How BJP tackles infighting, revolt
nNEW DELHI: When four National People’s Party (NPP) lawmakers withdrew support to Manipur’s N Biren Singh-led government on June 17 and threatened to bring it down, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’S central leadership quickly swung into action. Union home minister Amit Shah and BJP chief JP Nadda immediately met the disgruntled lawmakers and NPP chief Conrad Sangma to deal with the crisis. The crisis blew over by June 25 when Singh shook hands with his detractors. Similar intervention in February helped resolve a potential crisis in Karnataka, where several BJP leaders were upset over the denial of cabinet berths.
The grievance redress mechanisms of political parties in such situations have been in the focus again as the Congress government in Rajasthan faces a rebellion by former deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot’ and his followers. The fresh crisis for the Congress comes months after its government was toppled in Madhya Pradesh when 22 lawmakers resigned to pave the way for the BJP’S return to power. In both cases, rebels have expressed dissatisfaction over the party’s grievance redress system.
BJP general secretary Anil Jain, who is the party’s Haryana and Chhattisgarh in charge, said the party has multiple systems for addressing issues. “...decisions are taken collectively; it is the party’s position, not an individual’s choice. So clashes do not occur. Our party is not an individual or a personality-centric party; it is based on an ideology,” said Jain, who was instrumental in sorting out differences between Haryana chief minister M L Khattar and his cabinet colleague, Anil Vij.
Bhupinder Yadav, BJP’S general secretary and Bihar in-charge, echoed Jain. “...there is a mechanism for addressing issues and decisions are made in a democratic manner. The other difference is that while in the BJP, the highest decision-making body is the Parliamentary Board, in Congress, it is the Gandhis.”
A third BJP leader, who did not wish to be named, said tensions and disagreements are expected and all parties have safety valves to prevent spillovers. “Differences or clashes between personalities is not a new phenomenon. We have seen this happen between Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru, between L K Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In such cases, these leaders used to supplement each other or even surrender to the other leader,” the third functionary said. He said Advani had to show deference to Vajpayee, who was seen as a mass leader. In the BJP, there is also a third authority, which is sometimes seen to serve as the safety valve—its ideological fount, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. “The RSS can be described as a friend, philosopher and guide. People can share their views with the [RSS] functionaries and also seek advice,” this leader said.
To be sure, not all disagreements were amicably solved. Yashwant Sinha and Jaswant Singh, who served as finance and external affairs ministers in the Vajpayee government, had a bitter parting with the BJP after complaining of being sidelined. Shatrughan Sinha, Kirti Azad and Navjot Singh Sidhu, who also quit the BJP, made public their disagreements with the party’s leadership.
Congress leader Pranav Jha rejected the suggestion that his party does not have a proper redress system and said the BJP not only irons out but steamrolls and eliminates differences. “From L K Advani to Uma Bharti and Sushma Swaraj, [these] are all examples. We, on the contrary, are a democratic party of living individuals, who aspire and compete like it happens all across the world.”
Ashoka University assistant professor Neelanjan Sircar said it is the very construct of the Congress’s structure that is not based on ideology and makes it vulnerable to defections. “A fundamental challenge for political parties in India is how they prevent defection and how they engineer defection.”