HVK Archives: Guess who came to dinner?
Guess who came to dinner? - Mid-day
Rajdeep Sardesai
()
9 September 1996
Title : Guess who came to dinner?
Author : Rajdeep Sardesai
Publication : Mid-day
Date : September 9, 1996
Of all the media-manufactured controversies in recent
months, the one that has left me slightly perplexed is
the fallout of the Deve Gowda-Bal Thackeray meeting. Not
since Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Pact with
Adolf Hitler (I'm sure Thackeray will be pleased with the
analogy) has one meeting created such a stir. Replies
are sought in Parliament, lengthy statements are made in
the press, even demonstrations are organised. However, I
must confess that some of the expressions of outrage have
left me cold.
Now before Mrinal Gore strikes me with a kitchen knife,
let me make some clarifications. I am no admirer of Bal
Thackeray's brand of politics. In fact, for the most
part, I strongly disapprove of the fascist streak. Let
me also say that I believe that Gowda had no business
striking a rendezvous with Thackeray in the manner he
chose to. Prime ministers don't need to seek out local
leaders in hush-hush conclaves.
Reports that the man from Hardanhalli wanted to pay his
respects to Harivanshrai Bachchan is a cock-and-bull
story. Even the condolence visit bit is just not going
to wash. And yet, I cannot understand some of the
breast-beating that our so-called secular political class
is engaged in.
Frankly, when you hear Congressmen in Parliament express
anguish at the prime minister supping with the devil
himself, I find it rather amusing. Over the three
decades that Thackeray has been in public life, I would
presume that almost every Congress chief minister of
Maharashtra has had his beer and chicken with the man
from Kalanagar.
Some have, of course, gone much further. In fact, without
the sustained patronage of the Congress, Thackeray's
political career would probably never have taken off. If
Gowda is communal for breaking bread with the Sena chief,
then every Congress chief minister is guilty on the same
count (the only one who honestly admitted to enjoying
Thackeray's company frequently is A R Antulay).
Then you have the Third Front types also joining in the
act. For example, the other day in Jhansi, you had the
spectacle of Bahujan Samaj Party leader Kanshi Ram
lambasting Gowda for the Thackeray episode. "What was
the prime minister doing with proven communal elements?"
asked our great leader of the Bahujan masses. Well, 48
hours later, Kanshi Ram was addressing a joint press
conference with none other than Shahi Imam Bukhari. The
Imam feels that he is the authentic representative of the
Muslim community. In fact, he is little more than the
flip side to the coin of Hindu communalism.
Why is there not similar outrage when Kanshi Ram seeks
the blessings of the Imam?
Why, for that matter, is the United Front not concerned
about the fact that they have taken the support in
Parliament of the likes of G M Banatwala and the bossman
of Hyderabad, Sultan Owiasi, neither of whom can be
described as a secular politician'?
Take even Mulayam Singh Yadav or Laloo Prasad Yadav, two
chieftains who have been held up as bastions against
communalism. If Mulayam is such a great defender of the
secular order, then how is it that his Man Friday, Amar
Singh, was instrumental in fixing the Thackeray-Gowda
meeting?
Laloo claims to be,washed in the ganga-jal of secularism.
Then how is it that the Bihari badshah has surrounded
himself with the likes of Mohammed Taslimuddin, the
distinguished former minister of state for home whose
deeds might make Sadhvi Rithambhara appear a saint?
Doesn't Laloo have dinner with Taslimuddin?
The point is that if the test of secularism was dependent
on dinner guest lists, then most of our politicians would
fail. There are only handful (and Mrinal is included in
this list) who have consistently opposed having any truck
with the likes of Thackeray.
The majority find secularism a badge of convenience to be
displayed at election time. Unfortunately, the behaviour
of our politicians has blurred the secular-communal
divide in public life, and deprived our netas of the
moral authority to represent the constituency of secular.
Indians.
In fact. I would suggest that instead of making such a
hullabaloo of the Gowda-Thackeray encounter, our netas
first put their own house in order.
What. in any case, has all the noise resulted in? Gowda
-is still in power, and showing little regret at his
actions.
As for Thackeray, I am sure he's having the time of his
fife. For someone who has spent the better part of his
life surviving on the oxygen of publicity, the headlines
must be most comforting.
It's not every day, after all, when you are invited to
dinner with the prime minister and the country's biggest
film star, and end up stealing the limelight!
Back
Top
|
