Elections 1996 - The Emergence of Kathakali Politics

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

No visit to Kerala is complete without witnessing a kathakali

performance. Onstage, actors don masks and change their facial

expressions with kaleidoscopic speed. What keeps the whoops

and grimaces from being frightening is the knowledge that it is

all make-believe; that today’s Ravana will be tomorrow’s Rama,

and that this minute’s growl will change to the next minute’s

laugh.

Malayali audiences regard their politics too as theatre; by not

taking the feints and jabs seriously, the state has avoided much

of the violence associated with its ideological cousin, Bengal. The

roars and abuses hurled at rivals from public platforms may

sound ferocious, but close to the surface is the realisation that it

is all a charade, and that apparent enemies are in reality cousins,

if not twins. Just as there is usually only a small percentage of

votes separating the Congress-led front from the CPM-led one,

there is only a very small shading of policy differences between

them, a difference that is lost on most citizens.

That there appears to be a similar unacknowledged consensus

on many issues between the major players in the national

political stage may be an indication of approaching maturity in

the Indian democratic process. For the same phenomenon can be

seen in two of the most established democracies in the world,

Britain and the US, where rival parties alternate in power with

only a small difference in policies.

An Example 

Such a tendency towards consensus works against those who

seek to sharply define their positions from the rest. V. P. Singh

is an example. The individual who in 1975-80 was a loyalist of

Sanjay Gandhi, presiding over the slaughter of lower caste

"dacoits" by the police while chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, 

metamorphosed into an economic reformer during 1985-86, 

giving the country two very good budgets as finance minister. 

During 1987-91, he donned the avatar of social reformer, pushing 

caste war to the top of the national agenda. In contrast, P. V. 

Narasimha Rao has, since his takeover in mid-1991, focused on 

economic issues. The BJP, which appears to be 'blessed’ with two 

heads, has been moving from one camp to the other, sometimes 

stressing social issues, and at other times the economic. In the 

process, it appears to be confusing some of its sizeable vote bank.

The emergence of consensus-builders over confrontationists

in each of three major troupes in the current political drama

indicates the growth of what may be called middle-class

aspirations in the country. This is to have a reasonable level of

growth and social stability, rather than promote attempts at

pushing forward divisive agendas. Such aspirations now appear

to cut through the more traditional divisions in Indian society,

such as the forwards and the backwards, or the Hindus and the

Muslims. Hence, even on the platform of V. P. Singh and Ram

Vilas Paswan, the emergence of R. K. Hegde, Deve Gowda and

Laloo Yadav as key players. All three are acceptable to the

Congress as potential partners in a way that the first two names

are not.

Odd One Out

In the line-up of the three major formations, the BJP is the odd

one out. This is because the party has yet to understand the

changes brought about by economic progress in the political

chemistry of the land. With affluence—albeit very moderate by

international standards—there is a reluctance to generate tempests

such as those created by demanding the pulling down of

established houses of worship in Kashi or Mathura. While the

Naib Imam of Jama Masjid may not agree with this, the fact

remains that December 6, 1992 was the date when the BJP's

swell began to ebb. The tensions unleashed by the violent

demolition of a house of worship in Ayodhya by so-called

"responsible" leaders of a mainstream party repelled many who

were otherwise drifting towards the BJP.

Thanks to the acceptance by the Rao government during

1991-94 of the nostrums peddled by the Pakistan-centric Clinton

administration, the BJP was awarded the nationalist platform by

default. However, since last year the Prime Minister appears to

have moved away from the "Voice of America" - the troika of

officers in the PMO, Finance Ministry and Ministry of External

Affairs, who were perceived as relying on faxes from Washington

for guidance on how to deal with policy issues. Last year, the

abandoning of the earlier preference for MNCs over Indian

companies became clear in the ITC case, when the financial

institutions refused to gift the company to the foreign principal

in the same way as dozens of other companies had been given

away during 1991-94. The moving away from blind acceptance

of Washington’s dictates on security issues became clear when

India refused to sign the Non-proliferation Treaty. Had Rao

adopted, during his first four years in office, the same policies

that he is following now, the Congress may have been a sure

winner this election. However, at present the most it can hope for

is to emerge as the single largest party in the next Lok Sabha.

However, the advantage the Congress has over the BJP is

that its threshold for cobbling together a viable coalition is much

lower than that for the BJP. Thanks to the latter’s sharper

differences with the other major players, the BJP will need a

minimum of 220 seats to attract the 60 more that will be needed

to form a stable government. The Congress, on the other hand,

needs only about 170 to be able to attract 110 more MPs. While

there is likely to be a challenge to Rao’s position as leader of the

Congress parliamentary party in the event of it’s score falling

below the 200-seat mark, a tally of 170 is enough to position the

Congress at the head of a new coalition.

This difference in the acceptability of the Congress as

compared to the BJP is what gives a kathakali flavour to the

current electoral scene. Apart from the ideological JD hard

liners—V. P. Singh and Paswan—most of the other leaders are

likely to support a Congress-led coalition after the polls, both in

order to form a stable government and to keep the BJP out of the

reckoning. So far as the Congress is concerned while a post-poll

alliance is eminently feasible with Laloo Yadav or Mulayam

Singh Yadav, it is not so with A. B. Vajpayee. Thus, even while

abusing each other in public the leaders of the Congress and

several of the components of the NF-LF would be keeping an eye

on the post-poll scenario, when "Ravana" Rao may become

Rama, and "Duryodhana" Mulayam may reappear as Lakshmana.

Policy Changes

In such a coming-together, there would be policy changes, again

at the margin. Greater emphasis would be given to Indian

companies, even while liberalisation proceeds apace. There

would not be a reflexive kowtowing to Western security

perceptions. The advantage would, in time, go to a cleaner lot of

politicians, such as I. K. Gujral or A. K. Antony. The members of

the "Sonia Lao, Desh Bachao" brigade would disappear into their

natural habitat, the kitchen area of 10 Janpath. All in all, not very

different from the Narasimha Rao rule of the past nine-and-odd

months.

In kathakali things change while remaining the same. The

middle of May will reveal whether political life in India imitates

this art, or whether our democracy is still distant from the

subcutaneous stability of the advanced democracies.