Spotlight

New Delhi, 25 August 2017

‘Resort Politics’

MAKING & UNMAKING PARTIES

By Dr S Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

“Resort Politics” is reported to be back in Tamil Nadu with 19 MLAs owing allegiance to a particular leader in the AIADMK being lodged in a hotel in Puducherry to insulate them against changing sides within the party. This is second phase of this type of politics in the State which seems to be spreading fast. Gujarat Congress also early this month resorted to this “Resort Politics” before the Rajya Sabha polls.

The coming together of two warring groups of the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu is making prime national news, overtaking in its nuances similar intra-party politics elsewhere which is really amazing. Call it political drama, dance, theatric politics, filmy stunt, circus, tamasha, or magic show -- it betrays the speed with which different facets of political relationships can shine and fade in a parliamentary democracy.

Actually, two politically active parties in the country are presently undergoing turmoil and transition that will have significant impact on national politics. Despite their restricted presence geographically, their current electoral strength makes them weighty components worth acquiring to one’s side in the politics of alliances.

One is Janata Dal (United) under Nitish Kumar, Bihar Chief Minister, and the other AIADMK which got split practically into three parts under three heads, one of whom was the present and another former, and the third aspiring Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

Both parties deserve the nation’s political attention equally though the reasons are widely different. In Bihar, where the Mahaghatbandhan against the BJP-led NDA was formed and tested successfully, has also been broken shattering the hopes of some parties to pack off the BJP in 2019.

In Tamil Nadu, the political vacuum created by the untimely demise of its CM Jayalalitha, a unique political personality has raised hopes of the defeated parties for a better future. Even the BJP, virtually having no strong electoral support in the midst of politicians groomed in “Dravidian” political philosophy, sees a ray of light to set foot in Tamil Nadu at least indirectly by its politics of influence and with its concrete development agenda, constructive reforms, and good governance for all.

While the case of Tamil Nadu is one of in-fighting within a party, the development in Bihar started as a crack in a coalition government growing into a bigger crack within a party. As such, both have had significance for State politics as well as for national politics.

The JD (U) -- one of the prominent players of alliance politics -- is a faction of the Janata Dal formed in 1988 by merger of Janata Party factions -- Lok Dal, Indian National Congress (Socialist) and Jan Morcha under the leadership of VP Singh. Many other parties then opposed to the Congress were brought into its fold -- Telugu Desam Party, DMK, and Asom Gana Parishad -- to form the National Front. It defeated the Congress under Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 and formed the government at the Centre with “outside” support of the BJP and CPM-led left Front. But, this government fell in November 1990 due to internal factions. Chandrasekhar who formed the government with Congress support also failed when the Congress withdrew support.

The Janata Dal, however, resurrected in 1996 and led the United Front government at the Centre which had two Prime Ministers in quick succession – H D Deve Gowda and IK Gujral -- and lost power soon with the withdrawal of “outside” Congress support. The party again split in 1999 when a faction extended support to the NDA and ended in the formation of Janata (Secular) under Deve Gowda.

At this juncture, Sharad Yadav faction of the JD, Lok Shakti, and Samata party which were opposed to supporting the NDA merged as JD (United). It failed to earn a national perspective and disintegrated with the formation of Biju Janata Dal in Orissa, Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar, and JD (Secular) in Karnataka along with continuance of the JD(U). The break-up is a result of territorial split as well as leadership rivalry both of which underlie the making and unmaking of political parties in India.

The AIADMK was clearly an outcome of leadership struggle in the DMK after the passing away of its undisputed leader, C N Annadurai in 1969. MGR’s queries to Karunanidhi regarding financial matters of the party as the treasurer provided an immediate issue. He built mass following in no time and swept the election within a very short time thus establishing his personal charisma. The parent DMK and the offshoot ADMK had no ideological differences except in their choice of allies which in any case has nothing to do with ideology or policy.

Instances of party splits by ideology, however, are not unknown, but rare in India. The earliest of course was in the oldest party, the Indian National Congress between Moderates and Extremists leading to the historic Surat Split in 1907. In 1923, another split between “pro-changers” who wanted to contest elections and enter legislatures and “no-changers” who wanted to continue Non-Cooperation led to the formation of the Swaraj Party in 1923 out of the Congress. In 1939, All India Forward Bloc was formed by Netaji  Subhash Chandra  Bose;  in 1951, Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party as formed by Acharya Kripalani; in 1956 came the Indian National Democratic Congress under Rajaji; in 1959, the Swatantra Party came up. The list is longer and most founders were prominent Congressmen.

Within State units, the Congress has been facing different kinds of group politics under rival local leaders although Congress seems to be averse to building State-level leadership and strengthen organisational federalism. The result is emergence of several parties like the Tamil Maanila Congress, YSR Congress, Haryana Jana Congress, Chhattisgarh Janhit Congress, Trinamool Congress, National Congress Party and so on.

Another major ideological split happened in the Communist Party in 1964 resulting in the birth of the CPI(M) out of the CPI.  In 1969, accusing Marxists of “Revisionism”, a group formed the CPI (Marxist-Leninist).

In Tamil Nadu, the Dravidian Movement experienced a decisive split between those who wanted to continue as a non-political movement under Periyar EVR and those in favour of joining politics and forming the DMK as a political party under Annadurai. Both are still alive and the section that remains a movement has maintained considerable political influence.

Ideology faded away yielding place to the rise of personality and leadership politics in the post-independence era. The Congress provided the lead by affecting the great 1969 split. The group playing the role of the divider came to be known as the Indira Congress and later as Congress (R) when it came to power. Some breakaway groups of parties chose to distinguish their party with the tag of the leader.    

Concentration of power in a few hands or a small group appears to be a common strategy of many political parties – national or regional. Lack of inner party democracy is sure to pave way for splits like fragmentation of a joint property. Concepts like “political heir”, offices like “permanent general-secretary”, substitution of nomination by leaders for election are unhealthy practices that cannot but lead to fusion and fission of political parties. In-fighting in political parties happens in any country. But, it cannot be allowed to total degeneration of the party system. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)