Remember Kripal Parmar, the Bharatiya Janata Party rebel candidate in the Himachal Pradesh election who got that famous call from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to sit out? He refused and ended up with 2,811 votes in the Fatehpur constituency.
As he told Modi, BJP president J.P. Nadda had “insulted” him for years. Parmar and Nadda went back a long way. They were in the same section in their LLB class at Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla and stayed in adjacent rooms in the New Boys’ Hostel. They were in the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). In 1983, Parmar, Nadda, and three other ABVP activists took over the Vice-Chancellor’s office when he had gone home for lunch, “dismissed” the V-C, and “notified” the “appointment” of Nadda as the new V-C, Parmar as the registrar and another ABVP colleague as the controller of examinations. Of course, they were running for life in Shimla jungles a few hours later, with the police hot on their heels. The “notification” appointing Nadda as the V-C was signed by Parmar.
Forty years later, Parmar is an expelled BJP leader, with all the time in the world to narrate his blasts from the past to me. Nadda has been given an extension as the party’s national president till the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
By the way, Parmar and his family voted for the BJP while he was contesting as a rebel candidate from the party in Fatehpur. They voted in the neighbouring Nurpur constituency where they were registered as voters. “I will vote for Modiji in 2024 too. My problem was with Nadda,” Parmar told me. “But he (Nadda) has been given an extension even after the BJP’s defeat on his home turf,” I said. “Modiji doesn’t need anyone’s support. Woh akele hi sab par bhaari hain (He can take on everybody alone).” Basically, Parmar was suggesting that it didn’t matter who the BJP president was.
Parmar isn’t making any revelations. One survey after another has shown the common voters’ unwavering faith in PM Modi. I chose to call up Parmar for a chat because I thought the expelled BJP leader might have something different to say, given how he was so upset with the party leadership that he didn’t pay heed to the PM. And here he was preparing to vote for Modi in 2024.
Also read: Rahul Gandhi’s Parliament speech on Modi-Adani forces BJP to play on Congress’ pitch
The Modi phenomenon
PM Modi wasn’t boasting when he declared in the Rajya Sabha on 9 February: “Desh dekh raha hai ek akela kitnon par bhaari padh raha hai (The nation is watching one person take on everybody).” He has known it and said it all along. Way back in 2015, he told British author Lance Price that he had heard vociferous demands for a “trusted name, not a party name” and that the people believed “Modi” was “the only hope”.
That brings me to the central question: Does Modi need the BJP to become the Prime Minister? To answer this, let me toss up a different question: If Modi had joined the Congress and become its prime ministerial candidate in the 2019 Lok Sabha election, would he still become the PM? Yes, absolutely. What if he had become the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s or CPI(M) face in 2019? I would give the same answer, though with a caveat that it could be with a slightly reduced majority. Am I undermining the BJP’s organisational strength here? Not really. If Modi were to join the Congress or the CPI(M), those parties would have also become electoral juggernauts overnight, with their own versions of booth adhyakshas, panna pramukhs and vistaaraks in place. If they had Modi, they would also have discovered an Amit Shah in their midst sooner than later. Am I undermining the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) here? Not really. Few can doubt the RSS’ deep influence even in the farthest corners of the country. Just that its pracharaks and swayamsevaks on the ground would go with Modi where he went, hypothetically.
BJP MPs were justifiably thrilled when he spoke those words in the Rajya Sabha. They thumped their desks vigorously as “Modi, Modi, Modi” chants reverberated in the House.
Also read: Modi is opening BJP to minorities. We can thank Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Yatra…
Notes from Harvard paper for BJP
There were similar scenes in the Lok Sabha on 8 February when PM Modi spoke about a Harvard Business School (HBS) paper on the Congress’ decline. It’s not a research paper based on primary materials. It is essentially a case, developed from published materials, for a classroom discussion. But for PM Modi’s reference to it in Parliament, it would have remained just a piece of study material for students. The paper gives no insight into Congress leaders today who seem to be clueless about how to counter Modi’s personality cult. The Harvard study material ends at the turn of the 21st century and has no reference whatsoever to the Modi phenomenon in Indian politics.
It may be of some use to the BJP, though. It may refresh their memory of how the Congress’ decline started. Let me cite a few sentences from the Harvard paper about the Nehruvian times: “The Congress party played an essential part in everyday governance…. A ‘managerial class’ at the top of the party made decisions via consensus…. Intraparty democracy allowed for alternation in leadership. Party members who rose up the ranks challenged those at the top…. Congress leaders were concerned above all else with winning elections. They did whatever was necessary to adapt to local power structures across India. The party accommodated factions, castes, linguistic groups and economic interests.”
The Harvard paper further elaborates: “The politics of patronage — distribution of benefits in exchange for votes — was at the heart of Congress party rule….Embedded in institutions of caste and kin, Congress relied on local ‘link men’ to reach voters.”
Referring to how Indira Gandhi challenged “institutional processes” within the Congress, the paper says, “In past practice, state-level party organisations were consulted in the selection of electoral candidates. Indira bypassed them, appointing important leaders based on their allegiance to her. She consulted a small clique of advisors….Congress party norms of consultations deteriorated…. Public institutions, the civil service, and even courts, were compromised….The Gandhi family’s concentration of power led to party splits….Given the limited supply of licences, politically entrenched firms reaped major profits….(After imposing Emergency) The political opposition, she declared, threatened not only Indian democracy but India’s very integrity….She attempted to push through a raft of Constitutional amendments including a clause that weakened judicial review of Central government policies.” After returning to power in 1980, the paper says, she “tried to persuade Hindus that she would protect them against ‘fundamentalist minorities’”.
Think of these lines again. Does it remind you of what’s happening in contemporary politics, especially in the context of the BJP and the government? If you remove the ‘family’ part, much of what you witness today is a reminder of what was happening in the first four decades after Independence when the Congress held sway over India’s political landscape (except for a short interregnum).
A parallel to the Congress
The Harvard paper is not about when the Congress finally lost its numero uno status in Indian politics. It’s about how it looked like when it was at the top and how its decline started. That’s where the Harvard paper should be an essential reading material for BJP leaders today — not as a fresh insight but as a reminder.
PM Modi does look invincible today. But the BJP today is increasingly looking like Indira Gandhi’s Congress in terms of personality cult-driven politics, domination of cliques, high-command decision-making process, and sycophant culture. The desk-thumping and “Modi-Modi” chanting brigade seem to draw inspiration from D.K. Barooah who had coined ‘Indira is India, India is Indira’ slogan. They should, however, also know that PM Modi is the guru of Indian politics today. He, more than anyone, would remember how Barooah had abandoned her after she was voted out of power.
DK Singh is ThePrint’s Political Editor. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)