|
|
|
For a long time Parliament has been immersed in small talk and petty politics of
rightists and leftists, communities and castes, they and us. Prime Minister Inder
Kumar Gujral has tried to retrieve it by refocussing the attention on the harmony
that the nation needs to make the landscape once again beautiful. His speeches
during the motion on the vote of confidence were a breath of fresh air. He spoke
from heart to hearts. There was no rancour, no malice, no hitting below the belt.
It was the language of conciliation and cooperation which the House had once
spoken but had forgotten.
That India needs to be run on the basis of consensus, not confrontation, is the
agenda which the Prime Minister has placed before the country. This had got
receded into the background. Since the Emergency (1975), the nation has been
hauled over the coals. It has been derided and divided. First it was the fury of
authoritarianism, then the divisiveness of communalism and subsequently the
arrogance of casteism. The entire fabric of our society has gone asunder.
A healing touch was long required. Gujral has tried to give that. He said "we can
differ, we can disagree, sometime we can disagreeably disagree but on the 50th
year of Independence we should decide what kind of India we want to build."
A similar challenge was posed by India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
when we became free at midnight on August 15, 1947. He said: "Long years ago we
made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we should redeem the
pledge... of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still
larger cause of humanity." But the pledge was never honoured. The dream went
awry.
There was a naive belief that the problem of underdevelopment and poverty would
find an easy solution after Independence. It was a strange mixture of
over-zealousness, over-confidence and over-expectation. Left unharnessed,
enthusiasm was bound to change into disillusion. This is what has happened.
Had the same pre-Independence spirit of sacrifice and selflessness persisted,
India would have probably found missionaries to lead the country to prosperity.
But the spirit of dedication rapidly evaporated after the last British soldier
left. The new rulers were now a new set of masters who wanted reward for the
sufferings they had undergone in the struggle for freedom. Almost overnight they
became a squabbling crowd of self-seekers jostling for power and riches. India
has been going down the hill.
Equally reprehensible has been the electoral politics which has divided the
nation. Religion, region and caste have crisscrossed the country in such a way
that they have practically destroyed the ethos of democratic, secular polity. In
the last 50 years, mafias, criminals and tainted politicians and bureaucrats have
come to dominate. And they have squeezed out every value from every field. (Vice
President K. R. Narayanan was unduly harsh on the media).
The Prime Minister has reminded the nation that there is still time to rebuild
India on the basis of values we have cherished. But no society can progress if
there is conflict. Views are important but more important is how those views are
held. There is no option except tolerance.
Margaret Thatcher had once commended the example of India to Mikhail Gorbachev
when he asked her what he should do to hold the Soviet Union together. "I told
him that he must talk to his best friends, the Indians, to find out how they have
sustained themselves as one country despite disparities of religion, language,
region and caste," Thatcher said.
Bernard Weatherill, then Speaker of the House of Commons, who has a soft corner
for India, made the same point before a high-powered Soviet team. It had come to
London to study the Commonwealth structure as an alternative to the breakaway
Soviet republics. "Something like the Indian experiment which has lasted for
centuries may help you," Weatherill told the Soviet delegation. He was beaming
with pride when he repeated the conversation to me, perhaps because he had once
served in the Indian army.
The Bharatiya Janata Party's decision not to insist on the division of the House
on the confidence motion probably reflects the sense of accommodation that
Thatcher and Weatherill had commanded. But what frightens me is that party's use
of religion as an ideology. Maybe, the liberal philosophy is felt by many to be
too tame and middle-aged.
Both Communist parties in India have shown resilience. They are less ideological.
Jyoti Basu was even willing to head the United Front. And he has called his
party's 'no' a historical blunder. If dogmatic Communists can compromise for the
sake of the country's integrity, why cannot the BJP? Neither ideology nor
religion is of any avail when the nation is in peril.
Democracy and socialism are means to an end, not the end itself. We talk of the
good of society. Is this something remote from the good of the individuals?
Indeed, there is a sense of frustration and depression in India. The old buoyancy
of spirit is not to be found at a time when enthusiasm and hard work are most
needed. A divided nation is incapable of giving its best.
Still this can be done if political parties agree on certain parametres. Some
issues are national issues and they should be discussed as such to find the common
ground. This has been done, by and large, in the field of foreign affairs. The
same understanding should spill over to the domestic field. The system has been
stretched to the extremes. There is not much leeway left. If strained further,
it may snap.
That is the reason why Gujral's call for a consensus should be reciprocated. Even
if there are differences, the basic thing is that wrong means will not lead to
right results and that this is no longer merely an ethical doctrine but a
practical proposition. Gujral is an able man with a social as well as a personal
conscience. To think that he may compromise on corruption, graft or misconduct is
to question his integrity which is beyond any doubt.
He is no meddler. Nor is he a softy. He has pushed and shoved no one. Let no
one push him. India's most sensitive anti vocal lobby, the intelligentsia, is
with him. And many other millions.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
