HVK Archives: Victory after defeat
Victory after defeat - Hindusthan Times
Lt. Gen. S. K. Sinha (Retd.) on BJP
()
June 3 1996
Title : Victory after defeat
Author : Lt. Gen. S. K. Sinha (Retd.) on BJP
Publication : Hindusthan Times
Date : 3 June, 1996
For two days the nation remained virtually glued
to the television watching the live telecast of the
proceedings in the Lok Sabha on the Vajpayee Govern-
ment's motion of confidence. Transparency in function-
ing and providing the people a sense of participation
are important features of a Vibrate democracy. The
people of India had an excellent opportunity to see
the caliber and behavior of their representatives in
Parliament. The undue and unbecoming display of
lung power from both sides of the House gravely
marred the proceedings and was not in keeping with
the dignity of the august institution, which is the tem-
ple of democracy. However, the performance of Atal
Behari Vajpayee was in a class by itself and he
stood head and shoulders above all his opponents. The
moot question was whether the BJP had the people's
mandate. The BJP's case was that even though it had
failed to attain an absolute majority, it had a better
mandate than any other party in the House. Mercifully,
unlike the unpardonable disrespect shown by some of the
UF leaders to the President for inviting the-BJP, no one
during the debate in Parliament cast any aspersion on the
President. Of course there can be conflicting views on
the propriety of the BJP accepting the invitation when it
did not have the required majority in the House. The
Opposition repeatedly raised the puerile argument of
percentage of votes polled it. the election - 80 percent
in its favor and only 20 per cent in the support of the
BJP. In a parliamentary democracy of the Westminster
type adopted by us, what matters is the number of seats
in Parliament and not the percentage of votes polled. On
the basis of percentage of votes every single Government
since Independence has been a minority Government. The
irrelevance of the percentage quoted by the Opposition
was compounded by the fact that the election was not
fought on the basis of BJP versus the rest. It defies
logical to total all the votes of mutually clashing
political parties and convert all non-BJP votes to anti-
BJP votes!
The point regarding whether or not the BJP
should have accepted the invitation without first en-
suring that it has the required majority, can be
argued both ways. Being the largest party it was its
moral responsibility to try for a consensus and prone
political stability. The fact that the regional
parties in the past had differences with both the
Congress and the Janata Dal but not with the BJP
roused hopes of their co-operation. Legitimate and
laudable efforts made to get their support proved a
failure on the ground of the bogey of secular-
ism.
The real reason perhaps was the desire of these
parties for greater benefits for themselves which
could be extracted from a weak conglomeration of par-
ties than from a strong and numerically dominant party.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the BJP per-
haps counted its chick ens before they were hatched
and this brought about the fall of its Government in
Parliament Notwithstanding this, the BJP in its splen-
did isolation in Parliament, by accident or design man-
aged to expand its base among the people a large. In
a democracy, sovereignty in the ultimate analysis
rests with the people and not the Parliament. The
comparison with Rajiv Gandhi declining to form the
Government in 1989 rope atedly made by the Opposi-
tion during the debate was in fact out of context. Though
the Congress was the largest party in 1989 it had been
rejected by the people because its strength was re-
duced from an overwhelming majority never before
attained by any party to much less than half the strength
of the Lok Sabba. Moreover, the 1989 election was fought
on the issue of corruption typified by the Bofors
scandal. In the case of the BJP there has been a marked
increase in its strength and it has not been dogged
by any corruption scandal on which the people gave a
verdict in unambiguous terms.
Secularism was made out to be the core issue
uniting a motley group of mutually opposed parties
ranged against the BJP. Unfortunately none of
the self-styled secularists have shown real respect
for this philosophy in their politicking. Communalism
is the antithesis of secularism and the fact is that
all political parties are communal. This makes all
the song and dance about secularism a mockery. The
political parties have their own variations of com-
munalism.The Congress has been indulging in opportun-
istic communalism, the Janata Dal in minority communal-
ism and the BJP in majority communalism. This needs a
little elaboration.
In the Nebruvian era, the Congress could not be
faulted for communalism. A great secular dynamite that
he was, Nehru went all out to ensure that there
was no discrimination against the Muslims and ensuring
that they have a place of honour, in the national main-
stream. The memory of their having strayed into
supporting the vicious two-nation theory had to be
obliterated. After Nehru, the Congress started
practicing opportunistic communalism for the sake of
votes - alliance with the Muslim League in Kerala,
supporting the fundamentalists in the Shah Bano case
authorising Shilanyas at Ayodhya promissing Christian
State in Mizoram and so on. The Janata Dal has been
encouraging minority communalism with a view to ex-
ploiting the Muslim vote bank. Its top leader paid
obeisance to the Shabi Imam to obtain a fatwa for Mus-
lim votes. They have been openly following a Policy
Of Pampering and appeasement. Prophet Muhammad's
birthday was declared a national holiday when no demand
had been raised for the same and when it is not a holiday
in Saudi Arabia and several Muslim countries.
The BJP's majority communalism was dernonstrated
by its stand on the temple issue and its links with
the shiv Sena and the RSS. However, unlike our two
neighboring countries, the BJP has never made a bid for
a theocratic State and has been repeatedly stressing
its policy of justice for all and appeasement of none.
The demand for abrogation of Article 370 or intro-
duction of uniform civil code cannot be called commu-
nal just because these do not find favour with most
Muslims.
The charge of fascism leveled by many in the
Opposition against the BJP could not bear scrutiny. It
was ironical that of all people, Mulayam Singh Yaday
accused the BJP of following Hitler's tactics. No oth-
er political leader of any party can be castigated
more legitimately for doing so than be. As Chief Min-
ister, he had let loose a reign of terror in uttarak-
hand. tried to cover up the most disgraceful inci-
dent of Police-men raping women demonstrators in the
fields at Muzaffamagar, allowed his party goons with
Police support to vandalise the temple of justice ran-
sacking the chamber of the Honourable Chief Justice in
his presence. organise "Hulla Bol" attacks on the Press
and so on.
George Fernandes put up a spirited defense, quot-
ing from the elmdon manifestos of the strange political
partners with devastating effect, which no one from the
Opposition could counter. However, the MP from Ballia
whose victory had been facilitated by the BJP not
putting up a candidate against him took an entirely
different line from the president of his party. He
talked about securing power and then having the capabil-
ity to remain in power. this sounded incongruous keep-
ing in view the fact that he had defected from his party
and with barely forty off MPs had managed to grab power
in a House of 540 MPs with the support of the Con-
gress. His short tenure as a virtual puppet Prime
Minister came to an end when the Congress withdrew its
support as had happened earlier in the case of Chowd-
hary Charan Singh. His personal rejoinder to Barnala
was unbecoming but the latter held his cool, without
retorting or making any reference to his skele-
tons. Barnala effectively pricked the bubble of the
Congress claim of restoring peace in Punjab.
Mr Vajpayee outclassed his opponents in every
point of debate. The reference to the RSS was rebut-
ted, turning the table on the Opposition by quoting
what Deve Gowda had said about that organisation at
Bangalore in 1995. The allegation about the BJP's
neglect of Dalits and tribals was countered by
quoting the number of MPs of this category elected on
BJP ticket. However, he could not give any reply
to the reference to the most disgraceful episode
in Ahmedabad when his partymen had disrobed and as-
saulted an elderly Minister of their party, the poor
Muslim representation amongst BJP MPs and the drama con-
nected with Sikandar Bakht's insistence for a key port-
folio.
The debate ended in the victory of the motley
combination of some 14 parties formed of mutually
opposed groups during the election with hitherto no
common programme other than hounding out the BJP. Ear-
ly this year in his address to the nation, the Presi-
dent had warned against corruption, criminalisation,
casteism and communalisation. Unfortunately, the win-
ning hydra-headed combination appears to have more than
a fair share of all these. The Congress with its numer-
ous scams epitomises corruption and the Janata Dal
casteism and communalism. The presence of odd MPs in
this Front who have been dacoits and murderers
shows the criminal dimension of this combination.
Deve Gowda is likely to have a very difficult time in
managing all the contradiction within the Front and
resisting pressures from the major allies outside the
Front. He is entitled to the nation's best wishes for
his success and indeed in the concluding portion of
his speech, Vajpayee gracefully extended the same to
him. There are rumblings of discontent in the State
units of the major constituents of the United Front and
its allies.
The great televised debate in Parliament is over
but its memory shall remain. It is likely that the
swell of sympathy generated for the BJP may help it
to convert defeat into victory, at the next battle of
the hustings. So far as its star performer in the de-
bate is concerned, he has been receiving accolades
not only from his own party and friends but from
those who have not been his supporters. Speaker after
speaker from the Opposition in the House while attack-
ing him and his party prefaced their remarks with
their personal regard for him. The BBC commented
that at the end of the debate the losers looked like
being the winners. Future alone can tell to what ex-
tent the position of the BIP will improve at the next
election, which by all reckoning is likely to be held
fairly soon.
Back
Top
|
