The writer of the article Arvind Singh, concludes his article, appended here below, by saying, 'I think these sentiments would reflect the views of many of those who were well-wishers of Advani until now.'
Best regards, U. G. Barad BJP's rise was due to ideological strength By Arvind Singh on June 22, 2013 These days it seems that LK Advani has become a sort of hero for those who call themselves intellectuals and wear the badge of secularism on their sleeves. (It is another matter that for them being secular means to be against the ideology of the Sangh parivar, without giving any informed reasons.) It is said that the BJP cadre are ungrateful to Advani for the immense contribution that he has made for the rise of the BJP from the ashes of 1984. First, it should be recognised that the election of 1984 were determined on the basis of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. And it was not only the BJP that got disseminated, but so many other parties as well. What was on the table in 1984 was not the Sangh ideology but an unrelated issue. In fact, the experiment of the so-called Gandhian socialism was the ruling ideology of the BJP. Second, the rise of the BJP in the 1989 election from two seats to 85 was also fought primarily on an emotive issue - namely anti-corruption. The people wanted to show the Congress party the door, just as they wanted to do (and did) in the post-Emergency elections. Third, the 1991 elections were also fought on two emotive issues - one was the disenchantment of the people with the Janata Dal experiment of VP Singh in the first phase, and the second was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in the second phase. The analysis of the results would show that the BJP had done much better in the first phase, and it would have had much higher than the around 120 seats that the party finally ended with. It was in 1989 elections that the Hindutva ideology, particularly expressed through the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi movement, first came on the centrestage for fighting the elections. Just as in the Emergency of 1975, when the cadre and organisational strength of the Sangh parivar was a dominant factor in the fight against the attempt to destroy democracy, it was the same strength that propelled the BJP forward. This strength was also seen in the subsequent elections until 1999, when the strength of the party was around 185. For the first time in India's post-independence history, a party ideologically opposed to the Congress got more popular votes than the Congress, and for the first time a person who had never been in the Congress, became the Prime Minister. This was a historically significant moment. During this period, there is no doubt that Advani made an important contribution to the rise of the BJP. But, can it be said to have been done in a single-handed manner? Would this rise have been possible without the cadre of the Sangh Parivar? And what about the contribution of so many other leaders of the BJP? It should not be forgotten that these other leaders were also in the BJP from the time that they first came into politics - that is they were not those who left other parties and joined the BJP. Each of them had deep ideological conviction towards Hindutva. And all of them were working for the cause, and not for their own selves. In any dispensation, an individual as a leader is very important. Advani did make a noteworthy sacrifice for the cause. It was not just the time he spent in jail during the Emergency, but also not getting sufficient recognition for his intellectual and organisational talent from outside the Sangh establishment. But without the ideology that enthused the cadre, this sacrifice would not have yielded as much results as they did in the span of time that it did. Could the system have thrown up another leader who could have replaced Advani? This is a matter for speculation, but history does show that strong organisations do create strong leaders. And they have the necessary corrective mechanism to deal with a leader who has come to a position based on an expectation but which were not fulfilled. In analysing the contribution of Advani, one should also look at where the BJP is today, namely at less than 120 seats that it is presently holding, as well as the reduction in the vote share from more than 26 per cent to around 18 per cent. Here, I feel that Advani made major compromises to the ideology, with a hope that more allies will join the NDA and get more of the non-BJP votes to the party. The 2004 election proved that this strategy was a failure, and there was a disenchantment amongst the committed voters of the BJP. But the strategy was pursued in the 2009 election as well, leading to a further decline in the fortunes of the party. Advani's statement on Jinnah in Pakistan did not go down well at all with the Hindutva cadre, to put it mildly. Not only were the sentiments expressed factually incorrect, they were against everything the Hindutva ideology stood for. It seemed to the votaries of Hindutva that Advani was taking a line away from the ideology, or not insisting upon a discussion on the ideology with the coalition partners. For example, the issue of common civil code was put on the backburner due to the pressure of the some of the alliance partners, without even a discussion on the subject. This is an eminently secular issue and one that causes huge harm to the women amongst the Muslims. But Advani did not exhibit any inclination for a discussion. For the votary of Hindutva, Advani's recent actions are evaluated on the basis of what he has done over the last ten years, when there has been a substantial reduction in the electoral fortunes of the party that he had built up. Tavleen Singh, in a recent article in NitiCentral, wrote: "No longer will it be easy for ordinary BJP workers to see him as the patriarch that he has been revered as despite leading the party into defeat in two successive general elections in 2004 and 2009." These votaries have no political ambition, but they see the ideology of Hindutva as having the kernel to take the country forward in all aspects of life, not just material. In the same article, Tavleen Singh also wrote: "In the years that I have known (Advani) I have been impressed by his qualities of humility, integrity and decency. Qualities that are rare in Indian politicians. So when he did what he did after the BJP's decision at its Goa conclave to appoint Narendra Modi as head of its election campaign committee, I felt almost personally betrayed. I found it hard to believe that he could have gone out of his way to destroy the political party that he had led for so long." I think these sentiments would reflect the views of many of those who were well-wishers of Advani until now. (The writer is a journalist based in Ambala)
