BJP’s Generation Ex

It is a facile assessment that the BJP’s core vote consists entirely of hardnut Hindus who advocate permanent civil war. This is untrue and unfair. The BJP’s accretion through the 1990s was thanks to a critical mix of identity issues, security concerns, opposition to big government and disgust with the unwholesome aspects of Congress raj. Ayodhya was only one parameter.

Today, almost every segment feels cheated. There is a sense of social and political alienation. The party and its people speak two languages.

There is a perception that BJP ministers spent their days cultivating Delhi’s Page 3 bubble, saying things only to please committed non-BJP voters and, in short, cutting access to feedback from genuine party sympathisers.

Take the BJP’s plethora of ministers from Bihar. Even after losing office, they are fringe fixtures on the capital’s party circuit, television studio regulars, addressing seminars on how good the NDA government was, setting up legal practice in Delhi, rarely bothering with Patna.

In contrast, Laloo Yadav, railway minister in the UPA government, spends half the month in Bihar. Is it any surprise that Laloo’s RJD is favoured to win the 2005 assembly election?

Social climbing may be a wonderful virtue. It doesn’t win you electoral constituencies.

Like the Bihar brigade, Advani himself was not immune to hearing his own voice, unmindful of what message he was sending party adherents. Five years ago, Advani told BBC that ideology was all very well, but governance was based on idealism. This divorce of ideology from governance was astonishing. From Ronald Reagan to the CPI(M), the politically resolute have seen no such distinction.

Did Advani mean ideology was not a static but had to evolve with new realities, changing politics? He never clarified.

There was more. One year ago, Praveen Togadia announced India should be declared a ‘‘Hindu nation’’. The polite response would have been: ‘‘With a 82 per cent Hindu population, isn’t this clear? What do you want? A parliamentary resolution?’’ Instead, Advani went about declaring ‘‘India would never be a Hindu state’’. Togadia responded that he hadn’t sought a Hindu state. The debate proceeded at cross-purposes, as usually happens when all communication is through the media.

It’s revealing that while Congress ministers are comfortable providing photo-ops with Naxalites, BJP ministers studiously avoided similar interaction with the VHP. No wonder, when Advani dialled his number earlier this month, Ashok Singhal refused to take the call.

Perhaps Advani’s ideological confusion is a function of — and how does one put this politely? — age. He defines the progress of Hindutva by his personal experience. He decides when ideology begins and when it ends. He decides what issues exercise Hindu politics and what don’t.

In the meantime a new generation has grown up.

An example would help again. Advani’s Hindu nationalism matured with the 1991 election. That was the defining moment for him. Years of emotion found an outlet, an article of faith found political articulation.

Now take the Gujarat election of 2002, one Advani had little stomach for, probably saw as an anachronism. To a successor generation, 2002 was the defining moment for Hindu nationalism, when years of emotion found an outlet… History keeps moving, inexorably.

It’s fine for Advani to conclude that identity politics is over and bijli-sadak-pani is the way ahead. Do the twenty and thirtysomethings, the footsoldiers of Hindutva, feel the same way? Should Bheesma perennially tell Abhimanyu how to think?