Returns on rhetoric diminishing for BJP

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah have turned the state Assembly elections into referendums of the party’s government at the centre, a test of the party's standing in the country as such. It is because of the political markup of the provincial electoral contests that Assembly election results in the large western state of Maharashtra and the small northern state of Haryana become bigger than they really are.

The BJP is winning in Maharashtra but it is not a case of winner takes all. The Shiv Sena, though in a second position, becomes a key partner. The BJP cannot form the government without the Sena. It is not the case that the BJP is generous towards its ally though it can form the government on its own as it is in the Lok Sabha where it is in a majority on its own.

And in Haryana, the BJP gets a jolt and the Modi juggernaut is literally halted. Given the gung-ho spirit of Mr Modi and Mr Shah, they will declare that the people in these two states have reposed faith in the Prime Minister because Mr Modi has been made the fulcrum of the party’s politics, a premise of doubtful value as well as a flawed strategy at the best of times. But the party is willing to risk it all on Mr Modi, and it seems to have paid off in the last five years, in a manner of speaking. The Haryana result shows that the Modi factor is subject to the law of diminishing marginal utility.

In retrospect, the BJP seems to have been nervous about the outcome in Maharashtra which forced it to make that vulgar electoral promise of conferring Bharat Ratna on Vir Savarkar, an insult to Savarkar, to Bharat Ratna and to Maharashtra. The BJP did not win because of this singularly shameful promise, but it betrays the fear of defeat that the party and its leaders seemed to have sensed in the run-up to the polls. It has won in the state, and with a comfortable majority with the help of its ally, the Sena. But it becomes clear that the party sensed the discontent and disenchantment of the people. The party’s market savvy-leaders are sure to laugh at the suggestion that they were quite apprehensive and the Bharat Ratna-for-Savarkar was a political insurance policy. The Devendra Fadnavis government has to be on its toes now. It cannot bask in the reflected glory of Mr Modi.

Mr Modi, Mr Shah and the rest of the top brass in the BJP are likely to argue that they did not fight the Assembly elections in these two states on the issue of abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, and that the Prime Minister and the home minister mentioned it in passing in the election rallies they held, and the media had played it up. This was the argument that was

In Haryana, the BJP gets a jolt and the Modi juggernaut is literally halted. Given the gung-ho spirit of Mr Modi and Mr Shah, they will declare that the people in these two states have reposed faith in the PM...

proffered when critics pointed out that the BJP won the Lok Sabha election by raking up national security, terrorism and Pakistan, and that they had no positive agenda of their own. It is true that Mr Modi had spoken belligerently about development and the economy in the 2014 election, but he could not do the same in 2019. The achievements of the governments of Fadnavis and Manohar Khattar were nothing to write home about. Mr Modi and Mr Shah had to shout from the rooftops about what they believe to be historic decision to do away with the temporary special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The BJP may have to review its propaganda offensive based on national security, terrorism and Pakistan. Mr Modi and Mr Shah should strive for a time when they can fight and win an election without referring to Pakistan.

These Assembly election results prove that the people are not hypnotised by the Modi charisma, and that they would vote for his party based on performance and when the Opposition fails to provide a reasonable alternative. The BJP will have to get off its high horse of ranting nationalism and address the more serious economic and social challenges of the country. They cannot win elections by fomenting fear psychosis about Pakistan.

The Congress, which appeared to be slipping into oblivion, has made an emphatic comeback in Haryana. It has successfully challenged the BJP’s triumphalism in the state. In Maharashtra, it is the Opposition that has done well, led by Sharad

Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and not the Congress. The Congress is set to become the junior partner in the alliance. The lesson for Congress in these elections is quite clear. It had found a reliable and strong leader in Bhupinder Singh Hooda in Haryana. There was no leader of the party in Maharashtra. Pawar was the face of NCP. There is a lesson if someone wants to learn from it.

There is also much need to hector either Congress’ working president Sonia Gandhi or former president Rahul Gandhi about reviving the party, of vacating their privileged space to the non-existent claimants. The grand old party is likely to trundle along its disgraceful path of depending on the Nehru-Gandhis to maintain cohesion in the rickety party. And there will emerge local satraps like Mr Hooda who will salvage the fortunes of the party in the states. Satraps like Mr Hooda do not entertain national ambitions while providing a safety valve at the ground level.

The BJP and the Congress face the same problem. While the BJP has to come out of the Modi trance, the Congress will have to get out of the Nehru-Gandhi syndrome and throw up leaders at the national level as it does in the states. Leadership is important but when a party depends on an individual as the sole leader, it is going down the slippery path of decline and heading towards defeat.

The BJP is winning in Maharashtra but it is not a case of winner takes all. The Shiv Sena, though in a second position, becomes a key partner. The BJP cannot form the government without the Sena.

The writer is a Delhibased commentator and analyst

These results prove that the people are not hypnotised by the Modi charisma, and that they would vote for his party based on performance and when the Opposition fails to provide a reasonable alternative