There is the larger question of how the new entrants will affect the ideological purity of the BJP. This is an issue that needs extended deliberation. However, it can be said that for a party to move from the fringes to the centre, ideological purity has to be sacrificed at the altar of political aggregation

A page from history is sometimes instructive to understand contemporary issues. In January 1977, days after Indira Gandhi announced the overdue general election after some 18 months of a draconian Emergency, her senior Cabinet Minister Jagjivan Ram dropped a bombshell by announcing his resignation. Along with HN Bahuguna, Nandini Satpathy — both former Chief Ministers — and others, they repudiated the leadership of Indira.

The impact of their revolt was explosive. A dispirited Opposition, most of whom had just come out of a long spell in prison, had imagined that the election would be a formality and that the Congress would sail back to power. After all, besides the Congress and the CPI no party was able to operate openly during the Emergency.

Jagjivan Ram’s revolt transformed the public mood overnight. Suddenly people found courage to speak out openly against the excesses of a period when the Government and the ruling party had no accountability to anyone apart from Indira and her son Sanjay. The revolt was the trigger that unleashed the forces that contributed to the Congress’ defeat in the elections two months later.

However, it was during the fractious post-victory negotiations that I first heard the mutterings against Jagjivan Ram. Why, it was asked, should a man who never opened his mouth against the Emergency, except when it was safe to do so, walk away with the proverbial malai? Shouldn’t preference be given to those who had resolutely and consistently opposed Indira Gandhi since 1969? Yet others insisted the Congress culture was being reimposed on a new Government that had come to power promising a new start.

Looking back at the events 43 years ago, some conclusions are in order. Jagjivan Ram didn’t split the Congress with his resignation. The overwhelming majority of the party remained loyal to Indira Gandhi. It was, after all, the Congress (Indira). The rudimentary organisation on which the Janata Party was constructed belonged to the erstwhile Jana Sangh, the Bharatiya Lok Dal of Charan Singh and the rump of the socialist movement. What Jagjivan Ram did was to prise the anti-Congress sentiment overground. The question of whether or not the Janata Party would still have won without Jagjivan Ram’s important catalytic role is difficult to answer. History cannot be assessed on the strength of counterfactual narratives. We can at best try and assess the role of Jagjivan Ram at a crucial moment in history. The rest is speculative.

The question assumes a measure of importance in view of a sectional reaction to the constant influx of leaders and ordinary workers from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), the Congress and even the CPI(M) to the BJP in West Bengal. A group of those who have travelled with the BJP in the days when losing deposits was normal are miffed that they are in danger of being sidelined by the new entrants. The expressions of disquiet have been noticed by a gleeful media ever since Subhendu Adhikari walked out of Mamata Banerjee’s Cabinet and the TMC and joined the BJP. Although Adhikari has not been given any formal post in the BJP, it is expected that he will play a big role in the BJP’s election campaign against Mamata. It is also expected that many of the new entrants from different parties will be given tickets to fight the Assembly election as BJP candidates. The claims of many old loyalists may well be overlooked as importance is accorded to winnability.

The defection of Adhikari — likely to be followed by others — to the BJP raises important issues. First, unlike Jagjivan Ram in 1977, Adhikari did not trigger a simmering revolt against Mamata. That revolt first found expression in 2019 when, despite profound organisational weakness, the BJP defeated the TMC in 18 of the 42 Lok Sabha seats. The theory that Adhikari galvanised the mood against the TMC cannot stand scrutiny. As someone put it evocatively, those who put their hands on a moving rath of Jagannath also get blessed.

Yet, the Adhikari defection had a colossal significance in conveying an impression to the wider world that the TMC edifice was crumbling. It was such an impression that was conveyed to voters way back in 1966-67 when Ajoy Mukherjee and his supporters walked out of the Congress and established the Bangla Congress. In the election of 1967, Ajoy Mukherjee stood against the incumbent Congress Chief Minister Prafulla Chandra Sen and defeated him.

The incorporation of Adhikari in the BJP brings two other tangible benefits to the saffron cause. The stalwarts of the TMC, with their record of having fought and defeated the mighty CPI(M), brings to the table their invaluable experience of electoral politics — something the State BJP has all along lacked. Additionally, they add to the BJP’s kitty the support from districts where the BJP presence was patchy. In the battle for votes, these contributions cannot be disregarded.

Then there is the larger question of how the new entrants will affect the ideological purity of the BJP. This is an issue that needs extended deliberation. However, it can be said that for a party to move from the fringes to the centre, ideological purity has to be sacrificed at the altar of political aggregation. The first major step in this direction was the replacement of the Jana Sangh with the BJP in 1980 — a step that extended the boundaries of the BJP beyond the Sangh Parivar. It is this extension that was witnessed in States such as Karnataka, Telangana, Assam and the North-eastern States. It is now being experienced in West Bengal.

Power is no doubt the great attraction. That is understandable as long as the commitment to meaningful and wholesome change isn’t lost sight of.