Quite recently; Indian voters decisively rejected Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu Nationalist Bharti Janata Party [BJP] in regional elections of Bihar; BJP was routed by a “Grand Alliance” of opponents, winning just 53 seats out of a possible 243. It was a sort of referendum on Mr Modi’s leadership as he had personally addressed more than 30 rallies in the populous and impoverished state of Bihar during this bitterly fought campaign.
The BJP tried to stir up religious tensions, specifically targeting Muslims, with a polarising strategy designed to ensure the support of the Hindu majority but the general populace completely rejected efforts to divide them. Scheduled casts of Hindu religion went more worried.
Prime Minister Modi tried to control the election campaign through his known gimmicks of early morning yoga, vegetarian diet syndrome and Hindu nationalist slogans but could not succeed. He had completely ignored the domestic issues, popular demands and, above all, BJP’s own local leadership. During the last general elections PM Modi had promised jobs and growth for Bihar’s about 96.5 million populations but did nothing in practice.
Referring to the ‘Independent dated 9th November 2015’, a Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research pointed out that:
“People elect chief ministers who perform and deliver for the common person; but Mr Modi didn’t have an economic success story to offer.
Some of Mr Modi’s proposed measures, including an overhaul of the tax system and changes to land laws have been frustrated by the upper house of parliament, where the BJP does not hold a majority.”
BJP’s official note admitted that “On the development agenda that we wanted to project, we lost in the perception battle.” The Bihar tragedy was the BJP’s biggest electoral setback since coming to power, after losing Delhi earlier this year – all due to rising intolerance in India. Since BJP started claiming India as a Hindu nation; launched campaigns against intermarriage with Muslims, sought to rewrite school textbooks reflecting Hindu nationalism and putting ban on the slaughter of cows – India’s secular image vanished.
PM Modi attracted global criticism for failing to rein the responsible entities for that menace; though most leading Indian writers, including the Prize winner Arundhati Roy, had returned their prestigious national awards in protest. India’s Central Bank Governor Raghuram Rajan and the nation’s most beloved Shahrukh Khan also raised their voices very loud.
Prime Minister Modi tried hard to make India shine at global arena, urged dozens of countries for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for India; would also be addressing thousands of the Indian nationals [Indians cannot keep dual nationality like Pakistanis] at the Wembley Stadium London BUT his failures in his own homeland made him pathetic and fragile from inside.
The fact remains that Bihar’s Chief Minister, Nitish Kumar – who led the coalition of rival parties – has been credited for his strategy, determination and hard work for boosting its infrastructure and cleaning up its reputation for corrupt politics. The province was once considered one of India’s most backward regions and badly reputed for its mega corruption scandals – today it seems much better and rising.
BUT Pakistan is living with even more blurred picture. The country has no NATIONAL political party now. The ruling PML[N] keeps strength only in Punjab, it has no mentionable representation in Sindh; PPP is confined to the Sindh only with no more voice in Punjab, Khyber PK or Balochistan; PTI is for Khyber PK and Punjab at the moment; the religious parties JU[I] and JI have become district level parties – coming up only from DI Khan and Dir respectively.
Why the one head or two members’ parties do not join hands together or amalgamate into bigger ones – only to keep their bargaining positions alive. It points towards their intellectual dishonesty or corrupt minds or separatist mentalities or lust for monetary objectives or all similar virtues.
When our political elite would come up with proper stuff of national character with national agenda and with nationalist emotions.