Atal?
Atal - the name means one who cannot be stopped. For six years, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was our prime minister, the tallest leader of India and the darling of everyone in the NDA. Today when the NDA has failed to return to power, Vajpayee's fall from grace has been heart-breaking to watch.
It all began during his annual Manali retreat when Vajpayee hinted that the happenings in Gujrat may have contributed to the NDA's fall. Vajpayee has always been a moderate - the so called right man in the wrong party, so such a view comes as no surprise. In fact, even at the time of the riots, it is said that Vajpayee wanted to take action against Narendra Modi, the chief minister of Gujrat. However, hawks in BJP and its sister organizations prevailed on him. At the time, Vajpayee was indispensable - he was the glue that held the remarkable 22 party coalition together by the sheer force of his persona. Today, the BJP does not need a coalition. What use then for the glue? As a result, Vajpayee is suddenly the lone moderate in an organization yearning to rewind to the Hindu nationalist agenda of the early nineties which resulted in the party's stupendous growth. However there are a few reasons why I feel the move is ill-advised:
(a) By unceremoniously dumping a leader of the stature of Vajpayee, they will alienate a large chunk of people who vote for the BJP just because it is Vajpayee's party. However much of an organization based party the BJP may claim to be, elections are best fought around personalities. Vajpayee's role could prove to be crucial if elections were forced upon the country within an year or two! Also, Atal Bihari is the only leader around whom the NDA can rally. It would be interesting to note how many NDA constituents choose to associate with the alliance once Vajpayee is sidelined.
(b) The BJP is now looking to consolidate its voter base. However, most people who identify with the BJP's hindu nationalist vision already vote for the BJP. The percentage gains to be had in this group by enhancing its pro-Hindu image are pretty limited. Substantial gains can only come about by convincing other demographic groups to vote for the BJP.
(c) As a national party, I feel the BJP is obliged to cater to the aspirations of all Indians and not any particular group in particular. Small parties can get away by looking after the interests of a particular community/region. National parties have more responsibility and having a strictly pro-Hindu agenda overlooks this responsibility.
Although I hate to admit this (since I am myself a BJP supporter), I have been disappointed with the way the BJP has conducted itself ever since the election results were declared. First the histrionics against Sonia becoming PM (Sushma Swaraj vowed to have her head shaved!), then boycotts of charge-sheeted cabinet ministers in the ministry. The issue was dragged on for quite some time causing Parliament proceedings to be adjourned a number of times. I should clarify that I am absolutely against tainted people becoming ministers. However, boycotting ministers and walking out of the Parliament on every occasion is not a solution. In a democratic setup, a walkout is a strong statement that you consider the other person unworthy of debate. Our political parties have reduced the step to a caricature - so much so that today it is rare for the Opposotion to contest bills in the Lok Sabha. Either the Opposition supports it, or it walks out! That apart, I always thought the BJP was a mature organization. The way it has reacted to its defeat has left me in some doubt.
Coming back to Vajpayee, I think there are enough indications now that Vajpayee's role in Indian politics has begun to diminish. Undoubtedly, he is one of the few, genuinely brilliant and committed politicians India has produced. Politics is a strange profession - its supposedly all about ideals, but just ideals get you nowhere in politics! To reach a position of prominence, a position from where you can make a difference, you need to have a subtle balance of idealism and pragmatism. Needless to say Vajpayee excelled in this respect. Legendary oratorial skills ensured he was always the darling of the masses. A moderate image meant that he had immense political acceptability. It is a paniful irony that today he is perhaps not feeling acceptable in his own party! I guess it is time Vajpayee should finally retire and bring down the curtains on one of the most remarkable careers in Indian politics. Atal, the unstoppable, it perhaps is time for you to stop.
posted by Priyendra at 5:09 AM
2 Comments:
well although I agree with most of the points u made but I would like to make few on my own:
1. Atal doesn't mean one who cannot be stopped. Literally it means something which cannot be avoided, aisa kuch jo tal nahi sakta. In popular usage, it means something that cannot be changed or something that cannot be moved from its position.
2. For all his political wisdom, I don't think that publicly admonishing Narendra Modi at this juncture was a very wise political move. He should have forseen the consequences. Removing Modi now would have only vindicated the stand being taken by all the opponents of party and would have put question marks against party's credibility.
3. Actually there is a way of looking at this matter in positive light which incidently, concides with the reason why I don't like the Congress Culture. What do u think would have happened had the Congress High Command made any such remarks against any of the congress CMs. Noway he could have survived. Infact he would have been forced to resign most probably. What happened in BJP can be seen as the more democratic setup in the party where, for good or for bad, it is the opinion of majority that matters. And as somebody said, Majority is almost always wrong :)
4. This one is a question: Who is better: Modi or Laloo?
abhaga "the political thinker" :P
11:40 AM
Yipeee!! I am not alone in here :-)
About atal - are you sure it can not be taken to mean unstoppable? The connotation in which I used unstoppable was "The flood cannot be stopped" or "The flood is atal". But yeah, I guess it leans more towards unavoidable rather than unstoppable. Anyways, that was just a bit of linguistic garnish I wanted to add to my post :-)
Well, I remember we discussed Gujrat a few times in IIT. If I recall correctly, most times you and me were on the same side :-) See, what I am saying is not about political wisdom - its about how an organization reacts when it has made a mistake. What happened in Gujrat starting right from Godhra was extremely unfortunate. But let us put aside the communal angle for a moment. What we witnessed was a total breakdown of the law and order machinery of the state. Some say the carnage was justified because of the enormity of the provocation; some disagree. But I guess both groups of people would grant that Narendra Modi failed in his duties. Whether he deliberately neglected them or whether he lost control of the situation is open to debate. But in both cases, I feel he should be held responsible. Instead, we see that he is made a star campaigner of the party! And when a senior leader tries to set things right and tries to raise the issue at the party's national executive, his voice is muffled. I do not know if Vajpayee had his own political motivations behind taking an anti-Modi stand. But what I do know is that Modi has to be held accountable for being such a spectacular failure.
I do not like the Congress for a number of reasons - one among them being that till today, there has not been a single Congress president who has declared that the '84 anti-Sikh riots were a mistake. After twenty years, a Congress prime minister (incidentally a Sikh) finally accepts that they should not have happened. I do not want the BJP, an organization which I admire, to behave similarly. The national executive meet is place where mistakes should be identified and set right, not perpetuated. Atleast discussing Gujrat as a potential mistake would have sent the right message. But the issue was completely skirted. Disappointing! Maybe the move wasn't politically wise, but my respect for the party would have doubled had they frankly discussed the issue instead of pushing it under the carpet.
I agree that the BJP is a much more democratic party than the Congress. Come to think of it, I cannot recall a single leader in the BJP who has a father/mother backing him/her. Most are men and women who have excelled in their fields and hence are at positions of prominence.
About Lalu - do remember that he insists that his name must be spelt Lalu! About the comparison between the two - well I disrespect both these men. Although, if I were in an unfortunate position where I had to choose between the two, I would pick Modi of course. I think the question would have been better phrased as: Who is worse - Modi or Lalu?
3:56 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home