EPHEMERAL OR ENDURING?
A look at the uptick in the BJP’s fortune in the northeastern states
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s apparent inability to secure an enduring foothold in the Northeast is a factor that has undermined the party’s aspiration to be accepted as a truly national party. Much of the region still sees the BJP as a Hindu party whose ascendancy threatens their religious freedom. Until recently, the BJP had only a nominal presence in the region’s electoral field outside of Assam.
This picture began to change in 2016 when the BJP wrenched power from the Congress in Assam, winning 60 seats on its own in a 126-seat assembly. Subsequently, the BJP also captured power in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, though under less edifying circumstances. At present, the BJP is a junior partner in the Nagaland and Sikkim state governments. What factors account for this uptick in the BJP’s electoral fortune? How does the party plan to consolidate itself? This is the subject of The Last Battle of Saraighat: The story of the BJP’s Rise in the North-east.
It should first be noted that the authors Rajat Sethi and Shubhrastha are not independent analysts; they are campaigners for the BJP. The book is limited in its scope; half of it is devoted to Assam. The book lacked depth. It is more of a running commentary by two outside professionals, who have observed the region from close quarters. Nevertheless, this work is important because it is perhaps the first to attempt an electoral analysis on the Northeast. Secondly, it offers insights into the BJP’s thinking on the region as the party looks to make further inroads.
In the book’s telling, the BJP’s success in the Assam elections came from weaponising the illegal immigration issue, which has long haunted Assam. The party, following the RSS, neatly classifies Hindu migrants from Bangladesh as victims fleeing persecution and Muslim migrants as usurpers of land. The election was pitched as the “Last Battle of Saraighat”, evoking the legendary battle in 1671 where the Ahom kingdom defeated the Mughal “Muslim” invaders. This emotional play on a deeply sensitive and polarising issue, coupled with smart alliance making, resulted in the BJP winning the 2016 elections for the first time. According to the authors, this victory is historic because it showcases the success of the BJP’s “secret sauce” of uniting local flavours and national ideological goals. The authors are deeply critical about Delhi’s “transactional” relationships with the region since independence. Nehru, unsurprisingly, comes in for severe criticism for betraying Assam during the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which clubbed Assam with Muslimdominated provinces, sidelining Assamese heroes like Gopinath Bordoloi. Even Tagore is faulted for omitting the Northeast in Jana Gan Mana (written in 1911).
The authors exude optimism. One of their great insights is in recognizing that many of the insurgencies were not results of irreconcilable differences but “byproducts of a larger political malaise, a reaction against a series of the irresponsible actions of the state.” Much is redeemable with some genuine effort. Compared with the status quoist policies of the past, all these sound refreshing. The Congress had long regarded the region as a captive constituency. People hunger for change. Is the BJP up to it? The problem is that the noble ideals in the book contrast with the BJP’s divisive campaign in the Assam elections and after. Given the intractability of the immigration question, BJP’s victory in Assam can yet turn into a pyrrhic one. Is the party ready to keep its worst impulses in check and embrace our diversity? The answer may decide whether the BJP’s stay in the Northeast will be ephemeral or enduring.