Is the BJP high command targeting the states?

Is the BJP admitting that there is an anti-incumbency wave by changing chief ministers before the end of its term? Or is it embracing the culture of the high command for which the Congress was once known?

Harish Khare: I am not very comfortable with this concept of anti-incumbency wave. The term anti-incumbency was respected by LK Advani after the Rajnath Singh government was voted out of power in Uttar Pradesh in 2002. The concept means that it does not matter how well the government performs; That after four-five years the negativity will accumulate and voters will vote for the government. But the current record belies this point. We have this extraordinary incident of Naveen Patnaik [Chief Minister of Odisha] Ruled the state for 20 years without any song and dance, without any extravagant claims to national or global pride. I mean, a government is voted out because the ruling party is not capable of doing as clever politics as it should and those in opposition do a better job of motivating voters. Accordingly, the ruling party does well if it uses resources well and BJP has done so for 20 years in Gujarat. So where is the question of anti-incumbency wave? As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as anti-incumbency wave in Gujarat. The issues that need to be analyzed in detail are whether the central leadership wants [be in] Control or how much it can and should control.

Sudheendra Kulkarni: This shows that at a time when BJP accuses Congress of high command culture, where whatever fatwa issued by the high command in New Delhi is undoubtedly followed by satraps in the states, the same is happening now. BJP. It is not just the high command culture, it is the super high command culture that has been established in the BJP.

There was a time when BJP used to talk of ‘Congress Mukt Bharat’. [Congress-free India]. What we are seeing is the ‘Congressisation’ of BJP units and democratically elected governments in different states. Hence, the anti-incumbency wave and more importantly the centralization of power in New Delhi is working. Why am I saying that the anti-incumbency wave is working? Look at Gujarat: After Narendra Modi ceased to be the Chief Minister of Gujarat and moved to Delhi to become the Prime Minister, his trusted aide Anandiben Patel became the Chief Minister. But before the 2017 assembly election, they were replaced as there was an anti-incumbency wave against the BJP for the post of chief minister, not anti-incumbency. The party felt that it might not come back to power with the same person. The same pattern is being repeated now. Elections are due in Gujarat in 2022 and Vijay Rupani has been dropped. The BJP had no confidence that it could come back to power in 2022 with Mr. Rupani as the chief minister and so it has brought in Bhupendra Patel, a total no-no. He is a first time MLA, is not known outside Ahmedabad, and is hardly a leader of Gujarat. But because the high command or super high command wanted to control Gujarat and rule Gujarat from New Delhi, they installed a man who is accountable to the two top BJP leaders.

Ironically, when Mr. Modi was the Chief Minister, he used to talk about Gujarat. Asmita Or self-respect. That is, we will not allow New Delhi to impose conditions on Gujarat. of Gujarat Asmita is supreme for us’. It is now blindly following the decree of New Delhi, even if it is headed by the same party. But this is another example of how centralization of power in New Delhi is undermining state-to-state democracy.

The sole aim of bringing in Mr Patel as chief minister, less than a year before the assembly elections, is to be a special person from an influential caste. And from what I have heard from political observers in Gujarat, the reason for making that particular person the Chief Minister is that he is not very popular and, therefore, he lends himself very easily to being directed by New Delhi.

Is weak leadership in states a natural consequence of having a strong and strong leader at the Centre? This used to be the blueprint of the Congress during Indira Gandhi’s time. Many argue that, in any case, it is the Prime Minister who gets the votes and that is why the central leadership has the moral authority to make changes as per their choice.

Harish Khare: If we remove the personalities, we see how to control a continental state like ours. This is a fundamental issue; In a way, we are trying to run a democratic empire. I have always believed in him. Except once, no political party has got more than 50% vote share. Those who come to power at the center will have to find a way to run this vast country.

editorial | A Patel on top: On the change of guard in Gujarat

The Indian National Congress was at its best as it became a political instrument of the Indian state. The BJP is facing the same structural problem today. It is running the country and has more than 300 seats in the Lok Sabha. It has to decide how much control to exercise and how much initiative is to be left to the states.

If we leave out the Nehruvian years, we have three distinct phases: the Indira Gandhi phase, the Rajiv Gandhi phase and the Narendra Modi phase where the prime minister is the major vote-getter. The prime minister does not depend on state allies or other parties to make up the numbers. Therefore, the prime minister wants to control his state. This is basic given the political realities of life. So, in many ways, the BJP was being hypocritical when it was blaming the Congress; It no longer deserves to ride the moral high horse by claiming that it has no high command culture. The need to directly control and govern the politics of a continental polity like ours creates a high command culture.

Sudheendra Kulkarni: Now, this is exactly what the BJP used to criticize the Congress for. When the Congress was headed by Mrs. Gandhi, there was a popular saying in those days that even if Congress puts up a poll as a candidate, that lifeless pole will be elected. People voted for Mrs Gandhi and not the candidate. And as someone who has worked for the BJP for 16 years, I have often heard two of our top leaders, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani, say that there are only two parties in India that have internal party democracy. That is the BJP and the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M).

Where is internal party democracy in BJP now? BJP is also justifying all these incidents by arguing that people vote for Mr Modi and not for the party and less for the candidate. This is a serious threat to the structure of the party system based on democracy in India. Personality based politics has replaced party politics. We are moving towards one man rule. In Hindi, there is a proverb that translates to: I am the only leader and cannot be, is not, and should not be another leader. Is this good for Indian democracy? This is a subject to be debated very seriously by the political establishment and also by the people. Because when there will be less light inside the political parties, then there will be less light for democracy in the country. And that’s exactly what is happening. We are seeing that democratic institutions including the Supreme Court are being attacked one by one. Therefore, it is not just a matter of one Chief Minister rather than another Chief Minister. All this is part of a much bigger malaise that is spreading in India’s politics and society.

The BJP keeps attacking the Congress by calling it a family enterprise. Only a person with a certain surname can become the party president, it says, while the BJP is proud of its internal democracy. Do you think the party can claim the same legacy with a change in its style of functioning?

Harish Khare: This was a good campaign point for the BJP. There is a certain relevance as far as Congress is concerned. But power within the BJP has always been concentrated among a handful of people, even though the party has been careful and sensible in giving the impression of being a collective leadership. There are many nameless people in the party as party president, but that does not mean that he exercised power. Power was exercised by Vajpayee, Mr. Advani and [Murli Manohar] Joshi. These three people ran the party. But then, there was a certain subtlety to it and a certain pretense that there was a party president that should be deferred.

Sudheendra Kulkarni: I would not say that the party leadership under Vajpayee and Mr Advani also had 100% collective leadership, but certainly there was a high degree of internal democracy, internal consultation and consultation between the central leadership and the state leadership. Then. Now, there is nothing like that – either at the state level or at the central level.

The party is completely led by two people. And this is the reason why people inside the BJP should really worry about the post Modi era. What will happen to this party? No one is permanent and once Modi is no more, I fear the BJP will face a very rapid, severe disintegration. This is something the BJP should be really worried about. One of the reasons the Congress was so marginalized was that it promoted and practiced high command culture. It can replace chief ministers of big states regardless of the aspirations of the people.

I come from Bombay. There used to be a really funny billboard run by Nana Chudasama on Marine Drive [former Mumbai Sheriff]. When AR Antulay was replaced by Babasaheb Bhosale and later, after Shankarrao Chavan became the Chief Minister, he [Chudasama] Put up a billboard saying that the Congress high command determines who should be the chief minister of Maharashtra in alphabetical order: A, B and then C (Antulay, Bhosale, Chavan). How ridiculous it had become, and this kind of high command culture weakened the Congress. The BJP will face the same consequences in the coming years as well. We are seeing some very serious signs of autocracy and it will only get worse unless the democratic forces in the country come together and work for real, decisive change in 2024.

Sudheendra Kulkarni is a political commentator; Harish Khare is a senior journalist and former editor of The Tribune