Setting out the need for an effective state, Advani characterised the present situation as a soft state syndrome. He argued that successive governments in the post-independence period had neglected priority areas of social development and had, instead, expanded their role in the areas from where they should have retreated. He flayed the policies of the command economy as one of the factors which have led to the present situation. Advani made it clear that what he envisages is a strong state in place of the soft and debilitated state structure. But he consciously refrained from using the word strong state as "it may be construed to have some undemocratic connotations."

Reading between the lines of these formulations which are, masked in careful language, one can discern the actual purpose and intent of the far reaching reforms that the BJP wishes to undertake.

The contours of an effective state emerge as a strong authoritarian state. But such an authoritarian state will not play an effective role in the economy. Advani's critique of the command economy of the past, referring to the Nehruvian model of development, is to restate the BJP-RSS position that the state should completely withdraw from the economic sphere and leave the whole economy to the private sector and big business. The strong state which Advani expounds, will strengthen "law-based governance" which, in other words, would mean the law and order machinery. Without being able to mobilise resources, Advani's talk of the state attending to the problems of lack of education, health care, housing and sanitation is a chimera. The logic of such role for the State would be growing privatisation of all services, including the social sector, to the grave detriment of the living conditions of the ordinary people. This is evident from the experience of the affluent capitalist countries in the recent period when social security benefits have been drastically cut after the privatisation drive. It is in this context that a strong authoritarian state will come into play to police the interests of the rich and propertied classes and to maintain law and order.

ANTI-DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS

While making the obligatory noises of bringing about such a transformation within the democratic framework, Advani would like to assure stability for the ruling classes as one of the spin-offs of the effective state. Both Advani and Vajpayee have talked about ensuring that the parliament and the legislatures are guaranteed a full term of five years without a threat of dissolution, by bringing suitable legislation for this. They go further in their manifesto by advocating the doing away of the no-confidence motion which can lead to the voting out of any government. According to their version of parliamentary democracy, a no-confidence motion can be brought only if there is a proposal for an alternative government to be put in place. Such profoundly anti-democratic proposals are being openly canvassed, for given the overwhelming demand of the ruling classes for a stability which protects their interests and which can manage the growing social and economic contradictions, arising out of a growingly unequal society in the era of liberalisation.

Advani's speech deals with his pet theme of setting up a commission to review the constitution. This demand of the BJP election manifesto since the 1991 elections is now set for implementation by the Vajpayee government. Advani himself, in his previous stint in government, had stated that the commission would consider the question of a presidential form of government. Under the cover of a review of the constitution in its fiftieth year, the BJP-led government is set to initiate a debate on changing some of the basic parameters of the constitution. This will be the beginning of a process of remoulding the Indian constitution to make it congenial to the BJP's aims. The concept of an effective state, in Advani's speech, has this as the centrepiece for bringing about the far-reaching changes.

The effective state will have to have "effective" control over the media too. That is why the BJP is now openly against the concept of autonomy for Prasar Bharati. They argue that with privatisation, there are many private TV channels outside government control, so Doordarshan and AIR should reflect government views. This requires reversing the setting up of Prasar Bharati which is now being done by undermining its limited autonomous structure. The removal of S S Gill as CEO, the "retirement" of Romila Thapar and Rajendra Yadav from the board, are all steps towards reconverting the Doordarshan and All India Radio into official media.

ASSURING BIG BOURGEOISE

It is significant that the BJP's main theoretician made such a speech, which has far-reaching implications, at the FICCI, which represents the big business in India. While other leaders like Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi spelt out their economic agenda, Advani chose the big business platform to solicit support for a political ideological agenda -- the creation of an Indian state based on the BJP-RSS vision. Such a choice of venue is not accidental. L K Advani is far-sighted enough to know that without the support of the big bourgeoisie, the venture to refashion the Indian state cannot be successful. Having emerged as the favoured choice of the big bourgeoisie, the BJP has now to convince the ruling classes that a virtual restructuring of the Indian state is called for. The legacy of the past, when the big bourgeoisie supported the Congress project of state capitalism, is to be abandoned totally, for the BJP's version of a Hindutva-based free market economy which can attract the support of imperialism too.