Title: Losing self for
a new identity
Author: Virendra Parekh
Publication: The Weekend
Observer
Date: January 8, 2000
Introduction: Virendra
Parekh feels that, while dealing with the hijackers, the government gave
in when it cold have won merely by sanding firm. From rightly opposing
the sell-out at Tashkent and Shimla and condemning the release of terrorists
for saving Rubiya Sayeed and the kid-glove treatment of Islamic mercenaries
at Hazrat Bal, the BJP leaders have come a long way to strike a deal themselves
with hijackers. All in search of a 'secular' identity which can catapult
them to power. The search has been successful, but the price has been heavy,
both for the party and its core constituency
One full week after the
event, the bitter taste in the mouth refuses to go away. Even as the BJP-led
government at the Centre was preparing to surrender to barbarians of Islamic
jehad in order to save some precious lives, the BJP which was long regarded
by friends and foes as a party of hardcore Hindu nationalists was trying
to jettison what was perceived as heavy ideological baggage from the past.
Both the actions signified a loss of elan, a sense of self-forgetfulness
and an abject craving for winning respectability by doing the 'right' thing.
Both the actions represented squandering of a great opportunity and both
will have serious repercussions in the coming years.
Whatever gloss the official
spokesmen may try to put on it, the fact remains that India was not just
humbled but put to shame at Kandahar. A country of one billion, and a nuclear
power at that, was brought to its knees by a bunch of terrorists. Hardened
criminals, who ought to have been executed long back for their misdeeds,
were put on board a plane that carried the foreign minister of the country
and honourably acquitted. And, if some reports are to be believed, they
were given enough cash to fund their future activities against this country.
The capitulation made every Indian feel small. In one fell swoop, the Kargil
effect was set to naught. As the adage goes: kaabe Arjun loontiyo ehi dhanush
ehi baan...
The time for postmortem
of details is long past, but a sense of surprise still lingers that the
surrender came at a time when it was least expected. The government had
successfully withstood for about a week the pressure assiduously built
up by Star TV and sections of local media among others to strike a deal
with the hijackers. It gave in when it could have won merely by standing
firm. True, the Taliban government had issued an ultimatum to resolve the
crisis or leave their country in a few hours. But that was the hijackers'
headache which the government wrongly took over itself. The plane's air
worthiness was in serious doubt, no other country except perhaps Pakistan
would have let them in, and Taliban had made it clear that they would not
tolerate any killing of the passengers, Clearly, the government had little
reason to blink first.
The choice was hard but
clear: The lives of a few civilians and the interests of national security
and security forces. By succumbing to the hijackers' demand, the government
unwittingly gave the impression that lives of hundreds of security personnel
were less valuable than those of a few well-to-do citizens. During the
Kargil conflict, we saw several bereaved wives and parents who bravely
withheld their tears as they were proud of the martyrdom of their dear
ones. Will they not feel betrayed?
National leaders and
top bureaucrats cut pathetic figures when they allege Pakistan's complicity
in the matter, ask it to arrest, try or hand over the, hijackers, or urge
the United States to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Their fulminations
will only enhance Pakistan's glee over India's humiliation. Similarly,
brave declarations about tireless struggle against terrorism, new strategies
to combat it, security beef-up on airports and in aircraft etc sound hollow
and cannot restore the lost honour either for the country or the government.
As is well said: jo boond se gayee so hauj se nahin aatee...
The hijacking and its
television coverage brought the reality of terrorism right into the living
rooms of citizens. A leadership with vision would have used the occasion
to electrify 'the country, to steel its resolve in the fight against terrorism
and to inspire the civilians to repay a part of their debt to the armed
forces, if need be, by sacrificing a few lives. That opportunity was lost.
It was lost because the BJP-led government was unwilling to risk unpopularity
at home and abroad by taking a hard stance. The same aversion to hard and
clear thinking was discernible at the Chennai meeting of the national executive
of the BJP where it all but jettisoned its Hindutva agenda.
The Chennai declaration
once again made it clear that the BJP's agenda for governance is the national
agenda for good governance. In other words, while in power the BJP will
not raise the so-called contentious issues (Ram Temple, Article 370 and
common civil code). This was justified in the name of coalition dharma.
Words like idealism, character, adaptability and self renewal were freely
evoked to pacify the 'hardliners' who wanted the party to remain committed
to its distinctive programme.
The clarification was
aimed at pacifying BJP's regional allies who were restless about the 'hidden
agenda'. The latest provocation for the restlessness came from the private
members' bills in Parliament for uniform civil code and ban on cow slaughter.
The DMK warned against any constituent of NDA implementing its own agenda.
It is no secret that
there is a tussle going on within the BJP between the moderates and extremists
or, better, between pro-changers and no-changers. The former would genuinely
like the BJP to shed its Hindutva programme for good, while the other would
keep pursuing it within permissible limits if only to remind BJP's traditional
support base that it has been put aside only temporarily as part of coalition
politics.
The former group is identified
with Vajpayee while the latter, though very large, has no acknowledged
leader.
The secularist media
predictably support the former group and large sections of BJP seem to
relish this approbation which rarely came its way. While this is understandable,
a couple of points need to be made.
Even leaders with idealism
and character need an ideology to take the party and the polity forward.
As the largest party in the ruling coalition, it is the task of the BJP
to impart to it an ideological coherence. The so-called divisive issues
are actually issues of vital national concern and, far from being shelved,
need to be discussed openly. A beginning could be made with Kashmir where
Pakistan has been bleeding, us for a decade through a low-intensity proxy
war. At a time when the obstructive role of Article 370 in the fighting
against Pakistan-inspired terrorism was becoming visible to most Indians,
the BJP volunteered not to touch the issue, for the sake of sharing power
at the Centre. Viewed in this light, the Chennai declaration represents
squandering of a valuable opportunity.
Should the BJP risk the
displeasure of its allies by resurrecting the issue of Article 370? Yes,
in view of national security imperatives and past experience of its dealing
with secularist allies and enemies. The former need no discussion. So we
take up the second. On the earlier occasions, the BJP had to tread carefully
and did its duty by just remaining in power without rocking the boat, if
only to call the bluff of the 'threat of Hindu fundamentalism'. But its
long experience should now convince the BJP that running after the certificate
of secular credentials is a wild goose chase. BJP's 'communal' identity
is a handy stick to make it dance and bend at will, and it will not be
thrown away easily. Notice that while the BJP goes on diluting its character,
it gets nothing whatsoever in return from the secularist camp, except admonitions
to dilute it even more. Now that it has shown its willingness to bend,
it, may be asked to crawl. For secularists are like spoiled children: the
sight of beggars only make them laugh.
From rightly opposing
the sell-out at Tashkent (1966) and Shimla (1972), and condemning the release
of terrorists for saving Rubiya Sayeed and the kid-glove treatment of Islamic
mercenaries at Hazrat Bal, the BJP leaders have come a long way to strike
a deal themselves with hijackers. All in search of a 'secular' identity
which can catapult them to power. The search has been successful, but the
price has been heavy, both for the party and its core constituency (conscious
Hindus). This cannot go on for long.
A large number of party
workers realise this and feel worried. The tussle between the two camps
is far from over and may surface in unpredictable ways.
