Author: Dr Pravin Togadia
Publication: Organiser
Date: June 21, 2009
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=296&page=11
Myth 1: We lost because of Hindutva identity.
Muslims voted against us due to this.
Truth: Muslim was never a core constituency.
It was Hindu. Everyone accepts and understands electoral growth. But if this
growth is at the cost of the core or even anti-core, then it is called cannibalisation.
If a party cannot satisfy its own core constituency
and limits itself to power gain by projecting individuals or issues that do
not appeal or matter to its core constituency, then it is a love lost. And
lost love always hurts. Both ways it hurts. It has hurt the Hindu core constituency
that it was taken for granted.
If the Muslim League tomorrow says, it wants
to grow in vote share and therefore it would start a majority morcha and gives
tickets to Hindu sadhus (That Hindu sadhus would not take its tickets is a
different issue), it would hurt Muslim League's core constituency and it would
lose even its sure seats.
When Mamata Banerjee fought against Tata Motors
for grabbing farmers' land for Nano, many so-called intellectuals declared
that Mamata was finished and that she would never be able to come up in politics
ever again. Communist parties, which usually speak only about themselves or
against US, also tried to paint Mamata as anti-development and therefore,
'useless' for the today's changed world. The then PM of Congress Dr Manmohan
Singh too went to West Bengal to see if Mamata could be pacified and Tatas
continue holding farmers' land for Nano, as at that time the Congress was
with the Left. Mamata sat on fast for the poor farmers for over two weeks,
got her kidney ruined, Nano left the Left from West Bengal-and rest is history.
Those so-called intellectuals, who had so confidently declared Mamata as permanently
lost, were in for a huge shock in the Parliament elections. Mamata won with
a thumping success. Not that credit of this doesn't go to her tie-up with
Congress, but even Congress tied-up with her knowing well the boiling sentiments
of West Bengal poor and farmers. There it is! West Bengal's poor and farmers.
This was a core constituency of the Left. In the bargain of showing itself
progressive, Communists hurt their core constituency by giving their land
to Tata. Result? The core constituency was hurt. Hurt so much, that it left
the Left.
This is what happens. For years a political
party grows and shines with the votes of a particular core constituency-with
its votes and with blood/sweat of the workers who come up from the same core
constituency. It takes years to nurture faith and confidence of any core constituency.
When this core constituency starts trusting a particular party for a particular
stand and type of thinking, then the party grows fast and goes places. It
takes years of unconditional commitment and sincerity from the party side
to convince any core constituency that yes, truly this party has our well-being
in its heart. Then this core constituency watches the behaviour and actions
of that party and its people including its workers who deal with the core
constituency daily and its top leaders. As the promises given to the core
constituency get translated into real actions, the core constituency votes
for that party and this way loyalties are built just like a brand loyalty.
It does not happen overnight; it is a result of many above things as explained.
But the moment core constituency realises
that the party in which it had faith and confidence over many years now has
started compromising with core constituency's interests for getting into the
power, the core constituency loses faith in that party. This happens faster
than building up faith, i.e. the moment Bengal farmers realised that the Communists
have compromised on land protection of the poor farmers, the poor farmers
felt cheated and they left the Left. It may sound crude but the truth is always
crude and rude. It is not as simplistic as it may sound.
Now when it comes to yet another core constituency
of Hindus, this was never a core constituency in the beginning when India
got Independence. Yes, there were emotive issues like creation of Pakistan
and attacks on Hindus during the Partition. But the Hindu was never perceived
or nurtured by any party as a core constituency at the time of India's Independence.
There were organisations like the Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha, which had
the Hindu well-being in their hearts and actions, but for them, the Hindu
was not a core constituency for votes. Indian National Congress grew during
the Independence movement and Indians had only two groups to choose from:
The British and the Indian National Congress. Obviously, Indians chose anything
that was non-British (or so to say-anti-British). Congress ruled for many
decades and that was the time for basic infrastructure development like roads,
railways, electricity, water, schools, colleges, post offices. Indians got
these to certain extent. But then came the need for holistic development of
Hindus as a majority in India. That's where Hindus felt that parties like
Jana Sangh and Hindu Mahasabha had the Hindu interest in their hearts. Such
parties even promised Hindus many things like removing Article 370, Common
Civil Code, protection of Hindu religious monuments, etc. It took over 30
years for building up and nurturing the Hindu core constituency.
Slowly, this core constituency got consolidated
and the Jana Sangh grew. In 1967, even before the Emergency, due to great
sacrifice by lakhs of swayamsevaks of the Sangh, the party that grew was the
Jana Sangh, which could form state governments in MP and UP with other parties.
This party later transformed into BJP. In 1980 same people suddenly left ideology
of Hindu core constituency's well-being and adopted Gandhian Socialism. The
party that was reduced to two core constituencies was hurt, its love had cheated
it immensely.
Then the party slowly returned to the Hindu
core constituency. Ram Mandir movement was a peak of it. After returning to
Hindu core constituency with the Hindutva ideology, the party went up to power
in many states and at the centre. This core constituency had human beings
in it who had emotions, intellect and aspirations.
Any core constituency consists of human beings.
Their emotions, intellect and aspirations if fulfilled, then and then only
that party grows. If their sentiments, intellect and aspirations are ignored
or thrown down the drain or taken for granted, then the core constituency
feels cheated and hurt. If one loves someone from the bottom of one's heart
and that someone does not keep promises given in love but breaks the promises
for gains which may be hurting the core of that love, it hurts more. The Hindu
core constituency got hurt this way post-1998 resulting into 2004 debacle.
Excuse given was power to be retained with allies at the cost of core constituency's
interests and thereby alienating the core constituency. The Hindu does not
react fast. He waits, gives more time for improvement and watches the behaviour
and actions. The Hindu core constituency again waited even after 2004. What
the Hindu core constituency saw after that was more appalling and hurting
the core. Love was not only lost; love which was showcased all the time was
false! There was no love! The Hindu core constituency was not only hurt; it
was angry. It did not abstain from voting. It voted decisively. It locked
its Hindu sentiments, intellect and aspirations within its heart and voted
for any other party that at least took care of some local issues. This does
not mean that this Hindu core constituency would not spring up again together.
It would. But for a truly caring party.
To distract the attention of those who nurtured
this Hindu core constituency, some myths are now being floated as if this
Hindu core constituency is full of fools and has only sentiments but no intellect
and aspirations.
Myth 1: We lost because of Hindutva identity.
Muslims voted against us due to this.
Truth: Muslim was never a core constituency.
It was Hindu. Everyone accepts and understands electoral growth. But if this
growth is at the cost of the core or even anti-core, then it is called cannibalisation,
e.g. in the market of dental care. Dabur later added toothpaste. Its market
share grew. It was in sync with its core target group. Dabur later added many
more products in personal care but kept its dental care cash flow intact.
If Dabur had launched anything with USP of no need to use toothpaste/toothpowder
for teeth, then Dabur would have not only lost its market share but also would
have lost its core customers' faith and company credibility. When a party
says or does anything to grow which is essentially anti its core constituency's
emotions, intellect and aspirations, the party loses miserably. Wherever this
Hindu core constituency felt that warmth, it voted. People who were blamed
for defeat, have won like Yogi Adityanath, Varun Gandhi, Dr Murli Manohar
Joshi and many others who stuck to the core constituency have won.
If the Muslim League tomorrow says, it wants
to grow in vote share and therefore it would start a majority morcha and gives
tickets to Hindu sadhus (That Hindu sadhus would not take its tickets is a
different issue.), it would hurt Muslim League's core constituency and it
would lose even its sure seats.
Myth 2: 40 per cent population is youth. Three
crore youth voters are added. Youth have great aspirations. Youth do not like
Hindutva.
Truth: It's not that many of us, as a part
of a large organisation, do not travel all India-both urban and rural. We
travel extensively, more than 5,00,000 km per year, meet at least 10,00,000
people from various professions and of various age groups every year. Many
of us did it this year too. That youth does not like Hindutva may be a part
of a wish-list of a few power-mongers, but it is not a fact. From Varanasi
to Bengaluru and from Indore to Lucknow, is there no youth? If they disliked
Hindutva then in these places they would not have voted for some people who
cared for the Hindu core constituency. Wasn't there youth in India in 1990-98
when the same Hindu core constituency voted this party to the power based
on the Hindutva identity? Were there only children and old people then? It
is also a pseudo-intellectual air-conditioned thinking that today's youth
has different aspirations. Yes, the local and temporary issues change, but
the ideological, emotional, intellectual and aspirational issues closer to
core constituency's heart do not change.
Myth 3: People want development and governance.
People do not want Hindutva.
Truth: Core constituency, as said, is made
of human beings who share the same ideology, has the same emotions, intellect
and aspirations. Responsibility of any party that grows because of core constituency
is not limited only to arouse these human beings' emotions but also to give
them all benefits of development and governance that come out of power. Has
this party provided the benefits of its so-called development and governance
to all people in its core constituency totally? If not, then on what basis,
such a party went ahead and started saying that it needs to give development
and governance to those who are anti-this core constituency while its own
core constituency was without such development and governance. Hindus voted
this party to power at the centre once and in a few states repeatedly. Has
every Hindu irrespective of caste and gender got a job? Has every Hindu family
enough food so that the family does not have to sleep with an empty stomach?
Does every Hindu boy and girl have a school to study? There are many such
questions.
If this party does not want to be answerable
to the core constituency's ideological questions related to Ram Mandir, Article
370 or Common Civil Code, then fine. But the Hindu core constituency has never
got answers to their questions about their development and governance. So,
leave the core constituency half attended, take them for granted thinking
that where else can they go anyway and only for votes or for allies cater
to the development of those who are all out to kill this core constituency.
This is not development or governance at number 1; this is an immature hurry
to get power at any cost. Hindu core constituency realised this and left this
party. The very efforts of a few of painting Hindutva as anti-development
and governance were a logical fallacy and the Hindu core constituency is wise
enough to see through this.
Myth 4: If any party has to come to power,
it has to compromise on its ideology and tone it down to accommodate the allies.
Truth: We are not worried about any or every
party here. If the party that grows on a specific ideology and due to a specific
core constituency, tries to hurt the very essence of that core constituency
only to gain power, then the core constituency not only feels neglected but
also feels cheated. Adding Muslims and Christians was not a problem for Congress.
They were always a part of that party from the beginning. If Hindutva core
constituency party tries to add such elements, then it becomes B-Congress.
Then why would anyone vote for B-Congress (duplicate) when the A-Congress
(original) is available? This apart, the party was nurtured by the Hindu core
constituency as an anti-thesis to Congress. The Hindu core constituency is
intelligent enough to see the faux pas in this 'aim power' logic. The core
constituency may be just 10 per cent of the total voters but if even five
per cent of it sees through the betrayal to the core, then this vote share
makes or breaks the chances of winning. It is a paradox! The very reason to
leave the core constituency was to gain power. And the same reason has become
the etymological blunder for many parties in this election like the communist
parties whose core constituency-the poor and the farmers-felt this loss of
love. They were hurt. And so were Hindus. For different reasons and by different
parties. When this happens, the networks of the workers who were attached
to the party due to the core constituency and the organisations that were
instrumental in nurturing the core constituency feel hurt. It shows in the
real life, in voting patterns and in loss of percentage of votes. It also
shows in the end of the state of inertia in some states like Rajasthan where
there are fatal losses of sure seats.
Myth 5: It worked in the American elections,
it must work in India too.
Truth: Although India has seen many kings
and dynasties, India and Hindu core constituency follow their own cultural
and intellectual ethos and now have their own democratic system, which is
a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential one. Just because Obama projected
himself in America as a change agent and won, it does not mean the same will
happen in India. India and Hindu core constituency do not get enamoured by
an individual for long and especially if an individual is projected, the Hindu
core constituency still examines his/her behaviour and actions on the parameters
of core constituency's core interests. Consistency is not a weakness or not
an anti-thesis of being progressive. Consistency gives credibility. For any
brand to be successful, it needs credibility that appeals to its own core
customer, not just to the media or the internet or the world.
If a party cannot satisfy its own core constituency
and limits itself to power gain by projecting individuals or issues that do
not appeal or matter to its core constituency, then it is a love lost. And
lost love always hurts. Both ways it hurts. It has hurt the Hindu core constituency
that it was taken for granted and then was betrayed again and again of late.
It has also hurt senior and junior-millions of workers of the party who nurtured
the party through the Hindu core constituency for so long. And it hurts party's
vote share too. For any party to come to power in a democracy, the support
of the majority is a must; but for any majority, supporting a particular political
party is not must.
And now, if people and organisations, which
are associated with such a party that has hurt its core constituency, continue
with it for long, the Hindu core heart, intellect and aspirations will go
off at a tangent. Looking at the current scene, there is surely a scope for
any party that is willing to truly address and fulfill the emotions, intellect
and aspirations of the Hindu core constituency. If the old party does not
want to follow it and disown this constituency, then it is that party's own
choice. But the Hindu core constituency has already been decisive and if not
addressed with the same old love and care then surely there is a vacuum for
any new or other party to grow. What is more important is the ideology and
only ideological consistency can give any party a credibility for longer survival
and symbiotic growth-whether it is a communist ideology (which we may not
agree with) or the Hindutva ideology. Until there is some concrete care for
the Hindus now, lost love always hurts and will keep on hurting.
(The writer is a cancer surgeon and secretary
general of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and can be contacted at drpravintogadia@yahoo.com)
