The dream is gone – souring of an ideal?
Up until now, I had refrained myself from commenting on the episode relating to Jaswant Singh’s expulsion as I was trying to brush up my history so that I could make an independent assessment of the partition issue. Clearly BJP was in no such mood. The swiftness and ruthlessness with which BJP expelled a senior party functionary like Jaswant, has created ripples all over the country.
The immediate reason why I was stirred into expressing my viewpoint was actually a phone conversation I had with my mother recently. Now my mother is in no way politically very aware or conversant, but still she had this observation to make on the above episode, “ Did you hear about BJP sacking Jaswant? He seemed to be a nice guy, in the same mould as Vajpayee. I don’t know if what he did was right or wrong, but it does seem a bit humiliating to expel a person, who was such an active BJP member and in party for 30 years, at such a short notice. Day by day, BJP seems to be sinking deeper into the abyss.”
The present episode is painful because it marks the disintegration of an ideal and a dream. I can still recall my childhood years when I used to be inspired by BJP in general and Vajpayee in particular. In an age when I could only see problems but was unable to understand their reasons or solutions, BJP seemed to me the only source of hope. It was indeed a party with a difference, a party that had, amongst its ranks, the best thinkers in business; incorruptible people who neither compromised on principles nor on integrity. These were the people who were united on the basis of a definite ideology and vision for the country, people who could compromise on power but not on principles. They were also united in their sense of abhorrence for the appeasing and dynastic politics followed by the Congress after independence. Most didn’t qualify for an automatic entry into the realms of politics on the basis of surname or connections but had been shaped and molded in the crucible of public life to reach their present position. People like Vajpayee and Advani had spent their entire life in opposition in service to their ideology and honor.
Since as far as I remember, BJP has always been guided by the Hindutva ideology but in those days BJP was also a symbol of change and progress. That was the reason why middle class people, despite no strong right wing Hindu nationalist convictions, were still its supporters. It was a party that appealed to reason and promised to steer India towards the path that could help her attain its full potential. The reason why Atalji was able to inspire confidence in people was primarily because of his inclusive and accommodating personality. If BJP is in shambles today, it is not because it has been deserted by its core set of voters (i.e people who believe that BJP has the sole right on Hindu conscience) but because of the loss of faith in moderates like my mother who are unwilling and uncomfortable to be associated with a party that also has Gujarat riots to its name and a Varun Gandhi in its ranks.
No party can think of being a national party by having an exclusive agenda, and that is especially so in a diverse country like India. Though it seems ironic to some people, the guiding philosophy of Hindutva has its origins in a desire to unite India (or atleast the majority of it) under a single flag that could help eliminate the divisions that have so plagued our progress over the past thousands of years. Proponents of Hindutva believe that the reason why Indian civilization has floundered for the last 1500 years (esp after India’s rich civilizational history) and has become repeated prey of conquests is because of the moral corruptness and divisions within its majority community i.e. the Hindus. They think that by invoking the past pride and focusing on symbols of common culture i.e. Mahabharata and Ramayana, they would be able to eliminate the differences of caste, language and region that have hampered our progress for so long.
But, alas, rarely do outcomes mirror the intentions. It is interesting what nationalists like Gandhiji and Nehru felt when asked to comment on the above belief. Gandhiji believed that the problem with Hindu nationalism as opposed to Indian nationalism is that it can very soon become associated with the majoritarianism thus leading to adverse unintended consequences difficult to control. It is a tribute to Gandhiji’s understanding and intellect that the events of last 20 years that have unleashed such strong emotions and sent tremors along the delicate religious fault lines of India seem to correspond to his original observations.
Of course the rational of promoting unity in a fractured country can never be questioned. Time and again, India’s nationalists have tried to foster unity so as to remove the various ills that still afflict Indian society. So here we are not arguing about intent but essentially the tactics that need to be followed to bring about this unity. In different ages, the nationalists and philosophers have used different tactics to invoke strong fraternal emotions. Guru Gobind’s efforts to create a new race that could stand the excesses of Aurangzeb is an example, so is the awakening of Indian nationalism that led to Indian independence. So the question is, not as to whether such a unity is desirable or not but as to what tactic should be used to create this unity? Unfortunately I do not have an answer to this but one thing is certain that India of 2009 is not the same as India of 1991. The issues are different; the mindset of people has changed. The opening up of India has exposed a large number of citizens to the practices followed in the more prosperous countries of the world. For the first time since independence, Indian youth can now look and plan for the future rather than be bound by the past. All around, we see people looking for new solutions and accepting new ideas. People are just no longer excited or satisfied by the oft-repeated explanations of the politicians that attribute their present woes to some age-old disputes and grievances that have no real relevance in today’s world. They are willing to set aside the old traditions if the result is greater wealth and standard of living. If the divisions in 1991 were along the religious and regional lines, the divisions in future promise to be along economic lines. If states and regions were banded together after independence on the basis of language and culture, in future a new grouping based on the economic similarities will take place. No matter what religion a call center employee has, the day-to-day issues and problems he faces are the same. Politics cannot be divorced from realities. Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the BJP has yet registered the significance of this change in aspirations and beliefs that is coming about by the rise of India’s middle class, that it has in part helped precipitate, and is thus refusing to change tracks.
Here I would also like to highlight the role that media has in ensuring accountability. It is no secret that the media in our country is mostly run by liberal, centric people most of whom have been a part of establishment since long, It is rather disgusting to see how often the personal biases of those reporting come into play during television debates and discussions. Why is it that there is no constructive debate held on the reasons behind the so-called Hindu nationalism? Why did a nobody like Varun Gandhi occupy so much primetime whereas the views of the people (who helped him win election by on of the biggest margins) not shown? In today’s 24x7 news reporting environment, the role of media in forming opinion cannot be under emphasized. The kind of investigative journalism that led to the revelations like Watergate and Bofors seems to have all but gone. Increasingly the media is playing the role of being a spokesperson of the establishment and is forgetting its role of being the conscience keeper of society. Herein lies a challenge also for the BJP. If they think that the existing news channels are not doing enough justice to their point of view, then they should try to come up with their own channels of communication They should tell the youth why they think their philosophy holds credence in today’s world, on how will it benefit them and if they can’t satisfy them then there is a need to press for change. They need to engage with the masses and provide clarity as to their goals and expose the weakness of the ruling coalition. But for all that, they need to reflect first on their weaknesses and accept the problems. Some amount of dissidence and soul searching is obviously required coz ‘if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting the same results as you have always got’. Sadly the events of the past few weeks don’t reflect very highly on the caliber of their present crop of leaders.
We should be concerned about BJP’s problems because India needs two strong national parties that could usher in an era of bipolar politics and lend stability to an otherwise fractured political landscape. We need to give our people an option while voting so that the party in power can be reigned in and the abuse of power is kept in check. For almost 50 years we didn’t have any viable option other than Congress, and the result is there for everyone to see. Only a reasonable fear of being voted out of office can provide an incentive for the government to perform its functions honestly and sincerely. Only if an option is present for an individual to dissent or disagree can there be democracy and accountability in the system. Only by being made responsible for one’s actions rather than antecedents can we hope to shake out from this slumber of thousands of years and fulfill the aspirations of our people.
The immediate reason why I was stirred into expressing my viewpoint was actually a phone conversation I had with my mother recently. Now my mother is in no way politically very aware or conversant, but still she had this observation to make on the above episode, “ Did you hear about BJP sacking Jaswant? He seemed to be a nice guy, in the same mould as Vajpayee. I don’t know if what he did was right or wrong, but it does seem a bit humiliating to expel a person, who was such an active BJP member and in party for 30 years, at such a short notice. Day by day, BJP seems to be sinking deeper into the abyss.”
The present episode is painful because it marks the disintegration of an ideal and a dream. I can still recall my childhood years when I used to be inspired by BJP in general and Vajpayee in particular. In an age when I could only see problems but was unable to understand their reasons or solutions, BJP seemed to me the only source of hope. It was indeed a party with a difference, a party that had, amongst its ranks, the best thinkers in business; incorruptible people who neither compromised on principles nor on integrity. These were the people who were united on the basis of a definite ideology and vision for the country, people who could compromise on power but not on principles. They were also united in their sense of abhorrence for the appeasing and dynastic politics followed by the Congress after independence. Most didn’t qualify for an automatic entry into the realms of politics on the basis of surname or connections but had been shaped and molded in the crucible of public life to reach their present position. People like Vajpayee and Advani had spent their entire life in opposition in service to their ideology and honor.
Since as far as I remember, BJP has always been guided by the Hindutva ideology but in those days BJP was also a symbol of change and progress. That was the reason why middle class people, despite no strong right wing Hindu nationalist convictions, were still its supporters. It was a party that appealed to reason and promised to steer India towards the path that could help her attain its full potential. The reason why Atalji was able to inspire confidence in people was primarily because of his inclusive and accommodating personality. If BJP is in shambles today, it is not because it has been deserted by its core set of voters (i.e people who believe that BJP has the sole right on Hindu conscience) but because of the loss of faith in moderates like my mother who are unwilling and uncomfortable to be associated with a party that also has Gujarat riots to its name and a Varun Gandhi in its ranks.
No party can think of being a national party by having an exclusive agenda, and that is especially so in a diverse country like India. Though it seems ironic to some people, the guiding philosophy of Hindutva has its origins in a desire to unite India (or atleast the majority of it) under a single flag that could help eliminate the divisions that have so plagued our progress over the past thousands of years. Proponents of Hindutva believe that the reason why Indian civilization has floundered for the last 1500 years (esp after India’s rich civilizational history) and has become repeated prey of conquests is because of the moral corruptness and divisions within its majority community i.e. the Hindus. They think that by invoking the past pride and focusing on symbols of common culture i.e. Mahabharata and Ramayana, they would be able to eliminate the differences of caste, language and region that have hampered our progress for so long.
But, alas, rarely do outcomes mirror the intentions. It is interesting what nationalists like Gandhiji and Nehru felt when asked to comment on the above belief. Gandhiji believed that the problem with Hindu nationalism as opposed to Indian nationalism is that it can very soon become associated with the majoritarianism thus leading to adverse unintended consequences difficult to control. It is a tribute to Gandhiji’s understanding and intellect that the events of last 20 years that have unleashed such strong emotions and sent tremors along the delicate religious fault lines of India seem to correspond to his original observations.
Of course the rational of promoting unity in a fractured country can never be questioned. Time and again, India’s nationalists have tried to foster unity so as to remove the various ills that still afflict Indian society. So here we are not arguing about intent but essentially the tactics that need to be followed to bring about this unity. In different ages, the nationalists and philosophers have used different tactics to invoke strong fraternal emotions. Guru Gobind’s efforts to create a new race that could stand the excesses of Aurangzeb is an example, so is the awakening of Indian nationalism that led to Indian independence. So the question is, not as to whether such a unity is desirable or not but as to what tactic should be used to create this unity? Unfortunately I do not have an answer to this but one thing is certain that India of 2009 is not the same as India of 1991. The issues are different; the mindset of people has changed. The opening up of India has exposed a large number of citizens to the practices followed in the more prosperous countries of the world. For the first time since independence, Indian youth can now look and plan for the future rather than be bound by the past. All around, we see people looking for new solutions and accepting new ideas. People are just no longer excited or satisfied by the oft-repeated explanations of the politicians that attribute their present woes to some age-old disputes and grievances that have no real relevance in today’s world. They are willing to set aside the old traditions if the result is greater wealth and standard of living. If the divisions in 1991 were along the religious and regional lines, the divisions in future promise to be along economic lines. If states and regions were banded together after independence on the basis of language and culture, in future a new grouping based on the economic similarities will take place. No matter what religion a call center employee has, the day-to-day issues and problems he faces are the same. Politics cannot be divorced from realities. Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the BJP has yet registered the significance of this change in aspirations and beliefs that is coming about by the rise of India’s middle class, that it has in part helped precipitate, and is thus refusing to change tracks.
Here I would also like to highlight the role that media has in ensuring accountability. It is no secret that the media in our country is mostly run by liberal, centric people most of whom have been a part of establishment since long, It is rather disgusting to see how often the personal biases of those reporting come into play during television debates and discussions. Why is it that there is no constructive debate held on the reasons behind the so-called Hindu nationalism? Why did a nobody like Varun Gandhi occupy so much primetime whereas the views of the people (who helped him win election by on of the biggest margins) not shown? In today’s 24x7 news reporting environment, the role of media in forming opinion cannot be under emphasized. The kind of investigative journalism that led to the revelations like Watergate and Bofors seems to have all but gone. Increasingly the media is playing the role of being a spokesperson of the establishment and is forgetting its role of being the conscience keeper of society. Herein lies a challenge also for the BJP. If they think that the existing news channels are not doing enough justice to their point of view, then they should try to come up with their own channels of communication They should tell the youth why they think their philosophy holds credence in today’s world, on how will it benefit them and if they can’t satisfy them then there is a need to press for change. They need to engage with the masses and provide clarity as to their goals and expose the weakness of the ruling coalition. But for all that, they need to reflect first on their weaknesses and accept the problems. Some amount of dissidence and soul searching is obviously required coz ‘if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting the same results as you have always got’. Sadly the events of the past few weeks don’t reflect very highly on the caliber of their present crop of leaders.
We should be concerned about BJP’s problems because India needs two strong national parties that could usher in an era of bipolar politics and lend stability to an otherwise fractured political landscape. We need to give our people an option while voting so that the party in power can be reigned in and the abuse of power is kept in check. For almost 50 years we didn’t have any viable option other than Congress, and the result is there for everyone to see. Only a reasonable fear of being voted out of office can provide an incentive for the government to perform its functions honestly and sincerely. Only if an option is present for an individual to dissent or disagree can there be democracy and accountability in the system. Only by being made responsible for one’s actions rather than antecedents can we hope to shake out from this slumber of thousands of years and fulfill the aspirations of our people.
posted by mithrandir | 3:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home