“The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is perfecting the art of losing elections, but forming governments,” wrote CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury, commenting on the current political crisis in Maharashtra. This is a rather ironic statement from a party which has perfected the art of not fighting elections, but managing Rajya Sabha seats through political networking. Nevertheless, this charge is repeated by Opposition parties, sections of the media and political commentariat.
The BJP is able to arm-twist its opponents, and destabilise governments. Just see what they appear to be doing in Maharashtra. Is this ‘democracy’?
Of course, none of this commentary takes into account what the people of Maharashtra actually voted for. In the 2019 Assembly elections, the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance won a comfortable majority of 161 out of 288 seats. The vote share of the winning combine was 42%, while the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Congress together scored only 32%. A closer analysis of the results reveals something even more stark. The BJP won 105 seats, or nearly 70% of the 152 seats it contested. In contrast, the Shiv Sena won only 56 of the 124 seats it contested, which works out to just 45%. How exactly was this a mandate for the BJP to sit in the Opposition?
And yet, I cannot seem to remember any tears for Devendra Fadnavis, or for ‘democracy’, when the Shiv Sena walked across to embrace the two losing parties and formed a government. Instead, there were tributes to the political intelligence of the one or many Chanakyas of Maharashtra politics. So why complain now? Is politics still the art of the possible or not?
In truth, this complaint comes from the fact that much of the self-styled intellectual, media and activist class is emotionally invested in deep hatred against the BJP. The other day, one editor of a major national channel, who could not control his feelings on television, described the BJP as a “marauding carnivore” in Maharashtra. One wonders if he would have used such severe language against any other political party. More importantly, would anyone have dared to?
It must be noted that this hatred against the BJP is as much opportunistic as it is ideological. Observe that those who talk about a lack of ideology in politics in the current situation have forgotten to ask the most basic ideological question of all. Both factions of the Shiv Sena swear by their loyalty to the Hindutva ideology. So is Hindutva good or bad? If Hindutva is bad, why would India’s most secular political parties want to ally with the Shiv Sena? If Hindutva is good, why has the secular, liberal and intellectual class in this country been comparing it to Nazi ideology? Does it not mean that the intellectual class is as ideologically compromised, if not more, as defecting MLAs who are currently floating between Surat, Mumbai and Guwahati?
EVEN AS SINGLE LARGEST PARTY, BJP SITS IN OPPN
“I am Pramod Mahajan, member of the Lok Sabha. I belong to the single largest party and I’m in the opposition.” Who can forget these words from 1997, when the BJP had 161 seats, but the Congress with 140 seats, the Janata Dal with just 46 seats and the CPI(M) with only 32 seats were in power? And who can forget 1999, when the Vajpayee government fell by one vote? In fact, the BJP had to become the single largest party not once, not twice, but thrice before it could get a full term in power. This must be some kind of record.
Contrary to the current narrative, it is much more likely for other parties to gang up against the BJP, or force the saffron party into losing bargains, only to betray it in the end. The Maharashtra situation, where the BJP has been in the Opposition despite having nearly twice as many seats as the second largest party, is only one example. The BJP was in a similar situation in Karnataka after the 2004 Assembly elections. The BJP had 79 seats, but the Congress with 67 seats and the JD-S with 48 seats came together to form the government. This is basically a repeat of the 2018 situation, when the BJP won 104 seats, but the Congress with 80 seats and the JD-S with 37 seats came to power, despite being rejected by the people.
After the 2005 election in Jharkhand, the BJP had 30 seats in the 81-member Assembly, but the JMM and a bunch of other parties came to power. In Delhi in 2013, the BJP was again the single largest party with 32 sets out of 70, but the AAP and the Congress quickly formed an arrangement to keep the BJP out of power.
The case of Karnataka is particularly curious, and galling, for the BJP. After the 2004 Assembly election, the BJP was the single largest party, but the Congress managed to come to power with the support of the JD-S. However, midway through the term, the JD-S walked out of the alliance. HD Kumaraswamy of JD-S then became chief minister with the BJP’s support, with the understanding that the BJP and the JD-S would share the post of chief minister for 20 months each. But when it was time to hand over the chief ministership to the BJP, the JD-S simply backtracked on the deal, leaving the BJP out cold.
Even in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP has a similar story to tell. After the 2002 Assembly elections, the BJP and BSP were supposed to take turns of two-and-a-half years each for the post of chief minister. Of course, Mayawati took her turn first. And when her two-and-a-half years as the chief minister were nearing an end, the BSP just walked out of the deal. And all this happened with the Vajpayee government still in power at the Centre.
By contrast, the ability of the Congress to arm-twist other political parties, both friendly parties and not-so friendly parties, appears almost magical. In the 2004 election, the Congress won 69 seats, two seats less than the 71 won by its ally the NCP. This was even more surprising because the Congress had contested 157 seats, while the NCP had contested only 124. And yet, the NCP humbly offered the post of chief minister to the Congress. Compare this to the situation after the 2019 Assembly elections, when the BJP won nearly twice as many seats as its ally, the Shiv Sena, but failed to get any share in power, let alone the post of chief minister. Also, compare this to Bihar, where the BJP has 73 seats and the JD-U has just 43 seats, but the post of chief minister remains with Nitish Kumar. In fact, I wonder if there is a single instance (outside of recent times in tiny Assemblies in Goa or the North-East), where the Congress has been in Opposition despite being the single largest party. There may be one example in the absolute humiliation faced by Rajiv Gandhi in the 1989 election, where the Congress crashed from 414 seats in 1984 to 197 seats in 1989. And that didn’t last.
BJP’S PREDECESSOR, JAN SANGH, WAS TREATED JUST AS BADLY
In the 1977 election, all Opposition parties came together to oppose Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. The resulting Janata Party was a common platform with each constituent party such as the Bharatiya Lok Dal, the Jan Sangh, the Congress(O) and Congress(R) preserving their own political identity. The Jan Sangh had the largest number of MPs among the 295 seats won by the Janata Party. But only 3 ministries were conceded to the Jan Sangh — one each for Atal Bihari Vajpayee, LK Advani and Brijlal Verma.
And the marginalisation of the Jan Sangh did not stop there. The other factions of the Janata Party began raising the issue of “dual membership,” a targeted move to harass the Jan Sangh leaders who were also members of the RSS. Ultimately, the Jan Sangh members were expelled, and the Janata Party government collapsed.
“The rationale of the birth of the BJP lies in the fact that we opposed a ban on our ties with the RSS, which was sought to be imposed by the Janata Party leaders,” Advani said. He was speaking at the BJP’s silver jubilee celebrations in Mumbai in 2005.
CONGRESS ALWAYS GOT BETTER DEALS FROM ALLIES THAN BJP
You do not even need to look beyond Maharashtra to understand this phenomenon. For the BJP, the Shiv Sena was always a rebellious and troublesome ally. In both presidential elections that happened during UPA rule, the Shiv Sena voted with the Congress. The first time, in 2007, they argued it was because UPA candidate Pratibha Patil was a “daughter of Maharashtra”. The second time, in 2012, the Sena again voted with the Congress, perhaps just to put the BJP in its place.
Since then, the same Shiv Sena has become a Congress ally. And apparently also given up on its rebellious streak. Can anyone name an issue where the Shiv Sena broke ranks with the Congress since 2019, or expressed a difference of opinion? Also, power-sharing among MVA partners happens on a strictly equal basis; one-third each for the Sena, the NCP and the Congress. This is the same Shiv Sena that would not concede equal partner status to the BJP in Maharashtra in all the decades since 1990.
The same pattern repeats across other states. In Bihar, the JD-U has gone public against the BJP on any number of issues, from CAA to caste census, and most recently the new recruitment policy of the armed forces. The JD-U also hobnobs frequently with the RJD, constantly keeping the BJP on notice. But when the JD-U was allied with the Congress between 2013 and 2017, there is no instance of the JD-U going against the Congress line. In fact, Sonia Gandhi was always given pride of place in the 2015 Mahagathbandhan of RJD, JD-U and Congress, despite the fact that the Congress had won just 4 seats in the 2010 elections.
This exaggerated respect for the Congress also reflects in the seat-sharing deals that the Congress gets from its allies. As many as 40 seats were offered to the Congress in 2015 by the RJD and the JD-U, which exceeded by far any ground strength the party might have. This was increased to 70 seats in 2020, when the JD-U was no longer with the Congress and the RJD. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK allowed the Congress to contest 9 Lok Sabha seats, despite the latter having a marginal presence. In Uttar Pradesh in 2017, Akhilesh Yadav offered a staggering 114 seats to the Congress. They won just 7.
BUT WHY DOES BJP STILL ‘SEEM’ MORE ARROGANT THAN CONGRESS?
As of the writing of this article, Hemant Soren’s JMM has still not stated its position on the NDA’s presidential candidate Droupadi Murmu. That’s right. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha has still not expressed support for the first tribal person who is set to become President of India. In other words, there is no such thing as a ‘rebellious’ Congress ally.
We have been all around the map by now. From Delhi in the north, to Bihar and Jharkhand in the east, to Maharashtra in the west, and Karnataka in the south, it is always the Congress that is more capable of getting other political parties to do its bidding. But then, this general illusion of an all-powerful BJP arm-twisting everyone else, where does it come from?
Because, at the root of all this, it is about privilege. The Congress is still seen as royalty; the BJP is still being seen as upstarts. When the Congress exercises its power and control, it gives an aura of executing the divine right of kings. When the ‘upstarts’ begin to assert themselves, they just seem more arrogant. That is why we hear questions about how Narendra Modi can become Prime Minister when the BJP got “just 31 percent” of the vote in 2014. Interestingly, 31% is the highest for any ruling party at the Centre since 1991!
One Internet meme that I saw before the 2014 general elections comes to mind here. It went something like this. “Remember that the Congress needs 150 seats to form the government. The BSP or SP needs just 40 seats, RJD or JD-U needs maybe 30 seats, and the AAP maybe just 10 seats. But if the BJP wins 271 seats, Narendra Modi will be the leader of the Opposition.”
That particular meme may have been an exaggeration, but it was funny because we know it contains a lot of truth. And perhaps it was not even an exaggeration. Which political party other than the BJP has ever lost a government by one vote?
Abhishek Banerjee is an author and columnist. He tweets @AbhishBanerj. Views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest News , Breaking News , watch Top Videos and Live TV here.
Comments
0 comment