Thanks Kiran and Deepa...
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Kiran K Karthikeyan<[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The RSS goes back to 1920s, but a range of events, apparently >> unconnected, coalesced in mid-80s, leading to the environment in which >> Hindutva could flourish. It did not emerge out of vacuum; there were >> sound reasons it was considered irrelevant until mid-80s. (Again, it >> is in my book). > > > Would you mind stating these reasons? I will of course read them in more > detail when your book becomes available. > The RSS's founders created the organisation after several models in their mind, of which the Nazi Party and the Italian Fascists were important. There is considerable admiration for both the Nazis and the Fascists in the early writings and remarks of Hedgewar and Golwalkar, as well as the papers of Munje (who was more HMS) which you can find in the national archives in India. That message had to fight for space with the Gandhian idea of sarva-dharma-samabhav (all faiths are equal) brand of secularism, personified by the all-faith-prayers at his evening prayer meetings. Gandhi did capture the mood of the nation through the late 20s till 40s, and beyond; that ethos formed the basis of defining Indian identity. If you look at the votes polled by the Jana Sangh, the BJP's predecessor, through the elections till 1977, you won't find their vote exceeding 10-12% at the most; often the vote was in th 5-8% category. The only time their leaders (Vajpayee and Advani) were able to assume office, was in 1977, when they merged Jana Sangh with the newly-formed Janata Party. Vajpayee became foreign minister; Advani information and broadcasting minister. Then of course the government collapsed over the "dual membership" issue; Charan Singh argued you couldn't become a member of the Janata Party and the RSS. And yet, in the elections that followed - 1979, and then in 1984, the new incarnation of the Jana Sangh, the Bharatiya Janata Party, did poorly. It never exceeded the 10-odd percent of votes, and in fact in 1984, it won only two seats in parliament. But in 1989, it won 88 seats. How come? First, its percentage of votes (I write from memory) didn't exceed 15-18%, but it had seat adjustment with the Janata Dal. And it agreed to provide VP Singh support from outside, to form a government. Since then, you've had a gradual increase in BJP's vote-base, now running around 26%. (My personal view is that it can't increase that share beyond 30%, unless it radically reduces its Hindutva plank - but that's a separate topic). Between 1984 and 1991, the following things happened, which began to sour the mood among many Hindus, which forms the kernel of my argument: 1. The Shah Bano judgment, following which the Government took away Muslim women's right to seek maintenance from the courts. 2. The ban on The Satanic Verses (1988), which angered many free-speech fundamentalists. 3. The decline of the Soviet Union and its bloc (1987-1991), which made people question "non-alignment." 4. The diminished value of "socialism", as Gandhi made first attempts to liberalise the economy. (India was broke by 1991) 5. Ergo: why not question the third Nehruvian tenet, "secularism"? 6. The national TV network telecast programs like Ramayana and Mahabharata (1986-1989), which provided a narrative of Hindu heroism in a simplified form. (See Rajagopal's excellent book on that topic). 7. The BJP formed an alliance with the Shiv Sena, making its militancy look more respectable, compared to the Thackerays'. (1988) 8. And the Babri Masjid, of course, which emerged as a galvanising issue for many Hindus. (the first marches were in 1990, leading to the collapse of the VP Singh Govt after Laloo Yadav arrested Advani). 9. And lets not forget the Kashmir insurgency, and the Mufti capitulation over Rubaiya Syed affair in 1989, and the Pandit exodus from the Valley to the plains of northern India. These factors were not so relevant pre-1984. (You could also argue that the Emergency had broken the "pact" between Indian voters and the Congress, as a centrist party, and the Khalistan insurgency had made many Hindus feel they were "vulnerable" in India. This coalescing of events strengthened the Hindu resolve, forcing some Hindus towards greater militancy, into supporting the BJP. Its net addition, I think, is about 6-10% of the vote beyond the core RSS support base. It is of course, utterly insufficient to win nationwide, a point Modi and others have consistently failed to grasp. Hope this clarifies.... The book doesn't examine these issues in great detail, but you will find stuff about it. Thanks; salil
