No Banana Republic, we are an Animal Farm

The more things change, the more they remain the same!

Animal Farm is one of my favorite books. Of the little I have read, this book contains amongst the sharpest of satires. While funny in patches, I find Animal Farm to be a dark book. Dark because it talks of futility of hope, of how the masses get cheated again and again. Long back, Bharatmuni had codified the structure of fictional narratives. As per Natyashastra, each tale had to have a hero, a villain and unsurmountable odds. Yet, the tale could have no ending but a happy one. Not surprisingly, each of our ancient and not-so-ancient tales has good vanquishing evil. If not absolutely happy, at the very least, the closure is with hope of a better tomorrow.

Books like Animal Farm and 1984 run against the very basic grain of a kavya. Yet, they are probably much closer to life. After all, have not a vast majority of masses been born, have lived and died in misery with no ‘happy ending’ for them. Still, against all our awareness of stark realities, we like to be hopeful for it is probably the hope of a better future, if not for us, for our future generations which keeps us going. This may precisely be the reason why, while enjoying tales like that of the ‘Animal Farm’, we still like to believe that those are but flights of fantasy and reality can never be that bleak, that harsh!

As humans, we laugh at ostriches for burying their heads in sand in face of danger. We get amused when pigeons close their eyes when scared of snakes, thinking that the snake can no longer see it. But, these are simply base reactions driven by an urge for self-preservation. Among human beings, while children may close their eyes when scared, ‘mature’ adult may adopt a mode of denial, refusing to accept what stares them in their eyes, breathes down or grasp them by their necks. Some others, who are more directly impacted, react even more strongly and start believing that the tormentor is not really a tormentor but is doing what he is doing for a greater good.

If and only if, life was as it is hoped!

This intermittent blogger has previously criticised Arvind Kejriwal for betraying the hope of a people who were looking for a systemic change. This blogger, while being an unabashed Hindu Nationalist, has in his previous posts displayed an uneasiness with Narendra Modi. Yet, this same person had voted for the BJP and was ecstatic when results were out, simply because any alternative seemed better than the shame of a Government which had been ruling India for the last decade.

While the vote against UPA remains valid, what has been validated even more strongly are the reservations against Narendra Modi. What did India vote for? Among many other things, a promise for vyavastha parivartan, where Nation comes first, where the Government governs for the benefit of people, where old elites are trashed into dustbins of history, where a citizen is empowered enough to mould his/her own future.

But, what have we got? A thespian who only talks - in acronyms, alliterating, gloating on his supposed greatness, all the while searching for a new stage to perform? Arvind Kejriwal is condemned for indulging in theatrics and achieving little in his 49 days in power. While Arvind is justifiably condemned for having cheated the public, if the same standards of measuring output get applied, Narendra Modi’s government comes out much worse.

For a set of people who believed that UPA polluted India by its very existence, finding humungous merits in the latter’s acts has been amazingly easy. Be it the bigger issues like Aadhaar, Direct Benefit Transfer, Land-swap agreement, GST, disinvestment, FDIs in certain sectors, recovery of black money, nuclear deal with US or relatively smaller issues like declassification of the Henderson Brook Report on China War, Justice Mukherjee’s report on Netaji’s disappearance or investigation of cases of corruption (including those involving the Nation’s son-in-law), the Modi-led BJP has both spoken and acted precisely like its predecessor. And we are not even talking of going back on core agendas like Kashmir. From talking of a Congress-mukt Bharat, we now have the reality of Modi sharing toast with Sonia Gandhi on a high table. Well, the Vajpayee Government always offered Sonia Gandhi respect and space far more than what was constitutionally required. Modi is simply carrying on with the tradition. And had not the ruler pigs in Animal Farm later made peace and partnered with those very humans they had rebelled against?

How morally bankrupt this Government is if after opposing UPA’s policies for the last 1 decade, it adopted them in a duration less than what it takes us to blink? On top of the chain of turnarounds, this Government is too smug, too arrogant, too drunk on its power, to offer even a fig leaf of an excuse for its countless turn-arounds! Today, if it really believes that all its U-turns are for the benefit of the Nation, then why was it stonewalling and protesting against UPA on these very moves? Is not then, as the Congress alleges, the BJP equally responsible for the rut India was in, for the last few years? Which U-turn are we looking at next? A 'Promotion of Communal Violence Bill' because it is good for the Nation? Many of us would argue that the BJP became aware of realities once it came to power. That it is in fact a testimony to its greatness that it is carrying on with those policies which it had opposed. This argument does not hold any water for 1. the Indian Parliamentary system co-opts the opposition through various committees and standing groups where all details of any proposed legislation are analysed, 2. any bill is presented much before it is debated and even the Government of the day explains all provisions of any bill to the opposition, and 3. BJP leaders are no babe in the woods having been in power and in public sphere for years. And if they are, they are unfit to govern!

For decades, the Sangh Parivar and its various offshoots have detested Nehru (for all the right reasons, I would add). While they opposed Gandhi initially, in the last two decades or so, he has been incorporated in their phalanx of venerable National icons, to some extent out of expediency, but more because the Sangh does articulate the same thoughts as Gandhi on issues like Indian culture, conversions, morality, economy, etc.

However, while Gandhi has been co-opted, his most toxic and disastrous ‘gift’ to the Nation, Jawaharlal Nehru still remains (ostensibly) a hated figure for the Sangh. A second member of the dynasty who is hated by the Sangh Parivar, is Indira Gandhi, but in patches. The Indira of 1980-84 was not the strongly ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ Indira of 1969-77 but someone whose actions were much more to the liking of the Hindu right. It was not without reason that RSS volunteers worked primarily for the Congress(I) and not the Vajpayee led BJP in the 1984 polls. Nonetheless, the legacy of Indira (1969-1977) is too strong to overlook and is the very anti-thesis of many principles the Sangh Parivar stands for. Hence, she continues to be abhorred for her authoritarianism, her acts of weakening the edifice of institutions, in fact of the Nation, of her corrupt regime, of her cultivation of the very anti-Hindu Left, her socialism and of course, the emergency.

Strangely though, for all their visceral hatred for Nehru, Sangh/BJP leaders take great pride in recalling that Nehru had identified a young Vajpayee as a future Prime Minister and puff with pride when any of them get called ‘cast in Nehruvian mould’ or having a ‘Nehru like vision’. As such, may be it is not quite so surprising to see that the ‘chosen one’ of this very Sangh Parivar is emulating its two supposed pet hates. Like Nehru, our current Prime Minister believes that the world is his stage. And like the gullible public then believed that India’s international standing was because of Nehru, today too, people are getting drunk of a non-existent potion of India’s ‘enhanced’ stature in the world. Nehru allowed his personal predilection for communism overrule National interests. Here, Modi's government leaks info that Sujatha Singh was removed because she refused to keep the issue of Kim Davey (Purulia arms-drop) aside when dealing with Denmark. Why is that important? Because Modi had invited the Dane Prime Minister to Gujarat and his no-show on account the MEA's pressure on Denmark to resolve the Davey issue was a personal insult to Modi! So, non-arrival is a personal insult but hosting a fugitive and refusing to hand him over, is not? How so Nehruvian! 

Like Nehru, who seemed to believe that India was his personal fief and made unilateral concessions to other Nations, our current Prime Minister too seems to believe that the path to ‘statesmanship’ and a possible Nobel lies through being magnanimous with the Nation’s assets. What else can explain the unseemly haste in acceding to US demands on the nuclear deal, on food protection, on intellectual property rights, on cheap drugs for millions of poor? Maybe I am in a hopeless minority, but I could only cringe when the Indian Prime Minister seemed a tad too eager to appear ‘close’ to a lame duck POTUS without adequate reciprocation from the latter. How can then Obama be criticised for gratuitously sermonising on how should India be as a Nation? Nehru is the only Prime Minister who contributed to the sartorial taste of India. Now, after 50 long years, we have a Modi kurta to give company to a Nehru Jacket. Nehru was supposed to have his clothes laundered in Paris (maybe an archetypical tale meant to indicate Nehru’s deracination and taste for luxury). Our current Prime Minister is one up. Never to appear sans designer clothes, he now gives company to figures as illustrious as Hosni Mubarak in wearing suits embroidered with his name!

As regards emulating Indira Gandhi, does authoritarianism ring a bell? Still, for her legion of followers, India maiyya could do no wrong. For the countless Modibhaktas, at least on social media, Modi is a god who can do no wrong.

In any other land, a Prime Minister claiming that only 'personal chemistry' between leaders matter and 'commas and lines on papers do not', would have been laughed off. Strangely, while much attention has been focused on the Prime Minister's fashion sense, hardly any analyst has commented on the inanity of that particular statement. Seriously, how can an Indian Prime Minister even think that way when so many times have we been led on the garden path by more realistic foreign leaders?

I still believe that India is great Nation, that in spite of all its challenges and dysfunctionality, it is land blessed by the divine, by the presence (both past and current) of great souls. Why then do we have the type of rulers we have? And can we, the people escape blame for our rulers? How can Modi alone be blamed? Adulation is heady and self-serving. The sight of those hundreds of thousands of commoners thronging grounds in searing heat to see him, chanting his name with frenzy, wearing his masks, would make all but the really great feel that yes, I am indeed the messiah! Even now, when the last eight months of Modi rule has yielded little but song and dance, talk and more talk, people enamoured of Modi find little fault in their leader. Each U-turn gets rationalized and defended, at times with passion of fresh converts to the cause. And as far as the mainstream media is concerned, till the time the issue is Hindutva/secularism, there is little to find fault in the Government. In the run-up to General Elections 2014, on Modi being presented as an outsider to the Delhi establishment, this blogger had observed that if a person associated with the Delhi power structure for three decades and who also happened to be a 4 term Chief Minister could be termed as an outsider, then there would be hardly any ‘insider’ in the system. Sadly, I don’t find any joy in feeling vindicated.

We, the people, who have invested our hopes in Modi have a moral duty to be vigilant and ensure that our leaders don’t digress from those promises which made us vote for them. Our Nation will become great, we will become successful, not by defending the indefensible but by being demanding, questioning and forcing our leaders to perform. If we don’t, and continue to believe that all acts of our leaders are for our good, our fate will be no better and in all likelihood, much worse than those creatures of the proverbial Animal Farm.

Freedom of Speech! Anyone?

Many see the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an assault on freedom of speech. Hence, many publications worldwide decided to strike a blow for freedom by producing Charlie Hebron’s cartoons. India chatterati, not to be left behind, have spoken ominously of dark days for free speech in India. Op-eds, full of homilies on how Charlie Hebdo’s ideas have emerged stronger abound, when strangely, not a single Indian publication has reproduced those cartoons which triggered the murders. Even in the US, where free speech is soundly protected by law, most publications have resorted to reproducing the more benign of those cartoons.

If it is really about free speech and if the liberal really believe in standing in solidarity with the martyred magazine, should not they have reproduced each of those offensive caricatures? Some might argue that supporting the general idea does not mean supporting specifics. True. But in the given situation, where publications/opinion-makers would like others to believe that they are not scared, what better way of proving that by doing something which really counts. Many Indian leaders differed with Gandhi. Most did not believe that preparing salt from sea-water would win India freedom. Yet, when Gandhi was arrested, the only way people showed solidarity was by breaking the law to prepare salt. When a lathi blow would take one Satyagrahi down, another one would take the fallen’s place. Not long back, standing up in solidarity with Salman Rushdie meant excerpt-reading, calling him for conferences. Hence, by desisting from taking a meaningful stand, most publications are only indulging in lip service when they engage in sterile and meaningless talks on freedom of speech.

The general reaction of news channels, media houses, liberal-voices only prove that the Islamists have won. Mani Shankar Aiyar is not the only person who has justified the massacre. Many self-proclaimed liberal voices have alluded that Charlie Hebdo invited what befell them. Were they not xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, blasphemous? Were their cartoons not devoid of artistic merit but crude caricatures designed to provoke? And, if even in this charged atmosphere, when support for those killed is at its crest, the champions of free speech are desisting from ‘offending’, is it too much to imagine that self-censorship of any opinion critical of Islam is only becoming more entrenched? For many years, ‘mainstream’ publications have shown a remarkable reluctance to offer a critique of Islamic fundamentalism. If an ISS or a Taliban does get criticized, it is on grounds of their supposed mis-interpretation of Islamic scriptures. Really? People who have no idea of what a Hadith is claiming to know Islam better than those who spend their entire life in studying Quran and the life of its Prophet? When the Church opposes the theory of evolution, liberals don’t claim that the former is ‘mis-interpreting’ Christianity. They rightly point out to the stupidity of the faithful’s holding on to an erroneous belief. Likewise, no amount of whitewashing can justify scriptural sanctions for untouchability in Hinduism. Hence, the ‘right-thinking’ people offer their critiques and speak of the need to reform and discard such offensive belief systems. Yet, when it comes to Islam, somehow, the fault always becomes that of the victim. Be it any part of the world, the Muslims get presented as a marginalized community, beset with image problems, more sinned rather than sinning and most importantly, whose each atrocity is a reaction of the weak – terrorism a result of western imperialism, geopolitics, murders and arson an outcome of offended feelings.

The Kouachi brothers have achieved internationally what Ilm-ud-din achieved in India about 85 years back. Like the Kouachi brothers, Ilm-ud-din decided to award the punishment for blasphemy to Rajpal for having penned Rangila Rasool (which incidentally was in response to Sita ka Chinala which depicted Goddess Sita as a prostitute) and killed the latter in a crowded Lahore bazaar in 1929. Jinnah, the arch-secularist (at least as per Indian liberals and LK Advani) fought the case for the murderer and lost. Ilm-ud-din was hung. But, till the time the trial was in progress, Muslim crowds would line up the roads between the jail and the court and shower Ilm-ud-din with rose petals. His funeral was attended by almost a million and eulogies given by, among others, another arch-secularist, Allama Iqbal. A mosque was built in his honour and even to this day, Ilm-ud-din is fondly remembered by the Pakistani masses as a Shaheed and a Ghazi (Islamic holy warrior). Rajpal’s murder, coming 3 years after Swami Shraddhanand’s assassination by Abdul Rashid, ensured that the fear of death dictated criticism of Islam in India. Though much maligned (and in a way undeserving of such praise), the RSS and its offshoots or even the Hindu Mahasabha never dared to criticize the Prophet and Islam the way Arya Samaj had done in their publications. Even someone like AG Noorani, the pen-wielding Islamic fundamentalist who can trace Islamophobia in almost anything, would be hard-pressed to affix such blame on the Sangh Parivar.

If current reactions are anything to go by, the ‘Ghazi’ Kouachi brothers have ensured that even the more virulent critics of Islam will think multiple times before committing ‘blasphemy’. We will see and hear more on why and how Islamic atrocities are result of deliberate provocation of Muslims and how the victims of Islamic violence deserved their fate. So, at least, the Kouachi brothers have neither killed nor died in vain. They have ensured that the Quranic punishment for blasphemy has become mainstream!

While even the idea that someone needs to be killed because he/she wrote something offensive is revolting, the holier-than-thou approach of Indian fiberals (fake liberals) is simply nauseating. By seeking to equate people protesting against PK or against MF Hussain’s paintings with the murderers, our fiberals are only displaying their depths of intellectual corruption. But seriously, what can really be expected from a bunch of people who prefer to call Kashmiris driven out of their homes as migrants while calling a rich, resourceful painter who voluntarily acquired Qatari citizen (of course, a most liberal Nation), an exile? Or is it that that Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari is the real icon of the fiberals? It would seem so, for it was only in Andher Nagari that each crime, irrespective of gravity, had a similar punishment. So, how are our conscience keepers wrong when they bay for the blood of ‘right-wing’ ‘loonies’ who like their Islamic counterparts go around shooting, stabbing, demonstrating in millions, attacking Nations, fighting wars, enslaving people, conducting massacres, forced conversions, punishing for blasphemy, yada yada. Yet, the similarities must stop. While the ISS and RSS are two sides of the same coin, each act of ISS is justified while the existence itself of RSS is liberal blasphemy.

Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which our fiberals want to be clamped on each right-wing loony is actually Jinnah’s gift to India. In the aftermath of Ilm-ud-din’s hanging, Jinnah prevailed upon the British Government to introduce this Section to make offending religious sensibilities a crime. Read the op-eds on ‘hate speech’. Our fiberals want liberal use of this section to clamp down on Hindutvavadis. So much so for freedom of speech.

While the fiberals do want freedom of speech for books banned under protests from the Hindutvavadis, not so strangely, they are supportive of bans on books seen as critical of Islam. ‘Understanding Islam through Hadis’, ‘Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion’ are only two among the many books deemed inflammatory and banned by Governments to indifference or active support of the fiberals. Yet, let us move a little away from religion. Indian press has, unfortunately, has hardly taken a principled stand on the issue of free speech. Not long back, a Marathi play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye was banned by NDA 1. Forget about campaigning against this ban, the fiberals led a campaign for this ban. More recently, Sakshi Maharaj (otherwise a convicted criminal garbed in saffron) was virtually lynched for pointing out the patriotism underlying Nathuram’s murder of Gandhi. The ‘Polyester Prince’ remains unofficially banned and so does the ‘Descent of Air India’. Any campaign in their favour?

The Indian fiberals has reduced ‘Freedom of Speech’ to a tool of subjugation. They decide on what ‘deserves’ to be free and what is profane. No wonder ideas and speech are under attack!

Who wants development?

Young India voted for development! People want development! India wants development! Development over divisive politics! Development over polarisation!

Media’s urge to simplify yet sensationalise, leads to catchy phrases, one-liners and homilies.  While good for dazzling headlines, on most occasions, these are but a lazy apology of any analysis. Yet, in what is reflective of the times we live in, large sections of the ‘thinking’ population seem to buy whatever is peddled in the name of ‘news’ which on most occasions are views formed of rigid ideologies and half-baked analysis.

So, even the most serious of issues is reduced to sloganeering – rising complaints of rape means India has a ‘rape culture’ even when investigative analysis from The Hindu shows that a large number of complaints being lodged today relate to minors eloping and love/live-in going bad.  A series of foreign visits by the Prime Minister get hailed as symptomatic of India’s claiming its ‘rightful’ place in the galaxy of nations, when there is no outcome which could support such delusion. A Laloo Prasad Yadav still gets spoken of as the Railway turnaround man, when his financial jugglery and mismanagement only pushed Railways to greater decline. The list is endless.  The media persists in simplifying issues even if it means extreme dumbing down, because a simple message is easy to communicate.

Other than rare circumstances, no elections are won or lost on a single issue alone.  UPA did not win 2004 because of India Shining alone. Likewise, BJP did not win on the plank of economic development alone.  Development yes, economic development alone, no! Some voted in hope of developing more secure borders, some for a less corrupt polity, some for Hindutva, some for a better life. The way National independence meant different things to different people, the same way, people voting for change expected different things from both the victors and losers.

Yet, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the Indian masses voted for economic development alone. Now in the last six months, the country has experienced quite a lot of Modi. Modi coined acronyms, Modi - the pop star, Modi – the charmer, Modi – the u-turn man, the silent-on-Sangh-Parivar-atrocities Modi, yada yada. These days, the MSM is brims over with wails on how the loony fringe (read RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, any Hindutva related organization) is diluting Government’s focus on development. Some more voices menacingly speak of how this is the ‘real’ agenda, development being hogwash! Some others bemoan that while the country voted for and is waiting for ‘development’, Modi government is sidestepping its responsibilities. That rather than ‘divisive issues’ getting sidelined, they are dominating ‘development’.

Again, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the media-imagined binaries do exist. Let us suspend our judgement and agree to the ominous assertion that what is not false must necessarily be true, that that is not yet must certainly be no. Let us, go with the MSM assertions since it has abrogated to itself, the right to act as the Nation’s moral guardian (even if morality is otherwise akin to a swear word).

Having accepted each of MSM’s assertion, can we ask them (MSM) if they are interested in development?

No one can blame MSM of lacking guts when it comes to pushing its agenda or campaigning for issues which are close to its heart. Be it the asinine Aman ki Asha or the venomous coverage of riots. For the last few months, the MSM has sharpened its missionary zeal to ‘discover’ attacks on secularism. No issue can be declared minor or irrelevant when the ‘idea of India’ is at stake and so, for months now, we have had apoplectic chatterati, screaming till they are blue in the face, that the RSS (worse than ISIS) is destroying secularism. Whether it is a case of a pastor clashing with a drunk marriage party, a suspected case of arson at a church, change of ICHR head, off-the-cuff remarks on history by sundry personalities, usage of some not-so-kosher terms by a minister, praise of an assassin, re-conversions, the MSM has admirably (in its own way) held aloft the flagging flag of secularism.

Pray, if the MSM is really interested in economic development, which is claims is getting sidestepped, where exactly is its outrage? When has it tried to put Modi Government on mat on the issue of development? This Government, after railing against UPA policies, has taken enough u-turns to resemble a UPA 3 government. A large number of questionable actions taken by this Government (changing rules for individuals, tinkering with railway fares through executive orders, gas pricing, political appointees in constitutional posts, etc.) are sought to be justified on specious grounds that the previous governments did the same. This government is following those UPA policies which it vehemently opposed when in opposition and now claims that those are silver bullets for economic growth. Which section of MSM has tried to put Modi on mat for it? If what NDA professes now is indeed true, why should it not be held equally accountable (as UPA) for those lost years of India’s growth? Which news anchor is trying to dissect the impact of changes in land acquisition bill and whether an ordinance was required to push this change?

A question to the MSM – if it is indeed true that the common man is more interested in finding a livelihood than anything else, is the MSM not guilty of batting for causes which are not a primary concern for this archetypical common man? How does it matter then, to a mill-worker or a CEO if Godse was a patriot or a bloodthirsty assassin? Anyway, since the MSM has made it very clear that rules which apply to the Hindus to not apply for the so-called minorities, let us grant it to them that while a Bhindranwale can be considered a martyr, an Afzal Guru an innocent victim of the oppressive Indian state, any Hindu opinion, unless validated and approved by the self-professed liberals, is by default communal, divisive and regressive. Hence, it is understandably welcome if a Muslim is concerned about Babri but abomination that a Hindu feels about Ramjanmabhoomi.

Still, even when allowing for all its ideological predilections, the MSM cannot be excused for not holding Modi accountable for any issue other than ‘secularism’. By ignoring ‘developmental’ issues and focusing on esoteric ideas, the MSM is letting the Modi government off the hook. A defense of secularism (even if it is at its most perverted) does not mean that Modi should not be questioned as vehemently for ‘real’ issues.

If only people blaming NDA for moving away from the development plank were themselves interested in development!

Take a stand Uddhav

But for the recent pre-election intrigues at Maharashtra, the BJP had over the years, perfected the art of being ‘ditched’ by its so-called allies. So strong was BJP’s sense of self-flagellation that multiple kicks by Mayawati in UP, Mamata in Bengal and Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu only heightened the urge of its leaders to be once again held in embrace by these parties, even when fully knowing the fate that would follow such alliances. Before Nitish, guided by the delusion of ruling India in 2014 itself, pulled out from the NDA, the BJP had begged, groveled, crawled, swallowed all indignities, parted with Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha berths, in short, continued to act like a traditional Indian wife in an abusive marriage before the inevitable happened. Yet, all those snubs fall short of the divorce masterstroke played by Naveen Patnaik just before 2009 elections. While the BJP continued to press for its original share of seats, Naveen kept up the charade of bargaining to increase his seat share, as in his words – the BJD had gained strength owing to which ground realities had changed’, before pulling out of the alliance just days before the elections. To say that the BJP was nettled would be an understatement. Smug in its belief that the BJD would need its support in the post-election scenario, the BJP unleashed a vituperative campaign, even alleging Naveen’s involvement in the barbaric assassination of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati the year earlier, with some leaders even proclaiming in public rallies that the soul of departed saint would ensure that 2009 is Naveen’s Waterloo.

Well, the electorate thought otherwise. Naveen won a large majority single handedly and the BJP was reduced to single digits in the assembly, a situation which has only marginally improved even 5 years later. So clinically successful was Naveen’s severance in 2009 that even now the secularists celebrate it while the BJP continues to nurse a deep grudge against Naveen and even Pyari Mohan Mahapatro, the then architect of that divorce.

Given its experiences, it was quite ironical to see the BJP adopting Naveen’s book while shrugging off Shiv Sena as an inconvenient partner. The similar claims of higher seat share, the same sham of negotiations, the same last minute desertion, similar poaching of candidates from other parties, wholesale intake of office bearers across constituencies where the BJP’s presence was weak, (though not on a scale as big as Naveen). What was additional was confabulations with the enemy – Sharad Pawar, who seems to end up holding some or the other aces in all elections. It will be foolhardy to dismiss the likelihood that BJP dumped the Sena only after Pawar assured that it would do the same with Congress. Just notice how both the alliances came apart within hours of each other and even post election, NCP barely took time to declare its support to the BJP. Further, it is difficult to visualise that people as canny as Amit Shah and Narendra Modi would have run the risk of running a solo campaign against a Congress-NCP alliance, which even in its most discredited state, together command a vote share higher than that BJP.

Anyway, like Orissa 2009, Maharashtra 2014 too proved that people are hardly bothered with esoteric ideas like ‘betrayal’. So, even though it did not win an outright majority, it won enough to prove that it had indeed become decisively bigger than its erstwhile partner.

The similarities stop here. Unlike the BJP in Orissa, Sena was not decimated in Maharashtra. Not only did it protect most of its strongholds, it gained vote-share and seats to emerge as the second largest entity in Maharashtra. Further, while it is difficult to visualise Naveen seeking Congress support (and Congress reciprocating) had he fallen short, the BJP had no qualms in visibly embracing support of a party which large segments of Maharashtrians see as epitome of corruption and misrule. Add to that the reaction of BJP supporters. Those very people who had nothing but the choicest abuses for Naveen see no wrong in similar acts getting committed against its oldest ally. Lastly, while the angry BJP reconciled itself to an opposition role in Orissa, the Shiv Sena, is acting like the BJP would, when Maya, Mamata and Jaya were concerned. Probably it has something to do with the Hindu Nationalistic DNA of both the parties that make them act thus. Yet, the cringe-inducing behaviour of Sena has only succeeded in lowering its prestige in the eyes of the world.

While there are many reasons why Balasaheb and his bunch of Sainiks came to occupy a special place in the hearts of Maharashtrians, one aspect which defined Balasaheb, and by extension, the Sena, was his bravado backed by stubborn adherence to stands once taken, howsoever, politically incorrect they would be. Sena under Balasaheb was akin that neighbourhood toughie, who even with all his vices, is loved because the toughie is a man of his word, of conviction, is available on call and protects the neighbourhood in his own not-so-civil ways. Today, even though Uddhav has managed to score a victory of sorts, having held on to his forts and decisively reclaiming his father’s legacy from his usurper cousin, he is a much diminished leader. He is seen at most like a Maratha sardar of the olden days, who would swallow every indignity to curry some favours from the Delhi Sultanate. Why should people be blamed if they think so – is not the party of late Balasaheb reduced to a pathetic state of begging for invitations to oath taking ceremonies, of beseeching all influencers to gain a foothold in the state government, of any number of inconsequential ministries? This is a party where while at one time, Chhagan Bhujbal, the strongest strongman Sena has known, had to go virtually underground to escape Sainik’s wrath for deserting the party. Today, a political featherweight like Suresh Prabhu can join the central ministry, ostensibly on the Sena’s quota, without as much as a hello, thank you, from Uddhav!

Just what prevented Uddhav from pulling out of the NDA when the BJP so unceremoniously dumped it? What is it that keeps Uddhav hoping that the BJP would finally agree to take him in? Even if it does, will it be worth the immense harm it has already inflicted and will further inflict on the Sena’s image? Just what does it want? Play the role of an effective opposition or continue with its pusillanimity, hoping for crumbs from the BJP?

Let’s not think even for a moment that having tasted power on its own strength, the BJP would ever be willing to sup with Sena as even equal partners ever. They don’t need to. People have spoken. Yet, since both the Sena and the BJP tap a common voter-base for support, the BJP will try its level best to further shrink Sena, if possible to the point of oblivion or at least, to an inconsequential rump. Currently, the BJP holds the maximum number of MLAs from Mumbai, the heart of Sena. Why would the BJP agree to contest the coming civic elections as a junior partner of Sena? And if they fight even as equal partners, it would be a de jure acceptance of Sena of its diminished role in Maharashtra. As an opposition, the Sena stands a stronger chance of withstanding BJP’s onslaught. Not only will it be immune from the charges of commission and omission which will stick to it even if it supports the BJP from outside, it has potential to occupy more of the opposition space ceded by a receding Congress and those sections of the population which have a strong affinity to Hindutva related politics.

It is a sad commentary on the partisan nature of our politics that forget core BJP supporters, even traditional opponents of the BJP have found nothing objectionable in the NCP-BJP live-in. The BJP has every reason to thank NCP. Had it not been for its corruption, the public mood against the State Government may not have been that strong. Had it not been for Pawar’s assurances, the BJP might not have been able to cut Sena to size. But for its brazen support to its Government, the BJP would still have had to make amends with Shiv Sena. But, an alliance with Pawar, howsoever covert it might be, only damages the BJP’s sheen. An indulgent public may turn the blind eye today. Tomorrow, nothing stops them from declaring it as dyed in corruption as the ‘Naturally Corrupt Party.

Moving from Maharashtra, even though the BJP dumped Kuldeep Bishnoi’s Haryana Janhit Party too, the two dumping instances (Sena and HJC) are very different from each other. While agreements need to be honoured, they are entered into with an underlying assumption of the partner’s strenght. HJC even though bouyed by the Modi wave, miserably failed to display any strength in the Lok Sabha polls, with Bishnoi too losing his seat. Add to that HJC’s flirting with other parties (including Congress) tenuous connect with the NDA and a proclivity to run an independent campaign, BJP can be little faulted in parting ways from a vacuous, unreliable ally. The Sena’s case is different. Not only was the alliance old, it was based on a clear understanding of role of the larger party getting swapped in assembly and parliamentary elections. Even more, the Sena performed credibly well in the Lok Sabha elections too, proving that it was a worthy partner as far as electoral stakes were concerned.

Anyway, all analysis are passe. Uddhav has to decide – whether to uphold the Sena legacy and continue a tough, solitary struggle or get reduced to a political cipher in its thirst for immediate fruits of office.