Mr. L.K. Advani cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for the change in his party’s name from Bharatiya Jana Sangh to Bharatiya Janata Party in 1980 and at the same time justify the recent decision to emphasize its RSS roots. The reason is simple. Which is that he cannot tell the truth. When the Janata party disintegrated in 1979, the Jana Sangh leaders were left with no choice but to go it alone. For the Janata had disintegrated on the issue of their continuing association with the RSS and no other Janata constituent was prepared to make common cause with them, though they had been the most cooperative. Logically they should have resumed their old name and identity. But they did not because they had convinced themselves that the old name limited their appeal and that the JP movement culminating in the formation of the Janata Party had created a reservoir of goodwill and support which they would be able to take over at least partly if they called themselves by a similar name. So they renamed themselves as the Bharatiya Janata Party (Bharatiya being the connecting link with the Jana Sangh). They also donned a Gandhian garb with the same purpose in view – extension of their appeal to wider sections.
This hope has not been fulfilled in the last six years. If anything, the BJP today enjoys smaller appeal than the Jana Sangh did in the seventies. The reasons for it are complex and cannot be discussed here. But the most important should be mentioned. Mrs. Indira Gandhi recognised in 1982 or 1983 – it is difficult to fix the date more accurately – that the Hindus in north India were beginning to feel concerned over the danger to the country’s unity and integrity as a result of the resumption of US military aid to Pakistan, the Akali agitation on the basis of the Anandpur Sahib resolution which at the very least sought permanent Sikh hegemony in Punjab under their auspices, mass conversions of Harijans in south India and the decline of the Congress party in non-Hindi-speaking areas. As it happened, she herself thought in similar terms. So there was a convergence between her platform and the popular mood in north India. The BJP was the main sufferer, first in the Union Territory of Delhi and in the Jammu region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
It is likely that the party would have suffered even if it had resumed the old name and identity. The Hindus in north India, especially in Punjab, adjoining Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Territory of Delhi, were looking for a strong leader capable of meeting the threats they thought the country was facing. Obviously Mrs. Gandhi alone could be that leader, particularly because she was in command of the state machinery. But the reverses inevitably spread demoralization in the BJP. It is symbolic that the then party chief, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, should have gone abroad during the elections to the state legislature in Jammu and Kashmir. The reverses also led to a sharpening of the criticism of the leadership by RSS cadres who had felt uneasy with Mr. Vajpayee’s personality, style of leadership and views. Since then it has been only a matter of time before he stepped down and someone more acceptable to the RSS cadres by virtue of his more unequivocal commitment to their ideology would take over. This has finally happened. The surprise, if any, is that the change has taken so long to materialize. Understandably, Mr. Advani cannot discuss all this in his speeches, statements and interviews. These, therefore, can only confuse the issues.
In view of what has been said above, it is superfluous to raise the question whether the change will help reactivate the RSS cadres, who were said to have become lukewarm towards the BJP, and whether it will enable it to win widersupport among the Hindus. The change is the product of developments which began in the early eighties; it is not related to the challenges facing the party now. Even so the question is being posed. The short answer is that it is impossible to answer it. Mr. Vajpayee’s oratorical skill gave the BJP an advantage which it cannot possibly retain under Mr. Advani. Mr. Advani is a better organizer and his personal life-style and leadership style are closer to the RSS ideal. These are, however, peripheral issues in the context of the upheaval we are witnessing and are almost certain to witness in north India in coming years. In plain terms, the BJP’s future will depend not on what it does but on how well or badly Mr. Rajiv Gandhi handles the problems confronting the country. The so-called ideological distinction Mr. Advani and his colleagues are raising has less than little relevance to the rough and tumble of the current political scene. We can discuss “Gandhian Socialism” and “integral humanism” in our drawing rooms. But the pace is being set by the terrorists in Punjab and the passions which the Ram Janambhoomi-Babari mosque controversy has unleashed.