long-term dangers that lurk behind the gains made by the BJP in Karnataka

Economic and Political Weekly
May 31, 2008

Editorial

Grounds for Concern in Karnataka
There are long-term dangers that lurk behind the gains made by the BJP in Karnataka.

The outcome of the recent assembly elections in Karnataka does mark a notable advance for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that has been striving to extend its influence, without much success till recently, in peninsular India. In a house of 224, the BJP has won 110 seats, three short of a majority, followed by the Indian National Congress (INC) with 80 seats, the Janata Dal (Secular) [JDS] with 28 and six independents. The last category comprises four INC rebels, one BJP rebel and one JDS rebel. Neither the Bahujan Samaj Party that wanted to have a presence in Karnataka, nor the Janata Dal (United) which had won five seats in 2004 won a single seat this time. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) lost the lone seat it had held in the previous house. Similar was the fate of one or two smaller and nosier one-person parties with a nuisance value.

True to character, the six independent candidates, five of them by their own definition secular and anti-communal, have announced that they will be supporting the BJP. The decks are thus clear for the first BJP led government to assume office in the state. The swearing in ceremony, in case other events or second thoughts do not intervene, is to follow just as we go to press. Power is a strong glue that binds the most unlikely components. State and national leaders of the BJP are crowing that this marks the beginning of the end of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in Delhi, and the return of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance to power at the centre.

Political parties losing and winning elections are the very stuff of democracy in practice. Such shifts in the balance of forces are not normally matters of concern. But normative formulations do apply. If only the BJP was a normal party, there would have been no need for concern at its coming to power on its own in Karnataka. However, the BJP would be the first to agree that it is not a normal political party, but "a party with a difference", though this difference is wearing thin. And yet, this difference did manifest itself in several ways during the 20 months it shared office and power with the JDS in Karnataka when it pursued an agenda independent of and outside the agreed common minimum programme of that strange arrangement.

Though there was an element of opportunism in the JDS walking away from the coalition in October last year after being in bed with the BJP for 20 months on the strange argument that it would not be a party to the "communal" BJP heading the government, the BJP's role in controversial issues like the dispute over Datta Peetha / Bababudangiri enabled the JDS to rationalise its spurious secular protestations. The JDS has had its deserved comeuppance in these elections, winning only 28 seats as against the 58 it had won in 2004. Indeed, the legitimacy that the BJP has acquired in the state is entirely due to such opportunistic policies not merely of the JDS but also of the Congress, both of which, while claiming to be secular, seemed to be engaged in a competitive exercise to legitimise and strengthen the BJP in the state in a tactical struggle to strengthen themselves in a turf battle that predates the emergence of the BJP as a political force in the state.

The one saving grace in what is still a potentially dangerous development is that the BJP, despite its claim to be a "party with a difference", is increasingly coming to resemble other political parties. Indeed, the political shenanigans in the state ever since the BJP became the 50 per cent ruling party that may appear rather disgusting to those who profess to practise "value-based politics" are reassuring in a perverse way. There was, for instance, free movement between seemingly committed followers of the communal BJP and the secular Congress and the JDS happily switching loyalties, and being openly welcomed. Indeed, none of the three major contenders seemed to be handicapped by lack of resources; and the BJP sealed the support of six independents within 48 hours of the announcement of the results, with a BJP MLA known to be a moneybag with vast interests in mining apparently playing the role of the facilitator. If one were to go by urban legends, the BJP is increasingly like any other political party, with as many, or at least a proportionate number of criminals and moneybags as the Congress and its allies in the

UPA in its rank and file.

And yet, there are two grounds for concern, one immediate, the other long-term. A star campaigner for the BJP was Narendra Modi; and the relevance and attractiveness of the Gujarat model for Karnataka was openly canvassed. Moditva, the modified form of Hindutva, is indeed an explosive cocktail and bodes ill for the state whose history and social and cultural mix simply do not admit such mobilisation, except at immense cost. A long-term cause for worry is that the gains made by the BJP may turn out to be rather more substantial than suggested by its failure to secure a majority of seats. In as many as 59 of the 114 seats that the BJP did not win, it has come second; and 33 of these 59 seats are from the 14 districts (originally nine) of "Old Mysore", where the BJP is supposed to be weak, unable to counter the so-called social coalition put in place by decades of Congress (and Janata) style politics. Instead of gleefully speculating on how long the BJP led government, crucially dependent on the independents, would survive, the democratic opposition should worry about these long-term dangers. But then, where is the democratic opposition in Karnataka? To identify this with the Congress or the JDS would be as useful as identifying this with the BJP.