Opinion Other voices

The show of strength by nearly one-third of the BJP MLAs in Maharashtra is the first sign of dissent against the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah leadership that has taken control of the party since the general election. Devendra Fadnavis, projected as the BJP’s chief minister-in-waiting in the run-up to the Maharashtra election, may eventually get to lead the government, but the unambiguous and open clamour for Union Minister for Rural Development Nitin Gadkari to be made CM sends out a message to the Modi-Shah combine that Congress-style high-command politics, where leaders and decisions are imposed top-down, may not be acceptable.
Fadnavis and Gadkari, a former national president of the BJP and a minister in the Shiv Sena-BJP government in the 1990s, share the same political turf. The latter might fear that Fadnavis, who is young and has a clean reputation, though little experience in office, could undercut his base and had opposed his selection as the BJP state chief. However, Modi and Shah had other ideas and pitched him for a leadership role in the state. Therein lies the problem.

The BJP has historically followed the idea of collective leadership and  allowed state leaders the space to flourish. BJP chief ministers in the past have been strong and assertive leaders — Modi himself being the best example — used to running their governments without being under the constant watch of the central leadership. This is in sharp contrast to the Congress’s style, where the central leadership has always been wary of powerful state satraps. The Congress high command preferred to keep ambitious state leaders under check, even at the cost of weakening the party at the grassroots. With Modi at the helm, the BJP has started to resemble the Congress of the Gandhis, where the party tended to be synonymous with the leader. Modi, like Indira Gandhi for the Congress, has consistently won elections for the BJP, but would the party be able to recast itself for a presidential-style leadership? The message from Maharashtra is that decision-making would have to be consensual if the party wants to avoid public embarrassment.

Advertisement

After a remarkable victory, the party may have missed a step or two in Maharashtra by vacillating on its CM nominee. The BJP ought to have called a legislative party meeting soon after the results were declared and named the CM, as it did in Haryana. That would have done the party a world of good.