For decades he was the most endearing face of Indian politics. For decades, he was the most riveting of orators. For decades, he epitomised magnanimity towards rivals. For decades, while his contemporaries earned notoriety for deviousness, he maintained a reputation for goodness. But today, it is sad to see A.B. Vajpayee write his epitaph in such a cruel manner, a political coward unable to tame the social bigots masquerading as economic liberalisers. It is sad that Vajpayee's long innings is winding up in such a slow bleed.

The general view is that Vajpayee is all style and little substance. Not true. His tenure as foreign minister during the Janata regime in 1977-79 was marked by path-breaking initiatives in relation to Pakistan and China. His prime ministerial term was characterised by many bold moves starting with Pokhran II. It was Vajpayee who allowed Jaswant Singh to redefine the Indo-US relationship. Again, it was Vajpayee who launched the Lahore peace process and earned great credibility for India during the Kargil war by not allowing our armed forces to cross the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. It was Vajpayee who provided a glimmer of hope to Jammu and Kashmir with his insaaniyat formulation. It was Vajpayee who backed Arun Shourie to launch India's long-overdue privatisation programme. It was Vajpayee who allowed Pramod Mahajan to give a great boost to the country's it and telecom industries. It was Vajpayee who personally masterminded the promising national highway development programme. It was Vajpayee who allowed Ram Jethmalani to have the Urban Land Ceiling Act repealed and who supported Yashwant Sinha in many crucial initiatives. Unlike many of his predecessors, he was willing to talk publicly about the need for unpopular change as, for instance, in the case of labour laws. By carrying forward reforms initiated by the Congress and taken further by the United Front, Vajpayee demonstrated great pragmatism, much to the chagrin of his own party.

Alas, all this will be forgotten. The laidback approach, designed to give colleagues functional autonomy, worked to an extent in foreign policy and in economics-but failed the larger social test. What Vajpayee will be remembered for is the supine manner in which he allowed the rabid M.M. Joshi to run amok. What he will be remembered for is his cynical response to the shame of Gujarat caused by the swaggering Narendra Modi and his patrons in Delhi. At a time when the nation expected action, Vajpayee delivered sermons. At a time when the nation wanted to see the exercise of prime ministerial authority, Vajpayee recited poetry. At a time when many-including an anguished liberal forced to take a break from economics this week-were willing to give the prime minister the benefit of the doubt, he simply could not bestir himself to ensure that basic constitutional responsibilities were fulfilled. And when he bestirred, he sent confusing signals. To a Muslim audience he spoke feelingly. To a Hindutva audience, he became aggressively unrepentant. To a cosmopolitan audience in New York, he spoke about India's plurality. But to an NRI assembly in Staten Island, he prided himself on his RSS lineage.

There are many who believe that Vajpayee's image of a liberal was carefully cultivated and false. Certainly, he himself has provided enough evidence for this view to gain ground. But Vajpayee is fundamentally a decent man. His problem is that he is weak and aloof. Claiming to be an admirer of Jawaharlal Nehru, when it came to the crunch Vajpayee just could not muster the political courage to protect the secular legacy of Panditji. India will survive Gujarat. Contrary to the elegies being written by BJP ideologues, secularism is not dead and will not die in India. Hinduism will survive the VHP and the Bajrang Dal and the overwhelming majority of Hindus will continue to be secular. But Gujarat has delivered a grievous blow while the prime minister remained a passive spectator. Even his most ardent admirers and well-wishers were critical of his inertia as governance collapsed. The disappointment is greater since the expectations were very high.

Vajpayee's greatest failure was to protect Hinduism from pseudo-Hindus, to save the glory of cultural Hinduism from the fanatics of political Hinduism. Kautilya is proud to be a cultural Hindu in spite of its mixed legacy, a legacy of magnificent achievement as well as of institutionalised repression, a legacy of the greatest external tolerance as well as of internal violence. Parliamentary democracy is liberating Hinduism from much of its traditional obscurantism. But a new hatred is being propagated by the RSS and its cohorts that Vajpayee could have confronted. He did not, thereby damaging the very essence of the world's most liberal faith.

What remains now is the script of a dignified exit policy. It is time to recall Cromwell: you have sat here long enough to do good; in the name of God, go. But before you do so, please do tell us-those who were enamoured of you-who you really are, what you actually stand for.

(The author is with the Congress party. These are his personal views)