Musharraf exposed
THE deposed Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, awaits an uncertain future and an almost immediate threat to his life.

Toying with TADA again
IN what can turn out to be a controversial and divisive issue, the Central Government has initiated steps to revive TADA.

Shocking public support
The general public is convinced that Charan Shah performed "sati" in Satpurwa village of Mahoba district on the funeral pyre of her husband Mani Ram Shah.

ISSUE OF CONSTITUTION REVIEW
A golden opportunity lost
by S. Sahay
ON November 26, 50 years ago, we the people of India “adopted, enacted and gave to ourselves this Constitution”. Some of its provisions — as for instance those concerning citizenship, elections, provisional Parliament and some transitional ones — were given immediate effect but the rest of it were brought into force on January 26, 1950, which is treated as the date of the commencement of the Constitution.

Still on Her Majesty’s service
by V. Gangadhar
PAUL RAFFELE, a senior Australian journalist who was recently in Mumbai, told me that his countrymen would prefer an Australian Republic than be under the British Queen. But he put a rider.

UP’s long shadow on BJP
by P. Raman
UTTAR PRADESH has been the springboard of the BJP’s Hindutva-driven expansion. It has also been the epicentre of the entire Ram janmabhoomi agitation that had transformed an ‘untouchable’ political outfit into a national ruling party. If the real credit for anchoring the party in difficult waters goes to Mr L.K. Advani, it was Mr Kalyan Singh who has been the symbol of the fight for the Ram Lalla cause in UP. Now a decade after, the fallen icon as well as the karma bhoomi reel under their own inherent contradictions.

Political panders & ponces
by Darshan Singh Maini
IN my long and continuing battle with the politicians as a species in its evolving avatars from generation to generation, I have, here and there, touched upon the by-products and “by-blows” of politics per se. The “by-blows”, I may add, is an American slang for the children born out of illicit “affairs” — an “unnatural” offspring of a natural process.

75 Years Ago

November 16, 1924
An Obvious Fallacy
THE Observer, like some Anglo-Indian journals in this country, seems to be at a loss to understand why those of us who do not believe in violence are not with the Government in its efforts to put down violence.

Musharraf exposed

THE deposed Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, awaits an uncertain future and an almost immediate threat to his life. Chief Executive Gen Parvez Musharraf has charged him with treason, hijacking and kidnapping. It was not possible to keep him in army custody at an undisclosed destination indefinitely. World opinion showed stiff opposition to the extinguishing of the fundamental rights of Mr Nawaz Sharif. In Pakistan and outside that country, the trial and conviction of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto two decades ago are remembered with a sense of horror and contempt. Bhutto was accused by Gen Zia-ul-Haq of murdering a political opponent. General Zia showed no respect for human rights or justice. He chose judges who obliged him. The Bhutto trial was conducted according to the will of the dictator. The leader was hanged. But can General Musharraf act in the way General Zia acted? The case against Mr Nawaz Sharif has to be made plausible by sustaining it with credible evidence. It is necessary for General Musharraf to have some heinous crime "proved" against Mr Nawaz Sharif and his keymen to stay in power. The odds against him are many. The people of Pakistan had been generally dissatisfied with Mr Nawaz Sharif's stewardship and political style. But they, at no point of time, have shown admiration for the "Mohajir General who lost the battle of Kargil and now wants to hang the former PM".

Commonwealth leaders have gone far enough to suspend Pakistan's membership of CHOGM, and to demand the release of Mr Nawaz Sharif and the termination of the undemocratic regime. The USA links the past and recent acts of bomb-attacks on its establishments by the Afghan hotheads and the protection given to Osama Bin Laden by the Taliban with the activities of terror-exporting Pakistan. Washington's relationship with Islamabad is unlikely to be cordial in the short term. The oil-rich Islamic countries cannot go beyond a certain extent of co-religious sympathy with Pakistan. Thus, the financially anaemic populace on which General Musharraf wants to perpetuate his military rule is too terribly threatened by adverse circumstances to remain quiet —and away from the streets—for more than a few months. Senior officers of the Nawaz Sharif establishment, arrested along with the former Prime Minister, have denied in a Karachi court the charges levelled against them. They have been called Mr Nawaz Sharif's co-conspirators, stooges and worse. Before the main accused is convicted, the others cannot be punished. So, it is strange that General Musharraf's main target is being kept wrapped alive in the shroud of secrecy. One thing is clear: General Musharraf cannot treat Mr Nawaz Sharif as General Zia treated Bhutto. India has done well to keep itself out of the Commonwealth-created Ministerial Action Group on Pakistan. Pakistan should be seen as a terrorist state acting in tandem with the Taliban and the Osama Bin Laden outfit. Perhaps, strong action against the kingpin—right now personified by General Musharraf—should do the civilised world, including India, some good. The first sign of the changed situation should be evident from the decline of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir.

Toying with TADA again

IN what can turn out to be a controversial and divisive issue, the Central Government has initiated steps to revive TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities — Prevention — Act). Right now it is a hush-hush affair but the Union Home Ministry is known to have sent a rough draft to the Law Commission for vetting. In a fortnight the Law Ministry will begin to give shape to a Bill to be introduced in Parliament during the winter session. The explanation for the need to rearm the government with the draconian law is that the death of the old act has created a “vacuum” and weakened efforts to stamp out separatist activities in various parts of the country. It is not clear how a new law will change the situation even marginally, much less dramatically, when the law enforcement machinery and the intelligence set-up as also the people’s demands remain stubbornly unchanged. The old Lok Sabha passed a law making death penalty mandatory for all those carrying RDX, both in kilos and grams. The extreme penalty, it was fondly believed, will terrorise potential and confirmed terrorists into law-abiding citizens, if not pacifists. The regular seizure of the killer explosive proves that either the merchants of death do not know about the legal provision or attach less importance to life than is normally the case. The point is that India has one more deadly law without bringing about any improvement in RDX trafficking. Law alone does not scare away criminals or violent men; that task is entirely that of an efficient and alert police force backed by a reliable intelligence network, which is missing in the crime fighting system in this country. This absence is sought to be remedied by legislation. It is bad and should be blocked.

The government is holding out an assurance that the new avtar will wear a human face, meaning the very harsh provisions of the old TADA will be scored out. This is laughable. Either the new law is harsh and intimidating or it is soft and ineffective. Come to think of it, there are any number of provisions to meet out prompt and adequate justice to all wrong-doers, including violent separatists. Further, the experience of the repealed TADA is frightening. It was invoked indiscriminately in Punjab and against the minorities in Maharashtra and Gujarat, both BJP-ruled states. During the campaign for its revocation, one telling point that emerged was that there could be nothing like proper use of the law; it can only be abused. That was why it was dubbed a “lawless law”. It was this opposition and several unfavourable observations by the apex court, and not a sudden attack of fairmindedness, that forced the Congress government to repeal it in 1995. Tamil Nadu too went through this legal contortion in 1998, enacting POTA (Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act) and formally withdrawing it this year. All this may not deter the BJP-led government for two reasons. Increasing terrorist activity in the Kashmir valley and some states in the North-East is mounting pressure on the Centre to take some drastic measures. The watered down TADA is its response. Two, Mr L.K. Advani is a firm believer in a strong legal structure to fight terrorism. One of his first pronouncements in his first term as Home Minister was to ask all state governments to enact their own version of POTA. It was at Hyderabad and he was chairing a meeting to contain naxalite violence there, which he termed as leftwing extremism. But he will face fierce opposition from some of his Cabinet colleagues. Ms Mamata Banerjee is a committed critic of TADA as are JD(U) leaders. Outside the government, all political parties, including the Congress, are against a harsh law as TADA. If the move to introduce the measure is baulked at by allies and opponents alike, as is distinctly possible, the BJP-led government would have merely succeeded in whipping up one more controversy without affecting the ground-level reality.

Shocking public support

THE general public is convinced that Charan Shah performed "sati" in Satpurwa village of Mahoba district on the funeral pyre of her husband Mani Ram Shah. The Uttar Pradesh Government is insistent that it was only "self-immolation" arising out of anxiety. The two stands are so diametrically opposite that neither side may revise them, whatever the outcome of the enquiry might be. What is unquestionable is that thousands of people are already thronging the "shaktisthal" with offerings of bangles and "sindoor". The house of the Dalit woman has become a pilgrimage centre - a status that it would have never enjoyed had she not burnt herself to death this way, willingly or otherwise. It is this public support that is shocking to the extent of being inhuman. In public psyche, the act of "sati" is still the ultimate proof of an Indian nari's devotion to her husband, the ban that was imposed more than 170 years ago notwithstanding. Perhaps that is why the barbaric practice still continues. Those who think that all such acts take place purely because of the abetment of family members or others miss a vital point. It is the woman's mind also which gets conditioned to a life of glory in the after-life because she has seen others enjoying this "honour" once they burn themselves to death. The tale of Roop Kanwar of Deorala was perhaps not unknown to Charan Shah. Yes, some widows are simply done to death by greedy in-laws so that they don't have to bear her burden and so that they can grab her property. But then there are many others who commit the ultimate sacrifice "in keeping with the glorious traditions". To that extent, every person who makes a beeline to the site of the pyre tends to promote this ghastly practice in some way.

What is yet to be realised is that the practice has neither social nor religious sanctity. It is one of those aberrations which just seep into society and the passage of time gives them a sort of acceptability. And it is not the only one of its kind. Sex-determination tests are no less barbaric. So is the practice of dowry. The government can only go to the extent of banning them and punishing their commitment. But these ills will continue below the surface till there is all-round revulsion over them. The public has to rise as one if such practices are to be truly eradicated. They have to become a stigma than a heroic deed. A woman has to be certain that she would be derided as a weakling for all times to come if she so much as thinks of ending her life. Today, the situation is exactly the opposite. The problem is that the government functionaries too come from the social milieu and carry the mental conditioning of their upbringing. Perhaps that is why the police is trying its best to prove that Charan Shah was insane. That she was dressed in bridal finery is also being denied. Perhaps the absence of any policeman at the cremation despite her reportedly open declaration that she would end her life was not just incidental.

ISSUE OF CONSTITUTION REVIEW
A golden opportunity lost
by S. Sahay

ON November 26, 50 years ago, we the people of India “adopted, enacted and gave to ourselves this Constitution”. Some of its provisions — as for instance those concerning citizenship, elections, provisional Parliament and some transitional ones — were given immediate effect but the rest of it were brought into force on January 26, 1950, which is treated as the date of the commencement of the Constitution.

Is it not strange that Parliament is not sitting on this day to reflect freely and frankly, and without whips, on the achievements and the shortfalls of the Constitution, on what has gone wrong with it and whether the fault lies with the Constitution or with men and women who have operated it? Such a debate would have been a guide to the proposed setting up of a Constitution review commission and a judicial commission. Of course, the merits and demerits of these moves would get debated if and when the government introduces the relevant Bills but this cannot be a substitute for a bird’s eye-view of the Constitution as a whole.

One can think of two possible reasons for this sad omission: one, the tendency among the political parties and parliamentarians to put individual interests above the country’s and, second, a sense of guilt. Perhaps the Vajpayee government was too preoccupied with problems in UP to think of it.

In order to appreciate the qualities the Constitution-makers had and our politicians lack today, read the final speeches of Dr B.R. Ambedkar and that of Dr Rajendra Prasad.

This is what Dr Ambedkar said: “With no greater aspiration than to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Castes, I had not the remotest idea that I would be called upon to undertake more responsible functions. I was, therefore, greatly surprised when the Assembly elected me to the Drafting Committee. I was more than surprised when the Drafting Committee elected me to be its chairman. There were in the Drafting Committee men bigger, better and more competent than myself such as my friend Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar. I am grateful to the Constituent Assembly and the Drafting Committee for reposing in me so much trust and confidence and to have chosen me to be their instrument and given me this opportunity of serving the country.”

In turn, Dr Ambedkar gave full credit for the completion of the Constitution to Sir B.N. Rau, Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly, and to Mr S.N. Mukherjee, the Chief Draftsman for putting most intricate proposals into the simplest and clearest legal form.

And Ambedkarites had better note that Dr Ambedkar gave full credit to the Congress party for the smooth sailing of the Constitution.

Here is what Dr Ambedkar said that may give our present political parties and their leaders a bad conscience. In memorable words that have often been quoted, Dr Ambedkar said: “However good a Constitution may be is sure to turn bad if those who work it happen to be a bad lot. The working of the Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The factors on which the working of these organs of the State depends are the people and the political parties they will set up as the instruments to carry on their wishes and their politics.”

“Who can say how the people of India and their parties will behave? Will they uphold constitutional methods of achieving their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them?”

Our political parties need honestly to answer whether they are following the constitutional method in achieving their aims.

In his masterly summing-up, Dr Prasad left the assessment of the Constituent Assembly’s work to others and to posterity. He was content with pointing out how the problems of a multi-religious, multi-lingual country had been solved, how communal reservations had been avoided, and yet provisions had been made for the welfare of the tribals and the Scheduled Castes, how India had been politically one, thanks to the valiant efforts of Sardar Patel.

He dealt with some of the salient features of the Constitution and then said: “We have prepared a democratic Constitution. But the successful working of democratic constitutions requires in those who have to work them willingness to respect the viewpoints of others, the capacity for compromise and accommodation. Many things which cannot be written into the Constitution are done by conventions. Let me hope that we will show these capacities and develop these conventions. The way in which we have been able to draw this constitution without taking recourse to voting and divisions in lobbies strengthens this hope.”

It appears that Dr Rajendra Prasad was being over-optimistic. The political parties, in fact politicians as a class, have lost the capacity for a healthy compromise in solving difficult problems. They are simply not prepared to accept the other person’s point of view, unless it suits their short-sighted purpose.

A point often forgotten in this country is that the Westminster model is under tremendous threat not only because we do not have a two-party system but primarily because the silent give-and-take that goes on between those in power and those in opposition in the UK seems to be totally lacking in this country.

This is all the more a pity because since the last three parliamentary elections, the voter has been sending a clear message: rule through coalition and consensus.

Consensus is Mr Vajpayee’s mantra too, but the spirit in which the Constitution-makers solved their problems is lacking.

Still on Her Majesty’s service
by V. Gangadhar

PAUL RAFFELE, a senior Australian journalist who was recently in Mumbai, told me that his countrymen would prefer an Australian Republic than be under the British Queen. But he put a rider. “The proposed referendum (which the Republicans lost) has serious faults. Australians distrust their politicians and would rather elect their president directly. It is not fair that the future president should be elected by two-thirds of the members of the Australian Parliament”.

This was weeks before the Australian referendum held on the Republic issue. The proposal was decisively defeated and it was clear that the institution of a president chosen by two-thirds of federal parliamentarians was not welcome to the people. Raffele was right. In the past he had written articles on the existing corruption in the present political system in his country.

Australia had thus chosen to remain a constitutional monarchy. But the decisive factor in the defeat of the Republican proposal was not any particular love for the British Queen; it was a public rejection of the nation’s politicians. The second question in the referendum asking approval for the insertion in the country’s federal constitution was also defeated, even more decisively. The proposal had to win a majority nationwide, and in four states to be effective. The state of Victoria went along with the Republicans. Elsewhere, it was approved only in the capital city of Canberra and the northern territory.

The Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, an unabashed royalist, said that the referendum was a clear defeat for the Republicans. But Mr Malcolm Turnbull and his followers in the Republican camp hit back, saying that it was no more than a vote against a specific model that was offered as a choice — an indirectly elected Head of State instead of an executive presidency. The Republicans were not going to give up so easily and would press for a change in the present system. They pointed out that the high number of votes in favour of a Republic was a clear indicator of the people’s desire for a change. The verdict clarified that the people wanted a genuine and “not a politicians’ republic”.

In fact, Mr Kim Beasley, the Opposition Labour Party leader, has demanded a fresh referendum as early as next year on the “Do you support a Republic?” issue. This could play a major role in the next general election to be held in 2001. Meanwhile, the Opposition has criticised the Prime Minister’s strong monarchist attitude. Event the Cabinet is divided, with some of its members making their feelings known that their boss is too much of a monarchist. They have received support from large sections of the media. The Sydney Morning Herald blasted Mr Howard for sacrificing national interests and not doing enough to bring about an understanding between the two groups. If he had done so, the Australians would have celebrated a double triumph, the 1999 Rugby World Cup victory and an Australian President, the paper added.

Was the Prime Minister out of touch with the reality in ignoring the people’s sentiments on the Republic issue? The monarchists did not agree. One of their leaders, Mr Richard Howard, who headed the “No Republic campaign”, said the vote clearly indicated that the Australians did not trust the present crop of politicians. It may be not that he did not criticise the move for an Australian President, only the mens towards achieving it. But another staunch supporter of the pro-Republic move, Mr Turnbull, harshly attacked the Prime Minister. “History will remember John Howard for only one thing: he was the Prime Minister who broke the nation’s heart. He was the man who made the Australians keep a foreign Queen”, Mr Turnbull said.

The whole concept of a British monarch as the Head of the State was rather emotional. Australia has no special attachment for the British, sentimental or pragmatic. In many circles Britain was viewed as a “has been state”; Australia was a young nation with a bright future. Both nations were fiercely competitive in sport. Yet while England, where cricket originated, could not even qualify for the Super Six sector of the 1999 World Cup, Australia won the championship convincingly. To add to the glittering cricket trophy, the Aussies recently bagged the Rugby World Cup, a remarkable double. England was nowhere in the picture.

Yet Englishmen have continued to make disparaging references to Australia’s past. Former England cricketer and captain, Ian Botham, has never lost a chance to remind the world that Australia is the home of British convicts sent there on life imprisonment. When Australian spinner Shane Warne attacked in print former Sri Lankan cricket captain Arjuna Ranatunga, the furious Ranatunga contrasted the differing cultures of the two nations. While Sri Lankan culture was linked to Gautama Buddha, what did the Aussies have as their past? Their convict background!

Also, the free, easygoing, beer-swigging Australians did not have much use of the royal family. There had always been strong lobbies against the pomp and splendour displayed during the royal visits. They shared Britain’s growing antipathy towards the extravagant lifestyle of the royals and the scandals associated with them. Many Australians viewed the Queen as a symbol of a bygone age in which they had no interest.

Did the present vote for the British Queen as the Head of the State was a signal against those who wanted more Australian involvement in Asia? No”, declared Australian journalist Paul Raffele. “The concept that the future of Australia lay with Asia is no longer there. This sentiment was a bit popular during the 1970’s and 80’s. But today Australians have realised that their future lay with them and not with any other region. Australia is a continent itself, and we shall decide on our own what was good for us”.

The British Queen, of course, was non-committal on the outcome of the referendum and issued a statement that the future of the Australian people lay with them. But insiders said the Queen was deeply hurt by the anti-monarchist trends displayed during the campaign. The Queen always had a soft corner for Down Under. She, in fact, had sent Prince Charles to study in Australian schools. She had dedicated her life to the Commonwealth. The move for a referendum to replace her came as a shock to her. Though the Republicans lost the referendum, they gathered enough votes to show that they had a role to play in the future of Australia.

One cannot blame the Queen for her feelings on the issue. She was a product of the times when the British Commonwealth was a positive, cohesive unit. She had enjoyed the role of being of head of such a big group of nations. Today, the British links with the Commonwealth are lukewarm. The Queen cannot be too happy with her nation’s over-reliance on the USA to the extent of being ridiculed as the “poodle of the USA”. The colour, the variety, the imagery of the Commonwealth group of nations was something to be cherished for. Not the cold, calculating, materialistic coming together with the USA.

The Australian Prime Minister might have won a point on the referendum issue, but his trouble have just begun. He presides over a hopelessly divided Cabinet. Many of the blue-riband Liberal circles voted for the Republican cause. The pro-monarchist and pro-Republican ministers and their followers attacked each other viciously during the campaign. There is hardly any support for the Prime Minister’s stand that the monarchy question is now dead and buried. Even those who voted for the Queen as the Head of State are realistic enough to admit that they would reconsider their stand if the issue was one of electing the President directly and not through the two-thirds of the combined strength of the Lower and Upper Houses of the Australian Parliament. Then the “crocodile Dundee” may vote differently.

Political panders & ponces
by Darshan Singh Maini

IN my long and continuing battle with the politicians as a species in its evolving avatars from generation to generation, I have, here and there, touched upon the by-products and “by-blows” of politics per se. The “by-blows”, I may add, is an American slang for the children born out of illicit “affairs” — an “unnatural” offspring of a natural process. When we examine the spirit of politics (a civilising instinct and urge for orderliness, fairness and justice in society) and its body (a whole order of Machiavellian and equivocal apparatus of power in its brutal sense), we are always agonised to see the widening gulf between the impulse and the deed. All such musings compel one to note the whole squad of those persons who thrive, like parasites, on politics, and are content to remain hanging round the seats of power with a view to receiving some tossed-off crumbs and leavings from the high tables of authority. Shakespeare in his History plays and in his tragedies has anatomised many such “politic worms” who eat their way into “the cheese”.

And it’s with one such person — a woman of our times, combining in her portly figure the qualities of a political go-between, a hustler, a blackmailer and a gangster. The type is familiar, but in the past, the rough and tough “business” was considered the domain of street dadas or hired musclemen. The advent, therefore, of the female species lately has added perhaps a more evil or lethal dimension to the process. For this sister of sleeze has brought closer the Freudian ties between power, money and sex.

Their stories reach me from time to time through their “contacts” and victims, and they help swell the tide of obscenity sweeping the political scene today. The latest to reach my ears concerns a middle-aged matron who throws her weight around whenever and wherever she can — in a political gathering, in a business or marriage party, in a forum of “this and that”, in a religious congregation or ceremony — or in what you have! In sum, she has created a persona of power, and operates more openly where and when she spots potential victims. Usually, deserted wives, forsaken parents or pensioners, litigating spouses involved hopelessly in a tangle and needing police and political support to end their misery.

This particular woman of dubious parts has a way of throwing her weight about in a manner, one in trouble cannot but fall into her wide prickly lap. She would convince the “victim” of her tremendous “pull” in the parlours of ministerial politics, reciting “stories” of her earlier triumphs, “rescues” and redress. And she throws in the names of a few “spiritual gurus” as well to make the deal a purely humanitarian act. And once the fly is in the jam, she starts the blackmailing process — pay up (usually in lakhs) — or well, face the music! Knowing now the details of the case, she threatens to set the noose tightened further. A “redeemer” has turned out to be a tormentor! Such, such are the ways of those political panders and street-walkers. Beware of the tribe!

I guess, this partial profile would now become a part of my swelling theme of small saints and big rogues in the portfolios of life.

A female rogue’s surely, a thing apart!

UP’s long shadow on BJP
by P. Raman

UTTAR PRADESH has been the springboard of the BJP’s Hindutva-driven expansion. It has also been the epicentre of the entire Ram janmabhoomi agitation that had transformed an ‘untouchable’ political outfit into a national ruling party. If the real credit for anchoring the party in difficult waters goes to Mr L.K. Advani, it was Mr Kalyan Singh who has been the symbol of the fight for the Ram Lalla cause in UP. Now a decade after, the fallen icon as well as the karma bhoomi reel under their own inherent contradictions.

The signals from UP have serious implications for both the BJP and other parties. More so for the former. The birth place of the BJP’s Ayodhya-based expansion has turned out to be the breeding ground for the degenerative diseases it had spread. Mr Kalyan Singh may have relented. He might not keep up his open challenge to Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee or engineer a revolt against the ‘high command’ like Mr Shankarsinh Vaghela. But, in the long run, a sulking Mr Kalyan Singh will be potentially more dangerous than a determined Mr Vaghela. After all Mr Vaghela himself could not do much damage to the BJP in Gujarat despite the fact that he has been a more experienced and capable organiser.

But if pushed to the wall, Mr Kalyan Singh has a different kind of advantage. Unlike other rebelling BJP satraps Mr Kalyan Singh alone has taken up Hindutva, a highly powerful emotional issue for the parivar adherents, to challenge the high command. By refusing to pay obeisance to the Delhi durbar when summoned to seek his forced resignation, he has warned his detractor Mr Vajpayee that he too could hit back if it came to that. His visit to Ayodhya instead has been more symbolic which he himself elaborated with elan. For him, Ram Lalla was more important than Mr Vajpayee which the latter himself could not negate.

His emphasis on the futility of replacing the Hindutva agenda with Mr Vajpayee’s simulated image is something that will continue to haunt the BJP like an unsatiated soul. By doing so, Mr Kalyan Singh has given expression to the feelings of a big section of the RSS parivar, especially the VHP-Bajrang Dal-Swadeshi crowd. He has raised a very pertinent ideological-political issue worrying the parivar — the same tactical dilemma discussed earlier in these columns. Essentially it is the reining conflict of depending on the Hindutva programmes for votes and simultaneously relying on the secular allies to rule. For the time being Mr Kalyan Singh may have decided not to press this highly emotional issue. But he could use it as a reliable backup whenever he feels deceived or the leadership tries to outwit him by encouraging his rivals. Ram Lalla will be quite an effective tool of ideological blackmail whenever he chooses to press for more powers or tickets for his faction.

Irrespective of Mr Kalyan Singh’s game plans, the UP episode will cast a long shadow over the BJP. It highlights the changing style of functioning, shifting power equations and new dilemmas of the high command. First, the way the Chief Minister was pulled down and a vintage variety was imposed with scant respect to the internal democracy, speak volume of the emerging high command culture in the BJP. Change of the BJP Chief Ministers on earlier occasions was entirely due to the intense infightings in the respective state units. In Mr Kalyan Singh’s case, factionalism was only a contributory factor. It was due to the high command’s own determination to punish him for the BJP’s poor performance in elections and his disobedience.

The high command first ordered the Chief Minister to quit. When he said he would do so only if he was formally told to do, the PMO got furious. Mr Vajpayee called a meeting of four Central leaders and announced the decision to “appoint” an old retired leader — who is not even an MLA — as Chief Minister. The waiting state leaders, including the state BJP president, were only told of the decision. Others were informed by fax. The party’s duly formed organisational bodies at the Centre or the state office-bearers or the BJP Legislature Party were not even formally consulted. Mr Kalyan Singh sought to further expose the Prime Minister by publicly claiming the formal support of 155 out of 176 BJP MLAs. He lamented that despite his having enjoyed the majority, he was being toppled “because Atalji had already made up his mind to oust me”.

The BJP leadership’s approach to internal democracy is so casual that it was announced that the legislature party at its meeting in Lucknow would ‘endorse’ the decision by the four wise men at the Prime Minister’s house. Even the late Indira Gandhi, considered as mother of authoritarianism and destroyer of internal democracy, had displayed more sensitivity and respect to the procedural norms. When she herself wanted to oust a Chief Minister — as Mr Vajpayee has done in UP now — she did it with more sophistication and subtlety. She used to despatch AICC observers first to persuade the warring groups, and if that failed to take a consensus through individual interviews, often through slip system. The observers either reported the results to the party chief or announced on the spot. Then the MLAs ‘unanimously’ elected the CLP — not the ‘Chief Minister’ who is technically appointed by the Governor.

Second, the UP decision marks another turn in the process of personalisation of BJP politics. Mr Vajpayee has made it clear beyond any doubt that he is not only the Prime Minister but also the only supreme boss of the BJP — a party that was once known for its collective decision making, joint responsibility and internal consensus. The whole elaborate system of inner-party consultations diligently built over decades has now been made totally irrelevant. Mr Advani, who has been the architect of the present day BJP, had never tried to short-cut the organisational procedures. The difference between the institution of Prime Minister and party organisation is deliberately being obliterated.

While the BJP as ruling party is being denied any role in the government policies — even the proposal for a coordination panel of the party and government has been brushed aside by Mr Vajpayee at Bangalore — the Prime Minister has assumed full functional powers of the party. In a vibrant organisation like the BJP, affairs of the party and its ministers in states should have been vested in the Central party. Unlike in the Congress, the BJP has a clear bifurcation of the office of Prime Minister and party chief. While blindly aping the Congress, Mr Vajpayee’s image builders have ignored this vital aspect of the BJP system. Some in the PMO even seek to demonise Mr Advani to enhance the superiority and acceptability of Mr Vajpayee.

Watch the way the Home Minister was left high and dry after his solemn assurance on the floor of the House on the inclusion of Rajiv Gandhi’s name. The message is loud and clear. From now on, lobbying for party posts will also have to be done with the PM House. On the eve of the Lok Sabha elections, it has been Mr Vajpayee who had given a commitment to the JD(U) on a wider electoral alliance in Karnataka and imposed it on the state BJP. Such impulsively intrusive tendencies are bound to transform the very character of individual politicians. Until he became Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee had the reputation of being the most liberal BJP leader. Even Mr Vaghela had accepted Mr Vajpayee’s mediation. Now power seems to have made him a target of attack by the aggrieved state leaders like Mr Kalyan Singh.

Third, essentially personality cult, centralised functioning, concentration of authority in one person, etc, cannot coexist with the traditions of a cadre-based system of organisation. The cadres derive inspiration from political and ideological commitment. Once that yields way to sycophancy and favouritism they gradually slide into frustration. The BJP is already left with few cadre of its own at lower levels. They are mostly borrowed from the RSS.

Fourth, ouster of Mr Kalyan Singh signifies the pathetic end of the much-acclaimed ‘social engineering’ of the BJP. Mr Govindacharya, who was once hailed as the BJP’s ‘ideologue’, had described the support of certain backward castes to the (upper caste) party and tieup with the BSP as “social engineering”. Mr Kalyan Singh, himself an OBC, was to be the harbinger of this process. Now Mr Acharya’s ‘social engineering’ has turned out to be Mr Vajpayee’s harshest caste dilemma in UP. Mr Kalyan Singh’s excessive pedalling of the Lodh backward politics has antagonised the upper castes who had switched to the BJP after the Mandir-Mandal row. The sections who had opposed reservation now view Mr Kalyan Singh also as their foe.

His senior party colleagues also tried to magnify the trend to spite him further. In a large number of constituencies, the upper castes this time returned to the Congress, facilitating the victory of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav’s party. Thus a party that tries to ignore the caste divisions within the Hindu society, has been forced to opt for a compromise Bania leader as Chief Minister. What Mr Vajpayee has done in UP is not just to pick up a non-controversial mediocre in true Congress style but to experiment with the worst form of casteist neutralism. But the cruel irony is that the party also cannot afford to lose Mr Kalyan Singh’s OBC votes.

The ruthless high commandism, which Mr Devi Lal had derided as ‘helicopter culture’ (dropping Chief Ministers from Delhi) has been the root cause of the decline of the Congress in state after state, especially in the Rajiv era. Now the BJP has become its worse practitioner. If the regional parties could provide relatively more stable governments in their respective states it was because they were free from Delhi durbar’s mindless dictates. Frequent change of chief ministers further encourages the topplers who draw strength from their contacts in Delhi. Regional parties with local roots are sensitive to the popular resentment against such destabilisation moves.

75 YEARS AGO

November 16, 1924
An Obvious Fallacy

THE Observer, like some Anglo-Indian journals in this country, seems to be at a loss to understand why those of us who do not believe in violence are not with the Government in its efforts to put down violence.

The reason, however, is perfectly obvious. Just as there is a superstition, as Bacon says, in the very avoidance of superstition, there is such a thing as violence in the very effort to put down violence, for exactly the same reason for which we are opposed to unofficial violence.

One is just as inconsistent with the love of liberty as the other. It is true, as the Observer says, that without order there can be no liberty, but liberty cannot surely be promoted by a method of maintaining order which is the very negative of liberty.

Let the Government prevent or punish, by all means, all those activities which interfere with order, but in doing so it must take scrupulous care to respect the sacred principle of liberty, personal and public.

The moment it departs from that principle it forfeits its right to public support.