KOVIND REPRESENTS ARCHETYPAL SELF-MADE MAN

Contemporary journalism lends itself to both shrillness and hyperbole. An example of the latter was the reaction of most of the media—apart from the habitually disgruntled sections—to the BJP’s selection of Ram Nath Kovind as its nominee for the President of India.

Despite Kovind being relatively less known— which is different from being unknown—the instinctive reaction was that the choice was a “masterstroke.” That it was a clever move was undeniable. Apart from symbolism offered by being both Dalit and a “farmer’s son”, the candidate was non-controversial and low-key to the point of being self-effacing. Unlike some of the Narendra Modi government’s gubernatorial appointments, Kovind had played with a complete straight bat during his stay at the Patna Raj Bhavan, even earning the appreciation of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. It was the fact that hardly anyone in the political class had anything negative to say about him, plus his credentials as a self-made man, that facilitated the incremental support he secured from outside the NDA. Indeed, I would suggest that securing the endorsement of the chief ministers of Bihar, Odisha, Telangana and Tamil Nadu was a phenomenal achievement.

Yet, the term “masterstroke” is an overstatement. The symbolism offered by the occupant of Rashtrapati Bhavan is important but limited. As we have seen earlier, the Presidential election has rarely impacted wider politics. The only exception was V.V. Giri’s narrow victory over Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy in 1969 which paved the way for Indira Gandhi’s successful revolt against the so-called Syndicate in the Congress. Otherwise, neither a good choice—as, say, R.Venkatraman, APJ Abdul Kalam and Pranab Mukherjee were—or indifferent choices—I will avoid naming them—have affected national politics. Therefore, to assume that Kovind’s elevation to Rashtrapati Bhavan will automatically lead to a swing of Dalit votes to the BJP is a far-fetched assumption. Symbolism is important in politics but it is not the only thing that matters.

To my mind, the symbolism of “President Kovind” should be located within a larger political game. Ever since the 2015 defeat in Bihar, the Prime Minister and the BJP President Amit Shah have been systematically addressing the two factors that led to the defeat. First, they have been trying to ensure that the non-BJP parties don’t enter into a grand alliance to upstage the BJP. Secondly, they have been mindful that the BJP needs to enlarge its social profile and win over sections that had not been with the party in 2014. In other words, unless the BJP enlarged its social coalition, it would be vulnerable to a gang-up.

The argument is facile and fails to factor the series of social adjustments the BJP has effected since the early-1990s. The steady incorporation of an OBC vote bank must surely count as one of the great successes, considering that the Congress has steadily lost support of many of its important constituents, both socially and geographically. The candidature of Kovind is not an isolated phenomenon. It comes on the back of a sustained campaign to make inroads among India’s Dalits, particularly that section which is not too closely linked to the Congress or BSP. The BJP secured more than 40 per cent of the popular vote in the UP Assembly election and much of this was due to its social expansion. The honouring of Kovind is an attempt to consolidate this expansion. It cannot be seen as a symbolic gesture that lacks substance.

In political terms, there was however another substantive gain for Modi. On the face of it, the selection of Meira Kumar as the Congress-sponsored candidate to oppose Kovind may seem an exercise in competitive Dalit-courting. To some extent it is. But there is another symbolism that the BJP is certain to use in the coming weeks.

Kovind represents the archetypal self-made man who has climbed the political ladder quietly through hard work. Meira Kumar too has been an achiever—having been a diplomat and subsequently the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. However, Kovind lacked the one thing that gave his opponent an added advantage—the fact that she was born in a political family and is part of the larger Congress system of family-based networks. In an India where the desire to succeed, regardless of social or family background, is an important driving force, Kovind comes across as more representative. Indeed—and this is not to belittle her achievements over the years—Meira Kumar’s battle is not seen as part of an ideological battle, but a battle involving ordinariness and pedigree. This ability to rise from obscurity has been an important facet of the wider Modi appeal, particularly among the lower middle classes and the disadvantaged sections. By promoting Kovind, Modi has sent out a clear signal that, like him, the non-connected sections can aspire and succeed in making it to the top. In this class battle, Modi appears to have wrong-footed a Congress that still depends excessively on dynastic links.

The outcome of the election for the President is pre-determined. What will be more interesting to track is its larger social and political fallout. Both sides have positioned themselves for the future. The Congress has achieved a large measure of opposition unity and kept its adherence to dynasty intact. On its part, the BJP has combined social engineering with a larger message to aspirational India.

THE symbolism offered by the occupant of Rashtrapati Bhavan is important but limited. As we have seen earlier, the Presidential election has rarely impacted wider politics. The only exception was V.V. Giri’s narrow victory over Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy in 1969 which paved the way for Indira Gandhi’s successful revolt against the socalled Syndicate in the Congress.

The author is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a Presidential Nominee to the Rajya Sabha