It is clear that Prime Minister Vajpayee has tried, through his New Year eve musings, to blunt the edge of the weapon that his party wielded in Gujarat, and to rein in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad after their pronouncements about the creation of a Hindu ‘rashtra’. More important, he has reminded the BJP and VHP that this plural entity called India cannot be ruled by taking extreme positions. And that anything that is ‘‘rigid, narrow and extremist’’ may neither work nor does it reflect the true spirit of ‘Hindutva’, which is ‘‘liberal and liberating’’. Of course, in the way he has formulated it, Vajpayee is really talking about Hinduism rather than the concept of cultural nationalism — with all the connotations it evokes — fashioned by the BJP as a political tool. The problem here is not with the idea but with its deliberate deployment to divide society and garner votes. The significance of the Panaji musings goes beyond the attempt by Vajpayee to distance himself, yet again, from the VHP brand of Hindutva. By equating ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharateeyata’ (Indianness), by defining secularism as an idea of the state which respects all faiths and discriminates against none, by criticising those who pit Hindutva against secularism — here he is referring both to the secularists who refuse to understand why the normally liberal Hindu is feeling besieged, and to the Togadia brigade for making a case for the creation of a theocratic state — the PM has reached out to rediscover the increasingly elusive middle ground. Everyone acknowledges that it is his image and flexible style that make him acceptable Sceptics suspect that the musings are an exercise in semantics to obfuscate the real issues. Of course, Vajpayee is trying to assuage the fears of his NDA allies after the stridency of the Gujarat campaign. He is also reassuring those in the Western world worried about human rights. It’s also true that the moderate face of Atal Behari Vajpayee may be part of a multi-pronged strategy that suits the Sangh parivar, even though many in the Sangh suspect his commitment to the ideology. It is also likely that he will not be heeded. The BJP has already displayed a disinclination to join issue with the VHP. The party is also set on a campaign which will play on the fears of the Hindus. Many have dismissed Vajpayee’s words as nothing significant. This is not surprising for in the past the he has said one thing one day and gone back on it soon after. In his Kumarakom musings two years ago, he had sought to undo his statement that Ayodhya represented the national sentiment. He had called himself a ‘swayamsevak’ and then gone on to redefine the term when there was an outcry. He criticised Narendra Modi in Gujarat and endorsed him in Goa. He urged the non-use of Godhra as an electoral issue and then backtracked, blaming the Congress and the Muslims for not showing enough regret for what happened in Godhra. His flip-flops have to be viewed against the compulsions of running a coalition. He is the only prime minister who has successfully headed a 24-party government at the Centre, despite the challenges from within the Sangh and trouble from the mavericks heading the allied outfits. Come March, and he would have completed five years in power. That is no mean achievement given that caste, class and economic equations are breaking down at home and the world outside is changing rapidly. It is something that neither V.P. Singh nor Chandra Shekhar; neither H.D. Deve Gowda nor Inder Gujral could manage. P.V. Narasimha Rao ruled for a whole term, but his was a one-party rule after the initial months of heading a minority government. Both Advani and Vajpayee have come through the Sangh ranks but one is stuck with the image of a hawk, the other, that of a liberal. Today Advani faces the compulsion of becoming another Vajpayee. Ironically, the VHP’s charges that he is a pseudo-secularist or that his ‘rath yatra’ damaged the temple movement will only go to increase his acceptability among the allies. Finally, it comes down to a simple fact: it is only Vajpayee who could have led a NDA-type coalition. Now into his 80th year, he is still the only acceptable glue, cementing a multi-party alliance. He may not be into the nitty-gritty of administration, but everyone acknowledges — and this includes the various offshoots of the Sangh parivar — that it is his image, and his flexible and non-confrontational style, that make him acceptable. For ‘Vajpayee’ is not just as a person. He is also a message — of moderation, the middle ground, a centrist approach, a synthesis of conflicting opinions, call it what you will — which is required to govern a diverse country like India. It is this theme he keeps coming back to, despite being pulled in the other direction by the hardliners. Vajpayee can be faulted for inconsistency and for not being able to hold his own. But his flip-flops do not detract from the import of what he represents.
