To continue from where I left, while the idea of catharsis may sound seductive, politically, I believe, it is counter productive. A better strategy will be to focus on the issues.
One such ready-made issue is the attempt by center to insulate bureaucracy from political responsibility. BJP leadership is supporting it for rewarding its favorite babus. It should oppose it.
Now this issue may not fetch anything electorally. Indian voters simply do not care about federalism. However this issue helps in positioning, BJP can claim it stands for Strong center and strong states as opposed to Congress which stands for Strong center and weak states and regional parties which stand for weak center and strong states. This kind of positioning helps in reinventing BJP from a saffron flavored Congress that it is perceived today and what's much more important help in attracting allies.
Now coming to broader point, since the defeat in elections, and in a way even prior to that, the primary concern of BJP supporters has been to search for a leader who can lead BJP to victory.
This, in my view, is a wrong approach. The specific reason is at present none of BJP leaders has the popularity to secure parliamentary majority or even significant electoral advantage. Among a section there was palpable excitement for Narendra Modi as prospective leader. However as the election proved he has hardly any influence outside Gujarat. Now people may argue that this may change, and Modi, or some other leader, may emerge before 2014. This is possible, yet highly unlikely. For I believe the era of charismatic leaders with pan Indian influence has passed.
The reason for this is that Indian polity has changed. Individuals, more precisely members of Nehru - Gandhi dynasty, commanded a pan Indian influence when memory of freedom struggle, more or less a pan Indian phenomenon, was recent. The dynasty was main beneficiary of the romance and promise of the independence. However as the political scene progress through time, and the expectations were belied, the influence of romance and as a consequence popular appeal of dynasty waned.
Gradually even though the dynasty remained in charge, the political landscape shifted to a. Addressing people's expectations and even more importantly b. Articulating their aspirations. Even then the change was not apparent immediately because the emerging interest groups sought protection under the shadow of behemoth of dynasty at national level. On state level however regional parties emerged ensuing decades of bitter confrontation with Congress. In short term dynasty was able to control the regional parties. However eventually dynasty lost its influence resulting in present equilibrium where national politics resembles a confederacy of regional interests.
Now I believe that in long term this arrangement is against integrity and unity of India, however this arrangement is stable for the time being and hence will persist. Also I don't think reverting to the earlier model of patron-client relation is the solution.
This arrangement raises political challenge for a national party in short term as well as long term. Short term challenge exists because it can not rely on a single leader or a single direct message. This can be resolved by raising issues and proposing policy proposals which address the specific interest substantiavely and exhaustively. Long term challenge is ensuring unity and Integrity of India. This can be addressed at political level by pro-actively supporting a federalist approach, and at cultural level by locating the diverse traditions and aspirations of various regions within broader existence of Indic civilization and its growth.
This implies a shift from messianic emphasis on personalities to emphasis on the issues, and more importantly innovation as well as articulation.