HVK Archives: Indian fault lines
Indian fault lines - Indian Express
Ajit Bhattacharjea
()
5 June 1996
Title : Indian fault lines
Author : Ajit Bhattacharjea
Publication : Indian Express
Date : June 5, 1996
Fortunately, Doordarshan covered the epoch-making debate in the
Lok Sabha live and its cameras did a good job. This exposed the
scrappy coverage provided by the news papers the following days.
Not a single newspaper I read provided a comprehensive summary
of
the proceedings. Disconnected, abbreviated accounts of the
sayings of selected leaders was what we got. The charged
atmosphere in the crowded chamber, the new points of rowdy
confrontation between backbenchers, were patent only to those
with access to television sets.
Reports of the speeches of leading MPs were displayed in separate
compartments, under separate headings, to fit the requirements of
a rigid box-like page format, which meant that some got more
attention than they deserved and others less. Continuity was
sacrificed to packaging. No extra columns were provided for the
occasion. I can recall occasions when advertisements were
removed
by Editors to make space on such events. That era seems to be
over.
Yet the first session of the Eleventh Lok Sabha marked a
watershed in Indian politics, with lesser- known regional figures
representing the new trend. This did not prevent the change of
government from being conducted in accordance with the provisions
of the Constitution. Outbursts of rowdiness on the floor - which
have occurred before without being carried live on TV - did not
impair the functioning of parliamentary, procedures evolved to
facilitate the smooth, transparent transfer of power from one
political grouping to another. Every significant party was
involved in the process.
Strong views were expressed on both sides, serious charges were
levelled, speakers were booed. But when the debate was over,
there were no signs of bitterness and Atal Behari Vajpayee
resigned with a smile on his lips. He had taken over the reins of
Prime Ministerial office from Narasimha Rao 12 days earlier; he
would hand them over to Deve Gowda four days later. Few
developing countries could have accommodated such quick
changes
of government without domestic turmoil.
The transfer of power from the Congress to the BJP, which it
fought so bitterly, was eventful enough. But,in historical terms,
the transfer from the BJP to the United Front may represent an
even bigger shift in power equations; it symbolises the shift in
the power balance from parties claiming a national image to a
regional combine. The process is likely to continue whether
Gowda's Government survives or not. As stressed by more than
one
speaker, all parties are now regional parties; none can claim
country-wide electoral support.
This eventful shift in power was amply reflected, but
inadequately reported, in the press coverage of the debate. One
of the most powerful pronouncements of the regional viewpoint,
for instance, was made by the DMK member, Murasoli Maran, but
he
got at most a few lines. If the BJP strategists are still
wondering why none of the regional parties was willing to support
it, they should read his speech. It reflects the pent-up fears
and anxieties aroused in non-Indo-Aryan peoples by the "one
nation, one people, one culture" thesis of BJP ideologues. He
agreed that India was one nation, but resented any attempt to
impose uniformity. An MP from the North-East, G. G. Swell, was
even more apprehensive of the "cow belt" approach. The reactions
of the newly-elected backbench BJP- Shiv Sena shouting brigade
indicated that it will take time for them to adjust to such
sentiments.
Regional resentment with Hindi heartland domination gave an
additional dimension to the basic issue dividing the BJP from the
others in the debate: Hindu communalism, vs secularism. Since
Veer Savarkar defined Hindutva, culture and religion have been
intertwined by those accepting his thesis. As a reaction,
resistance to cultural domination bolstered opposition to
religious exclusivism.
Indrajit Gupta exploited these fears to the full. He quoted a
passage written in 1947 by the then RSS, supremo, M. S.
Golwalkar, that "non-Hindu peoples of Hindustan must either adopt
the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in
reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but that of
glorification of the Hindu race and culture... or they may stay
in this country, wholly subordinated to the Indian nation,
claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any
preferential treatment - not even citizens rights." The BJP
leaders, including Vajpayee, began their careers in the RSS. It
was this background that provoked shouts and counter-shouts
when
he insisted that Deve Gowda had praised the Sangh.
With the secular vs communal issue framed so specifically,
Vajpayee's liberal pronouncements and personality, his revision
of the President's Address to exclude BJP campaign pledges - to
construct a grand Ram temple on the site of the Babri masjid,
enforce a common civil code and abrogate Article 370 which
provides a special status to Jammu and Kashmir - could not efface
the belief that the BJP had not freed itself from its communal
roots.
Murli Manohar Joshi's defence of Hindutva did not help; nor did
his statement that the President's Address contained only the BJP
Government's programme for the coming year and did not affect
longer- term objectives. His appointment as Home Minister had
already suggested that Vajpayee was accommodating the
hardliners
in his party. This impression was furthered by the reactions of
the shouting brigade.
Vajpayee's decision to resign rather than face a vote of
confidence highlighted his failure to persuade a single
additional MP to support his Government. The most striking
feature of the two-day debate was its ideological character.
Secularism was reaffirmed as a commitment that no party could
openly oppose, despite the contradictions between them and
Congress concessions to communal forces in the past.
In this context, even BJP spokesmen had to argue that Hindutva
was essentially secular. In his personal capacity, Vajpayee may
have been able to carry conviction with this thesis, as many
members remarked. But as head of a BJP Government, the Lok
Sabha
was unimpressed.
Having failed this time, what will the BJP do? One option is to
further cultivate the Vajpayee image in the belief that some
regional parties and a section of the Congress may be won round.
If not, the projection of a liberal, disciplined, uncorrupt (no
attempt at horse- trading was reported) party, with a personable
future Prime Minister, could secure a bigger majority in the next
election if the United Front disintegrates.
But the hardliners may well argue that the liberal image had
failed and the party should not lose touch with its Hindutva
roots. Otherwise it would be undistinguishable from other
parties. The debate has, ensured that the BJP cannot wear both
masks; the dissimilarity between them has been etched in too
sharply. A split cannot be ruled out.
Much will depend on the longevity of Gowda's Government. He
faces a similar predicament. He will be advised not to
antagonise the Congress by departing from its policies and
proceeding with legal measures against those suspected of
corruption. But if he follows this course, he may not retain the
backing of parties committed to social change and go on to risk
electoral support as being a Congress-clone.
The other option would be to distinguish his Government from the
corruption-prone Congress and implement measures to offset the
additional burdens placed on the poor and unemployed by the
Narasimha Rao Government. The electoral appeal of such
measures
would make it hard for the Congress to withdraw support without
risking further loss of votes in the election that would be bound
to follow if it does so. And the Congress, too, may then face a
split.
The Lok Sabha reflects all the uncertainties of the future. The
appeal of stability has been rejected because it meant preserving
the privileges of perhaps 20 per cent of our people. At the same
time, the Lok Sabha has begun to reflect the emerging regional
and social forces that must be accommodated if the federal system
is to survive.
Back
Top
|
