Between Continuity And Compromise

The Bharatiya Janata Partys election manifesto, released yesterday, walks the tightrope between continuity in the partys established positions and its need to enlarge its support base and keep its allies in good humour.

Party leaders acknowledged while releasing the document that it was chopped and changed repeatedly in recent weeks. The partys ideologues appear to have reacted to the criticism from its mentors in the Sangh family and its media critics that it was watering down its commitments in order to win power.

The BJPs commitments to building a grand Ram temple at Ayodhya, abrogating Article 370 (special guarantees for Jammu and Kashmir) and a uniform civil code stand but, with minorities firmly in focus for the first time, are presented more mutedly than in the 1996 manifesto.

 

In any case, the party is hopeful of forming a coalition government with allies who have already stated that they will not allow some of these promises to be implemented.

The party has been fighting shy of formulating a common minimum programme with its allies. When asked about it, party president LK Advani said it is not necessary for now.

AB Vajpayee, the partys putative prime minister, left the release function immediately after posing for pictures, leaving Advani to answer questions along with pro-reforms former finance minister Jaswant Singh, who chaired the manifesto drafting committee.

Vajpayee did not involve himself much in the drafting and even left the final meeting of the committee early. In any case, a coalition led by him would not be bound by the manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which would be only one of the participants in the government.

Advani quipped that he wished elections were fought and won in India on the basis of manifestos. The party appears to have tailored this document primarily for its established supporters, only leaving out the more jarring frills that might hurt the sensibilities of other voters.

There is no question of being defensive about any aspect of the partys programmes, said Advani, adding he would be untrue to myself, untrue to the Muslims if he omitted long-held commitments.

On a common civil code, for instance, the manifesto promises to refer the existing laws for various religions to the Law Commission (normally a former Supreme Court judge, appointed by the Centre) to draft a common code based on what Advani called the modern, progressive elements of each. This would be widely debated, he added.

The new manifesto baldly promises to abrogate Article 370, omitting the reasoning, stated in the previous one that it puts J&K on a separate and separatist pedestal, for the states full and final integration with the Union. Insiders say Vajpayee urged the omission of that sentence. Advani had backed him at the final meeting of the manifesto drafting committee.

The last manifesto spoke of facilitating the construction of the Ayodhya temple. This one promises to explore all consensual, legal and constitutional means, after noting that a makeshift temple already exists there. Asked for a time frame, Advani said there was no time bound and hurriedly moved on.

The last manifesto said the BJP would disband the minorities commission and entrust its responsibilities to the National Human Rights Commission. This one does not use the word disband, only about entrusting its responsibilities to the human rights commission.

The 1996 manifesto promised to set up a commission of inquiry to inquire into the activities of foreign missionaries and other organisations that have been receiving foreign funds. It also promised to make fraudulent conversions, including those done by holding out the promise of economic or social benefits, a punishable offence. This one is quiet on these points.

Advani acknowledged having told the manifestos draftsmen that they should not include anything that could embarrass the party, since it expected to be in government. They have left the party with leverage on a number of issues, both economic and political.

Thus, on a matter like protecting states against the misuse of Article 356 (imposition of Presidents rule), the manifesto vaguely commits the party to take necessary steps to prevent the misuse of Article 356. The previous manifesto had said it would explore the possibility of making it mandatory for the Centre to seek Parliaments approval by a two-thirds majority before using Article 356.