Walk on alone

From all indications, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is pushing its political affiliate, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), towards a more assertive stand on the migrants issue as opposed to what the Shiv Sena stands for.

If carried to its logical extreme, this schism could ultimately lead to a parting of ways between the two saffron allies after over two decades of cohabitation.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the divide is more apparent than real. Beyond a vague belief that Indians should be free to settle and work anywhere in India, there is actually little to differentiate the RSS-BJP combine from the Shiv Sena.

But for the intense rivalry between Raj and Uddhav Thackeray over the legacy of Balasaheb, the Marathi manoos issue might not even have surfaced. The BJP and the Sena have a pronounced Hindu bias and both are largely urban formations, with partly overlapping social bases. The two parties should, in fact, be one.

A split between the two could be beneficial to both, since it would allow them to attract forces inimical to each other. For example, if the Sena is going for the core Maharashtrian vote, there is no way in hell it can vie for the migrant’s allegiance in Mumbai and Pune, not to speak of other cities in Maharashtra.

The migrant vote is key to winning in the cities. The BJP, with its cow belt credentials, is best placed to garner their loyalties.

The situation is not dissimilar in the Congress-Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) camp. In the Marathi-for-cabbies controversy, the NCP has been more vocal than the Congress. It has begun sounding like the B-team of the Thackerays on this issue.

Here again, the two allies have much to gain by running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. While the NCP can beat the Marathi drum to counter the Sena and its bete noire, the MNS, the Congress can play its nationalist card.

This will force it to share power in Maharashtra with the NCP, but yield rich dividends in the Hindi heartland, where it is trying to rebuild its base in opposition to the Lalus and Mulayams of the world.

Otherwise, barring petty personal mistrust between the leaders of the two parties, the Congress and the NCP are cut from the same cloth.

So, whether it is the Sena-BJP or the Congress-NCP, we are talking Tweedledum and Tweedledee. But here’s the rub: Any split, whether tactical or ideological, will have long-term consequences, no matter what the short-term electoral benefits of dividing to rule.

One cannot build a national party by aligning with regional satraps. Given the fact that political power resides largely in the states, the national party will usually lose out.

The BJP can never be a contender for power in Maharashtra unless it builds its own muscle in the state. It came to power in Karnataka only when it dumped the JD(S) — or rather, the other
way around.

The Congress party started growing in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar only when it took a bold decision — no doubt, after being snubbed by Lalu and Mulayam Singh — to fight alone. The results may have surprised everyone, but they stand the test of reason: you can’t walk on your own legs if you always use a crutch. Your legs
will atrophy.

The other reason why national parties cannot hope to indefinitely kowtow to regional parties is the logic of power. When regional parties align with their national counterparts, they tend to occupy the entire political space in their state, with the national party playing second fiddle.

Over time, this ensures that even when parties coalesce to form a government at the central level, they bring their regional agendas to the table. The concept of a national agenda takes a back seat, as is apparent from the way the DMK is behaving in the UPA.

If national parties want to drive a national agenda, they must often fight alone, or else they will be swamped by regionalism. At the very least, they have to develop an independent base in various states so that they cannot be pushed around. This means investing in building a party from the ground up, and that takes time.

In politics, the short-term often trumps the long-term. Faced with the prospect of a quick rise to power, national parties cut deals with regional dadas because they need the numbers. But this attitude stokes regionalism even in national elections.

It is time all national parties reworked their state strategies, so that we can have a healthier polity where regional and national aspirations are in better balance.

National parties would do well to listen to Tagore’s words: Jodi tor dak shune keo na ashe, tobe ekla chalo re. (If no one listens to your call, walk alone). The regional parties aren’t tuned in to the nation’s needs. The national parties have to learn to walk alone for a while.