Disenchantment of Sangh Parivar with Vajpayee: An Analysis

South Asia Analysis Group

Paper no. 233

27. 04. 2001

DISENCHANTMENT OF SANGH PARIVAR WITH VAJPAYEE: An Analysis

by R. Upadhyay

Prime Minister Vajpayee should have been more than satisfied with the political resolution adopted in the National Executive Committee meeting of the BJP (New Delhi March 24 -25, 2001).   The resolution complimented his government that “it had generated a confidence among the people that the nation is acquiring new heights” and “the march of the nation is to become a global power”.   But if the outburst against the NDA Government by Dattopant Thengdi, a very senior leader of Sangh Parivar in an impressive public rally at Delhi on April 16 is any indication, Vajpayee appears to be no more in a comfortable situation so far as the Sangh Parivar is concerned.

The intemperate language used by Thengdi against the policies of Vajpayee Government as “anti-labour”, “anti-national”, “anti-people” and calling his Finance Minister as “criminal”- is clearly a warning signal to the Prime Minister. The exceptionally bitter criticism of NDA Government by the founder of the BMS and veteran RSS leader Thengdi, who cautioned it “to mend its economic policies or face rout in election” was another warning signal to the Prime Minister.   Vajpayee’s anguish on the other hand during parliamentary Party meeting of the BJP on April 17 and in a meeting with his cabinet colleagues in the party on April 18 were a reflection of his annoyance with Sangh leaders.   He had reportedly “warned the Sangh Parivar that he would not bear with its over-criticism” (Pioneer dated April 18). But Thengdi is no ordinary individual. He is heading the biggest trade union in India and is one of the senior most RSS leaders. He has no axe to grind as some papers made it to be, but he is not one to shy away from making bold and forthright statements where he is convinced.

No one will dispute that Vajpayee reached the centre-statge of national politics by virtue of his long and unblemished political record. Projected as a liberal face in public right from the day he started his parliamentary career, he ultimately became a nationally acceptable leader. But in the last three years Vajpayee has lost the respect and popularity among Sangh Parivar, which he used to command earlier. With the challenges on issues like Ayodhya and the new economic policy he is facing from Sangh Parivar leaders, an impression is gaining ground that Vajpayee finds himself isolated in the RSS now.

Since Vajpayee was one of the shining stars in post-Independence establishment, the RSS always gave him full backing but never let him to cross the ideological ‘Lakshman Rekha’ of the organisation.

It looks like he has gone beyond acceptable limits. There were differences before. One example was 1984 Lok Sabha election, when the strength of the BJP was reduced to only two in the parliament and even Vajpayee, the founder president of the BJP was himself defeated from Gwalior.   It is said that the concept of Gandhian socialism incorporated in the political philosophy of the BJP by him as founder president of the party in 1980 did not have the approval of the RSS.

If one looks at the past record, Vajpayee hardly made any aggressive contribution to the growth of the BJP through Ayodhya movement. He never took any Rath yatra like Advani or Joshi for the cause of Hindutva. Since he tried to play pragmatic politics, he was perhaps ridiculed by Govindacharya, a high profile former General Secretary of the BJP as ‘mask’ of the party. The Sangh Parivar however, never raised any objection against Vajpayee being projected as Prime Ministerial candidate in the election because the country had entered an era of coalitional politics and there was no alternative to him in the BJP, who would be acceptable to the party’s allies.

So long the BJP was in opposition, its image in general public was of a party, which practised “pure politics” under the ideology of the RSS. The historic speech of Vajpayee as Prime Minister during confidence vote on the floor of the parliament in 1996, when he lost his thirteen-day Government made him a national hero. This paid political dividends to the BJP that even in states such as West Bengal, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh, where the party had hardly any political space found acceptance in the coalition mode. Vajpayee was in fact the prime factor behind this achievement.   But in 1998 elections, the “Chaal, Charitra aur Chehra” (Rhythm, Character and Face) of the BJP started changing, when in search of winnable candidates, it opened the door of the party for candidates of even criminal and shady background. Without any reservation in choice of allies, the BJP also adopted all the tactics of the Congress party to come to power. It could no longer claim that its allies were qualitatively superior to those of United Front or the Congress. The BJP therefore, lost its image of a party with difference, which its leaders used to boast. For this Vajpayee cannot escape responsibility.

After becoming Prime Minister of a coalition Government in 1998 Vajpayee started taking an independent course as far as Sangh Parvar was concerned. His slogan for governance on the basis of consensus was only meant for the allies and not for his own party. He took the Sangh Parivar for granted in his decisions. With his constitutional prerogative he tried to induct Jaswant Singh and Promod Mahajan, who were defeated in the Lok Sabha elections in his cabinet but he never used such prerogative in respect of allies.

While he had no grievances against the media when he was called as prisoner of his junior partners he reacted strongly when he was accused of being controlled by the RSS.

Since Vajpayyee’s leadership in the coalition tends more to be a contractual than a cultivated one, he was never in a position to command his team with the true spirit of his constitutional prerogative. The day, the BJP built up a coalition of divergent interests, the party started deviating from its nation-centric ideology and opted for power-centric ideology. Facing the challenge of the multi-dimensional pulls and pressures of his coalition partners, he exhausted his energy in keeping them satisfied. The story of Vajpayee Government was in fact an unending tale of compromises he made with junior partners in the coalition. It may be argued that coalitional politics is one of compromises and this cannot be escaped if the party is to stay in power. But where he failed was in not taking the RSS leadership along in taking decisions.

Aware of the compulsion of coalition Government, the RSS leadership never expected Vajpayee to fit his Government in the ideological framework of the Sangh and gave him full support to ensure that the stability of his government is not affected. Vajpayee on the other hand was more keen to prove that the Government is not run by the RSS and began asserting himself. Despite the known views of the RSS he inducted Jaswant Singh and Promod Mahajan in his cabinet on December 5,1998. Similarly, he did not discuss the issue of Insurance Bill in the party forum or with the experts belonging to Sangh Parivar before introducing it in parliament to allow this sector to foreign companies with 40% equities. This was against the Swadeshi concept of the party and hence the Trade Union leader Dattopant Thengdi as well as Kushabhau Thakre, the then national president of the BJP publicly criticised his action.

In 1999, when Vajpayee again became the Prime Minister with bigger than life image, he pushed his own doctrine in “Chennai declaration” of the BJP, which was a deviation from the known political philosophy of the party. The leaders of Sangh Parivar then started raising their voice against the reactive policy of his Government on Kashmir issue and also his new economic policy, which was against the Swadeshi concept of the BJP. The former RSS chief Rajju Bhaiyya remarks of ‘Hindu cowardice’ on exchange of the passengers in Indian Airlines hijacking episode with the release of terrorists was also an indication that Sangh Parivar was not satisfied with the style of governance under the leadership of Vajpayee.

The Sangh Parivar cadres viewed induction of Bangaru Laxman, a nonentity in the BJP as Party president as an attempt of Vajpayee to keep the party under his personal control. This was contrary to the party’s tradition of having its president groomed in the ideological frame of the RSS.

While playing politics as an art of power maneuvering, Vajpayee committed the mistake in taking the RSS leadership granted in his actions. On one hand his dependence on Brajesh Mishra, Promod Mahajan and Jashwant Singh caused heart burning among many senior leaders in the party, while on the other his over dependence on George Fernandes caused irritation among his allies.

Unlike the Congress, which is by and large known to be dependent on the hired crowd of supporters, the ideologically committed BJP cadres got disillusioned with the Vajpayee’s doctrine of governance. The BJP was known as a party, which stood for nation-centric ideology. But due to his ideological shift from Swadeshi economy to new economic reforms, the BJP is now known among its supporters as “saffron clone” of the Congress party.

Devoid of his pre-1998 image and gradual erosion in the popularity of his Government, particularly after Tehelka episode and recent killing of BSF personnel along Indo-Bangladesh boarder, how far Vajpayee would be able to contribute to transform his vision into reality could be anybody’s guess. An impression is gaining ground that the RSS cadres may not be very active in the ensuing assembly elections for the victory of the NDA. In case the coalition allies do not fare well in the elections, it may be difficult for Vajpayee to keep his allies together.

People of the country voted Vajpayee to power for good governance. The popularity and respectability, he gained during half a century of his political career is no more intact. His ideological colleagues are now accusing him for deviating from the ideological philosophy of the party for the sake of power. He has now become the target of not only the opposition but also of his allies as well as ideological colleagues.

Caught in this cross fire Vajpayee may like to undergo a deep introspection and come out with his “musings” befitting to his vision as projected by him in his address to the nation on the eve of 21^st century, when he quoted Aurobindo: “The sun of India’s destiny would rise and fall all over India with its light and overflow India and overflow Asia and overflow world”.   The history of political parties in India has enough examples to prove that the main cause of the downfall of any political party has been the internal dissensions for ideological reasons. The supporters of the BJP have started talking that the party under the leadership of Vajpayee is perhaps a party with difference only when it sits in opposition. As the situation stands today Vajpayee is isolated.

The trend is clear. Vajpayee has lost his shine. If the RSS does not cooperate, BJP will lose and lose badly in the coming assembly elections. That will make it worse. While the RSS may not go to the extent of scuttling the government, one can expect it to be more strident and more assertive in the post Tehelka period leading to more complications. For this both Vajpayee and the RSS leadership should settle the issue amicably quietly and away from the glare of the media.

Back to the top

Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.