Author: Atal Behari Vajpayee
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 31, 2000
Time passess off quickly.
Almost forty long years have elapsed. Still it looks as if all this
happened only the other day. It was the year 1957. The second
general elections for Lok Sabha were in the offing. My party-Bharatiya
Jana Sangh-was enagaged in the gigantic task of establishing itself.
The benign presence of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was no longer
there. Neither was there a distinguished leadership nor was there
a wide mass base. Candidates were hard to find to fight the elections.
There was none who was willing to spend his own money to face forfeiture
of security desposit. Even so, elections had to be fought: what better
chance could there be to spread the message of the Party to the vast masses,
to the maximum possible extent?
It was decided to field me from
three constituencies: Lucknow, Mathura and Balrampur. I had earlier
fought the bye-election for Lok Sabha from Lucknow. Victory was out
of question. Yet I had polled a good number of votes. I helped
to boost the morale of the Party. Accordingly, it was decided to
field me again from Lucknow.
I was sad at my failure to get elected
to the Third Lok Sabha. The span of time from 1962 to 1967 was the
most significant period in the life of independent India. During
this short period the nation went to war twice. The cruel hands of
death snuffed out the lives of our two Prime Ministers. The Chinese
invasion left Shri Nehru a shattered man. Their betrayal had shaken
him to the core of his heart. Thereafter he never again looked his
old lively self. On seeing him one felt as if he had lost his zest.
Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri died of a massive heart attack. He had been
a heart patient but the circumstances in which he died naturally led to
the suspicion that he was subjected to great pressure to sign the Tashkent
agreement and that his heart could not endure it.
Members of Parliament and Legislatures
are expected to look after their constituencies well, to visit them frequently
and share the joys and sorrows of their electorates. This expectation
is not unjust. I was elected member of the Lok Sabha for the first
time from Balrampur. I had always taken good care of my constituency.
Ever since my election to the Lok Sabha I had maintained close contact
with my electorate and brought Balrampur into prominence in Parliament.
After I lost the election I resolved not to lose contact. I was firmly
determined to seek re-election from Balrampur. I had to avenge my
defeat. Before the 1967 general election some senior leaders of Congress
suggested to me that I should leave the Balrampur seat and seek election
from elsewhere. Their logic was that I could win election from any
constituency, but for the successful Congress candidate to leave the Balrampur
seat would be a disgrace. I turned down their suggestion. I
again contested from Balrampur and won the seat. This time I won
by a margin of more than 30,000 votes. I secured 1,42,446 votes,
while the Congress candidate polled 1,10,704 votes. Along with me
four other candidates contesting the elections for the Legislative Assembly
also won on Jana Sangh ticket.
It is not surprising that the difference
between the two Houses arose on a relatively small issue like dowry.
But as a matter of fact, dowry is not a small issue. It concerns
with the social structure, old conventions, past traditions and religious
beliefs. In a tradition-bound society whenever a social reform is
brought about, it creates great controversy. The heat and dust generated
by the Hindu Code Bill all over the country is quite well known.
In fact the convening of a joint session of Parliament on the question
of dowry was more surprising because as against Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha
had taken a more progressive stance. Rajya Sabha is considered to
be more mature and is a House of elders. The utility of a second
House lies in applying the brake but in the matter of dowry the Rajya Sabha
was in favour of taking a rapid stride.
Every year hundreds of newly wed
daughters-in-law are sacrificed on the altar of dowry. The dowry
seekers do not hesitate to burn their daughters-in-law alive by dousing
them with kerosene. The law has been made quite severe. Still
dowry-related crimes are on the increase. What is required is that
the law should be enforced strictly and honestly. There is also need
to awaken the conscience of the people. In my speech I said: "What
is needed is that the country should make economic progress, education
should spread, caste barriers should be broken and boys and girls allowed
to marry each other without any inhibition. Marriages should no longer
be arranged in heaven but should be fixed by mutual consent. This
alone can end the system of dowry."
I was elected to the Rajya Sabha
twice-first time in 1962 and second time in 1986. In 1962, our Party
had only two members in the House. In spite of this the then Chairman
of Rajya Sabha, Dr Radhakrishnan, allotted me a seat in the first row.
There was hardly any occasion when we were not given a chance to put forward
our Party's viewpoint during the course of discussion. Dr Radhakrishnan
used to conduct and control the proceedings of the House with great modesty
and dignity. Later, Dr Zakir Hussain assumed the office of Chairman.
He used to get distressed by the unruly noise witnessed immediately after
the Question Hour. The members of the Rajya Sabha, being limited
in number, get more time to speak. In accordance with convention,
members could speak on a non-official motion or Bill for as long as they
liked.
The question arises: when the founders
of our Constitution took the decision to constitute a Rajya Sabha, what
was their objective? Has that objective been realised? During a discussion
in the Constituent Assembly Shri Loknath Misra, a member from Orissa had
said that the Rajya Sabha in its present form would be unnecessary.
But his plea was not accepted. Shri Anantasa-yanam Ayyangar advanced
three arguments in favour of the retention of the Rajya Sabha. First,
there is great enthusiasm among the people for participation in politics,
for which they must be provided a chance and they should be given opportunities
to make use of their talent. Secondly, the Rajya Sabha can apply
the brake of 'go slow' on any legislation passed by Lok Sabha in a haste.
Thirdly, the Rajya Sabha will be a standing House, whereas the Lok Sabha
will not. Shri Ayyangar concluded that for the progress of the country
the second House was a must. Why did I contest the elections to Lok
Sabha in 1991 from two constituencies? This had a background of its own.
In those days I was a member of Rajya Sabha. I had announced that
I would not contest the election for Lok Sabha.
My term in Rajya Sabha had not as
yet expired. But the Party decided to field me from Lucknow.
The Party wanted to form its Government in Uttar Pradesh. To boost
the election campaign it was very necessary to field from there a person
who could muster more public support for the Party. Dr Murli Manohar
Joshi, being the national President of the Party, had already taken the
decision not to stand for election. There was also no question of
shifting Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia or Shri Lal Krishna Advani from the
seats they had won. The Party needed a good candidate to contest
the Lucknow seat. I had my old contacts with Lucknow and had contested
the elections thrice from there. It was because of this that a decision
was taken to field me from the Lucknow constituency.
Like 1979, this time too the rift
in the Janata Dal did not occur on any question of principle or matter
of policy. The infinite lust for power was alone responsible for
the rift in the party. The recommendations of the Mandal Commission
were used by V.P. Singh as a weapon to give an ideological twist
to this rift. Even this was done in hasty and in a clumsy way.
The parties supporting the Government were neither taken into confidence
nor any effort was made to create within the country a favourable opinion,
especially among the younger generation. Had it been announced on
day one that along with social and educational backwardness, economic backwardness
will also form one of the criteria, and some posts will be reserved for
younger people of the so-called forward classes keeping in view their economic
conditions, the anti-reservation movement would not have taken such a violent
turn. The younger generation suspected that the announcement to give
27 per cent reservation to the backward classes was not motivated by any
sense of social justice but was guided by the sole desire to remain in
power. The relations between the Janata Dal and the BJP had become
embittered. The anti-Congress attitude of Janata Dal had also hardened.
Would the formation of a National Government be possible under these circumstances?
In the event of war the necessity to form a National Government can be
understood, but in times of peace how far will its formation be justified?
What will happen in the next elections? Will the parties in the Government
fight the elections on a common platform? If not, will not the preparation
to fight the elections on separate identities start while still working
together in the Government? The experiment of coalition did not succeed
in 1977-79 nor did it succeed in 1990. In what way would a National
Government be different from a coalition government?
I am, as in 1990 and 1991, even
today of the view that to strengthen and to bring prosperity of this large
country with many diversities it is essential to evolve consensus on all
national problems. Solely on the strength of Government and administration
no single party or group of parties can keep the nation either united or
fulfil the demands of its development. We may not have a united Government
but we must not be divided in our resolve. This is the message of
Sam vo manaansi jaantaam (Let there be a union of minds).
Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri's election
as Prime Minister after Nehru highlights both the maturity and the apparent
contradiction of Indian democracy. Nehru had regal upbringing on
the one hand, and on the other hand Lal Bahadur Shastri fought his way
through abject poverty. A barrister who had acquired Western education
and imbibed Western culture at Cambridge University on the one hand, and
Lal Bahadur who had obtained the 'Shastri' degree at the Kashi Vidyapeeth
on the other. Despite this dissimilarity Shri Shastri proved a worthy
successor to Pandit Nehru, which shows the inner strength and elasticity
of the Indian society. Before becoming Prime Minister Shri Shastri
had impressed everybody with his capacity by working ably in many positions.
I still recall the time he presented his budget as Minsiter for Railways
in Hindi. Shri Shastri rose to dizy heights during the Indo-Pak War.
Had he lived he would have changed the direction of Indian polity.
the mystery that covered the circumstances of Shri Shastri's tragic death
in Tashkent has now been more or less removed. No basis has been
found for the suspicion that his death was not natural. I was greatly
relieved to read in the book by Shri Shastri's special assistant Shri C.P.
Shrivastav that I was not the cause for worry for Shri Shastri that fateful
night in Tashkent. What happened was that when the news of the Tashkent
agreement reached Delhi, the press asked for my reaction. I criticised
the agreement severely and called it a surrender. This news was conveyed
to Shri Shastri in Tashkent. When the news of his death due to heart
failure arrived, I got the guilty feeling that my harsh criticism may have
deeply affected him. But Shri Shrivastav's narration of that fateful
night in Tashkent has lifted a big burden off my mind. During the
Indo-Pak War Shri Shastri made arrangements to keep Opposition leaders
posted with news from the front every evening. When necessary he
would personally contact them and brief them. Shri Shastri's sudden
death posed before the country the question of choosing a new Prime Minister.
I often clashed with Indiraji in Parliament, but she never let political
differences effect personal relationships. Her tragic assassination
removed suddenly from our midst a personality that will not only be remembered
as the worthy daughter of a worthy father but also for her own ability,
dexterity, decisiveness and firmness.
Shri Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister
at a tragic juncture. He had no administrative experience.
He did not even have any interest in politics. He was happy to be
a pilot. Once when I alighted from a plane I saw a young man wearing
his cap standing below and greeting me with a smiling Namaskar. I
could not recognise that he was Shri Rajiv Gandhi, son of the Prime Minister.
On another occasion, when he was going out of Delhi with his family, there
was unexpected delay in the plane's departure. Had he so wished he
could have returned home with Smt. Sonia Gandhi and the children,
but he decided to spend time in the airport's resting lounge. He
kept playing and chatting with his children. But Prime Ministership
greatly changed his informal and simple nature.
Shri Rajiv Gandhi was always particular
about etiquette. Whenever he met anyone he did so heartily.
He try to understand the other's point of view and make him understand
his own. But his lack of experience and absence of proper advice
made him commit many grave mistakes. India is the largest democracy
of the world. Leaving aside the short span of 1975 and 1976 the reign
of democracy has remained uninterrupted. Adult franchise, impartial
elections, independent judiciary, multi-party system and free press are
the cornerstones of our democratic set-up. People change Governments
through the ballot. In 1977, the people defeated even a formidable
Prime Minister like Smt. Indira Gandhi at the hustings. In
1980, the Janata Party Government, which had ascended the throne of power
on the tide of people's wrath against the excesses committed in the Emergency,
and had the blessings of Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain, was similarly swept
out of power by the same people. In 1989, even the Government of
Rajiv Gandhi, to which just five years earlier the people had given a massive
mandate to rule, was in a similar way swept off by the same electorates.
In the States also people have changed Governments in this way and demonstrated
the decisive power of the ballot.
In Parliament there is less discussion
but more noise. Elections have been reduced to a farce because of
the use of money power on an extensive scale. The party system is
getting eroded due to the unethical trend of horse-trading. Accusing
fingers are beginning to be raised at the impartiality of the judiciary.
The Election Commission has become a target for charges and counter charges.
Politics is becoming increasingly criminalised. The outer shell of
democracy is, no doubt, intact but it appears to be motheaten from inside.
In accordance with the West-minster
system the Leader of Opposition is accorded a special status and he gets
salary, allowances and perquisites equal to what members of the Council
of Ministers receive. Following the British convention in India too
the office of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee goes to the
Opposition. So much so the tradition of giving the post of Deputy
Speaker to the Opposition is also somehow or other being honoured.
At the root of these Westminster conventions and traditions lies a genuine
respect for the Opposition. It is needless to say that this sentiment
is conspicuous by its absence in our country. Far from basic respect
for the Opposition, even an attitude of tolerance towards it is lacking.
The Opposition is treated as enemy. Not only are they treated as
such, but declarations to this effect are publicly made. In fact
the growing intolerance is posing a serious danger to the democratic fabric.
As a result of imitating the Westminster electoral model, many divisive
factors which were already present in the Indian polity became more acute.
Society, divided by considerations of caste, subcaste, modes of worship,
languages and different life styles, is getting gradually disintegrated.
Communalism is at its worst.
The poison of casteism is playing
havoc with public life. The factors which once united the people
have now assumed a divisive role. Politics has now been reduced to
a game of power. To capture power by questionable methods and, after
usurping it, to remain in power by whatever means has become the sole objective
of politics. In their lust for power the political parties do not
refrain from giving encouragement to secessionist forces; they do not desist
from hobnobing with anti-national elements.
For the success of democracy it
is very essential that the party system should be strong. In a large
country like India with diverse traits the two-party system, unlike in
Britain, does not seem to be practicable. Nonetheless, it is imperative
that whatever be the number of parties, they should be based on policies
and programmes, should observe democratic norms, have regular membership,
hold regular organisational elections and on the basis of their clear-cut
manifestos should go before the voters to solicit their support.
(Courtesy: Four Decades in Parliament:
Atal Behari Vajpayee)
