|
This article analyses the manifestos of the
parties which matter in India’s elections. It is
my contention that there are more similarities
than differences in various manifestos. Minor
differences that exist hardly make a substantial
difference thereby eliminating politics by
installing nude policy.
The Manifest and the Latent
A manifesto means a document of intention and
plan, also giving clues to how a party views
politics. Its aim, however, is to convert voters
to a specific party. Elected to power, no party
has ever delivered one hundred percent what it had
promised in a manifesto. At times, a party elected
to power may also flout what it had promised.
Importantly, everything is not manifest in a
manifesto for things remain latent. The latent
becomes manifest not in a manifesto but in
mobilisations where unsaid is as important as the
contexts in which things are said.
Three parties with a pan-India appeal are: The
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) and the Indian National Congress (Congress).
The main contest is between BJP and the ruling
Congress party. The AAP is a new party, known for
its opposition to corruption. Since last year its
urban appeal has widened to emerge as a
significant pan-India force, fielding its
candidates in 385 of the 543 constituencies.
The Similarities
Comparing manifestos of these parties one is
struck by their similarities. The differences
among them are minor and more in modalities and
degrees, less so in the substance of politics.
Consider similarities first.
Economy
The AAP, the BJP and the Congress all promise new
jobs: the AAP and the BJP promise “millions of
jobs”, the Congress does “100 millions” (all
quotes from the respective manifestos). All three
parties present no alternative to a free market
economy. Given the known positions of the Congress
and the BJP on economy, only AAP was expected to
offer an alternative.
However, the AAP doesn’t. It simply wishes to
“clean” the economy that already exists. It
opposes a tiny branch of capitalism, “crony
capitalism”. AAP’s economy is “neither Left nor
Right” but “in the interest of India”. This
resembles the “Third Way” of former UK Prime
Minister Tony Blair and Anthony Giddens, a British
sociologist.
 |
| India's
Prime Minister Singh and Chief of
India's ruling Congress party Gandhi
holds their party's election manifesto
in [Reuters] |
They all favour entrepreneurs and businesses with
minimum government regulations. To the BJP, the
regulations signify “tax terrorism” (BJP admits
that the state also enacts terror because tax is
imposed by the state). AAP adds “honest” before
businesses. “Black money” they all oppose.
Each party promises to fight corruption and price
rise. They all endorse public-private partnership
in economy. They stand for health to all. The
words are same: “quality healthcare”. The promise
of education to all is also common.
Over 90 percent of workforce is in unorganised
sector where the poor struggle for their daily
lives. No party structurally aims to better their
lot. The AAP, which claims to be a common man’s
party, shows its utter elitism when it promises to
fight contractualisation of teachers, doctors and
so on but says little about the unorganised sector
except “to regularise their working condition and
space”.
The AAP, the BJP and the Congress promise to
improve the working condition of the poor
multitude without questioning the very violent
systemic condition which produces the poor.
Moreover, the poor are not an end in themselves
but a bare means to India’s rise.
All the three parties promise food security, the
difference is merely in semantics.
Social Groups
The AAP, the BJP and the Congress also bear
similarities vis-à-vis various social groups. All
champion the cause of the Other Backward Classes,
Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Supporting
the reservations of these groups in public sector,
the AAP and the Congress promise more. BJP doesn’t
mention reservation implying it to be “tokenism”.
It claims to combine “social justice” and
“harmony”. They all promise to ensure safety to
and non-discrimination against women. They all
support 33 percent reservation for women in
Parliament and state Assemblies.
International Relations and Security
Though articulations vary, sentiments of what the
BJP calls the “resurgent India” and her “rightful
place in the comity of nations” are common.
Embracing neo-realism, the BJP aims to orient
foreign policy “through pragmatism” and
“enlightened national interests” to achieve “one
India, superior India”, a slogan that is
manifesto’s title. The Congress party promises to
get India’s permanent membership to the UN
Security Council. Is it not demeaning for world’s
largest democracy to join the exclusive,
undemocratic Security Council of the powerful
states rather than demand its democratisation for
the world? How can the Congress’ claim for an
“inclusive vision” be serious when it aspires to
be exclusive?
 |
| Delhi's
former chief minister and Aam Aadmi
(Common Man) Party (AAP) chief Arvind
Kejriwal (C), hold their party's
manifesto [Reuters] |
The AAP shares the idea of a resurgent India and
believes in “supplementing India’s meaningful
engagements with the US” with the conglomerates of
the states like BRICS and IBSA. The AAP and the
Congress mention China in relation to border
disputes; stressing continued trade relations
between the two. No “non-emerging” country of
Latin America or Africa is mentioned in the AAP’s
manifesto.
They all invoke “cross-border terrorism” and vow
to combat it. Whereas the BJP and the Congress
name Pakistan, the AAP doesn’t. The AAP and the
BJP reiterate that “Kashmir is an integral part”
of India.
Note that what is integral is Kashmir, not
Kashmiris.
The BJP and the Congress share the hegemonic
discourse on terrorism, the former committed to
the “uniform international opinion on issues like
terrorism and global warming”. For the BJP,
terrorism is science the way global warming is
and, therefore, the opinion must be “uniform”, not
multiple. Why should democracies central to which
is plurality of views have a “uniform” opinion on
terrorism?
To fight terrorism, the BJP and the Congress
stress heightening of intelligence and
coordination among the state agencies. To this,
the AAP adds addressing the “root causes of
citizens’ disaffection” and humanising draconian
laws. The BJP and the Congress speak of peace and
war in the same breadth.
Given that India is “world’s largest importer of
weapons”, the AAP, the BJP and the Congress all
call for “indigenous” production of weapons and
war technology. Is there no tension between the
longing for indigenisation of weapons of mass
violence and simultaneous chanting of non-violence
which the AAP extends to animals? Why there is no
discussion on indigenisation of life-saving
medicine due to which millions die or agricultural
seeds that contributed to thousands of suicide by
farmers?
The Differences
The apparent key differences relate to: 1)
construction of Ram Temple over the site of the
Babri Masjid illegally demolished by the BJP and
its allies, 2) abrogating the article 370 which
makes special provisions to Kashmir, 3) passage of
Uniform Civil Code (aimed, inter alia, at
replacing the Muslim Personal Law), and 4)
legislation to “protect and promote cow”. These
issues figure in BJP’s manifesto under the title
“cultural heritage” (as if they are not
political).
 |
|
Hindu
nationalist Narendra Modi, the prime
ministerial candidate for Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), BJP President
Rajnath Singh (2nd L), party leaders
hold copies of election manifesto [Reuters]
|
That these issues don’t figure in AAP’s or
Congress’ manifestos don’t mean they necessarily
oppose them. As it was evident and the
investigative website Cobrapost confirms
it, the plan for Babri Masjid’s demolition was known
to the then Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao (and
top leaders) who belonged to the Congress.
The Congress allegedly acted in favour of the
demolition by not acting against those who it knew
would demolish the 16th century mosque. With
planned erasure of the mosque from visual public
sphere, does the construction of Ram temple look
remote? Though AAP doesn’t state it clearly, some
may interpret its statement on Animal Welfare to
justify cow protection.
The Congress occasionally and
non-antagonistically reprimands the BJP on these
issues. So does the AAP.
However, it is one thing to publicly disapprove
of the BJP, quite another to launch an honest
ideological movement against it.
Why is it that of the 17 questions AAP’s Arvind
Kejriwal posed to Narendra Modi, none pertained to
the 2002 pogrom against Muslims under Modi’s rule
in Gujarat? Is it a mere coincidence that the
lives of over 50,000 Muslims terrorised to live in
camps in Muzaffarnagar in the wake of communal
violence last year are not an election issue for
the three parties?
Why does the AAP define corruption predominantly
in financial terms to exclude planned violence by
the so-called civil society outfits and the role
of authorities in that violence? What politics
does the AAP enact by monopolising the definition
of corruption and then rendering it as the problem
in/of politics?
Elections and Freedom of Choice
Elections seemingly offer freedom of choice. In
its manifesto, the Congress calls itself “the only
natural choice”. From the analysis here, one is
led to aver that the choice among the APP, the BJP
and the Congress is far from a real, substantial
choice. On most issues they converge. The
differences among them are over policies, not
politics as Jacques Rancière reads it.
Elections lead to change in the government and
policies. However, seldom do they lead to change
in raison d'état, which may allow any change
except its own. Set apart by centuries, India’s
Chanakya and Italy’s Machiavelli share this point.
The views expressed in this article
are the author's own and do not necessarily
reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
|
