5 reasons why there is a method to the BJP's madness

The media has got it wrong on the BJP this time. While the party has generally given the impression of being rudderless and lacking in a coherent strategy, by design or circumstance it is working to a better gameplan right now. Viewed from the outside, the BJP’s disruptionist tactics in Parliament over the coal blocks scam seem self-destructive. Most editorials in the print media have roundly blasted the party for this, and have advised it to debate the issue in Parliament instead of playing spoiler. TV channels, many of which make it a point to instigate slanging matches between the spokespersons of various parties, have also been talking about the need for debate and discussion. How pious. There is some validity to all the criticism, but there is also a method to the BJP’s madness. [caption id=“attachment_428854” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  By making Manmohan Singh the prime target of its attack, the BJP is actually forcing Sonia and the Congress to defend a political washout whose worth to the party has clearly diminished during UPA-2. PTI[/caption] It is the first off the block in signalling a countdown to the next elections. The chances are the BJP, by being deliberately obstructive in Parliament and raising the pitch in the Joint Parliamentary Committee probing the 2G scam (or should we say wasting taxpayers’ money in a pointless exercise), is actually thinking strategically from an electoral perspective. Before we analyse what gain the BJP sees in all this, let’s first look at the wrong assumptions of the media’s critique by asking a few questions. When was the last time a parliamentary proved crucial in deciding sensible policy action? Are political parties’ positions on any issue decided by intelligent public debate on alternatives or by shoving emotive ideas down the public’s throat without debate? (For example, will the issue of reservations in bureaucratic promotions be decided by discussion or thoughts of short-term political gain? The answer is obvious. The fact that no party, barring Samajwadi, has opposed it should tell us something about the value of debates in Parliament or even in the media.) Has discussion ever changed a political party’s decision on what its stand should be? Has the Congress-led UPA decided any policy in the last eight years by discussing it with the BJP or the Opposition? Did even the choice of president – an ideal issue for consensus — get decided by consultations with the principal opposition party? If your answer is yes to any of these questions, you are entitled to noble opinions on debate and decorum. (I am not arguing for gutter politics, but for a better understanding of what is motivating political parties right now.) The Indian political reality is that when it’s close to election time, political parties tend to take positions based on what they think will work best for them with voters, and not on the basis of decorum or constitutional niceties. If we accept this assumption, the BJP’s disruption makes perfect political sense. This is what it could mean. First, by being disruptionist, the BJP is able to hog media time and position itself clearly in the opposition space the way it can’t do with parliamentary debates. In Parliament, all parties are equal. With lung-power and obstruction, the BJP is attempting to occupy the main opposition space — a space waiting to be filled. Second, by staking its claim to anti-incumbency, the BJP is forcing many of the other likely beneficiaries of the anti-Congress mood that is building up in the country, to evaluate their options. Parties like the Samajwadi, the BSP, and the Trinamool — all fair-weather allies of the UPA — have to choose whether they want to be seen as aligned to the incumbent Congress or as separate entities. It is obvious that Mulayam Singh’s interests in Uttar Pradesh are opposed to the BSP’s and the Congress’ — the latter two are more interested in a Dalit votebank than the former. This not only explains the Samajwadi Party’s unwillingness to endorse the idea of reservations in promotions, but also underlines its need to separate itself from the Congress to win big in UP the next time. The Samajwadi Party needs early elections to capitalise on the gains of the March assembly elections, but it also does not want to be seen as bringing down a “secular” government. The BJP is trying to force both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP to play out their contradictions in staying with the UPA, by seeking to occupy the entire opposition space against the Congress. In UP, the Congress may have a crucial balancing role to play – while the BJP has to consolidate its upper caste vote. The SP has to guard its Yadav-Muslim constituency, and the BSP its Dalit one. But in a Lok Sabha election, SP and BSP have to worry about where their alignment with the Congress will take them – since the Congress can take both a chunk of the Dalit and Muslim vote. Third, the BJP is also seeking to create greater clarity on who to attack in the Congress. By making Manmohan Singh the prime target of its attack, it is actually forcing Sonia Gandhi and the Congress to defend a political washout whose worth to the party has clearly diminished during UPA-2. Manmohan Singh is the albatross round the Congress’ neck because the effective boss is Sonia Gandhi, but so far she has been able to avoid blame for the government’s policies by pretending the party is different from government. By making the attack of Singh sharper, the BJP is trying to prove that the failures of the government are effectively the failures of Sonia Gandhi too. This is now becoming apparent as it is Sonia Gandhi who is now leading the troops in Parliament, and she is forced to defend the party and Manmohan Singh on the coal scam. Also, with the BJP seeking Manmohan’s resignation, Sonia is forced to retain him there – with negative consequences. The BJP has established this through its coal scam tactics. Fourth, the BJP is trying to resolve its own set of contradictions – both within the party and with its current allies – by staking out a strong anti-incumbency position. Internally, opposition to the Congress unites the BJP, whereas its own leaders would be divided if forced to decide purely on the basis of policies or personal ambition. Opposition to Congress is what would put LK Advani, Nitin Gadkari, Arun Jaitley, Narendra Modi and Sushma Swaraj in agreement at this stage of the game – where elections are some time away. As for allies, it is clear that the Janata Dal (United) has been trying to make its own space and is keeping its post-2014 options open just in case Narendra Modi becomes the BJP’s choice of PM. In the run-up to 2014, Nitish Kumar has distanced himself from the BJP not only on the party’s leadership issue, but also in the presidential poll. But the BJP is now trying to corner him by either forcing him to be seen with the Congress position on corruption and the coal scam, or by joining the opposition movement with it. Parties like AIADMK and BJD have already moved towards the BJP position in some way — though they are in no hurry to join the NDA. The Left will not be seen as supporting a BJP cause, but it cannot be seen as supporting a Congress cause either. It has neutered itself by its focus on Kerala and Bengal. The BJP has thus created an opportunity for future political realignments – even though they won’t happen till after the election results are known. Last, the BJP is quickly moving in to grab the street protest space left vacant by the (temporary?) exit of Anna Hazare and Baba Ramdev. The Congress has labelled both Team Anna and the Baba as the B-teams of the BJP, but with the BJP roaring back into Opposition, this Congress compliment will start working in its favour – or so the party hopes. By behaving in Parliament as it would at a street-corner protest, the BJP has indicated where it is finally going to take its protests: directly to the public. A lot will depend on how this game plays out, but as of now, it is cynically playing its cards right.