Opinion When regional looks national

The idea of aThird Front at the Centre is a recent one,after Congress hegemony was seriously challenged in the ‘90s. Until then,all fronts at the Centre,whether V.P. Singh’s or Jayaprakash Narayan’s,were just anti-Congress formations. The Third Front tried to convey a semblance of ideological and political coherence to options outside two main parties,the Congress and a then-resurgent BJP,in the mid-’90s. (The phrase “United Front”,refers to the Communist decision,right before the 1917 Russsian Revolution,to work with other parties for a larger end. ) And in mid-’90s India,it implied a third way of doing things,strongly influenced by a socialist and federal agenda. It consisted of groups that claimed to represent different demographics,caste groups and classes ignored or excluded by the Congress and the BJP. In fact,the “federal front” within the United Front was first announced by a confident Chandrababu Naidu of the TDP,in Andhra Bhawan in 1997,with DMK and AGP leaders by his side.

The United Front phase influenced politics more than is acknowledged. It produced huge changes within the Congress and the BJP as they struggled to become “coalitionable” and absorb the forces that had unleashed these other parties — the BJP nurtured its impressive array of OBC leaders and the Congress tried to make quick amends to its broken social base with “chintan shivirs” and course-correction rituals.

The 2002 Gujarat riots proved to be a major impediment for the BJP’s attempt to present itself as a truly wholesome national force,and with the Congress managing to position itself (if only by contrast) as a centre for a “progressive” coalition,there were now two sets of political alternatives in the country. It was now possible for state parties to partake in power at the Centre and exert force well beyond their own capacities and geographical limits,without risking the instability the Third Front implied.

The Left’s 2009 knee-jerk attempt to evolve a Third Front before the election,as it tried to invent an “anti-imperalist” plank focused on opposition to the nuclear deal,put another nail in the coffin of the Third Front idea,damaging its votaries and creating doubts about its objectives and viability.

But now,with leaders like Nitish Kumar being returned to power in 2010,Mamata Banerjee sweeping to Writers’ Buildings in 2011,the SAD and Samajwadi Party coming into their own,is it time for another stab at a Third Front?

Given the unimaginative response of both national parties to regional assertion so far,anything is possible. But there are important differences between now and the ’90s. Back then,regional aspirations were finding new expression at the Centre — in V.P. Singh’s memorable words,the “social diversity of India being mirrored in its politics” was a relatively new phenomenon — and a separate front was deemed necessary because national parties were unitary in their thinking. But since then,things have changed — the two big parties,wising up to their own diminished strength,have learnt to “do business” with regional leaders.

While in the past,regional parties were fundamentally different from the Congress in how they were run and what they stood for,now most of them have happily embraced the economics of the Congress and the BJP,and are dominated by dynasties in the same Congress mould. Whether it is DMK,SP,RJD or NCP,these parties seem to be veering towards being family-run political enterprises (and in some cases,political-cum-business enterprises),compelling them to have stakes in “stability” at the Centre,and open to barters with national parties.

Most importantly,in the past there was a large core that served as a glue to the grouping (Janata Dal with 143 seats,the Left Front with 45 seats). Even when the Janata Dal’s strength diminished,it stayed as an idea that was relevant in at least three states,UP,Bihar and Karnataka. It was the same with the Left’s bases in West Bengal,Kerala and Tripura — they provided a “national feel” to the venture. Now,it is unlikely that state leaders would have incentives to stick with each other,if they were not personally in the reckoning for the top job. Earlier,the Left might have been a focal point (uninterested as it was in the top job) — but now,the Left’s much-weakened state and the absence of a substitute renders the Third Front idea less viable.

Of course,much depends on how the next two years pan out for the Congress,BJP and other forces. The emerging assertion by smaller regional forces should not surprise the Congress. Three years ago,even before it got its 207 seats,its reluctance to go to the polls as the UPA,  or to forge fronts in UP or Bihar,has not been lost on its allies or other supporting parties. The Congress may cherish the dream of 272 of its own seats,but that is a frightening prospect for regional parties who would be out of business in that scenario. Sensing that they are seen as “temps” in the power-sharing arrangement,there will be no let-up in the battle between small (but crucial) parties and their larger coalition partners.

Cutting loose from their respective coalitions may not even be a real option for Mamata Banerjee or Nitish Kumar right now,but it is imperative that they project the idea that ties may snap at any point. Even the Samajwadi Party,which has come to power in UP after practically a daily war of words with the Congress, is in no mood to disrupt the UPA — along with asserting themselves,they see the merits in making sure they are seen as firmly affiliated to a large party at the Centre.

This tension is certain to continue defining politics in the coming two years. The threat of smaller parties made central parties into coalition-leaders in the ’90s — and how those dynamics change,for the Congress and the BJP,is being closely watched.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com