By N R Mohanty
As the din and bustle over Narendra Modi's spectacular victory in Gujarat settles down, one can hope to have a reasoned discourse about the shape of Indian democracy. Has Indian democracy matured? Has 'development' entered into the political discourse of India? Has the Indian voting pattern transcended the trappings of identity politics?There was a time when 'development' was anathema to India's traditional political elite. When I went to Patna on a journalistic assignment in 1994, I was overawed by Lalu Yadav's charismatic appeal among the masses but I was appalled by the pathetic state of public services – roads, hospitals, electricity and anything and everything you could think of.When I met Lalu Yadav for the first time, I put this poser before him: "You are very popular among the people of the state. You have complete control over the state machinery. You are in a position to change the face of Bihar, to put Bihar on a development highway. If you do this, you will do a great service not only to the people of the state, but also to yourself as it will ensure you will keep getting people's mandate again and again."Yadav smiled and told me: "I agree with the first part of your first observation, but not the second. Tell me one state where development has fetched votes? You all think in a bookish manner; you have no understanding of ground politics."Many more meetings later, he would tell me, "If you get into development mode, you end up raising people's expectations. They would never be satisfied with whatever facilities you provide them. Their disappointment would lead to loss of votes. Development is, politically, a self-defeating exercise."Yadav might not have been familiar with the sociological concept of 'revolution of risingexpectations', but he intuitively understood the dynamics of vote-bank politics. That is whydevelopmental issues were in the backburner during his whole tenure.By emphasizing on identity politics, he managed to rule over the state for a decade and a half. If he lost the electoral battle in 2005, it was not on account of people's revulsion against lack ofdevelopment, but because of the fissures in his traditional vote bank. He alienated most of theintermediate castes, because Yadavs became the prime beneficiary of the loot of the state exchequer.Muslims, the other important segment of his communal alliance, too got divided on caste lines. Ali Anwar, a journalist-turned-activist, mobilized the backward castes within the community as the neglected lot and projected the forward caste Muslims as the major beneficiary of Lalu's largesse. He wanted Lalu to recognize his campaign and make promises for their uplift. But Lalu demurred, as that would wean the forward Muslims away.But Nitish Kumar seized the opportunity and recognized Anwar's movement. A sizeable chunk of the backward Muslims, who are numerically preponderant, voted for Nitish Kumar and tilted the balance away from Lalu Yadav. It is not surprising that Nitish Kumar sent Ali Anwar to Rajya Sabha for his contribution to the JD (U)'s victory.Nitish Kumar may have taken a public posture on development initiatives, but a larger measure of his energy is being devoted to consolidating the Muslim support base and creating new alliances between forward and backward castes.
Because he also realizes that ultimately the voter in the polling booth would be persuaded by the identity considerations rather than development imperatives.If this is the reality of political discourse in Bihar, is Gujarat, or for that matter any other state,any different? Isn't the average Gujarati driven by particularistic considerations? Or, have the Gujaratis risen above the feudal trappings and become practitioners of modern, universalistic politics?It would be churlish for even the ardent admirer of Modi to put the Gujarati on such a high pedestal. A people that gave a two-third majority to Modi's party in 2002 after he presided over a pogrom that killed a thousand Muslims cannot, by any stretch of rationality, be called modern and progressive.But, then, why single out Gujaratis? Isn't it that the whole of the country gave a three-fourth majority to Rajiv Gandhi whose party had been instrumental in the killings of 3000 Sikhs all over the country in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi's assassination in 1984?It is obvious that an overwhelming majority of India gets its nourishment from particularistic values, not universal ones. Politicians are aware of it and hence they are dismissive about development as an insurance policy for votes.But there is no denying that today there is a premium on development discourse all over the country. Many misunderstand this as the new underpinnings of a development paradigm in our electoral politics. The fact is that politicians now realize that running a party and taking part in elections are increasingly becoming an expensive proposition and the only way they could raise the tab was by undertaking large development projects which have immense scope for leakages.Chandrababu Naidu was supposed to have made development the buzzword of his administration, but he failed in the electoral battle as his caste configurations went awry. But he had the satisfaction that he earned a fortune for himself to run the party single-handedly by being the development czar of the country.Now a horde of political leaders has jumped to the development bandwagon. They know that development would not give them votes, but give them money. Many NDA leaders became billionaires by pioneering development initiatives in the country; they knew that their electoral defeat was a problem of political arithmetic.The UPA leaders also know that the so-called development work will not get them re-elected, unless political alliances work. But they are assured that their pockets will be lined by making SEZs their development plank.Mayawati is busy doing social engineering for votes and at the same time she is engaged in mega projects to earn megabucks. Even someone like Lalu Yadav is a convert to development idea today as he sees easy and big money in this. He is wise now. Now, he knows, you take up big projects, make big money and be branded as a development icon. He has taken a grand leap from a backward Patna to a modern Delhi.Modi is a politician of this genre. His success in 2007 lies in pushing money-spinning development on the agenda to be able to splurge to keep the cadre happy, while maintaining the identity politics on the boil to win the support of the majority community. In that sense, he is a role model for the rest of the country.
0 comments:
Post a Comment