State Vs National Politics/Elections

In the April/May national election, the BJP stormed back to power with an even bigger majority than before – by winning an astounding 303 seats. The BJP became supreme. In particular – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP Chief Amit Shah (later Home Minister) became supreme. This supremacy became even stronger on August 5 – when the central government effectively revoked Article 370 and brought Jammu & Kashmir completely under the Constitution. It even went one step further and ended Jammu & Kashmir's statehood – by dividing it into two Union Territories. The Prime Minister and Home Minister were supreme and unchallenged – both as administrators and as political leaders.

Then in October, two states - Haryana and Maharashtra - had their elections. BJP/NDA was the red-hot favourite to win both the state elections. Then came the first shocker. In Haryana, BJP became the biggest party – but failed to get a majority. This was mainly due to the opposition of the biggest caste in the state – the Jats. Eventually (and ironically) BJP was forced to ally with the Jat party JJP in order to form the government. Then came the second shocker. In Maharashtra, BJP's NDA partner Shiv Sena demanded the Chief Minister's post – in spite of it winning lesser seats. When BJP refused, Shiv Sena broke the alliance and joined hands with arch-rivals NCP and Congress to form the government (thus effectively defecting to the UPA).

BJP still has 303 seats at the centre – and the Prime Minister and Home Minister still have complete control over the central government. But their aura of invincibility has been shattered. This is especially so due to the fiasco in Maharashtra – which is India's second biggest state and biggest economy. There BJP lost the state – in spite of it winning the election. The question is: Why did these setbacks happen? And more importantly: What is the solution to them?

The answer is a fundamental truth about Indian politics: national politics and state politics are two completely different ball-games. Therefore – the strategy and tactics that help you to win one game will not help you to win the other game. Specifically – the BJP's victory in the national election was mainly due to 3 factors:
1. The central government's pro-poor welfare schemes
2. The RBI successfully controlling inflation
3. The Prime Minister's popularity

Now none of these factors matter in state elections – which are fought, won and lost exclusively on state issues. The Indian political-administrative system is a two-level system: centre and states. The government at each of the two levels has its own functions to perform. The average Indian voter may still be a poor and illiterate farm-worker in a village. But still, he/she knows the difference between the central government and the state government – and therefore the difference between the national election and the state election.

If that is the case, then what are the important factors in state politics – especially the ones that BJP may be neglecting due to its total command over national politics? We can think of 3 critical factors:

1. Strong State Leaders
A major reason for BJP winning 303 seats at the centre is that Indians want to have a strong leader (Prime Minister). Now why on earth should this basic principle be different at the state level? Do Indians want a strong Prime Minister but a weak Chief Minister? Just as Indians want a strong leader for the country, similarly they also want a strong leader for their state (Chief Minister). And from a national party's point of view, it will be strong only if it has strong leaders at both the levels – centre and states. Central leaders must not see strong state-leaders as a threat – but instead as a strength. One of the key reasons why Congress Party declined is because the insecure Indira Gandhi ruthlessly cut down strong state-leaders and replaced them with weak puppets whose only qualification was their loyalty to her.

2. Managing Caste Equations
A primary reason for BJP sweeping the national election is that a majority of Hindus voted for it – irrespective of their caste. This is a triumph of the Hindutva project – whose aim is to unite all Hindus. In a national election, the unit is the whole country – so Hindutva can succeed fully. But in a state election, the unit is just the state – so state-level caste equations will come into the picture. Caste is the social system of an agricultural society – which India is and will be for the forseeable future. As we modernise (industrialise + urbanise) caste will become obsolete – and Hindutva will succeed fully in state elections also. But till that time, it will be important for a political party to manage each state's caste equations intelligently.

3. Managing Alliances/Coalitions
Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have 100% control over the BJP. But the other NDA parties are a completely different matter. So they cannot treat leaders of other NDA parties the way they treat other BJP leaders. Again – the basic point about the centre and the state being two different systems is relevant here. That is, there is a national NDA – and there is an NDA in each state. The state-NDA must not be seen merely as an automatic subset of the national-NDA. The state-NDA is an independent entity with its own dynamic – and hence must be treated accordingly. Using the national-NDA's management techniques to manage the state-NDA will lead to sub-optimal outcomes. In this regard, we can remember how Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (one of post-1947 India's greatest leaders) treated the leaders of even the smallest NDA parties.

Thus if the BJP focusses on these 3 factors in state politics, it will enjoy the same success in state politics that it currently enjoys in national politics.

Satyameva Jayate: Life, Career, Success & Truth

'Satyameva Jayate' means 'Only truth wins'. We always interpret this as 'Truth always wins over falsehood'. That is – we think the statement is about truth vs falsehood: so truth wins and falsehood loses.

There is another way of looking at this statement. All of us want to succeed in our lives and our careers. Whenever we are not satisfied with our lives or careers, we read books/articles and watch videos on 'How to succeed'. That is – we look for tips/tactics/techniques on how to succeed. This is a narrow view. The real answer is contained in this timeless line from the Mundaka Upanishad: Satyameva Jayate – only truth wins. So if I am not winning/succeeding, that means only one thing: I am not walking the path of truth; I am not living a life of truth; I am not doing truthful work. That is – the line is not just about truth vs falsehood. It is also about truth vs ME! So I must constantly ask myself: Am I walking the path of truth? Am I living a life of truth? Am I doing truthful work? If I am not, then no amount of tips/tactics/techniques (from books/videos/articles) will help me to become successful.

Hinduism: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism

The most fundamental law of the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the entropy/disorder of a system always goes on increasing. And its corollary is: The only way to reverse this increase in disorder is to supply energy to the system. This law is about physical systems – but it also applies to society. That is – as time passes, a society/culture tends to decay. This is true for all societies/civilisations. India is the world's greatest civilisation not because it is immune to this law (it is not) – but because it makes use of the law's corollary. That is – whenever Indian/Hindu civilisation has shown signs of decay, it has produced great men who injected fresh energy into it and reversed the decay.

The first instance of this happened about 1000 years after the Vedas were composed – ie, around 500 BC. Hinduism had decayed – it had lost touch with Dharma and become filled with empty rituals and ceremonies. Then two great philosophers were born – Gautama Buddha and Vardhamana Mahavira. They founded two new religions – Buddhism and Jainism. By doing so, they restored Hinduism to its foundation of Dharma and thus rejuvenated it.

The second instance happened about 1300 years later – around 800 AD. Buddhism had become widespread but it had decayed – and was weakening Hinduism. Then another great philosopher was born – Shankara. He re-constructed Hinduism on its foundation of Vedas-Upanishads and thus revived it.

400 years later – around 1200 AD, the Turks from Central Asia conquered North India. They started massacring Hindus and demolishing temples – and continued to do so for 300 years. Once again, Hinduism was in crisis. If ever Hinduism needed a reformer and saviour – it was now. In 1469 AD, yet another great philosopher was born – Guru Nanak. He founded a new religion Sikhism and infused new life into Hinduism.

Around 1500 AD, another Central Asian people – the Mughals – conquered North India. They continued the Turks' project of massacring Hindus and demolishing temples. Since Sikhism was revitalising Hinduism, it became a special target. In 1606, Jahangir tortured and executed the 5th Guru Arjun Dev. In 1675, Aurangzeb tortured and executed the 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur. Finally in 1699, the 10th Guru Govind Singh built the Sikh community into an army, fought against the Mughals – and saved Hinduism from being wiped out.

Today on the sacred occasion of Guru Nanak's 550th jayanti, let us remember the sacrifices of the Sikh Gurus and their followers for the sake of protecting Hinduism . . .

The Rama Temple at Ayodhya

The Rama temple at Ayodhya was demolished in 1528 – almost 500 years ago. So from the viewpoint of modern law and evidence, the case for the temple today may not have been 100% solid. But still the Supreme Court unanimously gave the disputed land completely to the temple. Why? The answer is obvious. It is due to the post-2014 and post-2019 political situation in the country. That is – it is due to a Hindu nationalist party winning a majority in two consecutive national elections (with the second majority being bigger than the first).

In theory, a court must give its verdict purely on the basis of law and evidence. But in reality, a court should give its verdict by also considering the larger social context in the country – especially in sensitive cases. This was not an easy verdict to give. The five judges faced the toughest test of their long and illustrious careers – and they passed it with flying colours. Let us thank them. And let us thank the thousands of ordinary men and women who fought this long war. May Lord Rama bless us with wisdom and strength. Jai Shri Ram.