General Elections 2009 - An Analysis of Results - Part I

To say that the Results of General Elections 2009 were unexpected would be an understatement, particularly when considered against the backdrop of the Congress surge and BJP defeat. While the results of General Elections 2004 were also quite unexpected as no one expected NDA to lose, the import of 2004 results differ vis-à-vis 2009 results on account of the following points:
· Opinion polls had started detecting a trend of decreasing support for NDA as the poll season progressed in 2004
· Post poll analysis of 2004 results indicated that it was state level alliances which had won or lost polls across the country

Contrast above with the analysis this time around. Similarities with analysis begin and end with the unexpected magnitude of Congress’s victory as against unexpected magnitude of defeat of the NDA. However, other than that, there seem to be weak arguments on how and why it happened?

Viewers of television channels would have been amused that as soon as the direction of leads became apparent in the early hours of May 16, 2009, all analysts on TV started to appear wise and gave a string of reasons as to why BJP lost and Congress won. Anyone watching that learned gentry could be pardoned for his mistaken belief that all of them knew what causes would influence the foreseen results. So, we were dished out reasons ranging from Rahul’s charm, Manmohan Singh’s decency, good governance of UPA etc contributing to Congress victory and Varun, Modi, Advani & BJP’s arrogance contributing to BJP’s defeat.

I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that personally I am quite disappointed with the results, not so much by the Congress’s resurgence, but very much so by the BJP’s decline. That said, the reasons being dished out don’t seem to convey the real cause; they don’t sound convincing enough for the analysis seems quite superficial and more of ‘I told you so’.

I’ll break this write up in two parts, one on why I believe that all the reasons being dished out are not convincing and second why I believe that the UPA Government should have been shown the door.

Ostensible reasons as to why the Congress scored why the BJP lost:

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clean, decent personality
Rahul Gandhi’s Charm
UPA Government’s performance
UPA’s schemes like NREGA
BJP’s negative campaign
Vote for stability
Vote against communal and divisive politics
Vote against Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ram Sene
BJP’s uninspiring candidate for PM, LK Advani
Opposition to Nuclear Deal

Since some of these points are interconnected, hence I wouldn’t necessarily be dealing with all of them in seriality:

One of the underlying themes of the analyst comments has been that these elections were a vote for moderation. Since the BJP is identified by these analysts as an extremist party, the analysis seems to pass muster in the first view. However, before agreeing to this, let us pause to ponder over a few facts:

A first time General Elections contestant, the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena won around 21% of the popular vote share in the Mumbai – Thane region, effectively decimating the Shiv Sena – BJP combine. Are the policies of MNS mild enough to be called moderate?

The favorite whipping boy of the media, Varun Gandhi won his Lok Sabha seat by a massive majority. Can he be called moderate?

An accused in the Kandhamal riots, Manoj Sahu won his seat and overall, the BJP won 2 of the 3 seats in the Kandhamal district. A victory for moderation?

Before the election results were out, newspapers were full of predictions on how the youth in Bangalore / Mangalore would punish the BJP for the horrendous attack on pub going girls and show solidarity with the pink panties brigade. Of course, once it became clear that the BJP was actually exceeding all its previous performances in the state, those voices became silent. So, a victory for the moderate BJP in Karnataka?

Ever since her defeat in assembly polls in 2006, Mamata Banerjee has been on a rampage against the Marxist, opposing each of their moves tooth and nail. Her activities in Nandigram and Singur can by no stretch of imagination be called Gandhian or moderate. But she won, registering the most spectacular victory for any opposition in West Bengal. Does this mean that she had been following a moderate agenda?

So, is this a victory for moderation? You decide?

Coming to Mamata Banerjee, I am tempted to comment on another bug bear, that it is a slap against the negative campaign of the BJP.

Let us go back to 2004. India was made to suffer the ‘India Shining’ campaign of the BJP which highlighted all what the BJP had done. Congress hit back with dark images of unemployed, hungry people and showed that side of the mirror where the shine had not yet reached. Results: BJP lost and quite justifiably, significant blame was apportioned to the India Shining campaign. Flash forward, Elections 2009. The roles were reversed with the Congress unleashing a ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign with the BJP responding with dark images. One major difference was the external environment. While 2004 did not suffer any negatives as far as economy was concerned, 2008-09 had been a saga of inflation, decelerating economy, job losses and an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. If anything, the BJP response was more reflective of reality than the Congress’s ‘Aam Aadmi’ campaign where the Congress had been promising return to good (?) old days. The results of course went against the BJP and universally, the BJP has been condemned for running a negative campaign and trying to ruin the mood of the country. Homilies have been offered for a dime a dozen and one would be forgiven for believing that inflation, job losses, terrorism existed in some other planet and that it is a cardinal sin for any opposition party to ‘spoil the mood’ of the country. Such homilies are of course silent on why Mamata won in spite of her so negative campaign? Aren’t these the same set of people who went around proclaiming that Nano going away from Singur on account of Mamata’s blind opposition has killed the last vestiges of support for her? Even if we agree that Nandigram helped her, it does not explain the fact that Mamata’s victories have been primarily in the Greater Kolkata region where higher urbanization means a greater number of people panting for Nano like projects. This is precisely the region where the supposed anger against Mamata was supposedly the highest. Pray tell us, what exactly was positive about Mamata’s campaign? Did she not play on the fears and insecurities of people and still win?

Please ask yourself. Was Congress’s victory in 2004 and Mamata’s victory in 2009, a result of positive campaigns?

Among the most hilarious reasons forwarded for the BJP’s defeat was its opposition to the Indo US Nuclear Deal. There were comments galore that supporters of the deal won and those who opposed lost. Now at one end, we have the same set of commentators advising the BJP sagely that only issues linked to the common man’s daily lives are of any importance in elections. Anything other than Bijli, Sadak and Pani are destined to fail and should not be ever raked up. Now, we have a deal, benefits of which, if any, would take years to come. The deal is so complicated that even its staunchest advocates would be hard pressed to convince the general public of its benefits. Not going into the merits or otherwise of the deal, let us safely say that this is one matter which is not connected to the daily lives of general public in any way. The ostensible reason offered by these analysts is that the middle class wants to go with America and that they were angry with the BJP for trying to put a spoke into that wheel of friendship. Words betray me when I try to respond to this juvenile thought. And, how is this different from the blind anti Americanism of the left? To imagine that a nebulous issue, not connected to the public at all and not a part of the election campaign at all dictated the verdict is a nut even the most credulous will find tough to swallow.

Now, coming to the crowning glory. That the BJP lost because of Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Kandhamal and Ram Sene. Let us take it one by one. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP held on to its vote share of assembly elections of 2007, that too, after the exit of Kalyan Singh from the party. Of the other three major players, only the Congress gained in vote share. As per the CDS data on election analysis, the Congress was beneficiary of a huge swing of Brahmin votes in its favor. There was certainly a swing of Muslim votes in its favor for Muslims vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the BJP but this has been the common feature of Indian elections for more than a decade now. How did a depraved and weakened BJP lose elections on account of Varun is something which can only be endlessly conjectured. The only things which can be categorically stated are that one, the BJP did not gain out of the Varun Gandhi episode inspite of his needless incarceration and that the media overhyped both the event and the fallout.

Kandhamal has been painted as another reason for the BJP’s defeat. BJP more or less held to its vote share in Orissa in both assembly and Lok Sabha polls, suffering a loss of around 1% only. This coming from a party which had been stagnating for the last 5-6 years is quite a healthy figure particularly when considered against the backdrop of its effete and disconnected state leadership. Had Kandhamal worked against the BJP, it should have been wiped out even in vote share. A party winning around 1/6th of popular vote cannot be dismissed by any sane person. Moving a bit off the tangent, while the media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the BJD’s excuse of Kandhamal as the reason behind their breaking off ties with the BJP, it fails to ask Naveen as to why it took him 6 months to ditch the BJP or why was he conducting negotiations till the very end with this communal party or why was he ready to continue the alliance if the BJP had agreed for 35 assembly and 5 Lok Sabha seats?

True, Modi magic did not work across India and failed to set the stage on fire in Gujarat. I am no fan of Modi and very sincerely believe that howsoever efficient, a despot like leader is a danger to any society. However, to blame him for the BJP’s loss stretches credulity. 2004 might have been impacted by the anti Modi campaign but this time around, even the media has been less shrill in its anti Modi tirade. Moreover, over the last 5 years, Modi has come to be identified with, either wrongly or rightly, with progress and development. He has also managed to dilute his stain of communalism by demolishing Hindu temples and getting his opponents behind bars. No ally quit the BJP naming Modi as the cause. Likewise, no analysis has indicated that voters moved away from the BJP because of Modi. Some say, Modi’s name as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP confused the public and harmed its prospects. If that be true, then what about the Congress? Almost everyone knows that Manmohan Singh is only a stop gap arrangement. Almost every Congressman and ally had declared that Rahul Gandhi is the future Prime Minister. Why did this not confuse the public? Is it that the BJP supporters are more naïve and more prone to bouts of confusion than the Congress supporters?

Commentators who have never even attempted to hide their loathing for the BJP are joined by erstwhile BJP sympathizers is hailing the verdict as a vote against Hindutva; a rejection of BJP’s politics of hate. I beg forgiveness from the general public but I could not make out anything which touched Hindutva, in the BJP’s election campaign. Neither 2209, nor 2004 or for that matter 1999 has seen the BJP taking up Hindutva related causes. Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP’s election campaign. Most have accused BJP of shielding and defending Varun Gandhi. Is that so? BJP’s stated position throughout the episode was that they do not subscribe to the statements and that if true, then Varun would have to face legal action. Their support to Varun was against his imprisonment under NSA, something which was termed out of proportion by the Supreme Court itself. Let everyone ask themselves. Were Varun’s statements deserving of the type of punishment and scorn heaped over him? More importantly, does BJP become a champion of aggressive Hindutva by protesting against his imprisonment? Are demands to hang a convict Hindutva? Which position or demand of the BJP was Hindutva related? Their campaign was centered on the theme of ‘Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’. Ad campaigns were built around developmental promises and current insecurity. Leaders’ speeches dwelt on the same lines. So, where was Hindutva in the campaign at all? Something which wasn’t there cannot be defeated, can it?

On the BJP negatives, that leaves LK Advani’s candidature as a scapegoat. Frankly, even the worst critics of Mr Advani would concede that his stature does not befit the scorn heaped on him during the course of the campaign and being heaped on him now by select groups and individuals. That said, it cannot be denied that in spite of sustained campaign and efforts of the entire Parivar, Mr Advani’s candidature failed to excite the general public mood. While reasons behind this failure calls for another analysis, it cannot be denied that compared to other Lok Sabha campaigns, there was hardly a public buzz around the prospect of seeing Mr Advani as the leader of the country. This certainly had an impact on the BJP for it probably did not, at all, secure any incremental votes on account of their Prime Ministerial candidate.


Thus, we see that most of the reasons attributed to BJP’s defeat do not, in all probability, convey the causes of defeat adequately. We must not forget that most of the analysts jumping with joy at BJP’s defeat had been predicting doom for the BJP even when it was in ascendance. Had BJP listened to them, it would never have reached the position it achieved in the 1990s’. If the diagnosis and prescriptions of these analysts seem sound today, it is only because of the law of averages. At some point of time, even the most ardent of doomsayers would be proved right. But then, one right does not set all the previous wrongs right, does it?

I will cover the part on impact of achievements of the Congress Government on election results and why I feel it should have been shifted to opposition in the subsequent part of this analysis.

The Talented Mr Jaitley

Anyone following the BJP and its leaders would have noticed that almost each and every of its top leaders have suffered strong negative portrayals by the media. While some leaders certainly enjoy a much more positive image, even they had had their share of brickbats. This is fair, isn’t it? For human nature is not uni-dimensional and what is acceptable or liked by the other may be abhorred by some other person. No one, be it Vivekanand, Gandhi, Patel has been immune to their brigade of haters, so why should any BJP walla be any different?

So, the now venerable Vajpayee had his legion of admirers but suffered an occasional jab. Advani and Modi of course are devils incarnate or Hindu messiahs the way you would look at it while the ilk of Uma Bharati, Sushma Swaraj and Pramod Mahajan were usually dismissed as temperamental, shrill or unscrupulous by most who chose to write about them.

Of these, one name stands out, that of the suave lawyer politician, Arun Jaitley. Mr Jaitley is perhaps the only BJP politician who can claim company with the likes of Gulam Nabi Azad, Manmohan Singh et al, who never have any adverse comment against them from any section of the media. And certainly, Mr Jaitely has earned his laurels. Isn’t he a moderate, sophisticated, articulate, successful professionally and another right man in the wrong party? Wasn’t it his famed strategy, which won the BJP election after state election? So why should there have been any finger pointed at Mr Jaitley?

This is not about whether Mr Jaitley deserves to be criticized for anyone at all. It is about the wonderment which accompanies the realization that Mr Jaitley seems to have no detractors at all in the media, something which make him so unique in the Sangh Parivar.

Let us get back in time. Mr Jaitley gained into prominence only during the later half of the 1999 – 2004 BVajpayee Government. While always known among the more able ministers of the Government, he gained prominence as a strategist post election victories in Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh in the 2003 electoral polls. Till these elections, BJP’s tale in assembly elections post 1998, had only been a repetitive saga of failure and so the victory became all the more outstanding. It is another matter that the strategists for even these lost elections were the same and that Madhya Pradesh was anyways waiting to fall in the lap of the BJP, post ten years of mis governance by Digvijay Singh led Congress Government.

Of course, with the murder of Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitley came to occupy the position of master strategist.

But lest we digress, let us get back to the saga of expulsion of Uma Bharati from the BJP. Uma’s first suspension from the party was triggered by her outburst against rootless people who gave ‘off the record’ statement to the press, which in turn was triggered by LK Advani’s homily against infighting. It is anybody’s guess as to who were these ‘off the record’ statement givers in the BJP.

I am no fan of Rajnath Singh and honestly, few people would be enamoured of his vision and working style. But the type of vitriol heaped on him by the press comes across as motivated and guided by someone pulling some strings.

The media regularly credits Mr Jaitley with victories in Assembly elections of Karnataka, MP and Bihar. But by the same logic, no blame is apportioned to him for losses in West Bengal, UP and Delhi. Uma Bhartai is regularly lampooned for her indiscipline, but Mr Jaitley’s sulk against Rajnath Singh on the Sudhanshu Mittal case is high morality. That he has chosen to vacation in United Kingdom while the BJP National Executive is on, is after all, a well deserved rest for the hard working strategist of the company.

Media has gone to town over the reasons behind BJP’s loss, blaming everybody under the Sun except for Mr Jaitley, the prime architect of the campaign.

Regular leaks are a feature of the BJP, more so since the BJP lost power in 2004 elections. It is again anybody’s guess as to who the source for these losses is. Ever since the current loss, there are steady and regular stories in the media which pinpoint the cause of loss to some person or factor. Quite a lot of people have criticized Mr Advani’s continuation as the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha for he was the losing leader. Likewise, many have been critical of Sushma Swaraj’s choice as the Deputy Leader for, for many of the critics, she stands for a shrill, belan wielding middle class woman, who has no place in the Indian polity. But, there are hardly any critics for Mr Jaitley becoming the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, even though he was the master strategist of the election and himself lacks any mass base or even a following in the party.

Mr Jaitley has built lots of friends in the media. His bonding with the media is such that even for the cash for vote scam in the parliament, he chose a channel whose aim in life is to lampoon and condemn everything that the BJP stands for.

It is nice to be an individual who is loved by all and sundry. But to be a public figure who is above reproach is dangerous and an indicator of a highly manipulative mindset. On the positive, it speaks of the immense caliber of the person in question. Not even his worst enemies would have anything less that highest admiration for Mr Jaitley’s acumen and intellect. It is however, the BJP, which needs to pause and reflect as to how it has benefitted from Mr Jaitley’s media management.

BJP's Saga of Electoral Losses

Consecutive losses in two General Elections, one which it was expected to win and another which it was expected to put up a decent fight, has raised existential questions for the Bharatiya Janata Party. While a lot of commentators, particularly those who have wished BJP an ignominious death ever since its inception, have been stressing the need for the party to de-Hinduise itself, more notably, this tune has been adopted by a few of those who were supposed to be close to the BJP in the past.

While the glee of quite a large section of the intelligentsia is understandable, what even the BJP’s well wishers are missing is that BJP had not won the election even in 1999, when the NDA had won a comfortable majority and Vajpayee had ruled the country for the next five years.

The first part of the sentence may sound incongruent with the second part but when the results are analyzed in detail, with the benefit of copious amount of hindsight, it becomes aptly clear that the BJP had indeed not won the elections that year too.

Let us look at a few of the ostensible reasons as to why the Congress has returned to power with a much larger number of seats in Elections 2009.

• Voters were fed up with the games of Congress’s allies and wanted to award a smooth term to the former
• Manmohan was seen as a decent and honest man and BJP’s personal attacks on him turned people off
• People approved of Congress’s handling of the aftermath of Mumbai attacks
• People were angry with the opposition and the allies for their stonewalling of the nuclear deal

These are only a few of the many reasons attributed to the Congress victory. However, if these reasons are indeed correct, howsoever in part, they only serve to highlight the fact of the BJP’s decline right from 1999.

BJP’s story, beginning with the elections of 1989, is of constant growth, both in terms of vote share and number of seats. So, from 7.8% of vote share and 2 seats in 1984, it grew to 11.36% of vote share and 85 seats in 1989, 20.11% vote share and 120 seats in 1991, 20.21% vote share and 161 seats in 1996 and 25.59% vote share and 182 seats in 1998.

Post this growth phase, BJP garnered a vote share of 23.75% and 182 seats in 1999, 22.16% and 138 seats in 2004 and 18.8% vote share and 116 seats in 2009.

What is clear from these raw statistics is that the BJP upswing was halted in 1999. Some may contend that the lower vote share was on account of BJP’s seat adjustment with allies. But, the BJP had already fought the 1998 elections in alliance with the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, ADMK, PMK & MDMK in Tamil Nadu, Trinamul Congress in West Bengal, TDP (NTR) in Andhra Pradesh, Samata Party in Bihar, Lok Shakti in Karnataka, Akali Dal in Punjab, Haryana Vikas Party in Haryana and Biju Janata Dal in Orissa. Compared to 1998, the only major changes in 1999 were in Andhra Pradesh where the BJP contested far lesser number of seats when it dumped Lakshmi Parvati to ally with Chandrababu Naidu and its alliance with the combined JD (U) and LJP in Bihar. While BJP contested 49 seats lesser in 1999 when compared to 1998, it had, in fact contested 83 seats lesser in 1998, when compared to 1996. Not contesting in seats equaling 1/7th of the parliament strength did not hamper the rise in popular support for the BJP. On the contrary, the vote share registered a rise of 5.38% in 1998 while the aggregate loss in 1999 was to the tune of 1.76%. So certainly, fall in vote share of the BJP in 1999 was not on account of contesting on lesser number of seats alone.

Now, let us get back to the thirteen month reign of the first full fledged BJP Government in the country. It was characterized by ally troubles, shooting prices and the Nuclear explosion. BJP had lost elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and was widely seen as being on its way out of power. In a nutshell, situation somewhat similar to what Congress faced before these elections, i.e., string of defeats in Assembly polls, high inflation, major foreign policy decision and limited ally trouble. In addition, Congress was handicapped by rising terrorism, a decelerating economy and presence of criminal elements in the Government. Of course, as far as the ally trouble is concerned, the Left cannot hold a candle to either Mamata or Jayalalitha, but still, constraints were certainly there.

Vajpayee was widely seen as a decent and honest man, hamstrung by allies. Almost every other day, there was news that the coalition Government is in trouble and some trouble shooter is rushing to placate some ally. Further, Vajpayee was called a liar and a traitor by the Congress during the polls. His Government took a major foreign policy and defense related decision in exploding the nuclear device, a move opposed in the Lok Sabha by our very own current Prime Minister. There was general appreciation for the way the NDA Government handled the aftermath of the sanctions against India. On the positive side, there were no criminals in the Government nor was the Government tainted with any scam.

It is nobody’s case that Manmohan Singh has ever enjoyed anywhere near the recall and adulation enjoyed by Vajpayee in his heydays. There must have been a feeling of revulsion in large sections of the society when he was dubbed a traitor for his role in the Quit India movement and a liar by the Congress. People must have sympathized when his Government was held hostage by one man parties. People must have cringed when the left, centre and sundry cried foul over the nuclear test with their leader in the Rajya Sabha bemoaning that the sanctions would lead nothing to defend.

BJP’s loss by one vote in the trust vote followed by Sonia’s ‘I have 272 and more’ followed by the then President K R Narayanan’s activist interest in getting a Congress Government installed is now a part of the folklore. What changed the game for the BJP was the Kargil incursion which led to an upsurge of patriotic feelings in the country. That the Indian troops managed to recapture most of the occupied peaks from the infiltrators gave many a feeling of victory and this, combined with alliances sewed by the NDA, managed to keep the BJP’s seat numbers static. Even here, the Congress went to the campaign highlighting the failures of the BJP Government in pre-empting that infiltration, something which any responsible Indian needs to do.

Overall, in a situation which was in many ways similar to the Congress’s situation before these elections, the BJP was on a backfoot and lost much of its support base. Not only was its forward march halted, it stated withdrawing from its catchment areas, most notably Uttar Pradesh where it suffered a loss of more than 25 seats. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened had Kargil not happened? Kargil managed to paper over the failures of the BJP Government and bought back some memories of 1998, when people were voting for a change. Even then, the Congress gained around 2.5% in vote share, while suffering significant losses in terms of seats.

Conventional wisdom and history states that power begets power and political parties use their stint in power to expand their spheres of influence and enter into areas where they were hitherto unknown. Contrary to this, the BJP ceded ground everywhere. Except for Karnataka, there is no region of the country where the BJP has been able to expand or consolidate its presence in the last ten years.

BJP and its supporters would only befool themselves if they try to analyze their causes of defeat only through the prisms of 2004 and 2009. They must pause to ask as to what went wrong in 1999? What happened that the party of hope and change was no longer a preferred alternative for a people longing for something different? What made the party lose its momentum so soon? What made it stop its entry into newer areas and withdraw from its new conquests? Unless the BJP finds answers to these questions, there would be little hope for the party to regain its following among Indians.

My take:
Results of 2004 and 2009 are only a continuation of the BJP’s decline. Except for the nuclear blasts, which were in line with the BJP’s persona, BJP did nothing in those years which would have portrayed it as a party with a difference. People don’t opt for clones over originals, particularly when the original itself is not something great by itself.

The Myth that is Vajpayee

Ever since LK Advani’s ‘burning desire’ to be the Prime Minister of the Country has become the butt of snide comments from all and sundry, the perennial comparison between Advani & Vajpayee has gained even more currency. Analysts and critics barely stop for a breath when talking of Vajpayee’s inclusive, cohesive qualities which helped him run the NDA coalition for 6 years and disparagingly contrast with Advani’s limited appeal on account of his divisive qualities. While the following write up will take a cursory glance at Advani’s alliance building capabilities, it will certainly try to separate reality from myths of what Vajpayee is

Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been a great orator and a leading light of Jana Sangh, a man declared as a future Prime Minister of India by that epitome of secularism, Jawaharlal Nehru. While Vajpayee graced the position of the leader of Jan Sangh in Lok Sabha after Lok Sabha, a study of his speeches over the years indicate that his supposed discomfort with the Jan Sangh brand of politics did not become pronounced till his stint as the External Affairs minister in the Morarji Desai Government. Post the fall of Janata Governments and the Janata Patry rout in the 1980 elections, it was primarily under Vajpayees’s influence that rather than resurrecting the Jana Sangh, the BJP was born with a convenient Bharatiya adopted from the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, prefixed to the defeated Janata Party. What is more noteworthy that the new political entity did not speak the Jana Sangh/RSS language. Rather, it spoke of something like Gandhian socialism, perhaps a noble concept but more hazy and nebulous than the concept of integral humanism of Deendayal Upadhyaya propagated by Jana Sangh for all these years. What made Vajpayee change? The lure of loaves of office combined with the realization that the Jana Sangh, as it functioned could never become the ruling party of the country? Or the fact that the fall of Government was blamed on dual membership issue where the socialists could not digest sharing loaves of office with the communal Sanghis? Had Vajpayee realized that the Jana Sangh cannot become India’s ruling party if it carried on with its ideology?

Since there is little primary research on the reasons as to why Vajpayee chose to change the face of the BJP so we can only conjecture on the real reason behind Vajpayee’s change of tact. What we do know is that the BJP’s experiment with the middle of the road socialism proved disastrous and combined with the sympathy wave generated by Ms Indira Gandhi’s assassination, decimated the BJP, reducing it to two seats in the Indian Parliament. This election is made more famous by the conventional wisdom that even RSS workers campaigned for the Congress (I). With that election, Vajpayee receded in the background and it was not until 1995, when LK Advani, at the peak of his charisma, proclaimed Vajpayee as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate that Vajpayee came to forefront of the general public imagination again.

Vajpayee went on to lead the first BJP Government in India, infamously demitting office after 13 days, failing to win the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha.

The rest is more or less known to everyone. NDA was formed post 1998 elections; BJP formally jettisoned the Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code and Sec 370 abrogation and won even more allies in the 1999 elections. Of course, all the new allies were credited to Vajpayee’s appeal and many like Mamata Banerjee used to say that they support Vajpayee and not the BJP.

Add BJP’s propaganda machinery blaring ‘Ab Ki Bari, Atal Bihari’ from every available rooftop, the poet politician’s packaging as a politician acceptable to everyone was made perfect. So, India experienced a non Congress Government completing a five year term in center

So, even if we ignore Vajpayee of the pre Jan Sangh days, we have seen the same liberal Vajpayee in two different avatars. One, when he failed as the leader of the BJP and second, when he became Atal Bihari Nehru, attracting allies like flies.

What changed?

My humble submission is that only the realization that BJP had a strong chance of coming to power changed. BJP was no longer a party which was confined to a few states or opposition benches. After 1996, everyone realized that they had a real chance of winning power and hence the façade of Vajpayee’s acceptability. Allies left the NDA in 2004 elections when Vajpayee was still around. These allies never protested when the then most communal Advani became the Deputy Prime Minister nor did they resign seeking Narendra Modi’s resignation. Further, Vajpayee’s absence did not stop more allies from joining BJP nor did there endorsing Advani’s candidature. Mamata, Naidu, Naveen and Jayalalitha left the NDA out of their own volition, not because they were missing Vajpayee’s avuncular presence.

In a nutshell, Vajpayee was a convenient excuse, a good mask for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less!

An Analysis of Ramachandra Guha's 'India After Gandhi' - Part III (Conclusion)

Lack of discipline and vacillation forms a self imploding mixture when combined with short term memory. Ramachandra Guha’s book has started receding in the dark alleys of my memory and with each passing day, I am forgetting more on the stuff which bought out his biases very clearly.

Hence, my attempt at further analysis may be much weaker when compared to the previous two posts on the book, on its content part.

The ‘centrist’ Mr Ramachandra Guha echoes his Marxist fellow travelers when writing about the Right, Nehru, India and the communal problem in the country.

In the chapter ‘Riots’, he states that most of the riots were a result of initial petty reasons like playing of music in front of the mosque by a idol immersion procession or slaughter of a cow near a temple. Isn’t is enlightening to know that the act of killing a venerated animal near a place of worship is deemed as mild a provocation as playing of music in front of mosques, that too for a short duration and during processions alone?

In his notings on Mumbai riots, Mr Guha sadly notes that the Muslim massacre meant that around 70% of the people killed in any riots were Muslims while their share of population was only 16-17%. What exactly is Mr Guha trying to say? That the dead in the riot should reflect their respective proportions in the general population? Mr Guha probably ignores the fact that a group 1/6th in population would bear an inverse brunt of riots. In facts, the East Bengal with around 31% of Hindu population at the time of independence never saw any riot after independence. It was only a clean, simple, clinical massacre of the minority group. Getting back to India, shouldn’t Mr Guha’s notings have been the other way round…that the Muslim hooligans, in spite of being 1/6th in population, manage to kill almost double their proportion in any riot?

It is noteworthy that the proportion of Hindu casualties in riots is coming up. In the first few decades post independence, riots used to have around 1/5th Hindu casualties. Now this has gone upto a third. Who to blame? The rising Muslim population, their rising belligerence or these 2 factors combined with the cover provided by the Guhas of the world??

While commenting on the frequency and hot spot of riots, Mr Guha himself notes that cities having a larger proportion of Muslims were more riot prone. Doesn't that itself give away a prime cause of the riot? However, he moves on to completely apportion the blame on Hindu Right wing rather than attempting any analysis behind this data.

In Guha’s world, Muslims come across as lamb like creatures covering forever in fear of beastly wolf like Hindu marauders. Hence, the ghastly 1969 riots at Ahmedabad, which were triggered off with attacks on Rath Yatras and butchering of cows and sadhus gets declared as a riot in which Muslims suffered immensely.

In his writings on Abdullah and Kashmir, Guha is so left of center that he even manages to find fault with the otherwise spotless Nehru. No mention is made of the games the Sheikh played or how he systematically targeted the Hindu population or flirted with Pakistan. Even his book, Aatish E Chinar, which offers panoramic glimpses to the mind of the one time Freedom fighter, is given a miss lest it threw up anything adverse on the persona of the Great Sheikh.

Mr Guha himself mentions as to how a decade after independence, Muslims started attempting to form their own political parties on the count that they were backward, cheated by the Congress and had got nothing out of independence. Guha’s heart then bleeds for Muslims and the conditions they live in and points that it is the insecurity bred by the murderous Hindu Right which makes Muslims huddle up for security with their fundamentalists and hence they remain backward. My, my!!! Never thought that the thief steals because of me…its my fault after all that I possess something which the other also desires. It is not the others’ duty to keep that desire in check but it is my fault to possess something…Same logic, isn’t is Mr Guha. It would probably do good people to read some more and realize that these were precisely the sentiments which Muslim League propagated and the same language is being spouted today. Breast beating and blaming others for ones’ own ill has become the hallmark of at least one community in India.

It is not surprising that Mr Guha’s heart does not beat at the same rate for the Hindu Refugees from Kashmir. No tears are shed for the men and children who were brutally massacred, nor any tear for those hapless women who were gangraped and murdered. And of course, moving away from their land of forefathers was an act facilitated by the wicked Jagmohan. After all, the ‘militant’ Kashmiri were brothers. How could they want their brethren to go away?

The list may go on and on. The issues, analysis and my argument would be the same. Here again, I am not at all trying to convey that Mr Ramachandra Guha does not have a right to his own opinion. He of course does, like I do or anyone else in the civilized world does. However, the issues are 2 fold: Firstly, he wants to be a centrist which he is not. Second, coloured opinion from the intellectual class impacts the way the larger public thinks.

Here is a man who in wake of the recent Mangalore pub attacks was sharing space with Harsha Bhogle on NDTV and agreeing that India has no defined culture or claiming that there is nothing such as Indian Culture as nothing has been written down as to what is Indian Culture? As a beginning, he may please read A L Basham’s ‘A cultural history of India’ to understand something about Indian culture. Anyways, what to say? Before asking such an inane question, he could at least have paused and realized that no country or civilization writes down commandments as to what its culture is.

An Analysis of Ramachandra Guha's 'India After Gandhi' - Part II

Anyone following Mr Ramchandra Guha’s writings and his pronouncements in television studios would have little reason to doubt his ideology. Nothing wrong in that for every person is entitled to his/her beliefs. Wrong begins when that person tries to assume an image which belies his true colours with an intention to befool and perhaps more importantly, command greater acceptance among people who are not coloured by ideological beliefs.

Mr Guha very famously ‘defended’ the BJP and provided reasons as to why it cannot be labeled as a fascist organization. He also got into a small but very well publicized print spat with Goddess of All Things, Ms Arundhati Roy Chowdhary, who herself has made a living out of defending the indefensible. Anyways, for the uninvolved populace, Mr Guha’s deed of ‘heroism’ would be more that to cement his place as a centrist, allowing him much greater credibility when he criticizes anything which is remotely rightist.

The purpose of this write up is to analyse Mr Guha’s and see if he is really a centrist or he is;an unabashed Nehru admirer with pronounced leftist ideological moorings. I would be solely relying on his tome, India After Gandhi to put across my view point on Mr Guha’s inclinations.

Very early in his book, Mr Guha speaks about communalism and states how both Hindu (in form of Hindu Mahasabha) and Muslim communalism (in form of the Muslim League) were responsible for India’s partition. However, he does not convey that Hindu Mahasabha had little electoral presence and had been soundly rejected in provincial polls in both 1937 and 1946. The only province where they had a somewhat respectable presence was West Bengal while the cradle of Muslim League lay in United Provinces. If Hindu communalism was so pronounced, why was it the Congress which won an overwhelming majority of Hindu seats in all polls and the Mahasabha was always a rump, its influence confined to the Arya Samajis and the Congressmen of the Nationalist hues?

Mr Guha’s hero worship of Jawaharlal Nehru is indeed fascinating. In fact, it is so overbearing that except for the customary, nominal criticism which Nehru is subject is to the 1962 war fiasco, Nehru comes across as a messiah of even greater proportions than Gandhi. If a reader would expect some analysis on how Nehru systematically weeded out all opposition from the Congress, i.e., Jaiprakash Narayan, Rajaji, Acharya Kriplani, Purushottamdas Tandon, KM Munshi, he would be disappointed. The reader would be  further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru defended his corrupt and effete blue eyed boys. The reader would be further disappointed if he expects to find some assessment of how Nehru promoted Indira and his own and MK Gandhi’s cult or on how Nehru both tacitly and openly encouraged pedestal building for himself and his clan. What we do have is page after page gushing praise of Nehru and what a blessing he was to India and its poor millions.

Guha seems to have been very hurt by the Kerala Communist Ministry dismissal by Nehru and mentions that as a black mark against Nehru in quite a few instances. Now, this dismissal was consequent to a massive people’s movement launched by all the apolitical and political forces opposed to the Left initiated education ‘reforms’ launched by the communist ministry. The protestors were fired upon by the police at numerous instances and the state government remained firmly resolved to implementing its agenda, i.e., it showed no sign of backing up, which in turn meant further protest and further unrest. Till this day, that mass uprising of the general public is known as ‘Liberation Struggle’ in annals of Kerala History. Now, if in a democratic polity, a Government decision is being opposed by almost every section of the society but the Government itself pays no heed to popular sentiment and instead fires on protestors, what right does that Government have to remain in power? Further, Guha pokes fun at the leading light of the movement, Mannath Padmannabhan, stating that though a saintlike figure who had given up everything, he loved pomp and rode on horses in processions of sword carrying Nair youths. Mr Guha, can a lot not be said about the saintliness and company of MK Gandhi? Why this selective criticism? And if some state government dismissal was wrong, do we need to go far? Numerous state governments were dismissed by Indira on slightest pretexts. Dismissal of BJP governments post Ayodhya riots were held illegal by the High Courts. Dismissal of Kalyan Singh government by Romesh Bhandari was an instance of National shame. Same can be held for dismissal of Gujarat Government by the third front government and subsequent dismissal of the Goa government by Manmohan Singh. Constitutional impropriety in these instances was of a much higher order so why single out Kerala, which was much more deserved? Anyways, the communist parties were routed in the polls held subsequent to the dismissal which further proved that the government in state was anti people and had lost the faith of those who had elected it in the first place.

Mr Guha states that the Rajmata of Gwalior left the Congress out of personal spite when her nominees were overlooked for candidature in the assembly polls. So??? What is wrong with that? Was getting candidates of choice only a prerogative of Jawaharlal and Gandhi? Nehru himself became the Prime Minister because Gandhi over ruled the recommendations of Congress Committees for Patel and laterNehru systematically purged Congress of all the ‘right wing’, ‘reactionary’ and ‘communal’ elements. So, why does it become so wrong when Vijayaraje Scindia decides to safeguard her interests? Why didn't Guhathrow light on the circumstances under which both Gayatri Devi and Vijayaraje scindia had been forced to join Congress by Nehru or how Indira Gandhi traded freedom from jail for a Congress membership for Madhavrao? Moreover, if serving personal interest was the only reason, Vijayaraje would have done much better in the Congress rather than joining a party which never had a realistic chance of coming to power in those decades.

Mr Guha comments adversely on the formation of Samyukta Vidhayak Dals and dismisses them as unholy alliances created out of greed and lust for power. It shouldn’t surprise the discerning reader that Guha has no word of rebuke for Congress for the ways it formed Governments in states like Rajasthan  post its first asembly polls or the way it used to attract opposition leaders by way of sops. Perhaps Guha cannot digest the fact the opposition too learnt those tricks, though quite late in the day. Guha has shown similar disdain for Ram Manohar Lohia dismissing him as someone driven by blind anti – Congressism. While the point about Lohia being anti – Congress, at least after independence can be well taken, whether this ideology was blind or informed should be better decided by a discerning reader of Indian polity rather than relying on a non-analytical judgement by someone who seems to be blinded into Nehru worship.

Mr Guha had little criticism to offer for Communists on how they went against the Nationa during the 1962 war. He doesn’t have any criticism to offer when they jettison their beliefs to support Indira. No criticism is offered on how Communist sympathizers infiltrated all institutes of learning and wrote history and decided which text books we read. No Sir, rather than any criticism, we are told that Jyoti Basu is a towering figure of the communist movement who was much respected by industrialists for his pragmatic approach and pro business outlook. Isn’t is a laugh? Such words for a man who almost single handedly removed Bengal from the map of industrial India. But certainly this can be justified for how can a Communist be wrong?

Contd..

An Analysis of Ramachandra Guha's 'India After Gandhi' - Part I

I’ve been reading Ramachandra Guha’s ‘India After Gandhi’ for quite some time now. Lucidly written, it makes an easy and interesting read. Quite an important book, for there are only but a few which attempt to present a panoramic view of the Indian polity ever since Independence. Hence, any book on the subject, even if written by a partisan or a person with a clear agenda, i.e., something like Shri Advani and his ‘My Country, My Life’, merits attention.

Nice reading apart, I’ve developed some reservations on the facts mentioned in Guha’s book. Since those mis-statements pertain to events which happened in recent history, one wonders as to which other parts of Guha’s writings are factually incorrect, particularly narrations which occurred in the hoary (relatively speaking) past

A few which I noted:

Guha states that the BJP called for a mid term poll in 1999 in order to gain a better majority. Now, anyone who has followed politics even narrowly, would know that BJP tried their best to hold on to power and sewed in an inconceivable alliance with the DMK once Jayalalitha withdrew support, reducing the Government to a minority. That they lost their Government by 1 vote only underlines how poor BJP was in political management. However, for Guha, it seems that this simply did not happen and BJP made the President dissolve the parliament and of course, Sonia Gandhi never made the ‘we have 272…and more’ statement to the media.

Writing on Defence, Guha states that India has developed a formidable arsenal of ballistic missiles, i.e., Prithvi, Agni, Sagarika, etc etc… and ‘Surya’, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with a range of around 12,000 kms. Whoa…when did it happen? When were the tests conducted? When was the missile inducted? And why is the army keeping it a secret. The fact is that ‘Surya’ and ‘Kali’ as of today exist only in planning papers of the DRDO and security experts. There has been a hush hush talk of developing these two ICBMs for years now but not even a prototype has been built till date. Forget 12,000 kms, today Agni is not fully ready to hit even 5000 kms

In the chapter on Riots, Guha imperiously states that the Sangh Parivar attacked missionaries in Orissa and that the prime accused in the Graham Staines murder case, Dara Singh, was a Bajrang Dal member. Guha either does not know or seems to have conveniently forgotten that the Justice Wadhwa commission did not find any evidence of Dara Singh being a part of any Sangh Parivar outfit. He had his own outfit called the Bajrang Sena which was not an associate of any RSS organization.

In the same chapter, Guha gives the figures of Muslims killed in Gujarat riots at 2,000. This follows probably because 2,000 sounds so much more better than the official figures of around 700 Muslims and 270 Hindus. Lest we embarrass Guha, let us gloss over the facts that these figures have been released by the Central Government on the floor of the Parliament, a Central Government which is no friend of the BJP, forget being a friend of Modi. Guha states that post Independence, only 2 riots qualify for the monikor of pogroms – the 1984 Sikh riots and the 2002 Gujarat riots. It is worthy to compare both and be astounded that while one  of those 'pogroms' had hardly any member of the Hindu community among dead, the other ‘pogrom’ had  Hindus accounting for more than a quarter of all killed. It is noteworthy that around 40,000 of that pogrom committing community had been forced to refugee camps, something which is unparalleled in the annals of any rampaging community.

Continuing on Gujarat riots, Guha authoritatively states that the Kar Sevaks pulled Muslim vendors by beard on Godhra station and that the attack on train was in retaliation to that. Now while there have been such allegations, there has been no independent corroboration that such events ever actually happened. Guha chooses to make truth the casualty of his ‘research’ and presents unproved allegations as facts.

He further conjectures that the train fire was caused probably by a stove or cylinder preparing food. Now, even if a few beard pulls are sufficient provocation for attacking of the train, then certainly burning alive of 58 people, including 28 women and children are provocation enough for the riots. Secondly, how could one be so naive so as to believe that food was actually being prepared in the compartment which was filled to seams with people, both with and without tickets?

In the same chapter, Guha writes about the Babri masjid demolition and writes that in the post demolition massacres, in a grisly replay of partition riots, Muslims were pulled out from trains and killed. What is more shocking about this gross calumny that Guha does not even provide a fig leaf of any reference point. A ghastly lie, not even supported by a supposed news. In the same page, he gives some obscure reference to Advani’s Rath Yatra being called a Rakta Yatra. The words though have stuck post this fancy monikor being awarded by a then obscure journalist, the fact remains that no town/city which the first Rath Yatra visited witnessed riots following the yatra.

A surprising mis-statement is with regards to his comments on Jan Sangh’s performance in electoral polls. He states that Jan Sangh was not much impacted by the Indira wave in 1971 and that there seat tally came down marginally. Guha would have done good to refer to the ECI records available online. He would then have noticed that the BJS came down to 22 seats from a high of 35 in 1967. Certainly a fall of more than 35% qualifies for a setback!!

Going a bit back in history, Guha writes about a certain Acharya Karpatri who he states was among the leading lights of the Cow Protection movement. He states that he came into the centerstage all of a sudden and likewise was never heard of again post the attempted gherao of parliament wherein scores of Sadhus were killed in police firing. It is probable that Guha may not be aware for rather than being a shooting star, Acharya Karpatri was the head of ‘Ram Rajya Parishad’ which fought and won 3 seats in the Indian Parliament in 1952 General Elections. The party later merged with the Jana Sangh.  Further, Achrya Karpatri did not vanish or abscond. He simply faded the way politicians fade and remained a Katha-vachak for the balance years of his life.

These are among but a few of those factual mis-statements which I can think of while I write this post. There could be many more, quietly hidden in secure belief of their author of their never being ever questioned. The sad part of these mis-statements is that whatever has been written in this book will get quoted and reproduced again and again in form of references in works by future columnists and historians, in effect, making these falsehoods true.

It doesn’t take too much to realize that most of Ramachandra Guha’s mis-statement result directly from his ideological bias, something which I plan to analyze in the next post.