advertisement
The day Arun Jaitley presented what was touted as a rural-oriented budget, the Indian Express carried a news item detailing how several members of the Sangh Parivar were issuing warning to Muslims for a “final battle” at a meet in Agra. Several senior members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) were reportedly in attendance at the function where choicest abuses were directed at the members of the minority community.
The Agra meet was not an exception but a part of the trend which clearly shows that the Sangh Parivar, of which the BJP is a constituent, is moving towards the extreme right of the centre in the political arena. From raising the bogey of so-called love jihad to beef ban and now fiercely contested national/anti-national debate – the Sangh Parivar is aggressively pursuing its rightist agenda.
But the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has dropped enough hints in recent weeks and months of a leftward shift in economic policy, even if that means going slow on reforms. Taxing the middle-class with scores of cess to fund the rural programme has been at the core of this year’s budget.
The idea behind the shift is to expand its voter base and form some sort of a rainbow coalition consisting of the rich, the middle class and the rural poor. Will it work? Unlikely, given the indifference of the poor towards the BJP in past elections.
According to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) data, nearly 40 percent of the rich and 32 percent of middle-class voters preferred the BJP in the last Lok Sabha elections. However, even during their ace performance during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, only 24 percent of the poor preferred the BJP, a good 7 percentage points less than the party’s national vote share.
That was the BJP’s best performance among the poor, according to CSDS data. In most of the previous elections, the BJP could manage less than one-fifth of the votes of the most populous group of poor. Moreover, only 22 percent of the poor among scheduled caste voters chose the BJP over others in the last elections. Even the relatively prosperous SCs (those who belong to the lower, middle and upper classes), the attraction towards the BJP was somewhat muted, according to CSDS.
What this data clearly shows is that for the poor of the country, the BJP has never been a preferred party. And there is a reason for that.
Despite many cases of divergence, class differences somewhat mirror caste structure in society. Exceptions aside – there are many, no doubt – there is a greater likelihood of a poor person belonging to a caste, not ranked highly in the traditional social hierarchy. Conversely, there is a high probability of finding a rich person from an upper caste.
The kind of Hindutva that the BJP pursues is seen to be glorifying the worldview of the upper castes/classes. It is, therefore, natural that BJP’s worldview finds greater resonance among the upper and middle classes (and castes). Data also shows that since the 1990s, affluent classes/castes have preferred the BJP over other parties. As a result, it has pushed other castes/classes to a non-BJP camp.
It is unlikely to change as long as the BJP continues to pursue an aggressive Hindutva agenda. The political right and left-of-the-centre economic policies serve two diametrically opposite constituencies. And more so in the Indian context – we have been a caste-ravaged society.
The BJP can choose to whip up the bogey of so-called love jihad or pursue variants of Indira Gandhi’s Garibi Hatao programme. It cannot appeal to both and hope for a rainbow coalition, similar to the one the Congress had till the 1980s. If it does, events of the last few weeks keep reminding us that in trying for both, there is a risk of the popular Hindi proverb Maya Mili Na Ram (neither the illusion, nor God) coming true.
(The writer is Consulting Editor, Business Standard, and contributes regularly to The Quint on politics and contemporary issues)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: undefined