The Hindu : Why a Left candidate?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jun 18, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Why a Left candidate?

By Harkishan Singh Surjeet

The BJP-led NDA has adopted the ruse of consensus as a smokescreen to camouflage its real intentions.

THE ANNOUNCEMENT by the Left parties of fielding Lakshmi Sahgal as their candidate for the post of President is their response to the emerging political situation. It is a scenario in which, on the one hand, the ruling NDA led by the BJP manoeuvred to impose its will, and, on the other hand, the main Opposition party, the Congress, despite initial indications of putting up a fight, abandoned it and fell in line to support the NDA nominee.

With all respect to A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, whose contribution to the development of the country's missile programme is acknowledged and honoured, the fact remains that he is a candidate propped up by the BJP. He was, however, not its first choice either.

While the Congress and the People's Front favoured a second term for K.R. Narayanan, the BJP was not inclined, for obvious reasons. The Prime Minister displayed his contempt by bluntly telling the President that they were not in favour of his continuance in office for another term. Mr. Narayanan, who was yet to make up his mind, rightly opted out, after the discourteous manner in which the ruling combine's opposition to his likely candidature was conveyed.

Faced with stiff opposition from the Congress and the People's Front, the BJP communicated that it was ready to accept the TDP's proposal to make the Vice-President, Krishan Kant, the next President. All major parties had more or less agreed to this proposal. The PMO had actually conveyed to the Congress its decision to elevate the Vice-President. After evolving a consensus on his candidature, the BJP did a volte-face and came up with the name of Dr. Kalam. In this whole process, it has unnecessarily dragged Mr. Narayanan and Mr. Krishan Kant into a controversy. The motivated manner in which it has treated the whole issue has left a bitter taste. During the course of the last four years, the BJP-led NDA has adopted the ruse of consensus as a smokescreen to camouflage its real intentions.

The Congress finally caved in and decided to back Dr. Kalam. This stance will affect its credibility and its capacity to put up a consistent opposition to the BJP. The Samajwadi Party, which was a constituent of the People's Front, as opposed to the views of the other constituents of the Front, also supported Dr. Kalam's candidature. The SP had as a constituent of the People's Front supported Mr. Narayanan earlier.

It is against this background wherein the ruling party deliberately avoided a consensus and forced its nominee; and the failure of the main non-Left secular parties to carry forward the fight that has compelled the Left parties and other partners of the People's Front to put up their nominee.

In a situation where the Congress has lost its monopoly of power and no single party has got a majority at the Centre and various parties or combination of parties are ruling in the States, the role that the President has to play, despite the limited powers the office holds, assumes importance. In a situation where a rabidly communal party such as the BJP is in power at the Centre and the threat to the very unity of the country and its social fabric is real, as revealed by the events in Gujarat, the significance of the office of President need not be underlined.

In Gujarat, the state-sponsored pogrom against the Muslim minority went on for over four months and its perpetrators refused to stop the genocide despite the condemnation of the entire nation. The BJP refuses to acknowledge the distinct identity of the Kashmiri people and the necessity of Article 370 of the Constitution and the demand for more autonomy. It is a party which is opposed to the very concept of federalism and linguistic States. During the last four years, there have been repeated attacks on these pillars of the Constitution.

There has also been a basic change in our foreign policy orientation. Until the BJP assumed office, the country had been following a foreign policy of non-alignment, for world peace and complete nuclear disarmament, opposition to imperialism and support to liberation struggles. The BJP-led regime has dismantled this consensual foreign policy and put in place a policy which is pro-imperialist to the core and which has lowered the country's prestige in international fora.

While the Congress and the other secular Opposition parties have been opposing the policies that endanger national unity and promote hatred between different religious communities, they have been more than vocal in their support to the economic policies of liberalisation and privatisation pursued by this Government. It is only the Left which has waged a comprehensive and uncompromising struggle against the whole gamut of policies pursued by the BJP-led NDA.

Capt. Sahgal's candidature has to be seen as a continuation and natural corollary of this struggle against the policies and programmes of this Government which are harmful to the country's interests and people's welfare. It once again exposes to the people the role played by the other Opposition parties in the struggle against this Government.

Dr. Kalam is a renowned scientist-administrator no doubt, but the country is unaware about his political leanings or commitment. The Left and its allies are clear that the person elected to this office has a great political responsibility. He/she is the custodian of the Constitution, protecting and safeguarding the secular democratic character of the Indian Republic. In a situation where the ruling combine seeks to dismiss democratically-elected Governments or in a situation where the secular principle has to be upheld, a person capable of upholding the tenets of the Constitution should be in office.

There are enough indications from the BJP that proposing Dr. Kalam's name was its response to the criticism over Gujarat. The people do not know about Dr. Kalam's views on Gujarat or for that matter on any other important political question facing the country.

The SP's role has been a disruptive one, though it now seeks to blame the Left for the break-up of the People's Front. The SP had made up its mind even earlier. This was reflected in the way it went ahead with the byelections to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly. It formed another alliance in Uttar Pradesh of which the Kranti Dal of the former Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, and two other caste-based parties, were part. It was during Mr. Kalyan Singh's tenure as Chief Minister (he was in the BJP then) that the Babri Masjid was demolished. Unfortunately, the SP did not wish to consult the other constituents of the People's Front before adopting such a course. This is an indicator of its commitment to the Front. Without acknowledging this, they are hurling accusations and abuses against us. The SP has adopted a political course contrary to the basic approach of the People's Front. Recently in Parliament, we saw the spectacle of the SP leadership defending the Finance Minister, Yashwant Sinha, when he was charged with improper behaviour in relation to the Flex Industries.

Reviewing the situation after the departure of the Samajwadi Party, the Left parties in consultation with V.P. Singh and H. D. Deve Gowda came to the conclusion that this political fight had to be carried forward and that we should put up our candidate. The proposal of Dr. Sahgal's name was unanimously agreed upon. The entry of the Left into the contest is carrying forward the political struggle against the policies and programmes of the BJP-led NDA.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Not the moment for hawkishness

Spurring India's universities

Why a Left candidate?