The Hindu : Distortion of political values

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Apr 22, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Distortion of political values

By K. K. Katyal

Our political elite has not learnt lessons from the past. If the Emergency caused havoc to the polity in 1975, Gujarat dented the country's image in 2002.

RARELY DOES a single event provide such vivid flashes of the past panorama as were given by a function in New Delhi last week. Meant to felicitate the former Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar, on his 75th birthday, it brought together some leading figures of the country, each taking a leaf or two out of the political notebook, dealing with a tumultuous period. Their account had to be limited to situations involving Mr. Chandra Shekhar but that did not detract from the value or the force of the narrative. Implied in it was a message — distortion of political values spells disaster. To cite a Persian proverb, "Gahe gahe baaz khan ein kissa-e-parena ra", the story of the past needs to be retold from time to time — if only to ensure that mistakes of the days gone by are not repeated. Unfortunately, our political elite has not learnt lessons from the past. If the Emergency caused havoc to the polity in 1975, Gujarat dented the country's image in 2002.

The speakers at the function included, apart from Mr. Chandra Shekhar, R. Venkataraman, former President, Krishan Kant, Vice-President, Atal Behari Vajpayee, Prime Minister, his predecessors, P. V. Narasimha Rao, I. K. Gujral and H. D. Deve Gowda, and a former Prime Minister of Nepal, G. P. Koirala. The tone was set by Mr. Gujral who spoke of Mr. Chandra Shekhar's role at various turns of politics, beginning with the period when the latter was known as one of the "young turks" in the Congress.

The "young turks" — Mr. Krishan Kant was another leading light — was a phenomenon of the pre-Emergency Indira Gandhi era. It represented the urge of the Left-oriented sections, not necessarily sympathetic to the Communists, to prevent a Congress slide to the right and to counter the influence of those rightists who had managed to gain ascendancy in party affairs. Given the peculiar Congress culture, it acquired — or was invested by its rivals with — factional overtones. The Congress was a coalition of diverse views and interests — those close to the Communist ideology, on the one hand and the Jan Sangh way of thinking, on the other, socialists as well as the advocates of free enterprise, the champions of different interests, communal, regional and ethnic. It became a breeding ground for pressure groups — two of which, the Socialists Forum and the Nehru Forum, became prominent. The first was the creation of those who did not hide their sympathy for the CPI and proximity to its leaders. The party leadership — Indira Gandhi and her supporters — gave the Socialist Forum a long rope, in the belief that the Left orientation would help her acquire ideological respectability.

Soon after, however, it became too strong for the comfort of the party bosses and they thought of countering its influence. Though it was A. P. Sharma, party leader from Bihar, who launched the rival Nehru Forum with great fanfare, the force behind it was Uma Shankar Dixit, known for his devotion to the Nehru-Gandhi family. As a result, the Congress began to be buffeted by pressure groups from two different directions.

At last week's function, Mr. Rao dwelt at length on an episode in the early 1970s which led to the transformation of Mr. Chandra Shekhar from a young turk into a national figure. At an AICC session in Shimla, the party delegates were to choose the elective half of the Working Committee. As was the wont on such occasions, the party bosses sought to ensure against the election of inconvenient persons and, to that end, circulated a list of candidates who they would like to be chosen. Conspicuous among those missing from the official list was Mr. Chandra Shekhar who, by then, had acquired a high profile because of his blunt talk on party matters and, as such, was disliked by the leadership. Party delegates, however, did not take kindly to what was regarded as a bid to muzzle dissent. Mr. Chandra Shekhar was elected handsomely. Mr. Rao described it as the assertion of the democratic element in the Congress.

In a way, it was a vote against bossism, with the result that Mr. Chandra Shekhar became a symbol of dissent in the party, a rallying figure for all those unhappy with the ways of the leadership. This role of his was strengthened during the period just before the promulgation of Emergency in June 1975. He did not mince words in warning against the emergence of dangerous trends and, among other things, commended to Indira Gandhi conciliation with Jayaprakash Narayan, who then spearheaded the crusade against the unethical conduct of parties and politics. She, however, preferred confrontation — and Mr. Chandra Shekhar came to grief. And when the Emergency was announced, he though a member of the ruling party's Working Committee and its Central Election Committee, was arrested — and thus clubbed with the leaders of the Opposition, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Mr. Vajpayee, L. K. Advani. An unprecedented development, howsoever viewed.

Another unhappy facet was highlighted by Mr. Venkataraman. It related to the period when Mr. Chandra Shekhar headed a minority Government dependent on the Congress for its survival. In less than six months, the Congress began having second thoughts. He did not demur even for a brief while and went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to convey to Mr. Venkataraman his plan to quit. In his book, `My Presidential Years', he wrote: "I did not accept the resignation without feeling sorry for Chandra Shekhar. During his few months in office, he had handled Parliament competently and was responsive to suggestions from the Opposition. He was under constant strain from the pressures of the Congress which, I am afraid, assumed that it was the real Government and Chandra Shekhar only a proxy. The office-hungry coterie of the Congress used to misguide Rajiv Gandhi that Chandra Shekhar's attempts at building up a good image could prove deleterious to Rajiv's image. Looking back after two years, I realise my naiveness in accepting the Congress assurance of `unconditional support' to Chandra Shekhar. I had expected the support to last a year at least. I realised that unequal combinations are always disadvantageous to the weaker side."

To Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Vajpayee had been "gurudev" — from when he first entered Parliament in 1962 and the two had had the chance to work together in the Public Accounts Committee. This guru-disciple relationship continued to be close through various phases though they were in different and opposite camps, except during the brief spell after the Emergency when Mr. Chandra Shekhar headed the Janata Party and Mr. Vajpayee was External Affairs Minister in the Morarji Desai Cabinet. That did not come in the way of Mr. Chandra Shekhar's criticism of the Prime Minister's handling of the Gujarat situation and calling for his resignation some weeks back. Mr. Vajpayee could not have liked that — this was evident from his casual remark at the function. Mr. Chandra Shekhar sought to soften the blow saying he did not want Mr. Vajpayee to quit because anyone after him would be worse, but he stuck to his ground, emphasising his anguish over the Prime Minister's approach to the Gujarat case.

New situations will arise in the future, different political players will be thrown up in months and years to come, the issues they will be required to handle will be different but political ethics and values will not lose relevance — be it in the realm of the functioning of parties or handling of national problems — and their violation will spell trouble, as in the past.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

New anti-terror initiatives

A gift that never was

Distortion of political values

Ban battlefield nuclear weapons

Direct payments will increase farm debt

Contempt jurisdiction

Too many holidays

Small change