" There is nothing in the manifestos of the Jana Sangh that has
consistency or anything discernible as an economic ideology or any
ideas about how Hindutva would influence the State. The manifestos
are a collection of rambling and inchoate pronouncements.
The Jana Sangh stood for mechanisation of agriculture and
then immediately opposed it in 1954 (because the use of tractors
would mean bullocks would get slaughtered). It wanted industry to
calibrate its use of automation not based on efficiency but how many
more individuals it could hire. It did not explain why a businessman
should or would want to add cost rather than reduce it. In 1971 it
said it wanted no automation in any industry except defence and
aerospace.
In 1954, and again in 1971, it sought to cap the monthly
incomes of all Indians at Rs 2,000 and wanted the State to
appropriate everything earned above that sum.
It wanted residential bungalows to be limited to a size of 1,000
square yards.3 In 1957, it spoke of ‘revolutionary changes’ it would
bring without saying what these were, and in the very next manifesto
dropped the reference without explanation. All this is, of course,
because they were responding to Congress manifestos of the time
and had nothing real to offer of their own. Nor did they think they
needed to: with a national voteshare that till 1989 was in the single
digits, the party knew it would not be in power, would not need to
implement a policy and, therefore, was free to say whatever came to
mind.
The Jana Sangh did not have any particular strategic view of
the world and India’s place in it besides saying that India should be
friends with all who were friendly and tough on those who were not.
India should seek a place in the Security Council but there was no
reference to why or what India’s role would be, or how its influence
and strategic options would increase if it got this position. It offered
no path for getting to the Security Council. Entitlement would
apparently get India there. "

― , Price of the Modi Years