Uma Bharati, once of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and Raj Thackeray of the Shiv Sena may not be chips off the same block. But their resentment underlines the same point: personal ambitions dent the armour of parochialism as easily as that of pluralism. Bharati is a product of a political party which oozes religion. Raj Thackeray comes from a set-up which exudes regionalism. Both have been tempered by mixing ideology with obedience. Still both take no time in denouncing their leaderships when denied positions they coveted. They prove to be as indisciplined as wayward liberals. Ideologies based on religion or regionalism are supposed to steel their followers. But their commitment seems to be in proportion to the importance they get in the party. The examples of Bharati and Thackeray show that when challenged, personal considerations get the better of their supposed entrenched beliefs. In fact, the question their conduct throws up is whether religious or regional frenzy is the means to an end. If they want to grab a particular position, they too would adopt any method to get it — histrionics, tears and even denouncing what they stated all their life. If ambition can drive individuals to extremes, what about the parties they represent? Isn’t power or position their ideology? Every slogan, every argument of theirs is only a performance. It seems that leaders invoke patriotism or principle only to impress upon the people that they are fighting for a cause. Actually, their ulterior motive is to advance themselves. Bharati may have habitually violated discipline. But her posers are relevant. She has rightly asked, how can the BJP high command name Shivraj Singh Chauhan as the leader before the party’s MLAs have met to elect him? No doubt, it was blind fanaticism which made her applaud the destruction of the Babri Masjid 13 years ago. She proved her loyalty to the party and its anti-Muslim bias. But it was sheer cussedness on the part of BJP high priests to deny her the chief ministership of Madhya Pradesh when she claimed a majority in the legislature party. Thackeray’s case is similar. He has said that he can no longer tolerate the “injustices and wrongs” meted out to him in the Shiv Sena. He too thinks that he was denied his “rightful place” when Bal Thackeray anointed his son, Uddhav, as appointed heir to take over the reins of the party. Bal Thackeray was partial because Raj was more popular than his cousin, Uddhav. What the revolt by Raj Thackeray and Uma Bharati signifies is not so much disobedience as discontent vis-a-vis the Shiv Sena and BJP high commands, respectively. This holds good for practically all parties. They too ride roughshod over conscientious objectors. They too have their blue-eyed boys. One of them is Natwar Singh, of the Congress. That he is mentioned in the Volcker report on oil purchases has been known for weeks. He was not asked to quit the government because word had not yet come from the top. It was only when he was ousted from the Congress that he began to be criticised by party leaders. The Congress’s image was not important, Natwar’s connections were. Still the truth is not known. If transparency is needed — and there should be no two opinions about it — parties have to be democratic in their functioning. Somehow, it has come to be recognised that a party requires a strong leader who can sustain discipline. This is how authoritarianism was born in India. In fact, the concept of a “strong leader” developed in Europe in the last century for rapid economic development. It was thought there would be no interference if there was one person at the top to guide the pace of pogress. In our country, its origin goes back to the time when one group in a party came to power. It saw to it that there was no space for critics. Naturally, strong leaderships have killed whatever democracy political parties may have had. They have put fear in the minds of political workers. Anyone challenging the party line is ruthlessly crushed, lest his or her example incite dissidence. From the past, I can recall two examples in the Congress party. After the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, Congress president K. Kamaraj tried to develop a collective leadership to fill the vacuum. But Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri pushed him into the background. Kamaraj met the same fate at the hands of Indira Gandhi when she became prime minister through his efforts. In the BJP, it is a bit different because the RSS decides on the leadership, both in the party and in the government. L.K. Advani is quitting at the end of this month not because he has lost support within the BJP but because the RSS has decided to end his tenure. Still it is important for political parties to nurture internal democracy. There should be real elections, not the kind of sham we witness where everything is left to the “leader”. Maybe, the Election Commission should supervise the organisational polls of recognised political parties. This may also address the problem of bogus membership. There is no perfect plan which will absolutely prevent conflicts where there are sharp differences of opinion. Yet a way can be found whereby all interests are represented in the committee or the bureau which the party constitutes. Free election within a party for several positions is sine qua non of discipline. This may introduce accountability. This is also a device to devalue coteries or the so-called advisors. Otherwise, there will be more Uma Bharatis and more Raj Thackerays.
