But, as the defectors merrily cross the floor from one side to the other, questions are bound to arise about their intentions. Since few will ascribe any lofty motives to them, they will be merely confirming their reputation as time-servers who have made a mockery of the concept of ideological convictions, which are supposed to be the main guiding force for the political parties and their members.

Instead, what the defectors in Karnataka, Goa and elsewhere have shown is that the loaves and fishes of office hold a greater attraction for them than ideological commitment. In fact, it is now obvious that they never had any ideology to start with. As such, they will be hard put to explain their beliefs in, say, the forms of governance – authoritarian or liberal, and/or the nature of society – theocratic or secular.

To them, a ministerial position is apparently the be-all and end-all of life, or at least a position in a party which is in power at the centre and seemingly has a better future than one which has suffered a humiliating defeat at the national level and is struggling to keep its flock together.

So much is clear. But what does such wholesale trafficking in political allegiance signify for the supposed gainers and losers? A party is held together by the loyalty of its members who stand by it through good times and bad — as in an ideal marriage. The entry, therefore, of what can be described as fair-weather friends, cannot be deemed beneficial for an organization.

The adverse effect of such elements can prove to be even more detrimental to the party’s interests if their numbers are large and diverse. For instance, the claim of the BJP apparatchik, Mukul Roy, a relatively new member of the party himself, that more than 100Trinamool Congress, Congress and CPI(M) followers are waiting to cross over to the BJP in West Bengal cannot be a source of joy to a longstanding supporter of the BJP.

As some of them, including the late Manohar Parrikar’s son, Utpal, has said, the recent admission of several Congress MLAs to the BJP in Goa — and the immediate elevation of three of them to ministerial posts — is not something of which the former chief minister would have approved.

If the BJP is nevertheless following an open door policy for defectors — and is accused by its critics of being actively engaged in luring susceptible legislators to its parlour — the reason is, first, to create a turmoil in the ranks of its opponents so that their parties face the threat of disintegration, and, secondly, to create the impression that the BJP’s writ will prevail all over the country.

In the process, the BJP’s own ideology will run the risk of being diluted, for it is unlikely that a former Congressman or a Trinamool supporter or a ex-Marxist will be as enthusiastic about the Ram temple or in chanting “Jai Shri Ram” as a diehard saffronite.

As it is, the BJP’s geographical expansion has forced it to shelve some of its pet aversions, such as the consumption of beef in Goa and the north-east. Now, the party’s physical expansion can have a similar effect as the new members take their time to imbibe the Hindutva worldview by reading V.D. Savarkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyay.

But the faith of a neophyte may not have the ardour of a veteran, especially if the former hasn’t been attracted so much by the new party’s outlook as by the favourable career choices that it offers. Not surprisingly, this greed is in sync with declining morals of the large number of candidates with a criminal background who contest the elections these days.

Meanwhile, what of the parties that are haemorrhaging? Arguably, they may say about those who are leaving, “good riddance to bad rubbish”, except that in India, such departures are generally interpreted as the sign of a sinking ship. But, it is not an impression which the Congress, which has been affected the most by the BJP’s poaching, will like to give if only because the 134-year-old party regards itself, even in its present weakened state, as the natural alternative to the BJP.

However, the exit of the Congress’s members shows that the glue of whatever dogma the party professes to uphold is no longer strong enough. The members stayed with it as long as it could win elections, but began leaving once it lost that ability. What is clear, therefore, from these comings and goings is the triumph of opportunism over principles. (IPA Service)