When I fail to communicate properly due to my various limitations, particularly in English, I am easily misunderstood and backfired. I deserve it. Particularly when it comes to politics, I am not only a layperson but even an uneducated one in Indian political science. So it is better for me to keep away even from commenting on politics. But being an ‘ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN,’ I found it difficult to keep quiet in this area also. There is lots of misconception about my political view, particularly my {issue-based} support and opposition for Congress, particularly against any kind of dynastic politics. Though I have had various dialogues on this issue at various times, still as I am unable to communicate properly, I was more misunderstood. So I have decided to write one more to communicate on this issue.
Next is that instead of presenting my view in a precise way, I wring lengthy brainstorms. This is my shortcoming as I try to cover my point from various views and also try to bring so many points in one brainstorm. Well, those who become bored with such brainstorms have the option to ignore by not reading.
The following dialogue between me and another person who developed some kind of ‘Modi phobia’ illustrates this. As usual, I changed his name. But he is not alone, and in the recent past, I had a similar but more vigorous dialogue with another person—not to defend Modi or BJP but to help them understand my position as an Indian, though I failed. Though I might repeat, I might post that dialogue also separately.
[29/05, 10:57 a.m.] Modi phobia: Italywallah {Sonia and Rahul} and chaiwallah {Modi} have to both go.
[29/05, 10:57 a.m.] Modi phobia: We need a kejriwal
[29/05, 2:40 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: One chaiwalla might go, but that won’t affect BJP because it is not a party based on a person but on ideology. Whereas, though Arvind Kejriwal is successful in Delhi, he too will be crippled if he gets power either in another state or at the center. Delhi is nothing but like a small municipality in India, but handling a huge country like India, which has a federal structure where local politics dominates more. When one sits on the chair, then alone will one begin to feel the heat. Regarding dynastic politics, as it will perish within two or three generations, only any party with a clear ideology, agenda, and grassroots network, as BJP has with the back support of the Sangh Parivar, will survive in the long run. So individuals are never a matter for it.
[29/05, 5:15 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: Arvind has another advantage. As the national capital, both the center and Delhi government share several administrative responsibilities. So when he faces a problem in some areas, he can blame the center and where he is doing well, he can take credit. This does not mean that I am not giving any credit to Arvind. Not knowing the complexities of Indian politics, anyone can pass any comments on any Indian politicians.
[29/05, 10:10 p.m.] Modi phobia: Don’t assume one does not read or know. There are better leaders within the BJP.
[29/05, 10:10 p.m.] Modi phobia: One reads but doesn’t watch TV; hope one is aware by reading alone.
[29/05, 10:11 p.m.] Modi phobia: Federal structure has become more like China.
[29/05, 10:16 p.m.] Modi phobia: I don’t want to go on. Because you are a devotee of the current government. I do not want to offend anyone. I am glad they are not in power in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, or Andhra. Their cadre-based ideology will not work here in South India. Even in Karnataka, they can only buy off or threaten MLAs from other parties.
[29/05, 10:18 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: You failed to understand me properly. So I don’t want to clarify it further to you.
This is my final response to state my political view as a patriot.
Before commenting on Modi and BJP, let me point out clearly that if India became like China in federal structure, people like him would be behind bars now or silenced in other ways as China is doing there. As a young democracy, in spite of various shortcomings, having an independent judiciary and free media, neither Modi nor BJP can damage this federal structure.
Though I wrote that I won’t clarify to him further, I still continue to think about it. And this is my response to him or any such people who have developed some kind of phobia against BJP, though they also know well the complexities of Indian politics.
Let me first begin with his last point. I am not a devotee of the present BJP government. Because I never see any central or state government as ‘MY’ government only if BJP or pro-BJP power comes to power either in the central or [Tamil Nadu] state. For example, in the recently held election, I voted against DMK. But once Stalin became CM, I consider him also ‘MY’ chief minister and the present Tamil Nadu government as my government.
To further clarify this matter, let me give another example. When Stalin recently appealed to people to donate money for the Corona relief fund, I sent some. But when this anti-Modi person who had a dialogue with me wanted to arrange some relief material to be distributed either in our ashram area or here where I live, I told him that as I have other responsibilities [particularly taking care of my mother], I suggested he send that money to the Tamil Nadu government relief fund. For this, he wrote, ‘Government is like a black hole when it comes to the little money we give.’ This shows his wrong understanding about the government. However little might be our share, unless we give, no government can face financial challenges only based on its revenues. But though I didn’t vote for Stalin, as I consider him ‘MY’ CM, I sent the money to the relief work.
This is the problem with many Indians. They vote for their favorable party, yet they know that once it comes to power, they cannot trust the politician. Sorry for the repetition. Let me give another example. I was talking with one of my closest friends who voted for DMK in the recent election about sending money for the Corona relief fund. He said, ‘I won’t give. They have [he means DMK] leaders who have looted a lot and piled up enough wealth for several generations. I will give the help directly to those who need it more.’
See, he voted for DMK but never considers the present government as ‘HIS GOVERNMENT,’ knowing the nature of politicians. But I voted not for DMK, but once they came to power, I consider this government as my government and Stalin as my CM.
So like several other Indians, I also want to see India remain a strong democracy and secular country. But the major danger for this comes also from the political parties who neither have no internal democracy in their party and remaining pseudo-secular, using certain sections of the people merely as a ‘VOTE BANK’ by dividing them based on caste and religion. Added to this, dynastic politics also becomes a serious threat to our democracy. However powerful a leader might be, like Mamata etc., in politics, dynastic politics will perish by its own burden and curse within two or three generations as they build up their party based on one person and his or her family.
Whereas, parties like BJP and Communists have ideology-based vision. So no individual is indispensable for them. They can easily replace any person, however charismatic he or she might be. Those who know about the history of Sangh Parivar understand this well. Sangh Parivar, having RSS as its Bhishmacharya [Patriarch], has a clear vision and mission [Hindutva] for India that works slowly and methodically over several decades. They are not in a hurry. What this Hindutva is, is debated. And to understand this well, one should read Christophe Jaffrelot, (ed.) Hindu Nationalism, Permanent Black, Ranikhet, (220&), Paperback, 2009. It is really an excellent book to understand the ideology and history of Sangh Parivar. So I have decided to post the notes from this
book on my blog for those who want to read it.
Though, like several other SECULAR INDIANS, I also do not agree with Sangh Parivar on several areas, considering the current geopolitics in South Asia, unless we have a strong central government with a strong leader at the center, we cannot face the challenges from some of our neighbors like Pakistan and China. As Congress governments failed miserably in several areas, paving the way for BJP to come to power, I support and vote for BJP on an ISSUE BASIS AND NOT WITH ANY VENERATION FOR A PERSON OR HIS PARTY. Several times in the past, I voted against BJP and voted for Congress and DMK for the same reason. However, one might disagree with Modi and even oppose him, he managed to bring an amicable court settlement for the Ayodhya issue which Congress wanted to keep alive for its political interest. Similarly, he took the courage to abolish triple talaq to save the marriage of several Muslim women in spite of facing strong opposition from Muslim religious leaders, which Congress could not do. The way he tried to solve the Kashmir problem is a welcoming step, though we have to wait and watch how it will develop in the future. Here also, Congress failed. Kashmir Pandits, who were persecuted and driven away from their homes and land by militants, finally get some justice, where all the pseudo-secularists failed, keeping only their vote bank politics of minority appeasement.
Only any party with clear principles can survive in the long run with a strong cadre base. And at present, there are only two parties in India—Communist and BJP. Fortunately (or unfortunately), now the Communist party has Kerala as the last burial ground to have a respectable funeral in the future. But in almost all other states, particularly in Bengal, it has been thrown away unceremoniously by the people. See what happened in Bengal. The Communist party, which ruled that state for more than 30 years, now couldn’t win even a single seat in the Assembly. They alone are the major reason for BJP to get this many seats in the Bengal Assembly. As both Congress and the Communist party know well that they cannot come to power in Bengal, they played such politics that they dug their own grave to be buried alive. This is what we say in Tamil: “I won’t mind losing both my eyes, but let my enemy lose at least one eye.” [எனக்கு இரண்டு கண்ணும் போனாலும் பரவாயில்லை என் எதிரிக்கு ஒரு கண்ணாவது போகணும்] We need not talk about Congress. Under the leadership of the Sonia family, it suffocates without any ventilator. There is no one to supply oxygen to it. But this is not good for our democracy.
We need a strong opposition, and for this, at present, we have our hope only in Congress. Urgently, it needs to be reformed and restored. But dynastic politics became the inherited curse to it. Even if the Sonia family wants to give up leadership, other Congress leaders are not ready for it. They depend only on the Sonia family, and several leaders literally venerate them. This family is the last glue holding Congress together even as a national-level party. Remember, several regional leaders like Mamta, Jagan (Andhra), and Rengasamy (Pondicherry) were once Congress people. Unlike the BJP, which allows regional leaders to grow strong, the Sonia family, inheriting from Indira Gandhi, never allowed it. And now the result is visible for all to see. The Sonia family has become like a dog in the manger. Neither can they provide leadership nor allow others to do so.
The same will happen with all other regional parties, which run a one-man show or a one-family show. Even if Stalin wants to give up his power and position as the DMK leader, other district-level leaders won’t accept it as it will pave the way for a power struggle, as we see in AIADMK. I am not a political pundit, but I need not be one to predict the future of AIADMK. Believe me, DMK will be in power for the next ten years. Meanwhile, AIADMK will gradually melt and disappear like other parties such as Vijayakant’s party and other small parties. One need not be surprised if there will come a call in the immediate future after the next election in 2026 for the merger of AIADMK with DMK in the name of opposing communal forces not taking root in Tamil Nadu. Some will go with DMK, and others will join BJP, knowing well that it is better to join BJP, in which they can survive politically, than DMK. Because those who jump from AIADMK, though they will be welcomed and used in election time, will soon be sidelined by the other local DMK leaders who already established a strong local base. I know several such local leaders who switched sides and now have completely disappeared from the political scene. This is part of politics. And BJP is a master in this.
Learning politics from his father, Stalin will be careful enough this time not to allow his local leaders to involve themselves in open corruption as they have done in the past by grabbing land and property from vulnerable people, for which they had to pay a heavy price in the past. He too will do this as his father and he and other district-level leaders have already amassed wealth enough for more than ten generations to sit and eat using their power in the past. Similarly, he won’t allow the Maran brothers, popularly known as ‘KD’ brothers (Kalanithi and Dayanidhi), to use his government to expand their business interests as they did when Karunanidhi was in power. His only aim will be to continue his family legacy to make sure his son Udhayanidhi takes over his mantle. For this, he will be very active and try not to misuse his power as he is doing now. When he visited the Coimbatore area to supervise Corona works, he made it clear to his party members not to come and visit him as he was going there as the CM of Tamil Nadu and not as the party leader. He will also try to concentrate on those areas in which at present AIADMK is strong in the Kongu region, as he made a second visit within one month of assuming his office as CM. This is more a political move than for administration. A CM need not visit a district to supervise the local medical work. But his aim is clear—he is the messiah for the affected people. That is why in his recent visit to Delhi to meet the PM, he requested an AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) hospital in Coimbatore to reduce the influence of AIADMK there. His next aim is to win the local body elections, capturing all the major Corporations and Panchayats. For this, he will woo disgruntled opposition party leaders to come to his side, promising a bright future by giving tickets in this local body election. He will manage to convince his party loyalists to allow them to ‘earn’ for one term (five years) as they can be dumped later.
But however he makes all his political calculations, he too cannot escape from the curse of dynastic politics, which will take a toll on his party after him. Then this will pave the way for BJP to make further inroads into Tamil Nadu. In fact, this is what they want at present. Weaken the regional parties by encouraging dynastic politics, which will perish with the person. At the same time, encourage local BJP leaders to grow, knowing well that finally they will be controlled by RSS. Whereas a party like BJP, which is ideology-based, will work slowly and steadily, where no individual is important, however charismatic he or she might be. They won’t hesitate to replace anyone who becomes an impediment to their ideology—including Modi—as finally, it is RSS who runs the show from behind the scenes. Take for example in Kerala. After winning a second term, they refused to give ministerial posts to any of the previous ministers but brought in new faces to survive at least in one state for some more time. This is the strength of principle-based parties like the Communist and BJP. But see the present DMK cabinet. Most of the ministers are the sons or grandsons of the previous ministers who were with Karunanidhi in his government. Even Stalin cannot do anything overruling them at the district level. Like at the top level, he has to accommodate the same dynastic politics at the district level. They are the local vessels to pay their regular tribute to the king to keep their position. But this will become more of a problem once the new generation of youths begins to decide future election results. Here, a party like BJP, clearly targeting them, has already begun to work.
One thing we should understand clearly: BJP knows very well that most of the so-called high caste people (like Brahmins or Sanskritized non-Brahmins) are with them. They are the ones who run the show even in the Sangh family. They don’t want POSITION or even POWER but only AUTHORITY. In the past also, most of the time, kings had only Brahmins as their Prime Ministers, who also served as their ‘purohit’ [pro + hit = considering the welfare of the king or kingdom]. This legacy still continues. Those PMs never hesitated even to remove the kings from the throne to bring another Kshatriya to rule—both keeping in mind the dharma and their authority. In most cases, it was the kings who sought the help and support of the Brahmins to get legitimacy for their rule, even if they inherited it from their father. Without the support of the Brahmin PMs, rarely did kings manage to rule. Enough has been written about it. Whenever the kings expanded their kingdoms keeping their economic interest and need, they constructed temples, appointed Brahmin priests, and donated land for the Brahmins to move and live there. As one famous Tamil orator recently said, however you suppress and ignore them (Brahmins) politically, finally they are going to be there next with the PMs and CMs. The special economic advisers whom Stalin appointed now demonstrate this clearly. Among all caste groups, Brahmins remain notably mobile, rarely considering any one place as their permanent “home.” They readily relocate wherever opportunities arise, even to other countries. Unlike other communities, who often maintain strong ties to their native places and roots, Brahmins, valuing knowledge as their primary wealth, do not feel bound to any particular land or business. This mobility allows them to exercise authority and influence without relying on local power structures or positions within society.
This being the Indian reality, unless we keep a strong opposition to challenge the power and authority of BJP or any other government in the Centre and State, both democracy and secularism will become weak if not perish.
If the Sonia family leaves and allows other local Congress leaders to revive it, I am ready to support them. However, those leaders might struggle initially, but as they know politics better than Rahul, they will manage to give new life to Congress. Keeping this in mind, I try to point out that when anyone develops any kind of phobia against any individual like Modi or BJP, to confront a party like BJP, which is ideology-based rather than person-based, they need to think soberly and stand for democracy and secularism, not supporting dynastic politics and pseudo-secularism.
Still, I cannot understand one thing when he says, “There are better leaders within the BJP.” Does this mean he is against only Modi and not the BJP as a whole? Does this imply that he supports the BJP’s ideology of Hindutva? This is the point I want to make clear to them. Often, when people begin to hate or oppose a particular individual in any political party, they forget the ideology of that party. However, I want to help them understand the importance of clarity in their stance—whether they support or oppose the ideology of any political party.
Traditionally, our family supported only the Congress party until Kamaraj was its leader. Once Indira Gandhi split the party, we shifted our support. Still, when there was a need, we didn’t hesitate to vote for the Congress (Indira Congress). However, when the Congress began supporting pseudo-secularism, we started supporting the BJP, but not by blindly accepting their ideology. My support for the BJP is more focused on external threats that India faces, rather than internal ones.
So, learn to respect our rulers as the Muktiveda says in Romans. You may not like a particular person in office because of his personality or way of functioning, but this is part of democracy. Of course, there are better leaders than Modi in the BJP, but becoming Prime Minister is not solely the BJP’s prerogative—it’s ultimately decided by the RSS. Modi may have temporary command over his party, but he can only do so with the approval of the RSS. Similarly, there are better leaders than Stalin in the DMK, but political compulsions force him to continue as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The same goes for the Congress, where better leaders exist, but dynastic compulsion dictates the party’s leadership.
But calling our Prime Minister a “chaiwala” is not right. This anti-Modi person lives outside India—would he call Abraham Lincoln a shoemaker? We are proud to have a “chaiwala” as our Prime Minister rather than someone born with a silver spoon. We are proud to have had a “paper boy,” Dr. Kalam, as our President. These leaders reached their positions through hard work, unlike Rahul Gandhi or Udhayanidhi, who are climbing on the shoulders of their family legacies at the national and state levels. I know this might be a politically incorrect statement, but this too is part of democracy—where, unlike in China, we have freedom of expression.
Trump may have gone (whether temporarily or permanently, I am not sure), but Trumpism continues in America. Similarly, Modi may leave office one day, but Hindutva will persist, and this is the significant challenge before us. This doesn’t mean I am against “cultural” and “patriotic” nationalism. But since Hindutva has various interpretations—which even the BJP often changes according to need—developing a phobia against it, or against Modi, won’t serve anyone’s purpose in a democratic country like India.
I understand there is a difference between “nationalism” and “patriotism,” but the line that divides them is very thin and zigzag. To me, every patriot has a sense of nationalism. When she thinks soberly, she expresses her patriotism; when she reacts emotionally, she becomes a nationalist. Ultimately, both temperaments come from the same person, according to the need of the hour.
31-05-2021
Post Script:
I wrote this back in 2021. Now, although Modi failed to secure a single-party majority after the 2024 Parliament election and Rahul Gandhi managed to gain more seats, the situation remains largely unchanged. This underscores that even the BJP cannot rely solely on the charisma of a single leader to win elections; they must continue their strategy of strengthening local leadership. After winning two elections and completing the Ram temple in Ayodhya, the BJP appeared to believe that Modi’s influence alone would suffice, which led to the alienation of some strong local leaders who ultimately abandoned them. Smriti Irani’s defeat serves as a valuable lesson, as local BJP leaders, unhappy with the central leadership, did not support her as they had in the past, resulting in her loss and a Congress victory. However, Congress still relies heavily on alliances with regional parties, who will leverage their position to either maintain their power in their states or make a comeback. Therefore, it would be premature to assume that the BJP’s setback in 2024 will swiftly alter the political landscape in India. For the Sangh Parivar, politics is merely a means to an end, unlike many other parties. Given the dynamic nature of Indian politics, where caste often plays a decisive role in elections, predicting outcomes remains uncertain. However, for a thriving democracy, dynastic politics will continue to pose a significant threat.
Revised on 3-9-2024
Gurukulam
When I fail to communicate properly due to my various limitations, particularly in English, I am easily misunderstood and backfired. I deserve it. Particularly when it comes to politics, I am not only a layperson but even an uneducated one in Indian political science. So it is better for me to keep away even from commenting on politics. But being an ‘ARGUMENTATIVE INDIAN,’ I found it difficult to keep quiet in this area also. There is lots of misconception about my political view, particularly my {issue-based} support and opposition for Congress, particularly against any kind of dynastic politics. Though I have had various dialogues on this issue at various times, still as I am unable to communicate properly, I was more misunderstood. So I have decided to write one more to communicate on this issue.
Next is that instead of presenting my view in a precise way, I wring lengthy brainstorms. This is my shortcoming as I try to cover my point from various views and also try to bring so many points in one brainstorm. Well, those who become bored with such brainstorms have the option to ignore by not reading.
The following dialogue between me and another person who developed some kind of ‘Modi phobia’ illustrates this. As usual, I changed his name. But he is not alone, and in the recent past, I had a similar but more vigorous dialogue with another person—not to defend Modi or BJP but to help them understand my position as an Indian, though I failed. Though I might repeat, I might post that dialogue also separately.
[29/05, 10:57 a.m.] Modi phobia: Italywallah {Sonia and Rahul} and chaiwallah {Modi} have to both go.
[29/05, 10:57 a.m.] Modi phobia: We need a kejriwal
[29/05, 2:40 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: One chaiwalla might go, but that won’t affect BJP because it is not a party based on a person but on ideology. Whereas, though Arvind Kejriwal is successful in Delhi, he too will be crippled if he gets power either in another state or at the center. Delhi is nothing but like a small municipality in India, but handling a huge country like India, which has a federal structure where local politics dominates more. When one sits on the chair, then alone will one begin to feel the heat. Regarding dynastic politics, as it will perish within two or three generations, only any party with a clear ideology, agenda, and grassroots network, as BJP has with the back support of the Sangh Parivar, will survive in the long run. So individuals are never a matter for it.
[29/05, 5:15 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: Arvind has another advantage. As the national capital, both the center and Delhi government share several administrative responsibilities. So when he faces a problem in some areas, he can blame the center and where he is doing well, he can take credit. This does not mean that I am not giving any credit to Arvind. Not knowing the complexities of Indian politics, anyone can pass any comments on any Indian politicians.
[29/05, 10:10 p.m.] Modi phobia: Don’t assume one does not read or know. There are better leaders within the BJP.
[29/05, 10:10 p.m.] Modi phobia: One reads but doesn’t watch TV; hope one is aware by reading alone.
[29/05, 10:11 p.m.] Modi phobia: Federal structure has become more like China.
[29/05, 10:16 p.m.] Modi phobia: I don’t want to go on. Because you are a devotee of the current government. I do not want to offend anyone. I am glad they are not in power in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana, or Andhra. Their cadre-based ideology will not work here in South India. Even in Karnataka, they can only buy off or threaten MLAs from other parties.
[29/05, 10:18 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: You failed to understand me properly. So I don’t want to clarify it further to you.
This is my final response to state my political view as a patriot.
Before commenting on Modi and BJP, let me point out clearly that if India became like China in federal structure, people like him would be behind bars now or silenced in other ways as China is doing there. As a young democracy, in spite of various shortcomings, having an independent judiciary and free media, neither Modi nor BJP can damage this federal structure.
Though I wrote that I won’t clarify to him further, I still continue to think about it. And this is my response to him or any such people who have developed some kind of phobia against BJP, though they also know well the complexities of Indian politics.
Let me first begin with his last point. I am not a devotee of the present BJP government. Because I never see any central or state government as ‘MY’ government only if BJP or pro-BJP power comes to power either in the central or [Tamil Nadu] state. For example, in the recently held election, I voted against DMK. But once Stalin became CM, I consider him also ‘MY’ chief minister and the present Tamil Nadu government as my government.
To further clarify this matter, let me give another example. When Stalin recently appealed to people to donate money for the Corona relief fund, I sent some. But when this anti-Modi person who had a dialogue with me wanted to arrange some relief material to be distributed either in our ashram area or here where I live, I told him that as I have other responsibilities [particularly taking care of my mother], I suggested he send that money to the Tamil Nadu government relief fund. For this, he wrote, ‘Government is like a black hole when it comes to the little money we give.’ This shows his wrong understanding about the government. However little might be our share, unless we give, no government can face financial challenges only based on its revenues. But though I didn’t vote for Stalin, as I consider him ‘MY’ CM, I sent the money to the relief work.
This is the problem with many Indians. They vote for their favorable party, yet they know that once it comes to power, they cannot trust the politician. Sorry for the repetition. Let me give another example. I was talking with one of my closest friends who voted for DMK in the recent election about sending money for the Corona relief fund. He said, ‘I won’t give. They have [he means DMK] leaders who have looted a lot and piled up enough wealth for several generations. I will give the help directly to those who need it more.’
See, he voted for DMK but never considers the present government as ‘HIS GOVERNMENT,’ knowing the nature of politicians. But I voted not for DMK, but once they came to power, I consider this government as my government and Stalin as my CM.
So like several other Indians, I also want to see India remain a strong democracy and secular country. But the major danger for this comes also from the political parties who neither have no internal democracy in their party and remaining pseudo-secular, using certain sections of the people merely as a ‘VOTE BANK’ by dividing them based on caste and religion. Added to this, dynastic politics also becomes a serious threat to our democracy. However powerful a leader might be, like Mamata etc., in politics, dynastic politics will perish by its own burden and curse within two or three generations as they build up their party based on one person and his or her family.
Whereas, parties like BJP and Communists have ideology-based vision. So no individual is indispensable for them. They can easily replace any person, however charismatic he or she might be. Those who know about the history of Sangh Parivar understand this well. Sangh Parivar, having RSS as its Bhishmacharya [Patriarch], has a clear vision and mission [Hindutva] for India that works slowly and methodically over several decades. They are not in a hurry. What this Hindutva is, is debated. And to understand this well, one should read Christophe Jaffrelot, (ed.) Hindu Nationalism, Permanent Black, Ranikhet, (220&), Paperback, 2009. It is really an excellent book to understand the ideology and history of Sangh Parivar. So I have decided to post the notes from this
book on my blog for those who want to read it.
Though, like several other SECULAR INDIANS, I also do not agree with Sangh Parivar on several areas, considering the current geopolitics in South Asia, unless we have a strong central government with a strong leader at the center, we cannot face the challenges from some of our neighbors like Pakistan and China. As Congress governments failed miserably in several areas, paving the way for BJP to come to power, I support and vote for BJP on an ISSUE BASIS AND NOT WITH ANY VENERATION FOR A PERSON OR HIS PARTY. Several times in the past, I voted against BJP and voted for Congress and DMK for the same reason. However, one might disagree with Modi and even oppose him, he managed to bring an amicable court settlement for the Ayodhya issue which Congress wanted to keep alive for its political interest. Similarly, he took the courage to abolish triple talaq to save the marriage of several Muslim women in spite of facing strong opposition from Muslim religious leaders, which Congress could not do. The way he tried to solve the Kashmir problem is a welcoming step, though we have to wait and watch how it will develop in the future. Here also, Congress failed. Kashmir Pandits, who were persecuted and driven away from their homes and land by militants, finally get some justice, where all the pseudo-secularists failed, keeping only their vote bank politics of minority appeasement.
Only any party with clear principles can survive in the long run with a strong cadre base. And at present, there are only two parties in India—Communist and BJP. Fortunately (or unfortunately), now the Communist party has Kerala as the last burial ground to have a respectable funeral in the future. But in almost all other states, particularly in Bengal, it has been thrown away unceremoniously by the people. See what happened in Bengal. The Communist party, which ruled that state for more than 30 years, now couldn’t win even a single seat in the Assembly. They alone are the major reason for BJP to get this many seats in the Bengal Assembly. As both Congress and the Communist party know well that they cannot come to power in Bengal, they played such politics that they dug their own grave to be buried alive. This is what we say in Tamil: “I won’t mind losing both my eyes, but let my enemy lose at least one eye.” [எனக்கு இரண்டு கண்ணும் போனாலும் பரவாயில்லை என் எதிரிக்கு ஒரு கண்ணாவது போகணும்] We need not talk about Congress. Under the leadership of the Sonia family, it suffocates without any ventilator. There is no one to supply oxygen to it. But this is not good for our democracy.
We need a strong opposition, and for this, at present, we have our hope only in Congress. Urgently, it needs to be reformed and restored. But dynastic politics became the inherited curse to it. Even if the Sonia family wants to give up leadership, other Congress leaders are not ready for it. They depend only on the Sonia family, and several leaders literally venerate them. This family is the last glue holding Congress together even as a national-level party. Remember, several regional leaders like Mamta, Jagan (Andhra), and Rengasamy (Pondicherry) were once Congress people. Unlike the BJP, which allows regional leaders to grow strong, the Sonia family, inheriting from Indira Gandhi, never allowed it. And now the result is visible for all to see. The Sonia family has become like a dog in the manger. Neither can they provide leadership nor allow others to do so.
The same will happen with all other regional parties, which run a one-man show or a one-family show. Even if Stalin wants to give up his power and position as the DMK leader, other district-level leaders won’t accept it as it will pave the way for a power struggle, as we see in AIADMK. I am not a political pundit, but I need not be one to predict the future of AIADMK. Believe me, DMK will be in power for the next ten years. Meanwhile, AIADMK will gradually melt and disappear like other parties such as Vijayakant’s party and other small parties. One need not be surprised if there will come a call in the immediate future after the next election in 2026 for the merger of AIADMK with DMK in the name of opposing communal forces not taking root in Tamil Nadu. Some will go with DMK, and others will join BJP, knowing well that it is better to join BJP, in which they can survive politically, than DMK. Because those who jump from AIADMK, though they will be welcomed and used in election time, will soon be sidelined by the other local DMK leaders who already established a strong local base. I know several such local leaders who switched sides and now have completely disappeared from the political scene. This is part of politics. And BJP is a master in this.
Learning politics from his father, Stalin will be careful enough this time not to allow his local leaders to involve themselves in open corruption as they have done in the past by grabbing land and property from vulnerable people, for which they had to pay a heavy price in the past. He too will do this as his father and he and other district-level leaders have already amassed wealth enough for more than ten generations to sit and eat using their power in the past. Similarly, he won’t allow the Maran brothers, popularly known as ‘KD’ brothers (Kalanithi and Dayanidhi), to use his government to expand their business interests as they did when Karunanidhi was in power. His only aim will be to continue his family legacy to make sure his son Udhayanidhi takes over his mantle. For this, he will be very active and try not to misuse his power as he is doing now. When he visited the Coimbatore area to supervise Corona works, he made it clear to his party members not to come and visit him as he was going there as the CM of Tamil Nadu and not as the party leader. He will also try to concentrate on those areas in which at present AIADMK is strong in the Kongu region, as he made a second visit within one month of assuming his office as CM. This is more a political move than for administration. A CM need not visit a district to supervise the local medical work. But his aim is clear—he is the messiah for the affected people. That is why in his recent visit to Delhi to meet the PM, he requested an AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) hospital in Coimbatore to reduce the influence of AIADMK there. His next aim is to win the local body elections, capturing all the major Corporations and Panchayats. For this, he will woo disgruntled opposition party leaders to come to his side, promising a bright future by giving tickets in this local body election. He will manage to convince his party loyalists to allow them to ‘earn’ for one term (five years) as they can be dumped later.
But however he makes all his political calculations, he too cannot escape from the curse of dynastic politics, which will take a toll on his party after him. Then this will pave the way for BJP to make further inroads into Tamil Nadu. In fact, this is what they want at present. Weaken the regional parties by encouraging dynastic politics, which will perish with the person. At the same time, encourage local BJP leaders to grow, knowing well that finally they will be controlled by RSS. Whereas a party like BJP, which is ideology-based, will work slowly and steadily, where no individual is important, however charismatic he or she might be. They won’t hesitate to replace anyone who becomes an impediment to their ideology—including Modi—as finally, it is RSS who runs the show from behind the scenes. Take for example in Kerala. After winning a second term, they refused to give ministerial posts to any of the previous ministers but brought in new faces to survive at least in one state for some more time. This is the strength of principle-based parties like the Communist and BJP. But see the present DMK cabinet. Most of the ministers are the sons or grandsons of the previous ministers who were with Karunanidhi in his government. Even Stalin cannot do anything overruling them at the district level. Like at the top level, he has to accommodate the same dynastic politics at the district level. They are the local vessels to pay their regular tribute to the king to keep their position. But this will become more of a problem once the new generation of youths begins to decide future election results. Here, a party like BJP, clearly targeting them, has already begun to work.
One thing we should understand clearly: BJP knows very well that most of the so-called high caste people (like Brahmins or Sanskritized non-Brahmins) are with them. They are the ones who run the show even in the Sangh family. They don’t want POSITION or even POWER but only AUTHORITY. In the past also, most of the time, kings had only Brahmins as their Prime Ministers, who also served as their ‘purohit’ [pro + hit = considering the welfare of the king or kingdom]. This legacy still continues. Those PMs never hesitated even to remove the kings from the throne to bring another Kshatriya to rule—both keeping in mind the dharma and their authority. In most cases, it was the kings who sought the help and support of the Brahmins to get legitimacy for their rule, even if they inherited it from their father. Without the support of the Brahmin PMs, rarely did kings manage to rule. Enough has been written about it. Whenever the kings expanded their kingdoms keeping their economic interest and need, they constructed temples, appointed Brahmin priests, and donated land for the Brahmins to move and live there. As one famous Tamil orator recently said, however you suppress and ignore them (Brahmins) politically, finally they are going to be there next with the PMs and CMs. The special economic advisers whom Stalin appointed now demonstrate this clearly. Among all caste groups, Brahmins remain notably mobile, rarely considering any one place as their permanent “home.” They readily relocate wherever opportunities arise, even to other countries. Unlike other communities, who often maintain strong ties to their native places and roots, Brahmins, valuing knowledge as their primary wealth, do not feel bound to any particular land or business. This mobility allows them to exercise authority and influence without relying on local power structures or positions within society.
This being the Indian reality, unless we keep a strong opposition to challenge the power and authority of BJP or any other government in the Centre and State, both democracy and secularism will become weak if not perish.
If the Sonia family leaves and allows other local Congress leaders to revive it, I am ready to support them. However, those leaders might struggle initially, but as they know politics better than Rahul, they will manage to give new life to Congress. Keeping this in mind, I try to point out that when anyone develops any kind of phobia against any individual like Modi or BJP, to confront a party like BJP, which is ideology-based rather than person-based, they need to think soberly and stand for democracy and secularism, not supporting dynastic politics and pseudo-secularism.
Still, I cannot understand one thing when he says, “There are better leaders within the BJP.” Does this mean he is against only Modi and not the BJP as a whole? Does this imply that he supports the BJP’s ideology of Hindutva? This is the point I want to make clear to them. Often, when people begin to hate or oppose a particular individual in any political party, they forget the ideology of that party. However, I want to help them understand the importance of clarity in their stance—whether they support or oppose the ideology of any political party.
Traditionally, our family supported only the Congress party until Kamaraj was its leader. Once Indira Gandhi split the party, we shifted our support. Still, when there was a need, we didn’t hesitate to vote for the Congress (Indira Congress). However, when the Congress began supporting pseudo-secularism, we started supporting the BJP, but not by blindly accepting their ideology. My support for the BJP is more focused on external threats that India faces, rather than internal ones.
So, learn to respect our rulers as the Muktiveda says in Romans. You may not like a particular person in office because of his personality or way of functioning, but this is part of democracy. Of course, there are better leaders than Modi in the BJP, but becoming Prime Minister is not solely the BJP’s prerogative—it’s ultimately decided by the RSS. Modi may have temporary command over his party, but he can only do so with the approval of the RSS. Similarly, there are better leaders than Stalin in the DMK, but political compulsions force him to continue as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The same goes for the Congress, where better leaders exist, but dynastic compulsion dictates the party’s leadership.
But calling our Prime Minister a “chaiwala” is not right. This anti-Modi person lives outside India—would he call Abraham Lincoln a shoemaker? We are proud to have a “chaiwala” as our Prime Minister rather than someone born with a silver spoon. We are proud to have had a “paper boy,” Dr. Kalam, as our President. These leaders reached their positions through hard work, unlike Rahul Gandhi or Udhayanidhi, who are climbing on the shoulders of their family legacies at the national and state levels. I know this might be a politically incorrect statement, but this too is part of democracy—where, unlike in China, we have freedom of expression.
Trump may have gone (whether temporarily or permanently, I am not sure), but Trumpism continues in America. Similarly, Modi may leave office one day, but Hindutva will persist, and this is the significant challenge before us. This doesn’t mean I am against “cultural” and “patriotic” nationalism. But since Hindutva has various interpretations—which even the BJP often changes according to need—developing a phobia against it, or against Modi, won’t serve anyone’s purpose in a democratic country like India.
I understand there is a difference between “nationalism” and “patriotism,” but the line that divides them is very thin and zigzag. To me, every patriot has a sense of nationalism. When she thinks soberly, she expresses her patriotism; when she reacts emotionally, she becomes a nationalist. Ultimately, both temperaments come from the same person, according to the need of the hour.
31-05-2021
Post Script:
I wrote this back in 2021. Now, although Modi failed to secure a single-party majority after the 2024 Parliament election and Rahul Gandhi managed to gain more seats, the situation remains largely unchanged. This underscores that even the BJP cannot rely solely on the charisma of a single leader to win elections; they must continue their strategy of strengthening local leadership. After winning two elections and completing the Ram temple in Ayodhya, the BJP appeared to believe that Modi’s influence alone would suffice, which led to the alienation of some strong local leaders who ultimately abandoned them. Smriti Irani’s defeat serves as a valuable lesson, as local BJP leaders, unhappy with the central leadership, did not support her as they had in the past, resulting in her loss and a Congress victory. However, Congress still relies heavily on alliances with regional parties, who will leverage their position to either maintain their power in their states or make a comeback. Therefore, it would be premature to assume that the BJP’s setback in 2024 will swiftly alter the political landscape in India. For the Sangh Parivar, politics is merely a means to an end, unlike many other parties. Given the dynamic nature of Indian politics, where caste often plays a decisive role in elections, predicting outcomes remains uncertain. However, for a thriving democracy, dynastic politics will continue to pose a significant threat.
Revised on 3-9-2024
Gurukulam
Leave a Reply