Understanding Indian Democracy

Democracy and its Modern Indian Avatars

What is Democracy ?
Democracy is a form of government in which people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation and policy, either
directly or indirectly through elected representatives. Thus there exists both direct democracy and representative democracy.

The concept of “people” is itself however ambiguous and democracies throughout history have restricted the definition of people or
citizens to a section of society. Often free men with a degree of property ownership as the case in Ancient democracies and republics
and even in most modern democracies prior to universal suffrage.

Classical Western Democracy originated in ancient Greece in 5th century BC , specifically in the city state of Athens and remained a
fairly widespread form of government in Classical Mediterranean till the beginning of the common era. In these democracies only
males who had citizenship of the state and owned land within it had a right to vote.

Democratic governments became less popular through late antiquity and much of the middle ages till they had a revival in early
modern England. The English Civil War (1642- 1651), between the King and the Parliament, started a long term trend of Anglo
Saxon nations towards democratic forms of government. Events such as the Glorious Revolution and American War of
Independence furthered this trend.

Constitutional Monarchy became the norm in much of Western and Northern Europe by early 1900s. This process sped up in the
aftermath of the two world wars with most of the monarchies of the world being replaced by democracies by the 1950s.
At the same time suffrage was extended first to all men regardless of property and then to all adults, thus achieving the current state
of Universal Suffrage.
Pre Modern Democracy and Republicanism in India
India has had its own variants of democracy and republicanism since pre modern times. By the Mahajanapada period in
5th century BCE , several of the major Janapadas were run as democratic or republican governments. Among these were
the Shakyas, Licchavis, Koliyas and Mallas.

These states weren’t democracies of modern times but were instead republics with a degree of oligarchy. In these states the
King belonged to the Kshatriya Varna and he was elected and supported by a large assembly known as the Gana, which
was at least in certain states open to all free men. The Assembly of Ganas had full financial, administrative and judicial
authority and ruled in consonance with the King.

These republics survived in some shape or form till 4th century CE, when the conquests of the Emperor Samudragupta put
an end to republicanism in classical India.

The characterization of these ancient republics in the Shastras or in governance manuals such as Arthashastra, is not of an
efficient and well run state but rather of a form of government which is easily corruptible through the bribing and
inducement of of the Gana.
Indian Democracy- Ideal vs Reality
Ideal Reality (In most cases)

Equal representation for people Representing the will of the most coherent
irrespective of social or economic grouping that appeals within the system
alignment

Majority rules with the consent / Competition of various interest groups to

cooperation of the minority i.e. a gain control rendering conciliation a near
conciliatory approach impossibility

Driven by the purpose of ensuring welfare A thinly disguised attempt at gaining

for all through the wielding of power power and preserving that power through
the use of office

Most suitable form of government, despite Has seen waves of power consolidation
its multiple imperfections during which most consequential change
has happened

Should be violence free, transition of The live example that is West Bengal
power should be smooth
Problem of Containing Democracy
➢ All Democracies adopt a form of republic representation and practice some form of power limitation on elected
representatives.
➢ This is normally achieved through the creation of a Constitution that dictates rights of the citizenry and the role of
the State and initiate ‘separation of powers’ between various arms of the State.
➢ This is primarily achieved by the US Model of separating executive and legislative power and the creation of
‘independent’ judiciary. However, we can see that executive power has been ultimately successful in capturing the
most authority there.
➢ The separation of powers however inevitably results in the three arms of the state competing to capture power.
➢ In a situation where the executive and legislature are joined at the hip like in India, the Judiciary can capture
significant power when legislative houses are divided (1989-2014).
➢ There isn’t, and will likely never be a democratic system that can contain the negative impact that fractious
democracies have on a nation’s future. Even voters realize this and lap up ‘authority figures’
Let us be Honest about Democracy
1. While notions of democracy are fancy - from ancient Greece to ancient India, it always degenerates into a crude
discriminatory approach
2. Most ancient scholars found it chaotic, paralytic in nature. They considered it a crippler of state authority (which
was important for the survival of a people/ race)
3. Decision by consensus difficult when the number of stakeholders are too large - What is ‘correct’ will vary with
who you talk to !
4. Consensus led decision making is fine in small institutions like panchayats but even there, large panchayats see the
emergence of factions which attempt power consolidation

Power consolidation by a unitary figure or a small group is a prerequisite for consequential decision making
 Evolution of Modern Indian Democracy
Government of India Act Constitution and 1st General
Indian Councils Act Election
Relaxes central control over
Brought in Indian provinces; demarcates and Constitution built from the
representation in colonial separates central and provincial foundations of the 1935 Act.
government for the first time. subjects. Direct franchise but Direct democracy with elections
Provincial and central councils communal representation governed under a separate
introduced. legislation
1909 1935

1861 1919-21 1947-52

Morley Minto Reforms Government of India Act

Expansion of the number of Separated Burma from India.

Indians in the central council Greater devolution of power
and issues that they could take along with the establishment of
up. Indirect electorate system. several institutions like RBI
and Supreme Court
Phases of Post 1947 Indian Democracy
Phase 1: Pandit Nehru’s Power Consolidation Drive
1947 - 1962
● The only phases with a lasting
Phse 2: Indira’s Political Consolidation Drive national effect have been Phase 1
1967 - 1984
and 2.
Phase 3: The JP Movement and it’s juvenile attempts ● While ‘6’ had an impact on our
1977- 1980 to RULE without the stick nation, the degree was
considerably lower than 1 and 2.
Phase 4: Balkanization of Indian Politics
● 7 is still a work in progress in
1984-1998
terms of impact with the biggest
Phase 5: Emergence of the BJP under Atal ji and impact as yet being the
1989 -2004 Advani ji elimination of the ‘Muslim Veto’
in Indian politics through the
Phase 6: Sonia’s Power Consolidation Drive
2001 -2012 USHV formula

Phase 7: PM Modi’s Political Consolidation Drive

2013 - Now
Factors which Influenced the Evolution
The polity post 47 can be described as an Elite monopolization of power. More specifically, a westernized elite which had
been co opted by a dynasty which progressively deteriorated in quality over generational shifts. Some of the factors which
have influenced the evolution of the Indian polity since then are -

1. Communal electorates with disproportionate representation for Muslims existed in India in the name of democracy.
Present day attitudes of the minority community i.e the assumption of the right to a minority veto, are a partial
inheritance of this.

2. Separate electorate for SC/STs was averted after Ambedkar-Gandhi pact. Post 1947 reserved seats for SC/ST
introduced i.e non SCs/STs aren't allowed to contest in these seats which are locked for one de limitation period

3. Unlike other western nations, India went from colony to direct democracy. The only reason for this was the INC
and Pandit Nehru being sure of gaining victory in any direct election by relying on a High + Low class electoral
combination. A non direct democracy in the initial years would have empowered the opposition and prevented INC
s power grab within the government.
Criterion for Political Dominance Post 1947
Political Empire Building Outlook
The ‘Political Empire Building’ refers to the quest to dominate every level of political power

a. Elections to the Lok Sabha

b. Elections to the Rajya Sabha
c. Elections to the Legislative Assemblies
d. Elections to the Legislative Councils
e. Elections to Urban and Rural Local Bodies

This outlook is possible only if the emperor has loyal and sufficiently competent feudatories who are constantly under the
threat of the his sword.

Example - Pandit Nehru and GB Pant in UP. Indira Gandhi and Devraj Urs in Karnataka
Stable but Steadily Expanding Vote Bloc
For a political movement to be dominant, it needs to feel the constant urge to expand and accumulate a greater
hold over power as well the level of public support.

1. Pandit Nehru ensured an instant expansion of the INC’s votebloc in the initial years through his Land Reforms
legislation
2. Indira aggressively built a personality cult around herself and at the same time used socialist and communal
rhetoric to sustain and expand the disintegrating voting bloc she inherited from Pandit ji
3. PM Modi has a steady Hinduvadi voting bloc which he inherited from the Vajpayee-Advani era. He expanded upon
that through the creation of a United Spectrum of Hindu Votes reaching every state with considerable Hindu
populations except Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. In the past 6 years, he deepened the BJP’s
presence in WB, Haryana, Assam, Odisha, Telangana whilst recovering long lost core areas like Jharkhand and
Uttar Pradesh.
Controlling Ideological Opposition
All successful political consolidation drives in India have been possible when one political figure displays the
willingness to use legal and extra-legal measures to clamp down strategically on ideological opposition and if
need be political opposition.

a. Pandit Nehru did that in the initial days of the republic when he passed the 1st Amendment Which was justified
cynically as protecting the republic. He steadily expanded his clampdown on opposition within and outside the
party through the use of the powers vested in him as the PM
b. Smt. Indira Gandhi replicated and expanded on the path shown by her father to achieve nearly two decades of
dominance on India’s polity (with a small post emergency interregnum). She struck a neat deal with the Indian left
and allowed them to dominate academia by purging the non left as long as they gave her continued political cover
fire

Reason for BJP’s loss in multiple states during the 2018 election cycle was primarily a result of the local units not learning
from the path shown by Pandit ji and Smt. Indira
Capability to Absorb Political Opponents
The path to political dominance is paved by the bodies of opponents who switch sides - upon receiving a carrot/
stick / both.

Co-opting political opponents who don't care as much for the ideology of their original organization as they do for the
fruits of power is a win-win for any movement aiming to be politically dominant.

Important to note that not all those who are co-opted end up having a happy ending. Pandit ji brought in Babasaheb to the
Unity Government, pushed him out at the appropriate juncture and ended any chance of Babasaheb having a successful
political career post that. Similarly, Sardar Patel tried to force the RSS to merge with INC on threat of a continuing ban
despite being convinced that the organization had nothing to do with Gandhi’s assasination.

Smt. Indira made Madhavarao Scindia switch from the BJS to the INC during the emergency despite his mother Rajmata
Vijayaraje Scindia being one of the leading lights of BJS.

Successful movements have an ability to distinguish between ideological elements and power politics at the
local level.
A Grand Vision
An overarching grand vision with both radical and accommodative elements is another criterion that a political
movement in India, aiming at dominance needs to meet.

The past two successful power consolidation drives in India displayed this in ample measure

a. Pandit ji’s ideological vision was Fabian Socialist (of varying degrees). The reason they could dominate when in
competition with the likes of Swatantra was the fact that the ‘Congress System’ painstakingly built by Patel and
other organizers was inherently accommodative of centrist and even Hinduvadi leaders
b. Smt. Indira did the same by cultivating the radical wing within the INC and the Indian left while co-opting a good
portion of Pandit Nehru’s INC

Similarly, the Hindu political movement has radical elements (not as radical as they are painted to be) in organizations like
the VHP and Bajrang Dal while at the same time being sufficiently accommodative as seen by Operation Kamala like
acquisition of non hardline but intellectually competent folks - S Jaishankar, Hardeep Puri, Baijayant Panda and Rajeev
Chandrashekhar.
Mechanisms to Ensure Elite Commitment
Accommodative behavior towards the elite regardless of their ideological commitment without the presence of
a vindictive streak will prevent a movement from achieving dominance.

Pandit ji and Indira ensured elite commitment through the sinecures created under a state trying to build a ‘socialist
economy’ and academia. Their carefully selective vindictive behavior helped ensure the emergence of committed
institutions - a committed judiciary, a committed bureaucracy and a committed academia.

Any movement which aims to replace the old era must be ready to adopt a conscious drive towards ensuring elite
'commitment' through the dual strategy of enforcement and replacement.

Something on these lines seems to be in the initial stages at the moment.

Drivers of Indian Electoral system
1. COMMUNITY
2. ORGANIZATION
3. FINANCE
4. DEVELOPMENT
5. IDEAS
Examining the Impact of Community in
Indian Politics
Community Matters
Historically, community has been an important identity in India. This has fallen over into democracy. Politics in India is all about
competition and transactions between castes. Candid recognition of the fact essential to understand Indian Politics.

Thumb rules to keep in mind

1. Community consolidation comes at different levels and at different degrees. The degree is influenced by a number of factors
ranging from
a. Degree of Urbanization
b. Numeral dominance
c. Economic dominance
2. The level of organization within the community influences the impact it has on the polity. Unorganized but large communities
may have lesser influence than organized and geographically concentrated communities.
3. Priestly Caste Vs Dominant Caste undertones present in most states of India. Non dominant castes often ally with priestly
castes / ideological groups to restrict / control dominant castes. Ideological parties traditionally attract non dominant castes
Post Modi Indian Politics is now simple (Credits : a certain wanderer) - Indian politics is now about Hindus, Muslims and a few
castes that feel they can get more power by acting as castes and not as Hindus. You’ll go wrong unless you use this
framework to analyse.
Caste Mobilization - Various Ways
a. Direct (One Caste +ve) - Kurmis consolidating for Congress throughout Chattisgarh due to the projection of
Bhupesh Baghel in the 2018 election
b. Direct (One Caste -ve) - Every landed caste in Karnataka consolidated in 2018 against the Kuruba community
(Kuruba leader Siddaramaiah was INC CM ) under the banner of BJP / JDS. Similar emergence of anti - Velama
front (KCR is from the community) being observed in Telangana. Anti Yadav politics in UP is another good
example
c. Direct (Multiple Caste) - UP BJP’s social Coalition in the 2014, 2017 and 2019 Elections i.e Brahmin/Thakur +
Non Yadav OBC + Non Jatav SC
d. Direct (Caste Competition) -
i. Type 1 : Competition between Elite Castes : Reddy vs Kamma Politics of Andhra Pradesh or the Vokkaliga
vs Lingayat Politics of Karnataka
ii. Type 2 : Competition between Castes at Different Status Levels : Yadav vs Jatav in UP
e. Indirect - Ideological consolidation seen in Urbanized Communities with some caste overlap. Bengaluru South Lok
Sabha - Brahmins and Vokkaligas consolidate for the BJP but under the banner of ideological and not community
reasons.
Community Matters
‘b’ and ‘c’ sound similar but are distinct in approach. ‘b’ cannot be entirely planned and is more short term in
approach unlike ‘c’. ‘b’ emerges only post sustained and oppressive dominance.

While ‘a’ and d’ are common across India along with ‘e’, ‘c’ is a constantly evolving experiment which
forms the basis of the BJP’s USHV i.e United Spectrum of Hindu Votes formula

USHV is the foundation of Hindutva politics in India for it is through this that the unnatural ‘Muslim
Veto’ on Indian politics which had become entrenched in the INC regime has been destroyed.
Religious Mobilization in Indian Politics
Religious Mobilization has been an integral part of Indian Politics since the introduction of direct elections in 1935.

Religious Mobilization and voting along religious lines was essential to the success of the Muslim league and the
formation of the state of Pakistan. The 1945 General elections in British India effectively determined the borders of the
new nations, through voting along religious lines.

This trend of religious mobilization has continued post Independence with the cultivation of religious vote banks. The
creation and cultivation of the “secular vote bank” or the Muslim vote has been a practice of the Indian National Congress
and has since been replicated by a variety of regional parties including SP, RJD, TMC, NCP etc all of whom portray
themselves as a secular alternative in order to leverage the Muslim vote.

There is also the more purely religious mobilization of Sikh or Muslim votes which is utilized by parties such as AIMIM
and Akali Dal.

Mobilization of the Hindu community along religious lines has remained a rarity, however certain events such as the Ram
Jamabhoomi Movement in early 90s or the 2002 Gujarat riots or the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots have led to situations where
there has been Pan Hindu Mobilization.
Examining the Impact of Organization in
Indian Politics
Importance of Organization
Very few cadre based parties in India - BJP, BSP, CPM and CPI and ADMK. Organization sustainability comes only
with cadre and ideology.

Dynastic subservience is another form of organization with INC being the most prominent example. Others include JDS,
BJD, NCP, TMC, SP, RJD and more.

Another form is that of ideological cadre based movements which have degenerated into dynastic subservience modes of
organization - SAD, DMK, TDP and TMC.

No Indian Political Party is as big and organized as the INC of the early 1950s. BJP growing to reach that stage
but still has a long way ahead.
Organized =/= Totalitarian
It is important to differentiate the BJP mode of centralization of authority and responsibility with that of the other national
party i.e INC.

1. BJP centralizes authority and responsibility for General Elections (GE i.e Lok Sabha elections). The INC
centralizes authority in all such elections and devolves responsibility based on the results i.e Loss due to state
leadership and win due to national leadership
2. The BJP devolves authority and responsibility in Assembly Elections whilst still retaining a veto power based on
the strength of the state unit of the BJP. If state unit is historically strong - more devolution. If the state unit is Modi
dependent - less devolution. INC devolves authority and responsibility to individual leaders and not state units per
se on the basis of loyalty to the family.

While both INC and BJP have ‘high commands’, only one such command structure is ‘growth oriented’
Examining Electoral Financing
Electoral Finance, Essential but not Enough
Electoral Financing is essential but not always the deciding factor in Indian politics. Higher financial strength
doesn't guarantee a win but does make it more probable!

It is important to understand that financing has been an issue for decades (almost a century). Congress, especially
Mahatma Gandhi got Birlas to support during freedom movement. Jan Sangh too was funded by many important business
families in the initial years. State funding for elections is a demand since the times of Rajagopalachari, who demanded that
‘democracy be saved from money’

Real estate a major funder (Devesh Kapoor and Milan Vaishnav (2011):

Politicians and builders allegedly engage in a quid pro quo, whereby the former park their illicit assets with the latter, and
the latter rely on the former for favorable dispensation. At election time, however, builders need to re-route funds to
politicians as a form of indirect election finance

Election funding dominated by corporate contributions, electoral trusts and electoral bonds; Other changes in laws recently
include removing the 7.5 per cent cap in corporate donations and the FCRA amendment to let foreign companies
registered in India to donate.
Models of Financing
White money dominance in election campaigning = Favorable for the BJP which does not and structurally can
not raise resources the same way the regional parties and INC does. Hence - Electoral Bonds !

2 Funding Models in Indian Politics

a. Centralized Fundraising with low ‘localized corruption’ contribution for party funds
b. Hierarchical Structure with each grade giving a cut to the higher grade of party and leadership.

Parties need money for campaign financing, influencing swing votes, running the political machinery - there are no free
lunches. Sound empirics suggests that money plays a disproportionate role in determining election outcomes in India and
elsewhere.

Indira Gandhi banned corporate funding because she wanted to throttle and kill the Swatantra Party. She utilized the
license raj she instituted to develop ‘stable’ sources of funding for herself and her party.

INC under Sonia inherited her system of financing and expanded it. The BJP emulates the Swatantra model of centralized
funding which places no reliance on mafia type bottom-up funding structures. Electoral Bonds are one such example of a
system which allows for non-mafia type funding and promotes anonymity.
Demonetization
The timing of the decision clearly indicates this: it was announced three months before five Assembly elections,
particularly in the crucial State of Uttar Pradesh. It was unleashed as a political strategy to checkmate regional parties (by
threatening their cash reserves) and expand the BJP’s support base in the Hindi heartland by projecting demonetisation as
a pro-poor measure.

Hasan (2017)

Did it create an impact?

a. By 2017, experts said demonetisation has had no impact on political party funding, even if there was some
immediate impact
b. People who worked in the 2017 UP election say otherwise - i.e clear and visible impact of the move on the
financing abilities of some parties. However, they report a greater narrative impact for the BJP than expected or
estimated.

Opinion remains divided, but important to note the butterfly effect of decisions
Examining the Impact of Development in
Indian Politics
Development for Who and What ?
Development means different things for different people.

1. For an urban voter in an industrialized state, development = 1st world infra at 3rd world prices
2. For a rural voter in the ganga plains, development = motorable road to Taluk Headquarters
3. For a semi-urban voter in a semi-industrialized state, development is a bit of both (1) and (2)

BSP - Bijli Sadak Pani remains an important factor in a good portion of India. Modi changed the paradigm by fulfilling
a. Bijli through Soubhagya
b. Sadak through PMGSY and NHAI
c. Pani through Jal Jeevan Yojana (in progress)

He didn't stop there. He added G and H to BSP

a. Gas through Ujjwala
b. Housing through Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

BSPGH along with Balakot won the 2019 election for PM Modi. Set to help the BJP win more in the years ahead.
Development for Who and What ?
Industrial Growth Not Always a Political +ve. Absence definitely a Negative

Industrial spurt no guarantee for electoral victory unless narrative is controlled. A good example is the case of Shri
Raghubar Das of the BJP who lost in Jharkhand despite helping the state become a major textile hub.

At the same time, do not mistake its importance as reflected by states which have witnesses sustained absence of industrial
growth. A good example is the case of Digvijay Singh who will never be allowed to become Madhya Pradesh CM for
destroying its economy

Even communists talk about development but that doesnt mean industrial growth. They use ‘development’ as a world fill
during their speaking engagements.
Long Term and Short Term Thinking
Two kinds of games are played in the larger scheme of things, and go by different time scales

1. The clock - short term, immediate in nature; bound by strict deadlines

2. The calendar - play for the long run, build a strong foundation and keep at it by gaining new territory

Marathas - post Shivaji’s death till the rise of Peshwa - playing by the clock

Peshwai Decline Onward- could not play by the calendar - hence the systemic weaknesses that finished the empire

Politics is a game of the clock and the calendar! The only one playing the calendar game in today’s polity is the
BJP.
Ideas Matter
Do you think BJP would have lasted the thorough electoral disaster of 1984 if it did not have the ideological glue ?

Do you think the BJP could have survived the hounding of the party post it’s loss in 2004 without the ideological glue ?

Without this glue, everything else is useless and/ or temporary.

Examining Hindutva and Modern Politics
Origins of the Term Hindutva
The term Hindutva, was first used in 1892 by the Bengali writer Chandranath Basu, who used it as a term to denote Hindu
Cultural views. The term came to be adopted by firebrand Indian Nationalist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak and later on by
the Shri Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who was most influential in defining Hindutva.

Savarkar used the term Hindutva to mean Hinduness or the quality of being a Hindu. In Savarkar’s conception of
Hinduism, all Indian religions came under Hinduism. In Savarkar’s understanding of Hinduism, all those people who
follow religions which originate in the Indian subcontinent or consider the subcontinent their father land are Hindus.

This conception of Hinduism was heavily geographic and differentiated itself from religions such as Islam and Christianity
on the basis of these religions having a geographic origin outside of the Indian subcontinent rather than on purely
philosophical basis.

Savarkar further outlines his idea of Hindutva by tying it to the concept of Hindu Rashtra or a Hindu nation across Akhand
Bharat ( Undivided Indian Subcontinent).
Early Politically Hindu Forces
Hindu Nationalism or Hindu Political Mobilization was not limited to one political party or one ideology. From its origins in early
1900s it developed various strands across Party Affiliations and Regions. Early thinkers such as Sri Aurobindo had a distinctly
religious conception of Nationhood where in they equated the vitality of the Hindu religion with the vitality of the Indian nation.

Anushilan Samiti in Bengal and the Nationalist faction of Indian National Congress in Maharashtra led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak both
developed heavily religious conceptions of Nationalism where in cultural revival and propagation of Hindu religious beliefs was seen
to be in consonance with the National struggle to overthrow British rule.

The Hindu Mahasabha came into existence in 1915 under the guidance of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya. This organization initially
only worked as a pressure group within the Indian National Congress for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of Hindu community
and wasn’t yet a political party. Throughout the 1920s, the Hindu Mahasabha came under the influence of Individuals such as
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and BS Moonje and grew increasingly critical of the Congress and eventually in 1933 became a political
party of its own.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, came into existence at around the same time and developed as a volunteer cultural organization
rather than a political party. By the time of partition, the foremost Hindu political party was the Hindu Mahasabha under the
leadership of V.D Savarkar with RSS acting as the most extensive Hindu cultural organization.
RSS and its Relationship with other Hindu Leaders
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was founded in 1925, in the city of Nagpur by K.B Hedgewar. Hedgewar was
influenced by BS Moonje and by the Anushilan Samiti of Bengal. He had also interacted with V.D Savarkar. These
influences all came together to lead him to forming the RSS.

The RSS was not initially a ‘revolutionary political’ organization aimed at outright anti British struggle or even a political
party. It was instead of conceived of as a ‘revolutionary cultural organization’ which would instill valor, unity and civic
sense into the Hindu community. The organization trained in paramilitary techniques and dressed itself in an uniform.
Religious values and revolutionary spirit came to be valued within the organization.

Hedgewar was significantly influenced by Savarkar and was patronized by members of the Hindu Mahasabha such as B.S
Moonje. B.S Moonje, V.D Savarkar etc helped in the expansion of the RSS through its formative years and merged some
of their own organizations into it as well.

The organization acted as the volunteer arm of Hindu Mahasabha in some ways in the period leading up to partition and
was acted as an important volunteer organization during partition especially in Punjab and Bengal.
Sangh and Jana Sangh
The Partition was a traumatic event for the Hindu community with millions of Hindus getting killed or displaced in both
Punjab and Bengal. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh had been active in both the regions in rehabilitating refugees and
in ensuring the defence of property and lives. The partition led to an undercurrent of hatred against Gandhi and his inaction
and failure at the time of the partition. This manifested itself in the killing of Mohandas Gandhi in 1948 by a few Hindu
activists. In the aftermath of this killing, Hindu organizations such as the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha got banned.

The RSS was banned in February 1948 and got unbanned in July 1949 after an understanding with the Congress
leadership. In the aftermath of this event, Hindu political parties were in shambles. Thus a new party- The Bharatiya Jana
Sangh emerged in 1951, under the guidance and with the support of RSS. The Jana Sangh was founded by Syama Prasad
Mukherji, who had quit the Hindu Mahasabha.

The Jana Sangh acted as the political arm of the RSS initially with the RSS providing cadre and leadership to the Jana
Sangh. Over the next few decades , the Jana Sangh would slowly expand its footprint across India while taking up the
mantle of being the Nationalist alternative to the Indian National Congress.
Differing Aims
In the aftermath of independence, there had come into existence multiple Hindu political parties each commanding a small vote bank.
These were the Hindu Mahasabha, the Jana Sangh and the Ram Rajya Parishad. The Hindu Mahasabha which had been the foremost
Hindu party prior to Independence had become a shrivelled husk due to its aging leadership and due to the stigma of the bans.

The ideological divide between the Hindu Mahasabha and the Jana Sangh wasn’t very significant, instead it was a difference of
organization and leadership. The Jana Sangh and the Ram Rajya Parishad on the other hand had quite significant ideological
differences on a variety of issues.

The Jana Sangh operated according to the beliefs of Hindutva. It aimed to create a Hindu society with unity across caste lines and
reduced internal differences. It aimed at a reform of Hindu society in certain regards, such as with regards to untouchability and caste
divides. The Jana Sangh was more concerned with external threats both from other religions and other nations.

The Ram Rajya Parishad on the other hand was representative of a far more reactionary vision for society. It aimed to reverse certain
trends within society such as loosening of caste norms and aimed to revive or preserve a more ‘traditional’ Hindu society. The Ram
Rajya Parishad also had the support of the feudal classes which were reeling from land reform and aimed to mitigate it.
In the long run, it was the Jana Sangh’s vision for Hindu politics which proved successful and not that of the Parishad.
Slow Growth of Hindutva in Politics
The Jana Sangh grew in the first 2 decades after Independence largely by poaching from other Hindu political parties. The
situation after partition and the relative popularity of early Congress meant that there was no further room for the party to
grow in. This began changing after the 1967 elections where the Jana Sangh had the 2nd highest vote share of all the
parties. While 1971 elections were a set back the party continued to grow nonetheless and finally formed the government
as a part of the Janata coalition in 1977.
The Janata coalition ended in disarray in 1980. It had only lasted a few short years and its effect on the Jana Sangh was
extremely deleterious. As a result of this breakdown of the coalition, the Jana Sangh was revived as the Bharatiya Janata
Party( BJP) in 1980.
The BJP started off in adverse circumstances with little room for political growth. Indira Gandhi had learnt her lessons
from the emergency and made an effort to portray herself as a more pro Hindu leader than the previous perception. Issues
such as Khalistan movement in Punjab and Indira’s opposition to it further cast her as the preferred leader of Hindus. The
BJP’s failure to do enough for the Hindu cause in this period meant that even a section of ‘Hindutva minded voters’ found
Indira preferable to the BJP. This situation culminated itself in the assasination of Indira Gandhi in 1984 at the hands of
Sikh extremists.
In the resulting religious conflict the Congress had the mantle of Hindu leadership and the Hindu community as a whole
was in support of the party. As a consequence of this, the 1984 elections were a disaster for BJP with the party only
managing to secure 2 seats. This was the electoral Nadir for Hindutva politics, however there would be significant
change soon.
Slow Growth of Hindutva in Politics
The Hindutva movement received a fillip soon after the electoral disaster of 1984, by the way of the Shah Bano Case.
What had been a simple case of divorce, had turned into a major religious issue with the Muslim community perceiving
itself to be under threat if secular laws were applied to them in matters of marriage. The Congress government reacted to
this by blatantly appeasing the Muslim community, by enacting a law which significantly reduced the rights of Muslim
women when it came to matters of divorce and compensation.

The BJP’s opposition to this blatant appeasement of the Muslim community was quite popular. This opposition provided
the roots for a greater Hindutva movement in the future. The major Hindutva issue of the future would be the Ram
Janmabhoomi (RJB) movement. In order to reduce the perception of having been blatantly pro Muslim, the Congress
government attempted to change perception by ordering an opening of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya which was becoming
the center of a political storm.

The RJB movement in the aftermath of this act, was led to the hilt by the Bharatiya Janata Party and culminated in the
demolition of the Masjid in 1992. This act of demolition for the purpose of rebuilding the temple for Shri Rama in his
birthplace had caught the imagination of Hindus across much of India and for the first time provided the BJP with a chance
to form a government with itself at the lead.
Hindutva Politics Post RJB
Riding on the wave of Hindutva the BJP succeeded in forming governments in the states of UP, MP, Rajasthan and
Gujarat for various periods of time. It gained even further success when it emerged as the largest party first in the 1996
elections and later again in the 1998 elections which bought it to power for the first time.
By 1998, the BJP had emerged as the largest party and was capable of forming a coalition government with a variety of
other parties such as the TDP, Shiv Sena, Akali Dal. These parties were united largely on the basis of ideology, with all the
parties being considered right of center politically speaking and representing soft nationalism.
The support base of the BJP at this point was composed largely of upper caste Hindus - Brahmins, Rajputs, Baniyas ,
Khatris etc with a variety of OBC communities such as Lodhs and Kirars also in support. The party however was making
constant efforts to reach out to other Hindu communities across the spectrum with varying degrees of success.
This successful period of BJP rule, lasted from 1998 to 2004 and was a time of relative prosperity, infrastructural
improvements and economic modernization. However the party itself had failed to build a strong enough social coalition
and political organization; and paid the price for it with a defeat in the 2004 elections.
Over the next half decade, Hindutva politics remained in a state of eclipse with the rise of the reformed UPA which built
an effective political coalition and rode on the wave of the strong economy which had been built during the BJPs tenure. It
was only post the economic downturn and the increased terrorism of early 2010s that the BJP found a chance to return to
the fore.
USHV of Modi
The BJP returned to power in 2014, under the leadership of Narendra Modi. For the first time in the party’s history it secured a
majority on its own by winning 282 seats. The party had won by banking on the United Spectrum of Hindu Votes (USHV), and on
the development plank of Narendra Modi. The USHV depends on consolidation of Hindu votes without concern for castelines for
the purpose of cultural unity and economic prosperity.

The USHV involves to an extent, the othering of Muslims and the idea certainly gains more currency in areas where the Muslim
community has a greater population or has been more abrasive towards the Hindu community. This is particularly visible in
constituencies where Muslim population is extremely high ie crossing 25-30% of the population. In such constituencies, nearly the
entire Hindu population comes together to vote for the Bharatiya Janata party. It is also visible in situations like 2014 elections
where the Muzaffarnagar riots of the previous year led to a dulling of caste divides and instead led to voting along religious lines.

The idea of USHV has also been developed economically by the party since it has come to power. It has done so by ensuring that its
economic policies are aimed to benefit every section of the Hindu community. The economic policies post 2014 such as schemes
aimed at electrification, water, housing etc are aimed to improve the quality of life of every section of rural society and thereby
ensure their support. At the same time the reforms such as GST and laws aimed at easier procurement of land are aimed at improving
the prosperity of economically mobile sections of Hindus.

Thus the USHV is combined with an economic vision which aims to benefit all sections of society under the aegis of Hindutva and
BJP.
USHV by State
The Bharatiya Janata Party’s project of USHV might ideally involve every section of Hindu society. However practically
speaking it only includes major sections of Hindu society and leaves out a few castes due to political infeasibility.

Often times the castes left out of BJP’s political equation are those which consider themselves better suited to bargaining
for power by acting as castes than by acting as Hindus. These are usually the dominant OBC castes of the state and the
dominant SC caste of the state, both of which find it more beneficial to lead anti BJP parties and ally with Muslims than to
ally with other Hindus.

The BJP caste matrix thus in practical terms evolves to include - Upper Castes + Non Dominant OBC + Non Dominant
SC/ST.

It is interesting to note that the concept of USHV is somewhat similar to the DMKs anti Brahmin alliance in TN. Major
difference being that instead of Brahmins being the community left out of the coalition as in the case of the DMK, it is the
Muslims in case of the BJP.
USHV by State
➢ Uttar Pradesh - In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi party is under the control of the Yadav community
who are the most dominant OBC community of the state, they have in the past successfully allied with Muslims to
gain power and the party as a whole has significant economic competition with other Hindu communities and for
this reason prefers to ally against them rather than with them. Similarly the Bahujan Samaj Party of the state has
the support of the Jatavs who are the most dominant and extensive Scheduled Caste community.

This leaves the BJP with communities such as Brahmins, Rajputs, Kayasthas, Khatris, Baniyas from among the
upper castes and with Non Dominant OBCs such as Kushwahas, Koeris, Kurmis etc and with Scheduled caste
communities such as Valmikis. Together the party’s support base comes up to 40-50% and allows them to win
most elections.

➢ Bihar- The state of Bihar has a very similar caste matrix to that of Uttar Pradesh. However in Bihar the Yadav and
OBC population is much higher and the Upper Caste population is lower. As a result in Bihar the Kurmis take the
forefront in the NDA alliance and are the leading political caste. Unlike in Uttar Pradesh, where the non dominant
OBCs are secondary in the political alliance to the Upper castes, in Bihar they are in an alliance of equals. The
BJP( NDA) in the state thus gets the support of Upper Castes, Kurmis and a few Dalit castes such as Paswans.
USHV by State
➢ Haryana- Haryana’s largest and most dominant caste are the Jats, the Jats have vast agrarian holdings and have
made up a disproportionate number of the state’s CMs since the formation of the state. Additionally the state
doesn’t have a significant Muslim population except in a few districts for there to be unification along religious
lines. In such a situation the Jats have little incentive to join the BJPs USHV. Instead the USHV comes to be
formed by the other Hindu communities , especially the Upper Castes such as Brahmins, Rajputs, Baniyas and
Khatris. It also has the support of OBC communities such as Sainis who are often in economic and political
competition with Jats.

➢ Maharashtra- Maharashtra’s most populous and dominant community are the Marathas who have come to define
much of the state’s history. The Marathas community along with the Kunbis together form nearly a third of the
state’s population and have extensive domination of the agrarian sector of the state and have dominated the state’s
politics since Independence. The community has extensive ties both with the INC and the NCP though it also gives
some support to the BJP. The Muslim population of the state is somewhat significant, however its not a factor in
every part of the state and not significant enough to cause counter mobilization. The state also has a significant
Ambedkarite movement which finds Mahars among its supporters.
In this situation, the BJP’s alliance depends on Migrant Hindu communities in the state such as North Indians,
Gujaratis, Marwaris, Southerners etc+ Marathi Upper caste communities such as Brahmins and CKPs along with a
section of Marathas. It also includes OBCs and a few STs like Dhangars.
Future Prospects
The success of Hindutva in the 2014 election and again in a succession of elections till 2019 has ensured that Hindutva as
an ideology is now on firm electoral grounds unlike in the time before 2004. Its social coalition now encompasses all
except the most intransigent Hindu Castes in each state. The ideology gains further push in cases of Muslim mobilization
or polarization as this spurs on Counter Mobilization. The economic basis of USHV has solid roots as well and has
survived despite recent economic downturn due to the COVID Pandemic.

The Hindutva movement has not just succeeded in strengthening its electoral roots, it has also succeeded in pushing the
Overton Window to the right. Hindu Nationalist policy decisions such as the CAA or the Abrogation of Article 370 or the
Construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi have contributed to a strengthening of Hindu political belief. These have led to a
normalization of Hindutva politics as not just acceptable but rather the standard of Indian politics.

The effect of this shift can be witnessed in the temple runs attempted by the Congress or by the recent attempts by the
AAP to portray itself as a Soft Hindutva party.
Thank You