Home

Featured Articles

Sep 14, 2026
YagnaSri

Chanakya in Uttar Pradesh: How Amit Shah Rebuilt the BJP from the Grassroots and Delivered a Historic Mandate Part 24

In the lexicon of Indian democratic politics, no organisational achievement of the post-independence era compares with what Amit Anil Shah accomplished in Uttar Pradesh between 2013 and 2014. Starting with a BJP organisation that had collapsed to 47 Assembly seats in the 2012 state elections, a rump so diminished that the party barely registered in rural UP. It had lost credibility as an organisational force across the state. In less than eighteen months, Shah built the electoral machinery that delivered 71 of UP's 80 Lok Sabha seats to the BJP in May 2014. The margin of the victory was historic: no party had swept UP at this scale since the sympathy wave following Indira Gandhi's assassination in 1984, and that mandate had been emotional rather than organisational. The 2014 mandate in UP was organisational, built from the booth level up, through a combination of data-driven planning, disciplined execution, and a social coalition-building strategy that redefined what the BJP's constituency could be in northern India's most complex political state. The Diagnosis: What Had Gone Wrong in UP Amit Shah arrived in UP with a clear-eyed diagnosis of the BJP's failures. The party's organisational problems in the state were multiple and mutually reinforcing. Still, they could be reduced to three fundamental failures: a social base too narrow for state-level electoral dominance, an organisational culture that had degenerated from the RSS's standard of disciplined service to a patronage-seeking factional machine, and a strategic failure to translate the party's cultural nationalist message into the specific electoral terms of each of UP's 80 Lok Sabha constituencies and 403 Assembly segments. The social base problem was the most fundamental. The BJP's traditional UP constituency, upper-caste Hindus from the Brahmin, Rajput, Bania, and Kayastha communities, made up about 20-25 per cent of UP's population. A party that appealed primarily to this base could win urban constituencies and some rural seats in areas with high upper-caste concentration, but could not reach the 35-40 per cent vote share needed for a state-level majority. The SP's Yadav-Muslim coalition (approximately 30-35 per cent of the population) could dominate state elections without the BJP's social base to counter it. Building a majority required reaching the non-Yadav OBC communities (approximately 35 per cent of the population) that had historically been divided among multiple parties and had no single political home, and the non-Jatav Dalit communities (approximately 10-12 per cent) that had been loyal to the BSP but whose material conditions had not improved under BSP governance. The Organisational Revolution: Booth Management at Scale Shah's organisational methodology was not conceptually novel—the BJP's booth management system had been theorised and partially implemented before. Still, the scale, discipline, and data-driven precision with which he implemented it in UP were unprecedented. The fundamental unit of his organisational plan was the polling booth: each of UP's approximately 1.5 lakh polling booths was assigned a team of BJP workers responsible for knowing every voter in that booth's catchment, identifying the party's supporters, and ensuring that every identified supporter actually voted on election day. The booth-level database that Shah built for UP was among the most comprehensive electoral databases ever assembled for a single state in India. Workers were trained to identify voters not just by party preference but by the specific issues — local, caste-specific, or personal that would determine their choice. A Kurmi farmer in Hardoi district might be mobilised on agricultural loan issues; a Nishad fisherman in Ballia on fishing rights being monopolised by SP-connected contractors; a Rajbhar labourer in Azamgarh on the experience of police refusing to file FIRs against Yadav perpetrators. The outreach's specificity was its power: it told each voter the BJP understood his particular situation, not merely his caste category. The page committee system, assigning a specific BJP worker responsibility for every page of the electoral roll, typically covering 30-40 households, was implemented across all 80 constituencies simultaneously. Workers received training in voter contact, data collection, and the specific political messaging appropriate to their constituency's social profile. The data from all 1.5 lakh booths was aggregated, analysed, and used to direct the campaign's resource allocation: constituencies where the BJP's identified support exceeded a threshold received fewer resources; competitive constituencies received intensive work; and constituencies where the SP or BSP was particularly strong were assessed for the specific social communities where the BJP had the best prospect of making inroads. The Social Coalition: Building Beyond the Traditional Base Shah's most consequential strategic innovation in UP was deliberately building a social coalition that went far beyond the BJP's traditional upper-caste base. The strategy had two principal components: mobilising non-Yadav OBC communities as a consolidated pro-BJP force, and cultivating non-Jatav Dalit communities that had experienced BSP governance without material improvement. The non-Yadav OBC mobilisation required identifying and elevating community leaders from each of UP's numerous smaller OBC communities- Kurmis, Koiris, Nishads, Binds, Rajbhars, Telis, Lodhs, Kashyaps, Prajapatis, and dozens of others and giving each community the sense that the BJP was their party specifically rather than merely an upper-caste organisation seeking their votes. This required candidate selection that reflected the social coalition being assembled: the BJP's 2014 candidate list in UP included a deliberately higher proportion of OBC candidates than in previous elections, sending an organisational signal that matched the rhetorical one. The Nishad community mobilisation illustrates the strategy's specificity. Nishads, the boatmen and fishermen communities concentrated along the Ganga, Yamuna, and Ghaghra river belts, had historically been politically disorganised, their votes distributed among multiple parties. Under SP governments, SP-connected contractors undermined their traditional fishing rights by monopolising river fishing licenses, and police systematically ignored their complaints. Shah's UP team identified this specific grievance, promised specific remedies, and cultivated community-specific organisational networks within the Nishad community. The result was a significant shift of Nishad votes toward the BJP in 2014, a shift that the BJP has since institutionalised through its Nishad Party alliance. The Muzaffarnagar Factor: Converting Tragedy into Political Clarity The Muzaffarnagar riots of September 2013, which occurred just months before Shah arrived in UP, were a political tragedy that the BJP did not cause but which had profound electoral implications. The riots had displaced tens of thousands of Jat and Muslim farmers from communities that had lived in relative harmony; the SP government's response, which was widely perceived as protecting SP-aligned Muslim perpetrators while failing to secure justice for Jat victims, had generated enormous anger in the Jat community of western UP. The Jat community of western UP, prosperous agriculturalists concentrated in Muzaffarnagar, Shamli, Baghpat, Meerut, and the surrounding districts, had historically split between the BJP and Ajit Singh's Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), which cultivated Jat interests. After Muzaffarnagar, the community's calculus changed: Ajit Singh's RLD was part of the UPA coalition that had failed to prevent or adequately respond to the riots; the SP government had shown whose side it was on; and the BJP offered the combination of Hindu solidarity and governance credibility that the moment demanded. Shah's UP strategy incorporated the Muzaffarnagar factor without making it the campaign's sole or dominant theme. Systematic voter contact in western UP's Jat-concentrated constituencies communicated the BJP's specific understanding of what had happened and the accountability it would deliver. The Jat community's shift to the BJP in 2014, decisive in multiple western UP constituencies, was not merely anti-SP sentiment but a positive choice for a party that took their specific experience of injustice seriously. The 71-Seat Result and Its Meaning On May 16, 2014, the results confirmed what Shah's organisational system had been projecting for weeks: the BJP won 71 of UP's 80 Lok Sabha seats, with 42.3 per cent of the vote, the highest vote share achieved by any party in UP since the 1984 sympathy wave, and the first time a single party had won more than half of UP's Lok Sabha seats based on organisational work rather than a sympathy factor. The scale of the victory reflected the success of the social coalition strategy. The BJP won across the state's geographic diversity in western UP's Jat belt, in the OBC-dominated central and eastern constituencies, in the Brahmin and Rajput strongholds of Bundelkhand and Awadh, and even in constituencies where the Muslim vote was significant enough to determine close contests. The vote-share breakdown confirmed that the party had achieved the broad Hindu consolidation that had been its strategic objective: upper castes voted for the BJP at over 70 per cent; non-Yadav OBCs at over 40 per cent; non-Jatav Dalits at over 30 per cent. No single caste community was decisive; instead, a genuinely cross-caste Hindu coalition produced the majority. The 2014 UP result was Amit Shah's masterwork, and the BJP has studied and replicated its organisational lessons in state after state across India. But its significance for UP specifically was more profound than its national implications: it demonstrated that the state's political culture could be transformed, that the patronage-appeasement-identity politics cycle that had trapped UP for two decades could be broken by organisational discipline, specific community outreach, and a governance message that spoke to the specific experiences of ordinary citizens. The foundation for the 2017 state election sweep—and for the Yogi Adityanath era that would follow—was laid in the 18 months of organisational work Shah conducted across UP's 80 constituencies between late 2012 and May 2014. The Gujarat Model and the Great Awakening: Narendra Modi and the Resurgence of Cultural Nationalism in Uttar Pradesh, Part 23 https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/the-gujarat-model-and-the-great-awakening-narendra-modi-and-the-resurgence-of-cultural-nationalism-in-uttar-pradesh-part-23

Sep 14, 2026
B S Murthy

Hindus and Hebrews – Contrasting Parallels : A Case for Hindu Rashtra

Desa-mante matti-kaadoi, desa-mante manushu-loi (nation is not (its) soil, nation is but (its) people), wrote Gurajada Appa Rao, a noted Telugu playwright and poet, and Hindus and Hebrews, aka Jews, validate him, though differently. True, all peoples and nations have unique attributes, but few, if any, have had the travails and tribulations of Hindus and Hebrews as peoples, and India and Israel as nations, with peculiar parallels and compelling contrasts. So to say, more than any, it is the aftermath of India’s independence and Israel’s formation that highlights the lack of Hindu hindsight and the expansive Jewish foresight. The Hindus made their part of the sundered land, a no-man’s land, in effect a Dar al-Harb (abode of war) for the unobligated Musalmans that stayed back in their millions. The Hebrews, on the other hand, turned the reacquired part of their promised land into a Jewish State, despite its considerable Arab Muslim habitation. While an exhaustive study of the contrasting parallels of the Hindus and the Hebrews, indeed, India and Israel, is a tome in the making (maybe a joint venture), this piece is but a prelude to set its tone. Much before Moses led the Jews to their promised land of Israel, the Devas enabled Hindus to make Bharat their karma Bhoomi. Maybe by divine design to make them proportional to their populations, the former was shaped into a tiny enclave, and the latter a subcontinent (Bharata Khanda). In Bharat, while its rishis and munis evolved the Sanatana dharma, aka Hinduism, the acharyas and gurukuls made it the seat of learning, visited by the seekers from all nations. Likewise, the chosen ‘Jewish’ people nursed a promised land to shape their heritage, as narrated in the Torah. However, as if to prove that good things do not last forever, both these ancient peoples, in historical course, fell on bad times, first the chosen ones, and later, the blessed ones. Being among the oldest non-proselytising entities, they had to survive the proselytising onslaught, from within and without: Hinduism from Buddha’s revolt, reform, if you please, tumultuous Islamic assaults and the insidious Christian intrusions. Likewise, Judaism from Jesus’ rebellion, clothed in the Sermon, Muhammad’s personal animosity, crystallised as Islamic hatred, not to speak of the despicable anti-Semitism of the Christian world. In the case of Jews, first, it was the Assyrians that drove some of them out of their land, and then the Babylonians not only destroyed their First Temple in Jerusalem but also exiled many of them. Even their subsequent resettlement that Cyrus the Great facilitated came to nought as the Romans destroyed the Second Temple they rebuilt, accentuating their diaspora to disperse all over. Well, that’s the price the Jews had to pay for the lack of geographic depth that still puts them on their toes in their regained State of Israel. As regards the Hindus, their first brush with the Islamic invasions was in the outlier Sindh that Muhammad ibn al-Qasim subdued at the dawn of the eighth century, and his brief foray thereafter into Gujarat to loot the famed Somnath shrine. However, it was three hundred years later that they had their first dish of Islamic savagery, served by ‘marauder’ Mahmud Ghazni in the sacking of the refurbished Somnath. Call it the Hindu misfortune or its cultural resilience, the cycle of Islamic destructions and Sanatana reconstructions continued, over centuries, at Somnath (five each); the in situ marvel was built, post-independence. Whatever, had Hindus developed shatrubodh (enemy awareness) after Ghazni’s Butshikhan (idol breaking) in Somnath, maybe there would never have been even an Islamic chapter in Indian history. Though badly mauled by Prithviraj Chauhan in the First Battle of Tarain, as Muhammad Ghori returned for a second one a year later, had the fellow Hindu rulers joined hands with the former, the latter could not have established the Delhi Sultanate, the harbinger of India’s Islamic rule. Needless to say, it was a horrendous five-hundred-year medieval period for the Hindus thereafter that only ended after Aurangzeb’s vicious reign came to an end, and that hastened the decline and the downfall of the Mughal Empire. However, whereas the Jewish physical toll the anti-Semitism took in the Christian world by way of pogroms, exacerbated by the holocaust of six million of them, is rightly remembered by the perpetrators as a means of atonement for their sin; the Muslim slaughter of medieval Hindus was pushed under the carpet of collective consciousness of the world. Even American historian Will Durant, in his book The Story of Civilization affirmed that the medieval Muslim conquest of India was "probably the bloodiest story in history", with varying genocidal estimates between eighty to hundred million dead, not to speak of the unspeakable atrocities against women. It’s as if Hindu lives do not matter, even to the ‘civilised’ minds. So be it, but when the Jews were forced out of their hearth and home, as some of them came to them, the Hindus welcomed them with open arms, making them feel at home ever after. Not just that, during World War I, fighting on Israeli soil to liberate Haifa from the Ottomans, scores of Hindu soldiers laid down their lives. (It goes to the credit of the Jewish people that they have not forgotten these Hindu gestures). So to say, it’s but a demonstration of their innate fighting spirit that never waned, for some of their kings were unceasing in causing military headaches to the Islamic invaders. Even in the British Raj, though the enervated princelings acquiesced to the throne, free-spirited from all sections, more so the tribals, tended to indulge in insurgencies against the colonial masters, throughout India’s length and breadth, that is, for years on. Nevertheless, whereas the Islamic invaders upset the Indian social order of yore, the British colonisers undermined the Hindu minds to their eternal detriment. It was Lord Macaulay who established a cult of deracinated Hindus as “a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” that rules the roost even eight decades after the British had left the Indian shores for good, that was after looting whatever they could. Surely, his legacy can lay claim to prophethood. So be it, but as if to leave an inviolable mark of their colonial rule, the British partitioned India to carve out Pakistan as a homeland for the intransigent Musalmans. It’s another matter, though: having insisted that they cannot live with the Hindus, the raison d'être of partition, yet 80% of them stayed put in the 80% of land allotted to the Hindus that is Bharat. But in stark contrast, the very British allotted 55% of the contested land to 33% Jews, leaving the Muslim majority with their minority share. However, owing to their religious-hate-driven military misadventure, the Muslims lost more of their meagre land as spoils of war to Israel. Why, the Jews know their enemy well, and it shows. It's thus, they came to define their new State of Israel as ‘Jewish and Democratic’, though governed by secular laws, but without a written constitution. It’s another matter that even if Moses’ Laws were enforced, the Abrahamic Arabs would have more than welcomed them, but unlike Musalmans, the Jews had long since moved away from their untenable mores of yore. What is more, as if to keep their nascent nation in a wait-and-watch mode, they had evolved the concept of Basic Law. And for their part, the Arab Israelis, privy to the Jewish resolve not to let anyone mess up with their promised land, not only fell in line but also fell at the front along with their Jewish mates. Whatever, the Jews, who are privy to the Islamic credos more than any, understand the consequences of a constitution that enables the Muslims to perceive Israel as a Dar-al-Harb for what it is, the abode of war for the Musalmans. Hence, "the realisation of the right to national self-determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the Jewish People” formed the Basic Law, adopted by the Knesset in 2018, true, 2018. Juxtaposing it, the Hindus gave themselves a hotchpotch constitution that declared India as a sovereign democratic Republic; however, governed by communal laws in civil matters, mostly Sharia-compliant at that! That’s not all; it granted freedom of religious propagation (read: Christian and Muslim proselytisation) in the immediate wake of the country’s partition on religious lines. What a memory! So, in other words, it’s nothing but an instrument of Hindu hara-kiri; yet that they think no end of it speaks for their intellectual bankruptcy. Think that their progenitors wore Upanishadic wisdom on their sleeves and Kautilya gave them the Artha Sastra that, anyway, has been collecting dust for long! So, by design or by default, the Indian constitution was designed for the unfettered growth of the Semitic faiths of Christianity and Islam in India, and their adherents too have not been found wanting in making the best of its provisions that serve as their proselytising tools. Well, at this rate, given their secular foolhardiness, the Hindus, over time, by way of curing the Muslim headache they themselves bought for Bharat, could be conceding Islamic States in Assam, Bengal and Keralam, and part with part of their land in other parts of it as Sharia-compliant Autonomous Muslim Areas, a could be Islamic innovation. But would the Christians lag in demanding their share of the Hindu spoils? Why should they, as they already have most of the Seven Sisters in the Northeast under their Christian belt? If that were not to be Bharat’s scary future, how the common Hindu-Hebrew fate came to be forked into differing Indian and Israeli destinies is the subject that should engage the former for timely redressal. While the unquestioning faith in Jehovah keeps the Jews united within the Judaic fold, the unshakeable belief in their promised destiny makes them persevere without end, and that, at once, affords them a sense of oneness and purpose. Despite the unceasing pogroms against them all over Europe, they kept intact their hope of returning to their promised land. Thus, this resolve to make it a reality gave rise to Zionism, a political and nationalist movement to establish and support a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. Indeed, Israel came into being nine months after India became independent, and the rest is history - of the Jewish resolve to live for and die for every inch of their hard-fought land, and of the Hindu ineffectiveness in not retaining even India’s unfair share, resulting in the further loss of over 50k sq km of land to its enemies, not counting Gilgit-Baltistan. However, for Hindus, the Sanatana ethos of ekam sadviprā bahudhā vadanti (what is right is One only, the wise describe it variedly) is no sticking glue to hang on to regardless. If anything, the pristine varnashrama dharma that in the later days degenerated into the caste conundrum has come to irrevocably divide the Hindu socially, and has become detrimental to it in every way. Besides, Bharat’s varied regionality with distinctive languages and sub-cultures, despite its Hindu homogeneity, deprives it of an emotional coherence, rendering it into a sort of nation of nations. Thus, unlike the Hebrews, the Hindus have no such passion for their karma Bhoomi; maybe its subcontinental vastness also makes it psychologically unwieldy for physical possessiveness. Be that as it may, if the fate of a nation is the state of its politics, the mettle of its leaders is the spirit of its people. So, it was no coincidence that Ben-Gurion came to lead the Zionist insurgency against the British in Mandatory Palestine and Gandhi became the fountainhead of Hindu passivity, at home with peaceful protests, dubbed satyagraha (just anger). That was despite Netaji Bose revealing the revolutionary path to oust the British. Not just that; Ben-Gurion, for over thirteen years, helped the nascent Israel acquire the character of the Jewish State, but the self-serving Gandhi thrust Nehru, his weakness, upon India, brushing aside Patel the capable, to govern its destiny. And what Nehru did for nearly seventeen years speaks as much about him as the Hindus, for they rooted for him with their votes, in poll after poll. Just to illustrate: having shunned Israel’s hand, running after Islamic grooms, he suffered no qualms in making India their mistress, when in Chinese distress. It’s a shame that his legacy became India’s foreign policy until Modi and Bibi accorded it legitimacy. So, what now for Hindus, and India? Before all else, they should learn to ignore the Western validations of them and their desi endeavours. “No country but India and no religion but Hinduism could have given birth to a Gandhi,” so proclaimed the London Times, the day after his death. Then, “Oh, India, dare to be worthy of your Gandhi,” pontificated Pearl S. Buck, adding that he said, “Resist to the very end, but without violence. Of violence the world is sick.” Really! It’s rich, given her own country’s domestic history, not to speak of its warmongering foreign policy. Obviously, her advice was not meant for fellow Americans. So, it’s about time Hindus realised that the Western praises of Gandhi are but ruses to keep the Hindu minds in pacifist mode even as they clamour for Dismantling Global Hindutva! Likewise, the left-libs that romanticise Che Guevara confine Netaji Bose to the margins of revolution, and with a purpose that our Macaulay-putra fail to grasp. Why, it’s not hard to see that Satyajit Ray is celebrated in the racist West as much for his cinematic worth as for his popularisation of Hindu poverty. Oh, the Booker books tell their own story. So also, the Pulitzer Prizes, Magsaysay Awards and such. The one thing Hindus should learn from Jews is to do what is right for their nation regardless of what others think of them, which is their real strength. But in the Hindu-majority ‘secular’ India, supposedly Bharat, the shoe is on the Muslim foot, notwithstanding the left-Islamist contra propaganda that, anyway, the living Hindu experience belies. If anything, Hindus prove that the peculiar strength of Islam is the indifference of those it seeks to destroy. Just the same, as the purpose of this piece is not about debunking the falsities of the detractors but to alert the indifferent Hindus, there is no detailing the same that is anyway evident to the discerning. However, it is seldom appreciated by the Hindus (for the lack of shatrubodh) that the Muslim religious conditioning lies in nursing the twin aspirations of ‘all religion is for Allah’ and all the world is for Islam (Dar al-Islam). Besides, it’s an article of faith for them in that wherever they are in a minority (Dar al-Harb), they should strive to make it Dar al-Islam, Ghazwa-e-Hind in India’s case. Given that the Indian constitution has enough and more to nurse their Islamic hope and provides ample scope, besides, for fulfilling their Dar al-Islam aspirations, they have no reason not to be religiously aggressive in pursuit of the same. So, the remedy for India’s Muslim problem lies in removing that Islamic hope from its midst, like Israel did in its State, by turning Bharat into a Hindu Rashtra. Anyway, for the doubters, by way of an analogy, what Art 370 was doing in Jammu & Kashmir was effectively nursing the Muslim hopes of separation from India. But once it was revoked, it dawned on the Kashmiris that with it gone was the scope for their azadi, for all times to come. And that altered the Muslim behavioural pattern; if not forged an emotional bond with Bharat, that, anyway, Islam would never allow to happen. But what really matters from the national perspective is that they have started behaving themselves, more or less. Thus, wiser from the Kashmiri experience, if Bharat were to declare itself as a Hindu Rashtra, ruled by raja dharma, then that would usher in Rama Rajya, a synonym for fairness.

BRICS at 20: From Global South’s Voice to Shared Responsibility

Digital Detox of the Youth: The Need of the Hour

The Gujarat Model and the Great Awakening: Narendra Modi and the Resurgence of Cultural Nationalism in Uttar Pradesh Part 23

Featured Articles

Chanakya in Uttar Pradesh: How Amit Shah Rebuilt the BJP from the Grassroots and Delivered a Historic Mandate Part 24

Hindus and Hebrews – Contrasting Parallels : A Case for Hindu Rashtra

Reports View All

‘Peace on border essential for development of bilateral ties’: PM Modi tells President Xi

BRICS members adopt New Delhi declaration, condemns Pahalgam attack in strongest terms

EC seeks additional documents from Ritabrata camp over rival claims by Mamta-led faction

PM Modi proposes 10-point roadmap including seafarers emergency support network at BRICS Summit

Adani group emerges as key partner for Russia’s defence industry

Odisha secures Rs 2.43 lakh crore investment proposals in UAE outreach

Search

Top Authors

Archives

Featured Articles

Reports View All

Search

Podcast / Videos

Popular Posts

Top Authors

Archives