Ruing Muslim vote won't do, Oppn must build viable political formation

There is a lot of consternation among some intellectuals that the Muslim vote has become powerless and without voice in the polity of India. Such intellectuals have put the blame for this at the door of the BJP and its leader, Narendra Modi, in particular. In this article we shall examine if this is the case.

If indeed Mr Modi and BJP are the cause for the Muslim vote becoming irrelevant, there is an easy solution. It is very easy to defeat Mr Modi and his party, which still has a less than half vote share nationally, and only four things need to be done:

1. All like-minded parties opposed to Mr Modi have to unite and merge into one party.
2. They should democratically elect the most competent person as the leader of the party.
3. They should set up a massive public outreach programme and find out what the public actually want and create manifesto based on that. They should credibly promise to implement the manifesto. Using that they should raise resources and get grassroots workers.
4. They should contest elections till they win--big or small. Wherever they win they should create a competent cabinet or team and implement this manifesto and prove by deeds that they can do a better job than Mr. Modi and BJP.

This should in any case have been the natural progression of Indian politics like it has in the US or England. But it is not the case. Why?

These propositions are undoubtedly interlinked but for ease of analysis we will try to see the problems with them one by one.

Proposition 1 entails inner-party democracy. Congress is an example of a party that has eschewed such practice since the late 1960s. It has lost the memory of what it means to have inner-party democracy. Media professionals have been complicit and responsible for this cover up in inner-party democracy and lack of meritocratic culture in the Congress or other political formations. By reserving their critical eye only for the BJP they have helped BJP hone its election and governance machinery while letting alarming levels of complacency set in the opposition parties.

Proposition 1 also means that parties, like the DMK or the TRS, which have converted movements into entities resembling family business houses either have to give up this de-facto position or be eliminated from playing any role in the creation of this new party. Where does it leave this new party in many constituencies? How does this new party accommodate temperamental personalities like Ms Mamta Bannerjee when even accommodation in an alliance seems farfetched?

The rise of parties and people like NCP, TMC, TRS and YSRCP was because there was no inner-party democracy in the Congress party. Things have gone to such a pass in the Congress that those who destroyed inner-party democracy and were instrumental in sidelining or exit of grass root leaders today find themselves with no voice. How will such a vast ground be covered now after decades? Creation of such a merged monolith party would necessarily need parties to discard failed ideologies and come up with a relevant one for the times. How will this party accommodate Communist parties who are clinging to failed ideologies, which even the nations which first adopted them have discarded and moved on? Some of the potential constituents of such a merged party have been using xenophobia and/or secession and/or separatism as political tactics before elections and during times of their political adversity or weakness when their poor governance causes anger. Will they change their colours suddenly? Can they? Lastly, how will this party accommodate parties who do not have any ideology except capturing power?

Congress is the only real national party outside of BJP today. Proposition 1 requires that either Congress be reformed and be used as a vehicle for the creation of this entity and if Congress cannot be reformed, it be replaced. Replacing Congress is a time-consuming task, who will do it?

Proposition 2 namely electing a leader comes with its own difficulties--even if a way can be found and these parties can be merged, is there enough ideological glue in these parties to allow the best person to emerge as the leader? For example, will they allow it to be led by a leader from a small state if he is the most competent? It is logical that politicians are power hungry and the person who brings most seats now will want to lead the party. The most populous states have opposition leaders who have only electoral tactics and no strategy to deliver governance and change ex: UP, Bihar and West Bengal. Will they accept a capable leader from a smaller state as leader of such a dispensation?

Almost all the opposition parties on other hand are geographic niche parties and many have become strong playing on inter-state fault lines. They have been instrumental in creating problems between states leave alone creating a pan-India vision--Cauvery waters, Labour from other states, Belagavi etc. are examples.  How will they now give up these strategies and tactics and emerge with a national vision?

Proposition 3 is the elephant in the room. It is one thing to be pro Muslim and another thing to be anti Hindu. Paradoxically by using its time in power wisely and focusing on delivery of government services without any religious bias, BJP has proved it is not anti-Muslim before the opposition can prove that it is not anti-Hindu. Where does that put these non-BJP parties in a country with 3/4th Hindu population? To be honest, it appears that many parties after pursuing decades of such policies are still trying to prove they are anti Hindu leave alone try to prove they are pro Hindu! An anti-Hindu stance is a fatal flaw to creating a national alternative to BJP in the new age when the Hindu electorate has woken up. It is blindingly obvious that parties need to get rid of their anti-Hindu stance yet most parties are not able to do this. Why?

In the current context for lack of any better theory that explains the anti-Hindu behaviour by so-called secular parties, one has to conclude that these parties feel compelled to demonstrate and wear their anti-Hindu credentials on their sleeve on a daily basis to get the Muslim vote. If indeed this is the case, then the Muslim vote bank has become the kiss of death in most constituencies in India. Who is responsible for this state if not for Muslim leadership and voters themselves?  

Proposition 3 has huge implications for the policies on education, temples, reservation and supply side political-economic reforms. Many of the political formations have created their power bases through discriminatory politics that cater to only a section of the society. Creating a party with no discrimination in governance, conflicts with their electoral-political model/strategy.

Implementing Proposition 4 also is not easy. India follows the British system where the ministers are chosen from elected representatives. This has caused severe problems, as the talent that can win elections is very different from that which can deliver performance as a cabinet. This is a problem that ails all parties but post 2019 BJP has moved towards using technocrats elected through the Rajya Sabha. This is a de facto solution and BJP is somehow able to do it. The opposition however, stitched from a merged party already, will have so many hurt egos and it may not be able to give key portfolios, say MEA, Finance and Telecom, to technocrats. So even if they manage to merge parties, come to power, how will they execute what needs to be done without talent needed to do it?

India needs more than one political formation that will work for all citizens without any discrimination and provide high quality governance. The safety of our democracy lies in having a viable alternative. Mr Modi is also likely to agree with this proposition.

But to blame him or his party for this situation, where there appears to be no alternative to BJP, is farfetched and actually presents a totally wrong picture of the political reality of India.

Over decades the media and the Muslim vote has backed the same candidates independent of their overall performance. They have never cast their vote strategically and always voted for same political formations. They have never questioned if the winning candidates they backed have been working for all citizens without discriminating among them or taking the nation backward. They have never questioned whether their demands are reasonable. All of these neglected issues have come centre stage today and have resulted in changes in politics, which have left the Muslim vote powerless.

To summarise, it is not Mr Modi who is responsible for the silencing of the Muslim vote but the Muslim vote itself. This apart, the media is also complicit in the failure to constructively criticise opposition parties and point out their flaws. They should introspect on how they should use their voice and votes to create alternate viable political formations. Blaming BJP or Mr Modi for the current state of the Muslim vote will be akin to barking up the wrong tree and will only make the situation worse for Muslims.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ramana Rajgopaul and Koushik Sekhar are independent writers