Representative image
Credit: iStock Photo
Indian politics never ceases to attract analysts' attention. However, it is unfortunate that opinions and attitudes about the course and directions of politics are polarised among both politicians and analysts. Let me try to reflect on the broad features of Indian politics from the Nehruvian era to the present.
Post-independent Indian politics was dominated largely by the Congress Party, which occupied the seat of power, guided by stalwarts within and outside the party led by Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister. On matters concerning internal politics, Nehru was largely pragmatic, as his fundamental objective was to lay the foundations for India’s industrial and scientific/technological development, as illustrated by his decision to start heavy industries, which he called the temples of modern India, and the setting up of the Atomic Energy Commission.
In foreign policy, Nehru’s positions were informed by his opposition to colonialism, imperialism, apartheid, etc. He crafted the policy of nonalignment to pursue the nation’s foreign policy. Nehru had great respect for Parliament as an institution. He attended the Parliament sessions without fail, unlike Prime Minister Modi, who skips sessions often. While Nehru had his way most of the time, it was never achieved by disrespecting parliamentary institutions and norms. There were different strands of politics even then, but one did not notice the polarisation of the sort we witness now.
However, it was the Indira Gandhi era that saw sharp divisions in the way politics was conducted both within the Congress Party and outside. One is aware of the radical overtones of Indira Gandhi’s denunciation of her critics within the party, supported by the rise of ‘Young Turks’. Indira was authoritarian, as was witnessed by the declaration of an internal emergency leading to the arrest of key opposition leaders and the imposition of press censorship. She also rode roughshod over institutions by openly calling for committed civil service and judiciary. The high command culture became conspicuous during her time, resulting in her firm grip over the Congress Party. The trend towards personality cult became visible with the likes of Dev Kant Barua proclaiming, “India is Indira, and Indira is India." Indira Gandhi also set up shouting brigades within her party when the opposition tried to create problems for her within Parliament. Disruptions in parliament became a feature during Gandhi’s time. The media and academia were polarised, with the pro- and anti-Indira camps articulating their positions quite overtly.
The next discernible phase in Indian politics began with the rise to power of the BJP-led NDA government headed by Vajpayee and Advani. With that began the overt phase of Hindutva politics. However, Vajpayee kept the Hindutva forces under check and endeared himself to the leaders of the 20-odd parties that formed part of his coalition government. Sharing of power reduced the chances for centralization of power and strong ideology-driven politics. It also removed the chance for high-command-driven politics. Similar was the feature of the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government earlier.
The coming to power of the Narendra Modi-led BJP government in 2014 and its return to power in 2019 led to stridently Hindutva-driven politics. It is also marked by a return to the era of high-command politics, which, for all practical purposes, has led to the centralization of decision-making by Modi and Amit Shah. The two of them decide who should be made chief ministers of states, as was seen recently in the cases of Chattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. Through the shrewd practice of caste-based distribution of positions, the Modi-Shah combine has tried to appease the tribals, OBCs, and forward castes with an eye on their votes in 2024.
The upcoming inauguration of the Ram temple in Ayodhya will be exploited by the BJP government to put the Hindutva agenda at the forefront and drum up electoral support to recapture power in 2024. PM Modi is already making repeated references to his return to power. The aggressive use of Hindi, as seen by the Hindi nomenclature of the bills passed by the government, is a symbol of the stridency of Hindi-Hindutva politics by the BJP. In such a milieu, academic analysis and writing are also polarised, with independent voices receding into the background.
At the larger level, fears of the delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies after 2026 being used to pack the Parliament to the numerical advantage of the Hindi-belt states vis-à-vis the southern states are gaining ground. Surely, such things do not bode well for the Indian Republic, which is known for its linguistic, religious, and ethnic identities.
(The writer is a former professor of political science at Bangalore University)