Gujrat Election : The old is in deathbed, Is the new kicking for birth pang?
(Editorial, Arunodoy Dec
2017, Translated from Bengali)
The
Media Pundits described it as ánti-incumbency’, we call it ‘negation of
negation’. Why? The Congress ruled the
state till 1995 since the creation of Gujrat state in 1960, barring 18 months of Janata Rule in between. The BJP’s rise after a
long 33 years of congress rule cannot be explicated simply
with the tool of anti-incumbency. Similarly in 2017 election, the speed breakers
which were placed on the path of seemingly unstoppable
march of BJP cannot be explained away by anti-incumbency factor. This year’s assembly election revealed the unity of
opposites of rebellious politics of Jignesh-Alpesh-Hardik especillay Jignesh against
the status quo and the status quoits politics of Congress on one side, and the
unity of opposites of communalism, economic liberalism and Sangh’s illusory construct
of ‘Gujrati Ashmita’ and ‘politics of patriotism’ on the other.
Gujrat is the state which derives its prominence
from trades and various entrepreneurial production centres. Gujrat’s status is also
derived from its linkages with Sindh and Harappan civilization, ancient trades
through seaports. The large-scale institutions based on production and trades
of Milk, Spices, Diamond, leather, garments etc has been developed in the post independence
period. The farmer’s families are connected with the large network of Milk
Co-operatives and similarly various communities are connected with diverse business
institutions. The Congress could sustain their hegemonic rule during the long
period of 1960-1995 by maintaining the linkages with people through the managers
of these institutions and by maintaining a balance in this economic base. The
rift within the congress in 1969 under the leadership of Morarji Desai and
Indira Gandhi created the space for the RSS to make deep inroads within Gujrati
society and large-scale riots broke out in September and October of 1969. In
the backdrop of Navanirman movement in Deccember 1963 against price rise and
corruption, Morarji Desai’s indefinite hunger strike in March, 1975 etc,
Congress’s tally in Gujrat assembly came down to 75 in 1975 election from its
earlier strength of 140 in 167 legislatures of Gujrat assembly. Indira Congress
came back to power in 1980 election after emergency.
The Indian society
started witnessing imbalances in the economy and politics after that phase. The
social turmoil in the name of Mandal and Kamandal and paradigm shift towards
neo-liberal economy reached its zenith through Babri demolition and Monmahan’s
official announcement of reform agenda. The rise of BJP and Sangh Parivar occurred
in this vacuum which was created by the breakdown of economic and social balance
of forces. The people’s negation of status quo was announced in a reactionary path.
BJP Government in Gujrat was formed in 1995 under the leadership of Keshubhai
Patel. In next 22 years, BJP and Sangh Parivar sailed smoothly all along and need
not had to look back. In this election of 2017, Gujrati people sent out another
message of negation which could not reach to its zenith due to the absence of nationwide
democratic political alternative. What were the features of this election?
‘Hardik factor’ or ‘Patidar
Anamat Andolon’ had played a significant role in this election. Patidars were
considered as Sudra caste till 18th century. Patidars were provided
with land through Rayotwari system to enhance British’s revenue earnings and
thus Patidars were converted to landowning peasant community. After the
construction of Railway line in Boroda in 1960, a section of Patidars amassed
wealth through production and export of cotton, tobacco, oil seeds, and some of
the wealthy Patidars migrated abroad. There is one Patidar in every ten Indian
American and those Paridars are famous for their Motel business. Patels became
politically influential force during the Vallabhbhai Patel’s tenure as Deputy
Prime Minister and central Home Minister. The internal inequality and
class-divisions within the Patels also increased significantly. The anger of
unemployed youths who numerically increased leaps and bounds due to jobless
growth model were turned into anti-reservation movement in 1985 with the
conspicuous backing of Sangh Parivar. But the agricultural distress, lack of
public investment, jobless growth since 1990 perturbed the educated and
half-educated working class and even made the landowning class restless.
The old trade and
production centric institutions faced loss of credibility to maintain connect
with the people due to the onslaught of neo-liberal economy. The situation
worsened due to depression in export front. It was tried to assuage the
internal grievances within the Patel community by offering ministerial berths
to many representatives from influential section of Patel community in 1995
Gujrat Cabinet. This effort was further strengthened through 2002 riot and
politics of polarization. But the long journey of neoliberal model of jobless
growth, the urbanization to cater the aspiration of upper classes, the
emergence of cheap army of labour created cracks in the balances of status quo,
changed the dynamics of caste-community aspirations. This internal chemistry
within the Patel community led the Patels to join hands with Non-Patels OBCs
and the Dalits and to launch the reservation movement by shifting away from
their erstwhile anti-reservation stance. The emergence of Hardik Patel as the
leader of Patels of lower strata reflected this aspiration. BJP, in consonance
with their communal politics and neoliberal economic policy, had no other option
but to obviate this new class dimension with repressive measures. The
repressive measures of Gujrat Government had strengthened their resolve to be
uncompromising and this further alienated the Patels from BJP’s fold. The
rebellion against the status quo was most evident in the Dalit movement under the
leadership of Jignesh whose appeal for unity to include even the religious minority
was polar opposite to Sangh Parivar’s position. The presence of large number of
working class and their class power enabled Jignesh et el to take the radical
stance, this was not so strong in the case of Hardik – Alpesh phenomena. The
influence of landowners and business class was significant in the mass mobilizations
of Hardik – Alpesh. This class of people was agitated against the BJP because
of the adverse impact of agrarian crisis, demonitisation and GST. But their vacillating
class character finally inclined them towards the leadership of Modi-Shah duo
at the fag end of the electoral campaign on ‘Gujrat Ashmita’ & communal polarization.
Congress was organizationally
in disarray after electoral debacle in 2014 . Through a complex amalgamation, Congress’s
strategy was to articulate the two tendencies marked by the grievance against
the BJP within the ambit of status quo and the rebellion with an inclination to
come out of the status quo. This strategy led Rahul Gandhi to extensively visit
Gujrati temples to attract upper-castes vote base.
A signal of a new
turn in the Indian situation is emanated from the Gujrat election result. It
indicates many future possibilities: a silent shift of popular opinion towards
Congress within the systemic status quo or the emergence of nation-wide
rebellion to break the status quo for systemic change or the defeat of both the
trends ensuring rise of fascism. We will wait for the nation-wide rebellion to
bombard the status quo for systemic change under the active participation of
revolutionary forces.
0 comments:
Post a Comment