The Hindu : Govt. wins, but emerges weaker

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 02, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Govt. wins, but emerges weaker

By Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI MAY 1. The Government may have defeated the Opposition-sponsored censure motion on the Gujarat violence due to its numerical superiority in the Lok Sabha, but it has emerged weaker after being hauled over burning coal by even its allies. By the end of the debate, it stood as exposed as the shocking photographs of `trishul'-wielding mobs hunting for victims.

The Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister sat in Parliament speechless, listening to senior MPs, such as the former Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar, attacking the Union Minister and BJP leader, Uma Bharti, as a person with "a fascist Hitlerian mentality". Another MP told the Government that it should understand that no matter how hard it tried, "the 15-crore Muslim population cannot be drowned in the Arabian Sea". Worse, the Government could not find words to respond to these charges.

The aggressive Government strategy — which became obvious when the first speaker from its side, Ms. Bharti, spoke the language of unbridled Hindutva communalism, and when the Defence Minister, George Fernandes, "defended" Gujarat saying that "such incidents" had been happening for the last 50 years — came undone when the Home Minister, L.K. Advani, said that Mr. Fernandes' speech made him uncomfortable.

Partners and friends of the NDA enterprise attacked the Government almost as vehemently as the Opposition did. Some voted with it because they enjoyed comfortable Ministerial berths at the Centre (such as the Janata Dal-United leader, Sharad Yadav), some because they wanted Cabinet positions (such as the Trinamool Congress leader, Mamata Banerjee) and others because the political stakes in the States were high (such as the Bahujan Samaj Party, whose government will be installed in Lucknow courtesy the BJP). The openly opportunistic politics of the allies was fully exposed.

It was dishonest on the part of the Telugu Desam Party and the Trinamool Congress to demand the sacking of the Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, and then walk out before the vote was cast (as the TDP did) or worse, vote against the motion (as the Trinamool did). Their loud demand for Mr. Modi's ouster was an admission that their parties had concluded that his role in the riots was not above reproach, or at the very least that they did not think that he was competent enough to control the dangerous situation threatening the integrity of the country, not just Gujarat.

The TDP (and some other NDA parties) have continued to explain their positions in terms of "political compulsion". How could the TDP be seen to be on the same side of the political fence as its enemy, the Congress? That was the TDP's wholly specious argument. What is the logic or morality in arguing that they could not be seen on the same side as their main enemy even while acknowledging that they agreed with their demands?

Two Ministers did not vote with the Government — Ram Vilas Paswan (Lok Janshakti) quit a day before the debate and voted with the Opposition and Omar Abdullah (National Conference) abstained after handing over his resignation to the Prime Minister. Another alliance partner, the Janata Dal (United) is all but united in its support for the Government.

The creaky alliance may continue, even for a full term, but does it any longer have the moral authority to govern?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion