Social Scientist

India 1980: Political Developments

Author(s): E. M. S. Namboodiripad
Source: Social Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 4, Special Number on India (Nov., 1980), pp. 11-21
Published by: Social Scientist
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3520370 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 15:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 E M S N,AMBOODIRIPAD

Inldia i980 . PoliticalDevelopments

SOCIAL SCIENTI Sl readerswillrecall the articlethatthiswriter

had writtenbeforethe Lok Sabha electionsin whichit was stated:
'Th-e.new year thatdawns on January 1, 1980, will mean for the
Indian people not the openingof just a new calendar year but of
a new phase in their political development. For, within a week
thereafter,theywill be going to the polls to elect theirrepresenta-
tivesto the seventhLok Sabha."'
Let it be admittedat th-ieveryoutset that the writerwent
wrong in his assessmnent in one respect. He did not expect
the Congress(1) to securesuch a sweeping electoral victory.The
question,accordingto him,was "not which of the variousparties,
or combination of parties contestingthe forthcomingelections
would secure an absolutemajorityin the Lok Sabha and thusbe
able to formits own singlepartyGovernment.Which of themwill
have the largestnumberof membersin the Lok Sabha-this is the
question.Any partyor combinationof parties answering to the
latter requirementwould be obliged to seek allies in other
parties or combinations in order to be able to formthe new
Government."2
This assessment, of course, proved wrong, The Congress (I)
was able to win not only a simple majority but the two-thirds

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

majorityrequired foramending the Constitution.Although this

did not change the balance in the Rajya Sabha whichwas required
for completing the process of amending the Constitution,the
sweepingvictoryculminatingin the two-thirds majorityin the Lok
Sabha appeared to make conditions propitious to change the
balance in both Houses in due course. The threatof restorationof
the Emergencyregimebecame thusreal.
This naturallyraised questionsconcerning the correctness
of the line adopted by the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
and otherLeft partiesin facilitatingthe realignmentof political
forcesin the firsthalf of 1979 whichled to the fall of the Janata
government.While genuinedoubtson thisscorcarose in theminds
of the millionswho supportedone or the other Left and demo-
cratic party which worked for the realignmentof forces, the
leaders of theJanata and otherbourgeoisopposition parties used
the fact of the Congress (I) victory,leading to its comingback to
power,to denouncethe Left and democratic forces. Along with
the leaders of the BharatiyaJanata Party (BJP) and the Janata
(JP), a large number of non-partydemocrats too came to think
that the Left and democraticpartieshad taken a false step at the
timeof theJulycrisis. That sectionof the monopoly presswhich
took an anti-Congress(I) standjoined the chorus.
CrisisofBourgeoisPoliticalSystem
It has now become clear that this is based on the false
assumptionthat if onlythe Left and democraticpartieshad conti-
nued to support theJanata, it would have remainedin power for
the fullfive-yeartermforwhichit had been elected. It failed to
see that the disintegrationof the Janata had started at least in
mid-1978,ifnot earlier.Subsequently,in the firsthalf of 1979, the
Janata partyand its government startedbreakinginto pieces. Even
thosewho could not see what was happeningeitherin 1978 or in
1979 can see now that the formerJanata partyhas split itself into
the BJP,theJanata (JP), the Lok Dal, theJanata (S) and so on.
The completepolitical bankruptcyof the individuals and units
which came together to formthe Janata in 1977 cannot be con-
cealed any more.
Anotherincorrectassessmnent of the critics of the political
line pursuedby the Left and democratic forceswas that the elec-
toral victory of the Congress(I) in the January 1980 elections
meant a fullrestorationof the old authoritatianset-up.Those who
held thisview failed to take intoconsideration the impact of the

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDIA 1980 13

profound political crisis enveloping the entire political system of

the bourgeois-landlordclasses.
What had been happening in the Janata and the Lok Dal
in the three-yearperiod from 1977 was indicative of thc crisis not
only of the Janata party but also of all political parties of the
bourgeois-landlordclasses. The same thinghad, in fact,happencd
to the undividedCongressafterits massiveelectoralvictoryin 1971
and 1972. Withinithreeor fouryearsof that massive victory, the
victoriousCongress and its governmenthad to face a serious eco-
nomicand political crisis. With a view to wardingoffthe danger
arisingout of thiscrisisthe rulingcircleshad to establish theEmer-
gencyregime. What theJanata did was to followin the footsteps
of the undividedCongress earlier, both in winning the massive
electoralvictoryin 1977 as wellas in the post-electionperformance
or non-performance.
The electoralvictoryof the Congress(1) in 1980 was basi-
cally no differentfromthe earlier victoriesof the undividedCong-
ress in 1971-1972and ofthe Janata in 1977. This massive electoral
victorytoo was bound to envelop the new ruling party into the
same typeof crisisas after1971-1972victory.
Indira Gandlhi'sone year in officeas Prime Minister now
provesthis.This of course is a singleparty governmentin form,
but the presentrulingpartyis in fact an amalgam of innumerable
groupsand factions which are perpetually at war against one
another. Looking at the goings on in state aftcrstate and also
some of the featuresof the situationat the Centre,one cannot see
any fundamentaldifference betweentheJanata party, which was
a combinationof about half-a-dozenparties,and the presentCong-
ress (I), whichis a combinationof innumerable factionsor groups.
This factionalismor groupismhas gone to such an extent
that the Prime Ministerhas been unable, during the one-fifthof
her presenttenurethat is over, even to complete her Council of
Ministers. Very importantportfolios,includingDefence, have no
separate Cabinet Minister,Defence restingwith the PrimeMinis-
ter herself.Several key portfolios,includingSteel and M'inerals,
are being looked aftereitherby an otherwiseoverworked Cabinet
Ministeror junior ministers.The paucity of competent and reli-
able-"loyal" is the word-colleagues has made thePrimeMinister
take over the responsibilityalso of party organization, since she
cannot name a Congress president! The manner in which the
seniorCabinet Ministersat the Centreare engaged in thefactional
movesof theirsupportersin the stateswheretheyhave theirroots,

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

is having its repercussions not only on state politics but also on the
Centre.
To take an instance, look at the manner in which the senior-
most mnemberof the Council of Ministers, Kamalapati rripathi,
was bundled out of his ministerial office.Tripathi was, in his owni
words, not only a loyal colleague and follower but a deuvotee of the
Prime Minister. The fate that befell him renmindsone of the classi-
cal observation of a ministerdismissed by a British monarch: "I
wish I had served God as loyally and as long as I served you ! "
The position is far worse in the states. The most "honour-
able" place in this respect should, of course, go to Andhra Pradesh
where the ouster of the formerChief Minister, the selection of his
successor, the formation of a 61-member Council of Ministers by
the new Chief Minister, the "High Command's directive" to prune
it and so on have turned out to be an enjoyable comic show.
Other states, lhowever,are not far behind Andhra Pradesh.
Maharashtra, where the so-called "dissidents" in the ruling party
gave clandestine support to the Shetkari Sanghatana-led peasant
agitation at the very time when the Chief Minister was declaring
his uncompromising opposition to the agitation; Madhya Pradesh,
where the anti-ministerialist group has the blessingr and direct
support of Union Minister Shukla who denounced the opponents
as a "clique"; Haryana and Punjab where too the anti-ministerial
lists have the support of their own powerful Union Ministers-all
these comipletelyexpose the real nature of the ruling party. It is as
badly divided within itselfas the Janata was.

Government
Fails toSolveAngy
Problem
Added to these internecine fiahts withlinthe ruling party-
at the Centre and in the states-is the government's total failure
to solve any of the burning problems of the people. The party
which promised to the electorate that it would provide a "govern-
ment that works" pleads helplessness in the face of the continuing
rise in the prices of all essential commodities. Its leaders are hielp-
less also in the face of the fissiparous forces whiich do not allow
the writof the Union Government to run in Assam. The loud talk
of protecting the minorities,the women and other weaker sections
of society sounds hollow in the face of tiheghastly attacks lauinched
by the upper caste and majority communal bullies. Never before
has any government and ruling party exhibited such incapacity to
solve the problems of the people after coming to power witlh sucb
a sweeping electoral victory.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDIA 1980 15

Although not so clearly as now, the failure of the new Cong-

ress (I) rule was leading to the erosion of that party's popularity
muclhearlier. Just four months after Indira Gandhi was sworn in
as PrimieMlinister,in May 1980, people in the nine states where
Assemnbly elections were held expressed their growing disenchant-
ment. As the CPI (M) Central Committee pointed out in the com-
inunique issued on 1 July:
Vast sections of people kept awvay from the polling booths.
Even of this low pollingy,in most of the States where it woIn
two-thirds and three-fourthsof the Assembly seats, the Cong-
ress (I) did so on the basis of a minority of the polled votes.
Except in one, the Congress (1) victory is based on the
support of only 16 to 23 per cent of the total electorate. The
disillusionmenit was already growing after the Lok Sabha
poll atnd people were moving away from the Congress (I).
Compared to the Lok Sabha vote, the Congress (I) vote
had fallen in most of the States in the Assembly elections.
Despite this erosion in its popularity however, the Congress
(I) secured htuge majorities in six out of the nine Assemblies for
which elections were held in May. It was, however, reduced to
a mninority in the newly-elected Tamil Nadu As sembly, while
its representation was very much reduced in the Punjab and
Bihar where the opposition was more united thani anywlhere else*
These facts show that, once again to qtiote the CPI (M) Central
Committee communique of July 1:
A large part of the responsibility for the Congress (I) victory
should be borne by the bourgeois-landlord opposition parties.
Parties like the the Janata (S) had split further,and not learn-
ing any lessons from the Lok Sabha elections, they fought
each other more than they fought the Congress (I). The
Bharatiya Janata Party, the RSS-Jana Sangh in camouflage,
helped the Congress (I) to win where its own candidates did
Inot have any chance. Not only was the Opposition split,
these bourgeois-landlord parties had no alternate pro-people
policies to enthuse the people and rouse them to defeat the
Congress (1). On the contrary, their stands on very impor-
tant issues played initothe hands of the Congress (I). The
united Janata party, because of its domination by the RSS-
Jana Sangh, had thrown the Muslim minority and the Hari-
jans and weaker sections into the camp of the Congress (I).
During thie election campaign, all these parties came out in
support of the chauvinists and secessionists leading the Assam

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

agitationto the detrimentof the cause of the country'sunity

and integrityand furtherantagonisedthe minorities.
The Opposition partieswere thusin no positionto win over
the people who were moving away from the Congress (I) in
disillusionment.They could not retaineven the stupport they
had securedduringthe Lok Sabha elections because of their
refusalto come togetherto give a fightto the Congress (I)-
the votes of almost all theseparties have come down in the
Assembly elections compared to the Lok Sabha elections.
They have let down the people who are gettingdisillusioned
with the Congress(1) and whose discontentis growing.
The contrastas seen in Tamil Nadu and also in the signi-
ficantby-electionin Nilambur in Kerala where the ruling
frontcandidate not only trouncedthe Congress (I) candidate
but increased the marginthree times from 6000 and odd to
18,000is thata viable alternativewas placed beforethe people.
Today it is not enoughfortheseoppositionparties to forge al-
liances betweenthemselves;theyhave to reach understandings
with the Left parties like the CPI (M) and the CPL to project
a progressiveimage before the people... The appeal of
caste is gettingmore and morelimited.
This rapid erosionof the popularityof the Congress(1) as
the ruling party and the inability of the bourgeois opposition
parties to providea viable alternativeto the rulingCongress(I)
combinedto slhow clearly that neither the old-typesingleparty
regimenor the muchtalkedof new "two-partysystem" is relevant
in Indian conditions. The bourgeois-landlord ruling classes which
created a relativelyunited and cohesive party in the Indian
National Congress and created a similar cohesive party in the
Janata when the Congresscollapsed have now proved incapable
of doing it once again. While the bourgeois opposition is split
into so manyseparateparties,the Congress(1), in its turn,is split
into so many factionsand groups.It is on the manoeuvresand
intriguesamong the Congress (I) groupsanidfactions, on the one
hand, and parties which constitutethe opposition, on the other,
that present-daypolitics turns. Gone, therefore,are thedays of
India's "political stability" which has been the envyof mostof
the Third World countriesforwhominstability,chaos, coups and
counter-coupsand militaryregimehave become part of political
life.
One redeemingfeaturein such a dismalsituationis thegrow-
ingunityof the forces of the Left opposition. Special mention

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDIA 1980 17

should be made of the fact that the two Communist parties, de-
spitefundamentaldifferences, have been able to worktogether.This
has helped the process of forgingthe unitynot only of the Left
but of broaderdemocraticforces.Learning fromthe debacle of all
bourgeoisopposition parties as well as fromthe relativelycredit-
able performanceof theLeft and democraticforcesin WestBengal,
Tripura and Kerala, large sections of the ranks of all political
parties are getting more and more convinced that the futureof
the countrylies in theirunitywiththe Left. The Lok Dal, the
Congreess (U), the Janata and several other parties are being
influenced more and more to adopt policies whichwould bring
themcloser to the Communist, Socialist and otlherLeft parties.
Unity of the Left aniddemocraticforcesis thusbeing transformed
froma mere idea into a plan of practical action.
The idea of such a unityhad, in fact,become populareven
during the pre-LokSabha electiondays. The CPI(M) and other
Left partieshad, in fact, triedto bring about the electoral unity
among themselveson the one hand and with parties like the Lok
Dal, the Congress(U), and even theJanata if only it severed its
connectionwith the RashtriyaSwayamsewakSangh (RSS). This of
course could not be put into action on an all-India scale before
the Lok Sabha election,though unity among the CPI(M), CPI,
RevolutionarySocialist Party(RSP) and Forward Block (FB) was
near-complete.A moreenduringunityof the Left and democratic
forcesbecame a realityin Kerala, though for historical reasons,
the alliance in Kerala did not include the local unit of the Lok
Dal.
The victorygained in the Lok Sabha and Assembly elec-
tionsby this alliance in Kerala helped to make the idea still more
popular all over thecountry.Leaders and ranksof both the Cong-
ress(U) aindthe Lok Dal startedserious rethinking and worked
forthe uniityof theirparties with the Left. These moves led, in
August-September, 1980,to the comingtogethierof six opposition
parties-the fourtraditionalLeft parties,CPI(M), CPI, RSP and
FB, togetherwith the Congress(U) and the Lok Dal-on the basis
of a commonprogrammeon threemajor burningissues: i) prices,
thatis, reductionin thepricesof essential commoditiesand ensur-
ing the paymentofremunerativeprices for agriculturalproduces;
ii) protectionto peace-lovingcitizens, particularlythe prevention
ofcommunalriotsand casteistattacks;iii) preservationand streng
tlieningof civil liberties. These parties agreed among themselves
to runjoint campaigns on thesethreeissues. A coordinationcom-
mitteewas set up and a national conventionheld in September.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 SOCIAIL SCIENTIST

As work in this direction started, however, it becamie clear

that, while the four traditional Left parties had no reservations on
jointly organizing the campaign, the Congress (U) and the Lok Dal
were divided. 'tlherewere powerful elemeiits within the leadlership
of both parties whlo were opposed to any type of cooperation with
the left. There were, however, equally strong elemncntsin the
leadership of the two parties which were all for continuiing anid
strengtheningthe bonds of unity of action among the six parties.
A furious internal struggle started in both tl-heparties oni this
question-a battle 'which, at the time of writing, is still continuing.
The joint work among the six parties, whiclh had started
even before the national convention anid continued in the delibera-
tions of the convention, gave a big boost to joirnt action at the
state level. Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar and
Punjab had their respective joint actions, witli the particularly
provincial impress put on it in each state. The "long march"
jointly organ)ized by the opposition parties in Mnharashtra was,
in fact, the firstmajor statewide action. slhowingthat the demnora-
lization anid frustrationin the inon-Left democratic parties duri'ng
the immediate post-election weeks wverebeing rapidly overcome.
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Ptinjab and Bihar too are, at
the tirneof writing these lines, lhavingsimnilarjoint actions, though
the extent of mass response varies from .stateto state. These local-
ized state-level movements of the peasantry are now sought to be
given an all-India character of the coming together of several
organizatioins and individuals who have taken up the cause of' the
peasantry. A decision has been taken to have an all-party demon-
stration in March for which the various organizations working
in the states are making preparations. It, thus. appears that, for
tke firsttime in free India, a widespread peasanit mass uipsurgeis
developing.
In trying to give an organized foim to this peasant up-
surge, however, there are two forces ptillingin opposite directions,
One of them represents the upper stratum of rural society-land-
lords and rich peasants to be specific. It was thieirproblems, their
demands which were taken up by one type of "farmer leaders"-
Tamil Nadu's Narayanaswami Naidu, Karnataka's Rudrappa,
Maharashtra's Sharad Joshi and so on. A section of the Lok Dal
leaders in North India too fall in this category. On the other hand,
there are the KisanSabhas, the agricultural labourers' unions and
other organizations representing the interests as mnch of the
agricultural labourers and other sections of the rural poor as the
better offfarmers.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDIA 1980 19

It is to this latter category of peasant movement that the Left

and democratic forces are trying to give shape. In Maharashtra
itself, the movement originally started in Pune and Nasik as a
farmers' movement of the former type but, with the entry of six
opposition parties, it became a movement of the latter type. The
charter of demands on the basis of which the "long march" was
organized included, along with remunerative prices for the agri-
cultural produce, increased wages for agricultural labourers,
supply of essential commodities at low prices through the public
distribution system and so on.
The development of this movement along the lines indi-
cated by the Left and democratic parties and its integration with
the movements of the working class and middle class employees
can unite the entire peasantry against the monopolists, while fight-
ing the anti-workingclass, anti-agricultural labour forces in the
rural areas. Such a mobilization of all democratic forces in the
rural areas can transform the entire political situation in the
country. This will give the proper social content to the unity of
the Left and demiocratic forces which has now become the central
slogan of all anti-authoritarian forces.

Attempts
to Denigrate
Left
As against this united action by the Left and democratic
forces is the move being made to create bourgeois national alter-
native to the ruling Congress(l). Anti-Left elements in all bourgeois
parties, many of their brethren donning the uniform of "non-
party personalities", and the bourgeois press are doing their utmost
to denigrate the growing unity of the Left and democratic forces.
They ridicule the coordination committee and the national conven-
tion of six opposition parties for having not produced a national
alternative to the Congress (I), deliberately closing their eyes to
the fact that these opposition parties are coming together and forg-
ing unity of action on some burning issues of the people, at the
very time when all the bourgeois parties-ruling as well as opposi-
tion- are in the midst of a very serious crisis.
It is amusing to see the BJP, the Janata (JP), the Congress
(U) and the Lok Dal-all claiming that their own particular party
can provide the national alternative and nobody else. In the case
of the Congress (U) and the Lok Dal, of course, there are influential
sections in the leadership as well as the ranks who are conscious that
no single party can provide the national alternative. These latter
are exerting their pressure to get their respective parties to adopt

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
20 SOCIAL SCIENTIST

the line of unity wilh the Left. This, in fact, is the one redeeming
feature of the entire political situation.
This description of the political situation in the country
would be incomplete if we do not touch upon the attempts being
made by the BJP to embellish itself as a "secular" party dedicated
to the cause of "Gandhian Socialism" and tryingto take the country
alonig a path which is "opposed to capitalism as well as Commu-
nism". Several well meaning individuals and groups in the demo-
cratic political parties are likely to be, and are in fact being, taken
in by this new posture of the BJP leadership. It is, therefore,
necessary to brieflyoutline where this party stands in relation to
various burning issues.
On communalism,the BJP does not recognize the very exis-
tence of such a problem. "The British policy of divide and rule"
was, according to this party, "primarily responsible for introduc-
ing the communal virus in the body politic" and "the same was
continued by the ruling Congress leaders during the post-indepen-
dence era. Mrs. Gandhi's brand of secularisim is the root cause of
disunity and distrustamong various sections of the Indian people".3
On protectionof minorities,the Bombay convention denied
the need for any such protection. Rejecting an amendment
suggesting protection of minorities, the mover of the resolution
at the convention said: "Minorities are no second class citizens
and have equal rights as the majority community. The uiseof the
terms majority and minorityshould be avoided,"
On Urdu, the same mover said at the convention that his
party "favours the prosperity of all Indian languages, including
Urdu. The special favour shown by the Bihar Government to
Urdu providing it the status of second language was a political
gimmick."
On theforeignpolicy que-stion,BJP is frankly anti-Soviet and
repeats all the slanders against the Soviet Union. It ha3 not a
single word to say againlst American imnperialism.
On economicquestion,it demands full facilities for the private
sector to compete with the public sector; reduction in direct taxes
on the rich; replacement of sales tax by the additional excise and
so on-every one of them demanded by the big business. Its
package of economic policies does not include the demand for any
procurement measure which alone will enable the government to
get physical possession of stocks through which the public distri-
bution system can be supplied. A clear indication of the landlord-
wholesaler bias of the party.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INDIA 1980 21

Here, therefore, is a programme of unconcealed support to

imperialisnmand opposition to socialism in world politics, support
to big busiinessand landlords in internal economy, together with
full support to Hindu revivalism. Only on the basis of such a
programme can the ruling classes create a bourgeois "alternative
to the Congress (I)".
This, however, has its inherent conitradictions. The long-
term interests of the bourgeoisie as a class require a foreign policy
less committed to irnperialism, and a socio-cultural approach in
domestic field which is not so openly revivalist and is expressed
in secular nationalist terms. Thet forces represenlted by the
Congress (I) and other bourgeois parties theiefore cannot go along
with the BJP.
The BJP, on the ocher lhand ,represents that section of the
bourgeoisie which came out against the authoritarianism of the
Indira Congress and joined hands with other anti-authoritarian
forces to defeat the Congress (I) and to forman alternative govern-
ment headed by Morarji Desai. The coming back to power of the
Congress headed by Indira Gandhi is therefore a challenge to all
that the BJP leaders, along withl the leaders of other bourgeois
parties, had gained in earlier struggles but have now lost. The
Congrcss (I), oin the other hand,has set its mnindto regain whatever
it had lost at the hands of the leaders of the present BJP and its
earlier allies. The two parties, therefore, cannot but carry on a
bitter struggle between themselves unless they give up all that they
have stood for and fought for.
The BJP, however, cannot, in the very nature of its program-
matic approach, rally behiInd it that mass support which is re-
quired for the unityof the Left and democratic forces which alone
can provide the real alternative to the Congress (I).

I Social Scientist, Vol 8, No 2, September 1979.

2 Ibid, p 4.
3 Political resolutionpassed at the Bombay conventionof BJP.

This content downloaded from 141.101.201.139 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 15:39:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions