Skip to main content

WHAT’S GONE WRONG WITH THE BJP? IS 2024 THE END OF THE ROAD?


James Manor has been studying and researching Indian politics and parties for almost half a century. There is little he doesn’t know or understand. He has a keen appreciation of India’s political processes. MG

The ruination of the BJP’s organisation in 10 steps. An interesting checklist.

By James Manor Emeritus Professor, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, UK

This looks like a golden era for the BJP.  It is enjoying a decade in power at the Centre, it governs numerous states, and the Opposition is fragmented.  But a close look reveals serious degeneration that casts doubt on its long-term prospects.  This has been happening since 2014, but it worsened over the last year.  

Despite the energetic creation of booth-level party committees as elections approach, the Modi-Shah management style has severely disempowered BJP activists and the party organisation can no longer link citizens with the government.         

Ten steps are leading to the destruction of the BJP’s organisation.

First, national leaders have fundamentally changed the way that they seek to meet people’s needs. Initially, new programmes tightly managed from the top were implemented through the bureaucracy, depriving MLAs and BJP activists of patronage to cultivate support for themselves and the party. MLAs were denied influence over transfers of local officials, undermining their ability to meet constituents’ needs.  

In the last year, programmes controlled from the top used IT systems to distribute funds and provide services, bypassing MLAs, activists and the bureaucrats they can influence. The woeful record of Aadhaar, which has often excluded needy people, raises serious doubts about such programmes. They provide no feedback on people’s problems and preferences, as the BJP organisation used to do. It blinds the PM, but he remains enchanted by IT systems, presumably because they strengthen top-down control.

Second, intra-party democracy has been abandoned.  Zoya Hasan and others have noted that before 2014, the BJP had more internal democracy than others. But since then, posts have been filled by appointment from above, not by election from below. Party office holders concentrate not on explaining citizens’ views, but on telling their superiors what they think they want to hear. This again blocks vitally important upward flows of information. There are striking similarities here with what happened to the Congress under Indira Gandhi – from which that party never recovered.  

Third, when filling key posts – not least Chief Ministers’ – obedient people rather than capable people have been selected. That undermines the party’s capacity to govern well and to operate adroitly where it is in the Opposition.

Fourth, promising BJP politicians have been marginalised because they might become rivals to the supreme leader. LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi suffered this fate, and the practice has intensified, as we saw in changes to the party’s parliamentary board. The BJP’s most important body has not met in over two years and has become “dysfunctional” because the PM and Amit Shah impose key decisions on it.  However, its revised membership is symbolically important, and three major figures ― Nitin Gadkari, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Yogi Adityanath ― were excluded in mid-2022.      

Fifth, national leaders dominate state elections. They brush aside advice from state party leaders and dictate which issues to stress – even if local leaders warn that they have little popular appeal. Grave errors in candidate selection have led to humiliating defeats and losses in winnable elections. When national leaders’ bungling leads to defeats, they blame others – mainly the same state BJP leaders who had warned them. That sparks anger and disillusionment.     

Sixth, when the BJP falls short in state elections, national leaders seek to seize power via ‘operation kamals’, inducing defections from ruling parties. The appetite for instant gratification damages the BJP’s reputation and organisation.  

They create bitter faction fights between old loyalists and newly inducted turncoats, some of whom get prized ministerial posts. This has plagued the BJP in Karnataka for months, and has led to shocking reverses, as in recent civic polls in Madhya Pradesh.      

These operations also undermine popular support among voters who feel betrayed by the BJP and the defectors for whom they voted. National leaders assume that voters will forget that the parties they elected were ousted by illicit, underhand means.  But Indian voters are sophisticated enough to have thrown out roughly two-thirds of state governments since 1980.  They are capable of reacting against ‘kamals’, like in Maharashtra in mid-2022.  A C-Voter survey found that if a national election were held today, the BJP and its allies that had seized power via defections would win only 18 seats, with the remaining 30 going to the ousted victims.      

Seventh, people in booth-level committees are given no roles on polling day and little or no attention afterwards. They feel jilted and drift away. The BJP has been unable to locate many of them for the next election.  

Eighth, centralisation of fundraising has intensified Modi’s dominance, starving activists at lower levels of funds which would have given them some autonomy to use their local knowledge to benefit the party. This is intentional. Their local knowledge is not valued by the high command, and they are prevented from raising or possessing substantial funds of their own. Centralised fundraising has been hugely successful. In the 2019 election, the BJP had 18 times more money than all other parties combined. The concentration of funds at the apex has left party activists at lower levels feeling under-resourced, stripped of powers and (again) resentful.  

Ninth, the relentless promotion of the leader’s personality cult has turned the organisation into an abject collection of Modi bhakts.  As Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay writes, BJP leaders and activists compete in their adoration of the great man. Venkaiah Naidu described the PM as “God’s gift to India”.  It cannot have displeased Modi because Naidu was then made Vice President. The Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Minister then announced that Modi was “an incarnation of god like Lord Ram and Lord Krishna”. More recently, BJP President JP Nadda went further by referring to Modi as “king of gods”.  As a result, the party organisation – like everything else ― is made to feel marginalised.

Finally, over the last year, the relentless pursuit of religious polarisation has often caused events to slip out of control. This has damaged the authority of the government, its leaders and the BJP organisation. The PM’s customary silences when incendiaries call for heinous acts against minorities are interpreted by those extremists as endorsements.  But those same extremists have lashed out at the forces of order, the government and the party when their wild demands are not met, or when their fellow firebrands have been attacked.  Amid the mayhem, the party organisation suffers further.

Modi’s popularity, boosted by a fawning propaganda machine, has so far ensured national election victories.  But he will not be there forever. In his absence, the BJP will need a strong organisation, but it is being destroyed.

(James Manor is Emeritus Professor, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, UK)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself.......

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point. Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react. They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you. There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate. A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side. Maturity is...

The battle against caste: Phule and Periyar's indomitable legacy

In the annals of India's social reform, two luminaries stand preeminent: Jotirao Phule and E.V. Ramasamy, colloquially known as Periyar. Their endeavours, ensconced in the 19th and 20th centuries, continue to sculpt the contemporary struggle against the entrenched caste system. Phule's educational renaissance Phule, born in 1827, was an intellectual vanguard who perceived education as the ultimate equaliser. He inaugurated the inaugural school for girls from lower castes in Pune, subverting the Brahminical hegemony that had long monopolized erudition. His Satyashodhak Samaj endeavoured to obliterate caste hierarchies through radical social reform. His magnum opus, "Gulamgiri" (Slavery), delineated poignant parallels between India's caste system and the subjugation of African-Americans, igniting a discourse on caste as an apparatus of servitude. Periyar's rationalist odyssey Periyar, born in 1879, assumed the mantle of social reform through the Dravidian moveme...

India needs a Second National Capital

Metta Ramarao, IRS (VRS) India needs a Second National Capital till a green field New National Capital is built in the geographical centre of India. Dr B R Ambedkar in his book "Thoughts on Linguistic States" published in 1955 has written a full Chaper on "Second Capital for India" While discussing at length justfying the need to go for a second capital has clearly preferred Hyderabad over Kolkata and Mumbai. He did not consider Nagpur. Main reason he brought out in his book is the need to bridge north and south of the country. He recommended Hyderabad as second capital of India. Why we should consider Dr Ambedkar's recommendation: Delhi was central to British India. After partition, Delhi is situated at one corner of India. People from South find it daunting to visit due to distance, weather, language, culture, etc. If Hyderabad is made second capital, it will embrace all southern states. People of South India can come for work easily. Further, if Supreme Court...