In the very hour of its triumph, the BJP is at its most vulnerable. It has triumphed by both presenting itself as the political agency of Hindutva and a more Hinduised Congress. It has triumphed by building an alliance in which it has no allies except the Shiva Sena. These make it vulnerable enough. But its Achilles' heel is that it is on test. It has to deliver.L.K. Advani has called for the building of a Rashtriya Mandir in which all the children of Bharat Mata can dwell. This is reminiscent of Pandit Nehru's appeal for building the noble mansion of India where all her children could dwell. The aim is clearly to present the BJP as a secular party, but the RSS is to be so presented RSS as well. In the case of the latter, it is more an act of defiance - the RSS would remain the RSS and everybody would have to accept it as secular, whatever evidence there might be to the contrary.This act of defiance is carried further by the election of Kushabhau Thakre. No liberal, he is a thoroughbred and proud cadreof the Golwalker training class. He has not only eulogised the RSS but also proclaimed that the BJP as a party would be independent of its government. It would be free to push its version of communalised Hinduism, leaving it to Vajpayee to implement the watered-down version of the National Agenda.The secular parties would have to present a critique of the BJP's programme and orientation. They would need, however, to take into account the fact that the younger generation is not aware of what secularism is about. Nor are they quite sure that communalism is necessary evil, provided there are no riots. Communalism appears to be the sentiment of rooting oneself in a distinct community. That it really means making the relationship with the community on the basis of religion exclusive, excluding and antagonistic is not clear. That comes, all too often, when it is too late.Similarly, there is a lot of explaining to do about secularism and its indispensability for our unity and progress. The greatestmisunderstanding about secularism is that it is opposed to religion and to Hinduism. Secularism is opposed only to the politicisation of religion and to its use to instigate antagonism between communities. It is not opposed to Hinduism but to its communalisation, which not only causes general damage but discredits Hinduism at home and abroad. Moreover, it is as much opposed to the communalisation of Islam, Sikhism, Christianity or any other religion.The communal-secular terrain, however, is not where the main contest will take place between the BJP-dominated alliance and the broad grouping where the Congress is the largest party. The terrain of the main contest will be development in the broadest meaning of the term.Experience has shown that while liberalisation and globalisation are necessary by themselves, they are not the solution for national economies which have inherited historical retardation and which continue to be opposed directly or by manipulation from becoming economic powers in their ownright. This particularly applies our country and China. These two countries could not afford to follow Mahbub-ul-Haq's prescription of giving priority to so-called human development and not to self-reliance and growth of national power. These two countries just could not be larger-sized South Koreans or Taiwans or Singapores or Thailands, or even Indonesias. In any case they were not allowed the luxury of making such an effort because of the hostility of the US and its capitalist superpower allies militarily, politically and of course, economically. With China, this hostility eased from the 1970s because of its conflict with the Soviet Union. It has not yet ended with our country. China has gone ahead of us because it does not pay the price of democracy, did not have to import oil on any significant scale and because from overseas Chinese and other it has received around forty times more foreign capital than we have from our NRIs.Both we and China have till now made a success of economic reforms becausesince independence both built up sound and strong economic systems which required change and reform, and which could be changed and reformed. Moreover these reforms, though not without defects and conflicts, were carried out independently and at a pace and form suited to prevailing conditions as found appropriate by national authorities.Significant social change has already taken place as a result of the strategy pursued and consequent policies adopted. For some time the leadership of the freedom struggle and their immediate successors guided and represented the masses most affected by such change. But even then, this connection was neither firm nor satisfactory. The post-Nehru decades, despite the strenuous efforts of Indira Gandhi, were increasingly characterized by the breakdown of this social consensus. This was not because her vision and programme were defective. It was the Congress which failed to adequately appreciate and respond to change. A similar situation developed in the Soviet Union in1985-91 with perestroika. What has saved the Congress from going the way of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is its national character and the democratic system. The BJP's response to this change is to try to freeze it by the communalist Hindutvaisation of society. This is the exact opposite of the strategy of the casteist, Mandalist and regionalist parties. The BJP hopes to impose uniformity to hold back change and these formations hope to promote change by dividing society. Both work for the destruction of the Indian nation in its present state.Crucial to the establishment of the new social consensus which would raise the nation-making process to a new level is to combine economic growth with the reduction of disparities and equalisation of opportunities. Exclusive concentration on either objective would be counterproductive. What is more, to try to achieve one at the cost of the other would lead to failure.This is the terrain on which the BJP would be most vulnerable. It has not thought thingsthrough on this point. Its concern has been on how to stabilise and extend protection to help big business located in India. Its concept of Indian unity is also that of continuing and even increased inequality. Hindutva offers no guidance on this point. Nor does its brand of swadeshi. Yet the very people who want to give it a chance want it also to give them a chance.
