NATIONAL POLITICS

Neerja Chowdhury on Emergence of Two-Party System

The beginnings of a bipolar arrangement were made in the division in Parliament. The BJP could not manage to win over a single MP from the other side.

Fear of alienating the minorities and hope that the other side would form a government kept the others from straying.

The BJP has already appropriated one pole of the country's politics. The anti-Congressism of yesteryears has given way to anti-BJPism. The BJP's success will hinge on its success in moderating its agenda and the ability of the non-BJP forces to fashion a coherent. political force. It is too early to say what shape it will take. But a trifurcated vote will mean an advantage to the BJP with the growing feeling inko bhi dekh liya jaye.

Though the BJP has hijacked the Congress' plank of stability, it does not mean that the party would come back to power with a thumping majority on its own if elections were to be held today, or even a year later.

The party can at best go for maximizing its support in the North and the West. But it is non-existent in large parts of India and cannot get majority on its own unless it makes inroads in the South and the East. This will take time. Meanwhile, it will have to come to an arrangement with existing forces in states where it does not have a reasonable presence.

The inner dynamics of the Congress have left Rao with no other choice but to support the United Front whose constituents are its main foes in several states. It is arrayed against the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, the TMC- DMK in Tamil Nadu, the JD in Karnataka, the Left parties in W. Bengal and Kerala and the AGP in Assam.

On their part, these parties have had to take the support of the Congress to form government. They will be forced to go easy on criticism of the party to facilitate the continuation of the government. Their credibility will take a knocking when the BJP punches away at scandals involving Congressmen.

A development which could help polarize the situation against the BJP and give the Gowda Government a measure of stability is the decision of the CPI to join the Government... The BJP is not a force in West Bengal or the southern states, except in Karnataka, though the existing contradictions in the non-BJP front can create a space for the party, and the BJP can be expected to grow at the expense of the Congress in many states. The party has polled 17 per cent of the votes in Orissa, 10 per cent in West Bengal.

We may see the TMC phenomenon repeated in several states in the months to come. The Tamil Maanila Congress came to be formed when the state Congress leaders saw their very existence threatened by the high command's decision to go with Jayalalitha.

Such groups would then be free to tie-up with the BJP at the national level. That is why the possibility of a group breaking off from the Congress cannot be ruled out which could align with the BJP in Parliament, if the Gowda Government runs into rough weather.

The shape of the second pole of the polity would depend on the extent to which the Congress is able to revive itself under a new leadership and adapt itself to the rising aspirations of groups which want their share in the power structure. Only then would it be able to become the leading force of the non-BJP alliance.

But as things stand, the party, which has been reduced to half its strength, faces further decline. Rao is firmly in the saddle and there is no agreement about who could succeed him. The decision of G.K. Moopanar not to join the Gowda Cabinet is a significant one for he is one of those who could be acceptable to the Congress as its president.

In recent years, the Congress has remained alive by virtue of being in power. It is in power now only in a handful of states, and Deve Gowda's appointment as Prime Minister has also robbed Narasimha Rao of the leader of the Opposition status.

The country may be headed for a further regionalization of politics at one level. But at the national plane these parties would have to align with either the BJP or the non-BJP forces for government formation. The coming months will see the metamorphosis of every political formation.

(Source: The 7???, 3 June, 1996)

Shahabuddin's Letter to BJP Leader A.B. Vajpayee, 15 June, 1996

Somehow, I had missed your address to the nation on the assumption of office as the Prime Minister on May 19, 1996. I have now obtained a copy and read it carefully.

A part of your speech is devoted to the delineation of the BJP's concept of secularism and its 'true' meaning. You have stated: "We do not limit ourselves to one God or one Prophet or a single Book we believe in the equality of all religious faiths... we have never had ar, tension, leave alone a violent struggle on the correct path to achieve a realization of God equal respect to all faiths is part of our civilizational consciousness. Secularism thus is integrated into our lives. India never was, and never will be, a theocratic State"

Reading the above, a question arose in my mind. Whom does the pronoun "we" and its grammatical variations represent? It appears to me that "we" does not represent all Indians because there are people among us who do limit themselves to one God or one Prophet or a single Book.

There are also people who consider that equal respect to all faiths would imply equal treatment including equal protection to the places of worship of all faiths. A secular state does not take a stand on the 'truth' or the universality of a religion in order to accord it equal treatment under the law of the land. Equality of treatment to all religions in a secular state arises from the very fact of their existence. The follower of one faith may not regard the other faiths as true or as correct paths to achieve a realization of God but as a citizen he cannot object to the State treating all religions equally. That is why borrowing an idiom from diplomacy, I have often stated that a secular state is equidistant to and non- aligned with respect to all religions, while it is neither pro-religious nor anti-religious in itself.

There are also historians who believe that, in fact, even before the advent of Islam there have been much inter-religious violence in our country, in the course of with entire sects were declared to be heretic and converted.

All this implies articulation, perhaps unconsciously. as a leader or spokesman of the Hindu community and not as a leader of the Indian people. it would even have been perfectly alright if you were speaking as a leader of the BJP but speaking as the Prime Minister of India (so long as it remains a secular state, at least by profession) these words appear to be incongruous and strike as jarring to the religious minorities as your colleague, Murli Manohar Joshi's definition of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs as Mohammadi, "Masihi' and 'Keshadhari Hindus".

You know that I hold you in high esteem and I hope you will not mind this letter.

The purpose is not to find fault but to ensure that your rhetoric does not reflect the spirit of assimilation of which the minorities religious, linguistic and cultural. are apprehensive and which they reject as 'majoritarianism".

Mulk Raj Anand's Open Letter to A.B. Vajapee

Undoubtedly, you stand out in our country today. as the tallest among contemporary leaders. If you had been an independent, you would have been the country. You are bound by the discipline of the BJP

and unanimous choice of all parties as Prime Minister of our its affiliates, the VHP and the remote control of RSS.

As, however, you sensed that certain dilutions of hard stands of BJP might reconcile sympathizers from other parties and independents, you softened the three main positions of the party manifesto. You dropped opposition of Article 370 about Kashmir. You toned down demand for building the Ram Janmabhoomi temple on the site of the Babari Masjid demolished by VHP and associate violent, lawless, uncontrolled cadres. You told Pranoy Roy-Vinod Dua programme questioners that you cannot say anything on this issue as it remains unresolved. You emphasized that you are non- communal and accept people of all religions of our country.

From the news of violent shouts of BJP youth about 'betrayal of the position of the largest single party which won the vote in last month's election, it seems that rank and file of the BJP, specially RSS cadres, are incensed with your failure to build up a majority. It is unlikely that restoration of the (Srikrishna) Commission will be accepted in their hearts and minds by those who took such a drastic step.

Again, it is unlikely that your party's attitude to Bangladeshis will relax.

Deliberate abolition of the minority commission in Maharashtra which was helping to sustain Urdu language in the State, as also gave some sense of security to the minority community, has created grave doubts among the Muslims about their future.

No one knows whether your conciliatory speeches will end in tolerance towards Muslims and Dalits.

May be in future years if the Presidential system is adopted in our country, you may be elected by big majority to the high position, which will ensure your neutrality as Head of State. But this also seems unlikely.

Of course, there is the other odd option which our tradition offers to a poet: To opt out and become a Rishi!

These are vague sentiments offered to you from affection and esteem as a tragic hero of modern India in the unenviable position of being wanted and yet not accepted.

(Source: The Hindustan Times, 10 June. 1996)