The complaint so often heard before in India was also heard this time that the elections did not throw up any significant issue or issues on the basis of which the voters can formulate an informed opinion and choose between the alternative programmes. It is true that the election manifestos of the parties had nothing to offer but inanities and generalisations that had no substantive programmes of action. They all talked about the goals of development and of providing the daily necessities of the people about which there can hardly be any differences of opinion or any scope for debate. But then, party manifestos are aimed at ensnaring the maximum number of credulous voters and therefore they have to be exercises in pleasing all and stressing none. The manifestos cannot afford to be precise and specific statements of policy. Moreover the pragmatic functioning of the government has to respond to evolving situations only a few of which are controllable and therefore it is but wise to portray the ultimate goal rather than road maps to achieve those goals.

India Misses a Turning Point

As far as political parties are concerned they was hardly anything to differentiate between the Tweedledum and Tweedledee. This election to the Lok Sabha involved two major issues and if they had been sufficiently articulated and discussed, they would have made this election a turning point for the Indian polity. Unfortunately these were mostly neglected and manifested themselves in oblique and obscure references that were hardly understood even by those who mentioned them. As a result India has refused to turn at the turning point and has chosen to return to its old and set pattern. The first and the most important issue was the new orientation that was sought to be imparted to the most explosive issue in the post-Independence t Indian politics. The BJP had rode to power by riding on the tiger of a blatantly disruptive and anti-minority platform. The pressure of coalition power-sharing forced a reluctant BJP to discard much of this explosive baggage of militant Hindutva and Vajpayee played a crucial role as the single most important factor in this process. The BJP during its tenure of power and during this election campaign chose to focus not so much on its basic ideology or its organisation but on a mascot who a few years back had been derided and described as a mere mask for the then the militant Party of Hindutva, the BJP. It is both a triumph and a tragedy for the party that by a curious quirk of fate the mask had to be accepted as the mascot and under his leadership, BJP made a strenuous effort to climb down the tiger that the party had been riding for almost its entire life span.

BJP: It’s not Easy - Getting off the Tiger’s Back

Its minority baiting was largely replaced by minority wooing and this did attract a few Muslim stalwarts of note if not of worth. The communal programme was sought to be discarded in favour of an economic agenda. The party chose to stand squarely and proudly on a platform that had hardly any plank from its ideological backyard. The BJP blatantly tried to appropriate the fruits of fifty years of incremental growth. “India Shining” is an indisputable fact, but it had many fathers. The BJP was only the last one to hold the baby and revelled in the glory of exclusive parenthood. Whether such a posture was accompanied by any genuine alterations in the innards of the Party organisation is one of the most hotly debated questions posed by this election. But the opportunity has been wasted and the established cliché in political parlance that one who tries to climb down the tiger ends in its stomach has been demonstrated once again. The defeat and the resultant frustration may be conducive to the recrudescence of the Hindutva in its more vulgar form and Ram may once again be dragged into the political arena. Disquieting voices are already being heard that Indian politics might once again be dominated by the obscurantism of the past rather than by the striving for the bright New World.

Congress: The Return of the Dynasty

The second and an equally important issue, deals with the Congress. This once dominant party was doddering on its path to oblivion and was facing the most crucial challenge of its career. It was a question not of its organisational revival but of the survival of its pattern of dynastic leadership. A setback would have most certainly freed the party from its feudalist and frenzied devotion to a family that is a blot on democratic norms and values. But it has now received a shot in the arm and has emerged from a decade long darkness into the sunshine. This most unexpected victory is to be credited not to its leaders or to its organisation or ideology. It was entirely a one-man or rather one-woman show and if a leader ever deserved to sit on the prime ministerial chair, it was Sonia Gandhi and she alone. She never lost faith and never lost her enthusiasm and faced the darkest scenario with courage and stamina. By choosing to step aside she has covered herself with glory and would be even more revered by the masses. One can only admire such a stalwart but the outcome of this election would take us back to 1984 when power was shifted not on the basis of merit but on the accident of birth and where the politics of sycophancy reigned supreme. The personal glory of Sonia would strengthen rather than weaken the dynastic succession in a democratic Republic. We may ‘love Sonia Gandhi a lot but we should love the Republic a little more.’

The Discussion

This is a summary of the discussions that followed this presentation.

Glamour and Glitter from the Tinsel World

Glamour and glitter marked the General Elections of 2004. The media, particular the English press, was full of news about which actor joined which party. Both camps were in competition to ‘capture’ for their side the maximum numbers of people from the world glamour. The essential aim in this was the winnability of a candidate not what or she stood for.

The common voter’s maturity and level of understanding has gone up enormously in the last ten years thanks to the electronic media, cellular phones and other communication networks. Unfortunately the political parties have not kept pace with the people. They have lagged behind; their level of understanding is as it was ten years ago. The parties felt that they could influence the voter by inducting some cinema actors. All the cinema actors were voted down in Andhra Pradesh as well as in Tamil Nadu. Maybe it is a new phenomenon in Northern India and Bombay and people like Govinda got elected.

Sonia Gandhi’s Foreign Origin

An issue, which dominated the campaign, was the issue of what we mean by Bhartiyata or Indianness, Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin was a major issue for the RSS, the BJP and all its partners in the NDA coalition. Of the arguments put forth by them, one was Indian pride, another, the question of her citizenship - whether a naturalised citizen can be equated with citizenship by birth.

Sonia Gandhi’s response was to project an image of the traditional Indian bahu or daughter-in-law. This also gives us a perspective of looking at women in Indian politics - the kind of women who reach the top. Sonia is accepted more as an Indian bahu and not so much as a capable leader.

Dynastic Rule

While one shares Prof. Sanghavi’s dislike of the sycophantic behaviour of party members, their obsequiousness, their servility all which we saw on the television screen, concerning the institution of Dynasty in India, one could argue that it performs a role. Once when Rajiv was asked what about dynastic democracy, he said, we may be a democratic polity but we are, in fact, a feudal society. And the biggest argument in favour of ‘dynastic democracy’ is that this is endorsed both within the Congress Party and outside. If Rahul Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi were simply imposed on the people, that would be unacceptable. But they stand for elections and are returned with overwhelming majorities by the voters. Therefore, how far this could really be said to be objectionable when it is endorsed democratically by the people is a moot point.

Another argument in favour is that it has helped to keep regional satraps in order, otherwise these regional satraps keep quarrelling with one another as the princes of old quarrelled with another.

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who was among the most democratic leaders that India had allowed a lot of satraps to emerge throughout the country. And those satraps did carry a lot of weight in their satrapies. In 1969, his daughter Indira Gandhi, engineered a split in the Congress which thereafter became a personal fiefdom of her family. She saw to it that only those loyal to her were nominated and elected to parliament.

Insofar as Sonia Gandhi is concerned after she became a widow, she stayed for seven long years inside her house. Then she came back and the people of this country have given the mandate to her at least in 145 constituencies.
Today, admittedly, it is a fact that without Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, the Congress will not survive. It is a fact of life.

*

We are besotted with this idea of one family and dynasty. Yes, in four generations, eight people have contested and won elections from the Nehru-Gandhi family. But the space that is required by a whole lot of genuine Indians who want to get into politics – maybe they may not succeed at the parliamentary level – are being denied that space because every political party wants to bring a wife, a sister, a son, a daughter or, a grandson, into politics. This phenomenon is prevalent from the village upwards.

Is India Really a Democracy?

The point was put forward that dynastic rule and democracy are contradictory. But is the democracy in India in the real sense? Simply casting a vote once every five years is not sufficient. Democracy means participation of the people. India’s population is made up of many castes, creeds and religions. There is no social democracy in India. It is our tradition to project the privileged class. If they stand for elections, everybody votes for them irrespective of the party he/she belongs to .Can this be called democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi did not give preference to his sons. But Motilal Nehru did. Then Nehru did not prefer even Shastri. The same tradition, his followers continued. They brought their sons, and if not the sons, then their wives. We are blaming Laloo Prasad Yadav because he got his wife elected as Chief Minister. This is the tradition, which is becoming universal. In fact, in this election, there was a very good opportunity to change this tradition. We people, those who are the elite, those, who are able to think independently irrespective of the political alignment, should realise the need for social change and not merely political change. Unless there is social awareness, there will be no political change, whichever party comes. If we cannot hit at the root, cutting a few leaves and branches will be futile.

*

The North-South ‘Divide’
In 1977, soon after the Emergency, when elections were held, there was an entrenched government at the Centre. The basic issue then was ‘Indira hatao’. In that election, the entire South went with Indira Gandhi and the entire North went with the Janata Party. That was partly because the excesses of the emergency were felt mostly in the North. At that time it was viewed as a North and South divide.

1. If we apply this test to the current elections, we find that Congress has got 145 and the BJP 138 and as Prof. Sanghavi said, there is hardly any difference. If you see the election results region-wise, in the South out of a total of 132 seats the BJP-led NDA got 84, the Congress 80. So somehow there is again a North-South divide. But when you go State-wise – this is important – Andhra Pradesh the Congress and its allies got 34, the NDA only 5. In Kerala, all the seats went to the leftist parties, not a single seat to the NDA. So another South Indian state went against the NDA. Tamil Nadu gave the same result. Jayalalitha’s AIADMK did not get a single seat. So three of the four South Indian States went against the NDA. But they have gone in favour of different political parties. In Kerala, entirely to the leftists parties; in Tamil Nadu entirely to the DMK and its allies; in Andhra Pradesh it is the Congress. In Karnataka, the BJP and allies got 18 and Congress and its allies have 8.
2. Is there any trend here, any issue that dominated? In each State, different issues seem to have dominated. In Tamil Nadu it was anti-Jayalalitha because just a few months before the elections, she had alienated the entire bureaucracy and the government servants by punishing them, by starting prosecution against them; She alienated the minorities by bringing about a law banning sacrificial killings of goats and chickens. That became one of the issues in the elections in Tamil Nadu. In Karnataka there was the issue of the neglect of rural parts of the state being neglected; of farmers committing suicide because of the failure of the rains; in Andhra Pradesh, the issues were the same as in Karnataka. So I there no issues common to all the states. No single issue dominated this election.

The leftist parties say they will support the Congress Party from outside but will not join the government. Thus posing a threat to bring down the government if they misbehaved. The same thing will happen as it happened after the Janata regime, when Indira Gandhi bounced back with a greater majority. We should not allow this to happen.

The Anti-Incumbency Factor

If at all there is one issue that appeared to cut through states it was anti-incumbency. There is a certain amount of fatigue amongst all of us. Delhi is too far away. Their immediate problems are what make them decide to vote in a particular manner. I don’t think we can say that the electorate is not mature. Perhaps the political parties, were not mature going in for movie stars etc. but the electorate by and large acted very well. They seemed to be saying, “I don’t mind so long as the person who is not in power today is going to be in power tomorrow”. That is the simple message, which has come across. This has led to a fractured vote. When people like us are discussing what the message is and what was the single dominant issue, the electorate may perhaps have told all the political parties, “Just do you job, govern.”

I think this particular election has thrown up serious issues, which we ought to contend with – that, the BJP with its overstated campaign of ‘India Shining’ wittingly or unwittingly brought out the issue of ‘development’ something that the people hanker after. This is one election where it abandoned its old skin. What it would have done, again, is anybody’s guess. Are we going to acknowledge that this election has seen voters say “ke hamare yahan kuch development nahin hua hey”. Very few people spoke about the Ram mandir; very few people spoke about the communal divide. I mean it is significant. And equally significant is the loss of two State Governments. Both were at the end of their second term. Madhya Pradesh, ‘bottom-up’, Digvijay Singh tried his best, or we assume he did his best. He was thrown out. Andhra Pradesh, it was seen as something of ‘top-down’. It did not work. Probably if you go into the kind of comments that common voters made, it is development, development and development. And the fourth point is impatience. They waited ten years to throw out two governments; Vajpayee lost in the fifth or sixth year. Are political parties ready to contend with this idea that voters now want short-term promises and quick delivery.

Coalition Governments are in, One-Party Dominance is Out

Clearly we have reached the stage of coalition governments and they are going to stay for some more time. We can recall the United Front experience – to rope in all parties except the BJP. Then we have the NDA experiment – rope in every party except the Congress and the Left. Now we have three fronts, one led by the Congress, the other led by the NDA and the third is the Third Front. Interestingly, for all the three fronts, the financiers are the same.

The fact remains that NDA lost but the Congress did not win. Unfortunately all political parties, without exception, failed to gauge the mood of the public. They were projecting some non-issues which are not of concern to the people at all. For example, in Vajpayee’s constituency, the polling percentage was as low as 37% and in the booth where Vajpayee cast his vote, it was as low as 22.

Interpreting Secularism - the BJP’s Grievance

Why is it that when we talk of secularism, the focus is always the BJP and the Sangh parivaar? If the BJP has a Muslim leader like Mukhtiar Abbas Naqvi, he becomes a Muslim showpiece of BJP. And if BJP does not have Mukhtiar Abbas Naqvi, then BJP is anti-Muslim. Likewise it was stated that BJP was soliciting Muslim votes and partly it was sincere effort and partly it was hypocritical. I may add one more word – maybe it was motivated also. But if the Muslims did not vote for BJP in spite of it, can it be called a Muslim communal reaction? Now, these issues have to be raised. They are not stated when we are talking. Is it only incumbent upon the majority to reach out to the minority? Is it not that you find a common ground halfway and have a healthy discussion on this? It can’t be that communalism is only identifiable with the majority and there is nothing like minority communalism. Why is it that the Samajwadi party, which identifies itself with the Muslims, is called a secular party? And why is BJP, which identifies itself with the Hindus, called a communal party? Why is it that the unfortunate developments in Gujarat attract the sigma of communalism but the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir with successive governments in Jammu and Kashmir remaining mute spectators does not attract the stigma of communalism?