Politics of fisticuffs

Author: The Editorial
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: November 24, 2000

Politicians have been known to cross the realm of verbal abuse into direct assault on many, an occasion in the past.  It is rarely an occasion for comment, with the media taking these frequent physical interactions very much in its stride.  But when these street corner fights enter the glittering drawing rooms of Delhi, and involve seasoned leaders of political parties, the matter becomes noticeable and significant.  A few days ago Congress MP Mani Shankar Aiyar forgot all norms and insulted another guest, Samajwadi Party leader Mr Amar Singh, at a dinner in the capital.  And Mr Amar Singh forgot himself to the point where he reacted by beating up the Congress leader.  While these are matters for the two gentlemen and their host to work out, the sad fact that emerges from the report of the interaction and subsequent developments is that individual differences seem to have become the basis of wide reaching political decisions.  Mr Aiyar, before he was hit, insisted that the Samajwadi Party had not supported Mrs Sonia Gandhi's bid to become Prime Minister because the then UPCC president Salman Khursheed had insulted Samajwadi chieftain Mulayam Singh Yadav.  By the same count the Samajwadi leaders can make out that the.  Congress president had departed from basic courtesy and kept Samajwadi general secretary Amar Singh waiting outdoors when he had sought an appointment several months ago, as she wanted to teach him a lesson.  A few days after the- now famous dinner party, two Samajwadi MPs decided to stonewall Mrs S6nia Gandhi's attempt to speak in the Lok Sabha to the point where the House was adjourned.  Mr Amar Singh, while addressing a meeting of the Samajwadi parliamentary party, is reported to have asked his MPs not to tolerate Congress misbehaviour and use every available opportunity to beat Mr Aiyar in the House, or any other Congressman who happens to step out of line.  Strongarm tactics are not the answer to principled politics.  And it does not speak well of parliamentary democracy when individual interactions, even of the ugly kind, are allowed to interfere in what should be well thought out decisions.  The politician is expected to preserve the interests of India, and her people, and not just his own self.  Unfortunately political leaders who can rise above the self are becoming a rare breed, and cannot leave petty egos and imagined insults even out of social get togethers.  One would like to think that relations between the Samajwadi Party and the Congress are sour because of the larger issues of secularism, social justice and even economics.  Even a straight fig ht for the turf is acceptable to some extent.  But if, as is being alleged by both sides, personal differences are determining policy then the leaders of both the parties need to pull up their sagging socks, meet, if necessary, across the table and get the entire business of politics back to larger issues.  Otherwise the present row, which is more serious than others in the past, will eclipse political judgment completely and generate complications which will not strengthen either party in the field.  The Samajwadi Party is a major player in crucial Uttar Pradesh, which will be going in for the elections next year.  It cannot 'afford to queer the pitch by entering into a useless controversy with the Congress at this stage, as this will strengthen their main opponent, the BJP.  The Congress has little to lose in UP where it is a marginal force, but unnecessary confrontation with the Samajwadis in Parliament will have an adverse effect ,on its electoral prospects in other states.  The voter is not a fool 'and is becoming intolerant of unjustified divisiveness.  So perhaps, the best option now is what has come to be known as the "one table, two chairs" formula to at least agree to maintain a semblance of cordiality, if nothing else.
 

Back                          Top