There is of course the hope that the BJP will settle into a right of centre party in broadly economic terms. But there is no evidence of this. Even if we grant Modi substantial credit for Gujarat’s economic success, it is not a nationally replicable model. Its core is not an ideology but an efficient authoritarianism. We may clamour for it, but let us not call it ideology. After Vajpayee, it has consistently had a leadership vacuum. If one measure of the longevity of a party is its ability to attract the next generation, the brute fact is that the BJP does less well than the Congress. Modi is the obvious face of the next generation in the party. But the baggage he carries, and never fails to remind one of, will place limits on his possibilities, unless there is a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. But it is more likely that all the others in the second tier of the BJP, who with the exception of Shivraj Singh Chauhan, have no base. And as weak leaders most of them are likely to gang up against someone capable of wielding real power over them. One sign in the Congress’s favour is that in the age group thirties and forties, it has a more plausible cast of characters than the BJP.

Advani was right in one sense. Singh attacked him personally. But what was meant for him could have easily been applied to the party. Its biggest ideological asset is to convert strength into weakness. Its entire politics was constructed around the majority as a helpless victim, unable to stand up for itself. In a way, this demeaned most Hindus even more than it demeaned the BJP’s opponents. But its problem is that without that “hurt” factor nothing makes it distinctive. So it has to once in a while keep reverting to it. Why else would a supposed strongman like Modi be so upset if someone simply pointed out that internal communalism is a serious danger to India?

... contd.