Between the Lines
Uncertain Election Scene
THE electoral campaign has been practically reduced to Atal Bihari Vajpayee versus Sonia Gandhi. In a way, it is between the Bhartiya Janta Party and Congress. True, regional parties are there, trying to hold their territory. But the real fight is confined to the BJP and Congress for the simple reason that there is no other viable political party in most of the northern India states.
As of today, there is no wave, for or against any party, either in a state or in the country on the whole. Never before - India has witnessed 11 Lok Sabha elections since Independence - has the outcome been so unpredictable. It is more or less a toss-up.
Yet, one thing is certain that neither Congress nor the BJP, nor the combination of the Janata Dal, the communists and their allies, will be anywhere near a majority. That it will be a hung parliament as it was in 1989 and 1996 is a foregone conclusion.
But this time the members will be more dispersed than before. A coalition will take some time to anvil. The UF may comprise of 20-odd parties, instead of 14 as is its present strength.
In fact, in the last 14 years since 1984 when Congress secured 411 seats in the 543-member house, no party has secured a majority in the Lok Sabha. In the 1991 election, Congress won only 232 seats but it swelled its number through defection and deceit. This time, too, all political parties will be well short of 272, the required strength to form the government. Still, both Congress and the BJP claim 200 each. Arithmetically, this is not possible. Both may not reach the number. While Congress has flimsy existence in UP, Bihar, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Punjab, constituting 226 seats, the BJP is in not-too-happy position in eastern and southern India, which embrace 155 seats.
Congress, which was at one time ahead of the BJP, suffered a serious jolt in 1996 in the wake of a revolt in Tamil Nadu. This time it will be affected by the stirrings in West Bengal. Congress, despite the Sonia Gandhi factor, is a divided house. Many official candidates will be sabotaged by those who have been denied tickets. The BJP has also its share of dissidence. Gujarat is one example. The intervention by the RSS, the BJP's mentor, has brought about discipline of sorts. But unity is only on surface. Madya Pradesh still torments the party.
The Janata Dal, once emerging as the third force, is disintegrating. The exit of former Bihar chief minister Laloo Prasad Yadav and the death of Biju Patnaik in Orissa have hit the party beyond redemption. Its expelled stalwart from Karnataka, Ramakrishna Hegde, may not win more than five seats but he will cut into the Janata votes and bring down the party's present Lok Sabha strength of 46.
If ever the political situation is retrieved, the credit will go to the communists, who may string different regional parties together to keep Congress and the BJP out of power. The problem with the third force or the national front is that it has primarily existed on paper. It never achieved cohesiveness or credibility. There is wide disillusionment with it.
All the three combinations have, however, realised that caste identities have eclipsed religious identities. Therefore, the caste factor has become more important than before. Muslims believe that their community will pick the winning candidate of any party against the BJP's. Where they may go wrong is the feeling of resignation, which is overpowering Muslims in certain areas, and which is goading them to try even the BJP. Their argument is that it may not turn out to be worse alternative to other parties for which they have been voting so far.
Therefore, in the face of non-descript options, the election looks like an exercise which the voters, perforce, will go over. They continue to be indifferent and cynical. And whatever enthusiasm was there, it has been squeezed out by the selection of candidates. Some of them have a criminal background. Some have defected from their parent body to get nomination. And some are there by the dint of money. Congress beats them all. It is not bothered about cleanliness. It has adopted the same old faces, which carry the stain of hawala on their khadi.
At the last minute, some parties have changed the names of their candidates because of the diktat by the mafia or the moneybag. Perhaps, India should develop a method whereby a party holds an election, like primaries in the US, to find out who among its candidates has the largest following in a particular constituency. At present, only the party president counts in parties other than the BJP, which is at the beck and call of RSS, and Congress, which is dictated by Sonia Gandhi. Such being the material, the structure that may emerge cannot be but faulty. It is too early to say which party will be part of which structure. But there is no doubting about its ricketiness. It may collapse after one year or so, necessitating a mid-term poll.
One cannot put the blame on the candidates because they reflect the type of leadership a party has. The criterion for political parties is loyalty, not merit. I know of several persons who were not given tickets because they are too bright, too straightforward, too clean. One party chief has even spelled out his aversion: "The educated create problems and it is better to leave them out."Yet, this does not explain why there has been so much splitting in parties this time. Even the most loyal have taken no time to cross over to other side or form their own group. The units have broken and rebroken. There is no sanctity of the party as such. There are several reasons for it. One, parties are not related to any policy or programme. Two, the quality of leaders or, what is called the high command, has got diluted so much that it does not evoke respect, much less awe. Leaders are not tall enough. Nor have they any base to impress the members. Circumstances seem to have thrown them up and most of them do not deserve the position to which they have reached. Even the most leading ones are connected with dubious business houses or mafia groups. Their word has lost moral authority.
Another reason is the weakening of institutions. Apart from the media, parliament or the state legislatures, there are no other forums which have any clout. Indira Gandhi was the one who destroyed the institutions because she wanted to wield power all by herself. Rajiv Gandhi, of even lesser mettle, did not understand what the institutions meant. Narasimha Rao knew their importance but did not retrieve them because it would have been at the expense his own authority.
In the absence of institutions, it is not surprising that persons, who seek to make any contribution, want to be in parliament or the state legislature. This atmosphere has affected all activities, politics the most. The media is the real villain. Its obsession with politicians has crowded out the intellectuals, the professionals and even the activists.
It is not a happy situation. It only adds to confusion. All becomes tentative. But uncertain politics does not mean an unstable system. There will be pulls and pressures, even horse-trading, but all within the precincts of the system. Those who know India will not be unduly perturbed even if the polls do not throw up any single party or person to lead. Italy had 63 coalitions in the last 50 years, India only three or four during the same period. Political stability does not have anything to do with unstable parliament. Indians are beginning to understand it. Foreigners will do so in due course and shed their fear in investing in India.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments