Hindu Kush to Hindu Bush

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_s...ontent_id=58663

Hindu Kush to Hindu Bush

Hindu politics needs the rigour of the Republican right

ASHOK MALIK

Posted online: Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 0000 hours IST

One w after George W. Bush won his famous victory, almost everybody
in India has an assessment of why America voted the way it did. The
foaming-at-the-mouth America-phobe fears the United States has gone
bananas, completely sold on a bunch of God-crazy fanatics.

More rational observers talk of the Democratic Party reducing itself
to a conglomerate of fringe groups — gay marriage activists,
eco-fundamentalists, tax cut haters, professional pacifists — without
a defining core with which the middle class could identify.

Others argue the Al Gore anti-WTO constituency that served the
Democrats so well in 2000 simply collapsed. This was a partnership of
anti-globalisation intellectuals and blue collar workers who had lost
jobs to Asia.

After 9/11, the anti-globalisation intellectuals migrated overnight to
anti-war intellectuals. On the other hand, the hyperpatriotic working
class was willing to attack just anybody. Middle America responded to
terror by lurching back to identity.

The problem with these theories is they're all partly right. Politics
is too complex for one catch-call explanation. If, for instance, the
re-election is entirely due to an assertion of nativist identity by
white-Anglo voters, how does one explain the increase in Bush's
Hispanic vote?

In Texas and Florida, President Bush spent four years wooing
Hispanics. He fought off traditional conservatives to promote Hispanic
migration — and so supported the libertarian-leaning wing of his
Republican Party.

At least in this election, he has been able to square the circle. He's
got the votes of both nativists who should, theoretically, be against
Hispanic migration, as well as those who support it. This follows no
political template. Overwhelming mandates rarely do.

Other than adept coalition-building, does the Bush supremacy hold any
lessons for the Indian right?

The Indian intelligentsia has, of course, jumped to immediate
conclusions. The prevailing wisdom is a Republican-style
‘‘counter-revolution'' will never be possible here because of some
innate pluralism that distinguishes India from big bad America.

At the other end is the equally facile conclusion that since India,
like the United States, is a conservative, spiritually-inclined
society — periodically hijacked by irreligious left-liberals — a Hindu
analogue to the Bush convulsion is never too far away. If only the BJP
got over its bout of Hindu hara-kiri, its unending tra-Uma and rushed
back to...

Persuasive as this argument may seem, it is not tenable. True,
religious belief, a sense of tradition and a growing trust of the
collective can help propel conservative politics in India. Granted,
identity politics is far from dead and, as empirical evidence points
out, only tends to sharpen as societies become more affluent.

Yet there is much work to do for the Indian right before it can hope
to replicate the Republican triumph.

Begin with the BJP. Like him or not, Bush comes across as a man of his
word. To use computing parlance, he is a WYSWYG president — What You
See Is What You Get. The cultivated non-sophistication; the rejection
of convoluted explanation; the no-nonsense, no-dithering manner: it
had small-town America eating out of his hand. He made a virtue of
anti-intellectualism.

Consider the exit poll numbers. To 17 per cent of American voters, a
clear stand on issues was the key to a better president: 78 per cent
of them preferred Bush to John F. Kerry. To 11 per cent, an honest,
trustworthy president was all-important: 70 per cent of them voted for
Bush.

In contrast, BJP leaders resorted to verbal gymnastics in their years
in power. They posited ideology against idealism, committed themselves
to Hindutva as a political issue but not an electoral issue. In short,
they , not convinced.

At a basic level, politics is not about what you can do. It is about
consistency. A BJP government couldn't have built the Ram temple in a
day; a Bush presidency can't possibly outlaw abortion. Yet one
alienated adherents, the other didn't. There must be a reason why.

For the VHP too, the American election is a model on how to harness
what may be called the ‘‘values vote'', to convert cherished spiritual
beliefs into political imperatives.

The transformation of American society — from passive conservativism,
to one where the religious right holds the veto — has been subliminal,
gradual, not courtesy one dramatic surge.

It has grown out of everyday mobilisation at the local level. Indeed,
the Christian Coalition has a chapter in the proverbial church round
the corner, irrespective of denomination. Not every church-goer is a
member, but he has the option. Christian politics travels to his
doorstep.

Contrast this to the VHP. There is no rigorous attempt to build a
Hindu political constituency. The VHP says it has a network of 20,000
religious gurus, from Gulbarga to Guhawati, with a following of a few
hundred or a few hundred thousand.

Among them are at least two Shankaracharyas, five Ramanandacharyas,
the two Vallabhacharyas, the Madhavacharya of Udipi, the nine Shaivite
akhadas — one of them, the Juna Akhada, is led by Doon School-educated
Avadeshananda, who would look better on television than, say, Giriraj
Kishore — and the four Vaishnavite akhadas. Then there're independent
semi-allies like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar .

These are the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of India. They are no
politicians, but many among their followers have political concerns.
Yet these are largely untapped. The VHP's idea of a Hindu constituency
is a temporary alliance for a Ram temple, rather than permanent
engagement as a pressure group at the state or even district level.

Can this be done? Of course it can, but it would mean taking the idea
of Hindu politics beyond the narrow, centralised confines of a ‘‘we
know best'' Sangh Parivar. It would mean seeing a potential ‘‘Hindu
Coalition'' as a stand-alone lobby, not a party adjunct. That's the
Bush doctrine.