HVK Archives: The president's anguish
The president's anguish - The Hindustan Times
Kuldip Nayar
()
8 May 1997
Title : The president's anguish
Author : Kuldip Nayar
Publication : The Hindustan Times
Date : May 8, 1997
Reticent President Shankar Dayal Sharma has not yet forgotten the manner in
which the representatives of the United Front constituents had trooped into
Rashtrapati Bhavan some 11 months ago. Theirs was a vituperative protest against
the invitation to the Bharatiya Janata Party to form the government at the Centre.
But his unhappiness is about their insinuation that he had preferred "communal
forces" to them. That such a suggestion came from people who should have known him
better has hurt him the most.
This is how I found him feeling when I met him the other day, before the fall of
the Deve Gowda government, to ascertain if he was running for the second term. The
prevailing atmosphere of character assassination pains him. He seems to have made
up his mind "to go while the going was good". He cannot get over the accusation
of communalism levelled against him by the UF constituents. "Against me, a person
who has fought against communal forces all his life", he said. There was anguish,
not anger.
The President must have been doubly hurt by the remark by the BJP chief L. K.
Advani, who said during an interview on Home TV that the President's decision to
invite Prime Minister I. K. Gujral to form the government was "unethical". It is
more than an insinuation. It is an accusation. Strange that Mr Advani should have
joined issue with the head of the State, an institution which is not dragged into
controversies.
Mr Advani has contradicted the Rashtrapati Bhavan communique announcing the
President's decision that because of "the BJP's indication about its not being in
a position to form a government", the United Front leader Gujral was invited to do
so. But the contradiction has no substance when Mr Advani has admitted that the
President told them: Vajpayeeji, aap sarkar banana chaahein to banaiye (You may
form the government if you want Mr Vajpayee).
This is not a cursory remark. To interpret it as a sentence put by the President
in the course of discussion is sheer politics. It amounts to casting aspersions on
the integrity of the highest office. Coming from Mr Advani, it is indeed
unfortunate. He is one of the few persons who at least feel and bemoan the
devaluation of institutions. That he should attack them on the ground that the
BJP was not given a chance shows how the craving for power can corrode the stand
of those who should be an example in the country.
After Mr Advani told the President that they had no desire to form the government,
they are on weak ground when they find fault with the invitation to Mr Gujral.
Surely the President did not extract 'no' from them. Whether he assessed their
response during the conversation or otherwise is not the point at issue. The
important thing is if the President made the offer. Mr Advani says 'yes' although
he confuses the matter by contending that it was during the talks (baaton baaton
main). How does that matter as long as the offer was there?
Mr Advani then goes on to say that his party was not making an issue of what the
President did. If this is so, why complain? In fact, Mr Advani has used the TV
medium to ventilate his grievances. He cannot ride two horses at the same time:
blaming the President for inviting Mr Gujral and saying that they had no intention
of forming the government. It is obvious that the President did not want to
inflict another election on the country within a year. The people would not have
liked it. In the last eight years, three elections have been imposed on them.
Mr Advani's assertion that the BJP would have formed the government if it had
wanted to do does not jell. The Lok Sabha at present has 542 members. The BJP has
to have 272 to prove its majority. The BJP and its allies - the Akalis, the Samata
Party, the Bansi Lal group and independents - do not total more than 202. The
party needs another 70.
It tried its best when it was in power for 13 days. No regional party supported
it. There is no reason to believe that the situation has changed in any way. Even
if two or three regional parties had backed the BJP to avoid a mid-term poll,
which loomed large after the fall of the Deve Gowda government, the arithmetic of
numbers would have failed the party. With Congress, the Communists, the Tamil
Maanila Congress and the Samajwadi Party staunchly opposing the BJP, it could not
have gathered 70 votes, even if it had managed to split the Janata Dal.
In justification Mr Advani says: "This time, it could have been different. If we
had really tried, we could have made it. But we would not have been satisfied
with the kind of government we could have set up. " One wishes he had given some
proof to support his thesis. Otherwise it seems that grapes are sour.
Whether the Gujral government survives this year will not depend on the BJP or Mr
Advani's warning but on the cohesiveness of the United Front. Its problems are
from within, not without. This can be seen from the way Bihar Chief Minister
Laloo Yadav, also the Janata Dal president, has tried to rock the boat by refusing
to step down. He has already mocked at conventions, which demand a Chief Minister
or a Minister to resign when they face a CBI chargesheet against them.
Mr S. R. Bommai had, to resign from the presidentship of the Janata Dal when his
name figured in the hawala scandal. Mr Sharad Yadav, the Janata Dal working
president, has not been taken in the government because his name appears in the
Jain diaries. Mr Advani resigned his Lok Sabha seat following the CBI
charge-sheet against him. Mr Madan Lal Khurana had to quit the Delhi Chief
Ministership since his name was involved in the hawala scandal.
There are some unwritten laws. The democratic structure is founded on them. There
may not be any constitutional obligation on Mr Laloo Yadav to resign because every
parliamentary practice is not spelled out. But there is no way whereby he can
save himself in the face of the damaging report which the CBI has prepared against
him.
He would have helped the Janata Dal - and the Prime Minister - by offering to
resign the moment he heard that his involvement in the fodder seam had become
public. There is no excuse for staying on in office once the CBI indictment was
published. His earlier threat that he would rule from jail even if arrested has
dangerous connotations. Such pranks do not suit a Chief Minister, much less a
person who is the Janata Dal chief.
The moral aspect was central to the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Jayaprakash
Narayan. I recall how as the President of the Patna University Students' Union, Mr
Laloo Yadav, had sworn to follow JP. Had he been alive today, he would have
denounced Mr Yadav. JP did not compromise on the question of integrity. Mr Yadav
should have known that.
Back
Top
|
