|
|
|
Even as the possibility of Ms Sonia Gandhi hitting the campaign
trail waxes and wanes over the Congress party, astute politicians
and observers know that like the moon. Ms Gandhi may be alluring,
but she lacks inner luminosity. In other words, she merely
reflects the glory of an illustrious family with which she
happens to be associated by marriage, but has no eminence of her
own. As those familiar with the world of agriculture would know,
in the absence of the sun, you cannot use the moon to ripen your
harvest.
So, contrary to what some commentators believe, the Bharatiya
Janata Party, as the emerging central axis of the polity will not
need to tackle the spectre of "Rome vs Ram" at all. Rather, it
will be at liberty to concentrate on more meaningful issues such
as the character of the Indian state and the nature of
governance, stability, law and order, et al. This means that the
BJP will be free to take on the intense casteism of the BSP,
Samajwadi, and Janata parties on the one hand, and counter the
"communal' propaganda of the Congress and Left on the other,
without getting diverted into a sideshow over the phantom
phenomenon of Ms Sonia Gandhi.
This is because, notwithstanding some small triumphs such as
facilitating the return of Mr Madhavrao Scindia, Mr Arjun Singh
and Mr Narain Dutt Tiwari (none of whom is a heavyweight in his
respective state), and temporarily restraining the open revolt of
Ms Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, the truth is that Ms Sonia
Gandhi lost her clout with the assassination of her husband and
Congress party president, Rajiv Gandhi. That is why the years
between 1991 and 1996 were so painful for her, even though a
Congress Government was in the saddle in New Delhi. On the one
hand, the Gandhis' favourite courtiers were either won over,
silenced, or sidelined by Mr Narasimha Ran. and on the other, the
shadow of the Bofors gun was carefully trained on her and
resurrected every time she left the confines of 10, Janpath.
It is to the credit of both Ms Sonia Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi's
displaced courtiers that they were able to foster and sustain the
myth that she is a formidable force in Indian politics, and that
she has only to step into the arena and the country will
experience a major turning point in its history. The reality is
that she is totally out of sync with developments in her adopted
country. In this half of the 20th century, as we prepare to turn
the millennium, the major turning point has been the reclamation
of the Ranmabhoomi by the Hindus and the construction of a temple
(albeit a makeshift one) at the site popularly believed to be the
lord's birthplace.
Unless my memory serves me ill, Ms Sonia Gandhi has till date
never stated her position on the events of December 6, 1992, a
surprising omission for someone held to be an important
stakeholder in the polity. The incident was not just another
milestone in the life of the nation, such as the nuclear
explosion at Pokharan, the Emergency, or the test firing of the
Agni missile. It was quite literally a turning point because it
dramatically altered the socio-political landscape and changed
forever the idiom of our ideological debate. The sanctity of the
fading Nehruvian secularism-socialism received a fell blow, from
which it could never recover.
What is more, the fall of the Babri Masjid revealed what many had
suspected all along-that under the aegis of the Indian National
Congress, there were really two Congresses. One was the Congress
of Jawaharlal Nehru, which used the socialism secularism slogans
to fetter the growth of the business community, contain the
aspirations of the majority community, patronise the minorities
and maintain them as a captive votebank, and thus perpetuated its
rule. The other was the Congress of Sardar Patel, which opposed
the license-permit raj, believed in the legitimacy of majority
aspirations (the two were intimately interlinked), and lived an
uneasy coexistence in the shadow of the former.
This Congress saw its chance with the ascension of Mr Narasimha
Rao to the office of Prime Minister, even though it never dared
to openly disclose itself. Nevertheless. its actions speak loudly
enough-liberalisation was the new economic creed (with the
accompanying decline in bureaucratic (control), subsidies were
phased out (and with it valuable political clout in the
countryside and urban slums), the minorities were no longer
pampered citizens, and finally, the reclamation of the
Janmabhoomi was met with stoic non-action, despite the presence
of a formidable Central force within whistling distance. It is no
coincidence that the most vociferous opposition to Mr Narasimha
Rao's policies came from the "Sonia brigade". Their fears were
not entirely unfounded. As Mr Narasimha Rao dismantled the jaded
Nehruvian lie destroyed the apparatus which kept the "dynasty" in
power, and made a "comeback" virtually impossible.
There is little doubt that Mr Narasimha Rao acted with a purpose.
We have the then Home Minister Mr SB Chavan's testimony that from
the moment the first dome was scaled in Ayodhya to the time the
structure came tumbling down. Mr Narasimha Rao (who was not
asleep after all) was fully alive to the situation. This would
indicate that Central non-intervention was the Prime Minister's
considered decision. The Muslims, already alienated with the
hamhandling of the issue by Rajiv Gandhi. became even more
hostile. Mr Narasimha Rao's tragedy was that he lacked the
courage to take his critics head-on and expound his ideological
viewpoint, and that the BJP already occupied the space of "Hindu
spokesman". It became the natural beneficiary of his actions.
This is the real reason behind the hullabaloo over "Sonia
Gandhi's legitimate concerns" which dogged Mr Narasimha Rao
throughout his tenure. It was never the Jain Commission or
punishment of Rajiv Gandhi's killers. It was simply that Bofors
and other deals clinched for a "consideration" should not be
enthusiastically investigated, and the socio-economic-political
fabric should not be altered in a manner that made it difficult
for the "dynasty" to step onto the political stage at an
opportune moment, in exercise of its "divine right". Mr Narasimha
Rao's deliberate tinkering with the tailor-made Congress of the
Nehru-Gandhis got madam's goat, and drove her to get him replaced
at the first opportunity.
But it was a case of too little, too late. As other players
surged ahead in the tumultuous waters of Indian politics, neither
Ms Sonia Gandhi nor her supporters could turn back the clock and
get the party's scattered votebank to return to the Congress
fold. Although Mr Sitaram Kesri reiterated faith in the Nehruvian
legacy and roundly condemned the fall of the Babri Masjid, Ms
Sonia Gandhi remained silent. The fact that she is a practicing
Roman Catholic may have inspired this prudence, but if she wants
to be taken seriously in politics she will have to make her views
on such a crucial public issue.
This means that if Ms Sonia Gandhi either does not dare, or care,
to take a stand on issues of critical national importance, she
should call it a day. Instead, under the mounting pressure of
the Bofors investigations, she has identified formally with the
Congress. Already two governments have preferred to exit rather
than accommodate her "legitimate concerns=94-Mr HD Deve Gowda's
after the first set of papers landed, and Mr Inder Kumar Gujral's
before the next lot could arrive. Yet the unseemly behaviour of
Congressmen inhibits her from perceiving that India is no banana
republic, happy to be lead by an alien and imperial dynasty.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
