HVK Archives: Coalition Redefined
Coalition Redefined - Mid Day
Iqbal Masud
()
6 June 1996
Title : Coalition Redefined
Author : Iqbal Masud
Publication : Mid Day
Date : June 6, 1996
The Deve Gowda government aims for a collective effort to
carry diverse elements together. This philosophy cannot
be summed up in a word like 'coalition', says Iqbal
Masud.
A friend belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party told me
recently- "lqbal, 1 know you are against us. But 1 want
you to be fair. Did you watch the finale of the Vajpayee
government?
"Vajpayee was like Napoleon at Waterloo, the only
difference being that this was not his final defeat. Did
you watch his cabinet members? Sushma Swaraj went about
her job immediately. Pramod Mahajan was smiling and
efficient. Jaswant Singh was the ultimate finance
minister. Now just look at the present lot..." The
unfinished sentence implied a host of unprintable
adjectives.
This reaction is not confined to BJP sympathisers. The
party brilliantly used its 13-day stint at Delhi to send
a powerful message across the country via television. It
was not the first battle of the first Hindutva
war, it was the first battle of the second Hindutva war.
Compared to the monolithic efficiency of the BJP, the
present United Front leadership looks a shuffling lot.
John F Burns wrote recently, in The New York Times: "To
many Indians, the figure that H D Deve Gowda cuts, with
his almost inaudible voice and self-deprecating
references, seems a far cry from prime ministers of the
past like Jawaharial Nehru, Indira Gandhi and even
Rajiv Gandhi."
To that distinguished list, I add the name of Vajpayee.
Make no mistake about it, despite Hindutva, Vajpayee is
cast in the same mould as earlier leaders.
I am not paying Vajpayee a compliment (right man in the
wrong party' and so on).
What I am talking about is the character and essence of
Indian leadership so far admired.
The Nehru family is called 'secular' while called
'secular' while Vajpayee is termed 'communalist'. V N
Gadgil has asked for the re-examination of the term
'secularism', gladdening Vajpayee's heart. But the Nehru
of The Discovery of was as much a 'Hindu' as Vajpayee.
That is why Vajpayee quoted him in his 'Waterloo' speech
while speaking to Aligarh University students. He told
them to accept India's past - which meant the 'Hindu'
past. When The Discovery of India was published in the
'40s, it was rejected by us, leftist students, as being
reactionary.
The book is based on Hindutva with its glorification of
India's past and lack of radical criticism of the social
injustices of that age.
Sahir Ludhianvi had written about the same past: 'Yeh
basti hai murda paraston ki basti.' But Nehru did not
look at India's past the way Sahir did.
It's true that Nehru changed after 1947. He became a
real secularist, but did not totally disavow his romantic
vision of Indian culture. The same schizophrenia
possessed Indira Gandhi.
When it came to critical matters the Nehrus were as
chauvinistic as Vajpayee. Only Ram Manohar Lohia
understood this treason. That is why he was disregarded
by the Indian intelligentsia, and that is why his
ideological progeny Mulayam Singh is treated with such
contempt in the press today.
The present cabinet lacks unity, principle or any other
saving grace. To call this a triumph of regionalism is
very superficial. One has to delve deeper than that.
In its 50th year of independence, India is protesting
against the false unity imposed on it. What the present
Government is aiming at is not unity in diversity. It is
aiming at a collective team effort which can carry
diverse Indian elements together.
This philosophy rejects central leadership, whether it is
offered by the Congress or by the BJP. This is the
pattern of future Indian governments, and cannot be
summed up in words like 'coalition'.
It is a kind of civilised coexistence. So Palaniappan
Chidambaram co-exists with Inderjit Gupta. He makes
a statement about liberalisation which offends Gupta, who
threatens to withdraw from the government.
After a meeting, however, Chidambaram understands that
the UF will not blindly follow the 'corrupt practices'
inherent in Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh's style of
free market.
Taslimuddin Ahmad takes over as minister of state for
home and, contrary to expectations, gives directions for
illegal Bangladeshi immigration to be checked.
Mulayam Singh is not intimidated by top military figures.
He has not abandoned his plan for a confederation of
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
C K Ibrahim enters the information and broadcasting
office and declares that it is wrong to make a policy
statement before the trust vote, a fact which BJP
leaders forgot.
One remarkable achievement of this government is that
Muslim leaders selected by it would have been there on
their merit even if they were not Muslims. The
Congress's 50-year- old policy of selecting the most
mediocre and rash Muslims as ministers has been
abandoned.
The cobbled-together cabinet's unheroic policy has
already produced results. The sensex has gone up.
Benazir Bhutio has offered to hold talks with India
without conditions. Is she hypocritical? Maybe. But
the UF philosophy is 'Let us talk and not try to
dominate'. I think this is a great and welcome change.
The UF cabinet may fall tomorrow. But a breakthrough for
a new kind of all-Indian leadership has been made. The
BJP can go back to Hindutva and even win a majority but
the pattern of history is against its philosophy.
Th 21st century will not be ushered in by Vajpayee,
Advani or Murli Manohar Joshi. It belongs to the
Hardanahalli boys - unheroic leaders who look at the
ground and walk cautiously, realising that politics is
the art of the possible.
Back
Top
|
