There are growing whispers about leaders being upset with arrogance and the excessive “Gujaratisation” and “Congressification” of BJP.
Earlier this week, ThePrint’s political editor D.K Singh wrote a fine insight on how Prime Minister Narendra Modi was playing a mute spectator to the humiliation of his ministers by his own partymen.
This is a good time for me to share what I had written when this dissonance first came up in late 2015.
The attack is on Arun Jaitley, but the target is Narendra Modi — so, watch the next few weeks to see how the PM responds.
Looking back to when Modi rose to be Prime Minister and the unprecedentedly preeminent leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the summer of 2014, it is unlikely anybody would have anticipated dissidence and bickering making headlines within 18 months.
The BJP, by and large, is a disciplined party with more internal democracy than most of its rivals, and definitely enormously more than its permanent allies. There is a history of healthy difference of opinion: Between Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, for example, most famously on what to do with Modi in the wake of the 2002 Gujarat riots. But these were resolved through internal debate, usually with one deferring to the other, sometimes with a sulk.
Also read: What suits Narendra Modi and Amit Shah better— Rahul Gandhi or a faceless mahagathbandhan?
If anything still festered there was always the Supreme Third Umpire, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Nagpur or closer home in Jhandewalan. What is happening right now is very un-BJP.
Kirti Azad, a three-term Lok Sabha member, has openly challenged the image and power of Jaitley, a member of Modi’s essential troika, which controls this government. A chronic dissident and former party minister, Ram Jethmalani, appeared in court for Arvind Kejriwal, whom Jaitley had sued for libel. If you watch the actions and social media timelines of some of the other key supporters, functionaries, ideologues of the party, a pattern is evident.
Jaitley is seen as the most vulnerable of the troika and a tempting proxy for attacks targeted ultimately at Modi. Nobody would dare directly target Modi, and while there are murmurs about Amit Shah after Bihar, nobody is willing to come out and say this openly. But Jaitley is seen as extroverted, exposed and — in some calculations — most expendable for Modi. The pattern, therefore, is that from Kirti to Kejriwal, and from some free radical sorts close to the RSS and the coven of furious old veterans, he is the man to target.
The metaphor may vary depending on who you talk to. One may say, it is always strategic to bowl at the weaker batsman as far as possible. Another may say, if you want to hurt the king, strangle his favourite parrot. But it means the same thing. If you can dislodge him, Modi will be either forced to alter his balance of power, or concede some of it to others.
We have seen something comparable in the past. Just as Jaitley is the proxy for sniping at the Modi-Shah duo, Brajesh Mishra was targeted in the Vajpayee arrangement. He was painted as an outsider, overly powerful (holding the dual charge of principal secretary and NSA), too pro-America and personally aligned to one man.
Collaterally, there were whispers also about Vajpayee’s foster son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya. But very little was said in the open, and definitely not by anybody in a formal position. The viciousness and depth of this campaign was revealed later by then RSS chief, K.S. Sudarshan, in a Walk the Talk interview with me. It is remarkable, therefore, that Vajpayee fought back for his own in spite of such pressures from the RSS.
Dissidents are putting Modi to a similar examination now.
Three things determine their timing. First, whatever the growth figures, there is no real turnaround in economic indicators, barring the fiscal deficit, which is a function of oil prices. Second, the Gujarat and Karnataka election results show that a walkover is not guaranteed. And third, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh elections are around the corner and the party doesn’t appear to be on top of its game. For all dissidents and aspirants, vocal or silent, this is like a last opportunity before Modi makes a bid for re-election in 2019.
Also read: BJP struggled to retain Gujarat despite spending 2.5 times more than Congress
That is why politics has reached such a pitch. Whispers range from arrogance putting off party-men and voters to excessive “Gujaratisation” of the party. And while there is sympathy for this in the RSS, there is no evidence yet that it is willing to rock the boat, even to the extent it did in Vajpayee’s last years.
More than Gujaratisation, the complaints are over the “Congressification” of the party. Institutions of internal democracy usually functioned well in the BJP. But not so now. Cabinet ministers, barring some, are resentful of lack of authority – and, you would presume, of the fact that the Modi-Shah system of surveillance and monitoring is robust enough to ensure there is no money-making.
Modi’s place as prime minister and supreme leader is unassailable. Therefore, no questions are being raised about his future, but only on whether he will be able to build on his 2014 performance or fall short. Will he change the course or persist with the one he has set? This means deepening and institutionalising the high command culture that the BJP never had, and the Congress built 1969 onwards. The discordance we see and hear now is also in the nature of an immune response to this. The dissidents hope this argument, of over-centralisation, will impress the RSS as well.
The shadow of the RSS always looms over the BJP but equations have changed greatly from the past. The last time it intervened openly, and decisively, in BJP matters was after its rout in 2009 and in the wake of Advani’s decline.
Four senior BJP leaders then – Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj, Venkaiah Naidu and Ananth Kumar – called on RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to help rebuild the party by helping choose the president first. The RSS wanted a young chief; and, while it preferred Manohar Parrikar, his case was fouled up with his statement comparing Advani with a stale pickle. That is how Nitin Gadkari came into the picture.
Such an intervention is most unlikely now. Modi is too powerful and popular for even the Nagpur clergy to mess with. He has also given them more space in his distribution of power than Vajpayee ever did, handing over key ministries and governorships, particularly in northeastern states, to its preferred choices. The RSS also knows that Modi can fight back when pushed, as he did in Gujarat.
Watch the next few weeks now for which side of himself Modi reveals on the Jaitley-Shah issue: The unusual “accommodative” one, or the usual defiant one.
This piece was published originally on 26 December 2015
I am surprised how you wrote this article in December 2015 when it wasn’t as relevant as it is today. It is almost clairvoyance! “Gujaratisation” was seeing its pleasant days then; the darker effects of the two Gujarati gentlemen’s decisions hadn’t started unfolding — demonetization hadn’t happened yet; Akhlaq case had happened only 2-3 months previously and was being seen as a one-off shocker — no one was thinking that it would become a trend. Bank NPAs hadn’t come to light yet in December 2015, or perhaps they had, just about.
Now, three years later many more things have happened which can be chalked up on the negative side of the list; Modi-Shah duo at the helm is as, if not more, powerful today. It is natural, therefore, for the observers both within and outside the BJP to see a kind of correlation between the two: unfortunate incidents, and the powers that be. In this situation “Gujaratisation” can sound a negative word, which worries me. I have interacted with the Gujaratis at close range, and also have some good personal friends among them. Gujaratis are by and large friendly and jovial people, easy to get along with. Even their language sounds sweet. So I would hate to see the word “Gujarati” become a HATED word. It is a no-brainer to guess that it will have wider geographical ramifications if it does — because Gujaratis are everywhere!
“Congressification” of the BJP is something I can understand more easily. After all, this party did have in the past leaders like Atal ji and Pramod Mahajan who were all passionate about Hinduism but were not so fiercely anti-Muslim as the present BJP leadership is — again, largely represented by the two Gujarati gentlemen. If to espouse a cause and yet not become extreme of views is Congressification, then yes, many BJP leaders can have such leanings. (I define the term slightly differently. Shekhar, you associate “lack of internal democracy” with Congressification. Tell me, SP, BSP, Trinamool, even NCP, Shiv Sena, DMK, erstwhile AIADMK — which party is not Congressified from that angle!) Even in the present set, I would say Mr Rajnath Singh would fit that description. There is no reason to believe that there are not MANY MORE in this party who would fit the bill. In fact in my own naive way I would say that, if they face a defeat in 2019, the BJP will split into two.
Much has remained unsaid.
Lots of MPs from the Group of 282 must be deeply apprehensive about their prospects of getting a ticket next year. The economy too is heating up the tin roof. So ferment is likely.