Nearly 30 years ago I wrote an article in this newspaper, saying the BJP’s big problem was that it didn’t have a respectable intellectual peg to hang its coat on. That same morning, I received a call from a very good friend, with strong BJP connections, offering me a chavanni membership. He was also the resident intellectual of the BJP at the time.
The BJP has come a long way since then politically. In that time, it has also managed to develop an intellectual frame, albeit a slender one still, on which it can rely with far greater confidence than it could 30 years ago. This is because two things have changed, primarily.
One, the BJP supporters in academia no longer need a certificate from the Left to prove their academic credentials. Second, a new younger lot of academics is presenting, with erudition and passion, an alternative view of Indian history and culture, never mind that they frame it in group terms, about which more anon. But their hindsight ignores British rule.
Unfortunately, this erudition is absent in the three other main disciplines of the humanities — philosophy, politics, and economics, the famed PPE. There is virtually nothing that comes anywhere close to what the Left has to offer in terms of an integrated system of thought, at the core of which is compassion, over which the Left has been successfully claiming a monopoly.
The result is that the intellectual wing of the BJP, so far, is a one-trick pony. That trick is history. But how much can history do by itself? The BJP therefore needs to encourage alternative research into philosophy, politics and economics but in a way that’s free of religious mythology and dependence on stray obiter in the Hindu texts. As of now there are no signs of this happening.
Take philosophy. Hindu philosophy is very rich, in fact. But a lot of it is about human relationships with God, not human relations with other humans. Metaphysics, however, is not a substitute for political philosophy. Something else is needed.
One very rich seam in Hindu philosophy waiting to be explored is the notion of balance, which is all-pervasive in Hindu thought and forms the bedrock of Hindu approaches to things. But I don’t see any of the younger academics sympathetic to the BJP talking about it. They should start now.
Then there is politics, which is about acquiring power and holding on to it. The BJP has been excelling at it but its political philosophy is not rooted in individuals; it is rooted in groups. That’s why its supporters rattle on about Hindus vs other religious groups. They need to realise that this is nothing more than old-fashioned tribalism garnished with ritualism.
The time has now come for them to move on. Academics who prefer the BJP over other parties need to develop Indian political theories that focus on the individual rather than groups. And that requires exactly the kind of intellectual leap which freed the liberal Left from the class struggle kind of tribalism.
The irony is that Hindu philosophy and political theory have long broken out of such tribalism. Vasudaiva kutambakam is not an empty prescription. It’s fundamental to Hindu thought. It guides everything just as exclusion guides one of the Abrahamic faiths.
And then there’s economics, the third element of the PPE. It’s hard to find an economist who fully approves of the BJP’s approach to economics. And let it be said, tactical policies are just that: Tactical policies. They don’t add up to a coherent body of thought, let alone strategy.
Economics is about how best to combine factors of production — land, labour, capital and technology — to produce things. If the New BJP, as distinct from the older pre-2014 one, has a cogent view of this, it has kept it well hidden. Each problem is solved in separate silos of solutions. No one cares about joining the contents of the silos.
This approach was ok for the first few years but now eight years have elapsed and there is still no sign of policy integration. The economy isn’t a series of leaky pipes and fused bulbs that you fix as and when. That’s why the BJP must harness more economic intellect.
But it is not even trying because it thinks if you take care of the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. That may work for a household, but will it work for a country?