cultural and civilisational ethos, of
which faith (Hinduism, Islam or Christianity) is only one
inter-changeable component; it is representative of India's identity as
an ancient nation and a modern nation state; it links India's past with
its present and mirrors its aspirations for a better future.
It defines Indianness or Bharatiyata. It is the cornerstone of cultural
nationalism, the BJP's USP.
It is rooted in egalitarianism, tolerance and compassion. It celebrates
democracy. It harmonises differences. It rests on the principle of
justice to all, appeasement of none.
Some may perceive merit in waffle we heard at the National Executive
meeting, but it will not help remove the confusion that prevails at all
levels. The party needs to enunciate Hindutva for our times. I wonder
when the BJP's 'Blair moment' will come.
The BJP would have done itself some good had it used this National
Executive meeting to also clarify a related point: Core issues of the
party are not core elements of Hindutva, they are at best tangentially
linked.
Abrogation of Article 370 is to do with integration of the States and
Centre-State relations. Retaining Article 370 keeps open the issue of
Jammu & Kashmir's full and final integration with the Union of India and
allows others to refer to it as 'disputed territory'. It also accords to
Jammu & Kashmir a special status that is denied to the other States of
the Union. None of these is a key component of Hindutva.
Article 44 of the Constitution states: "The state shall endeavour to
secure for citizens a uniform civil code." This is primarily meant to
uphold the republican principles of equality for all, irrespective of
gender, religion and caste. It is also aimed at modernising Indian
society by ridding it of regressive personal laws. Where does the demand
for Uniform Civil Code fit into the concept of Hindutva?
By not separating these two core issues from the core of its ideology,
the BJP has failed to put an end to the campaign of calumny by the
'secular' political establishment and the ill-informed sections of
media. More importantly, it has missed an opportunity to remove
misconception in the minds of its cadre.
Advani has talked about organisational weaknesses and the need to
address them as well as expand the party's base in States where it is
almost non-existent. The "train compartment" mentality he has referred
to is extremely relevant. Hopefully it applies to all in the higher
echelons of the party.
As for strengthening the organisation and strategise for the next 20
years, it will require a mindset change across the board at the top: The
needless craving for allies and alliances has to be replaced by
determination and a can-do spirit.
Unfortunately, those who speak about it are also strong votaries of
subjugating State units of the party to allies so that local leaders don't
grow in stature and want a place inside the "train compartment".
A last point: States representatives at the meeting were unanimous and
unambiguous in their praise for Narendra Modi. Every where he visited
during the campaign, they said, the cadre were galvanised and supporters
enthused. Nothing more need be said.
http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/2009/06/w...-executive.html
Kanchan Gupta
The conventional assessment of the BJP National Executive meeting (June
20-21) is that its primary purpose of providing members with an
opportunity to let off post-election steam has been achieved. This will
put an end to trading of charges and levelling of allegations. It will
be back to business as usual.
It is also being claimed (and I endorse this partially) that those who
have been caviling against the party's ideology and its core idea,
Hindutva, have been silenced. Ideology shall continue to enjoy primacy
and Hindutva shall remain the guiding force.
Third, niggling doubts about the leadership issue have been put to rest.
The party has asserted the principle of 'democratic centralism' and this
is the way it shall be. Never mind what the party constitution says
about electing leaders from bottom up.
My assessment differs on all these counts and more.
The unabashed finger-pointing that was witnessed marks a departure from
the past when sobriety was the norm during National Executive meetings.
Little or no purpose has been served by the mutual recrimination that
marked the discussions till Sunderlal Patwa intervened with an emotional
speech.
Patwa's intervention may have forced an end to the ugly trading of
charges, including between Shahnawaz Hussein and Maneka Gandhi, and
diverted attention from the points raised by Arun Shourie, but the
internecine war is by no means over. At best it is tactical retreat, not
even temporary truce.
It is a pity that two 'leaders', whom LK Advani referred to as "two
eminent Muslim colleagues of ours", were allowed to adopt an abrasive
tone and level all kinds of charges while others were disallowed to
raise issues that are much more fundamental for the party's well-being.
But I guess it is useful to promote the fiction that the BJP lost the
election because of what Varun Gandhi said (or did not say) in Pilibhit.
That way, the real reasons shall remain swept under the carpet.
[Sushil Modi in his intervention mentioned that Hindutva upsets the
JD(U) and could strain the BJP-JD(U) alliance in Bihar. That's as
unconvincing as Naveen Patnaik's claim that he parted company with the
BJP because of the violence in Kandhamal. If Nitish Kumar is convinced
that he can win a majority on his own he will part company with the BJP:
Nobody likes to share power. A section of the JD(U) feels that an
alliance with the Congress makes better sense because it would fetch
political returns at the Centre here and now.]
Here is a fact that should have been the subject of serious discussion
but was ignored by the National Executive: Of the sitting MPs in the
14th Lok Sabha who contested this year's election, only 37 have been
re-elected. In 2004, nearly a hundred sitting MPs of the BJP lost the
election.
It would be absurd to suggest that barring 37 sitting MPs the remaining
lost the 2009 election because of Varun Gandhi's alleged inflammatory
comments or a harsh and narrow interpretation of Hindutva. I don't think
there is any evidence to suggest that Hindutva was even mentioned during
their campaign, leave alone giving it a sinister twist.
The reasons why such a large number of sitting MPs lost are four-fold:
. Poor track record of the individuals;
. Poor organisational back-up;
. Poor campaigning at the constituency level; and,
. Poor selection of candidates.
The BJP obviously does not want to discuss these issues as that would
result in quite a few red faces at the high table. Patwa has saved them
from acute embarrassment.
Second, there is no clarity as yet on either ideology or Hindutva.
Both LK Advani and Rajnath Singh stressed on the inclusiveness of
Hindutva and how it militates against bigotry and fanaticism. That's a
nice thought. But what does it stand for?
. <b>LK Advani said "BJP's understanding of Hindutva is fully in accord
with the unanimous judgement given by the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court on December 11, 1995."</b>
. <b>Rajnath Singh said "Hindutva . has a sense of respect and a place for
everyone and it is a concept of co-existence. It is this cultural
consciousness which has made Hindutva so benevolent and flexible."</b>
. The Political Resolution moved and drafted by <b>Ravi Shankar Prasad
said, "Hinduism or Hindutva is not to be understood or construed
narrowly confined only to religious practices or expressed in extreme
forms. It is indeed related to the culture and ethos of the people of
the India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people."</b>
The Indian people's "way of life" has nothing to do with politics or
political campaigns to secure state power. If Hindutva is only what the
Supreme Court thinks it is, then it should not be the political creed of
any party, least of all the BJP.
The political resolution bizarrely equates Hinduism with Hindutva. This
was best avoided. Hinduism is about faith, which is by definition narrow
and exclusive. Hindutva is about political mobilisation, which has to be
inclusive and all-embracing.
The party should have said:
Hindutva is rooted in India's cultural and civilisational ethos, of
which faith (Hinduism, Islam or Christianity) is only one
inter-changeable component; it is representative of India's identity as
an ancient nation and a modern nation state; it links India's past with
its present and mirrors its aspirations for a better future.
It defines Indianness or Bharatiyata. It is the cornerstone of cultural
nationalism, the BJP's USP.
It is rooted in egalitarianism, tolerance and compassion. It celebrates
democracy. It harmonises differences. It rests on the principle of
justice to all, appeasement of none.
Some may perceive merit in waffle we heard at the National Executive
meeting, but it will not help remove the confusion that prevails at all
levels. The party needs to enunciate Hindutva for our times. I wonder
when the BJP's 'Blair moment' will come.
The BJP would have done itself some good had it used this National
Executive meeting to also clarify a related point: Core issues of the
party are not core elements of Hindutva, they are at best tangentially
linked.
Abrogation of Article 370 is to do with integration of the States and
Centre-State relations. Retaining Article 370 keeps open the issue of
Jammu & Kashmir's full and final integration with the Union of India and
allows others to refer to it as 'disputed territory'. It also accords to
Jammu & Kashmir a special status that is denied to the other States of
the Union. None of these is a key component of Hindutva.
Article 44 of the Constitution states: "The state shall endeavour to
secure for citizens a uniform civil code." This is primarily meant to
uphold the republican principles of equality for all, irrespective of
gender, religion and caste. It is also aimed at modernising Indian
society by ridding it of regressive personal laws. Where does the demand
for Uniform Civil Code fit into the concept of Hindutva?
By not separating these two core issues from the core of its ideology,
the BJP has failed to put an end to the campaign of calumny by the
'secular' political establishment and the ill-informed sections of
media. More importantly, it has missed an opportunity to remove
misconception in the minds of its cadre.
Advani has talked about organisational weaknesses and the need to
address them as well as expand the party's base in States where it is
almost non-existent. The "train compartment" mentality he has referred
to is extremely relevant. Hopefully it applies to all in the higher
echelons of the party.
As for strengthening the organisation and strategise for the next 20
years, it will require a mindset change across the board at the top: The
needless craving for allies and alliances has to be replaced by
determination and a can-do spirit.
Unfortunately, those who speak about it are also strong votaries of
subjugating State units of the party to allies so that local leaders don't
grow in stature and want a place inside the "train compartment".
A last point: States representatives at the meeting were unanimous and
unambiguous in their praise for Narendra Modi. Every where he visited
during the campaign, they said, the cadre were galvanised and supporters
enthused. Nothing more need be said.
http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/2009/06/w...-executive.html