The open spat between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its oldest regional ally, the Shiv Sena, over the latter?s controversial linguistic chauvinist platform has brought to the fore the adage about politics requiring permanent reinvention. The BJP-Sena alliance in the state of Maharashtra has seen 25 years of solid partnership. Together, the two constituted the right wing that challenged the Congress party in India?s most industrialised state. For such a special relationship to have hit the doldrums of today, more than the ideological division between a nationalist BJP and a parochial Sena has to be at play.
It bears reminding that the Sena made a tactical leap by espousing Hindutva ideology and embracing the BJP?s predecessor, the Jana Sangh, only in the 1970s after its anti-migrant crusade and militant defence of ?Maharashtra for Marathis? lost appeal among average voters, especially in the increasingly cosmopolitan capital of Mumbai.
The acme of the Sena-BJP combine came in 1995, when the duo capitalised on polarisation of society on religious lines to carve out the first-ever non-Congress government in Maharashtra. Since that all-time-high, the political fortunes of this exclusionist pair have dipped progressively, hitting a nadir by the time of the latest electoral faceoff.
They have a sorry recent track record of losing three successive assembly elections in the state in 1999, 2004 and 2009, the last loss being the most painful due to internal feuding in the Sena and the creation of a breakaway party by ageing Sena supremo Bal Thackeray?s nephew, Raj. One of the grievances espoused by Raj, apart from questioning hereditary leadership succession within the Sena, was that the parent party had moved away from its original championing of Marathis as the ?sons of the soil?.
The recent turn of events triggering a possibly unbridgeable chasm between the Sena and the BJP is a direct outcome of Raj?s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) making a grab for the mantle of the nativist party. The Sena, sans the active charismatic leadership of Bal Thackeray, could not allow its core base to slip away into MNS?s hands and thus began a race to the bottom by upping the anti-north Indian pitch and matching Raj?s abusive campaign against migrant workers with its own muscle-flexing and hate-mongering.
The dilemma for the BJP is whether or not to remain mired in a relationship that is neither yielding electoral dividends in the state nor benefitting its stature as the principal opposition party at the national level, with a bigger canvas of voters to appeal to across the country.
The immediate motive for the BJP to denounce the Sena?s rejuvenated ?Mumbai for Marathis only? credo seems to be calculations that the former might be punished in the upcoming Bihar assembly elections slated for the end of 2010. Violent attacks and deportations of poor Bihari immigrant workers from Mumbai by MNS and Sena hoodlums is likely to be a major talking point in these elections, what with both the leading Bihari parties condemning targeted intimidation of Hindi speakers in India?s commercial capital. For the BJP, it makes electoral sense to sacrifice a declining and defeat-prone Sena in order to salvage its winning horse?local confederates?in Bihar.
Springing to the protection of north Indians in Mumbai also benefits the BJP?s image in its old lost bastion Uttar Pradesh, where there might be yet another reconfiguration of alliances in the tripolar party competition. Should the BJP comprehensively divorce the Sena in Maharashtra, it is also likely to get a second glance from undecided and merit-based voters all over India, who look askance at the reign of terror being unleashed on Hindi-speakers in Mumbai.
This is especially so in the context of the Sena forsaking prudence and launching a wild admonishing spree against national icons like the cricketing legend Sachin Tendulkar and film stars Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan. Somewhere in the BJP high command, one can sense people sighing and saying that the Sena has completely lost the plot and that it would be good riddance to break with it over Marathi ethnocentrism.
Around the world, farsighted politicians and parties have dissociated themselves from extremist allies at the opportune time and reaped handsome electoral benefits. When US President Barack Obama was on the campaign trail for the primaries in 2008, a storm brewed up in the form of his pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose views on racism and American state terror were dug out by Obama?s opponents to frighten voters. After initially critiquing Wright?s remarks without disowning him, Obama nipped the fracas in the bud by resigning membership in Wright?s church and declaring that he was ?outraged? and ?saddened? by the latter?s divisive views. Snapping ties with Wright and issuing a landmark national unification speech proved to be huge boosts for Obama?s eventual success.
In Germany, facing re-election last year, Chancellor Angela Merkel also cut the cord that tied her Christian Democratic Party to its then coalition partner the Social Democratic Party, which had been consistently on the wane in vote share since 2002. After dumping the left, Merkel crafted a new coalition with the pro-business Free Democratic Party, which recorded a stunning lift in national vote share by 4.8% in the September 2009 polls. After rearranging the political furniture of the country, Merkel now has a freer hand in the new dispensation to implement policies of her choice without the deadweight albatross of the socialists.
The BJP?s choice is clear. It can either sever the Sena alliance for good and give itself a new lease of life as a credible national alternative to the Congress or hack at its own feet by patching up with Maharashtra?s enfants terribles.
The author is associate professor of world politics at the OP Jindal Global University