Now that election fever is in the air, the chattering classes have a new mantra - bring in the BJP. This preference has recently been articulated by both an eminent industrialist - Rahul Bajaj in a TV interview - and a respected leftist liberal (to be distinguished from left-over leftists) Lord Megnad Desai, in an article entitled "It is endgame for the UF", (Business Standard, Nov. 10, 1997). In financial markets, there is a saying that when the last buyers throw in their towel, then stocks have bottomed. If I were a BJP member, I would be worried for surely the Bajaj-Desai endorsement means that support for the BJP can henceforth only decline!

Culling the essence of the "new" basis for support of the BJP, one obtains thefollowing: All parties are bad, but BJP is the anointed one because they arebetter for economic reforms, their leadership will mean less political uncertainty,and though it is understandably left vague, the BJP will also be, somehow,better for both secularism and corruption.

Economy: The 1997-98 fiscal deficit is now targeted to be almost a fullpercentage point above the forecast level of 4.5 percent. This, according to BJPsupporters (Desai: "What is worse, it (the UF) is ruining the economy by itsfiscal irresponsibility") is something the BJP government will not allow. There areseveral problems with this bit of economic politics. First, it smacks of rotelearning. People say fiscal deficits are bad, therefore… Do the "motherhoodequals lower fiscal deficit" supporters have any evidence that fiscal deficits makethat much difference to an open economy ? The East Asian economies ranfiscal surpluses for several years (including Thailand). The latest ex-postexplanation for what caused the East Asian economic crisis does not, to thebest of my knowledge, make any reference to fiscal deficits. Rather, and morecorrectly so, the focus has shifted towards the nature of government spending(large projects in Malaysia and Indonesia, etc.). In that regard, would BJPfollowers support increased taxation and increased government spending ondeconstruction of mosques and reconstruction of temples ?

The BJP has been called the "right" alternative, particularly because itseconomic policies are deemed reasonable and reformist. Indeed, the chatteringclasses, the media, and especially the ill-informed Western media, has beenquick to label BJP as "right wing". However, it is an insult to all right thinkingindividuals to call BJP right wing. Populist, yes. Reactionary, perhaps.Demagogic, maybe. In economic policy, identical to the Communists. Right wing- hardly. 

"The great ideological struggle of the twentieth century has been betweencollectivism and liberalism". (Robert Skidelsky, The Road from Serfdom, p. 17).What is liberal, in nineteenth century language, about the BJP ? Is prevention ofKentucky Fried or Miss World Contest liberal ? Is retention of FERA indicative ofa limited role for government ? Is prevention of foreign competition an open-minded policy ? Is demolition of Babri Masjid indicative of religious tolerance ?So what is right about the BJP ?

Perhaps the preference for BJP occurs because it has argued for the protectionof capitalists in opposition to the left whose raison d'être is the protection oforganised labour. Is it just a coincidence that just as soon as the old Left (e.g.English Labour party) gives up the cause of the unions, the new Left swervewildly towards favouring organized (monopoly) capitalists? Does a change ofheart always mean a move to the other extreme ?

The difference in the economic views of the BJP and Communists is onlycosmetic. Compare the views of the two parties on FERA; foreign competition inairlines; insurance; capital account convertibility; protection of swadeshitechnology. Compare then their xenophobia, and their support for a criminallylarge role for the state. Can you tell the difference ? Can anybody ? Both theBJP and the Communists are united by their confusion on what causes growth,or what alleviates poverty.

Political Uncertainty: One of the biggest arguments in favour of the BJP and/orthe Congress is that these parties bring "political certainty" to parliament. Theissue should not be about political certainty but rather about the prospect forreforms. What is the evidence on stability and economic progress? Stable Nehruand commanding heights. Stable Indra Gandhi and emergency. Stable RajivGandhi and Bofors. Unstable Rao-Manmohan Singh in 91-92, and UnstableUF-Chidambaram in 1997, have meant significant economic reforms. In addition,the moment Narasimha Rao became "certain", the reforms stopped. Certaintybreeds contempt for change. Certainty makes politicians cater to the status quo.It does not appear, therefore, that political certainty is necessary for reform. Ifanything, uncertainty maybe a better environment for initiating economic andpolitical reform.

Secularism: It is difficult to talk about secularism and BJP in the same sentence.Even supporters like Desai can muster only one sentence "The BJP swervedwildly in the Babri Masjid episode and disgraced itself". Riots break out, thecountry is turned upside down, and all BJP gets is a speeding ticket.

According to supporters, there are additional reasons for supporting the BJP.They are likely to have a "fresh approach", they are a "shade more disciplined",and perhaps slightly "less corrupt". Would you want your kids baby sat bysomeone with "some competence" ? Or prefer the BJP discipline a la the press in Maharashtra ? And in today's context, a "fresh approach" most likelymeans a reversal of economic and political liberalization. The choice may soonbe with the people. So let us wait and find out what is right for India.