Myth of moderation

BJP’s career shows the resilience of the politics of polarisation.

Written by Christophe Jaffrelot | Updated: May 12, 2014 10:37 am

Political scientists supporting the “moderation thesis” argue that democratic regimes which incorporate exclusivist parties (including those which claim to represent a religious group) in electoral games usually transform them into more moderate political actors. First, when an exclusivist party contests elections, it is bound to dilute its ideology to attract voters outside its core constituency. Second, an exclusivist party generally emerges from an ideological movement displaying a deep sense of doctrinal purity, but it gradually emancipates itself from this matrix. Third, in their quest for power in a democratic arena, exclusivist parties are more likely to form coalitions with parties which do not share their views.

This theory applies to the Hindutva forces up to a point. In the 1960s and ’70s, the Jana Sangh diluted its all-Hindi policy in order to attract voters beyond north India. It even accepted the redrawing of the Indian map according to the linguistic criterion, in spite of the fact that the RSS had originally wanted to abolish linguistic states because of “their dangerous potential for secession” (The Organiser, January 24, 1956).

Simultaneously, the Jana Sangh developed a new interest in socio-economic issues in order to speak to “the common man” — a formula that party president Atal Bihari Vajpayee used systematically in the early 1970s.

But the Jana Sangh continued to mobilise voters by deploying Hindu symbols, as evident from the anti-cow slaughter movement of 1966-67, intended to help the party in the 1967 elections. The party joined hands with the VHP and thousands of demonstrators gathered around Parliament to persuade the MPs to pass a law prohibiting cow slaughter. As determined activists stormed Parliament, the police intervened and killed eight of them, who then became the martyrs of the cause.

The BJP repeated the same strategy during the Ayodhya agitation of the late-1980s and early-1990s, with the pre-election Ram Shila movement of 1989 and L.K. Advani’s Rath Yatra in 1990. This agitation, which had been unleashed, once again in conjunction with the VHP, resulted in an unprecedented number of communal riots across the country. It polarised Indian society along religious lines and consolidated the Hindu vote, which Balasaheb Deoras, RSS chief from 1973-94, had decided to promote in 1979, after the split in the Janata Party and the formation of the BJP. Deoras had then declared: “Hindus must now awaken themselves to such an extent that even from the elections’ point of view the politicians will have to respect the Hindu sentiments and change their policy accordingly” (Hindu Vishwa, March 7-8, 1979).

The moderating effect of the democratic game was clearly neutralised by the polarisation strategy. BJP electoral campaigns have always oscillated between the projection of more acceptable faces (including Vajpayee’s) and programmes (including development) and an exclusivist ethno-religious discourse, as well as provocations to broaden its base and to cash in on a Hindu vote. The second dimension of this Janus-like strategy worked well. The constituencies where communal riots have taken place before elections have also been, generally, those where the BJP performed best, as evident from the 2002 Gujarat elections. It is easy to see why the “moderation thesis” is wrong in the case of India: because the core constituency the BJP is aiming at is a majority.

Today, the BJP is resorting to polarisation techniques again in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to circumvent caste politics. In western UP, the party has capitalised on the Muzaffarnagar riot by nominating MLAs who had allegedly been implicated in it and Amit Shah even invited local citizens to use their vote to take “revenge”. Similarly, the description of Azamgarh as a “base” of terrorists can easily be interpreted as aimed at the Muslim community in the post-Batla House context. The Election Commission has repeatedly objected to such discourse and the use of religious symbols, which, under Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, is deemed a corrupt practice.

The electoral process does not necessarily moderate exclusivist parties in a majoritarian democracy. Neither do these parties necessarily emancipate themselves from their exclusivist matrix. The relationship between the BJP and the RSS is a case in point. The political scientists who have predicted that the BJP would eventually become a right of centre party have generally assumed that it would sever its links with the Sangh. Certainly, the party enjoyed a great deal of autonomy in the 1980s, when Vajpayee coined new slogans such as “Gandhian socialism” and “positive secularism”, which were not to the liking of the RSS. But the party’s independence has eroded since its 2004 defeat, to such an extent that then BJP president L.K. Advani was openly criticised by then RSS chief K. Sudarshan during a TV interview. At the party’s national executive meeting in September 2005, Advani responded that in the BJP “an impression has gained ground that no political or organisational decision can be taken without the consent of the RSS functionaries”. His overall plea for the recognition of the party’s autonomy was not appreciated by Sudarshan. At the end of 2005, Advani was removed from the BJP’s presidency and Rajnath Singh took over from him.

Today, the RSS is facing a dilemma. On one hand, it is reluctant to indulge in a personality cult that is contrary to the philosophy of an institution where the organisation is above the man, to such an extent that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat has reportedly told swayamsevaks not to chant “Namo” or “Har Har Modi”. On the other hand, the RSS is canvassing in favour of Modi more openly and more actively than ever before and is effectively monitoring the party campaign at the grassroots level. The BJP may emancipate itself from the RSS in future, the way it has done in Gujarat over the last 10 years, but this has not been accomplished yet.

What about the impact of coalition politics? Vajpayee and Advani initiated a moderate phase in the BJP’s trajectory in the late 1990s, when they formed the NDA. They had learnt from their experience of 1996, when Vajpayee could not garner sufficient support to form a coalition government. Three bones of contention had to be put on the back burner: the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the abolition of Article 370 and the uniform civil code. But coalition compulsions forced the BJP to dilute its politics only up to a point. None of the major partners of the BJP objected to the organisation of elections in Gujarat after the 2002 carnage, for instance. Whether coalition politics has a moderating impact on the BJP after the 16th general election remains to be seen, but the party’s list of candidates, which includes only a few from the minorities, reflects the resilience of some forms of exclusivism.

While the “moderation thesis” may have a point so far as the impact of coalition politics is concerned, it is largely irrelevant in the case of India. In such a context, the only balancing power can come from the custodians of the rule of law. The difficulties faced by the EC in containing hate speeches and the limitations of the judiciary, exposed by Manoj Mitta’s recent book on the post-Godhra SIT, are therefore causes for great concern.

The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/ CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London, Princeton Global Scholar and non-resident scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

express@expressindia.com

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. A
    ANUJ
    May 12, 2014 at 10:56 am
    The author are among those many 'non-resident' experts who have no connect to realities called India i.e. Bharat.
    Reply
  2. C
    ck
    May 14, 2014 at 10:11 am
    Death of Discourse - Every article which has a reference to 2002 riots and every author who pointed it out has been subject to sustained campaign of abuse. This is true in the comments section of several articles in this website. If this is the way forward for India, the next few years will mark a major shift to curtailment of freedom of speech. The RSS / Sangh Parivar have made violence against any writer / speaker who challenges the perceived notions of Hinduism their only tactic. Comments like - "Any one who speaks against Modi should go to stan" by a leader of the Sangh Parivar were common throughout the election campaign. Not unlike China where any comment against the CCP are met with force
    Reply
  3. A
    Abdul Aziz
    May 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm
    excellent & realistic article on BJP, RSS divide and polarize politics... This act of BJP/ RSS is no patriotism.
    Reply
  4. K
    Kirpal
    May 13, 2014 at 2:41 am
    The BJP and RSS have no tolerance for criticism even if it is constructive and this is fascism. We are lucky to live in such a diverse country where even BJP has to learn to develop tolerance for criticism others point of view to run this country amicably.
    Reply
  5. V
    vasmah
    May 12, 2014 at 5:51 am
    Great article with rare insights that truly reflect the layers of complexity in Indian politics! There is never a case of black and white in Indian politics but always numerous shades of gray. The author has dissected through such shades of gray and presented some clear trends that are worth noting. Whether these throw light on what might happen should Modi be elected as the PM with a clear majority is still anybody's guess. One can only hope that with the primary focus on developing the country first, with economic growth and jobs creation high on Modi's stated agenda, that even his administration will see the benefits of moderation and take more of a middle course that retains societal balance. The future is always hard to predict, but given the insights offered by the author, one would hope that even the slightest of initial pulls towards moderation may just catapult the country initially and set it in the right direction.
    Reply
  6. V
    vasmah
    May 12, 2014 at 9:12 am
    o Indian Express:About an hour ago I posted a comment on this article. It has not been posted yet. Is there a technical difficulty? If not, perhaps you could respond at my email address and tell me the reasons why my comments were not posted. I will appreciate it. Thanks.
    Reply
  7. N
    Nirmal
    May 13, 2014 at 5:23 am
    You like it or not, there are takers for this polarization tactic manly 'cause modern age hindus are tired of having to sit through a load of baloon theories such as these where public call for Muslim or X'ain's mobilizations are not considered communal polarizations.It's high time that India has a proper Right wing political party to balance the rhetoric.
    Reply
  8. D
    DG1
    May 12, 2014 at 4:28 pm
    Can you critque the authors argument instead of his nationality. He may not be Indian but he know more than you and me ever will.
    Reply
  9. Load More Comments