Why shopkeepers must display their names in Uttar Pradesh
It’s not simply to fan anti-Muslim sentiment but to corner the Big Bad Wolf in Delhi. Read on…
Weakened leaders of ideological parties are always vulnerable to those willing to be more extreme than them. It’s worth considering this idea to understand what is going on in Uttar Pradesh. Also to know what to expect in future from a minority government.
The BJP’s allies in Delhi have all opposed the idea that shopkeepers in UP be forced to advertise their names (and by extension their religion). Why? No demand was made that we know of; nor has this been an issue in the past. There is no apparent reason to ask shopkeepers to do this. The manner in which it has been done, at first without an official order and pretending that it is voluntary, further strengthens the impression that the action was taken only to stir the pot.
Consider, then, how the issue has become larger than the big news of just the day before — that UP’s chief minister was in trouble for delivering a defeat in the Lok Sabha polls. All the news channels were full of speculation about what would happen next. That is no longer the story, and the chief minister has managed with this one action to change the narrative. Observe too that few Union ministers are defending it or promoting the idea. This is not because they disagree with it, but because it doesn’t serve the government in Delhi.
Why give your allies the opportunity to show rifts and dissent within the NDA? It doesn’t help with the illusion that nothing has changed since 4 June. But everyone understands that — and they understand why this is being done in Uttar Pradesh.
The action in UP cannot be openly opposed either (assuming anyone does disagree internally), and this is the problem of ideological parties. The chief minister is only continuing what the BJP has made a pattern of doing against minorities through its entire history, because that is its ideology.
However, the same action last year, or even six months ago, would have been a different matter. This is a new time.
We have glimpsed versions of this same situation before.
The challenger who is more extreme than the weakened leader was first seen over 20 years ago. In April 2002, only a month after the post-Godhra violence led to the death of about 1,000 people in Gujarat, the BJP’s national executive met in Goa. There was talk in the media that Atal Bihar Vajpayee, prime minister at the time, was going to get Gujarat chief minister Modi to step down. On 29 April 2002, under the headline ‘How Vajpayee ended up as the Hindutva choir boy’, a magazine reported what happened next:
No sooner had party president Jana Krishnamurthy completed his ‘taken as read’ presidential address than Modi got up and said in his sombre, chaste Hindi: “Adhyaksh-ji, I want to speak on Gujarat… From the party’s point of view, this is a grave issue. There is a need for a free and frank discussion. To enable this, I wish to place my resignation before this body. It is time we decided what direction the party and the country should take from this point onwards.”
He didn’t need to say more. With one stroke, the Gujarat chief minister had seized the initiative. He galvanised his supporters, who now stood up to be counted. Food minister Shanta Kumar, who had spoken out against Modi and the VHP's extremes, found himself being rebuked and facing a disciplinary committee. He was forced to apologise.
Even if the prime minister may have thought Modi’s resignation prudent for the sake of both his personal image and the unity of the coalition, there was absolutely no way he could go against the ferocity of the pro-Modi sentiment. He tried shelving the issue for a day but even this was resisted.
Vajpayee’s inability to wrestle Modi down was predictable. Having been raised on ideology, the cadre was not interested in moderation. As noted earlier, leaders in extremist parties are always vulnerable to charismatic persons further to their right, who are willing and eager to push harder and risk more — those who are better able to express the cadre’s zealotry.
Modi was able to build a nationwide — and really, a global — notoriety and fame because of the BJP’s refusal or inability to change its leadership in Gujarat.
The apologetic Hindutva of the decade following the fall of the Babri Masjid was about to end. The BJP cadre and the Sangh had a real hero now who spoke and felt and did as they really wanted their leaders to.
That gloss has now worn off because of the events of 4 June. If the prime minister wishes to see smooth functioning of the government, he will have to avoid issues that needlessly agitate allies — such as this one. Remember the allies will always be on the prowl for issues they can press to extract what they really want.
As the 240-seater prime minister attempts to moderate his image of hardline hero, he has had to make room for others to elbow in. That’s what is happening now—and will continue to happen from inside the BJP.
Those in the party who feel threatened, or are about to lose their position, or feel they need to assert themselves over others in some way, will consider using the same formula. Many will actually deploy it. Again, this is a problem inherent to ideological parties.
And so, it is going to be a very different third term for Modi than the previous two — and an interesting one for observers.
Views are personal. More of Aakar Patel’s writing can be read here.
Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram
Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines