AUTUMN OF THE PATRIARCHS

In 1988, Vajpayee showed his party the benefits of coalitions after a successful experiment with the Lok Dal in Haryana. In the CPI(M), Surjeet and Jyoti Basu argued that an indirect cooperation with BJP to cut down the Congress was good. The cooperation between the Left, BJP and the Janata Dal led to the formation of V P Singh’s government in 1989.

‘‘Both have a special ability to rise above their own parties and maintain good personal rapport with leaders of other parties. They command respect from others,’’ says JDU leader Sharad Yadav who has closely worked with both. The TDP, AIADMK, DMK and various factions of the Janata Parivar often switched sides, either citing Vajpayee’s statesmanlike presence or coming under the persuasive spell of the Sardar.

‘‘Surjeet is a practical man. He applied the ‘march separately, but strike together’ approach of Mao in the Indian context—first in ending the monopoly of the Congress and then in stopping the ride of the BJP,’’ says CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury.

Surjeet has been an enigma of sorts—a clever practitioner of power politics who managed to retain his air of aloofness.

In 1989, Devi Lal invited Surjeet, a fellow Jat, to contest from a ‘safe seat’ but got no for an answer. Clearly, Surjeet had enough power without being in power. For instance, in the 1990s, during a party drive to help Cuba, the rice collected was not enough to fill the ship that was to carry it to Cuba. Surjeet stepped in and made a few phone calls. That did the trick. After his party collected money for medicines to send to Cuba in the mid-’90s, Surjeet procured the drugs from his friends among manufacturers at hugely subsidised prices. And when thousands of people who landed in Delhi for CPI(M) processions would knock at his doors for shelter, Surjeet usually made a few phone calls and got all gurdwaras in the city opened for them.

Pragmatism is a quality that Surjeet doesn’t lack. In 1996, when regional parties proposed Jyoti Basu’s name for Prime Minister, Surjeet supported the move. But when the party rejected it, Surjeet suggested H D Deve Gowda’s name. When I.K. Gujral replaced Gowda, it was against Surjeet’s formula, which favoured Mulayam. The formula, however, settled the war over portfolio allocation. All problems reached his table and nobody has a complaint against the way he resolved it. ‘‘Regional parties have a lot of contradictions, but Surjeet managed to bring them on a common platform,’’ says Yechury.

THOUGH a product of Hindutva politics, Atal Bihari Vajpayee was never identified with it. Few even in the BJP know that the term ‘pseudo secular’ was coined not by Advani, but by Vajpayee who used it first in a Jan Sangh souvenir in 1969.

But Vajpayee steered clear of the campaign which culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid. He resisted the move to start construction of a temple at Ayodhya, even at the cost of annoying the RSS and the VHP. The BJP, at his behest, put the three contentious issues—Ayodhya, Article 370 and a common civil code—on the shelf primarily to cobble together an alliance of over twenty parties. Indira Gandhi, V P Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Narasimha Rao, Deve Gowda and Gujral had run governments before, but Vajpayee institutionalised the arrangement for power-sharing by 22 parties. For the Congress to a make a serious bid to return to power in 2004, Sonia had to abandon her party’s earlier resolve to go it alone. She decided to emulate Vajpayee, aided and abetted, of course, by Surjeet.

Unlike other BJP politicians, Vajpayee has shared a special bond with leaders of other parties, particularly former Prime Ministers

P. V. Narasimha Rao and Chandra Shekhar. BJP-baiters like Lalu Prasad Yadav are personally critical of Advani, but not Vajpayee. In one of the no-confidence motions that Vajpayee faced as Prime Minister, Chandra Shekhar voted against him but negotiated the support of Akali Dal for the government.

Vajpayee’s rising above his party and Sangh Parivar was evident on several occasions—pursuing good relations with Pakistan and China and visiting the two countries as foreign minister in the Morarji Desai government. When he became the prime minister, he pursued the same policy. The launch of the rail and bus services between India and Pakistan, coupled with efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue, endeared him to Muslims. That is why even parties like the Telugu Desam, DMK and Trinamool Congress, which are very sensitive to Muslim sentiments, have invoked his name when they aligned with the BJP. Vajpayee is much less pointed when he attacks his rivals, which means there’s little resulting bitterness. Therefore, it is easier for him to deal with them. For example, one does not remember if he ever attacked Sonia Gandhi on the issue of foreign origin in the same manner as say Advani, Rajnath Singh, Pramod Mahajan, Sushma Swaraj or Uma Bharati did.

Admirers of the two stalwarts run shy of comparing the two leaders. ‘‘Surjeet has been a negotiator between the regional parties to stop BJP from coming to power even when the verdict was in our favour, as in 1998. Vajpayee built a genuine alternative to the Congress with his wide acceptability. The only comparison between the two is in age,’’ says Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP spokesperson. On the other hand, A .Vijayaraghavan, Lok Sabha member and long time comrade of Sujeet, says, ‘‘Surjeet made alliances of common principles—such as fighting the Congress or secularism. He did not deviate from the party policy or made compromises to attain power. But Vajpayee’s politics has all been only to gain and sustain power.’’

Both Vajpayee and Surjeet took their respective parties to the tide that brought in coalition politics, while India’s Grand Old Party tried to stand up to the storm in vain. Both saw the waves of change and offered to be flexible and made their respective parties increasingly relevant. While Advani took the BJP to 112 MPs in 1991 on the springboard of Hindutva, Vajpayee took it to power by forming alliances.

Surjeet managed to bargain a clout much disproportionate to CPI(M)’s strength in Parliament, first by weakening the Congress and then supporting it. After getting the spotlight fixed on his party, Surjeet is now stepping out of it. His closest comrade in the phase of transition, Jyoti Basu, too is bowing out this year. Two years older to Surjeet, Basu has been his constant companion.

The Basu-Surjeet axis, though the most vintage of Marxist leadership, has also been its most pragmatic. But at their party’s Congress this March, neither will be present. But they can rest that, with Vajpayee, they have done their bit for the evolution of Indian politics.