Power over principles

THE MESSAGE OF ``solidarity'' that the BJP's allies came out with after the meeting of the coordination committee of the NDA has, indeed, exposed the real concerns of those parties, contrary to their protestations of any commitment to any agenda for governance. By refusing to call into question the implications of the utterances by the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, on the Ayodhya issue for the democratic institutions, the leaders of the non-BJP parties in the NDA have only established their eagerness to keep the ruling alliance alive even if it means compromising on crucial issues vital to the democratic polity. The non-BJP parties in the NDA want to persist with the Vajpayee- is-a-moderate rhetoric even after the ``moderate'' himself found it bothersome and hence decided to bare his true thoughts on December 6, 2000.

Mr. Vajpayee had conveyed to the world that he was in the same mould as others in the BJP or even like those in the VHP and the Bajrang Dal. But his allies pretended innocence. The implications of the remarks were clear; there was outbreak of violence in Uttar Pradesh involving members and places of worship of the Muslim community. And yet if they insisted on living in a make- believe world that Mr. Vajpayee was the moderate and the BJP and other outfits of the Sangh Parivar were no longer revanchist in their outlook, they thought so only in order to preserve themselves as part of the ruling combine.

And more than anyone else, it is Mr. George Fernandes who must be ``appreciated'' for having ``embarrassed'' the BJP the most! Rather than letting Mr. Vajpayee shed his carefully crafted image of being a liberal in the company of revanchists, Mr. Fernandes must, indeed, be credited for having ``forced'' him to distance himself from the mandir wahin banayenge slogan of the VHP-Bajrang Dal crowd or the BJP of the Advani-Joshi era. It is true that the resolution expressing solidarity with Mr. Vajpayee and also committing the ruling combine to the idea that the Ayodhya dispute be left to the courts was the outcome of the collective effort of all those in the NDA coordination committee. But then, Mr. Fernandes cannot be denied the credit for ensuring that Mr. Vajpayee's statements on the issue were not even raised in the meeting. Mr. Fernandes had even earlier spoken of an international conspiracy behind the killing of an Australian missionary in Orissa even when the links between the alleged killer - Dara Singh - and the Bajrang Dal were known to everyone.

Indeed, Mr. Fernandes could not have achieved all this without the others in the alliance agreeing to help him out. Mr. Karunanidhi, for instance, may have scored a point against the AIADMK and also the Congress when he recalled Ms. J. Jayalalitha's endorsement of the `kar seva' in the National Integration Council (NIC) meet and that the Congress in power at the Centre did nothing to save the Masjid. These facts, however, cannot provide the rationale for the DMK to overlook Mr. Vajpayee's statement that the temple construction project was the expression of nationalist feelings. It is another matter for the DMK leader to maintain that his agenda and that of his party will depend on the position of the AIADMK and its leader, Ms. Jayalalitha. In the same way, Ms. Banerjee and Mr. Chandrababu Naidu or Mr. Paswan and Mr. Sharad Yadav too may claim the liberty to compromise on principles and refrain from doing anything to rock the NDA applecart. But then, the rationale that they are part of the NDA only because the combine has nothing to do with the revanchist agenda of the Sangh Parivar does not hold any longer; at least after Mr. Vajpayee had spoken his mind out on the Ayodhya issue.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : A decisive denouement?