Trouble In The House Of Saffron

The resignation of L.K Advani from the post of president of the BharatiyaJanata Party reflects the significant changes which Hindutva politics is beingforced to undergo. The components of the Sangh Parivar, as would be apparentfrom the unfolding drama over the resignation issue, are locked in a deepconflict over the division of power in the movement and its ideologicaldirection.

Though important as mobilizing assets and ideological fountainheads, the RSSand the VHP do not fight elections and therefore do not hold any electoralmandate which the BJP, being the electoral face of this movement, does.

During his recently concluded Pakistan visit, Mr. Advani did three seeminglyembarrassing things as a Hindutva ideologue: He praised Jinnah’s secularintent (though it is clear that he was careful in his choice of words and onlycalled him a 'great leader' and termed his August 11 1947 speech as a 'greatexposition of a secular state’), regretted the Babri Masjid demolition andrecognized Pakistan’s right to exist as an independent nation state.

By doing so, it would seem, as if he had waved a red rag in the face of thealready estranged elements in the Sangh Parivar, who have been prompt indemanding his head. As the drama unfolds, some may argue that this is Advani’sfinal attempt of telling the party, and the rest of the parivar, who the boss isin the BJP. After all, in recent times both Vajpayee and he have come under severeattacks from within the parivar.

However, the current episode, which has createdopen fissures in the parivar, has to be viewed in the light of a broaderchange, with the balance of power shifting between the BJP and the twoaffiliates. Moreover, the electoral compulsions facing the party have altered.As it responds to these, ideological inconsistencies, as are apparent now, will get more pronounced within the parivar.

The BJP has had a successful electoral run over the past decade and a half,which included a six-year tenure as the ruling party. This has changed the partyin two significant ways. First, different centers of power have arisen in theparty, as some party leaders at the center and at the state level were able todevelop and spread their individual patronage networks. These leaders no longerfeel as accountable to the agenda of either the VHP or the RSS. Second, many ofits current members have not found their way into the party through the RSS andcannot be remote controlled by the organization.

Contrary to popular belief, the parivar, which was never a monolith, is morescattered today than ever before. It is undergoing a transformation resultingfrom struggles between powerbrokers on the one hand and ideologies on the other.In fact, it is a lack of a command and control structure within the parivarwhich has resulted in the regular surfacing of disagreements and discord betweenthe different outfits.

Mr. Advani is one of the key architects of Hindu nationalism’s electoralsuccess, so why this backtracking from the party’s popular positions? Simplyput, bashing Muslims and Pakistan as a mobilizing strategy has limited returnsin today’s political environment. Mr. Advani perhaps grasps this politicalreality.

As the BJP has emerged as a national party, its Hindutva rhetoric has run into the wall of numbers. In most of the electoral districts, with Hindus formingan overwhelming majority, and these days a more politically fragmented one,Hindu insecurity is difficult to invoke, and when invoked, even more difficultto sustain. In India, party fragmentation has occurred at the national and statelevel, and two party systems have turned into multi-party systems with coalitionpolitics being the order of the day. In this environment the BJP has to eitherreinvent itself, or stagnate.

It is facing two compulsions. First, the party has to come across as acompatible coalition partner to most, if not all, of the other parties in theprocess of building electoral majorities. Right now, its Hindu chauvinist imagediscourages some of the regional parties (which often rely on minority support)to ally with it. Second, electorally important states like Bihar and UttarPradesh are home to a significant number of Muslims. Here the party competitionat the level of the electoral district is relatively high as compared to therest of the country, and the value of every vote has increased. In these states,antagonizing the Muslim vote is a costly strategy in the long run. If the Muslimvoter can be dissuaded from following the "Anything but the BJP"voting strategy, the party stands to benefit.

As India’s largest opposition party, the BJP is trying to reinvent itself.Its new face, however, may not be readily acceptable to its ideologicalsiblings. Whatever be the outcome of the current crisis, it is not going to bethe last one the Sangh Parivar will face during this phase of transformation.

Amit Ahuja is a Ph.D candidate in the Department of Political Science and aPredoctoral Fellow at the Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the Universityof Michigan in Ann Arbor