This BJP govt is easy to understand. If you read what Modi, Shah, Nadda read when they were young

Shekhar Gupta in The Print

In this heavy headline- and intrigue-laden political environment, we run the risk of missing out on three vital pointers. Let’s go chronologically.

First, on the day of the consecration of the Ram temple at Ayodhya, many key handles of the Bharatiya Janata Party shared the ‘original’ version of “Raghupati Raghav Raja Ram”. Or what’s called the Ram Dhun, composed by maestro, late Vishnu Digambar Paluskar.

Then, the prime minister, in his latest Mann Ki Baat, displayed the original first page and Preamble of the Constitution – that’s without the words “secular and socialist” that Indira Gandhi added in her sixth-year parliament in 1976.

And finally, Nirmala Sitharaman, in her budget speech, introduced the idea of a committee to look at the “challenge of population growth”. Each of these represents key elements of the BJP/RSS thinking and helps us understand the politics of the Modi government.

If you are curious why the Ram Dhun is an issue, do note that the original being shared now does not have the second line we have all sung through three generations and which we presumed was part of the original: “Ishwar, Allah tero naam, sab ko sanmati de Bhagwan” (Ishwar or Allah, you are the same God, please bless everyone with wisdom). This line was a Gandhian modification to give the composition a secular flavour.

On the day of the Pran Pratishtha, the BJP was reminding us which Ram Dhun, in its view, was secular, and which pseudo-secular. The tune also made an appearance at the Beating the Retreat ceremony later in the week (after 2016), and you’d wonder which words were being hummed by the BJP’s leading lights.

The context of the original Preamble is BJP is reminding you the word “secular” is a latter-day insertion by an illegitimate Lok Sabha (its term extended in the Emergency in 1976). Like that Ishwar-Allah line in Ram Dhun. Population growth is another old RSS/BJP concern, never mind that Indian birth rates are already at replacement levels and declining. In fact, we risk facing the challenge of declining and ageing population by the time our per capita incomes are at around $3,500, while the Chinese find a crippling threat at the $12,500 figure today. Never argue with ideological beliefs, however.

Now, we come to harder politics. Over its decade in power, the Modi government has acquired a reputation of keeping everything close to its chest, of always succeeding in surprising the closest watchers of Indian politics.

But is this government really so mysterious and inscrutable? Is there a key to breaking the code of this BJP’s politics, a window to its mind? The key lies in understanding its ideological commitment.

We have to be sobered by how cruel this Modi-Shah, and now Modi-Shah-Nadda approach has been. Particularly cruel to the reputation of the dwindling tribe of senior political journalists. This particularly includes many claimants to inside knowledge, and who were acknowledged to be, and also see themselves as being close to the BJP.

Nobody saw demonetisation coming, or the choice of Yogi Adityanath in Uttar Pradesh, the overnight changes in Jammu & Kashmir, passing of CAA, ban on triple talaq, crackdown on those seen as the radical Left sympathisers – whom the BJP calls Urban Naxals. And the latest choices for the three Hindi states’ chief ministers.

We might have been less surprised if we had paid more attention to understanding the BJP/RSS ideology.

For Modi’s critics, some of this comes from the abhorrence and contempt for that ideology. They are also seen as not particularly intellectually endowed. The fact is, they are in power for a decade and, instead of fading away, keep getting stronger. There is, therefore, juice in that ideology for enough voters.

If India’s rulers for a decade haven’t read the literature that shaped the older, generally Congress-friendly ‘secular’ ideology, it isn’t as if they haven’t been reading anything. They’ve read their contemporary scriptures, from Hedgewar, Golwalkar, and Savarkar to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya.

The Modi government’s economic moves, for example, would be less of a surprise if you’d read two works by Deen Dayal Upadhyaya: Integral Humanism, and The Two Plans: Promise, Performance, Prospects. You will then have a clearer understanding of why the Modi government ensures the delivery of so many benefits, especially free foodgrains and cash, directly to the poorest.

If you are daunted by entire books, please do google Antyodaya. It is Deen Dayal Upadhyaya’s idea of the state’s first responsibility being to the last man standing, of ensuring nobody is left out. To that extent, it isn’t so different from Gandhi’s: “I will give you a talisman…recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman]…”.

The other book, The Two Plans, is his critique of Nehruvian planned economics. More specifically, it talks about the first and the second five-year plans. It is just that when the book was published, nobody took the Jana Sangh (BJP’s original avatar) and the RSS so seriously. But you’ve got to acknowledge that the RSS minds plugged on, undaunted.

Some of the latest emphasis on “aatmanirbharta”, shepherding and patronising Indian entrepreneurs to become big and rich, protecting them from global competition, are all ideas you can see trickling down from here. Every Sarsanghchalak has spoken about these. The idea of one nation, one election comes, by the way, from Golwalkar. You can check out golwalkarguruji.org. It’s been resurrected by his followers in the 50th year of his death.

You can’t ignore these texts however much you dislike the BJP/RSS ideology. Unlike the texts of the Left, they do not lean on the great global names of the 19/20th century political history: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao. Unlike Nehru’s Discovery of India for the Congress, these aren’t so enjoyable. The RSS/BJP Gurus are Indian.

Very few voters are familiar with them, unlike the writings of Nehru and Gandhi in our school textbooks. But that doesn’t matter. The most important thing is, people are voting for those following these texts. The coming generations of Indians will also be reading them in their school textbooks.

The essential difference between the BJP and the Congress governments of the past is the commitment to ideology. The Congress leaderships had much greater flexibility. Ideology guided its policies, but never governed them. For the BJP, it is different. Its commitment to ideology is almost fundamentalist.

The changes in Kashmir, Muslim personal laws, building of the Ram temple and consecration under the prime minister’s watch, and a whole lot of the economic changes, including import restraints and PLI incentives, were all drawn from this ideology. If you delve deeper, even demonetisation. If we were reading their texts, we’d be less surprised.

That’s why, read again the three instances I listed earlier on. Going ahead in the Modi-BJP (read RSS) epoch, we should expect a concerted “cleaning up” of what’s seen as pseudo-secular contamination, from the Ram Dhun to the Preamble. And population growth (read Muslim population) will be a focus area.

Late Prof Stephen Cohen was asked why the CIA failed to pick anything on the Vajpayee government’s Pokhran-2 tests. He famously said the problem with intelligence people is, they never read anything that isn’t marked classified. Like the BJP election manifesto. If only they had read it, they would’ve known the tests will follow soon after they were sworn in. Apply the same test to our understanding of the Modi government and the BJP now. Start reading their texts. None is marked classified.

'If this is the way a Dy. CM is treated what is the hope for any ordinary Indian opposed to the BJP'?

 

Unemployed farmers have been denied MGNREGA payments for 18 months

 

Cooperative Politics: How the BJP continues with Congress' Policies

 

How paranoid nationalism corrupts

From The Economist

People seek strength and solace in their tribe, their faith or their nation. And you can see why. If they feel empathy for their fellow citizens, they are more likely to pull together for the common good. In the 19th and 20th centuries love of country spurred people to seek their freedom from imperial capitals in distant countries. Today Ukrainians are making heroic sacrifices to defend their homeland against Russian invaders.

Unfortunately, the love of “us” has an ugly cousin: the fear and suspicion of “them”, a paranoid nationalism that works against tolerant values such as an openness to unfamiliar people and new ideas. What is more, cynical politicians have come to understand that they can exploit this sort of nationalism, by whipping up mistrust and hatred and harnessing them to benefit themselves and their cronies.

The post-war order of open trade and universal values is strained by the rivalry of America and China. Ordinary people feel threatened by forces beyond their control, from hunger and poverty to climate change and violence. Using paranoid nationalism, parasitic politicians prey on their citizens’ fears and degrade the global order, all in the pursuit of their own power.

As our Briefing describes, paranoid nationalism works by a mix of exaggeration and lies. Vladimir Putin claims that Ukraine is a nato puppet, whose Nazi cliques threaten Russia; India’s ruling party warns that Muslims are waging a “love jihad” to seduce Hindu maidens; Tunisia’s president decries a black African “plot” to replace his country’s Arab majority. Preachers of paranoid nationalism harm the targets of their rhetoric, obviously, but their real intention is to hoodwink their own followers. By inflaming nationalist fervour, self-serving leaders can more easily win power and, once in office, they can distract public attention from their abuses by calling out the supposed enemies who would otherwise keep them in check.

Daniel Ortega, the president of Nicaragua, shows how effective this can be. Since he returned to power in 2006, he has demonised the United States and branded his opponents “agents of the Yankee empire”. He controls the media and has put his family in positions of influence. After mass protests erupted in 2018 at the regime’s graft and brutality, the Ortegas called the protesters “vampires” and locked them up. On August 23rd they banned the Jesuits, a Catholic order that has worked in Nicaragua since before it was a country, on the pretext that a Jesuit university was a “centre of terrorism”.

Rabble-rousing often leads to robbery. Like the Ortegas, some nationalist leaders seek to capture the state by stuffing it with their cronies or ethnic kin. The use of this technique under Jacob Zuma, a former president of South Africa, is one reason why the national power company is too riddled with corruption to keep the lights on. Our statistical analysis suggests that governments have grown more nationalistic since 2012, and that the more nationalistic they are, the more corrupt they tend to be.

But the more important role of paranoid nationalism is as a tool to dismantle the checks and balances that underpin good governance: a free press, independent courts, ngos and a loyal opposition. Leaders do not say: “I want to purge the electoral commission so I can block my political opponents.” They say: “The commissioners are traitors!” They do not admit that they want to suppress ngos to evade scrutiny. They pass laws defining as “foreign agents” any organisation that receives foreign funds or even advice, and impose draconian controls on such bodies or simply ban them. They do not shut down the press, they own it. By one estimate, at least 50 countries have curbed civil society in recent years.

An example is the president of Tunisia, Kais Saied. Before he blamed black people for his country’s problems, he was unpopular because of his dismal handling of the economy. Now Tunisians are cheering his bold stand against a tiny, transient minority. Meanwhile Mr Saied has gutted the judiciary and closed the anti-corruption commission, and graft has grown worse.

Abuses are easier when institutions are weak: the despots of Nicaragua, Iran or Zimbabwe are far less constrained than the leaders of say, Hungary or Israel. But in all these countries (and many more), the men in power have invented or exaggerated threats to the nation as a pretext to weaken the courts, the press or the opposition. And this has either prolonged a corrupt administration or made it worse.

Paranoid nationalism is part of a backlash against good governance. The end of the cold war led to a blossoming of democracy around the world. Country after country introduced free elections and limits on executive power. Many power- and plunder-hungry politicians chafed at this. Amid the general disillusion that followed the financial crisis of 2007-09, they saw an opportunity to take back control. Paranoid nationalism gave them a tool to dismantle some of those pesky checks and balances.

Because these restraints often came with Western encouragement, if not Western funding, leaders have found it easier to depict the champions of good government as being foreign stooges. In countries that have endured colonial rule—or interference by the United States, as have many in Latin America—the message finds a ready audience. If a leader can create a climate of such deep suspicion that loyalty comes before truth, then every critic can be branded a traitor.

First resort of the scoundrel

Paranoid nationalism is not about to disappear. Leaders are learning from each other. They are also freer to act than they were even a decade ago. Not only has the West lost faith in its programme of spreading democracy and good governance, but China—a paranoid nationalist that is inclined to spot slights and threats around every corner—is promoting the idea that universal values of tolerance and good governance are a racist form of imperialism. It prefers non-interference from abroad and zero-criticism at home. If only they could see through the lies behind paranoid nationalism, ordinary people would realise how wrong China’s campaign is. There is nothing racist or disloyal about wishing for a better life. 

Bank of Baroda withdraws Auction of Sunny Deol's Bungalow

 

Corruption Free Bharat - The Comptroller and Auditor General's Report

 

Piecing together Modi's electoral strategy

 

A Level Economics: BJP, Hindutva, and Navigating Cognitive Dissonance: Insights from Brexit

ChatGPT

In the intricate tapestry of Indian politics, the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the concurrent rise of Hindutva ideology have not only reshaped the nation's socio-political landscape but have also engendered profound societal divisions, echoing the polarization that marked the aftermath of the UK's Brexit. As we delve into the complex interplay between the BJP's ascendancy and the fervor surrounding Hindutva, it becomes imperative to explore whether cognitive dissonance—a psychological phenomenon arising when beliefs clash with opposing information—can be resolved to pave the way for a more cohesive and inclusive India.

At the heart of the BJP's appeal lies its promise of robust economic growth, bolstering national pride, and safeguarding cultural heritage. This potent allure has resonated deeply with a substantial segment of the population, galvanizing unwavering support for the party's vision. However, much like the cognitive dissonance that emerged among Brexiteers seven years after Brexit, the fervent belief in the BJP's narrative has spawned cognitive dissonance among its followers, which has surfaced nine years after the BJP came to power in Delhi.

Imagine a scenario where an ardent BJP supporter, let's call him Raj, wholeheartedly subscribes to the party's agenda of preserving cultural and religious identity. However, Raj grapples with cognitive dissonance as he confronts mounting reports of religious intolerance and violence directed towards minority communities. This dissonance between his support for the party's cultural preservation ideals and the emerging evidence of social strife creates a psychological discomfort.

Furthermore, the BJP's economic policies have been touted as drivers of prosperity and job creation. This narrative, though compelling, has also ignited cognitive dissonance in supporters who ardently champion the party's economic agenda. For instance, Priya, a devoted BJP follower, may find herself in cognitive dissonance when faced with data indicating widening economic inequality under the party's rule. The discord between her belief in the BJP's economic prowess and the evidence of increasing disparities can lead to psychological tension.

Analogous to the cognitive dissonance witnessed in the UK's Brexit discourse, where individuals clung to economic promises despite contradicting evidence, cognitive dissonance surrounding the BJP and Hindutva can impede rational discourse. Similar to Brexiteers who steadfastly clung to the vision of an economically robust post-Brexit Britain, BJP supporters might resist acknowledging challenges faced by various segments of the population due to economic policies.

Psychologists emphasize that addressing cognitive dissonance necessitates empathetic conversations that refrain from attacking or belittling individuals for their beliefs. In the Indian context, this might entail engaging BJP supporters in dialogues that validate their economic aspirations and cultural preservation concerns while also fostering discussions about the intricate nuances of policies and their ramifications.

Overcoming cognitive dissonance linked to cultural and economic dimensions is a formidable undertaking, essential for nurturing a harmonious society. Analogous to the UK's imperative to bridge the chasm between Leavers and Remainers, India must chart a course towards mutual understanding and empathy among those holding divergent perspectives on cultural identity, economic growth, and governance.

In summation, the BJP's rise and the diffusion of Hindutva ideology have set in motion cognitive dissonance among adherents, necessitating a delicate balance between their beliefs and emerging contrasting information, spanning cultural and economic realms. As India strives to reconcile its rich heritage, economic aspirations, and governance intricacies, the lessons from cognitive dissonance offer valuable guidance on the path towards unity in diversity.

---How to approach Raj's Cognitive Dissonance

Let's take the example of Raj, an ardent BJP supporter who is experiencing cognitive dissonance due to reports of religious intolerance and violence against minority communities. Here's how you could implement the stepwise approach to address his cognitive dissonance:

1. Create a Safe Environment: Approach Raj with respect and empathy. Express your interest in understanding his perspective and concerns.

2. 
   

3. Active Listening: Ask open-ended questions like, "Raj, could you share your thoughts on the recent reports of religious intolerance?" Listen attentively without interrupting.

4. 
   

5. Acknowledge Shared Goals: Begin by acknowledging that both of you want a harmonious and inclusive India that values cultural diversity and social harmony.

6. 
   

7. Empathize with Concerns: Say, "I understand that you care deeply about preserving our cultural heritage and national identity. That's a sentiment many of us share."

8. 
   

9. Present Contrasting Information: Gently mention that there have been instances of religious intolerance reported, which might be causing cognitive dissonance. Use a neutral tone and avoid sounding accusatory.

10. 
    

11. Highlight Nuances: Explain that complex issues often have multiple facets. Share some examples of positive efforts towards interfaith harmony to highlight that progress is being made too.

12. 
    

13. Relate to Personal Experiences: Share stories of individuals who have successfully worked towards bridging religious divides. Personal anecdotes can humanize the issue.

14. 
    

15. Encourage Self-Reflection: Ask Raj, "How do these reports align with your vision of an inclusive and harmonious India? Have they caused you to reevaluate any aspects?"

16. 
    

17. Focus on Solutions: Transition by saying, "Considering your concerns and aspirations, how do you think we can work towards fostering better understanding among different communities?"

18. 
    

19. Promote Constructive Debate: Say, "It's important that we engage in healthy discussions to find common ground and solutions. What do you think are some ways we can address these challenges?"

20. 
    

21. Bridge Commonalities: Mention instances where the BJP government has taken steps to promote social harmony. Emphasize that both of you share the goal of a united nation.

22. 
    

23. Be Patient: Respect Raj's pace in processing the information. If he appears hesitant to change his stance, give him time to reflect.

24. 
    

25. Follow-Up: Conclude the conversation by expressing gratitude for the discussion and suggest revisiting the topic later to continue the dialogue.

26. 
    

27. Lead by Example: Throughout the conversation, maintain a calm and respectful demeanor. Show that you value Raj's perspective even if it differs from your own.

By following this approach, you can engage in a thoughtful and empathetic conversation with Raj, helping him navigate his cognitive dissonance while fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding religious harmony and cultural preservation.

---How to approach Priya's Cognitive Dissonance

Let's now consider Priya, an ardent BJP supporter who experiences cognitive dissonance due to widening economic inequality despite the party's promise of prosperity. Here's how you could implement the stepwise approach to address her cognitive dissonance:

1. Create a Safe Environment: Approach Priya with genuine curiosity and respect. Let her know that you value her perspective and want to understand her point of view.

2. 
   

3. Active Listening: Begin by asking, "Priya, could you share your thoughts on the economic policies of the BJP and how they align with your expectations?" Give her space to express herself.

4. 
   

5. Acknowledge Shared Goals: Start by acknowledging that both of you want a thriving economy that benefits all segments of society and ensures upward mobility.

6. 
   

7. Empathize with Concerns: Say, "I can see how important economic growth and prosperity are to you. Those are goals many of us share."

8. 
   

9. Present Contrasting Information: Gently introduce data or reports that highlight the challenges faced by certain groups due to economic policies. Frame this as a way to understand the nuances better.

10. 
    

11. Highlight Nuances: Explain that economic policies can have complex consequences. Share examples of policies that might have inadvertently contributed to inequality.

12. 
    

13. Relate to Personal Experiences: Share stories of individuals who have been affected by economic disparities. Personal stories can make the issue more relatable.

14. 
    

15. Encourage Self-Reflection: Ask Priya, "Given your concerns about economic inequality, do you think there are aspects of the current policies that might need reassessment?"

16. 
    

17. Focus on Solutions: Transition by saying, "Considering your aspirations for a prosperous nation, how do you think we can ensure economic growth that benefits everyone?"

18. 
    

19. Promote Constructive Debate: Say, "Engaging in conversations about economic policies is essential for finding effective solutions. What ideas do you have for addressing inequality?"

20. 
    

21. Bridge Commonalities: Mention instances where the BJP government has taken steps to address economic disparities. Emphasize that both of you share the desire for an equitable society.

22. 
    

23. Be Patient: Give Priya the time to process the information and reflect on the implications. Avoid pushing for immediate agreement.

24. 
    

25. Follow-Up: Conclude the conversation by expressing gratitude for the discussion and propose revisiting the topic later to continue exploring potential solutions.

26. 
    

27. Lead by Example: Throughout the conversation, remain respectful and open-minded. Show that you are genuinely interested in understanding her perspective.

By following this approach, you can engage in a meaningful conversation with Priya, helping her navigate her cognitive dissonance surrounding economic policies while fostering a deeper understanding of the complexities of economic growth and its impact on different sections of society.