Advani capitulates to the RSS

Mr Advani has tried to put a brave face on his humiliating exit by protesting against the RSS's interference in the BJP. The protest is hollow. The truth is, the RSS ordered him to quit, and he abjectly capitulated. No matter whether the RSS-BJP relationship is considered "symbiotic" or "umbilical", it's fundamentally skewed. The RSS is the parivar's master.

After an RSS conclave in Surat decided in July that Mr Advani must go, he started looking for an "honourable" exit. He begged Mr Vajpayee to plead that he could choose the timing of his departure.

A face-saving deal was reached on July 17, after Mr Advani genuflected before second-rank sangh leaders Mohan Bhagwat and Suresh Soni.

This robbed Mr Advani of whatever little authority he had left after the controversy triggered by his remarks over Muhammed Ali Jinnah. The BJP disassociated itself from his statements.

Then, all hell broke loose in the party. Leaders like Yashwant Sinha, Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharati, and later, even Madan Lal Khurana, Pyarelal Khandelwal and Bangaru Laxman took pot-shots at Mr Advani.

Mr Advani expelled Mr Khurana from the party. But within three days, Mr Advani had to backtrack.

Behind this drama lurked a much bigger power struggle: between Mr Advani and Mr Vajpayee. Mr Vajpayee was resentful that instead of showing gratitude to him for the July face-saver, Mr Advani regrouped his cronies and played boss.

It was tragic (for the BJP), yet inevitable, that its president's long innings has ended with a sordid personal squabble with the party's "tallest" leader. Both stand reduced in stature.

For years, the BJP successfully papered over the clash of ambitions between them. It worked out a division of labour, which survived many differences: over tactics, the anti-Babri mobilisation, sharing of Cabinet power, and Gujarat.

The crass rivalry became public in 2003 when Advani groupie M. Venkaiah Naidu denigrated Mr Vajpayee as vikas purush. Other skirmishes followed, leading to Mr Vajpayee's periodic resignation threats, followed by self-assertion. Both men used different parivar leaders to fire darts at each other. Recently, they haven't been on speaking terms.

Mr Vajpayee has had the final say. By underlining Mr Advani's "self-effacing" contribution to the party in Chennai, he hinted that the man should stay in the shadows.

Mr Advani lost out both to Mr Vajpayee and the RSS. But he should be judged by his overall role in the BJP. From the mid-1980s, he insistently put the RSS in the party's forefront. As he put it: "Our inflexible stand on our association with the RSS gave us a distinct ideological identity, about which we… [aren't]… apologetic…"

He acknowledged that the Hindutva-inspired Ayodhya campaign catapulted the BJP from two to 89 Lok Sabha seats in the 1980s.

Today, Mr Advani bitterly complains about the RSS's interference in the BJP affairs. But he couldn't have become Deputy PM without such interference.

Despite his hardliner instincts, Mr Advani lacks convictions. In office, he advocated "pragmatic" separation of ideology and governance. He repeatedly said: "In India, a party based on ideology…

cannot win the confidence of the entire country…"

Yet, he attributed the BJP's 2004 defeat to preoccupation with "governance" and neglect of the Hindutva "core-constituency".

Early this year, he again returned to "pragmatism". According to his supporters, he concluded from the BJP's rout that religio-political mobilisation has plateaued, the BJP cannot regain power using it given the caste divisions in the Gangetic plains.

The sangh was disgusted at this "duplicity". Even more foolhardy was Mr Advani's decision to pick the "Jinnah-as-a-great-leader" issue in June to counter an overbearing RSS-VHP.

Mr Advani dialled the wrong number. Focusing on just one speech by Jinnah, while neglecting his pivotal role in the Pakistan movement, was intellectually dishonest--and tactless. Mr Advani didn't convince the parivar of "moderation" by saying Partition is "unalterable".

The more Mr Advani tried to "Vajpayee-ise" himself, the more unconvincing and contradictory he became. One of his great mistakes was his failure to understand Mr Vajpayee's chameleon-like character, his forked tongue, and his ability to play both sides of the street.

Mr Vajpayee rooted for Hindutva, but held out "the hand of friendship" to Pakistan. He flaunted his life-long identity as a swayamsevak. But he visited the Minar-e-Pakistan in 1999, bestowing respectability on Pakistan's creation.

Mr Vajpayee placated the RSS, and yet sacked sangh ideologue K.N. Govindacharya. He preached Rajdharma to Mr Narendra Modi during the Gujarat pogrom, but within days, he was asking, "kisne lagayee aag (who lit the fire in Godhra?)".

Mr Advani, with his ham-handed ways, couldn't straddle these different worlds. In recent days, he gave the impression that he was led by greed for power. Power has of course been the driving force behind all other BJP leaders. But Mr Advani claimed to be different.

Mr Advani's importance will shrink--irrespective of what happens in the Bihar elections, where the BJP-Janata Dal (United) might do better than earlier. BJP leaders are already shunning him. His position as Leader of the Opposition will be further weakened.

The National Democratic Alliance is already in a bad way, with desertions and receding support from once-friendly parties like Telegu Desam. The BJP is riven by infighting, lack of direction, and policy bankruptcy.

The BJP's identity crisis is acute. It cannot decide whether it should be a "modern", mainstream party responsible to its political constituency, or remain primarily loyal to an unelected body like the RSS, with its parochial, all-male-secret society-like, viciously communal culture.

Mr Advani's exit marks the end of an era, but not the end of this identity crisis. That seems set to worsen.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.