INDIA TODAY COVER STORYtBJP
N.K. SINGH
Mujhe door ka dikhayi deta hai,
Mein deewar par likha padh sakta hoon,
Magar haath ki rekhayen nahin padh sakta.
I
can read the writing on the wall,
But
I cannot read the lines on my own palm.)
-A poem written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on his birthday
in 1993.
If politics is the art of the
possible, what the BJP tried to achieve was virtually the impossible. The
party’s failure to win over even one additional MP-its strength on May 28 stood
at 194, the same as when its government was sworn in on May 16-demonstrated its
inability to read the signals: that the new liberal mask had convinced no one.
Given the arithmetic of the 11th
Lok Sabha –BJP and its allies with 194 members, pitted against the United Front
(UF) with 180 MPs and the Congress(I) and its allies with 139 – the option the
party took looked like a gamble whose consequences could be serious.
Knowing
fully well that it did not command anything near a majority in the House, why
did the BJP accept the President’s offer to form the government?
The official explanation offered was
the tremendous pressure from the cadres to take the chance. As the BJP chief
L.K. Advani said: “It was felt that as the single largest party, we had to
honour the people’s mandate.”
But party insiders say that when Vajpayee went to
Rashtrapati Bhavan on May 15, he was aware that P.V. Narsimha Rao had not yet
offered his support to the UF, despite the Congress Working Committee’s authorisation
for the same.
If the BJP had declined the offer to form the government, the
President would have been bound to call the leader of the second largest party
–Rao himself. And with the UF leaders unable to reach a compromise on the
leadership issue, the BJP felt there was nothing to stop Rao from another term
in office.
Second, the party believed that a
BJP government would result in an inevitable polarisation that would help
expose its rivals as opportunists – a belief that has now been vindicated since
more than a dozen parties besides the Congress, which fought bitter poll
battles less than a month ago, collaborated with each other to throw the BJP
government out.
“We wanted to show that we were different from the rest. Our 13
days in office have helped us do just that,” said Kushabhau Thakre, party
general secretary.
And then, of course, there were those benefits that being in
power, however briefly, accrues: access to important files and sensitive
information.
Sources in the bureaucracy photocopying machines in different
departments were used virtually round the clock, as the new ministers, many of them first-timers in
government, gained access to information which they claim will be used at a
later that to embarrass political opponents.
Party leaders were certain that like
voters, the newly elected MPs would also avoid another election. It was their
belief that once in power, the BJP would be able to win the support of regional
parties and smaller groups and that it would push it past the half-way mark in
Parliament.
Says Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the BJP’s Rajasthan chief Minister:
“We had assurances from some of the regional parties that once the President
invites us to form the government, they will support us. But they backed out
later.”
This, despite the sops offered to put contentious issues like the Ram
temple in Ayodhya, abolition of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and a uniform
civil code on the back burner.
Still, a group of senior leaders
including Shekhawat, Jaswant Singh, Pramod Mahajan, K.N. Govindacharya and
former Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana worked overtime to broker a deal
with regional parties.
They were helped in their efforts by mediators like film
actor Rajnikant, journalist Cho Ramaswamy, Samata Party leader George
Fernandes, Akali leader Parkash Singh Badal and media baron from Andhra
Pradesh.
Chief Ministers Prafulla Mohanta of Assam, Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra
Pradesh and M. Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu were approached by Jaswant Singh,
while the amiable Govindacharya, who has an excellent rapport with many
non-Congress MPs, tapped his old sources for support.
Even as late as May 24,
Vajpayee told reporters that “all political parties are in a state of turmoil”.
Mahajan urged his party MPs to persuade their friends in other parties to
support the government.
Conceded Vajpayee: “I thought that after forming the
government, I would use the time given to me by the President to persuade other
parties to support me on the basis of a minimum common programme. I talked to a
number of leaders… Things looked rosy initially.”
Not everyone, however, shared the
same perception. A section of the party workers had their reservations about
the BJP relegating its Hindutva mascot to the background in an effort to woo
coalition partners.
Some MPs, refusing to buy the line that it was a tactical
diversion, voiced their reservations when they found that the President’s
speech was devoid of many of the party’s pet themes. The BJP had to hurriedly
arrange an informal meeting two days before the confidence motion to placate
them.
There were other problems. A section of backward caste MPs like Uma
Bharati was sore over the “Brahminical” dominance in the Vajpayee
government; she spoke to Kalyan Singh in
an effort to make common cause, but was advised restraint. Sikandar Bakht, on
the other hand, sulked on being allotted the urban development portfolio and
attended office only after being given the high-profile External Affairs
Ministry.
IN
the end, all the BJP’s calculation went awry. On the eve of the confidence
vote, the leadership discovered to its dismay that far from getting the 70-odd
MPs needed to enable it to gain a simply majority, the party could not even
take its tally past the 200 mark.
The opposition parties some of whom comprise
the new government-have alleged that by forming the government without a clear
majority, the BJP has only revealed its hunger for power at any cost.
And by
approaching some of the smaller parties that were committed to supporting H.D.
Deve Gowda, the party also exposed itself to charges of indulging in horse
trading –something its leaders said the BJP would never resort to. Alleged
P.Chidambaram, leader if the Tamil Maanila Congress: “They took us for
purchasable commodities.”
By the morning of March 27, when the
Lok Sabha met to take up the vote of confidence and it had become clear that
the government would have to go, the party changed tack.
Says Shekhawat: “We
wanted people to know how others ganged up against us on the issue of
Hindutva.” Adds Thakre: We will emphasise that we did not use immoral means and
corruption to stay in power.”
Faced as the nation is with a ragtag
coalition dependent on the mercy of the Congress, the BJP is already preparing
for a mid-term poll. It hopes to extract mileage by comparing the homogeneous
BJP, led by a sober statesman like Vajpayee, with the fractious,
contradiction-ridden UF headed by Deve
Gowda on whom the choice fell only because there was no consensus on any other leader.
As Vajpayee pointed out during the parliamentary debate: “The United Front’s
fourth choice is going to become the nation’s first choice.”
Recent history provides enough
examples of such fractious coalitions coming apart. Says H.V. Sheshadri, deputy
chief of the RSS: “The manner in which all such groups have conducted
themselves during the past few days have made them a laughing stock in the
public eye.” With its support base spread over nearly 35 Lok Sabha seats in
about eight states in the country, the BJP feels that its fortunes can only
soar.
In Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya
Pradesh, it hopes to improve considerably whenever elections are held. Many in
the party feel this will be very soon. Says Uttar Pradesh BJP President Kalraj
Mishra: “Our supporters will come out in full strength next time.”
Vajpayee’s sterling performance in
the Lok Sabha-the party proposes to distribute video and audio cassettes of the
debate all over the country coupled with the popular upsurge in the BJP’s
favour makes its top-ranking leaders believe that they will be able to convert
the parliamentary defeat into victory.
The message they seek to convey is that
even when faced with certain humiliation, the party went through the motions of
seeking the vote of confidence.
With the television cameras carrying the
turbulent, often acrimonious, scenes enacted in Parliament to millions of
homes, Vajpayee went down, but with the image of a martyr statesman his
reputation considerably enhanced.
BJP leaders believe that this will prove a positive
step towards ensuring that victory is in the bag the next time round.
INTERVIEW
■ ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE
Atal Bihari Vajpayee may have been forced out of office
in just 13 days, but the shortest-serving prime minister the country has had
left with a flourish, impressing many even in defeat. In an interview with
Special Correspondent N.K. Singh a day after he resigned, he explained the
reasons behind the BJP’s bold gamble.
Q.
Has the early exit of the BJP government demoralised the cadres?
A.
No, it has further steeled there-solve. We knew that the numbers were against
us. It came as no surprise, and there is no question of demoralisation.
Q. You once said you wouldn’t form the government
unless you had about 220-225 seats. Why did you change your mind?
A.
Some leaders felt we should not form the government. Yet, others felt we should
not run away from responsibility.
Q. Everyone knew you did not have the majority. So what
exactly were you banking on?
A.
When the president invited me to form the government, the political situation
was fluid. The regional parties were keeping their options open. We wanted to
make an honest efforts to form the government in the light of the people’s
mandate, with the help of regional parties on the basis of a common minimum
programme.
Q.
Were you surprised by the resolve shown by these parties to oust the BJP?
A.
We never considered the Congress as a possible ally. Therefore their decision
to support X or Y was not at all relevant to us. Yes, we didn’t expect forces
inimical to each other to come together. But their sole aim was to stop our
continuance in office, even at the cost of their avowed principles.
Q.
Would you agree that it was a suicidal gamble?
A. I am sure the prophets of
doom will be proved wrong. The BJP has only emerged stronger.
Q. By forming the government without a clear majority,
the BJP is said to have exposed its greed for power. There are charges that you
tried to entice groups which had already decided to back Deve Gowda.
A.
Murasoli Maran of the DMK, an important leader in the new dispensation, has
declared in Parliament that the BJP never indulged in suitcase politics. We
were fully justified in Seeking support from various regional parties on the
basis on a common minimum programme. In fact, after election, some of them said
they did not rule out backing a BJP government.
Q. Your brief stint of 13 days as a prime minister who
could not win parliamentary legitimacy has sullied your image.
Q. For the sake of staying in office, you appeared
ready to make compromises, like putting contentious issues such as the Ram
temple in Ayodhya, abolition of Article 370 in Kashmir and uniform civil code
on the backburner.
A.
There is no question of a compromise. The mandate was clearly against the
Congress and we were trying to work out an alliance with other parties, despite
many of them not sharing our perception on the Ram temple, Article 370 or a
uniform civil code.
Q. You have described the United Front as an
unprincipled coalition. Yet what similarities are there between the BJP and the
Akalis?
A.
The BJP and the Akalis have been allies in the past too. It is quite different
from the kind of relationship the Congress has now established with the CPI(M),
the DMK-TMC and the TDP. All these parties had promised to the people to put an
end to Congress misrule. But now some of them are in office with the backing of
that very party.
Q. Your government invited some amount of ridicule at
the very outset. Sikander Bakht was sulking because he got a low-profile
portfolio like urban development.
A.
I think my government lasted for too brief a period for anyone to pass value
judgements on my colleagues.
Q. You knew your government would not survive, yet you
went ahead with some major decisions, like reconstitution of the Srikrishna
Commission, revalidation of the counter-guarantee given to the Enron power
project and so on.
A.
Mine was not a caretaker government. All the same, we did not make any changes
in the bureaucratic set-up or take any major policy decision. In spite of our
reservations, we went ahead with polls in Jammu & Kashmir, in continuation
of the decision taken by the previous government. We took decisions only on
issues which could not wait. In the case of Srikrishna Commission, I had
expressed my reservation when the Maharashtra Government scrapped it. Had we
not revalidated the counter-guarantee given to the Dabhol Power Company, it
would have gone for arbitration. I do not understand how my visiting the Golden
Temple could be construed as a major policy decision. My declaration that
economic reforms would continue was merely a reiteration of our known stand on
the issues.
Q. You have always been an advocate of the politics of
consensus. What kind of relationship do you visualise with your successor?
A.
The same that a leader of opposition would have with a prime minister in any
healthy democracy.
India Today 15 June 1996
nksexpress@gmail.com
Tweets @nksexpress
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. It will be published shortly by the Editor.