The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : BELLIGERENT POSTURING

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Nov 03, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

BELLIGERENT POSTURING

THE FRESHLY DEVELOPED cracks in the alliance between the Bharatiya Janata Party and its principal ally, the Janata Dal (United), have more to do with the Assembly elections due in Bihar and Jharkhand early next year than with the issue of building a Ram temple in Ayodhya. Following the statement of the BJP president, L.K. Advani, committing his party to the construction of the temple at the disputed site, the JD(U) has called for a meeting of the National Democratic Alliance to discuss the issue. Evidently, with the Assembly elections only a few months away, there is pressure on the JD(U) to distance itself from the BJP to protect its core constituency, which is claimed to be `secular' and `socialist.' For the JD(U), the stakes are greater in Bihar and Jharkhand than in the rest of the country put together. It was entirely predictable then that the national executive committee of the JD(U) meeting at Ranchi would strike a strident posture over Mr. Advani's Ayodhya statement. By accusing the BJP of moving away from the NDA agenda and using Hindutva as a driving force, the small party is hoping to avoid the handicap that the overtly communal politics of its ally will entail.

The Jharkhand unit of the party, according to the JD(U) chief, George Fernandes, is firm on breaking the alliance with the BJP. Besides the disadvantage that might arise from being identified with the politics of the BJP, the JD(U) is factoring in the poor showing of the NDA in the 14th general election in Jharkhand: it won only one of the 14 seats it contested in the BJP-ruled State. For obvious reasons, the JD(U) believes it will be better off without the incumbency disadvantage of fighting alongside the BJP. However, in Bihar, different political calculations are clearly at work. With the Rashtriya Janata Dal led by Lalu Prasad locked in a strong alliance that includes the Congress and the Left parties, the JD(U) cannot afford to break its strategic compact with the BJP. Here the anti-incumbency factor, if it exists, should work to the advantage of the BJP-JD(U) combine.

Unlike the alliance in Maharashtra with its ideological cousin, the Shiv Sena, the BJP's political tie-ups elsewhere have been uneasy and prone to friction. Although the Samata Party, which merged with the JD(U) last year, was among the first to ally with the BJP, the relationship has been based not on any ideological or political affinity — but on shared enmity towards the Congress. The JD(U) thus has no existential problem with the politics of the BJP even if, from time to time, it plays a game of make believe with a `socialist identity' and a `Left-of-centre agenda.' The real challenge for Mr. Fernandes' party is to retain the electoral advantage the BJP indisputably brings into the alliance without losing its own political constituency and modest leverage. Consequently, the junior partner, like other similarly placed constituents of the NDA, has adopted a stance of fine-tuned ambivalence: steer clear of the BJP's overtly Hindutva politics but do not do anything to jeopardise the alliance. The senior partner has learnt to live with such ambivalence, and even play along, since it sees no alternative to this course of national political advancement. Now with the approaching elections, the JD(U) will have to weigh the imperative of an alliance with the BJP in Bihar against the disadvantages in Jharkhand. When elections to the two neighbouring States are held simultaneously, it would be unwise to forge contrary alliances. In such a situation, belligerent posturing helps: conch blowing that does not signal any break in ranks is a strategy by itself.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

PREJUDICED AND POLITICALLY SUSPECT

BELLIGERENT POSTURING

Change in Myanmar

Why Palestinians still back Arafat