akrishnarao

Tag: P.V.Narasimha Rao

  • The Sangh and the Saffron Party: A Struggle for Ideological Course Correction

    Has there been a shift in the functioning of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Union Government following the student protests in July that caused unprecedented shockwaves, the subsequent washed-out Monsoon Session of Parliament amid roaring slogans, and the trends seen in the by-elections across three Assembly constituencies including Bankipur? This has now become a major topic of discussion in the national capital. It goes without saying that the impact of these developments has also been felt deeply within the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Seemingly startled by the changes taking place in society, the RSS has suddenly plunged into a massive nationwide mobilization drive aimed at youth and students. Thirty-two affiliate organizations of the RSS, including the BJP, are attending the three-day RSS All India Coordination Meeting (Akhil Bharatiya Samanwaya Baithak) held at Gudilova on the outskirts of Visakhapatnam. In these meetings as well, the primary agenda is: “How to improve engagement with Gen Z and the youth?” The Gudilova meetings are taking place at a time when a major internal overhaul within the RSS is slated for completion by March 2027 to present a brand-new face to the public under fresh leadership. These sessions are set to play a pivotal role in the Sangh’s evolution, with the distinct possibility of catalyzing a transformation within the Bharatiya Janata Party as well.

    There is no doubt that the developments over the twelve years since the BJP came to power at the Centre have also influenced the RSS. While some within the Sangh might view the BJP as just one of its 32 affiliates, one cannot discount that the BJP, governing at the Centre under Modi’s leadership over this decade-plus period, has reshaped the Sangh itself. Having Sangh functionaries step into every Union ministry is one aspect; having the Sangh bear responsibility for the government’s missteps and transgressions is quite another. The Sangh once held the distinction of compelling veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani to resign simply for visiting Pakistan and paying glowing tributes to Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But does the Sangh still possess the power to exercise such moral and ideological authority under current conditions? This is the question now being debated. Having once played a central role in government appointments, alliance decisions, and candidate selections, the key issue today is whether the Sangh can question or confront the government. RSS Sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat has repeatedly stated that rulers must heed the concerns of students and youth, and that the Modi government must acknowledge mistakes made in policy decisions. Yet, to what extent is the government engaging in self-reflection? This cannot be ignored. Today, several opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, are dragging both the BJP and the RSS into the political arena and questioning their ideological clarity, effectively putting them on trial before the court of public opinion. It is not just the opposition; even the general public is increasingly finding it difficult to tell the Sangh and the BJP apart. Against this backdrop, it remains to be seen whether the RSS can redefine its future ideological role and reshape its affiliate, the BJP, to meet future needs.

    In fact, a stage had arrived where the BJP argued it no longer needed the support of the RSS. During the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the then BJP National President Jagat Prakash Nadda clearly stated: “In the beginning, when we lacked capability, we needed the RSS. Today, our party has expanded significantly and stands on its own feet. The BJP can run itself.” Thanks to Amit Shah’s strategic planning, the BJP emerged as the world’s largest party with 140 million members, constructing a massive apparatus capable of winning elections with ease. To make the BJP unchallenged, it succeeded in either subduing or splintering rival parties through persuasion or pressure. Consequently, despite securing only 240 seats in the 2024 elections, the leadership of Modi and Shah remained undisputed. Thereafter, by weakening opponents, it continued to win successive assembly elections, ultimately capturing Bengal as well. Many within the Sangh had little choice but to accept the leadership of Modi and Shah. Once a party emerges as an invincible force both internally and externally, which organization retains the ideological and moral authority to question its top leadership?

    Perhaps the emergence of the Cockroach Janata Party and the student protests provided an opportunity for introspection over these developments. For more than a decade, Modi crafted a political ideology and an accompanying vocabulary, unleashing it upon the world. The BJP maintained a well-oiled machinery to embrace this discourse and direct sharp attacks at rivals. Any doubt as to whether Modi created the BJP’s ideological foundation or whether it carried the Sangh’s blessings evaporated; in short, “Modi-ism” indisputably dictated the ideology of both the BJP and the Sangh. The same “ism” prevailed across all key appointments, from Chief Ministers and Union Ministers to the party’s National President.

    However, in the wake of the events in July, ideological analysts note a distinct Sangh imprint on the newly appointed team led by Nitin Nabin. Ideologue Ram Madhav, who remained distant from the BJP for nearly six years, was appointed as Vice President, while 11 out of 14 Vice Presidents and 11 out of 18 General Secretaries reportedly share a strong foundation in Sangh training. Furthermore, removing Amit Malviya—who headed the IT Cell for 11 years with a reputation for projecting any narrative as truth and launching aggressive attacks on opponents—and sidelining figures known for belligerent rhetoric like Tejasvi Surya are notable developments. Speculation suggests an effort is underway to steer the party away from Modi’s mindset and Amit Shah’s strategic style. Even so, will conditions return to the days when the BJP central office buzzed with healthy, regular interactions among party workers, media, and leaders like Venkaiah Naidu, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, and Ananth Kumar? Turning back the clock is never easy.

    Surprisingly, during his 13th Red Fort address on the occasion of the 80th Independence Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi devoted little time to recounting the achievements of the past 12 years. He did not walk the path of Nehru, who spoke to a young India in the language of scientific temper and modern nation-building. He did not echo Lal Bahadur Shastri’s call of “Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan.” Nor did he emulate Atal Bihari Vajpayee by adding “Jai Vigyan” to emphasize the primacy of science. He did not seek to unpack complex economic reforms in simple language like P.V. Narasimha Rao, nor did he discuss a knowledge-based economy like Manmohan Singh. Departing from all of them, Narendra Modi added a new phrase to the lexicon of Indian politics: Dimagi Naxal (an intellectual or ideological Naxalite). Yet, Modi offered no definition for the term. Do those who question an education system that fails to provide jobs, those who raise their voices against paper leaks and unfulfilled promises, and those who take to the streets not just at Jantar Mantar but in cities like Ranchi and Patna fall into this category? Modi knows how to battle legacy systems; in the past, he successfully branded rivals as “Lutyens,” “Andolan Jeevis,” or “Urban Naxals,” lumping them all under a single ideological label. But dismissing Gen Z with such tags will not be easy. Does warning the nation to stay vigilant against thoughtful, questioning citizens from within reflect the true national spirit? In an India recognized globally as an intellectual powerhouse that has produced CEOs for major global enterprises, who exactly is Modi worried about?

    After 12 years of uninterrupted rule, the new challenge Modi faces today is the inability to formulate an acceptable ideology and an appropriate vocabulary to match it. The primary reason is that neither the Bharatiya Janata Party nor the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has consistently built a robust, clear, scientific, and modern ideology suitable for the new generation, leaving room instead for a politics of slogans and abuse. What the country urgently needs today is not individuals who revel in having their names chanted, but an ideology that moves in step with the times.

  • In Search of Lost Standards

    “Lok Sabha’s first Speaker G.V. Mavalankar, the second Speaker Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, and the first Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Vice President Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan had a profound influence on the functioning of parliamentary institutions. They conducted themselves with dignity and impartiality while framing rules, procedures, conventions, and practices. Even though the Jana Sangh had no representation in the Rajya Sabha, I used to watch the proceedings from the visitors’ gallery. It was because of them that I had the opportunity to learn about Question Hour, adjournment motions, bills and resolutions, standing committees, calling attention notices, members’ privileges, and many other aspects. Eminent leaders sitting on the opposition benches spoke with as much eloquence as those on the treasury benches. The Speaker acted as an honest guardian of the rights of the opposition. It was because of these noble traditions that Indian democracy withstood many tests and maintained its international reputation.”

    These words were written by none other than Lal Krishna Advani, one of the founders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, in his autobiography My Country–My Life, describing the parliamentary standards of earlier times.

    Standards endure only when individuals uphold them. If individuals sacrifice standards for personal interests, no standards remain worth citing as examples. If declining social standards enter Parliament, the current functioning of legislatures is proof of what happens. “Guide us. If we go astray, correct us if necessary. Advise us. Scrutinize our conduct,” India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru requested the first Lok Sabha Speaker G.V. Mavalankar. Mavalankar acted accordingly. Whenever serious differences arose, the Prime Minister and the Speaker would consult and resolve them. On one occasion, there was an argument between Nehru and Mavalankar in the House. Nehru wanted to make a second statement the same day, but Mavalankar clarified that it was against the rules. Nehru accepted and withdrew.

    Mavalankar strongly opposed the frequent promulgation of ordinances. He insisted they should be issued only in rare emergencies and that laws must be made in Parliament. He even wrote to the Prime Minister on this matter. If any legal doubt arose, he personally consulted the Attorney General, asserting that the Speaker must function like a judge. Nehru accorded him equal respect. When officials complained to Nehru that parliamentary committees were subjecting their decisions to excessive scrutiny, Nehru replied that it was not within his domain and advised them to approach the Speaker. Many rules framed by Mavalankar remain in force even today. The first Lok Sabha Secretary-General Shakdher described him as a Speaker who maintained balance between the ruling and opposition parties, conducted the House efficiently, and safeguarded public interest. It is noteworthy that Mavalankar, who insisted that Parliament must remain independent of government control, was elected from Gujarat.

    After Mavalankar’s death, Ananthasayanam Ayyangar followed the same path. Born into a Vaishnava Brahmin family in Tiruchanur near Tirupati, he conducted the Lok Sabha impartially. He once stated: “Under a dictatorship or absolute monarchy, citizens’ lives and freedoms have no protection. If the dictator is benevolent, people may live well. But even in a democracy, there is a danger that dominant groups may behave dictatorially and suppress those in smaller numbers. The only person who can firmly control such tendencies and protect minority interests in the House is the Speaker.” He remarked that there were no greater orators than Hiren Mukherjee (CPI) in English and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Jana Sangh) in Hindi. Even without formal recognition of an Opposition Leader due to inadequate numbers, Ayyangar gave full respect and opportunity to opposition members. In the second Lok Sabha, both ruling and opposition members unanimously proposed his re-election as Speaker — a testimony to the standards he upheld. In 1972, when a Dalit Christian candidate contested from Tirupati, Ayyangar campaigned to support him at Congress’s request, responding to critics by saying, “Secularism is embedded within Vishishtadvaita.” This was later revealed by former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.

    After Mavalankar, Speaker Sardar Hukam Singh admitted no-confidence motions against Nehru’s government, declaring that Parliament held supremacy over the government. His successor Neelam Sanjiva Reddy allowed a discussion on a no-confidence motion on the very day the President addressed both Houses. During his tenure, the first parliamentary committee on the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was formed.

    Gradually, parliamentary standards began to decline from 4th Lok Sabha. During the Emergency, parliamentary proceedings were censored in unprecedented ways, yet the presiding officers remained silent. Indira Gandhi forced G.S. Dhillon to resign as Speaker and appointed him Shipping Minister the same day. After the Emergency, Speakers such as K.S. Hegde, Balram Jakhar, Rabi Ray, Shivraj Patil, P.A. Sangma, Balayogi, Manohar Joshi, and Somnath Chatterjee each tried in their own way to uphold the dignity of the office. Balayogi, the first Dalit and first Speaker from a regional party, maintained such neutrality that during his tenure the Vajpayee government fell by just one vote. Later, during the tenures of women Speakers Meira Kumar and Sumitra Mahajan, frequent disruptions occurred. The Telangana movement made Meira Kumar’s tenure extremely difficult, while increasing confrontation between ruling and opposition parties during Narendra Modi’s premiership placed Sumitra Mahajan in a challenging position. Since then, tensions have intensified, and Speaker Om Birla too has found himself in a helpless situation over the past six years, with parliamentary standards steadily declining.

    Recently, opposition parties moved a no-confidence motion against Om Birla for not allowing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to speak — a sign of the deteriorating condition of Indian democracy. If a discussion had been allowed on former Army General Naravane’s book on the India–China conflict, and if the government had responded, people would have had the opportunity to assess the facts. Instead, opposition parties stalled Parliament. Sessions ended without full discussions on the President’s Address or the Budget, and without the Prime Minister speaking in the Lok Sabha. Furthermore, the Speaker himself claimed he had information that women MPs were planning to attack Modi — an unusual development. In reality, both government and opposition are responsible for failing to show flexibility and for using Parliament as a political arena. In an atmosphere where mutual respect is absent, no one expects the Speaker to remain impartial. As a result, the office of the Speaker too appears to be losing its dignity.

    “The Speaker represents the entire House. He reflects its dignity and freedom. Since the House represents the nation, the Speaker becomes a symbol of freedom in the country. It is therefore a position of great honor. Only individuals of the highest competence and impartiality should occupy it,” said Nehru. But it is impossible to compare those days with the present. Those in power then sought to set standards themselves and serve as role models for future generations. At a time when the country aspires toward a ‘Viksit Bharat’ (Developed India), leaders must internally deliberate on preserving parliamentary democratic standards within a defined timeframe.