|
RIGHT
ANGLE
Clarifying
Clarification
Why Vajpayee
seeks acceptance of those who will never vote BJP
By
Swapan Dasgupta
There
are some taunts that disorient even the most unflappable of people. Atal
Bihari Vajpayee doesn't mind parliamentary barbs. A formidable debater,
there is nothing he enjoys more than a robust round of political sparring.
But if there is one thing that gets his goat it is being called a mukhauta
(mask). When, in 1998, a gossip column attributed such a remark to the
former BJP general secretary K.N. Govindacharya, Vajpayee blew a fuse.
He demanded action against Govindacharya and it required the intervention
of the big guns of the RSS to cool him down. At that time Vajpayee was
not prime minister and didn't enjoy the pre-eminence he does now. So it
was two years before Govindacharya was removed from the BJP leadership
and banished on study leave.
Last month
it happened again. Confronted by headlines that his utterances on Ayodhya
left "Vajpayee unmasked", the prime minister admitted being
"pained". He devoted part of his New Year break in the backwaters
of Kerala to rebutting charges that he had sold his soul to the "hardliners"
and that his liberal image was just a facade. "(Al)though the movement
for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya was an expression of our
national sentiment, this sentiment became narrow, and its inclusive character
became restrictive," he clarified in My Musings from Kumarakom, "because
of the unfortunate demolition ... on December 6, 1992."
Though he
has kept many exit routes open, the assertion that the Ram temple movement
has become "narrow" and "restrictive" after the demolition
is a departure. Using a historical analogy, his critics say it's a bit
like Mahatma Gandhi turning his back on swaraj after the hideous massacre
of 24 policemen at Chauri Chaura in 1922. Not that Vajpayee realised his
Himalayan blunder instantly. He led the BJP campaigns in 1996 and 1998
when the building of a Ram temple figured in the manifesto. So, has the
prime minister belatedly discarded-as distinct from putting it on hold
due to a commitment to the NDA-the BJP's entire Ayodhya plank? If so,
what was the compulsion, given that the parliamentary debate had extricated
him from a controversy he triggered by unilaterally forcing the "resignation"
of Harin Pathak? Equally strange is that Vajpayee opted for the written
word over his natural preference for sound bites.
The suggestion
that the prime minister was anticipating the Dharma Sansad's ultimatum
to the Government doesn't wash. The Government must be aware that the
VHP is unlikely to press for temple construction on the disputed site
at this juncture. It will probably demand the construction of some gates
in an undisputed corner of Ayodhya. This may well be the proverbial thin
end of the wedge but the issue won't be provocative enough to trigger
a political fallout. At best, Vajpayee could have told the VHP where to
get off without undertaking a convoluted exercise in revisionism.
The prime
minister's latest flip-flop on Ayodhya can best be explained in two ways.
First, he was under intense pressure from his inner circle to re-ingratiate
himself to that section of the upper-crust that viewed his earlier statements
as a monumental blunder. This had less to do with politics than the social
awkwardness of his dining table. Second, the mukhauta taunt touched a
familiar raw nerve. Once again he hit back. This time pleasing those who
won't ever vote BJP but leaving his party utterly confused and quite resentful.
That is, till he clarifies his clarification yet again.
Top
|
METRO TODAY
As
the Government brings in more people and mops more money in taxes, it
must be seen to be rewarding those who come forth and pay up, writes India
Today Associate Editor V. Shankar Aiyar in 