Rasheeda Bhagat

Though the UPA regime seems well entrenched in power at the moment, seasoned players such as the BJP leader, Mr L. K. Advani, know only too well the pitfalls of power and the fragility of coalition governments. Could he, thus, be thinking ahead, three or four years hence, when, if the BJP comes back to power, he could be the frontrunner for the post of Prime Minister, and playing for that, asks Rasheeda Bhagat.

The BJP leader Mr L. K. Advani visiting the Jinnah mausoleum in Karachi.

IT HAS been a bitter homecoming for the BJP leader Mr L. K. Advani after his visit to Pakistan. Sangh Parivar hardliners, who were not too happy with his visit to Pakistan in the first place, have ensured that Mr Advani steps down from the leadership of the party. Extremely unhappy, at first, over his comments that the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was the "saddest day of my life", Sangh Parivar hardliners were livid when the BJP leader, during a visit to M. A. Jinnah's mausoleum in Karachi, called him "a secular leader" who had made history by becoming the "architect of a new state".

The clamour that he should apologise for having made such remarks and withdraw them began when Mr Advani was still in Pakistan and reached a crescendo on his return. Not one to be left behind when it comes to taunting the saffron party, the Congress(I) also got into the act to express its own incredulousness at Mr Advani's description of Jinnah as `secular'.

Hardliners within the Parivar, such as the VHP international secretary, Mr Praveen Togadia, raving and ranting about his comments in Pakistan, Mr Advani could have expected.

The latter could have even ignored the fulminations of parties such as the Shiv Sena, whose official organ Saamna attacked the BJP leader for "betraying 80 crore Hindus in India... by showering praise on Jinnah," in an attempt to "create a secular image" for himself. It added provocatively, "By kicking Hindus in India if anyone wants to gain something in politics then it is their outlook. We don't want to gain anything by surrendering the self-respect of Hindus."

But when the ideologue of the Parivar, the RSS, also bayed for his blood, that was another matter altogether. The RSS spokesman, Mr Ram Madhav, criticised Mr Advani's comments and said there was no question of the RSS accepting any "apology" for them. "There are basic ideological questions involved here and it is not possible for the Sangh to compromise on them or accept them."

BJP insiders point out that what hurt Mr Advani most was that throughout the time the campaign pitch against him was being raised, during his absence from India, none of the BJP top-brass made any attempt to defend him.

It was left to Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who has moved away from the central affairs of the party, to come to his defence, saying that Jinnah was indeed a "nationalist" and a "secular man". Other BJP leaders, particularly those in the second-rung (who are perhaps already eyeing the slot vacated by Mr Advani), made no attempt to defend him in any way.

Of course, some vague statements were made by Mr Venkaiah Naidu but, then, he is anyway not in the race for the post from which he was removed after the BJP's defeat in the 2004 Lok Sabha polls.

The RSS chief, Mr K. Sudarshan's recent acid comments that the elders in the party should make way for the second-rung leaders has raised many an aspiration in the party.

Coming to the import of what Mr Advani did or said in Pakistan, surely he himself would have known only too well the furore that his remarks on Jinnah would cause in India. His trip had been planned for a long time and anybody who has watched him speak, knows well that he measures each word he utters and is too seasoned a politician to be carried away by the moment, or to allow the media to trip him on any issue. If this is his approach on home turf, surely in Pakistan, where his every step, word and expression was bound to be recorded and analysed threadbare, he would not have done anything without careful thought and planning.

And what exactly did he say in Pakistan?

On the Babri Masjid's destruction he did not say anything he has not said before. Soon after the demolition he had written that the event was indeed the "saddest day" of his life. Even then, he was lambasted for it by the hardliners in the Parivar, even while the Congress(I), the Left Parties and others in the secular brigade ridiculed him for his "double standards".

As for Jinnah, the Togadias of the Parivar speak with more rancour than reason when they dub him a "communalist" and "fundamentalist"; whether they like it or not, Jinnah was a modern and liberal man and had he lived longer, he might have steered Pakistan in a different direction.

But while what Jinnah would or would not have done with the country he carved out of India during Partition hardly concerns us, what should bother us is the obsession we have with the past and our growing ethos of intolerance. Fifty-eight years have gone by since Pakistan came into being and yet the VHP and some other Sangh outfits harbour grand notions of an Akhand Bharat.

When a Vajpayee or an Advani proclaims from Pakistani soil that the existence of Pakistan is now beyond dispute, they see red and heap abuse on their own leaders.

But it would be worth examining what Mr Advani was trying to achieve in Pakistan. There has been a lot of debate on his private persona being very different from his public one of a hawk and a Hindutva hardliner; the rath yatri who would always lead from the front in lambasting Pakistan and keeping under "control" Indian Muslims.

Obviously BJP's Loh Purush has decided it is time to shed that garb. With Mr Vajpayee clearly out of the race for prime ministership if and when the BJP returns to power, Mr Advani seems to have decided it is time he created the impression of a Hindutva leader who is much more inclusive.

In the six years the BJP-led NDA was in power, it was an open secret that for many allies, such as the Telugu Desam and the Samata Party, it was Mr Vajpayee, and not Mr Advani, who was acceptable as the head of government. Had the Gujarat violence not erupted in 2002, even a section of Indian Muslims may have been drawn towards the "moderate" Vajpayee.

Though the UPA Government seems to be well-entrenched in power at the moment, seasoned players such as the BJP chief — efforts are still on to persuade Mr Advani to withdraw his letter of resignation — know only too well the pitfalls of power and the fragility of coalition governments.

Mr Prakash Karat at the head of the CPI(M) is a different man from Mr Harkishen Surjeet; next year West Bengal and Kerala go to the polls, and during the campaigning the allies of today will be bitter political rivals of tomorrow. Not only that; each economic reform of the UPA Government — the latest being the decision to divest 10 per cent stake in BHEL — is opposed bitterly, and publicly, by the Left.

Mr Mulayam Singh of the Samajwadi Party and Mrs Mayawati of the Bahujan Samaj Party are just waiting for a chance to rock the boat in Delhi.

Until now Dr Manmohan Singh has done a fine, and patient, job of leading the UPA Government. But his headaches — as many from outside the Congress(I) as from within his own party — are only too well known.

Neither greed nor political ambition is his weakness; if push comes to the shove, it may not take much, or too long, for him to throw in the towel.

In such a situation, or even after two, three or four years, when general elections are held, if the BJP, on its own or leading a coalition, returns to power, Mr Advani would be the frontrunner for the post of Prime Minister.

At that time a soft, inclusive image will be very useful. What is the mere post of a party chief — something he has enjoyed more than once earlier — compared to the ultimate crown that India's one billion plus can offer?

(Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line