T Thomas: Confluence in politics

Over the last few years, the world seems to be moving towards a kind of convergence in international politics. The US and Russia are no longer the sworn enemies they were 20 years ago.

They now have a common enemy in international terrorism. September 11, 2001, in New York and the more recent happenings in Beslan in Russia have brought them closer.

The nations of Europe who have fought among themselves for centuries are now united as a market place in the EU and are examining the possibilities of closer political union, a thing which would not have been considered possible even 25 years ago.

China and Japan are exploring possibilities of maximising their potential for co-operation. This phenomenon of global confluence will hopefully gain momentum. Of course, there will also be rogue states like Libya and Iraq which may temporarily disturb the world equilibrium. But they are not significant enough to upset the equilibrium in the longer term.

Not surprisingly a similar phenomenon of confluence of politics seems to be happening also in domestic politics of different countries.

One has to sit down and think very clearly to understand the difference between a Democrat and a Republican in the US. Traditionally the Democrats are supposed to be more pro-labour and pro-poor than the Republican.

The dividing line is becoming very thin and narrow as manual labour is no more a key factor in US politics since manufacturing has become more skill-oriented.

Similarly in the UK, the distinction between Labour and Conservatives has also become very blurred. Tony Blair is sometimes seen as a moderate Mrs Thatcher.

As some people say, Tony has stolen the policies and the kilt (skirt) from Mrs Thatcher! The problem facing the UK's Conservative party is how to differentiate themselves from New Labour as Tony Blair calls his party.

Is a similar confluence taking place among political parties in India too? Let us take the major areas of government policy and put this proposition to test.

Foreign policy: Our major foreign policy issues are our relations with Pakistan and the US. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the bus diplomacy was started by Mr Vajpayee of the BJP, which is more anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan than the Congress party.

Natwar Singh as foreign minister will be no different from Yashwant Sinha or Jaswant Singh. With regard to the US again, we can see no significant difference in approach between the Congress and the BJP. Both parties want closer ties with the US, whether it has a Democratic President or a Republican one.

Economic policy: Both the major parties believe that investment by the private sector has to be promoted to create employment opportunities. They also believe that the public sector has to be made more efficient and accountable.

Even on the issue of privatisation of public sector companies, both parties agree that loss-making PSUs may be privatised and profit-making PSUs may be encouraged to issue shares to the public so that their managements become accountable to private investors.

With regard to taxation, both parties agree that taxation has to be investor-friendly and that liberal policies lead to lower evasion and higher collection.

They also agree that the way to reduce taxation will be to restrain government spending on non-developmental items. But both have been equally reluctant to take the bull by the horns.

Labour policy: As the economy progresses, labour union and industrial disputes have become less important, as has happened in developed countries. Except in the states which still have so-called communist parties, viz. West Bengal and Kerala, labour disputes have ceased to be matters of significance.

This is because the quality of labour and their status have improved considerably over the years. Correspondingly, their leaders also are much more enlightened.

Managements also have become much more sensitive to aspirations of employees. So labour policy is not a contentious issue among the political parties.

Having no major differences in foreign policy, economic policy, or labour policy between the two major parties, it was almost inevitable that one or the other had to find a way of differentiating itself. The BJP has chosen the mantle of Hindutva, i.e. championing the cause of the Hindus as its distinguishing feature.

It has also aligned itself with regional parties like the Shiv Sena, which shares the parochial feelings of a community which, although in overwhelming majority, feels threatened by the minority community and therefore expresses antagonism towards minorities. In any family, the second son tends to be more aggressive because he feels that the elder son has all the favours and rights.

The minorities in India, like the second son, sometimes show aggression, which arises out of frustration. A wise elder son will counsel the younger brother and may have to go out of his way to show that he cares and to advise the parents not to make undue concessions to him.

In many cases because of this feeling of being discriminated against, the second son (minority) strives hard and performs better than the pampered elder son (majority). This may inflame the feelings of the elder son (majority) even further.

This has happened in India in the case of some smaller minority communities, namely Christians and Sikhs, but has not happened to the same extent with the Muslims, who are a much larger minority community. They have remained backward and poor. The protagonists of Hindutva cannot attribute their anathema to Muslims to any greater prosperity or progress of Muslims.

Therefore, they had to go back into history and resurrect incidents from the past like the Babri Masjid to inflame passions. But to most ordinary Indians, even today Ayodhya is a faraway city of great reverence in almost a mystical way as the birthplace of Sri Rama.

It has no connection with a masjid. Its appeal is eternal and lives in the hearts of the devout. Turning it into a brick-and-mortar crusade of the modern day was successful for the BJP temporar ily. But after that, its appeal has faded. New causes had to be found. Meanwhile, the public at large had seen through the game and the carnage it had caused. Finally, Godhra in 2002 put a seal on that avenue for promoting Hindutva. Most people felt a sense of disgust and revulsion at what happened in Godhra.

The BJP cannot afford to repeat it but they are in danger of being reduced to a party looking for an incident to inflame communal passions--just like the Shiv Sena. If these parties are to survive and grow with wider support among people with common cause they have to differentiate themselves on a more rational basis of political or economic policy.

They will be better-off looking for such a philosophy rather than another masjid or temple to dispute about. People need something more inspiring and forward-looking. Hopefully, the BJP will mature and find a worthy cause in the next decade or so.

Alternatively, Indian politics could become more personality-dominated""just like American politics. It will then be a question of who is liked and trusted more""Bush or Kerry, Manmohan or Vajpayee, Tony Blair or Michael Howard.

It has already happened in South Indian politics, where MGR showed the way and others followed. One day we may even have a film star or sports star as Prime Minister like we have had chief ministers in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

No one can say that they did a worse job than professional politicians. Perhaps both major political parties should enlist leaders who are telegenic and articulate so that they can win the hearts of people and play down political ideologies. Priyanka is a prime example of this potential trend.

She may yet prove to be the Congress trump card. In time, the BJP may find it necessary to replace Uma Bharti with its own version of Priyanka. Then we will have a combination of ideology and personalities to choose from. That is the essence of democratic choice. Hopefully, we are on the way to that stage of maturity.