|
|
|
What was common to the speeches made by politicians of various hues during the
debate over Mr HD Deve Gowda's confidence motion? In fact, similarities in the
interventions of leaders from different parties were discernible not only on the
floor of the House but also in the "soundbites" that one heard since Easter Sunday
on various television channels. Had it not been for one's ability to recognise
voices, one would have had to sit glued in front of the telly to figure out
whether the first assertion was Mr Tariq Anwar's or Mr Sharad Yadav's. Similarly,
one would have had a trying time figuring out whether it was Mr Pranab Mukherjee,
Mr Jaipal Reddy or Mr Venkaiah Naidu who was pledging not to destabilise the
country.
While a new working arrangement to ensure the continuance of a limping governance
is already in sight, it will be prudent to take stock of a few of the motivating
spirits of the leaders who will shape the destiny of the nation at the turn of the
century: All options are open; in politics anything can happen; no party can allow
itself to be browbeaten; we place the interest of the nation before our interest;
barring us, every one is entering into unholy alliances; subversive elements are
being allowed to rise again; there are no differences within our ranks; communal
elements have to be kept out of Government; and we will take an appropriate
decision at the right time.
These are just a few samples of the oft repeated phrases in the past few weeks.
While some of them can be attributed either to the Congress or the United Front
constituents, others may well have been authored by the BJP. Though there has been
unanimity that the recent political crisis has not arisen due to any question of
principles, the electorate surely did not deserve such banalities while the future
of the country was being deliberated.
During the entire duration of the recent debate both inside and outside the Lok
Sabha-virtually all leaders have contended that another working arrangement needs
to be chiselled out from the existing 11th Lok Sabha because even if fresh polls
are ordered, the result would be another hung Parliament. Though leaders of the
BJP contest such a claim, their assertions sound hollow owing to the nagging
suspicion that even the top brass of the party doubts the claims. Cleverly, the
entire class of politicians has thus tried to shift the onus of the present crisis
on the electorate: You have given a fractured mandate and we are trying our best
to govern the country.
Not for a minute was a thought spared to the reasons why the voter has handed out
a hung verdict for the second time in succession. Should it not be the
responsibility of the political parties to provide clear alternatives during the
hustings? If the Congress and the United Front are determined to keep the BJP out
of the Government would it not be fair to expect them to at least work out a
tactical electoral alliance, if not a well-cemented electoral plank? Similarly,
if the BJP and the BSP are committed to eliminate "goonda raj" from Uttar Pradesh,
are they willing to guarantee that their current marriage will not end in another
acrimonious divorce? After all, there have been instances in the past when
parties of various shades have worked out an informal arrangement to defeat the
party projected as the common enemy.
Why be hypocritical?
The electoral arrangement of 1989 is still fresh in the minds of the people when
anti-Congress sentiment forced the Left Front to forge a cleverly veiled alliance
with the BJP through a third party in the form of the Janata Dal. Similarly,
there had been an all encompassing anti-Congress alliance in 1977. At this point
the success of these alliances is not important. Rather, the moot point is that
if there is such a great theoretical commitment to keep the BJP out of office, why
not forge an electoral understanding as well? Similarly, if the BJP is so keen to
weed out the "pseudo-secularists" from the polity, why does it repeatedly have
informal dialogues with coalition partners of a Government whose foundation is
based on anti-BJPism?
However deeply these questions might dog the common citizen who is appalled at the
conduct of politicians, they would simply evoke amusement in the corridors of
power. like in other spheres of life in the country, politics is now just a
business and politicians are in the business of power. Positions are taken,
statements are made only after a careful perusal of the impact on the quest for
power. India, after all, is one of the few nations where politics is a full-time
profession and since acquiring power is its only aim, there is no harm if
principles are even given the boot.
The Kesri-initiated crisis has virtually blown over. Mr Deve Gowda has shown that
he is no longer the same man who pledged to return home with three suitcases the
day he was found unacceptable. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, who almost single-handedly
prevented an understanding with Mr Kanshi Ram and Ms Mayawati, had little
hesitation to raise Mr Sitaram Kesri's hopes despite his assertions that the
United Front's lack of sincerity was the main reason behind the decision to
withdraw support. The CPI(M) continues to be pulled in two directions, while the
CPI allows itself to be pushed by sheer momentum of the developments. Similarly,
the BJP has reverted to its role of the main opposition party after pledging that
in a moment of crisis it will not jeopardise the passage of the Budget.
In such a situation of drift what is the guiding principle of politics? What will
be the main motivating force of the leaders of the nation in the months to come?
Pragmatism, the word described by the Oxford Dictionary as the "doctrine that
evaluates any assertion solely by its practical consequences", is clearly the new
'ism'. Theoretical frameworks would be of little consequence if electoral benefits
are in sight. A little compromise on ideology would be acceptable if it ensures
the gaddi for its leader. After making a big issue of not changing its leader, the
UF has little hesitation in doing the same as it ensures another stint in office.
It can be argued that there is no harm if one becomes a pragmatist. Surely, no
one can prevent any leader or party from steering away from the path it has
traversed so far. But, then, why be hypocritical about it? Since politicians are
in the business of power let it be accepted that the basis of a comfortable
toehold is a good support base among the electorate and the main enemy is the
party which threatens its hold on its vote bank. If this is understood, one can
understand the hostility between Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and the BSP. Similarly,
one can comprehend why the Congress and various UF constituents cannot move
closer.
>From the humble "servants-of-the people" profile, politicians have undergone a
tremendous change. There is little need to bemoan the end of idealism. The time
probably has come to put an end to issue-based discussion on political
developments and look at the events as little beyond boardroom politics. In such
a situation, Mr Kanshi Ram will probably emerge as the most honest politician to
declare that his party has no qualms about aligning even with the "devil" if it
benefits his party. Shocked with such an assertion? The best advice would be to
stop keeping track of Indian politics.
 |
||
|
||
|
||
