Should Congress and BJP merge?

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Unconventional wisdom is rarely honoured. But what is happening in India in political permutation and combination is a rarity as yesterday’s friends and foes are friends today. If we look for a parallel, for the entire 19th century the British parliament saw governments run by either Whigs or Tories. Then the new century produced upheaval of two World Wars, and after that, the world changed. The old Whigs virtually disappeared to be replaced by the Labour Party. A paradoxical question: can the two Rightist parties merge to form a bigger group to give stability to the political system in India? These two parties in question are - the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party. Indeed, a hypothetical proposition. Both the parties have been witnessing shrinkage in terms of voters’ choice.

First, let us examine the performance of the Congress party. It suffered first setback way back in 1967, when the electorate in a large number of states sent it the message that it could no longer cash in on its pre-independence role. But the disunity of its opponents and the presence of a charismatic leader helped to brush off that setback and storm back to power in 1971.

The Congress repeated this remarkable rejuvenating feat twice more - in 1980 and 1984, with its voting percentage shooting up to its highest ever of 48.1 per cent, an outstanding performance by the party. But the brittleness was also becoming obvious, for the percentage dropped to 36.5 in 1989 and then to 31.5 two years later when, for the second time in succession, it failed to get a majority in parliament. True, it did cobble together one through the "affection" of friends, as the BJP now ingeniously terms the phenomenon of defection. But the writing was on the wall, the party had lost its momentum.

The obvious course for the Congress at this stage should have been a prolonged period of introspection to ascertain what had gone wrong. But it had bounced back so many times - in 1971, 1980, 1984, 1991 - that it could not abandon the hope that the miracle would happen again. The party refused to believe that these sporadic surges could be nothing more than the flickering of a dying flame.

The miracle could have happened if the Congress had a charismatic leader and credible policy. But here, too, its past had stymied its growth. The Congress had depended for so long on popular, good-looking leaders articulating the party’s policies that it felt totally at a loss when it no longer had them at the helm. The party members felt like orphans, not knowing what to do or what to say, except hark back to their dead leaders and try to extract the maximum mileage from their memories.

Surprisingly, the Congress did not even hesitate to abandon "socialism" and opt for liberalisation when the middle class felt stifled with the more than four-and-half decades of shoddy goods and services which the vain pursuit of that creed had produced. But the Congress failed to understand that, faction-ridden as the United Front was, the electorate did not want it to be disturbed simply because someone did not like the prime minister’s face. Elections are fun in India, but not at such frequent intervals. Besides, the people generally want to give a government enough rope to hang itself. If they are unhappy with it, they would like to bring it down themselves and do not someone else trying to act on their behalf.

The Congress impatience, however, grew out of its belief that it is still the arbiter of Indian politics. But it is an illusion it will have to shed if the party wants to recover some of its relevance. And if it does not shed it on its own, the voters will make the party do so by once again rubbing its nose in the dust. The Indian electorate is quite unforgiving, as the party learnt in 1977 and its opponents learnt in 1980.

The primary requisite of a remedy is the correct diagnosis of the disease. The Congress will have to recognise that it is now no more than a party among parties, and that all its actions must be tailored to this harsh fact of life. Both in 1989 and in 1996, the Congress initially took the right step by acknowledging that since the electorate had rejected it, the party would not make a bid for power. But having taken the logical step, it started behaving as if it regretted doing so, presumably because Congressmen feel like a fish out of water when deprived of power. But this is another aspect of life which they will have to get used to.

A crucial lesson in this respect can be learnt from the CPI (M). Despite having emerged as India’s main communist party after the 1964 split and despite being accused of being the domineering Big Brother by other Leftists, the CPI (M) has retained its fraternal links with a majority of other communist parties and kept the Left Front and the Left Democratic Front afloat in West Bengal, Tripura and Kerala. Even now, it can form a government on its own in West Bengal, but has deliberately refrained from doing so in order to save the Leftist alliance. This concession by the CPI (M) is not due to the innate generosity of its heart, but the result of a shrewd calculation that this is the best way to keep the Congress at bay.

The Congress, too, has done this in Kerala where it leads the United Democratic Front. What it has done Kerala, it has to do at the Centre, for the hope about the party getting more than 270 seats in the Lok Sabha on its own is a pipedream. The Congressmen will also have to forget about the dynasty achieving this for it. They must learn to stand on their own feet, as they did not do during the long years when Gandhi and then Nehru, and then Nehru’s daughter and grandson won the votes for them.

Seeking votes for the party without a father figure at the helm implies collective leadership. But this concept never evolved because of Nehru, and his daughter, for all her charisma, never felt fully in charge to allow other power centres to develop. After her famous 1971 victory came the railway strike of 1974 and the Emergency of 1975 to put an end to her days of glory.

Instead of power centres, therefore, power coteries came into being and, while the leader at the helm successfully wooed the electorate, the smaller men at the lower rungs squabbled with each other. A major reason for the Congress’ present plight is that while the great leaders have gone, the state level leaders continue to fight among themselves. It is a habit they will have to discard if the party is to be revived, but this will not be easy because, like everything about the Congress, factionalism, too, has a long history.

What the Congress needs above all is the articulation of credible policies. At present, no one knows what it stands for. Its secularism is deemed a sham and its commitment to liberalisation half-hearted. All that the party is known today is for cynicism and corruption.

The BJP is also facing an existential crisis similar to the Congress party. Its votes percentage is sliding and it has lost Uttar Pradesh to a regional party - Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav. Many of its other bastions have fallen, and the party will be virtually leaderless after the exit of Atal Behari Vajapyee and LK Advani, who face the dilemma of ageing. The next generation leadership has nothing to show, even a dynastic cap like the Congress party.

In the absence of a predominant national party, regional parties have filled the vacuum leading to coalition politics, which have a poor survival rate as interests clash with political agenda of various formations. It is time for political instability in the country, if the Leftists or RJD withdraw support to the Congress-led coalition government at the Centre - sooner or later.

The suggestion of merger of the Congress and BJP will raise many eyebrows. But political compulsions are there to ponder over the issue. Since we have based our parliamentary democracy on the Westminster model, is there a case in point for us to expect merger of the BJP and Congress as a party of the Right while all the regional forces and other like-minded entities coalesce into a party of the Left? It would certainly shrink the ballot paper from its bed-sheet like proportions and provide the electorate with clear cut alternatives hitherto denied. INAV

Understanding the past

From Arun Nehru

As a student of History and having studied at La Martiniere School in Lucknow and spending a great deal of time studying and being surrounded by the 'relics' of 1857 [Residency and Dilkusha gardens] I cannot but feel that Aamir Khan has done a great deal of good in bringing to attention the events of 1857 and perhaps like the earlier controversy on 'Mohd Ali Jinnah' we will spend a little time on understanding and appreciating the past. The world of 1857 was the 'Imperial' feudal order of Kings and Queens, of masters and slaves [white rulers and natives] and 'Mangal Pandey' like 'Lagaan' before it merely reflects the reality of the times with a bit of 'Bollywood' and I suppose this is in order as a 'factual' documentary on the events of 1857 would have a limited appeal. Let us look at some of the facts and I think if we study the History of the period written by British historians we must accept their version with a 'rock' of salt!

The British Army in India in 1857 had 35,000 Europeans and close to 2,50,000 Indians. The mutiny if I remember correctly lasted for 18 months and despite the fact there was no political leadership and limited participation [ Bengal regiments were in the mutiny but Madras and Bombay stayed away] and the vast majority of 'rulers' stayed loyal to the British and suppressed the Mutiny in their domains, national sentiments were roused and there were many instances of 'resistance' and the events of 1857 did bring about a drastic change in British policy. We cannot be obsessed with the tragedy of the past but I think it is necessary to understand and appreciate the fact that we were enslaved not by the British alone but by vested interests [Indian feudal elements] acting at the behest of the Colonial rulers. Look at the 'actual' dispatches from the battlefield in 1857 and read the 'heroic' efforts of the 'natives' in suppressing the 'Mutineers' [freedom fighters for us] and the rewards rendered to loyal subjects of the Crown and the list includes many more than the Maharaja's and the feudal gentry and reflect on many issues of caste and religion which the British exploited and prevented us from acting in a united manner and these issues haunt us to this day. Hundreds and thousands of 'sepoys' and their families were subject to systematic 'slaughter' by the British as towns and villages were systematically looted. The Dilkusha Gardens in Lucknow alone had 5,000 'natives' butchered in a single day of revenge and retribution.

There was nothing 'just' or 'fair' about Colonial rule and the British by a combination of superior weaponry and inventions [steam engine] and deploying the usual tactics of deceit, bribery and murder along with our internal weakness on religious and caste factors effectively deployed the principal of divide and rule in their favor they governed three quarters of the World. We cannot settle scores with the past as 'times and circumstances' change but I think it is a credit to both the countries that we have effectively buried the past and much of this has to do with the tactics deployed by Mahatma Gandhi who demolished the feudal world with a little more than a 'bamboo staff' and India became a 'free nation' after 300 years of bondage [1000 years altogether]. The generation of today [leaders tomorrow] live in the present and in the future and as we grow in economic terms and assume the status of a super power we must pay homage to the past and the sacrifices of many millions who have battled over the years. I believe that the events of 1857 had a great impact on events which followed and this is reflected in the change in British policy and the attitudes of the Indians towards the freedom struggle

The wonderful thing with 'time' is that things change and I think 'few' would have visualized that the humble 'Samosa' [ available in turkey, beef, chicken, lamb, vegetable] and 'chicken tikka' would be a part of the British cuisine and with time will spread to other parts of the World, menu's and information booklets will be available in Indian languages and already in many parts of the World the tourist industry depends on visitors from India.. We have a 'global' economy and with time as we propel towards 'Super Power' status we will have perhaps have a few occasions to catch glimpses of the immediate past. Sixty years after independence we have achieved more in actual terms than many a country and I still remember when I was the Power Minister in 1985 I came across the situation as it existed in 1947 and I was shocked to see that we generated less power in 1947 in India then we did in Delhi city in 1985! Look at the staggering growth with the limitations in hand in the past sixty years and marvel at what we have produced with limited resources and try to think what we will do in the future with effective use of technology. I have written consistently that we are poised for 'super power' status and I have no hesitation in indicating that the next 'ten' years will shatter all records in terms of Economic growth.

Life is about positives and negatives and whilst many will reflect on the lack of infrastructure, garbage and power shortages, bribery and corruption and a host of other ailments [all correct] the others will reflect on the demographic pattern, the manpower resources at all levels and the ability of the National effort which has made us the 4th largest economy in the World. We have a new breed of super stars in the business world and with pride and admiration we see Indian companies acquiring assets abroad. Look in any field and you see the presence of India and the generation of today [50% below the age of 25] suffer from 'few' complexes of the past and much of success has to do with self confidence and a belief and respect for all things Indian. We cannot expect the World to respect us if we cannot respect our own heritage.