123 and two half girlfriends

In this season of Internet jokes on politics, let me also make a humble contribution. If Chetan Bhagat were to write a book on the BJP's rise in Maharashtra today, what would he call it? What else but 'Two Half Girlfriends'. Even better, since he so loves numbers in his titles, '123 and Two Half Girlfriends'. I am not sure this has any viral potential, but it sure is a better way of explaining the BJP's delicious non-dilemma in India's second largest state. Funnily, this also underlines the state of the Congress party, the jilted loser.

This is how it works, and the reason we call it the BJP's non-dilemma. Elections in 2014 have established that as far as political theatre goes, the BJP is the only show in town. This had become evident in many individual defections so far. But now, Sharad Pawar and his NCP's mass, and cutely unconditional, defection is a first in our politics. Since we had political history before the Internet and Google, and because Haryana has also just had an election, it is tempting to compare this with Bhajan Lal's en masse defection to the Congress (from the Janata Party) in Haryana with his MLAs as Indira returned to power in the summer of 1980. Overnight, therefore, a Janata chief minister and his cabinet had become the Congress's. Pawar's turnaround does not sound so spectacular, but for sheer thick-skinned shamelessness, he has stolen a march over Bhajan Lal. At least Bhajan Lal had a deal in hand. Pawar is knocking at the BJP's door, begging bowl in hand. That pretty much accounts for the first of our two half girlfriends.

The second is even more miserable. Because, unlike Pawar, whose politics has always been "flexible" (remember how Pranab Mukherjee had once sized him up brilliantly by saying that Pawar always gives mixed signals), the Shiv Sena's politics, as well as, I dare say, economics, is based on bluster, bullying and bombast. Its balloon has been pricked by this election result. It is finally reduced to the BJP's B-team in the only state it matters in and to a loss of influence it had never suffered under Balasaheb even when not close to power. If it stays away from the BJP, it loses its ownership of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), which is the fiscal fuel of its politics.

It's been generally said that the most significant story behind the latest election results is the audacity of the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah duo in going it alone in both states. But the story is deeper. It is of the BJP's focus, its leadership's strategic vision and the commitment of its cadres. It was a relatively marginal player in Maharashtra, and then Pramod Mahajan's murder was a setback. Yet, it stayed the course. If you study the results of successive elections carefully, you can see the BJP's vote percentages and seat share rising, a trend affirmed in the 2009 Assembly Elections. It hung on to the Sena's kurtatails as long as it needed to, and is now torturing them by pretending to deny them its own.

It will be tempting to blame only Uddhav Thackeray for this decline. But the strategic blunder that exposed the Sena's flanks and front was made by Balasaheb when he shifted his brand-positioning from Maharashtravad to Hinduvad. The Sena grew originally in response to the Left's control of Mumbai's trade unions, and the Congress had then happily employed it against that common enemy. The Sena was also reported to have occasionally "collaborated" in elections with the Congress. As long as it spoke, bullied and rioted for Marathi Manoos, it had its place. But the day Balasaheb shifted to Hindutva, probably inspired by the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the Sena became an adjunct to the BJP. It worked well while the genteel Vajpayee-Advani generation was in control. They maintained a liberal, secular, inclusive facade, and the Sena could hit the headlines with its antics to the right of them. But Modi's rise changed it all. He was the real, unapologetic spokesman of Hindutva and there was no way the Sena could fight him in the state. It was too late now to return to Maharashtravad. It is a blunder Uddhav acknowledged to his senior partymen, but he had three problems. One, he did not have the stature to alter a position established by Balasaheb. Two, cousin Raj had already moved into the Manoos niche. And three, he left it too late, whether his choice was a strategic course-correction or ekla-chalo-re break-up with the BJP. The BJP, meanwhile, kept infiltrating and encroaching his territory. Modi can now sit back, set up a minority government and defy the Sena to bring it down by voting with the Congress. First of all, the NCP, fearing for its life, won't let it happen. And if it does, a fresh election would destroy what is left of the Sena. Now you know why the BJP can toy with both as half girlfriends.

A different strategy was employed in Haryana. There was no loyalty to Kuldeep Bishnoi's party and the Lok Sabha results had shown how little it counted for. The BJP's audacity lay in saying no to Chautala and certain victory. It chose to ride its luck and pluck in a state where its highest score on its own symbol (as Jan Sangh, 1967) had been 13 out of 90. For an electorate tired of feuding dynasties, the BJP offered a unique new choice. This success, you'd presume, would now embolden it to distance itself from its last remaining ally, the Akali Dal, also a family-run enterprise Punjab voters are fed up of.

Contrast this with the way the Congress has performed in states which it controlled either with allies, or even directly. In Tamil Nadu, it has had, on and off, a Dravidian ally for decades and has won many elections with it. But it has so completely failed in establishing its own presence, cadre and credibility in the state that, left without an ally in 2014, it lost all 39 seats. Its state organisation is non-existent, and leaderless. Tamil Nadu is an important case study because through the decades, both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi have been widely loved and admired here. But their party was lazy in sitting back and ceding the state to the local ally. This lack of conviction became evident as within months of Rahul Gandhi enrolling lakhs of members in his Youth Congress, nearly 90 per cent had deserted. Compare this with what the BJP achieved in Maharashtra, in a similar situation.

In Seemandhra (another large state where the Congress scored zero in May) as well as West Bengal, the party has let its breakaway leaders (Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy and Mamata Banerjee, respectively) steal its political space. In both now, the BJP is replacing it as the preeminent national party, leaving the regional rulers the option of fighting it, or submitting to it. Chandrababu Naidu is a BJP partner and had better watch his flanks closely now. Mamata is clever enough to know that the BJP is the new rising force in her state even as the Left declines and the Congress disappears.

This is the larger message of these state elections. That the BJP is the new Congress nationally. And the Congress is far from convincing us yet that it can even be the old BJP. That is the most tantalising conclusion after this round of politics.

Postscript: My first major political story was a cover for this magazine in January 1985 headlined "The Opposition: In the Wilderness" . This was after Rajiv Gandhi's wave. He boasted, in fact, that he had declared a 10+2+3 system for the three major opposition groups. The lowest, 2, belonged to the BJP. But the BJP was not giving up.

Both Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani gave me time, in spite of my lack of years, and spoke freely. As did Chandra Shekhar and Ramakrishna Hegde. Such a contrast from the Congress of today which outsourced its defence to valiant Mani Shankar Aiyar. But the response of BJP leaders was the most significant, and prescient. Advani was determined, as you'd expect. He said his party would have to return to a clearer ideological position, and grow out of its alliance mindset, as that set its politics purely in terms of anti-Gandhi family. Vajpayee was more morose but philosophical, and looked ahead. "Sitaaron se aage jahan aur bhi hain (there is a universe beyond the stars as well)," he said to me, and admitted the opposition had erred in making anti-Indira-ism its only slogan. "Once Indiraji was gone, we had nothing to say against Rajiv," he said. But as I look at the archived pages, another of his statements stands out. He said all politics had to become younger now. He also said that his party had promising young leaders like "Pramod Mahajan in Bombay and Arun Jaitley in Delhi". Remember, this was January 1985, and both of these leaders were just over 30. For the BJP, Modi and Shah have neatly replaced Vajpayee and Advani. The question for the Congress: who are your Advani, Vajpayee and then Mahajan and Jaitley? Or, do you even have the players and a gameplan?