HVK Archives: The miracle that no longer is
The miracle that no longer is - The Observer
Posted By Ashok V Chowgule (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
October 27, 1996
When Mayawati became the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh
two years ago, the then Prime Minister, P V Narasimha
Rao, hailed the event as a miracle of democracy. He was
right. Mayawati is a Dalit and her ascension to the
chief minister's post in UP, which is not only the lar-
gest state but also considered to be the bastion of Hindu
orthodoxy, marked a real blow for 'empowerment'. It is a
different matter that the enthusiasm of many champions of
the 'empowerment' seemed to dissipate when Mayawati and
her mentor Kanshi Ram refused to follow the script pre-
pared for them by others.
The 'miracle' that Rao talked of, however, pales when
contrasted with the 'miracle' that has just unfolded in
Gujarat. The cash-rich Western state holds the unique
distinction of having a 'secular' government which is led
by a man who makes no secret of his commitment to the
'communal' Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. Vaghela has
offered generous hints that he would pursue the policies
of the RSS that the BJP does not follow. Considering
that a miracle could not have taken place but for the
zeal of the United Front and the Congress(I) to see the
back of the BJP government in the state, the RSS should
thank these 'secular' formations for enabling it to argue
that not all its followers are 'communal'.
But it is not only the RSS that has reason to be happy
with recent developments. There is good news for the
CPI(M) as well. It used lament the lack of a toe hold in
the Hindi-heartland . But now, in the company of Mulayam
Singh Yadav, it has managed as many as four seats in
Uttar Pradesh and one in J&K. The Marxists, diehard
optimists as they are, may think they have overcome their
luckless spell which saw their number of comrades dimin-
ishing. Particularly when they have such influential
persons as Uttar Pradesh Governor Romesh Bhandari on
their side.
Whatever they might mean for the various political par-
ties, the developments do not portend well for the people
and polity. Between themselves, they represent a sordid
saga of opportunism and double standards and the growing
appeal of the school of thought that places pursuit of
power above principles and everything else. It is only
the determination to have power for themselves and deny
it to rivals that can motivate such advocates of 'genuine
federalism' as H S Surjeet, Indrajit Gupta and M Karuna-
nidhi to resort to blatant misuse of Article 356 in
Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh. It is this quest that makes
Bhandari, Vaghela and Communists/Marxists sworn rivals
till yesterday - connive in mounting an assault on the
Constitution. It explains why the proponents of 'empow-
erment' keep mum when the BSP and its leadership is
attacked for refusing to accept the suzerainty of Mulayam
Singh Yadav and are dragged into a power-sharing arrange-
ment they feel is not in their interest. Again, it the
same reason that is behind the BJP's flirtations with the
'casteist' BSP, and its apparent concern over 'caste-
based' politics.
The Leftists and other constituents of the Front are not
concerned about the flak they are getting for abusing the
Constitution. They justify that their actions, even if
improper, have advanced the 'secular' cause. The prob-
lems facing both the BJP and the Congress(I) must be
reinforcing this nonchalance. The dismissal of its gov-
ernment could not fetch any sympathy for the BJP in Uttar
Pradesh. Its failure to get a majority in the state also
showed that the party's calculations - that the ouster of
the Vajpayee government because of an 'unprincipled gang-
up' of non-BJP parties of different stripes - were based
more on hopes rather than on any realistic assessment.
It is quite angry at the manner in which it is being
'kept out'. But shocked at the setbacks in Gujarat and
UP, it seems handicapped in mounting an offensive against
the Front.
Though serious, BJP's troubles would appear to be minor
hiccups compared to the dire straits the Congress(I),
another potential source of trouble for the Front, con-
tinues to find itself in. Its leaders and MPs, having
been addicted to the trappings of power for so long,
would love to return to the treasury benches in Parlia-
ment. Unfortunately for them, however, and muscle flex-
ing by Sitaram Kesri notwithstanding, they are a party
with a battered image and a heavily eroded mass base and
are not in a position to do anything that can precipitate
an early encounter with the electorate.
The travails of its rivals and competitors seem to have
given rise to an attitude of smugness in the Front lead-
ers who think they can afford to renege on their commit-
ments to probity, or to put an end to the misuse of
Article 356. However, what they do not realise is that
the compromises they are making for short-term gains are
denting the credibility and legitimacy they have enjoyed
so far. If the constituents of the United Front, till
recently, could afford to talk down to the Congress(I),
it had only partly to do with their popularity. They
could afford that luxury only because they were, in the
eyes of many, steadfast in taking up causes - the appeal
for which cut across party lines reaching out even to
those who never voted for them. The advantage they. held
was one of the reasons why after the Lok Sabha election
the Congress(I) had to resist its temptation to stake a
claim - having the largest strength among the non-BJP
parties - to lead the `secular' coalition at the Centre.
Within a span of just over four months, however, the
Front runs a serious risk of losing that advantage. The
criticism it has invited for perpetrating a fraud on the
Constitution only to deny the BJP a chance to form a
government is an important pointer towards that. The
decision of Bhandari, as well as his counterpart in
Gandhinagar, not to use the floor of the assemblies for
determining the claim of majority was in brazen disregard
of the Supreme Court's observations on the subject. In
Uttar Pradesh, Bhandari and the Centre compounded their
original misdemeanour by enacting the farce of lifting
President's rule and then slapping it once again to get
around the Constitutional stipulation. Is it any wonder
then that even the Congress(I) leapt at the opportunity
to sermonise the Front and Leftists on the misuse of
Article 356?
The Front can very well argue that they do not need to
take any lessons in federalism from the Congress(I),
which did not show any compunction in toppling popular
governments. But that can hardly compensate the damage
their action has caused to their image of being princi-
pled crusaders against the misuse of Article 356. If the
Left thinks its claim that it was with a heavy heart that
CPI ministers took the decision and struck a dissenting
note after they signed on the dotted line - would buy it
immunity from criticism, it is grossly mistaken.
Federalism is not the only issue on which the Front's
position stands compromised. The story is hardly differ-
ent with regard to their stand on economic policies as we
see the curious spectacle of the government trying to
outscore the Congress(I) in implementing policies they
were railing against. We may call it a sign of pragma-
tism or even an index of growing consensus over the need
for liberalisation. But the fact remains that these
policies were not exactly a draw with the people and that
the Congress(I) suffered for it. True that there is no
escape from taking some harsh measures. But that re-
quires the Front to say the same in as many words and
prepare the people for it. It is, however, yet to dis-
play the required courage while the Left thinks, again
mistakenly, that its ritual of criticising the government
on the one hand and supporting it in Parliament was
enough to prevent it from falling between two stools. On
the issue of corruption, the way the CBI is being pres-
surised and Courts are being moved to protect Narasimha
Rao as well as leaders within its own ranks, is enough to
explain why Deve Gowda and his colleagues have suddenly
stopped talking about their favourite theme.
The Front, of course, continues to retain its 'edge' so
far as 'secularism' is concerned. But that is certainly
not enough. And not only because BJP does not accept its
version of 'secularism'. Not many are ready to condone
all its lapses just because the Front claims to be secu-
lar. Or the AP chief minister would not have fought with
the Prime Minister over the Almatti issue or the Left
would not have felt compelled to agitate against corrup-
tion under Laloo Prasad Yadav's regime. Backtracking on
the commitments, making a mockery of the Constitution,
protection of the corrupt and hunting with the bound of
liberalisation can only increase the limitations of the
'secular' card as an armour by strengthening those who
are trying to make out that `secularism' is being used
only to capture power.
By not realising this and by, making all sorts of compro-
mises the Front may lose the legitimacy it needs to
offset its numerical handicap in the Lok Sabha and to
provide better governance. It.may continue to wield
power because of the troubles and handicaps of its ri-
vals. But if its leadership fails to take remedial
measures, it will go on losing the authority it requires
to break out of the Congress(I)'s style of governance.
Continuing on the traditional path will also render it
incapable of preparing the people to forego the privileg-
es they enjoy at the expense of others. It should keep
the examples of Rajiv Gandhi and Laloo Prasad Yadav in
mind. Allegations of corruption had considerably eroded
the legitimacy of Rajiv Gandhi much before he actually
ceased to be the Prime Minister. The fodder scam has
done the same to Laloo Prasad Yadav. And it will be all
the better if the Front also realises that unlike Rajiv
Gandhi and Laloo Yadav, it does not have the advantage of
adequate numerical strength.
Back
Top
|
