Top BJP leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi were busy chalking out the future road of growth for the party and its workers. Various leaders were putting forth different views related to functions related to the party and governance. The stress was more on the land bill, something the majority government of Narendra Modi is struggling to give a happy ending to. But isn't the BJP missing a point in the scheme of things? [Find Rahul first, Amit Shah mocks Congress]
To stay in power for 20 years, just administrative skills won't work for Modi's party
The party has a fresh example in its hand which says what should be its one-eyed focus for days to come or else the claim of "will stay in power for 20 years" might prove to be too trivial a statement. [BJP's National Executive meet: Modi's 8 mantras for success]
Bharat Ratna for Vajpayee, SC notice for Advani
The example is: While former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was conferred the Bharat Ratna last month, his former deputy Lal Krishna Advani, along with 19 others, was asked by the Surpeme Court to respond in connection to a petition seeking their trial on charges of conspiracy to bring down the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. [Modi made our day, say BJP workers]
These two incidents are apparently not connected but for the current and future generation of BJP leaders, they hold a significance. Vajpayee and Advani have been the BJP's face for a long, long time.
The party's face underwent a change only under the leadership of Modi in the recent times but prior to Modi's arrival, everything related to the BJP was identified with the two patriarchs. While Vajpayee was the softer face, Advani was the more extremist voice of the saffron party.
Will BJP leaders and workers do some soul-searching today?
Today, when Vajpayee gets honoured by Bharat Ratna and Advani gets an instruction from the court, shouldn't it be an ideal opportunity for the current leadership and the common workers of the party to do some soul-searching? What is the way forward? Vajpayee's soft method or the more extremist one of Advani?
Rigid or flexible: What is BJP's way?
It is very much relevant today for the BJP for the party has started facing problems, both from the administrative and ideological perspective. Is it advisable to go with a more rigid approach to get things done, be it passing a bill or spreading the base of the majority religion? Or should the plurality of voices be respected despite being in power? It is after all the second formula that had earned Vajpayee the Bharat Ratna crown.
Before the beginning of the Modi era, the BJP's best man forward to show its softer side was Vajpayee. The former prime minister had succeeded in leading a huge coalition at the Centre despite being the leader of a party known for its narrow and rigid nationalist stance.
For a pluralist India, Advani was naturally the second-best choice, thanks to his Hindutva ideology that had caused much disturbance in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Advani undoubtedly had mobilised support for the BJP but it was Vajpayee who was chosen as the face to show that the BJP is in tune with the idea of India.
Today, with two different stories unfolding for Vajpayee and Advani, the BJP needs to think whether it can do any good to itself and the party if it goes on with an extremist agenda.
BJP can't ignore the current of majority tyranny flowing in front of its eyes
It is nice that Modi's men are taking up issues that cater to an inclusive administrative good. A Vajpayee-like approach is admirable. But if they are not asking the party workers to understand that bashing the minority is a big move backward, then they have not learnt much from Advani's errors in the past.
Convincing BJP workers about ill-effects of minority bashing is more required than defending land bill before them
At a national executive, the common BJP workers need to be convinced more about the ill-effects of majority tyranny. Defending the land bill before them is not going to serve any purpose for that is something the government has already been fighting for in the parliament.