SOROOR AHMED draws a picture of the changed political scenario in which regional and sub-regional parties and forces are playing a significant role in the makeup of Parliament and paving the way for new alliances.
Till mid-1980s the election campaign used to centre on one personality. He or she would make a whirlwind tour of some places a few days before the poll, address a few rallies and would carry away with maximum number of seats. Then came the era of regional satraps gaining acceptability – initially in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. Akali Dal in Punjab also made its contribution. Gradually this phenomenon spread to other states in the later part of the last century. After the Mandal-Mandir development they became popular in North India too.
Today even the regional chieftains are facing challenges as their tribes within their respective states have multiplied. For example in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh etc no single regional leader can walk away with all the votes. Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, Mulayam and Mayawati in UP, Sharad Pawar and Thackerays in Maharashtra, Lalu Yadav, Nitish Kumar and Ram Vilas Paswan in Bihar etc are at each other’s throat.
Then came the era of sub-regional political bosses and even the outlaws doubling as Robin Hoods. Now a strongman or woman can not decide the fate of the entire state. They have to rely heavily on these emerging small forces having influence in the very limited geographical and social areas. For example, till four decades back one Dravidian party was enough to counter the Congress. Then DMK and AIADMK both emerged and alternatively held power. Now PMK, MDMK etc too have become very crucial not only at the state level, but at the national level too. For example the recent re-alignment of PMK has not only thrown all the calculations haywire in Tamil Nadu, but is likely to have impact on the national scene too as this party has a firm hold on a particular caste of that state. In Tamil Nadu the Congress is weak and the BJP hardly exists.
Neighbouring Andhra Pradesh too has its own quota of regional bigwigs though unlike in Tamil Nadu Congress is strong here. In 2004 one Telangana outfit was enough to tilt the balance in favour of the UPA. The regional players are still very crucial there. Maharashtra has a slightly different situation. Here both the Congress and the BJP, the two national parties, are strong so are quite a few regional parties – the Nationalist Congress Party, Shiv Sena, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena and Republican Party representing Dalits. The headquarters of the RSS, though not a political party yet the parent organisation of the BJP, is also in Nagpur in Maharashtra, and plays a role.
In Punjab and Haryana regional parties have been quite active for the last many years, but because these states are small and send less number of MPs, their role is not highlighted much. In West Bengal, like in Maharashtra, a leader, Mamta Banerjee, walked out of the Congress to emerge as a regional political heavyweight.
In Assam the culture of regional parties was the outcome of the students’ movement of early 1980s. It gave birth to the Asom Gana Parishad, which is in alliance with the BJP. Now Assam United Democratic Front, an outfit formed by Muslims, has come up as an important player. Ironically, it now has an election tie-up with the AGP.
In the Hindi-heartland of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh more than sub-regional outfits it is the presence of strongmen in respective districts or divisions, which is cutting into the influence of the regional leaders. For example a Pappu Yadav in Bihar can alter the balance in favour of or against the RJD in at least a couple of parliamentary constituencies or even more. He always had his own independent identity in the Kosi belt of Bihar and had no links with the RJD before 2004 election. Now once again he has severed his link with RJD and is on his own. Raja Bhaiya of UP is also in the same category. In this age of alliances where even one seat matters so much, the presence of such men or women is likely to have significant impact on the outcome of the national election.
So we have come a long way from one Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi to the proliferation of so many very small power centres; this phenomenon in itself needs research. Today not only the two centralised parties are fast losing their hold even the regional outfits and personalities are yielding grounds to a number of muffassil strongmen.
The Congress party managed to make a limited comeback from political wilderness at the end of the 20th century, thanks largely to Sonia Gandhi’s decision to reluctantly accept party leadership. Imagine what may happen to the BJP after Lal Krishna Advani. The erosion in these two parties will further encourage the bargaining position of the regional power-brokers who in turn will be blackmailed by the sub-regional strongmen and women.
In this changing political scenario the rich and powerful may try to adjust according to the situation. Brahmins of UP can make compromise with Mayawati as their castemen have done at some places in South India. But the real difficulty will be for the under-privileged, the weaker sections of the society and minority groups.