Turmoil in the BJP

The party is not coming to grips with key issues

It is hard to understand what the leaders of the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) think they are doing. In the wake of the party’s electoral defeat, its leader in Parliament first stepped down after accepting responsibility, then agreed to stay on for six months, and now looks like staying on indefinitely. No one else offered to resign for the electoral reverse, except the outspoken Yashwant Sinha who quit more in protest than anything else, and who has been sidelined for his pains. Arun Shourie lashed out too, and has been similarly sidelined. Two parliamentary party positions were filled through nomination, only for Jaswant Singh to blow a fuse. And now there is open revolt in Rajasthan, after the party president decided (Congress-style, it may be noted) to remove the leader of the opposition in the state assembly—who, it turns out, enjoys the support of 80 per cent of the party’s legislators in the state. This week will see a second chintan baithak (thought session), but with the critics kept out of the exercise, what seems to be getting invited is group think.

Few parties react well to an electoral defeat. Some degree of self-doubt, confusion about future direction, and jockeying for leadership are inevitable. For instance, it took the Congress two or three years after its 1999 debacle to find its moorings once again. And the CPI(M) is still struggling to understand what mistakes it made. In the United States, the Republicans were rudderless and a clumsy parody of themselves until Barack Obama began taking some mis-steps. But whatever the specific context, one rule can be stated: it is difficult for there to be open debate and fresh thinking if the same leaders stay on—as Rajnath Singh and LK Advani have chosen to do in the BJP, and as Prakash Karat has done in the CPI(M). The British example, of the party leader automatically stepping down after an electoral defeat, has much to recommend it. The past is quickly buried, a new leader is elected democratically, and new directions set.

Inevitably, the party has to ask itself the question that comes up periodically—whether Hindutva is its only distinguishing trade mark, and whether that is either appropriate or adequate for future battles. Second, what is an appropriate response to the Congress’s now trade-mark agenda of right to work, right to food, right to education, and right to information? Third, what is the emerging psychic and demographic profile of the Indian voter, and does a platform built on historical hurt or a revivalist agenda jell with societal trends and voter concerns? Specifically, how does it reach out to young voters? Finally, what should be the organising principles by which the party conducts its affairs—for instance, should party positions be occupied by those who get nominated to them, or should there be elections? And how is to build future leaders? It is only by answering such questions that the BJP can find a way out of its present confusion and end its internal turmoil.