Today the BJP has the same old image of Hindutva but no identity of its own: Kuldip Nayar.

I WISH I could believe L.K. Advani when he said at the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) conclave recently that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with which the party has links had rejected theocracy — the Hindu rashtra concept.

Then why insist on the term ‘Hindutva’ and why not ‘Bharatvata’? At least, the BJP would not sound as equivocal as it does.

Advani would recall the criticism he had to face for having hailed Mohammad Ali Jinnah as secular in Karachi. The RSS literally hauled him over the coals. He gave many explanations to water down what he said. Not that Advani’s statement was wrong. The RSS was not ready to forgive the person “who had vivisected the limbs of Bharat Mata”.

Advani, I am afraid, may interpret Hindutva differently when he tours the states to explain why the BJP lost. He should realise that the party won in eight states, including Gujarat on the plank of parochialism. Will he reinterpret the victory? I think the party has once again avoided facing its moment of truth. Surprisingly, it has not struck the BJP that the party is not selling any more because of its divisive credentials. Its Hindutva, soft or hard, is lessening in appeal as pluralism increases its space. With time India’s temperament is becoming secular.

The crisis that the BJP faces is not that of image but of identity. The image of Hindutva, despite its limitations, has given the party the recognition it has sought. The new brand does not impart any sharper, popular edge because Hindutva is Hindutva, Hindu in content and appeal. In due course, soft Hindutva will assume the shape of Hinduism. The presence of leaders like Narendra Modi virtually guarantees that it will happen this way. Whatever the explanation on the basis of cultural heritage or nationalism means, it has little relevance when the expression boils down to Hindutva.

The Muslims, 15 per cent of the electorate, do not buy this. Nor do the increasing numbers of youth, attuned as they are to science and technology. They do not feel at home with the language of the mandir or the new word ‘inclusive’ coined by Advani. They are Hindu and do not feel threatened in a country where they form 80 per cent of the population. The BJP tries to play on the fear which is artificially created to get votes. But this has resulted in diminishing returns.

Where the BJP gets stumped is on the point of identity. The party is so intertwined with the RSS that it does not have a personality of its own. However liberal the BJP may become, it cannot escape the odium of the RSS philosophy which emanates from Nagpur where some half-a-dozen persons, never elected by the people or even by BJP members, pronounce judgment on crucial problems facing the country. They are like the Taliban leaders, confined to narrow religious practices expressed in extreme forms.

The BJP has no cadre of its own and depends on the RSS cadre which includes the Bajrang Dal of anti-Christian fame in Orissa and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of the Gujarat carnage. The BJP got a chance to turn over a new leaf when it joined the Janata Party after the emergency (1975-77). It promised to sever its links with the RSS. But the erstwhile Jana Sangh members went back on the undertaking given to Gandhian Jayaprakash Narayan who led the movement that ousted Mrs Gandhi. Instead, they formed a new party, the BJP. When the Janata Party was routed in 1980, one of the causes was that the BJP divided the anti-Congress vote. Together the two might have done better.

After the reverse in the recent Lok Sabha elections, I heard some liberal BJP elements renewing the demand to go it alone. But in no time they seem to have realised that they do not have the inclination or determination to build a cadre of their own. This is an arduous job. The youth can do it. Probably the party can attract them more on its own, not with the RSS which is attracting less and less young people at its shakas (morning camps).

The BJP has not yet analysed the cause of its reverses in the elections. When it met last, there were only harsh words exchanged and inflammatory letters written and leaked. One leader even called those in charge of the elections “conspirators”. Another regretted that the ones who won did not get the reward. It was clear that the acrimonious attacks were made deliberately, in a planned manner, primarily against party president Rajnath Singh and Rajya Sabha opposition leader Arun Jaitley. Critics sounded like they were settling personal scores. I wish they had the courage to pursue the matter, but it turned out to be only a storm in a teacup.

Had the BJP analysed the reasons for its losses it would have been natural. Every defeated political party goes over the exercise as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has. But there is a difference between the two. The politburo of the communists is the final authority. In the case of the BJP, the buck does not stop with Rajnath Singh or Advani. The high priests belong to the RSS.

Had the BJP shed Hindutva and snapped ties with the RSS it might have provided a much-needed alternative to the Congress. The new formation may have been on the right of centre, but it would have given a platform to those who differed with the Congress and who may have been rubbed the wrong way.

If the BJP cannot convert itself into a secular party, however rightist, it should not hide itself behind soft Hindutva. In that case, it would have been better for the party to own Hindutva openly. Its hedging is not going to attract Muslims, liberals or the youth. A party avowing Hinduism

publicly may also be more recognisable when it says it is related to the culture and ethos of the people — a way of life. At present the party has the same old image of Hindutva and no identity of its own. It is also a divided house. How can it retrieve the ground it has lost?

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.