Change of stance

I posted this originally as a comment on Swapan Da's blog, but thought it deserved a more detailed examination. But first the comment.

To continue from where I left, while the idea of catharsis may sound seductive, politically, I believe, it is counter productive. A better strategy will be to focus on the issues.

One such ready-made issue is the attempt by center to insulate bureaucracy from political responsibility. BJP leadership is supporting it for rewarding its favorite babus. It should oppose it.

Now this issue may not fetch anything electorally. Indian voters simply do not care about federalism. However this issue helps in positioning, BJP can claim it stands for Strong center and strong states as opposed to Congress which stands for Strong center and weak states and regional parties which stand for weak center and strong states. This kind of positioning helps in reinventing BJP from a saffron flavored Congress that it is perceived today and what's much more important help in attracting allies.

Now coming to broader point, since the defeat in elections, and in a way even prior to that, the primary concern of BJP supporters has been to search for a leader who can lead BJP to victory.

This, in my view, is a wrong approach. The specific reason is at present none of BJP leaders has the popularity to secure parliamentary majority or even significant electoral advantage. Among a section there was palpable excitement for Narendra Modi as prospective leader. However as the election proved he has hardly any influence outside Gujarat. Now people may argue that this may change, and Modi, or some other leader, may emerge before 2014. This is possible, yet highly unlikely. For I believe the era of charismatic leaders with pan Indian influence has passed.

The reason for this is that Indian polity has changed. Individuals, more precisely members of Nehru - Gandhi dynasty, commanded a pan Indian influence when memory of freedom struggle, more or less a pan Indian phenomenon, was recent. The dynasty was main beneficiary of the romance and promise of the independence. However as the political scene progress through time, and the expectations were belied,  the influence of romance and as a consequence popular appeal of dynasty waned.

Gradually even though the dynasty remained in charge, the political landscape shifted to a. Addressing people's expectations and even more importantly b. Articulating their aspirations. Even then the change was not apparent immediately because the emerging interest groups sought protection under the shadow of behemoth of dynasty at national level. On state level however regional parties emerged ensuing decades of bitter confrontation with Congress. In short term dynasty was able to control the regional parties. However eventually dynasty lost its influence resulting in present equilibrium where national politics resembles a confederacy of regional interests.

Now I believe that in long term this arrangement is against integrity and unity of India, however this arrangement is stable for the time being and hence will persist. Also I don't think reverting to the earlier model of patron-client relation is the solution.

This arrangement raises political challenge for a national party in short term as well as long term. Short term challenge exists because it can not rely on a single leader or a single direct message. This can be resolved by raising issues and proposing policy proposals which address the specific interest substantiavely and exhaustively. Long term challenge is ensuring unity and Integrity of India. This can be addressed at political level by pro-actively supporting a federalist approach, and at cultural level by locating the diverse traditions and aspirations of various regions within broader existence of Indic civilization and its growth.

This implies a shift from messianic emphasis on personalities to emphasis on the issues, and more importantly innovation as well as articulation.

Commentariacy

Kind of busy to write any new post, hence re-posting comments made on Swapan Da's blog,

On Junking ugly Hindu image

#

Swapan Da, 

I am a bit puzzled so I hope you will help me here.

1. You said that H word (modified to ugly H word in this post) is a hindrance to pursuance of power. Hence

2. You suggested that 

a. BJP drop H word and 

b. BJP adapt programs for reforms and good governance.

Keeping the tenability of the premise aside for the moment, on what basis do you think reforms or governance will be such a vote getter. If the aim is to get votes whats wrong with good old bribes like free color TVs or free Gold rings or even reservations after all they have worked.

and

#

On second thoughts I have a feeling that centre right clique has really no idea how to go about this junking Hindutva (ugly or otherwise). Now BJP could do without enthusiasm of certain power peddlers regarding promoting bigotry of Varun Gandhi as ideological hallmark of cultural nationalism and should disassociate itself with such bigotry or thuggery. However secular liberal establishment and its propaganda arm, which is most of ELM, will persist in associating BJP and whoever professes to cultural nationalism with such sociopaths even if it protests to the contrary. In fact such pronouncement of disassociation and the ensuing pandemonium will just add to the secular media grist mill. 

In my opinion the only effective to distance (and distance we must) from the nuts is by action. Come V Day or whatever tawdry western imitation there is bound to be vandalism by lumpen Hindutva, BJP government must ensure that safety of property whether private or public and anyone attempting to vandalize them are brought to the justice preferable in full media glare.

On internecine war in BJP

#

Many commentators are blaming Arun Jaitley for loss. While I am sure some share of blame must go to Arun Jaitley, the reasons for defeat go much beyond follies and foilbles of individuals (even Rajnath Singh) and are due to structural inadequacies not just in BJP but also Indian polity, foremost of which is the tendency to circle the wagons, I hold no brief for Mr Kulkarni but finding fault with him for publishig in Tehelka. Which is why I find this debate over Hindutva disappointing, and I speak as someone who supported booting Varun Gandhi out before elections. Whatever the merits or demerits of Hindutva, it was secondary if hardly any cause. The primary cause is CCC or chronic credibility crisis.

#

Swapan Da,

I have long (and by long I mean post 2004 debacle) wondered about the civil war (or catharsis) in BJP and somehow I am less sanguine about its effect. 

While you are correct that instinctive avoidance from any substantial debate and instead relying on behind the doorschintans is the reason for the sorry state that BJP finds itself in. However the central leadership is intellectually bankrupt and I can find no evidence that it is capable of critical analysis and self interospection. I am afraid that this latest episode like the previous ones i.e. cover up. Which is why I don't think that passing the buck is the best strategy for failure. I will prefer that the things are allowed to cool down, and the adults focus on the reasons voters didn't vote for BJP in Lok Sabha while they have voted for BJP in state elections and how to rectify them.

Related to that I think Modi is a Non Starter, his nomination will incur the full wrath of secular right establishment and the prospective allies will run away like frightened horses. Sushma Swaraj is a better option. Of course this is coming from a guy who supported Arun Shourie for 2009

By the way I may sound rude but rare exceptions (BJP Supporter Oldtimes etc)apart the level of debate here is pretty disappointing though hardly unexpected

On soporific banality of Sudheendra Kulkarni

#

Totally off the topic but I can't stand Sudheendra Kulkarni. Not in the sense of attitude or behaviour but he provides no insight, and there is not a reason to suspect that he possesses any capacity for critical thinking, he is full of superficial rhetoric and platitudes, and his writing is guided more by what is considered cool by the cocktail circuit. He is even more unbearable than Tarun Vijay.

Why BJP lost : A tragedy farce in three acts

Apparently Jaswant Singh is miffed that the people in charge of BJP campaign are being rewarded with legislative positions. Now as far as I am concerned the powers that be in BJP can reward or punish those who managed the campaign. That, however, will do nothing to improve BJP's prospects.

Anyway I hope that the title might have got your attention. Let me confess, I was exaggerating a bit. As it happens I don't know for sure what was the cause of drubbing, finding that out will require a extensive data and rigorous analysis none of which I have. However I have developed some sort of working theory which I will be explaining at a later date. Meanwhile feel free to come up with your theory. Oh and no I don't believe it was either Hindutva, or lack of it.

Act 1


"It is not about you, it is about me", Garima hastily added before Hari could start remonstrations.

Center right tangle

For those coming late, we continue from where we left . Here are the rules, I will show the error of Center right ways, and I restrict my argument to electoral viability. 

Gnomes in the famous South Park episode had a somewhat lousy business plan.

Phase 1: Collect Underpants

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Profit!

In contrast the proponents of center-right have a relatively more elaborate road map to political ascendancy, best summarized as.

Phase 1: Discard Hindutva (Because it is electorally inviable or/and unpalatable to prospective alliances)

Phase 2: Adopt economic reforms and liberal social mores as political platform (Because it is election winner)

Phase 3: Majority!

Now the plan is sensible as long as one doesn't insist on it adhering to the reality, for the reality is a bit different.

Specifically it is not clear that Hindutva is electorally inviable. For sure, a certain section of urban India, to be more precise the section which is informed by English language media, responds unfavorably to antics of Sangh Parivar and its ideological soul mates. However it must be taken into consideration that Hindutva was never meant for the particular demographics. The target demographics for Hindutva,  in its suffused form, was either middle class Hindu living in smaller cities and towns or, in its more cathartic form,  the vast rural hinterland.

Now there are reasons why Hindutva by itself wasn't sufficient for electoral majority. For one Hindu identity has never been as overriding as Islamic identity and unless there is a sense of impending danger or great grievance Hindus tend to focus on more materialistic pursuits. The fact that Sangh Parivar never made any sincere attempt to articulate what it hopes to achieve with Hindutva or it was never in position to implement whatever agenda it had for Hindutva just ensured that after the heady days of Ram Mandir movement Hindutva stalled electorally.

What this implied, or should have implied at any rate, was a. To make Hindutva more substantial for the electorate* and b. on parallel develop saleable agenda** for governance. That this didn't happen is the main cause why BJP has declined to such an extent. However, this doesn't mean Hindutva has become a liability. Provided we get rid of the more unsavory elements, call them lumpen Hindutva to make a distinction, and not pine for the votes of Cosmopolitan flotsam, Hindutva can still provide at least the electoral edge to win the elections and at most provide a foundation to enact broader agenda for resurgence of India. It will be a mistake to drop H word .

Now if the case for discarding Hindutva is weak, case for adapting economic reforms is ever weaker. Problem with proponents of center right is that they are swayed by the "no one I know voted for Nixon" syndrome (or confirmation bias if you will), since they observe support for liberalization around their vicinity, they conclude it is a winner. Well I have news for them, it is not, as evidenced by failure of India shining. Now the counter argument may be that the campaign was inept and selling agenda of reforms needs more fine tuning, an argument with which I agree, however I also think that Hindutva can be sold, and I don't see if I have to reject Hindutva because it is not such an easy sell, I see no reason why BJP should adopt reforms being even more difficult to sell electorally. To further weaken this position consider Congress won 2009 ostensibly because of its tax and spend schemes.  I say ostensibly because I don't agree with it, however if I have to pick a reason for its win, it will definitely be socialism over economic reforms which didn't take place at all.

Therefore we see that the center right clique by arguing on bases of electoral viability ironically discredits its own plank.

And with this I hope I was successful in confusing everyone.

*,**  Selling is important than everything. It really doesn't matter how good a program we have, unless it can be sold to voters, it has no value.

Mirage Of Assetive Hindutva

A well accepted maxim among those who work in any sort of team is that while success has many fathers failure is always other man's bastard.

This perfectly encapsulates contentious debate currently in progress among BJP sympathizers struggling to discover the cause, or in most cases, to shift the blame, for recent drubbing in Lok Sabha elections.

One such group in this debate comprises of people who blame the defeat on BJP diluting its assertive Hindutva plank as exemplified by Koenraad Elst (via)

As promised previously, this post is essentially my attempt to bring pox upon house of assertive Hindutva. Before I start though I will like to make two things clear. One I remain an unrepentant Hindutva Fascist, one who is dismissive of secularism as a meaningful or relevant concept in India, and who hopes to see not only Ayudhya but also Mathura and Varanasi restored to Hindus. Second while I have certain sympathy with the proponents of assertive Hindutva, I restrict my arguments to what in my opinions is the crux of the debate, that is the  electoral viability of assertive Hindutva.

Oh and I hope, by the time I finish, I would have thoroughly confused everyone.

Now, to the contention that defeat of BJP can be attributed to its retreat from assertive Hindutva. The argument is seductive in its simplicity and bias to the true believer. The only problem, it doesn't hold to even most basic scrutiny ( except in a very narrow sense to which I will come later).

 Let's recall some of the issues on which BJP primarily focussed during UPA's previous tenure; Ram Sethu controversy, Amarnath controversy, Afzal Guru,  POTA, Volcker report ,  Mitrokhin Archives just to name the few. These issues are either firmly in the category of assertive Hindutva or belong to the broader security/nationalist platform. Even focusing on these issues, and I agree with BJP on most of them, did nothing to prevent BJP from getting the drubbing in 2009 polls.

At this point usually the argument morphs from insufficient focus to loss of credibility, a result of BJP ignoring Hindutva while in power. This is true, but without context. BJP shifted focus from Hindutva while in power because it never had the requisite numbers to implement the core agenda of assertive Hindutva, Ram Mandir, uniform civil code and article 370. At this point the argument may take two form. One forwarded by the firm adherents is for BJP to sit in opposition and keep campaigning till it gets the requisite majority to implement the agenda.

The problem with this is BJP did run on this platform from 93 to about 96 and consistently failed to get the majority and worse support of other political parties to form the government. It was not until Shri Advani in a masterstroke decided to make much loathed moderate Vajpayee as the face of party that party could come to power.

Now it may change in future. May be some day in future, Indians will decide all that matters is to build Ram Mandir, or abrogate article 370, or enact uniform civil code. That will be the same day when our urbanites will prefer Gau Mutra Cola  over pesticide laden Coke and Pepsi.

There is a more sensible course, which is the recognition that Hindutva, as it exists today, has no intellectual heft and also no credible political road map beyond high decibel sloganeering. To sustain the movement politically, Hindutva supporters need to construct a more serious platform beyond the three issues above mentioned and more importantly sell it electorally. I doubt this will happen though as it requires rigorous thinking, and in the present Sangh culture that is haraam.


Instead Sangh Parivar instinctively resorts to responses based on emotional catharsis or non sequitur such as  this.

Now that I have "demolished" the believers, allow me to demolish the apostates or "the center right" clique in the next part. Confused ! You are welcome.

This is what I call mixed signals

Nukes can fall into Taliban's hand: Zardari

"I want to assure the world that the nuclear capability of Pakistan is in safe hands," he said, referring to growing concerns in the West over safety of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Positioning Hindutva

I would write in detail on "Secularism vs Hindutva" later, meanwhile reposting my comment on Swapan Da's post .

I believe what Oldtimer wrote by Oldtimer is certainly one of the the most articulate and coherent rebuttal not only of the article as well as the clique of centre- right.

I will just like to add a bit of my thoughts on this. I believe the first point (i.e. of Hindu identity) is what many secularists advocate discarding in favor of a vague adherence to secularism. This would be a mistake.

Even though both Hindutva and Secularism are vague terms, to me the essential argument behind Hindutva is that Hinduism* forms the core of Indian identity and which is why it must be treated uniquely of all the other religions as far as civilizational perspective is concerned.

I would note here that civilization is different from state. Further I do not advocate any discrimination among citizens on basis of religion, only an imperative to recognize distinction between different traditions (how to apply this recognition in matters not abstract is admittedly not an easy task).

Secularism, on the other hand, shorn of all flowery platitude and saccharine rhetoric is a refusal to recognize Hinduism ** as the mainstay of Indic civilization, which leads first to disavowal of our history and civilization and ultimately de-recognition of group identity and tradition as the prime mover behind social instincts and responses.

This is as impoverishing and emasculating of society spiritually, intellectually and morally, as other Utopian ideologies such as Islam, Christianity, Marxism and Objectivism (or even its lesser cousin libertarianism).

* Perhaps using Dharmic tradition instead of Hinduism would be less contentious and more palatable, however I use Hinduism because a. it is the most prevalent tradition at present (and to a lesser extent historically) b. Once the other traditions detach themselves from Hinduism they lose their vigour and enlightenment (The unpleasant business in Vienna being a recent example)