A Review of Vir Sanghvi's Mandate: Will of the People

Have just completed ‘Mandate: Will of the People’ by Vir Sanghvi. Recommended by a friend as an interesting read on Indian Elections, it had a very flattering Foreword penned by Amish Tripathi. We all know that Vir writes well, is a Delhi insider (remember Radia tapes) and is a tenured journalist and a food hack. Encouraged enough, I managed to complete this 137 page, large-spaced, large-lettered booklet in one sitting.

The book professes to be an ‘easy-to-read’ book on India’s recent political history, focused on events leading to General Elections 1971 onwards and their impact on the Nation. In his introduction, Vir mentions the huge efforts (months of research and travel and the intense efforts put in to collate and synthesize data) that had gone in to prepare for his TV show and its offshoot, this book.

I have not watched the TV show and hence cannot comment on it. But as far as the book is concerned, it is difficult to visualize if this weakly written, typo-ridden, error-prone and superficial book actually required that much of an effort to compose. There is hardly any revelation or insight in the book which any regular observer of Indian politics would not be aware of. Since Vir makes it very clear that this is a book on events the way ‘he-saw-it’ and does not adopt a non-biased tone, it is excusable if he pushes a particular Point of View. Yet, ignoring important events and personalities only leads to the reader getting a half-picture which is probably as dangerous as the reader remaining ignorant. Inexcusable though are the factual errors which can jar sensibilities of any informed reader.

Vir states (Pg 55) that the 1984 General Elections resulted in the biggest majority ever in India with the Congress winning 50.7% of the votes and 416 seats. However, as per the Election Commission of India, the Congress had won only 404 seats and 49.1% of votes. Even if the data from delayed elections in Punjab and Assam get added, the Congress won 10 more seats, a total of 414. But, with a vote share of 32.14% in these 2 states, the overall vote share of the party comes down to 48.12%, a far cry from the claimed 50.7%. Fact remains, no party has won over 50% of votes in any parliamentary election in India yet.

While Vir’s absurd statement on Hindus ‘destroying’ Buddhist temples can be dismissed as a manifestation of his ‘secular’ sensibilities, it is difficult to agree when he claims that the agitation for liberation of Ram Janmabhoomi gained traction because of the Shah Bano judgement. People with longer memories will remember that the agitation had started taking roots 1983 onwards and its gaining steam in the late 80s had much to do with the very nature of campaign strategy designed by the VHP and assorted seers.

What is striking about Vir’s analysis of 1989 elections is the complete whitewash of the BJP’s alliance with the Janata Dal, the various complexities of this arrangement and the BJP’s spectacular ascendance.

Still, Vir’s analysis of 1989 elections seems sparkling when compared to his take on 1991 elections. Vir claims that Rajiv Gandhi was drawing adulating masses and was set for a comeback. Was it so? Election coverage reports from those days do speak of hysterical masses, but in the public meetings and rallies of BJP leaders. Vir conveniently ignores the fact that a few phases of 1991 elections were postponed by 3 weeks in the aftermath of Rajiv Gandhi’s killings and that a sympathy wave buoyed up Congress’s performance in the remaining phases. Even a cursory analysis of results within the same state (Madhya Pradesh for example) would show that the Congress gained heavily in the second round of polls. 

Counter-intuitive is his take on the events leading to 1991 elections. Vir professes that VP Singh would have won elections had they been held immediately after he had lost the confidence vote. This is nothing but wild speculation without any basis for National sentiments at that time seemed heavily tilted in favor of the BJP, driven to a large extent by Lalu’s act of stopping LK Advani from completing his yatra. Anyway, the elections which could have happened in Dec-Jan happened in May-June, not that many months later. The Janata Dal slipped badly and the Backwards (at least the non-Yadavs) who would have supported JD (as per Vir) ended up supporting the BJP in large numbers.

Another set of curious assertions which Vir makes are around Chandrashekhar's ascendancy to Prime Ministership. Vir rightly states that Chandrashekhar was expecting the PM's post in 1989. Yet, Vir's narration of the late leader's acceptance of Congress's support seems to paint a picture of his sacrifice rather than fulfillment of his life-long dream. Whitewashed are the events leading upto Chandrashekhar's resignation. While Vir does mention the widely held theory that the cause of Congress's withdrawal of support was it's fear that the then PM was close to resolving the Ayodhya dispute, Vir completely ignores the fracas over alleged surveillance on Rajiv, ostensibly being conducted on the PM's order. While the actual event may have been as significant as Delhi police asking for Rahul Gandhi's shoe size, it was this allegation which resulted in cutting short of Chandrashekhar's tenure as the Prime Minister.

Yet another example of Vir’s ‘secular’ sensibilities is his claim that in 1996 elections, Atal Bihari Vajpayee had ‘reclaimed’ BJP’s leadership from LK Advani. Well, history records that Advani had suo motu declared Vajpayee as BJP’s PM candidate in 1995, much before he was implicated in the Hawala scam. How can a person be said to have ‘reclaimed’ what was actually ‘handed over’ to him?

Then comes another blooper. Vir claims that Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the star of 1997 election campaign! How could that be when elections were held in 1998 and not 1997?

Anyway, the treatment of Jayalalitha’s withdrawal of support of the parliamentary confidence vote is callous. No mention of the infamous tea party where Jaya and Sonia came together, no mention of the role played by Subramanian Swamy (then stoutly against anything remotely associated with the RSS) and again, no mention of theatrics involving Giridhar Gomango and even of Saifuddin Soz. That single vote which brought down Vajpayee can be attributed to any of the 3 (Mayawati and the abovementioned).

Vir gets his seat count wrong again when he attributes the NDA as having won 296 seats in the 1999 elections. Accounting for the Telugu Desam, the NDA had 304 seats. 

As for the analysis of 2004 polls, it is passable but for the inordinate focus on India Shining. No doubt that India Shining was a horrendous campaign but it was not the only reason for BJP’s defeat. BJP’s arrogance, the depletion of its alliance and antipathy / sullen indifference of its core support group played at least an equal, if not more important role in the BJP’s well deserved defeat. 

That apart, the crowning glory (Pg 122) amongst all the ridiculous assertions made in the book reads thus: ‘…the seeds for the fall of the UPA were sown in the very first years of the Government’. Now, in the Indian democratic setup, any Government (barring J&K) has a term of 5 years. Here, the UPA not only completed its tenure of 5 years, it got re-elected and ruled for a full 5 years again. So, just how can it be said that the so-called seeds of the Government’s fall in 2014 were sown in 2004?

Vir’s analysis of 2009 elections is good enough except for his laughable contention (Pg 131) that the BJP was projected to win these elections. No credible poll at any point of time (except those which Vir seems to have smoked up) projected this possibility. All polls at all times predicted the return of the UPA though with an improved performance from the NDA. And how could any poll have predicted any scenario otherwise when the BJP had lost even more allies and Advani’s Prime Minister candidature (with his now iconic karate chop image staring from hoardings) even more uninspiring than that of Manmohan Singh? Vir ignores the role played by Rahul Gandhi in those polls. Public memory is short and given the ridicule surrounding Rahul Gandhi of 2014, it is difficult now to visualize that the same Rahul Gandhi was looked upon as a beacon of hope by vast sections of rural populace and at least in states like Uttar Pradesh, his campaign had had a direct positive impact on the Congress’s performance.

The closing chapter on Elections 2014 is good but lacks any worthwhile comment on what made Narendra Modi the phenomenon that he became. 

The book is not without merits though. It is a light read, something you could pick up for a short flight or while waiting at the Doctor’s reception and still manages to provide a good deal of information for the unaware. What stands out is the author’s personal recollection of the 1971 election campaign when Indira Gandhi’s pro-poor stance drew mass hysteria. What is particularly good is the author’s take on Punjab terrorism and his articulation of the anti-Hindu stance of radical Sikhs and the killings they had unleashed. Vir does good service to history when he highlights the role played by a systematic media campaign in influencing public mood in 1984. Good again are his portraits of some personalities like that of VP Singh. The high point though are some bitchy comments like: ‘But Manmohan Singh had his admirers. Most people who did not know him well regarded him as a humble, decent apolitical figure…..’, which say much more than what entire paras would. 

Overall, an underwhelming book.

Sorry Amish. Loved your Shiva trilogy. But you are way off mark when assessing Vir Sanghvi’s ‘effort’.

Freedom of Speech! Anyone?

Many see the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an assault on freedom of speech. Hence, many publications worldwide decided to strike a blow for freedom by producing Charlie Hebron’s cartoons. India chatterati, not to be left behind, have spoken ominously of dark days for free speech in India. Op-eds, full of homilies on how Charlie Hebdo’s ideas have emerged stronger abound, when strangely, not a single Indian publication has reproduced those cartoons which triggered the murders. Even in the US, where free speech is soundly protected by law, most publications have resorted to reproducing the more benign of those cartoons.

If it is really about free speech and if the liberal really believe in standing in solidarity with the martyred magazine, should not they have reproduced each of those offensive caricatures? Some might argue that supporting the general idea does not mean supporting specifics. True. But in the given situation, where publications/opinion-makers would like others to believe that they are not scared, what better way of proving that by doing something which really counts. Many Indian leaders differed with Gandhi. Most did not believe that preparing salt from sea-water would win India freedom. Yet, when Gandhi was arrested, the only way people showed solidarity was by breaking the law to prepare salt. When a lathi blow would take one Satyagrahi down, another one would take the fallen’s place. Not long back, standing up in solidarity with Salman Rushdie meant excerpt-reading, calling him for conferences. Hence, by desisting from taking a meaningful stand, most publications are only indulging in lip service when they engage in sterile and meaningless talks on freedom of speech.

The general reaction of news channels, media houses, liberal-voices only prove that the Islamists have won. Mani Shankar Aiyar is not the only person who has justified the massacre. Many self-proclaimed liberal voices have alluded that Charlie Hebdo invited what befell them. Were they not xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, blasphemous? Were their cartoons not devoid of artistic merit but crude caricatures designed to provoke? And, if even in this charged atmosphere, when support for those killed is at its crest, the champions of free speech are desisting from ‘offending’, is it too much to imagine that self-censorship of any opinion critical of Islam is only becoming more entrenched? For many years, ‘mainstream’ publications have shown a remarkable reluctance to offer a critique of Islamic fundamentalism. If an ISS or a Taliban does get criticized, it is on grounds of their supposed mis-interpretation of Islamic scriptures. Really? People who have no idea of what a Hadith is claiming to know Islam better than those who spend their entire life in studying Quran and the life of its Prophet? When the Church opposes the theory of evolution, liberals don’t claim that the former is ‘mis-interpreting’ Christianity. They rightly point out to the stupidity of the faithful’s holding on to an erroneous belief. Likewise, no amount of whitewashing can justify scriptural sanctions for untouchability in Hinduism. Hence, the ‘right-thinking’ people offer their critiques and speak of the need to reform and discard such offensive belief systems. Yet, when it comes to Islam, somehow, the fault always becomes that of the victim. Be it any part of the world, the Muslims get presented as a marginalized community, beset with image problems, more sinned rather than sinning and most importantly, whose each atrocity is a reaction of the weak – terrorism a result of western imperialism, geopolitics, murders and arson an outcome of offended feelings.

The Kouachi brothers have achieved internationally what Ilm-ud-din achieved in India about 85 years back. Like the Kouachi brothers, Ilm-ud-din decided to award the punishment for blasphemy to Rajpal for having penned Rangila Rasool (which incidentally was in response to Sita ka Chinala which depicted Goddess Sita as a prostitute) and killed the latter in a crowded Lahore bazaar in 1929. Jinnah, the arch-secularist (at least as per Indian liberals and LK Advani) fought the case for the murderer and lost. Ilm-ud-din was hung. But, till the time the trial was in progress, Muslim crowds would line up the roads between the jail and the court and shower Ilm-ud-din with rose petals. His funeral was attended by almost a million and eulogies given by, among others, another arch-secularist, Allama Iqbal. A mosque was built in his honour and even to this day, Ilm-ud-din is fondly remembered by the Pakistani masses as a Shaheed and a Ghazi (Islamic holy warrior). Rajpal’s murder, coming 3 years after Swami Shraddhanand’s assassination by Abdul Rashid, ensured that the fear of death dictated criticism of Islam in India. Though much maligned (and in a way undeserving of such praise), the RSS and its offshoots or even the Hindu Mahasabha never dared to criticize the Prophet and Islam the way Arya Samaj had done in their publications. Even someone like AG Noorani, the pen-wielding Islamic fundamentalist who can trace Islamophobia in almost anything, would be hard-pressed to affix such blame on the Sangh Parivar.

If current reactions are anything to go by, the ‘Ghazi’ Kouachi brothers have ensured that even the more virulent critics of Islam will think multiple times before committing ‘blasphemy’. We will see and hear more on why and how Islamic atrocities are result of deliberate provocation of Muslims and how the victims of Islamic violence deserved their fate. So, at least, the Kouachi brothers have neither killed nor died in vain. They have ensured that the Quranic punishment for blasphemy has become mainstream!

While even the idea that someone needs to be killed because he/she wrote something offensive is revolting, the holier-than-thou approach of Indian fiberals (fake liberals) is simply nauseating. By seeking to equate people protesting against PK or against MF Hussain’s paintings with the murderers, our fiberals are only displaying their depths of intellectual corruption. But seriously, what can really be expected from a bunch of people who prefer to call Kashmiris driven out of their homes as migrants while calling a rich, resourceful painter who voluntarily acquired Qatari citizen (of course, a most liberal Nation), an exile? Or is it that that Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari is the real icon of the fiberals? It would seem so, for it was only in Andher Nagari that each crime, irrespective of gravity, had a similar punishment. So, how are our conscience keepers wrong when they bay for the blood of ‘right-wing’ ‘loonies’ who like their Islamic counterparts go around shooting, stabbing, demonstrating in millions, attacking Nations, fighting wars, enslaving people, conducting massacres, forced conversions, punishing for blasphemy, yada yada. Yet, the similarities must stop. While the ISS and RSS are two sides of the same coin, each act of ISS is justified while the existence itself of RSS is liberal blasphemy.

Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which our fiberals want to be clamped on each right-wing loony is actually Jinnah’s gift to India. In the aftermath of Ilm-ud-din’s hanging, Jinnah prevailed upon the British Government to introduce this Section to make offending religious sensibilities a crime. Read the op-eds on ‘hate speech’. Our fiberals want liberal use of this section to clamp down on Hindutvavadis. So much so for freedom of speech.

While the fiberals do want freedom of speech for books banned under protests from the Hindutvavadis, not so strangely, they are supportive of bans on books seen as critical of Islam. ‘Understanding Islam through Hadis’, ‘Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion’ are only two among the many books deemed inflammatory and banned by Governments to indifference or active support of the fiberals. Yet, let us move a little away from religion. Indian press has, unfortunately, has hardly taken a principled stand on the issue of free speech. Not long back, a Marathi play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye was banned by NDA 1. Forget about campaigning against this ban, the fiberals led a campaign for this ban. More recently, Sakshi Maharaj (otherwise a convicted criminal garbed in saffron) was virtually lynched for pointing out the patriotism underlying Nathuram’s murder of Gandhi. The ‘Polyester Prince’ remains unofficially banned and so does the ‘Descent of Air India’. Any campaign in their favour?

The Indian fiberals has reduced ‘Freedom of Speech’ to a tool of subjugation. They decide on what ‘deserves’ to be free and what is profane. No wonder ideas and speech are under attack!

Blast from the Past: An interview of Shri LK Advani

‘It is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future.’ KM Munshi, Union Food and Agriculture Minister, in his letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, on the latter’s reservations on restoration of the Somnath temple. 

Browsing through old records is in quite a lot of ways, humbling. Humbling because even the relatively well aware forget the spirits of the past. Humbling, because these records indicate that one time colossuses, intellectual or otherwise, sometimes become a poor replica of their past selves. 

Following is the reproduction of some extracts of an interview of Shri L K Advani, reproduced from G. Vazirani’s ‘Lal Advani: The Man and His Mission (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1991). If nothing, this extract offers glimpses of the man’s convictions which made him a leader of his people. Quite a contrast it throws against the tentative and apologetic approach of many of our leaders today.

Q. What; according to the BJP, is the main issue in the coming elections (of 1991)? 

LKA. The main issue is going to revert back to the what was being talked about two months back. Mainly how can the unity of this country be preserved? What is nationalism? How do you ensure social harmony? Communal harmony? And in that context what is secularism? These issues have been there all along but have been sharply focused on as a result of Ayodhya. I view this not as an issue of Ayodhya, though at the level of the common man, the common voter, it will continue to be Ayodhya. I view it in this context. And this I believe is going to be the principle issue in this election.

Q. How do you square a purely religious ritual like temple building with the larger Hindutva concept?

LKA. I would like to answer this question by recalling Sardar Patel’s approach to Hindu-Muslim problems. His approach was that it is a broadly Hindu country and the tendency to shy away from Hindu feeling is not secularism. Take the case of Somnath, something like this could not have happened now. Some might say it was the aftermath of Partition and therefore it took place. I would say no. It was because of Patel. Nehru did not like it even then.

Q. How do you justify the BJP stand that the Rama Temple issue is a matter of faith?

LKA. There was that theft of the Prophet’s hair at the Hazrat Bal shrine in Srinagar. Now if someone explains that the relic has been stolen and the state must exert its entire energy to see that it is recovered, and someone counters: ‘Can you prove that this is the Prophet Mohammad’s hair?’ Would it be a right question? But I for one would say, that as my Muslim brethren believe that it is the hair of the Prophet, I respect their sentiments.

Similarly if crores of Hindus believe that it is the birthplace of Rama, I would expect the state as well as other sections of opinion in this country, especially the minorities, to respect that sentiment and say, ‘Well, if you believe that it is the birthplace of Rama, it is the birthplace of Rama, we are not asking you to prove this.’

Q. Isn’t upholding the cause of temple construction communal? What about the Muslims’ claim that it is the site of a mosque?

LKA. As for the Ayodhya site, for 54 years no one has offered namaz there. From 1949, 40 years now, regular poojas are going on. One should end the dispute on this. Moreover, the VHP has offered that, if you are attrached to the bricks and mortar, which you call a mosque, we are willing to reverently shift it to another site where you can construct another mosque, we would even contribute to its construction. It would be an amicable solution and settlement of the problem.

Q. How do you relate your demand for the construction of the Rama temple at Ayodhya to the larger issue of secularism? How do you propose to dispel the misgivings among the Muslims on this score?

LKA. I am fighting against the attitude of politicians and political parties that anything associated with Hinduism is communal, their allergy to it and their idea that if you cherish this allergy, only then your secular credentials are proved.

I have not made it a temple issue. I have made is an issue of secularism, of national unity. I am also trying to convert it into an issue pertaining to the welfare of the so-called minorities – that this is not their interest. These days Muslims meet me and say ‘humko jahan phasa diya. Humko pata bhi nahi tha ki hum wahan jaa bhi nahi sakte.’

And these political parties have done a singular disservice even to the reputation of the country by propagating that the Hindus have suddenly gone mad under the leadership of the BJP and they want to pull down a 500 year old mosque and build a temple in its place. If the facts were to be presented, the impression would be totally different. Hindus have not become fundamentalists. Not at all. It is a remarkable though happy fact that there are 35 mosques in Ayodhya apart from the controversial one. Not one of them was touched during these months of turmoil. Lakhs of people visited the place. All of them extremely devout and passionate. Not one of them was touched. Why is that no Muslims were killed in Ayodhya?  No riots took place in Ayodhya, Why?

It is our responsibility to see that the misgivings which have been deliberately created by our adversaries are removed. But at the same time, the efforts to remove those misgivings should not tend to make us apologetic and defensive about our basic beliefs. 

Q. What do you mean by positive secularism?

LKA. Positive secularism flows from our commitment to national unity which is an article of faith for us and not just a slogan to be converted into slick spots for TV. Our Constitution seeks to strengthen this unity by rejecting theocracy and by guaranteeing equality to all citizens, irrespective of their religion. These are the two principal facets of secularism as our Constitution makers conceived them, For most politicians in the country, however, secularism has become just a device for garnering block minority votes.

I wish the country’s political leadership; irrespective of party affiliations, could realize that the utterances and activities of some elements among the minorities are becoming increasingly aggressive and are ominously reminiscent of the pre-1947 years. These elements must be isolated, not propitiated. If these elements are allowed to grow, the consequences can be extremely dangerous for national integrity. Appeasement failed to avert partition. Appeasement is no way of combating the present threats to national unity. These threats have to be met head on, and squarely spiked. 

The BJP believes in Positive Secularism; the Congress-I and most other parties subscribe only to Vote Secularism. Positive Secularism means; justice for all but appeasement of none. In the ensuing elections, let this become the BJP’s distinctive message to the nation. 

Q. Why do you say that the courts cannot settle the dispute about the Ayodhya site? Why are you not prepared to abide by a judicial verdict?

LKA. My party has never said that we will not accept a court verdict. What we have said is that the nature of the controversy is such that a court verdict will not solve the problem. That is all that I say. Further, I say, let us understand that this present turmoil, the present acute controversy has itself arisen from court verdicts. It is not arisen because of any agitation as much as it has arisen out of court verdicts – tow court verdicts, one of 1951 and the second of 1986.

The 1951 case was Gopal Singh Visharad vs Zahoor Ahmed and others, and the court was that of the Faizabad Civil Judge. The Judge observed in this judgement of 3 March 1951 that, ‘At least from 1936 onwards, the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque not offered prayers there and that the Hindus have been performing their pooja, etc.’ on the disputed site. And on that basis, he granted a temporary injunction, against removal of idols, though for considerations of low and order he said that locks should be imposed on the gates, the pooja should be done from a distance, people need not go inside, In 1986, the District Judge, Faizabad, referred to this 1951 order and directed that, ‘As for the last 35 years, Hindus have had an unrestricted right of worship at the place’, the locks put on two gates in 1951 on grounds of law and order should be removed. This is Civil Appeal No. 65/1986. It is after this appeal that suddenly the controversy became very acute, very bitter. Shortly after this, the Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed. 

Now the people are asking why are these locks there even after 40 years, why are we not allowed to have pooja without any hindrance, without any difficulty? I for one am of the view that if the Central Government had taken note of the problem that obtained in Prabhas Patan, a seaside plant in Gujarat in Surashtra, where at one time there was that Somnath Temple which was razed to the ground many times, destroyed many times, reconstructed many times, it would have been different.

Q. What is wrong in making a national monument of the Ayodhya site so that it will be neither a Hindu nor Muslim but will be purely of archeological interest?

LKA. A similar suggestion was made in the case of Somnath also. Many bureaucrats were unhappy over the decision of the Government to reconstruct the temple. The Department of Archeology itself suggested that the site at Prabhas Patan – where originally, there was the Somnath Temple and subsequently there was a graveyard – should be declared a .protected monument’. The then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, put it down in writing his reactions to the proposal. The Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely that this sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of the temple or by prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and sentiment for the Hindu public.

----

Am planning to reproduce another interview, explaining why the acts of December 6, 1992 were a setback.

Self Mutilation as Politics

Old is Gold, it is said. And indeed, Eastern civilizations abound in tales of the wise, who were invariably old, venerable figures. It is not without reason that the longest chapter in the Mahabharata is Shanti Parva, containing discourse of the Kuru Elder, Bhishma. In an era, where wisdom meant tales, both experiential and heard, having weathered numerous summers and having enjoyed countless springs was the surest way to assemble knowledge.

Even today, the oldest of the intellectuals, if still mentally agile, can astound the young with depth of their knowledge. 

Yet, time is a tireless enemy which creeps upon one and sundry. While ageing and signs of entropy are seldom a pleasant sight, the pain becomes more pronounced when time impacts people who were instrumental in creating history.

Whichever side of the divide one is, one will be hard pressed not to pause and wonder on what has made the architect of the modern Hindutva movement in India a pale shadow of what he was. For a man who could do no wrong, be it strongly articulating the Hindu angst, making the BJP the party for power, grooming the strongest Gen-next leadership in the nineties, supporting liberalization, renouncing electoral politics when stained or giving up the claim to Prime Ministership, the tables seem to have turned so much so that his once killer political instincts seem to have got seriously blunted.

The last decade and a half have not been kind to Shri Advani. For a man who was seen as a successor to Sardar Patel, his stint as the Home Minister will always be overshadowed by the colossal mismanagement of Kandhar hijacking. His only real shot at Prime Ministership in 2004 got mired in the thoughtless India Shining campaign and his intellectually dishonest declaration of Jinnah as secular robbed him of the moral high ground he possessed. If the admirer still hoped that the genius of Shri Advani would ensure his rebirth, he was disappointed again when the sham of Notes for Vote hit the Nation. This was not all. The Nation had to be a party to the spectacle of Shri Advani being made the butt of joke for his dumbbell lifting, karate chop acts in 2009 General elections followed by the unseemly scene of the diminishing RSS trying to order a reluctant Advani off the public sphere.

Now, Advaniji seems intent on making a spectacle of the BJP yet again by forcing the reluctant party to contest the lost Presidential elections.

It is not difficult to empathize with those who don’t desire a contest. For an election which is already lost, what is to be gained by diminishing one’s stature even more? If the BJP were so serious about contesting, why did they have to wait to finalize a candidate for so long? If Kalam was the intended choice, why could the BJP not convince even Jayalalitha to support him? We are now left with the spectacle of the party going mall-shopping for candidates with the ageing Advani trying to push support for Sangma. For the apologists, that the BJP is not willing to give the UPA a walkover is reason valid enough to contest and a public display of its willingness to fight the UPA is certain to boost BJP’s standing among the general public.

But seriously, what will the BJP gain by contesting a no-gamer? If it for symbolic value of supporting a tribal, a Christian for the President’s post, the media and Mr Advani will do good to themselves to remember that the first such candidate was put up by the BJP itself in 1992, in form of Mr George Gilbert Swell, against Shankar Dayal Sharma. While we don’t know if that sagacious act led to any accretion of BJP’s support base amongst the Christian community, what we certainly know is that the same GG Swell denounced the BJP on the floor of the house in 1996 and voted against the confidence vote on the thirteen day Vajpayee Government. This was barely 10 days post his affirming his and 6 fellow MPs support to Vajpayee, but that is another story.

Even though the outcome of the Presidential Elections of 2007 was even more pre-determined, the NDA still had valid grounds to contest the polls. Not only did the Sonia Gandhi led UPA commit an atrocity on the Nation in form of the current incumbent’s candidature, the BJP had a towering personality, as its presidential candidate. Further, even though the NDA did not expand (Shiv Sena actually walked away), it did manage to gain votes of the AIADMK, Panther’s Party, INLD, AGP and AGP(P) in those polls.

Here, even before the polls, the Shiv Sena has yet again walked away and it is likely that the JD(U) and Akali Dal will follow suit. If the motive is to gain affection of either Mamata, Jaya or Naveen, why does it have to be at the cost of long standing allies, the only ones from the 1996 Government days?

Even if the BJP had a good candidate, would it still be a reason enough to oppose Pranab Mukherjee? Granted that Mr Mukherjee’s stint as the Finance Minister has not been great, granted that his image is even more Teflon coated than Mr Jaitley’s in the sense that there has not been even the slightest hint of criticism of his role and even granted that as Finance Minister, he cannot absolve himself of responsibility regarding numerous scams which have plagued the UPA regimes. Still, Mr Mukherjee deserves to be the President of the country, if for nothing else, for bringing back a semblance of gravity to the post.

It is after twenty five years that the country has the opportunity of having as its Head, a political personality, who is neither a lightweight, nor a political has-been or a symbolic appointment. The winner of the 1987 polls, R Venkatraman was in active politics when he became the President and had been the home and defence minister of the country. His successor, Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma was leading a semi retired life in form of gubernatorial postings before he became the Vice President. Following him was KR Narayanan, a political lightweight who became President on account of being at the right place at the right time. While Dr APJ Abul Kalam enjoyed phenomenal popularity as the President, he was not a political person when nominated and his glory days with DRDO were far behind him. Regarding his successor, the lesser said the better. Though, to be fair to her, Ms Patil has conducted herself much more admirably that the outrightly biased KR Narayanan.

Compared to his 4 predecessors, Pranab Mukherjee, with almost half a century of political life behind him, is much better placed to don the role of the President of this country. If Mr Mukherjee is to be opposed merely for the reason that Ms Sonia Gandhi displayed ill grace in not even consulting with the NDA leaders before announcing his candidature, well, that is a fig leaf of a reason and only serves to even more belittle the dignity of the post.

But why, why does Mr Advani, (alongwith Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Anant Kumar) persist in pushing for a contest? While for Anant Kumar, it could be a mode of repaying his debt to Advaniji for standing by him in his intrigues against Yedyurappa, for Ms Swaraj, it could either be a genuine respect for the patriarch or a baser way of getting back at Mr Arun Jaitley. What we need not speculate is the reason behind Advaniji’s persistence. Who else, but the Trojan who has destroyed Advani and in the process damaged the BJP beyond recognition? Yes, the architect of the India Shining campaign, of the secular Jinnah fiasco, of the Notes for Vote sham, is at it once again. And he will not rest till his mission, i.e., decimation of the BJP is achieved.

Even for the most noble purpose of vanquishing the enemy, it is difficult for any person to cohabit with it, to claim to think of its good, to denounce one’s old attachments and be careful enough not to utter what one holds dear in life. It is one thing to say that one should mingle with the enemy to defeat if and another to practice. But, it is men like Sudheendra Kulkarni who can warm our hearts enough to still believe that men can still be committed to their ideology strongly enough and do what was hitherto considered impossible. One can only salute the bitter pills Kulkarni has swallowed and still swallows as he proclaims himself a BJP man. One cannot even imagine the torment his soul is under as he hides his Marxist identity and wears a saffron mask. O Kulkarni, you are a Trojan if there was one.

Trojan in Trap

The now forgotten Mitrokhin Archives had a small chapter devoted to India where in one of the notes, the Soviet Communist Party has expressed its satisfaction that the Communist Party of India, following its instructions, had allowed its members to join the Congress (I) at various levels of leadership. This happened for the Communists realized the impracticality of their coming to power in India, either through ballot or through bullet and settled for the next best – ensuring the rule of their ideology through influence. 

While this infiltration lasted from the mid sixties to the mid seventies, it had its reflection in a curious event occurring in the mid 90s’. It would seem that the Communists, unable to bring themselves to infiltrate the BJP on account of their visceral hatred for the reactionary right, settled for the 3^rd best – installing a Trojan Horse in the party to destroy it from within.

A cursory look at the career of Sudheendra Kulkarni would indicate that he managed to do just about that – the man who can claim disproportionate credit for the ghastly ‘India Shining’ campaign and more importantly, shaking the ideological roots of the party with his design of its architect’s LK Advani’s ‘Jinnah…my homage to a Great man.’ comments. What Kulkarni managed to do in his short stint with the BJP is enviable by any standards. Not only did he become a close confidante of AB Vajpayee, he managed to win the ultimate confidence of Advani too, something which very few leaders in the BJP had managed.  A measure to his influence could be assessed from the fact that within 2 years of his joining the BJP (he joined the party in 1996); the party managed to set aside its ideological moorings (1998 elections) and jettisoned it completely in the next 6 years (2004 elections). It is a wonder that a man as erudite and intellectual as Advani could allow himself to be influenced by Kulkarni, so much so that the architect of the modern Indian polity, had no second thoughts in disowning the baby he had reared. 

Of course, with the disaster of 2009, Kulkarni had to quit the BJP in disgrace. This quitting however, in no way meant that the man was out of favor of his mentor Advani. Advani made it a point to defend him time and again and it is a matter of time before Kulkarni is brought back to the BJP with full honors intact.

If one wonders as to why a seemingly lightweight like Kulkarni is being given so much of space today, it is all courtesy the mis-adventure of cash for votes sting operation. While the arrest of the 2 BJP ex MPs, Suhail Hindustani and Kulkarni do seem like a travesty of justice and must be condemned, one wonders whether Kulkarni had contrived the failure of this sting right from the beginning.

For one – the partner chosen for the sting was IBN-Live, whose owners Rajdeep Sardesai et al, form a part of the Sonia fan brigade, a channel which never even attempted to hide its sympathies for the Congress and abhorrence of the BJP and the one which led the cacophonous cry of (alongwith NDTV) ‘Singh is King’ when Manmohan ‘Integrity’ Singh won the vote of confidence. How could a rational person even imagine that the views channel would do anything which would besmirch the reputation of the spotlessly clean UPA Government? It happened what had to happen – the sting was not aired and when aired after a considerable gap, it was a mild edited version of the entire operation. BJP pretended to boycott the channel for sometime and soon, the boycott too was forgotten.

Second – Neither Advani, nor the BJP made a big deal over the tainted vote of confidence or the scam. While it is understood that the man of impeccable integrity, Somnath Chatterjee, counted all votes cast as valid (even though the Anti Defection Act declares such votes as invalid), what is not understandable is the BJP’s silence post that. Except for asking for disqualification of the defecting MPs, the BJP did not challenge the speaker’s decisions, neither in the Parliament nor in the Court of Law. Further, the BJP did not make it an election campaign either. No Sir, no squeak on the ‘spotless’ Prime Minister winning his trust vote on the basis on damned lies and corrupt practices.

After a gap of 3 years, the still born investigation in the cash-for-votes scam was given a breath of life by the Supreme Court. But in yet another inexplicable turn of events, the Court has dissociated itself with monitoring of the case and we have a situation where the perpetrators of the crime are roaming free, not even having been named, leaved aside being questioned and imprisoned, the scam-busters are behind bars.

For those trying to paint a nuanced picture of the BJP wallahs being entrappers and not a sting operator, let them go back to the procedures adapted by the anti corruption bureau. People are caught red-handed while accepting bribes, traps for which are set by the agency itself. Or let us go back to the Left and Congress celebrated stings conducted by Tehelka. Right from Bangaru Laxman to Dileep Singh Judeo to Gujarat riots to cash for questions, traps were sprung. Nowhere did it happen that the accused had themselves sought out the scambusters and asked for bribes / shared information – so how different is the cash for votes sting conducted by the BJP that it be condemned. Of course, Tehelka being owned by the son of a senior Congress leader from Punjab, the former’s condemnation of the BJP sponsored sting is understandable. What is not understandable is the willing suspension of reason and plain indifference from the relatively more neutral and right thinking of our not-so-civil society.

Maybe and remotely maybe, our indifference to the UPA shenanigans and the plight of Kulkarni flows from our sub-conscious realization that the sting did not flow from an honest intent. Even otherwise, a few days in Tihar pale in comparison his monumental sin of having irreparably compromised the father figure of modern Indian Nationalism.