NATIONAL POLITICS

Amulya Ganguli on BJP's Words and Deeds

It is customary to regard Mr. Kalyan Singh's manoeuvres in UP as some sort of a fall from the BJP's high ideals. The fact is, however, that like almost everything about the party, the prevailing conception of its supposed nobility is based on nothing substantial. If this notion has nevertheless persisted, it is because the BJP, and its predecessor the Jan Sangh, had always been a relatively inconsequential party on the political periphery.

It was also true to an extent because in the early stages, when the prospect of growth appeared limited, there was little doubt that only true believers tended to congregate. It also had only two leaders L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee - of whom it was Vajpayee who was seemingly more important in the earlier days, which is why he got the more prestigious of the two portfolios which were given to the party in its first real brush with power in 1977. He also automatically became the first president of the BJP when it was formed in 1980.

It is still the same two who matter, only Advani has apparently become somewhat more important. It is worth recalling that even during that first sojourn in the corridors of power, the party's peculiar composition created a rift between it and the other more "normal" parties, leading to the end of the first Janata government. The controversy had centred then on the question of the "dual membership" of Sangh Parivar acolyte.

The habit of wearing a mask, therefore, is not something confined to an individual but an integral feature of the saffron Parivar. What the RSS and the VHP say today may not be echoed by the BJP and vice versa although everyone knows they all congregate under the same umbrella. Given this scope for doublespeak, terminological in exactitude can become the cornerstone of a party's policy. And nothing demonstrated this gulf between the BJP's words and deeds better than during the run-up to the Babari Masjid demolitions. The current hero of India's largest ministry comprising criminals and carpet-baggers (also) played a crucial role at that time.

Mr. Kalyan Singh's explanation during his first stint as Chief Minister for the clearing of the area, near the Babari Masjid, of the small temples(!) and other buildings with bulldozers was that a complex for tourists was going to be built. He did not care to elaborate that the "tourists" were going to be the kar sevaks from Maharashtra and other States. All the time while this in exactitude was being uttered, the BJP's other senior leaders, including Advani, were telling Parliament, the judiciary, the National Integration Council and whoever cared to listen that the party had no intention of demolishing the Masjid and would give it full protection, The rest, of course, is history.

The point, therefore, is that adherence to truth has never been the BJP's strong point. But proximity to power has shown that it is no less, adept than the other parties in breaking its pledge. There is nothing surprising, therefore, in Kalyan Singh making a mockery of Vajpayee's ringing declaration in the Lok Sabha against adopting questionable tactics to secure a majority. The same Singh posed with a big smile on his face before going to the Supreme Court to be sentenced for a day's imprisonment in connection with the Babari Masjid demolition. To him, it was not a matter of shame but of great satisfaction that he had "failed" to protect the mosque while repeatedly promising to do so.

It is not only that the BJP thinks nothing of breaking its word. It has also turned into an art form the practice of justifying an act which, if practised by others, it would condemn as vociferously as possible. Consider the case of the so-called vote bank. When other parties target Muslim, they are derided as "appeasers" and accused of indulging in the cynical exploitation of "vote banks". But when the BJP targets the Dalits, it is loftily described as the "politics of social harmony". The word "vote bank" is not uttered at all, and the party grovelling before the BSP not described as "appeasement". When the United Front parties got together to form the alliance, the BJP called it an act of "ganging up' against it. But when the BJP requested the same parties to come to its side, that was deemed perfectly legitimate.

The same is the case of horse-trading. In the BJP's view, what has happened in Uttar Pradesh cannot be described in such derogatory terms at all. Said Mr. Yashwant Sinha. “For us, it is merely a political settlement with those who supported our government." Surely, nothing can be more aboveboard than a political settlement.

Therefore, "if something similar happens in Parliament also, why should we be averse to courting the process?" asks the celebrated rath yatri, Advani. Why indeed? After all, the Congress, he says, is "withdrawing away. It is in the process of erosion and the BJP would certainly like to fill this vacuum." And what about the admission of criminals? Sinha takes a philosophical view. It would serve a greater purpose if criminals could be reformed in the BJP's company."

Call it brazenness or effrontery or ingenuity, the BJP is undoubtedly remarkably adept at seeing black as white when this is in its favour.  What can be cuter than to describe defections as political settlement? Unless one opts for Kalyan Singh terming defections as a sign of affection.

Silence, too, plays as important a part in circumventing the truth as giving words and deeds a new interpretation. Explaining the success of the BJP's ties with the Akalis, Madanlal Khurana said that it was the result of the fact that his party kept "quiet on the Anandpur Sahib resolution while they keep quiet on the Ram Janambhoomi issue."

It is possible to condone a conspiracy of silence on relatively minor points of disagreements. But these are central to the functioning of the Akalis and the BJP. The recourse to sealed lips amounts, therefore, to practising deceit since the parties are deliberately keeping quiet on issues associated with their partners about which they have grave reservations.

It can be argued, of course, that all politicians and parties indulge in prevarication. True, but then no party should pretend that it is different from others, as the BJP does with much chest-thumping.                                            

 (Source: The Hindustan Times, 10 November 1997).

Prakash Patra on Real Face of the BJP - Advani or Vajpayee?

Vajpayee and Advani are basically two sides of the same coin. Vajpayee is a leader with a mass base and Advani is an organisation man. Advani represents the aggressive face of Hindutva and Vajpayee attempts to repackage the aggressiveness to make it acceptable. The two  complement each other in their task of building the party.

It has been a conscious design of the Sangh Parivar to project Vajpayee as its liberal face for obvious political reasons. One cannot but underscore the fact that between 1952 and 1968, the Jana Sangh, the earlier incarnation of the BJP, had 10 presidents. Between 1969 and 1997 (save the period between 1977 and 1980 when the Jana Sangh merged with the Janata Party) the party presidentship has remained with either Vajpayee or Advani, with the sole exception of Murli Manohar Joshi who occupied the office once.

Both Advani and Vajpayee come from the RSS and share its ideology. Through a conscious effort, Vajpayee has been portrayed as a liberal leader who can wax eloquent as easily as Jawaharlal Nehru and talk about the desirability of a composite Indian culture. he can afford to strike a discordant note with other fiery leaders of the BJP. he can even attend the RSS meet wearing a dhoti and kurta and get himself consciously photographed with khaki shorts-clad pracharaks.

The RSS can hold him back from being a part of the BJP squad which demolished the Babari Masjid so that he can later described the demolition as a tragedy to gain the sympathy of the people.

Why does the RSS need the liberal face of Vajpayee? In his liberal face, the Sangh parivar sees the potential of garnering the support of those who may not be ideologically close to the BJP but are anti-Congress and anti-regional groupings. As a Left leader says: Vajpayee is not the BJP's mask. He is wearing the liberal mask for the BJP.

Linked to is the party's next electoral strategy. Should the party try to go to the polls on its own, vigorously pursuing the Hindutva plank to come to power, Advani would become the natural choice to lead it.

But the question is: Can the party expect a repeat of the 1989 euphoria generated by Advani's rath yatra? The other option, and a safer one, could be to project the liberal face and rope in as many smaller political groups into its fold as possible and make another bid to come to power. It is here that Vajpayee fits the bill.

Besides, Advani would have to lay down the office of the party president this year if the BJP was to strictly adhere to its norm. For his supporters in the party, the stake seems to be bigger. If Vajpayee becomes Prime Minister, then like the Congress, he, and not the party president, would be calling the shots in the organisation. (Growing dissidence point to the BJP fast undermining, its 'uniqueness'. The BJP might well soon realise that its real face is, finally, like that of any other party.

On Hindutva as Nationalism Shahabuddin's Reply to Malkani

In his article "New Age Hindu" (20 October, 1997) Mr. K.R. Malkani confuses Indian Nationalism with Hindu Nationalism in accordance with the RSS philosophy. There is a Hindu identity but there are many other identities with still more layers of Sub-identities, which together make Indian Nationalism. There is also a pan-Hindu consciousness just as there is a pan-Islamic consciousness which is shared by persons who are nationals and citizens of other States, since both Islam and Hinduism are world religions. Neither religion nor culture are co-terminus with nationality.

 Religions and culture both cut across state boundaries and different religions and cultures share a common national or political space. There is hardly any historic modern State which is absolutely homogeneous in religion, race, language or culture. Only mini-and- micro-and ersatz States are. India is not one of them.

Whether India is mono-cultural or multi-cultural is a question of fact. Whether India should be mono-cultural is a question of politics, of dominance by one religious group over other religious groups as well as peripheral groups. Such dominance is against the spirit of the times and against the current of history

I shall not be surprised if Islamic Pakistan would find it more comfortable to co-exist with Hindi India, for its very raison deter is that the Hindus and the Muslims of the Sub-continent cannot exist within and jointly manage a modern nation-state.

Just as the word "QAUM" has played havoc with the evolution over political thinking, so has the word Hindu. But we are not discussing semantics but existential realities.

Today no identity, religious, linguistic and cultural can be imposed over any group, howsoever small, against its will, and it will not be so willing, unless and until that group sees its future in assimilation or submergence or absorption. The Muslim Indians do not see their future in these terms. They see their future in their mother land, in terms of identity, equality and dignity. Neither flattery nor political deal, nor persecution shall make him accept a trade-off between identity and equality or between equality and dignity.