Comments for the Washington DC Diaspora Program on “Karnataka Election Outcome and the Two Contesting Ideologies”
Ravi Sinha
I
must begin with a disclaimer. I am no expert on how elections are won or lost.
Nor can I claim any competence in deciphering an election result for what has
worked and what has not. I will not be offering, therefore, any fresh insights
into the results of recently concluded Assembly elections in Karnataka beyond
what is already well-known from the media reports and analyses. I plan to focus
primarily on the latter half of the title of the discussion today – the Two
Contesting Ideologies.
The
question of ideologies too is not easy to pose, let alone answer, especially when
it comes to the muddy fields of politics on the ground. It is one thing to draw
a clear ideological line on paper; it is quite another to do so on the actual
ground of politics. In the normal course of politics – at least in a polity
that has managed to settle into a normal course – ideological lines are
seldom clearly drawn. Those who insist on drawing a clear ideological line in
all circumstances are invariably pushed to the margins of the normal mode of
politics.
There
are times, however, when politics must undergo a paradigm shift.
Ideological battle lines are, more or less, clearly drawn under such conditions,
and sometimes, even if rarely, revolutionary transformations ensue from such
shifts. The ideological lines may or may not be clearly visible during the actual
political turbulence, but one can decipher them in hindsight after the polity
and the society settle into a new normal.
One
cannot say that India today sits on the brink of a political paradigm shift
that promises a revolution. In fact, a shift of decidedly regressive kind has
taken place with the rise of Hindutva. Nearly a decade after 2014, it is
clear now, at least to those who would care to see, what a disaster India has
brought upon itself. The damage done to the economy, to the social fabric, to
the institutions of governance, and to the democratic process itself, is being
felt in the bones of the country. India has been pushed back by decades in what
has been at best a slow advance to a reasonably enlightened democratic republic
with a moderately prosperous and not too uncaring economy. It will take many
decades to recover what has been lost in just one decade. And yet, there is no
guarantee that we will stop hurtling towards an even greater disaster in 2024.
Under
these circumstances, one should not be considered naïve or conservative if one
were to wish for a restorative kind of paradigm shift. One realises now that
merely turning the political clock back by a decade would bring a huge sigh of
relief to the country. In times of disasters like this one, it is not a crime
to hope for a kind of restoration, especially when revolutions are nowhere on the
horizon. It is for this reason that the success of Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat
Jodo Yatra followed by the resounding victory of Congress Party in the
Karnataka Assembly elections have come as a big sigh of relief and a
desperately needed ray of hope in the aware citizenry and, to a significant
extent, even among the suffering masses and oppressed communities across the
country.
One
must, however, ask the question: has the Karnataka outcome resulted from
clearly drawing an ideological line at the ground level? Disappointing as it
may sound, the answer is largely in the negative. Actually, it should not be as
disappointing as it sounds. As I said, drawing such a line in the muddy fields
of electoral politics is not a simple or at times even a desirable thing to do.
Insisting on this in all circumstances may in fact be counter-productive. One
can however ask the converse question: do these results shed some useful light
on how to draw an ideological dividing line on the ground? The answer to this
question is clearly affirmative. I will be dwelling mostly on this apparently
paradoxical situation.
First
thing to be noted in the Karnataka outcome is that Congress, which confronted
the BJP and the saffron brigade directly, did score a decisive victory, but it
is far from the case that Hindutva has suffered a fatal blow. The BJP
maintained its vote percentage of roughly 36 percent it had garnered in 2018.
At this aggregate level of electoral analysis, the gains of Congress appear to
have come at the cost of Janata Dal Secular (JDS), a regional party whose vote
percentage has declined by the same 5 percentage points. Despite its name, this
party has clearly moved closer to the BJP in the aftermath of the elections.
But
one should not rush to conclusions just on the basis of aggregate numbers. Congress
has not won only because of its gains in the Mysore region where JDS has been
strong. It has won most of the seats in northern Karnataka adjacent both to the
Telugu states and to Maharashtra. It has made gains in the rural areas all over
the state. The point to note, however, is that not only has the BJP maintained
its aggregate vote percentage, it has also made gains in many areas. It has
gained ground wherever communal divide has been pronounced and Hindutva is
entrenched. In the coastal region of Udupi-Mangalore it has stood its ground
and even improved its vote percentage. Same is the case with the urban
conglomerate of Bengaluru where it has won 15 out of 28 seats. Spectacular is
the case of Srirangapatna where its vote share skyrocketed from 6.4 percent in
2018 to 22.8 percent in 2023. This is the place where an intense communal
campaign has been around claims of yet another mosque being a temple. It will
be foolhardy to think that Hindutva has lost its ground in Karnataka.
A
tell-tale sign of the hold of Hindutva was in the episode of Bajrang Dal and
Bajrang Bali. When none other than the Prime Minister himself equated
the hooligans with the monkey god, and sought help from the muscle power of one
and the blessings of the other, many across the country laughed at this
mockery. And yet, it was not a laughing matter. Many leaders of Congress bent
over backwards to put on display their religious credentials – even D K
Shivakumar, a key architect of Karnataka victory, made well-publicized visits
to temples and Congress campaigners began to count how many Hanuman
temples Mallikarjun Kharge, the Congress President, had built in his native
Hyderabad region of Karnataka. Those who knew the situation on ground, and
those who knew a thing or two about how elections are won and lost in India,
did not take this matter lightly.
In
the electoral analyses splattered across the media, the victory of Congress has
been attributed to multiple factors, but three among them stand out – the so-called
anti-incumbency of an exceptionally corrupt government, the economic hardships
of the poor who are a vast majority of the population, and a relatively strong
organizational presence of the Congress Party in Karnataka. Such analyses also
factor-in the role of vote banks supposedly based on castes and communities – Lingayats,
Vokkaligas, Kunbis, Dalits, Muslims and so on. But,
managing such vote banks is a necessary detail of any electoral strategy –
often expressed in the euphemistic phrase of social engineering. It does
not define an ideological dividing line. If one tries hard to extract some such
line from the enormous complexity of Indian politics, two large conglomerates
of factors stand out – Hindutva, cultural nationalism, religious and
other traditional identities form one such conglomerate and the issues of poverty,
class, basic security of life and material well-being form the other.
Given
the history of the 20th century, class has been the centre-piece of
the canonical definition of ideological dividing line. Many who swear by this
definition and reject the possibility of any other definition would underline
the fact that the Karnataka election was won because the poor, especially in
the rural hinterlands, supported Congress. While this underlines the fact that
the class factor hasn’t gone away anywhere, it does not explain a far more
effective presence of the other factors. As I have already mentioned, the
victory of Congress does not mean that Hindutva has been defeated in
Karnataka and it is not the case that the poor have voted for Congress because
they detest Hindutva.
Fact
of the matter is that there seem to exist two different axes along which
ideological dividing lines can be drawn in today’s politics. The class axis
has been the canonical one, but there seems to be another axis. For want of a
well-thought-out nomenclature let us call it the cultural axis. It
includes identities based on religion, caste, race, ethnicity, community,
languages and even civilisations. This axis has become far more operational in
the arena of democratic and electoral politics. Actually, part of the question
can be posed even more sharply. Why is it that the ever-present class axis
almost never gives rise to a politically operational class identity?
(The same question can be posed in relation to the gender axis too, even
if in a different way.) As many a leftist trade unionist would testify, the
class that comes together on the factory floor seldom remembers the class
identity and solidarity in the voting booth. Here I would not even try to get
into the high theory of relationship between class and culture. For the purpose
at hand, I will take a pragmatic tack and treat these two realms as relatively
autonomous even if connected at some deep subterranean layer.
The
rise of culture in politics is not confined to the so-called Third
World. Samuel Huntington, the Harvard don famous for his Clash of
Civilizations, can be easily chastised by other dons of the progressive
kinds, especially after he showed his true colours by prodding the Americans to
ask the question – Who Are We? – and encouraged them to be wary of the
Latino immigrants who pose a threat, in his reckoning, to the American national
identity. Chastising him is the easy part. But how does one explain the rise of
Donald Trump in American politics which has happened more or less along the
same lines Huntington theorised? Trumps do not arise just because the likes of
Huntington construct their theories. The sources of Trumpism lie in the
deeper layers of American society. Similarly, the political traction of Hindutva
arises, at least in parts, from the deeper layers of the Indian social mind.
To
add to the puzzle and to the tragedy, democracy itself, especially of
the fiercely competitive kind, plays a role in bringing the worst out of the
hidden layers of the social mind. Who in the world can claim to have a better
alternative to democracy? And yet, there are examples galore of democracy
landing itself in very strange places. The example of Hitler coming to power
through democracy may sound hackneyed except that the phenomenon is far more
ubiquitous in the world today. You in the United States had your Trump and I am
told that Trumpism hasn’t gone away anywhere. We in India have Narendra Modi;
Turkey just re-elected Erdogan who has been in power since 2003, first as Prime
Minister and subsequently as President; Bolsanaro of Brazil was barely
defeated; Putin is too well-known an example to forget. One can go on and on and
cite examples where democracy finds curious ways to commit suicide. But one
thing would be common in all such examples. The cultural axis plays a crucially
important political role.
In
saying all this I am aware of the fact that the cultural axis does not
become operational on its own in the political arena. Popular democracy with
competitive elections is not exclusively a cultural phenomenon. After all, this
whole exercise is for constituting a State and electing a government for
running an economic and a political system. This system constitutes
itself in the political arena and ostensibly operates in that arena, but
competitive electoral processes force it to dig into the cultural
unconscious of the social mind. In analogy with depth psychology, I
often describe it as depth politics. The cultural unconscious of
the Indian social mind, whose layers have been deposited over centuries and
millennia, becomes operational in modern politics through competitive electoral
democracy.
In
the case of the United States, one often hears about the deep state that
pulls the wires of democracy while itself remaining beyond the reach of
constitutional and democratic powers and procedures. In India the deep state
may not be as deep, but it is definitely there and the existence of a cultural
unconscious comes very handy to it. In fact, the Indian deep state does not
feel the necessity to remain invisible and confined to the depths. There are
examples galore of unconstitutional, undemocratic and unscrupulous acts on the
part of the political as well as economic forces and agents. All that is being
done to the Indian economy, to the public resources, to the constitutional and
democratic institutions, is not very hidden. But the point to note is that the
state, whether deep or otherwise, finds it handy to manipulate the cultural
unconscious and democracy itself becomes an accomplice in this exercise.
Michael
Walzer, the Princeton political philosopher, has drawn attention to another
curious phenomenon in which, I suspect, the cultural axis is deeply
implicated. In his book, The Paradox of Liberation, he points out
examples of national liberation movements that led to independence from
foreign rule and to establishment of secular, liberal and enlightened
democracies, but within a few decades the secular revolutions made way
for religious counter-revolutions. The irony is that the
counter-revolutions were brought about through the same democratic process
which had been instituted by the founding fathers for the purpose of erecting a
secular, democratic and enlightened republic. India figures prominently in Walzer’s
Paradox, although being a large and complex country the replacement of
“revolution” by “counter-revolution” has taken its time. It took half a century
after the departure of Jawaharlal Nehru for someone like Narendra Modi to come
to power and replace the Nehruvian hegemony with the hegemony of Hindutva.
In
saying all this my purpose is to underline the obvious that is often ignored by
those who are accustomed to drawing the ideological dividing line only across
the class axis. The dividing line on the actual ground of politics cuts
across both the axes of class and of culture. In the rough and
tumble of competitive electoral politics one is no wiser if one can prove that
the latter is a derivative of the former. If class were to be the only
operational axis, the Left would have conquered the world rather easily.
On the other hand, if culture were to be the only operational axis, it
would become impossible to ward off the ascendance of the right-wing. Fortunately,
this is not the case on the ground. Even the Sangh Parivar cannot live
by Hindutva alone. Even Narendra Modi has to see beyond the Hindu-Muslim
divide and talk – at least talk – of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas.
It
is in this light that the lessons of Karnataka should be read off. By and large
the cultural axis was tilted against Congress while the class axis was tilted
in its favour. The art of drawing an ideological line on the actual ground
requires navigating the political topography along both these axes. Congress
managed to do this in Karnataka this time. The BJP lost primarily because the
class axis became steeply tilted against it. Hardships faced by the poor had
been greatly exacerbated by corruption and misrule.
One
should not, however, read too much into the relative importance of class in the
Karnataka example. As I have mentioned already, Hindutva has not
disappeared from Karnataka. Congress managed to hit the sweet spot because it
could take advantage of the class dimension without hurting itself along the
culture axis. This situation can be contrasted with a hypothetical situation if
the Left were to be the principal opponent of BJP. An equally strong Left would
not have fared as well as Congress mainly because it does not know how to
navigate itself along the cultural axis which is tilted too steeply against it
in most places on the subcontinent.
At
the same time, one should not take the eyes off the absolute necessity of
drawing a clear ideological line. In the situation that has arisen in India
after nearly a decade of Modi Rule, this has become a must even for electoral
battles. Given the importance of two axes and the uneven-ness of the political
topography, such a line may not be straight, but it must be clear. One can see
its importance in the example of the Janata Dal (Secular) debacle. It failed to
take up a clear ideological position and planned for winning enough seats through
its traditional influence and regular vote-bank politics to be in the position
of a king-maker. This tactic has worked in the past but it backfired in the
present situation. People were wary of its lack of ideological commitment.
Beyond
uplifting the morale of forces opposed to Hindutva and in addition to
appearing as a ray of hope in the distressing political atmosphere in India,
Karnataka results also have reasonably clear lessons for the all-important
battle of 2024. But there are no strong indications that these lessons are
being learnt by the entire opposition. In the loud clamours for
opposition unity, parties and leaders are adopting negotiating positions as if
they are already on the table for seat-sharing. Everyone seems to be angling
for the largest piece of the opposition cake. There are talks of putting up one
candidate of united opposition against each BJP candidate. There is much advice
to Congress to be large-hearted and make sacrifices for the sake of opposition
unity.
The
obvious necessity of drawing a clear ideological line is getting lost in this
noise of opposition unity. There are only two political forces with a relatively
unblemished record of fighting against Hindutva – the Congress and the
Left. The record of every other force is tainted in varying degrees. Some have
been confused or short-sighted while there are many who have been downright
opportunists.
There
are problems with the two resolute fighters too. Left, as mentioned already,
has been especially inept at fighting along the axis of culture. This adds to
its handicaps arising out of other ailments such as dogmatism, sectarianism or
unthinking populism. Congress, on the other hand, is a much larger political
force, but it also has had much bigger problems. Given its long and complicated
history, and its more recent omissions and commissions in the political arena,
it cannot entirely be absolved from accusations of paving the way for Hindutva.
It has often functioned as a half-way-house between secularism and Hindutva and
has had leaders and cadres who can cross over to the other side without batting
an eye-lid. Congress has never been a shining example of a clear ideology or a
cadre-based party. And yet, things have been changing for the better in recent
months and years. There has been much internal churning and Congress has
emerged as the central force around which all other anti-Hindutva forces could
be mobilised for the battle at hand.
Emergence
of Rahul Gandhi as an ideological leader and a resolute fighter has been a
turning point in the recent history of Congress. Bharat Jodo Yatra has
changed the political atmosphere in the country. And yet, Rahul’s Congress is
not in a strong enough position to bring about an ideological unity among the
disparate political forces of the opposition. The problem is further
complicated by the fact that many of the regional parties stand to lose if
Congress gains ground in their part of the country. Nearly everyone wants
Congress to be strong elsewhere but weak or non-existent in their own areas.
People
like us cannot really chart out the course for the opposition in India.
We are neither at the drawing board nor at the negotiating table. All we can do
is to have a reasonable wish-list. But we have to be receptive to complexity
when it comes to larger strategies. One corner of India is so different from
another. In Kerala, for example, where Congress and Left are faced with each
other, it will be alright if they continue to be at each other’s neck provided
they keep the doors shut for BJP. In West Bengal on the other hand, it is not
unthinkable that Congress and Left together fight against Mamta Banerjee’s TMC
but in such a way that they snatch the ground from BJP and become the main
opposition to TMC. In that part of India, this may be the most effective way to
fight BJP at the national level. There are other parts of the country where,
for example, opposing BJP by putting up one united opposition candidate in each
constituency will be tantamount to ensuring that BJP gets more than 50 percent
of the votes. One could go on and on about the complexities of India’s
political geography.
Ideological
line must be drawn but we cannot expect it to be very straight. We should
expect Congress to play the lead role in the battle at hand and yet we should
not expect it to bind its hand and feet with ideological ropes in such a way
that it becomes as ineffective in fighting the real battle against Hindutva
as, for example, Left has become.
In
the end, we should also remember that fascists may come to power through
elections but they are not very amenable to being dislodged from power through
elections. January 6th in the United States had a happy
outcome thanks to the relative robustness of American institutions. The Indian
analogue of the January 6th would more likely be a death
knell for Indian democracy which is already under a great deal of stress.
On
that depressing note, let me stop here.
June
10, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(
Ravi Sinha is an activist-scholar who has been associated with progressive
movements for nearly four decades. He is one of the founders and a leading
member of New Socialist Initiative.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment