“Today's generation focuses more on the current 'jugalbandi' of Modi and Amit Shah and our parents' generation focused on Vajpayee and Advani, their parents' generation looked at yet another 'jugalbandi' of Hindu nationalism, which was Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Deen Dayal Upadhyay,” said author Vinay Sitapati, who recently released his book ‘Jugalbandi - The BJP Before Modi’.
The one question that has constantly been debated and discussed since 2014 is: Is the Modi-Shah duo steering the BJP in the direction that Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani had envisioned for it to be?
“There's more continuity than you think,” Sitapati said.
“Superficially they are two different characters. But Advani and Vajpayee in many ways were shaped by the context in which they operated. Vajpayee had spent 50 years in the Parliament and Advani (too) a long time, before they entered government. Whereas, Modi and Amit Shah had not done a day's work in Delhi before Narendra Modi became the prime minister in 2014. Their vision of India is the Gujarat state legislature, which is the Congress vs BJP. It doesn't have this multiplicity of parties that you see in Parliament and they feel no need to negotiate it,” Sitapati said.
“A lot of those differences can be explained in the circumstances in which their respective BJPs operated,” he added.
Was There a Difference in Advani and Vajpayee’s Hinduism?
From Sitapai’s book, one could perceive that Advani was more of a 'Hindutva hardliner', but Vajpayee was somebody who would be more acceptable to the masses of India of that time.
So when asked how the equation between the two worked out so well, Sitapati said that ‘jugalbandi’ has always been the essence of the BJP.
“So, two things about this. As today’s generation focuses more on the current ‘jugalbandi’ of Modi and Amit Shah and our parents’ generation focused on Vajpayee and Advani, their parents’ generation look at yet another jugalbandi of Hindu nationalism, which was Shyama Prasad Mukherjee and Deen Dayal Upadhyay. It’s the same dynamic,” he said.
“Hindu nationalism is both a movement as well as a party seeking governance, and as a consequence, you need somebody who is a parliamentary face and somebody who can get the cadre together. To give you one example, the CAA might seem very new and might seem particular to Narendra Modi, but it's not. From the 1970s and 80s itself, it was Advani who pushed for the idea of CAA and NRC when it came to Assam,” he added.
The Idea of Hindu Nationalism
When asked if the idea of Hindu nationalism is wrongly perceived by the people who follow the BJP today or is it actually something which, through the backdoors, is being supported by the political dispensation of India, Sitapati said that in a country like India, democratic ethics only result in more ‘identity politics’.
“The BJP is a deep consequence of Indian democracy. In a group-based society, if you introduce elections, you don't get Indians who are converted to 'individuals with interest'. You don't get a Switzerland. You only get more 'identity politics'. And this is what the consequence looks like. The jugalbandi is an organisational idea of the BJP and that's what makes it different,” he said.
Party Above Person or Vice-Versa?
The book mentions a chapter from a 1995 BJP rally in Mumbai where it was unexpectedly announced by Advani that not him, but Vajpayee will be the prime ministerial candidate for the next election. While it was perceived as an act of ‘putting the party first’, can the same be said for the Modi-Shah duo?
“It's allowed to happen by the RSS because Modi and Shah win. As I said, teamwork and elections are the two central themes of Hindu nationalism. Modi and Amit Shah are bringing home the bread every day, they are bringing home the chapati and rice every day. Once they stop doing that, then this question becomes important. This is the question you ask Congress – if the dynasty brings you vote, of course you will support the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. The puzzle right now is that the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is not bringing votes, then why is the Congress still supporting them?” Sitapati asked, which begged the question of the BJP’s obsession with Jawaharlal Nehru.
‘Why is the BJP Obsessed With Nehru?’
Speaking of Jawaharlal Nehru, which the book too has an entire chapter on, Sitapati said that the BJP-RSS’ criticism of Nehru dates back to the pre-Independence era.
"Both Nehru and Patel had a lot of agreements, but they disagreed on the nature of the RSS,” Sitapati said.
“More generally, I think Nehru had a deep suspicion that the Hindu majority religion will take over the state. I won't call him anti-Hindu because I think that's wrong. But certainly, Nehru did not have this worry that Islam will take over the state because after the Partition, Muslims are 13 percent of the population, but Hindus are 80 percent. So, Nehru's argument was that look, I am a Hindu and Hindus are a majority. So, if I cannot reform Hinduism, then who can? That has been held against him since then itself that it's not the Gandhian idea of India, that apart from the Muslim question, the RSS agrees with. But it's the post-Independence idea of Nehru that they want to criticise,” he said.
Is the RSS Anti-Minority or Anti-Muslim?
Sitapati is of the opinion that the belief of RSS being anti-minority is a misconception, but there is more basis to the idea of RSS being anti-Muslim than one may think.
“I think where the liberal critics and the left-liberal critics of the BJP are inaccurate, especially today, is that it's a casteist party. Originally, it was an upper caste party in terms of its composition. But from the beginning itself, it had an imagination of Hinduism that included all castes. At the same time, unlike traditional Hinduism, it's much more critical of Islam and much more intolerant of the strands of Islam that are not practised in India,” he said.
“We are living in an India today, where for the first time you have a backward caste prime minister and a Dalit president AND it is the reign of the BJP,” Sitapati said.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)