A tale of two High Commands

Renowned journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, in his recent video blog, referred to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah as ‘jodi number one’. Together, they function as the BJP’s high command, with an iron grip on the party. One is the unquestioned supreme leader; the other, a strongman and strategist. They hold sway, not only among the cadres, but even in the party’s ideological fountainhead, the RSS.

It was the Congress party that established the original ‘high command’. Its powers were entrenched during the time of Indira Gandhi, as the former prime minister gained absolute control of the party, with no room for dissent. Congress continued to hold its flock together under Sonia Gandhi during the two UPA governments – she was the party’s de facto high command. Inscrutable, astute, and aloof, she exercised power through loyalists such as Ahmed Patel.

Now, the power structures of the party are cracking under an idealist at its helm – Rahul Gandhi, the reluctant crown-prince. As Congress drifts rudderless, the high command has been reduced to a ceremonial body, neither feared by a host of leaders who pursue their own factional and regional interests, nor held in high esteem by the party men.

Take the Karnataka situation. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah repeatedly asserts he will complete his full term and there’s no question of any change of guard, while the Deputy Chief Minister, D K Shivakumar, defiantly notes that a deal was indeed struck before the swearing-in, for him to take over as the CM midway through the five-year term. The rift is playing out in public in an ugly face-off between the minions of the two leaders.

It turns farcical when the old warhorse, the elected nominal president of the grand old party, Mallikarjun Kharge, says the high command will have the final word. There has been no credible intervention from the high command that inspires confidence among the people of the state, subjected to this extended leadership tussle.

On the other side of the political spectrum, a question is gaining credence – after Modi, who? The Prime Minister will be 79 at the end of his present term. There has always been speculation on who will inherit his mantle. Will it be Shah, the number two in the power hierarchy, or Yogi Adityanath, the influential Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh? Also, there is Nitin Gadkari, the Minister for Road Transport and Highways from Nagpur, projected in some circles as the RSS’ choice.

It was, of course, the RSS’ intervention in 2014 which led Modi to the high seat. But in the Modi-Shah era, the RSS does not hold such absolute power, and its prime ministerial pick, if there is one, for the 2029 general election will not be uncontested.

There is also that other question – “After Modi, what?” What kind of legacy is Modi likely to leave behind? Does he desire to leave behind the prototype of a mighty Hindu Rashtra, where minorities and Dalits live as second-class citizens in a society on the edge? Or a genuinely democratic republic? – a developed, vibrant economy with equitable growth, where all are equal under the law and live in dignity, where the politics of appeasement has ended?

Today, Modi invokes Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Vivekananda, and pays homage to Savarkar and Golwalkar. These are two sets of men embodying irreconcilable ideologies. Modi has a little over three years left in his third term – a decisive period in shaping his legacy. What road will he take?

None of this, of course, is to discard the possibility of the man putting his hand up for another term. Modi has often projected himself as someone not chasing power – “I’m a fakir; I will walk away with my jhola”, he once said. History, however, is replete with rulers eager to hold on to power until incapacitated or overthrown. “We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end,” George Orwell wrote in 1984.

Modi remains India’s most charismatic and popular leader. He has lost none of his verve or oratorical skills. His political instincts are sharp, and his drive to win elections is intact, backed by the organisational muscle of a massive, cadre-driven party.

But these traits appear more pronounced also because of the uncertainties that define the principal opposition party and its leadership. Optics matter in a battle of perceptions. Who commands the forces, and who is seen as commanding them, can determine a party’s future.

The writer builds bridges, sometimes by tearing down walls. He is a soldier, farmer, and entrepreneur.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.