The weakened leaders of ideological parties are always vulnerable to those willing to be more extreme than them. This is something to consider when understanding what is going on in Uttar Pradesh and it will serve as an example of what we can expect in the future in a minority government. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) allies in New Delhi have all opposed the idea that Uttar Pradesh’s shopkeepers be compelled to advertise their names (and by extension their religion).
From the outside there seems no apparent reason for asking shopkeepers to do this except to generate controversy. No demand for this was made and this has not been an issue in the past. The manner in which it has been done, at first without an official order, and pretending that it is voluntary further strengthens the impression that the action was taken only to stir the pot.
Consider then that the issue has become larger than the news of just a day before it happened, which was that Uttar Pradesh’s chief minister was in trouble for delivering defeat in the Lok Sabha polls. All the TV news channels were full of speculation about what would happen next. That is no longer the story, and the chief minister has managed with one action to change the narrative.
Also read: Rahul Gandhi’s Humane Hinduism Totally Differs from Violent and Hateful Hindutva of BJP-RSS
Observe that few Union ministers are defending this or promoting the idea. This is not of course because they disagree with it but because it doesn’t serve the government in Delhi. Why give your allies the opportunity to show rifts and dissent? It doesn’t help with the illusion that nothing has changed after June 4, 2024. But everyone understands that and why it is being done.
The action in Uttar Pradesh cannot be openly opposed either, and this is the problem of ideological parties. The chief minister is doing only what the BJP has been doing against the minorities through its entire history because that is its ideology. The same thing done six months ago or last year would have been a different matter, but this is a new time. We have seen glimpses of this same situation before. The challenger who is more extreme than the weakened leader was first seen over 20 years ago.
In April 2002, only a month after the violence after Godhra had led to the death of about 1,000 people in Gujarat, the BJP national executive met in Goa. There was talk in the media that the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was going to get the then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi to step down.
A magazine reported under the headline “How Vajpayee ended up as the Hindutva choir boy” on what happened next: “No sooner had party president Jana Krishnamurthy completed his ‘taken as read’ presidential address than Modi got up and said in his sombre, chaste Hindi:
‘Adhyakshji, I want to speak on Gujarat … From the party’s point of view, this is a grave issue. There is a need for a free and frank discussion. To enable this, I wish to place my resignation before this body. It is time we decided what direction the party and the country should take from this point onward’.”
Advertisement
“He didn’t need to say more. With one stroke, the Gujarat chief minister had seized the initiative. He galvanised his supporters who now stood up to be counted. Food minister Shanta Kumar, who had spoken out against Modi and the Vishva Hindu Parishad’s (VHP’s) extremes, found himself being rebuked and facing a disciplinary committee. He was forced to apologise.
“Even if the prime minister may have thought Modi’s resignation prudent for the sake of both his personal image and the unity of the coalition, there was absolutely no way he could go against the ferocity of the pro-Modi sentiment. He tried shelving the issue for a day but even this was resisted.”
Advertisement
Vajpayee’s inability to wrestle Mr Modi down was predictable. Having been raised on ideology, the cadre was not interested in moderation. As noted earlier, leaders in extremist parties are always vulnerable to charismatic persons further to their right, willing and eager to push harder and risk more and are better able to express the cadre’s zealotry.
Also read: Mass Morality and Cash Morality are Moving in Opposite Directions Under Modi
Mr Modi was able to build a nationwide and really a global notoriety and fame because of the BJP’s refusal or inability to change its leadership in Gujarat. The apologetic Hindutva of the decade following the fall of the Babri Masjid was about to end. The BJP cadre and the Sangh had a real hero who spoke and felt and did as they really wanted their leaders to.
That gloss has now gone because of the events of June 4. If the prime minister wishes to see smooth functioning inside the government he will have to avoid issues that needlessly agitate allies, such as this one. Remember that the allies will always be looking out for issues on which they can press to extract what they really want.
As the 240-seater prime minister attempts to moderate his image of hardline hero, he has made room for others to elbow in, and that is what is happening. And that is what will continue to happen from inside the BJP.
Those in the party who feel threatened, or are about to lose their position, or feel that they need to assert themselves over others in some way, will consider using this formula. Many will actually deploy it, as we are seeing. This is the problem with all ideological parties.
It is going to be a different third term for him and an interesting one for observers.
Aakar Patel is an author and columnist.
