Karnataka: No country for extremes

This is a land of moderates and moderation. This is no country for double-engine corruption and communalism

The people of Karnataka decisively voted out the BJP primarily on two counts: its unbridled mega-corruption and its politics of communal polarisation in the name of Hindutva. In the ‘double-engine sarkar’, the local engine would not move without the fuel of ‘40% commission’, and the national engine could not speak without the fire of communalism. There were other important issues, too, such as price-rise, increasing unemployment, and the anti-poor policies of the BJP that turned voters overwhelmingly away from it and towards the Congress.

Remember the death by suicide of Santosh Patil, a contractor from Belagavi in April 2022. It was Santosh Patil’s dying declaration, in which he named former minister K S Eshwarappa, that nailed the BJP’s ‘40% Sarkara’. Patil was ‘national secretary’ of a right-wing outfit called Hindu Vahini. The message went out to right-wing cadres that the BJP government did not spare even their own when it came to earning commissions.

Read | Does Congress have a plan to effectively tackle fake news, hatemongering?

Of course, Eshwarappa resigned as minister and was denied the ticket to contest the election, but when Narendra Modi visited Mysuru in April for an election roadshow, there was only one prominent leader standing next to him in his ‘rath’ – Eshwarappa, against whom Santosh Patil had written to the Prime Minister. Modi stood next to Eshwarappa for four hours but had no time to ask him or the Bommai government about the complaints he had received from Patil or from D Kempanna, the president of the Karnataka Contractors’ Association. What was the message people took home that day?

Politics of polarisation

Never has the State of Karnataka so brazenly discriminated against a minority community through its legislative Acts, executive orders, and the use of police and vigilante forces as during the BJP government of Basavaraj Bommai. Adding injury to the demonisation of the Muslims were the vigilante forces such as Bajrang Dal and Sri Ram Sene, which routinely assaulted them in Mangaluru. Bommai, instead of condemning them, defended their vigilantism as ‘action-reaction’ dynamics.

Almost a hundred years ago, Mahatma Gandhi, addressing a meeting in Bengaluru had said on August 28, 1927: “You have no Hindu-Muslim quarrels. You are unaffected by the misdoings of the North.” But today, the divisive and hate-filled ‘misdoings of the North’ have made significant inroads into a state that was known to be Sarva Janangada Shanthiya Thota (a peaceful garden of all communities). Is the politics of Hindutva in keeping with the democratic history and political culture of our state?

Firstly, Karnataka has a history and tradition of ‘centrist’ politics, with the state’s policies being essentially left of centre, pro-poor and socialist to a large extent.

Secondly, Gandhi and Karl Marx have had their share of influence on political thinking in the state in the past, but a more abiding influence has been that of liberal democrats and modernisers like Jawaharlal Nehru, social justice champion Ambedkar, and socialists such as Ram Manohar Lohia and Jayaprakash Narayan.

Those influenced by the socialist thought of Lohia were men like ‘Shantaveri’ Gopala Gowda, K H Ranganath, J H Patel, Basavaraj Bommai’s father S R Bommai, Ramakrishna Hegde and, of course, Devaraj Urs, who carried out the most significant land reforms in the state. Even H D Deve Gowda, who grew up in the same political milieu, was committed to socialism and secularism.

Thirdly, Karnataka has had an intellectual movement inspired by liberal, secular and universalist ideas prominent in the poetry of Gopalkrishna Adiga, D R Bendre and Kuvempu. It was evident in the writings of U R Ananthamurthy, Girish Karnad, and in the journalism of P Lankesh, which was carried forward by his daughter Gauri Lankesh -- till she was killed for her stubborn courage.

Fourthly, there was an important movement led by rationalists and critical thinkers such as Dr Abraham Kovoor and Prof H Narasimhaiah, who exposed godmen, myths, and superstitions. We had Prof M M Kalburgi, former Vice Chancellor of Hampi University, a rationalist, who too was killed in August 2015, by people opposed to rationalism and a critical mind. It is necessary to recall their work today when fake news, prejudice, superstition, bigotry and hate speeches have become the order of the day in politics.

Fifthly, caste politics has been a far more important factor than religion-based politics in Karnataka, but unlike religion, caste is not seen as an exclusionary or divisive factor in politics but rather as an aggregator or a mobilising force for leaders to promote policies of social justice for their constituents. It is another matter that it has been turned into a tool to obtain power and privilege by politicians for themselves and their communities.

Finally, Karnataka has had a long tradition of Dalit protests led by ‘Bandaya’ and ‘Andolana’ movements that have shaped our political, social and literary sensibilities. Devanuru Mahadeva, coming from that tradition, commands sizeable support and respect across parties.

The BJP in Karnataka is not heir to any of these traditions or movements. It is, in that sense, alien to the state’s sensibilities. Its own politics of Hindutva polarisation has never had wide-spread support in the state. Certainly not enough to win 113 Assembly seats on its own in the state.

More importantly, people here voted for Yediyurappa rather than for the BJP. The ‘Lingayat constituency’ is more powerful than the ‘Hindutva constituency’. And because Yediyurappa had to follow inclusive politics that took along other castes, religious groups and regions, he strictly ensured that nobody raked up ‘hijab, halal and love jihad’ issues. By forcing his exit, the Modi-Shah duo sought to bring in a Gujarat and UP models into the politics of the state. The people rejected them.

What’s surprising is that the BJP has maintained a competitive vote share of 36% with its traditional ‘LIBRA’ (Lingayat-Brahmin) and upper-caste coalition. But the Congress, a centrist coalition, broke into the Lingayat and Vokkaliga vote-banks of the BJP and JD(S) without losing its ‘Ahinda’ base of Dalits, Kurubas, Muslims and many of the most backward castes (MBCs). It is heartening that its triumph came on a platform of syncretic pluralism, secular and socialist values that have had a durable appeal to the voters of Karnataka.

(The writer is a former Cabinet Secretariat official)