The Ayodhya Tragedy of the 6th December, 1992, has become a watershed in our national politics. Ruthlessly and cynically the Sangh Parivar deliberately violated the rule of law and made an assault on the dignity of the Judiciary and the Legislature. The misuse of the executive and judicial authority and defiance of the legislature, in the name of Hindutva, by the Sangh Parivar made all the secular parties conscious, as they had never been before, certainly not between 1967 and 1991, of the serious threat, the BJP, as the political arm of the Sangh Parivar, posed to the very survival of the democratic and the. secular order in the country, nay, the civil society itself. The political harvest of the Demolition was to make the BJP politically untouchable.
Whatever the mask it may wear, howsoever mellifluous the tunes it may play, irrespective of tactical twists and turns it may do, the BJP continues to stand for Hindu Nationalism as opposed to Indian Nationalism, for a Hindu state as distinct from the Secular-Democratic state, for "one nation, one culture", or Cultural Nationalism, as opposed to Multi-culturalism and Composite Culture. Behind Hindutva as opposed to Bhartiyata or 'Hindustaniyat, whether sold under the label of Gandhian Socialism or Integral Humanism or Cultural Nationalism, the various ideological masks behind which Hindu Nationalism has masqueraded, lies the thesis that India is, par-excellence and above all, the land of the Hindus, that only those who call themselves Hindu, or are prepared to do so, are Indians and therefore legitimate citizens of the country and deserving beneficiaries of its resources. The thesis goes beyond the political to its religious counterpart that the only true religion is the Sanatan Dharma and that all other religions, if at all acceptable and shorn of their "objectionable features", are "panths" of the Dharma. Indeed the BJP was, in and shall continue to be the political front of the RSS - no more, no less.
Some secular parties - national and regional, which had not paid much attention to the BJP or its underlying mission, did realize at long last that entering into formal or informal alliance, adjustment or understanding with the forces of Hindutva would not only compromise their ideological integrity but also their political access to the Hindu mind.
In its our of glory in 1996, when the BJP for the first time emerged as the biggest party in the Lok Sabha and was invited by the President, even though it did not command more than 190 odd votes against the minimum required, 270, and formed the government, even those who had earlier found their company compatible shrunk back and distanced themselves from the party in power and desisted from supporting it. Beyond the Samata Party, caught in the whirlpool of anti-Laloo politics in Bihar, the Vishal Haryana Party, lost in the fight among the three Lals, the Shiromani Akali Dal, with its historical grievances against the Congress leadership and the tactical sympathy extended by the BJP, not one party, big or small, not even one additional M.P., crossed the floor in response to the BJP's SOS.
Since then the BJP leadership has been licking its wounds and making a public grievance of being treated as a political "untouchable". The BIP leadership, however, did not give up and engaged itself in formulating and implementing a multi-dimensional strategy of cutting into the votes of the alienated groups, the Muslims, the OBCs and the Dalits, roping in the regional forces in the name of federalism and attracting the urban, liberal intelligentsia by promoting itself as the 'party with a difference'; emphasizing its Vajpayesque look and attacking corruption, criminalization and communalism.
Unfortunately, the secular parties are still caught in the mental and political grooves of the yesteryear. There is no rethinking by some of their leaders to adjust to the new patterns of BJP-centric politics. Some of them have been traditionally anti-Congress and their anti-Congressism had led them into opportunistic alliances in the past, even a merger in 1977, with the then Bhartiya Jan Sangh.
So both in March 1996 and again in December 1997 the secular parties have failed to forge a National Secular Alliance. On one hand, in May 1996 their common refusal to have any truck with the BJP and its allies reduced the life of the Vajpayee Government to a 13 day wonder. On the other, in December, 1997 their refusal to read the writing on the wall may make short shrift of the prospects of the secular order.
The identification of the BJP by the secular parties, covering the entire spectrum from the centre to the Left, as the political adversary or as the "Other", is not enough to save the country or the secular order. They must collectively endeavour to stop it in its tracks and force it into reverse gear. In 1996, the BJP secured 20.29% of the votes polled in the country as a whole but a higher percentage in Bihar (20.54%), Maharashtra (21.81%), Karnataka (24.85%), U.P. (33.44%), Madhya Pradesh (41.32%), Punjab (42.36%) and Gujarat (48.52%). To add the votes of its allies, in Bihar with Samata Party the Hindutva share goes upto 34.99, in Maharashtra with Shiv Sena, to 38.64%, in Punjab, with SAD to 55.20%. As mentioned above, the BJP has not been resting on its oars, it has been trying for changing its Chehra and Chal (I am not sure about Charitra and Chintan), in order to enlarge its social base, to attract the hitherto hostile social groups, the rising middle class and the government employees. Assuming that it succeeds in maintaining its present social base - the High Castes with a section of the OBC and SC and ST and its alliance with its present partners, namely, SAP, SAD, Shiv Sena and HVP and in raising its own votes by only 5%, at least in the states where in 1996 it had already reached a level of 25% and above, no one can stop the BJP from forming the next national government in a multi-party contest.
There is no doubt that today the secular voters far outnumber the "Hindu" voters, almost in all constituencies because the BJP has won only about 35 seats in the whole country by securing more than 50% of the votes cast. It is statistically obvious that the BJP's chance of winning a seat rises with the number of contestants ranged against it. To put it in a nutshell, in a straight fight the BJP will be reduced to less than 50 seats. In a triangular contest it will emerge as the single biggest party or alliance. But in a quadrilateral contest, the BJP and its allies will secure a clear majority in the Lok Sabha. In this view of the situation, it is indeed unfortunate and tragic, looking at the political scene today, that the secular forces continue to be a divided house. This division has its roots in history but have been nourished and perpetuated by unrealised unwarranted aspirations, old animosities rivalries and ego clashes.
The two traditional antagonists are yet to mode of thought; the Congress which is still dreaming of re-establishing its political hegemony and the Lert Front, the Janata Parivar and the regional parties, which together form or support the United Front, are still obsessed with their anti-Congress rhetoric and their petty games of one-upmanship. The political imperative today is an alliance of all secular forces, which should include the Congress, the Janata Parivar, the BSP, the Left and the regional parties, to man the defences of the citadel of secularism from their respective vantage points. This can alone ensure the survival of the secular order. Only in this way, they can save Democracy, today, for Political, Social and Economic Justice tomorrow.
Unfortunately while this political truth has dawned on all secular parties, they do not publicly acknowledge it. And as of now it seems unlikely that the common political vision shall lead to an electoral alliance, based on a common programme, although a formula, based on equity and proportion can be evolved by their strategists, in the interest and to the benefit of all
* The votes of each alliance or each constituent party should be extrapolated to cover the entire electoral space.
* The number of Lok Sabha seats should be assigned to each alliance/party in proportion to the extrapolated votes.
* Lok Sabha quota of a party should be filled, firstly, by the seats it had won in 1996, and, secondly, by the seats which it had lost to the BJP or its allies.
* Remaining seats which would be few should be allotted to a party on the basis of its special claim to a particular seat, in terms of the social demography of the constituency, its own social base and the availability of a suitable candidate.
* Parties may put up the sitting legislator/the defeated candidates or project new faces in the allotted seats and enter into bilateral exchange of constituencies within the alliance.
* Parties should ensure due representation to all segments of the people, in terms of communities and sub-communities, castes and sub-castes and linguistic and racial minorities so that the alliance list reflects the electorate in all its diversity, The alliance collectively will gain and command the confidence of all.
In this way, each member of the alliance will be certain to bag more seats in the coming general election than it had in the 11th Lok Sabha.
The alliance may not have a common manifesto or conduct the electoral campaign jointly,
But it should function as a united and programme-based front and commit all its constituents to participate in the coalition government to be formed after the election, while leaving the question of leadership open to be decided democratically after the election.
Since the 'dream alliance' may not materialise, let us consider other variations on the theme.
* If all secular parties can not come together, into a single alliance. There may be 2 or 3 alliances and they may arrive at adjustment or even understanding on contesting 'winning' seats and thus giving a one-to-one fight on most seats.
* Alternatively, there can be an alliance between the wo of them, with adjustment/understanding with the third.
Still other alternatives exist.
* The first, as proposed by Shri V.P. Singh, is that such an agreement may be limited to the States where the Congress, the United Front and the Left are not currently pitted against each other.
* The second is that the agreement should cover at least the 100 or so constituencies of Muslim concentration in all states so that the Muslim vote is not divided and wasted and is massively cast for one secular candidate in each Constituency, irrespective of his religion or his political label.
* The third is that the arrangement be limited to the seats won by the BJP in 1996 and those lost by it by a small margin, say less than 5% of the votes cast, and to BJP-ruled States.
Will the leaders of Secular parties rise above personal and party considerations and save the day for the Secular Order and for themselves?
New Delhi,
1 January, 1998
