Four theories are in circulation in journalistic circles and also in the power corridors on why the BJP did not oblige its big leaders while choosing chief ministers. Virtually unknown leaders have been given the responsibility to run three states - Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh after the BJP's historic wins in assembly elections.
Theory 1
Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Vasundhara Raje Scindia and Raman Singh being replaced by Mohan Yadav, Bhajan Lal Sharma and Vishnu Deo Sai is an exercise in inter-generational shift. Shivraj Chouhan has ruled the state for almost two decades. Similarly, Vasundhara Raje Scindia and Raman Singh were the face of the BJP in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh for the same time period. Shivraj Chouhan is relatively younger but it's time to groom new leaders. It is said that this generational change is good for the health of the party. For the party to grow, new ideas and a fresh approach is needed to keep pace with the fast-changing society, otherwise the party will pay dearly. It does not mean that the political career of these big leaders is over. The party will use their services at other levels; much bigger roles may be given to them as the party has exponentially grown since 2014 and it needs leaders with vast experience to not only consolidate gains at the national level but also to create strategy for the party's future at the Centre.
This theory advocates that the party should continuously cultivate new leaders, provide them new opportunities and utilise their talents. There is no doubt that after becoming Prime Minister, Narendra Modi had given a glimpse of this thought process when a Margdarshak Mandal was created and top leaders like LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who had worked for the party for more than five decades, were consigned to it. The Mandal was supposed to be the consultative body which, if required, would provide inputs to deal with the problems of the party and the government. It later became clear that it was basically a VRS scheme to get rid of dominant leaders and clear the path for the new leadership of the party. Nobody knows if a similar plan is in store for Shivraj, Vasundhara and Raman Singh. It is still uncertain whether the replacements will be as good as their predecessors - not much is known about them and it is a fact that none of them have shown great promise or were in any way exceptional in their previous roles. But then the same was said for Pushkar Singh Dhami and Bhupendra Patel. They were first-time MLAs. Under Dhami's leadership, the party won Uttarakhand and in Gujarat the BJP broke all records in electoral politics. Therefore, it is too early to pass judgement upon these three. But if this is part of a generational shift then many leaders at the national level and in states will be replaced sooner than later.
It also has to be seen whether the age cut-off and generational change concept will reach the very top or will an exception be made.
Theory 2
The BJP has done this to arrest the disease of cultism. It has been said in hushed tones that the party has, no doubt, benefited tremendously from the personality cult of Modi, but there is serious thinking in the Sangh parivar that the politics of personality cult will prove to be injurious to the party's health, like it was for the Congress party. Once a behemoth that would have been difficult to replace, the Congress has suffered a spectacular downfall and is fighting to exist, irreparably wounded by the personality cult around Indira Gandhi and the overcentralisation of power. Because a personality cult invariably leads to weakening of the organisation and overcentralisation of power. The leader becomes bigger than the party and institutions and structures have no option but to surrender to the cult due to over-dependence on the leader to win elections.
Before Modi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was a tall leader but under him the party had a semblance of collective leadership. Under Modi, the BJP has surrendered to his towering persona. The Modi cult has afflicted the party so deeply that veterans like Venkaiya Naidu have publicly called him a man with divine virtues. If there was one Devkant Barua in Congress who said, "India is Indira and Indira is India", there are many Devkant Baruas in the BJP today.
The BJP has also faced the personality cult in states. Kalyan Singh in Uttar Pradesh, Uma Bharti in Madhya Pradesh, and BS Yediyurappa in Karnataka were tall leaders in their own right, and if the party gained from them, it suffered as well. In UP and Karnataka, the BJP lost elections because of their anger. Even this time in Rajasthan, the party had to face many uncomfortable moments due to Vasundhara Raje Scindia. Even Shivraj Chouhan has dropped enough hints that he is not happy about the way he has been replaced and that party has to tread cautiously going forward. What is the guarantee that Vasundhara and Shivraj will not follow the path of Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti and Yediyurappa.
Theory 3
It is widely speculated that entire exercise is an attempt to neutralise the Mandal politics and caste calculus of the INDIA alliance. Rahul Gandhi and others in the opposition have been demanding that the Modi Government carry out a caste census like Nitish Kumar did in Bihar and the BJP has been uncomfortable with this. Because of ideological reasons, the BJP and its mentor RSS are hesitant to take a clear position on this issue. When Nitish Kumar made the Bihar caste census report public, the Prime Minister described caste politics as a "sin that will be dangerous to the development of the country". But the BJP also knew that it would be dangerous to ignore OBC politics and it might damage the party. The appointment of Mohan Yadav, an OBC leader, and Vishnu Dev Sai, an adivasi, can be seen from this perspective too. Just one point. Shivraj is also an OBC leader and one of the most popular leaders in the country. Mohan Yadav is no match for Shivraj. To assume that appointing a leader from a particular caste or community will guarantee the votes of that community or caste is to assume too much. It does not happen unless the caste leader is charismatic and has a mass base. The same goes for Vishnu Deo. Their appointment is good for optics but how much it will deliver has to be seen.
Theory 4
Prime Minister Modi is known for excessive centralisation of power. Nothing moves without his consent, neither in the party, nor in the government. Ministers have no autonomy. This style of leadership has contributed significantly to the phenomenal expansion of the party. From two MPs in 1984, the BJP has gone on to win two consecutive national elections with a huge majority - a grand achievement for the BJP and for the RSS' ideology, once perceived as untouchable. Modi has undoubtedly changed the course of history, but he faced problems in some BJP-ruled states. Satraps like Vasundhara, Shivraj, Yediyurappa, and Raman Singh were once contemporaries of Modi, when he was Chief Minister of Gujarat, and Modi could not run these states the way he wanted. It's true that these leaders have never openly defied Modi, yet it was not smooth sailing. Modi did face subtle resistance, especially in Karnataka and Rajasthan. As a leader, he believes in one-way traffic; there is no room for disagreement. Therefore, it is said that the surprise choices in three states is an exercise to take total control of BJP-ruled states. It is fascinating how the stalwarts of the Atal-Advani era are walking into the sunset, soon to be part of nostalgia.
There is no denying that every leader has a right to choose their team to implement their vision. It is for history to judge the merits.
One of the characteristics of the Modi era is that journalists have restricted access to information. No wonder that theories get wings and speculation flies. That these are bold moves is irrefutable. Is it a masterstroke? The jury is out, for now.
(Ashutosh is author of 'Hindu Rashtra' and Editor, satyahindi.com.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.