T N Ninan: The problem with labels

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is frequently referred to in foreign publications that need to explain things Indian to their uninitiated readers as "right-wing, Hindu nationalist". The party's nationalism is not denied and is there for all to see - but then they are not alone. Among others, were Nehru and Indira Gandhi any less nationalist? The "Hindu" appellation is also self-evidently apt since the party advocates Hindutva and speaks for Hindus qua Hindus; indeed, Narendra Modi once referred to himself as a "Hindu nationalist" when he could as easily have said "Indian nationalist".

But what of the "right-wing" appellation? Half a century ago, the BJP's predecessor, the Jana Sangh, had advocated what it termed "integral humanism". This rejected both capitalism and communism as western constructs, and argued instead for swadeshi and decentralisation. This was easy to understand since the Jana Sangh was commonly seen as a traditionalist "traders' party". In 1980, when the BJP was born, its declared objective became "Gandhian socialism". That phrase too harked back to a traditionalist strand of thought and attitude, even as socialism referred to Gandhian decentralisation and self-reliance rather than control over the means of production. Indeed, the party seemed to be sceptical of large-scale industrialisation. The package came along with social conservatism - and it was this last point and strong opposition to Indira Gandhi's statism that probably attracted the "right-wing" tag.

However, in economic terms, right-wing has acquired hues that have little to do with the term's original meaning in pre- and post-Revolution France, as a defender of the status quo and of the ancien regime. In the contemporary context, the BJP simply does not fit any neat labels that originated in European politics. The party's social conservatism (opposition to gay sex, for instance) and traditionalism belong to the right-wing, and make it easy to understand the overt hostility to "liberals" in social, political and intellectual contexts (some liberals therefore are inclined to toss back the term "fascist"). But some of the traditionalist, protectionist and nationalist impulses come in the way of the party being properly right-wing in today's economic context; Mr Modi would prefer to reform the public sector rather than privatise it. A more correct phrasing, if you feel obliged to use labels, might therefore be "conservative, Hindu nationalist".

The desire to slot parties into familiar ideological boxes is also reflected in the way the Congress is referred to often as being left-of-centre. That may have been correct in the Nehru-Indira period, but is no longer the case - after the Congress launched market-oriented economic reforms, lowered tax rates, abolished many price and distribution controls, and freed up private industry and trade. In practice, if not in its posturing, the Congress is now more populist than the Left - keen more on a welfare democracy than on any real socialism or Leftism.

If in doubt, consider that the party has not nationalised anything after 1980 even as it has opened up to the private sector areas once reserved for state-owned companies. Also, the maximum rate of income tax in Britain, which is both wealthier and more capitalist, is 45 per cent for incomes above £150,000 (about Rs 1.5 crore). In much poorer India, the peak income tax rate is 33 per cent (including a "temporary" surcharge). Indeed, the direction of policy in the last quarter-century has made critics from the Left decry the advent of "neo-liberalism".

Neo-liberal is the opposite of Leftist, and the Congress can't be both. More correctly, the party is "neo-liberal" (actually, conservative) in its imperfect search for fiscal correction and other stratagems designed to achieve economic stability, populist in its spending orientation, and cautiously liberal in policy areas where there is no serious opposition to dismantling the country's and party's statist past. Pragmatic, or indecisive and confused? Take your pick.