The BJP is seen today as a corporate-friendly political party, and this is the view held by both the party’s votaries and its opponents. Supporters say this is necessary to industrialise India and that the government has no business to be in business. Opponents of course complain that this is a sell-out to crony capitalism.
But the party did not start off this way and indeed, there is no doctrine which tells us why the BJP is doing today what it opposed yesterday. A political party has every right to shift its position, of course, but it would not be out of place to ask why it has done this. The Congress moved towards liberalisation after a fierce debate inside the party, and on the pages of organs like the Economic and Political Weekly. Narasimha Rao had trouble getting his reforms passed and had to justify them to his own MPs and the public.
Also Read
In its early manifestos as the Jana Sangh the BJP opposed the free market policies it today champions. It said that ‘laissez-faire belonged only to the Krita Yuga’ (also called Sat Yuga, the first ideal era when the gods themselves governed the earth). The State thus must accept responsibility of ownership and management in certain spheres of the economy. In 1954, and again in 1971, the Jana Sangh resolved to limit the maximum income of all Indian citizens to Rs 2,000 per month and the minimum to Rs 100, maintaining a 20:1 ratio. It would continue working on reducing this gap till it reached 10:1 which was the ideal gap and all Indians could only have incomes inside this range based on their position. Additional income earned by individuals over this limit would be procured by the State for development needs ‘through contribution, taxation, compulsory loans and investment.’ The party would also limit the size of residential houses in cities and not allow plots of more than 1000 square yards.
It opposed mechanisation of all industry except defence and aerospace because it wanted workers instead of machines in factories. It opposed mechanisation in agriculture after first encouraging it. In 1954, the party said that “tractors will be used only to break virgin soil. Their use for normal ploughing purposes will be discouraged.” This was of course because it was trying to protect the bull and the ox from slaughter.
On the matter of the public sector, the party said it would develop an economic system that would not undo state enterprises but would give private enterprises their proper place. Import of consumer goods and luxury goods would be discouraged. Swadeshi meant giving subsidies to local industries and also tariff protection. Labour rights including strikes and lockouts would be discouraged.
In 1957, the party announced it would introduce “revolutionary changes” to the economic order, which “will be in keeping with Bharatiya values of life.” However, these were not elaborated on nor was this theme of revolutionary change picked up again in any future manifesto. In 1967, the party said it backed the idea of a planned economy, but would tweak the plan and “adopt the system of microeconomic planning region-wise and project-wise.” It sought State intervention, but not everywhere. It encouraged private investment but definitely not in the defence sector.
A similar shift has come in the party’s outlook to civil liberties. Again this u-turn has not been explained. In 1954, the Jana Sangh said it would repeal the first amendment to the Constitution that curbed freedom of speech by imposing “reasonable restrictions.” This amendment essentially took away freedom of expression because the list of what is seen as a reasonable restriction was far too wide and broad. The Jana Sangh sensed that it was not something that could be allowed to go unchallenged. However, after 1954, this demand that the first amendment be repealed and freedom of speech, association and assembly be restored to Indians disappeared from the Jana Sangh manifestos. Interestingly, the Jana Sangh said it would also repeal preventive detention laws which it said were absolutely in contradiction to individual liberty. This promise was made repeatedly in the 1950s. However, by 1967 it began to qualify the demand and said that “care will be taken to ensure that fifth columnists and disruptionist elements are not allowed to exploit fundamental rights.” In time, the Sangh and BJP became the most enthusiastic champions of preventive detention, and today jail not bail is their stated policy for civil society and political opponents.
The question is why has the party swung so wildly from one side to another and why has it not explained this shift? The answer is that there was no thinking that went into the original position. The Jana Sangh manifestos appear often to be in response to what was going on in India under the Congress. If Nehru initiated land reform, the Jana Sangh added a paragraph or two on how their land reform would be better. When Indira spoke of a land ceiling, the Jana Sangh defined what their land ceiling would be. A planned economy was fine, but the Jana Sangh would plan it deeper to the micro level and it would also be project-focused. Mechanisation was good but not too much mechanisation because it led to unemployment so it must be a Bharatiya modernisation. And so on.
Ultimately, when Congress shifted its economic outlook in 1991, the BJP shifted with it. And that is why we find ourselves here today.
By Aakar Patel
