Recently, we witnessed a painfully familiar script play out in Maharashtra. The scenes of Opposition party legislators being herded out like cattle to a BJP-ruled State were broadcast yet again on TV. The only difference was that, this time around, such skullduggery was not met with shock, surprise or righteous disdain by the public. It was, as if, the people have come to expect it. The frequency with which such ‘operations’ have been executed in this regime is unprecedented. Horse-trading is no longer an exception; it has become routine.
Tacit consent for corruption
But more interestingly, this perversion of the political process through horse-trading and the blatant use of money power is not met with disapproval, but is celebrated by supporters of the Narendra Modi regime. Moreover, the endorsement of such cynical machinations is not restricted to toppling other governments; it also extends to welcoming into the ruling party those Opposition leaders who have been accused of financial corruption. This becomes all the more important when one considers that Mr. Modi’s base is not docile but ideologically motivated and not averse to criticising the leadership. An example of this was the public criticism levelled against the ruling party for its decision to suspend BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma under pressure from the Arab states.
Apart from the regime’s mass base, even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the ideological mentor of the BJP, has stayed silent on this issue. The RSS supremo, who is known to publicly intervene and give directions to the saffron brigade on sensitive matters, and whose utterances carry a lot of weight, has maintained a studied silence on these unending instances of horse-trading and destabilisation of Opposition-led governments. This silence can only be construed as complicity or a tacit consent for such moral and financial corruption among the Sangh Parivar and its supporters.
However, rather than dismiss this as routine hypocrisy, we must locate this consent within the political and ideological context of Hindutva. The legitimacy for such a political praxis primarily emanates out of the Hindutva view of politics and democracy. Unlike other formations, the RSS does not claim to be one among many organisations within the nation; rather it claims to speaks on behalf of the nation. This entails establishing hegemony within the social and political realms. For the Sangh Parivar, political power is merely the expression of social power and hence, it has always ascribed primacy to the social over the political. To hegemonise both these spheres, it has undertaken a strict division of labour wherein the RSS has confined itself to social service while the BJP has been handed the task of capturing political power.
However, this division of labour has given rise to an undeclared division of ethical burden. As per this division of ethical burden, the RSS plays the role of the custodian of virtue, while the BJP is the wielder of power. This is reflected in the contrast between the harsh moral code the RSS Pracharak has to live by while the BJP politician is untethered to any such morality. This division of ethical burden, between virtue and power, simultaneously elevates social service while denigrating politics.
Politics, thus conceptualised, becomes a profane and immoral realm, where might makes right and ends justify means. Any attempt to morally and ethically interrogate politics is not only futile but undesirable. It is this denigration of politics which explains why the BJP can forge opportunistic alliances with ideologically opposed forces like the Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Democratic Party, indulge in horse-trading, co-opt Opposition politicians accused of corruption and still face no criticism from its supporters or its ideological mentor. The reprimand is reserved for instances when the politician attempts to reset political and ideological boundaries of the Hindutva discourse, as L.K. Advani found out to his dismay.
Consequences for Indian democracy
While this division of ethical burden is useful for pursuing the aims of the Hindutva project, it has grave consequences for democracy as the fundamental precondition for a functioning democracy is the fusion of power with ethicality. Democracy requires the elevation of the political realm. The denigration of this realm will lead to an erosion of the public’s faith in the system and reduce democracy to crass electoralism, paving way for the entrenchment of electoral authoritarianism. In a diverse society, a functioning democracy is not an option but a necessity. Therefore, it is important for democratic forces to recognise the artificiality of this ethical division between the RSS and the BJP — the “saint” and the “sinner” — and challenge it holistically, as one depends on the other.
Dr. Anshul Trivedi has a PhD. from the Centre for Political Studies, JNU. He is a member of the Congress. Twitter: @anshultrivedi47
