Infiltrators, inheritance and desperation

AS the second phase of this long-drawn-out election gets over, there is a feeling of déjà vu. The BJP is back to its polarising tricks and the Opposition, as usual, is tying itself in knots — a very familiar but distressing poll-time show. The question that begs an answer is: Why did PM Narendra Modi bring in the Muslim factor at the Banswara rally in Rajasthan on April 21? And what a way to do that — Ghuspaithiye (inflitrators), mangalsutra and ‘those with more children’ were all references made in the same speech.

Communal signalling is what the cadre terms as an emotional pitch. But even going by this argument, it is clear that the BJP cannot afford to be complacent.

Now, this election speech is being dissected and analysed to understand the reasons for the detour from development to disharmony, from spaceships to sectarian schisms, from grand aspirations to gali galauj. Is it poll-time panic? Is the Opposition gaining ground and the BJP in an existential crisis? It is but normal for any political outfit to step back into its safety zone when the going gets tough.

So, the easy assessment is that the first-round turnout on April 19 and its response have made the BJP and the Sangh Parivar leadership worried, leaving them with the sole option of using the religion card. PM Modi was supposed to have made a stopover in Nagpur on April 20. Did the RSS leadership offer him negative feedback? Such questions are being bandied about while trying to understand the lay of the poll land: is the going getting tough for the BJP?

This writer happened to be in Udhampur on April 20, where the BJP’s Dr Jitendra Singh is facing a much tougher contest this time than earlier. The Muslim consolidation against the BJP appeared to be strong. One needs to wait till the results to be sure about the role of Ghulam Nabi Azad’s Democratic Progressive Azad Party in splitting Muslim votes there.

If the Muslim consolidation against the BJP is complete and the Hindu response is lukewarm, Modi’s Banswara speech can be analysed better. It simply means the warning bells are going off. Then the surveys showing unemployment and price rise as dominant poll-time discussion points may actually be influencing non-communal Hindus. If not a tidal wave of anger against the Centre, at least a lack of enthusiasm is on display.

This is all that is needed for a regime change in a regular election; hence, it necessitates the incumbent to make the polls irregular by bringing in the Muslim factor. While critics may term it a dog whistle by the BJP to polarise the voting pattern on religious lines, it is undoubtedly an attempt at communal signalling during electioneering. And the message Hindu khatre mein hai renders itself for easy translation into the electoral signal of the BJP being in trouble.

Well, BJP insiders insist that the PM’s Banswara speech is not about the party being in trouble but about tackling the cadre’s complacency by turning on the ‘emotional pitch’. Communal signalling is what the cadre terms as an emotional pitch. But even going by this argument, it is clear that the BJP cannot afford to be complacent and would have to fight hard to clinch every seat.

The imponderable in such a situation is whether communal signalling is enough, whether it is all that a party can do to transcend complacency or even apathy arising out of economic distress. If the people’s mood is influenced by inflation and joblessness, it is a case of anti-incumbency, which cannot be overcome merely by communal signalling. Beyond the Muslim factor, there ought to be a pro-incumbency ‘Modi factor’ to win these elections. And that is being put to the test.

While the BJP is getting tested, the Congress is confusing the voter instead of happily waiting to let the anti-incumbency votes accrue. Rahul Gandhi is talking about an X-ray to find out which community has gained what. But this X-ray, of course, does not show which community has gained what within the Congress elite. This attempt at a caste-based scrutiny of empowerment can become counterproductive if it alienates the intermediary castes.

Meanwhile, Sam Pitroda, the adviser to the father, mother and children, is talking about inheritance tax — a wonderful idea, only to be rejected by the Congress’ rich supporters and then by the party itself. When the Congress claims to be focusing entirely on the poor, the idea of inheritance tax sits well within the framework of a pro-poor agenda. Why shouldn’t the filthy rich be taxed, particularly those who have amassed wealth through dubious means? They should be taxed as their laundered wealth is inherited by the next generation.

The Congress and its supporters have rejected the idea straightaway because inheritance is all that the party and the Nehru-Gandhi family can boast of. While there ought to be a tax on any inheritance above Rs 15-20 crore (the tax could be as little as 15 per cent, just to make the inheritors understand the value of undeserved windfall), there should also be a political inheritance tax. No son or daughter should become an Assembly or parliament poll candidate without spending 15 years in a constituency working for the party and the people. That would make the inheritance tax of 15 per cent and 15 years seem reasonable.

Rahul talks about revolution as if he is some Mao or Stalin. Delusions of grandeur apart, he could not make his X-ray of injustice function in Amethi or Rae Bareli or the rest of Uttar Pradesh when he was the second-most powerful Congress parliamentarian (the first being the Rae Bareli MP) for 10 years. After all, Uttar Pradesh had elected 21 Congress MPs as late as in 2009. If the election is turning out to be a contest over economic distress, even a debate on inheritance tax will work wonders in a poor country with billionaires who spend thousands of crores on their children’s weddings. But for that, Modi should have expended all his pro-incumbency advantage, which does not seem to be the case.