P A G E
Tuesday, August 24, 1999
spotlighttoday's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Tuesday, August 24, 1999 |
| weather spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Yet
another NDA manifesto
DEATH
AND DESTRUCTION |
 |
NDA
manifesto — long on promises, short on action
Chick-chat
August
24, 1924 |
||||||||
 |
|
Yet another NDA manifesto IN Tamil Nadu the dominant DMK created an illusion that it is the leader of the National Democratic Alliance with the BJP as one of the seven constituents, and is now acting out that role in all seriousness. On Sunday it issued an election manifesto, committing the Central Government-to-be to genuine secularism, scrapping of Article 356, reservation for Muslims and recognition of Tamil Nadu’s long-standing opposition to Hindi and, more importantly, to eradication of poverty within 11 years. All these pledges are made on behalf of the NDA and by the DMK in its assumed role as the leader; its own regional achievements and promises are relegated to one chapter. The manifesto, imposing the DMK’s own perceptions on the whole of the NDA, some of whose members are innocent of any political or other philosophy, is an unwelcome enterprise on any day. On Sunday it was a highly embarrassing interlude to the Hindutva party. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was in the state and elsewhere party ideologue Govindacharya was solemnly asserting that the BJP stood very much committed to building a magnificent temple at Ayodhya, introducing a common civil code and scrapping Article 370 (guaranteeing a good measure of autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir). The only redeeming feature is that the manifesto and the reiteration of the fundamentalist policies of the BJP came spontaneously and do not have a question-and-response linkage. Still, the two developments bring out the wide difference, if not the irreconcilable contradiction, in the outlook and belief pattern of the various constituents of the NDA, which have been swept under the carpet with the sole purpose of fighting and winning the elections. The DMK anointed itself
as the overall chieftain of the NDA in Tamil Nadu under
duress. When the AIADMK’s mercurial lady deserted
the BJP camp, there was a tempting vacancy and Mr
Karunanidhi eagerly rushed in in search of two goals. He
wanted to make this break permanent and thus banish Ms
Jayalalitha to political no-man’s land. Two, he
sought to foreclose the option of the Congress to revive
the electoral alliance it once had with his party as it
would force him to abandon the breakaway faction of the
TMC. Once forced into the NDA, he had to ensure that he
did not seem to have compromised on his party’s
cherished policies like keeping religion strictly out of
politics and holding aloft the banner of Dravidian (read
Tamil) sub-nationalism. He has been claiming these two
points repeatedly and the manifesto reflects them. This
way, for Mr Karunanidhi there is no ideological dilemma
in being the chief of the 50-year old DMK and also an NDA
groupie. But RSS hawks and unreconstructed BJP leaders
will murmur their protests and after the elections make
loud protests against kow-towing to the DMK’s
leadership and allowing it to make commitments on behalf
of the larger grouping. True, a similar situation exists
in Maharashtra with the Shiv Sena doing what the DMK does
in Tamil Nadu. But the two parties share much ideological
space and clashes, if any, occur on personality issues.
As a liberal reformist movement, the DMK will have less
appetite for nudging close to the saffron brigade in the
long run. |
Atalji apologises again ONE of the most endearing qualities of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is his ability to remain unruffled by even the most complex political crisis. He is, perhaps, the only political leader who knows the power of expressing regret for any perceived misdeed of the Bharatiya Janata Party. He has done it again. This time the issue which prompted Mr Vajpayee to offer a public apology of sorts was the massive poster depicting the three service chiefs put up by over-enthusiastic BJP activists at an election rally in Karnal addressed by him. Of course, there was little that Chief Election Commissioner M.S. Gill could do after the Prime Minister's expression of regret and assurance that "such a thing would not happen in future". However, even the most ardent non-BJP supporters of Mr Vajpayee are not too happy with his soft-handling of the hardcore elements within the Sangh Parivar, and more specifically the BJP. The party’s voluble General Secretary K.N. Govindacharya's description of Mr Vajpayee as “the mask of the BJP” raises doubts about the real man behind the most popular and acceptable face in contemporary Indian politics. Circumstantial evidence suggests that those who believe that Mr Vajpayee wears not one but two political masks may not be off the mark. One mask is meant to widen his and his party’s political acceptability. The second is to reassure his partymen that he has not abandoned the saffron agenda. In fact, the Sangh
Parivar think-tank deserves full marks for evolving a
two-track policy for the political growth of the BJP. Mr
L.K. Advani was given the task of making the country take
note of the BJP by pushing an aggressive Hindutva agenda.
After the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December,
1992, Mr Vajpayee was to take the centrestage by
projecting a moderate face of the BJP. That was the
reason why he was shown to be alone and in mourning when
the rest of the Sangh Parivar was celebrating the
"liberation" of Ramajanmabhoomi in Ayodhya. The
attacks on Christians and the killing of Staines and his
two sons in Orissa, the advertisement in June subtly
linking Jana Sangh founder Shyama Prasad Mukherjee with
the Kargil martyrs, the Muzaffarnagar incident in which
BJP Mahila Morcha activists, with the help of women
constables, beat up two college girls at the Prime
Minister's election rally and the latest objectionable
act of dragging the three services chiefs into the BJP's
electoral politics, were apparently part of the two-track
policy of making the BJP acceptable to a larger
constituency without actually giving up the
“hidden” aggressive agenda. Whenever the BJP
acts like a spoilt child Mr Vajpayee steps forward with
the trade-mark expression of regret for the misdeeds of
the party. The chapter is, thereafter, treated as closed.
The question of punishing the guilty simply does not
arise. His detractors have a point when they say that if
Mr Vajpayee has no control over the BJP and no power to
punish its members for the excesses they commit, how can
he be trusted with running the country rocked by so many
problems? |
Anyone for “minor” issues? ELECTION time is more auspicious than any other for the ruling party (parties in today’s contest) to claim credit for numerous real and imagined triumphs. This is also the opportune time for the opposition parties to run down the government for its alleged failures. True to form, while the BJP has been projecting the Kargil victory as its very own, the Congress is busy finding fault with this “politicisation” of the army triumph. It is another matter that the latter has no qualms about putting up giant posters hailing Rajiv Gandhi for bringing in the Bofors gun, which was instrumental in the victory. Obviously, everyone has two sets of rules, one for himself and another for the rest of the world. While big words like foreign policy and Pokhran and the border achievements are bandied about, there is hardly any mention of subjects closer to the everyday life of the people. Education, environment, ecology, pollution, health and clean water are not the kind of issues which can be discussed with any animated thumping of the podium, with the result that most leaders have almost ignored them. Even those who have touched upon them have done so in a perfunctory manner. Ask them what they are going to do about, say, sanitary conditions and they will paint a surrealistically rosy picture — words to the effect that your slum is going to be converted into a mini-Paris in no time. Those who dare to hit back that such promises are more than five decade-old run the risk of being thrown out forcibly from a public meeting “in apprehension of breach of the peace”. But these are the very subjects for which the electorate must extract firm promises. The aspirants can gag one or two protesters but if the tiny voices of thousands of people come together, there is no way that these can be silenced. If at all some issues of
public interest are discussed, these are confined to
those matters which would appeal to the largest,
organised segments of voters. So, while there is special
emphasis on what various parties would do for the
taxpayers or government servants, no one has bothered to
tell the nation what they intend to do for, say,
children. Fed up with this attitude, the Campaign Against
Child Labour (CACL) has put forward a 15-point charter of
demands to aspiring members of Parliament seeking their
old commitment to the promotion of children’s
interests. More such pressure groups can and should
become active at this time. Politicians are notorious for
breaking their solemn promises. But at least they can be
pinned down to their commitments. After all, there is
always a next time. And with the elections becoming an
almost annual affair, that time is bound to come sooner
than later. It is ironical that a select few have to go
to the extent of filing a public interest litigation to
get encroachment of public land vacated or even get
streets cleaned. Instead, a collective display of
awareness by public-spirited citizens can force the
politicians to mend their ways. |
DEATH AND DESTRUCTION WHY, oh, why did Pakistan have to do it? Why did it have to spread so much misery and get nothing in return except death, destruction and bad name? What for so much destruction and why so many dead and those incapacitated for life? Was Pakistan over-ambitious, or did its planning go wrong? We need answers to understand Pakistan better. Even after the end of the conflict none of the questions has been answered. The debris of the Kargil conflict has to be looked at to get the right answers. It was India which was invaded and all the destruction was done on the Indian side of the Line of control, which should help us form some estimate of the losses. India is said to have lost above 400 officers and men. Many more have been injured. Pakistan lost still more, at least 600 dead soldiers plus many irregulars from Afghanistan and other countries. India used the Air Force in the initial stages and lost three aircraft and pilots which was grievous. The overall destruction was far greater. India is said to have spent about Rs 15 crore a day. What Pakistan also lost was a big blow to its morale. It began by saying in Mr Nawaz Sharif’s words that it was the “freedom fighters” who were fighting against India on its side of the LoC, only to later admit that its armed forces were also involved. Pakistan lost face not only within its own borders and in India but also internationally. Pakistan has been seen as having tried to hoodwink the world opinion through lies. Since it had said that its soldiers were not fighting, it refused to take back its dead. This was a sad thing to happen for that country but it provided a grand opportunity to India, with its men sacredly burying Pakistani soldiers and sometimes sending across body bags. Think of what this must have done in Pakistan. Think of the families of the soldiers who were killed but whose bodies did not reach them for burial in their own homeland. How would Pakistani authorities explain to their families what had happened to their sons, brothers and husbands? They would for all times to come carry the pain of their children disappearing. No relative can forget this. This will be a sad and ever-lasting reminder in Pakistan of the futility of the Kargil campaign. Islamabad cannot explain this away to individual families. Some of this happens in war. Nations digest the hurt under the cover of victory. But Pakistan did not get this satisfaction. then the question arises: why did Pakistan have to do it? There is one point which might make Pakistan gloat over what it did. This is having caught India unawares of the intrusion. though it was done in deceit, it caught India unawares. The Indian authorities find it hard to explain why this happened. That Pakistan accomplished this showed that this much of the invasion was well planned. That we did not know about it also showed our woeful lack of intelligence. That Pakistan was arranging the intrusion when our Prime Minister was journeying to Lahore showed how woefully our planners and think-tanks misjudged Pakistan and took it for granted. Pakistan also lost something in this. This was the realisation that it believes in doing what it does not say and thus cannot be trusted. It lost face internationally. World opinion turned against it. It lost good old friends, like the USA, China and the European countries, in particular. Even its co-religionists turned away from its falsehoods. This takes us back to the question with which we started: why did Pakistan do it? In looking at it again, we will have to go over Pakistani policies. The first question we should ask is: what did it hope to gain? By crossing the LoC and then occupying vulnerable spots, mostly strategic peaks, Pakistan obviously thought that it would make it impossible for India to drive out its (Pakistani) soldiers. Pakistan’s clear planning was to cut off the Srinagar-Leh road, one of the main reasons behind the Kargil intrusion. When this was done, Pakistan should have known that India would have to establish at whatever cost an airlink with Leh from Chandigarh and Avantipur. Pakistan should at least have known how the West saved Berlin in the early days of the Cold War. India’s presence in Ladakh depended on maintaining the Leh road or at least somehow making up the cut. Pakistan also wanted to occupy some of the important peaks just as India has held on to Siachen. In all this planning did Pakistan think that India with its superior conventional military power would allow Islamabad to hold on to the advantage? Here comes Pakistan’s first misjudgement. It would have been impossible for India to let the captured areas remain under Pakistan. It would have made a concerted effort to send out the Pakistanis this year. If not, then next summer, Pakistani strategists misread Indian military capability. It is no military wisdom to think that it would get all the advantage and the opponent would be left high and dry — an opponent like India which has defeated it in the past. Another miscalculation was that India would not use its air power. In the first few days it tried to beat back India’s air power by shooting down three of our aircraft. When the Indian helicopter was also downed, Pakistan perhaps realised that India would not let it go whatever the losses. That is why Pakistan did not try to trifle any further with our aircraft. This realisation is perhaps what turned the conflict in our favour. So much for our military reply. When things were not going its way Pakistan sought to retrieve the situation through diplomatic means. Here its moves were as bad. For Mr Nawaz Sharif to send his Foreign Minister, Mr Sartaj Aziz, to India (wrongly after a visit to China) was not a bad thought. But he executed it badly. Mr Aziz started by saying that the LoC had not been demarcated. He thought that this would justify what Pakistan had done, but this is not what for he was coming to Delhi. Mr Aziz’s trip to Delhi became a failure before he started it. Mr Nawaz Sharif was as inapt. he did what no Prime Minister is expected to do. It has not been made out but he displayed extreme nervousness in the way he carried out his tours. He said that he would go to China for six days but, unlike a steadfast prime Minister, he came back in two days. No Head of Government would behave like that unless his planning had been blown off to shreds. He came back when he found that Pakistan’s old friend was not giving him any support. To think that China would give support was again a grave miscalculation. Mr Nawaz Sharif’s foreign policy advisers should have told him that China would do nothing for Pakistan’s pleasure but only for what suits its interests. In the 1971 war too Pakistan had been expecting that China would intervene in its favour. Gen Tikka Khan believed till the end that China would intervene, but this did not happen. Mr Nawaz Sharif next flew to Washington. He got nothing there. Ultimately he surrendered to the American advice of sanity. This brought us near the end of the conflict but showed Pakistani establishment near a fatal collapse of policy. There was little point in his going to the USA. He spent three hours with President Clinton. This was not much because during this time they also had a working lunch. President Clinton was purposeful because he spared time on July 4, America’s National Day. Mr Nawaz Sharif got nothing which he could not have got through a longish telephone conversation. This would have saved him much embarrassment. If Pakistan’s diplomats had planned what was good for their country, it would have been better for Mr Nawaz Sharif to come to New Delhi for talks with Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and this could have gone on to produce a statement similar to the one which he signed with Mr Clinton. This would have added to his stature, and he would have been seen as a peace-maker. A statement saying that Pakistan would withdraw to the Line of Control would have shown him with a grip on the situation, rising above the military establishment to right a wrong and to make peace with India. But this can be contested by saying that may be Mr Nawaz Sharif had gone to Washington to gain an advantage by threatening a nuclear strike. No one knows whether this was so, but the fact remains that Mr Nawaz Sharif got nothing from the USA. He could have enhanced his image by doing the same through bilateral talks with Mr Vajpayee. He would have been better off. Pakistan’s entire
handling has been so inapt, purposeless and wishful that
there are no marks that can be given to it. The question,
therefore, remains: why did it do it? How did it gain
from Kargil? |
Time to expose terrorism
sponsors COME September and we will find the Pakistanis in full cry once again in the United Nations General Assembly, doing what comes naturally to them: India bashing. The member-States will be asked yet again to put an end to the reign of terror let loose on poor Kashmiris” by the barbarous Indian troops. They will speak in the name of human rights, the inviolable rights of Kashmiris (read Muslims) to determine their future. They will invoke their faith and, sure enough, they will bare their bleeding hearts. They will speak in the name of liberty and liberation movement. Not one word shall be uttered about the hapless Kashmiris of Gilgit and other so-called Northern Territories which once formed part of Jammu and Kashmir and on whose behalf even the Supreme Court of Pakistan has spoken. The Gilgitians have no rights whatsoever except to surrender to the whims and fancies of their Pakistani rulers. Their proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, now nearly a decade old, not having bled India to death, the Pakistanis assured themselves that the nuke gave them the morale-boosting edge they needed to further their ambitions in Kashmir. In the end Kargil saw the Pakistani leadership earning not laurels but so much egg on their faces. That, though, is not the end of the story and India would be guilty of making a grave mistake if it did not pin down Pakistan for what it is — a virtual rogue State which thinks nothing of exporting terror to its neighbourhood. We have to do more than take Pakistan at its own word. The world community from Washington to Beijing, from London to Paris and Tokyo has heard from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan that it had nothing to do with the happenings in Kargil. That it was the work of Islamic terrorists, or Mujahideen, if you will. We have also heard the Foreign Minister of Pakistan telling the world community that the intrusions across the LoC in Kargil were a matter of India’s own creation and it alone could solve it. (This, at a time when the rest of the world knew that the entire operation was the handiwork of the Pakistan army). Not a word about where they came from or who trained and equipped them. Pakistan itself has added a new dimension to the problem of terrorism. We won’t go into the familiar questions like who is equipping or training the terrorists. Pakistan has told us repeatedly that it is giving only moral and diplomatic support to the terrorists whom it calls freedom fighters. But sitting there in the vast complex of the Lahore-based Markaz-e-Dawatul Irshad, we have this spokesman of the Centre telling a New Delhi-based TV crew that the Laskar-e-Toiba, his outfit’s armed wing, has now formed Feydayeen groups (suicide squads) which will hereafter be deployed in Jammu and Kashmir. Speaking to the same TV crew, we have Mr Salahuddin, head of an umbrella Mujahideen organisation, talking in terms of sending in more militants, better equipped and better trained, into the state. Both these men speak with great conviction, and not for a moment do they give the impression that they are in any way disheartened by the Pakistan army’s change of stance on Kargil. Both say that they will deploy their men at all crucial points along the LoC, crucial in terms of infiltration and exfiltration of terrorists. Add to these averments what Gen Hamid Gul, the former ISI chief of Pakistan, had to tell his country’s government-owned wire agency. Their efforts to break Pakistan’s ties with the Taliban will put the country into “complex perils”. “A break with the Taliban would not only make the militia (Taliban) hostile to us but they will also close down training camps for the Mujahideen in Kashmir,” he maintained. The training camps in Afghanistan were in the first place the creation of the ISI. Osama bin Laden stepped in later to lend a major helping hand. And these camps are functioning not only in Afghanistan and Pak occupied Kashmir but also in Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. The Harkatul Mujahideen and the Harkatul Ansar, as we have known during the past few weeks, are also operating from Pakistani soil. Add to the list the chief of the Jammat-e-Islami, Pakistan, who says we will give a new dimension to the jihad in Kashmir. Now these are no idle boasts. There are men whose organisations, between them, form the backbone of the terrorist movement in Jammu and Kashmir. They don’t feel constrained in any manner to announce their intention to intensify terrorist activities in the Indian State. They even go to the extent of saying that the “jihad” in Kashmir makes it incumbent on all Muslims the world over to actively participate in it. It’s now India’s turn, before the UN General Assembly meets, to launch a full-scale diplomatic offensive against Pakistan and its direct involvement in supporting trans-border terrorism. We don’t have to beat about the bush any more. Pakistan has admitted on the world stage that the Mujahideen operations are being mounted from its territory or territories under its control. It is also established that foreign mercenaries involved in the so-called jihad are trained in Afghan camps run by Osama bin Laden. Their reach extends even to China’s Sinkiang province, a predominantly Muslim area. But then the Chinese have their own way of neutralising such situations. The world opinion, as stated earlier, is by and large convinced by now of Pakistan’s direct involvement in Kashmir as well as in the continuing crises in Afghanistan. It largely depends on our diplomatic skills and our ability to put across our case to pin down Pakistan as a terrorist State. We might well ask human rights watch groups, including Amnesty International, how come their conscience is aroused only when the Indian security forces hit back at the mercenaries and their harbourers. Rare is the occasion when the self-appointed conscience-keepers of the world condemn the heinous crimes against civilians committed by Pakistani mercenaries. It was utterly
disappointing that both Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh
and Defence Minister George Fernandes, who in separate
interviews with a highly touted BBC interlocutor, let him
get away with baseless and biased allegations about human
rights violations by Indian forces against Kashmiri
Muslims. Not once did they try to put him and his lies in
their place. Indeed, one got the feeling, listing to the
ministers, particularly the Defence Minister, that we
have much to hide on the human rights front. — ADNI |
Chick-chat I WAS intrigued (and pretty excited, too) to read a boxed news item that agricultural scientists in Canada had made a ”“stupendous” discovery that shredded bits of newspapers make palatable and nutritious chicken feed. You see, I am a self-employed poultry farmer and I eke out a precarious living by flogging the dozen-odd emaciated eggs my chicken lay rather condescendingly and feeding the birds with shredded bits of NEPA newsprint seemed just the breakthrough that poultry farming has been crying out for. Letting out a wild whoop of joy, I bounded up the attic to collect bundles of old newspapers and went into the kitchen and armed with a coconut shredder, went to work with a vengeance. I filled up a gunny sack with shredded bits and walked jauntily towards the chicken coop in my backyard. “Come on out, you dolly birds, “I chirupped gaily (and feeling quite foolish, too), “come and taste this yummy newsprint. They’re from a newspaper which is published simultaneously from six centres and charges the lowest North-East air surcharge. It has the largest combined net circulation and to prove that I am not pulling your (spindly) legs, here’s my source-the Audit Bureau of Circulation figures.” My chicken sniffed suspiciously and walked away disdainfully. “Here, “I cried rather anxiously, “you don’t like those shredded bits, but at least why not try these bits? They’re from a national newspaper which is renowned for its outspoken editorials, incisive NAMEDIA lead articles exposing the rapacious ways of transitional drug companies operating in the third world countries and scintillatingly witty “middles” and is now on the Internet with its home and website at www. chickfeed. com and which has been commended by the Press Council for its news-to-advertisement ratio.” My chicken refused to bite the bait. “Okay,” you don’t like those shredded bits, “I said pleadingly,” and I respect your culinary taste, but why not try these bits? They’re from a newspaper which is universally admired for its in-depth reports from moffusil stringers and fearless exposure of corruption, venality and favouritism and politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus in the Block Development office and is a champion of the freedom of the press, “and is registered on the Fleet Street in the United Kingdom.” My chicken remained unmoved by my appeals. For them, it was either chicken feed or nothing. In despair, I consulted a Poultry Extension Agent. He took one cursory look at the gunny sack and its content of shredded bits of newspapers. “I suggest what you do,” he said brightly. “What,” I croaked, clutching at the proverbial last straw. “You feed them to
human beings.” |
NDA manifesto — long on promises, short on action
WE had great expectations when we received the NDA chairman George Fernandes’ letter inviting us for the release of the ruling alliance’s manifesto. After having been in power for a year and a half, the NDA is going back to the people confident of a triumphant return. It was, therefore, expected that the manifesto will provide a balancesheet of the government’s promises and performance on various fronts and its experiences of running a coalition at the Centre. Instead, what we were handed was a poorly rehashed but brightly printed document — more like a tourist pamphlet. In normal course, it is highly undignified to use such harsh words as “hoax” to describe such an exalted document which has been commented by the media and business alike. How did all of us overlook the unseemly aspects of this document? To begin with is it a manifesto of the NDA or its national agenda? Hurriedly rehashed without proper care and scrutiny, the document describes itself variously on different pages. The title page with a blown-up Vajpayee picture calls it “the Agenda” of the National Democratic Alliance as in the case of the March 1998 document. However, the next page describes it “election manifesto, Lok Sabha election, 1999”. Nowhere else does it call itself a manifesto. Adding to confusion, the document concludes by saying: “This national agenda is a sincere and solemn covenant aimed at changing the content and culture of governance of this great nation, freeing it of the triple curses of hunger (bhookh), fear (bhay) and corruption (bharashtachar), and transforming it into a new India that is prosperous, strong....” Apparently, the manifesto-agenda mix-up arises from the political confusion about the very drafting and content of the document. The BJP has an array of able draft men at its disposal. Its March 1998 manifesto, later abandoned, stands testimony to the prowess of its leaders. Normally, the party’s manifesto panel gets elaborate inputs from its members who compile them after debate. The party had always treated its manifesto with all seriousness, accounting for each word. Often its publication is delayed due to differences on emphasis. But the NDA’s manifesto/agenda has not gone beyond the favoured circles within the PMO for revision and drafting. Among the non-BJP leaders, George Fernandes takes keen interest in such documents. But throughout the period, he had got bogged down in the JD(U)-BJP tussle. Few have noticed that most of the present manifesto/agenda is a word-for-word reproduction of the hurriedly drafted 1998 “National Agenda for Governance.” Even the cross-headings have been retained without bothering to update facts and figures. For instance, it simply reproduces the 1998 paragraph to give “full statehood” to Delhi and creation of Uttaranchal, Vananchal and Chhattisgarh without giving any explanation for the failure to implement the old pledge. Keeping aside the newly added ‘introduction’, ‘preamble’, etc, the manifesto/agenda proper has about 3,560 words. Of this, two-thirds or 2,450 words, have been found simply transplanted from the old national agenda in full, in the same chronological order without any change. Since this has been the first case of a manifesto (or agenda?) of a national party reappearing verbatim, the media mistook it all as a new proposition and extensively quoted old sentences and paragraphs published 18 months back. The hoax led to brave editorials and comments on “bhay, bhookh and bharashtachar”, offer of a consensual mode of governance and 60 per cent plan funds for agriculture — all that had figured verbatim in the old national agenda. Normally, even minor political parties prepare their manifestos afresh for every mid-term election. Another interesting feature of the NDA manifesto/agenda has been its excessive display of the personality cult. For the first time the election manifesto of a national party has been made into an exercise in image-building for an individual. Indira Gandhi has been the first to use her own picture as the icon of the party. The NDA manifesto/ agenda made ready by the PMO, has half of it filled with Vajpayee’s pictures — in true Kim Il Sung propaganda style. That this has seemingly embarrassed Vajpayee himself is clear from his answer to a question by newsmen that he would find out how all this had happened. Even the “dynastic” Congress has only one picture of Sonia Gandhi in its 60-page manifesto. Now that Pramod Mahajan has made it a model, others, especially the one-leader parties, will be tempted to make election manifestos as a vehicle of their supremo’s personal image building. The irony of it has been that a party that is accused of being dynastic and functioning under one-leader authoritarianism, hardly mentions Sonia Gandhi’s name in its manifesto. But the word Atal Behari Vajpayee occurs at least seven times in the very first and second pages of ‘introduction’ and ‘preamble’ of the NDA manifesto/agenda. And thus the eulogy goes no: “In Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, the country has a leader who blends tradition with modernity, a leader who understands India and the world and a statesman who is accepted by all sections of the country. In just 13 months, Vajpayee set new parameters of purposeful governance. In the realms of national security, regional cooperation, economic modernisation and Centre-state relations, Vajpayee has shown the way forward. Under Vajpayee’s leadership....” Within the BJP, there is hushed criticism about this kind of unbridled personality cult, which some fear, might boomerang, as in the case of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Even some senior leaders blame the PMO for producing this short of a shallow document. The Prime Minister’s men, they allege, were so obsessed with their own control that they forgot to highlight several genuine achievements of the coalition. They failed even to mention the settlement of the Cauvery issue, “efficient” economic management and the substantial fall in price increases. Thus the only new aspect of the manifesto/agenda are ‘introduction’, ‘preamble’ and ‘our mission’ which are highly political and populist. Mandatory additions have been made with regard to the sections dealing with the economy and industry. As compared to the NDA, the Congress manifesto is in a classical mould and more comprehensive and better drafted. Despite Congress disclaimers, on economic and industrial policies the two manifestos display striking similarities. This has been certified by financial reporters and their industries organisations. Similar is the case with regard to foreign affairs and security where there is no unbridgeable gap in the views of the two camps. If the two sides seek to emphasise their disagreements, it is more as a political strategy to settle scores. However, understandably, the manifestos of the Left parties chart out a different course. Printed on ordinary newsprint and low priced, the Left manifestos have refused to accept what the industries organisations call “inputs” from the three chambers of industry and commerce. This apart, the Left manifestos reveal the sharp differences among them over the attitude towards the Congress. If the NDA manifesto/agenda has become controversial, it has been due to a few politically significant additions and alternations introduced in the new document. The most polemical among them is the suggestion to introduce legislation to bar Indian citizens born outside the country from holding legislative, executive and judicial posts. This is aimed at legally preventing Sonia Gandhi from staking the claim to Prime Ministership even if she manages to wrest a parliamentary majority. The other is to fix an assured five-year term for elected constitutional bodies like the Lok Sabha and state assemblies. A guaranteed term, it is argued, would spare the people of the trouble of frequent mid-term elections. This proposal invariably equates the elected representatives’ security of tenure with political, and administrative stability. On the contrary, assured membership might further embolden the unscrupulous among the elected representatives to fearlessly indulge in horsetrading and barter of loyalty for positions and privileges. Introduction of the German system is another proposal. Under this, ministries could be pulled down on the floor of the House only after ensuring an alternative majority government. Such sweeping legislation should be attempted only after adequate nationwide debate. All this marks the domination of new power-centres among the emerging political elite and their firm faith in the efficacy of deceit and brinkmanship. Instead of going to the people on the basis of policies, programmes and performance, the whole electoral debate is being reduced to political craftiness and trickery. It is sad that the present inheritors of those who had championed the fight against the politics of ruse and perifidy, are now themselves getting into the same conspiratorial vortex. In the early 1980s, the BJP itself has been victim of such low-level politics masterminded by the Sanjay pals and Rajiv whizz kids. They had shocked Atal Behari Vajpayee by suddenly fielding Madhavrao Scindia at Gwalior with the purpose of hurting the former’s pride. The same red herring was tried by pushing an unwilling Amitabh Bachchan, then a rising star, into what he himself had described Allahabad’s ‘cesspool of politics’. Now both the Congress and BJP are trying to outwit each other by resorting to the same political trickery by drafting T. N. Seshan to harass L.K. Advani at Gandhinagar and Sushma Swaraj against Sonia Gandhi at Bellary. The whole range of secrecy surrounding these contests and the wanton use of official agencies for political eavesdropping smacks of the old low-level political game. The Congress regime had
once ordered a delay in the IA flight to frustrate the
filing of nomination by V. P. Singh and Devi Lal had to
rush with his official aircraft. Incidentally, most of
those backroom boys have now found safe haven in the
present ruling party. Maneka Gandhi, Sanjay Singh, Arun
Nehru and Arun Singh are drafted to fight the same
dynasty they had once served. All those who indulge in
such brinkmanship can learn right lessons from earlier
experiments. |
August
24, 1924 PANDIT Moti Lal Nehru, General Secretary, reviewing the work of the Swarajya Party from its inauguration up to the present time, referred to the work in the legislative Assembly. He said that whenever the government had chosen to come in conflict with the party, the government had been defeated. Like Mr C.R. Das, Pandit Nehru maintained that throughout their action had been in conformity with the two fundamental principles of the party, namely rousing the spirit of resistance of the people and the gradual withdrawal of cooperation with the Government. Referring to the charge
of bribery, Pandit Nehru said that they had not the money
with which they could bribe the people. As the General
Secretary of the party, he could say that their balance
was never on the right side of the account from the
beginning. As an illustration, he pointed out that the
Swarajists contested the last elections with very little
funds at their disposal. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
