Amid G-20, Mandir, Mandal, and Bharat: Shaping the contours of BJP’s larger project for 2024

The RSS has come a long way from the days of Mandal in 1990 with an outreach to OBCs, Most Backward Classes (MBCs), Dalits, and Adivasis like never before to assimilate them into the Hindu society — even if it takes the Sangh two centuries to bring this about. Bhagwat’s words were evocative. “Aaj dikhta nahin hai, lekin woh bhedbhav aaj bhi hai. Samman ki baat hai. Kewal aarthik baraabari ki baat nahin hai, kewal rajneetik baraabari ki baat nahin hai (This is not a question of political and economic equality. Social equality is a matter of respect. You cannot understand this solely as a means of making an argument. This is a question of kinship, empathy).”

This echoes former Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh who initiated the process of empowering the OBCs in the north (in the south the process started with Periyar’s anti-Barhminical movement for self-respect in 1926) and used to say that the OBCs did not want “sahuliyat (convenience)” but “satta mein shirkat (share in power)”.

It is the BJP and the RSS that initially opposed reservations in 1990 and stepped up their Mandir plan to consolidate Hindus on religious lines to counter the identity politics of caste that spawned and gave an impetus to regional parties. The wheel has come full circle today, with the BJP-RSS, once represented by the so-called upper castes, making a case for reservation for OBCs and Dalits to make amends. There is clearly a change of heart in the RSS — some will call it ultra pragmatism — but then again, India’s diversity is a great teacher. Today, the BJP and RSS own both Mandir and Mandal, with an OBC prime minister at the helm.

On the Opposition side, the 28-party INDIA alliance is talking in undertones about the possibility of projecting a Dalit — Mallikarjun Kharge — as the country’s prime minister for the first time. Power, it seems, is moving “downwards”.

Sanatan Dharma and Bharat

Bhagwat’s reassuring words to Dalits and OBCs came soon after the controversy over Sanatan Dharma (or eternal religion, as Hindus refer to it) that kept Dalits out of its fold, including temples and their sanctum sanctorum. The political row was triggered by the comments of Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, the son of Chief Minister M K Stalin, who said Sanatan Dharma should be “eradicated” just like “mosquitoes, dengue fever, malaria, and corona”. Udhayanidhi was supported by Stalin and DMK MP A Raja, a Dalit, who said, “Once upon a time there was leprosy and recently HIV had a stigma (associated with it)… As far as we are concerned, it (Sanatan Dharma) should be regarded as HIV and leprosy.”

Significantly, Udhayanidhi received support from Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s son and Karnataka minister Priyank who said Sanatan Dharma promotes inequality. Priyank is known to move in step with his father. The BJP latched on to Udhayandhi’s comments, painting it as an attempt by the INDIA bloc’s constituents to denigrate the Hindu faith, a view that may have traction in the Hindi belt. The Congress distanced itself from the statements and many socialist parties in the grouping also expressed their displeasure.

The question then arises — why did Stalin, a convinced advocate of INDIA, back a statement by his son that embarrassed many parties in the grouping? Unless it was a trial balloon calculated to wean Dalits away from the BJP and bring Dalits to INDIA’s side — in the south, of course, but who knows also in the north? Clearly, Udhyanidhi’s statement was not an off-the-cuff remark but one calculated to provoke a chain reaction. The DMK may have everything to gain from a return to “Periyarism” and may hope for a further consolidation of OBCs and Dalits behind it as Sanatan Dharma is shunned by these groups in Tamil Nadu.

Though the prime minister has been reaching out to Tamil Nadu — the adheenams (Hindu monasteries) presented the Sengol sceptre to the new Parliament building and a Nataraja adorns the Bharat Mandapam venue of the G20 Summit — the BJP may calculate that it may not get many seats from the south and will have to pull out all stops to consolidate its position in the north and the west, regions where it peaked in 2019. The Opposition, on the other hand, is eyeing the south and the east.

Also, the Bharat versus India debate is likely to help the BJP retain support in the Hindi heartland. Though Bharat and India are interchangeable words — as mentioned in Article 1 of the Constitution — the use of Bharat is likely to have greater traction in the Hindi belt while it is possible that parts of the south may see it as Hindi imposition.

From all accounts, the government may not go ahead with renaming the country Bharat given the complexity and cost of the exercise. However, ministers and government functionaries may increasingly use the word Bharat more. With the use of Bharat, the BJP wants to muddy the waters around the INDIA alliance, projecting it as an entity associated with the country’s colonial past rather than the ancient civilisation that Bharat represents. The other reason for floating the idea of a name change may be to invoke a nationalistic fervour in the country, a tried-and-tested method for the BJP to gain support.

The use of the word Bharat and Mohan Bhagwat’s outreach to Dalits and OBCs are part of the BJP’s larger project to get a third stint in power. Now that the BJP has achieved its core agenda, it will show, in the words of an RSS ideologue, “the rise of Bharat as a civilisational entity”.

(Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 10 Lok Sabha elections. She is the author of the recently published How Prime Ministers Decide)