Tags:
Journalism of Courage
From being a peacenik’s essay on subcontinental brotherhood, the Gujral Doctrine has turned into a kind of national indoctrination. Maybe the politics of the day, the politics of the United Front particularly, demands that. Sonia Gandhi, once the delphic diva of 10 Janpath, is currently a Howitzer-wielding, apology-spuming, Rajiv-told-me-so Congress angel, and she is the one who is defining the debate. The BJP, which has the `celestial’ mandate to be the natural opposition party of India, has the burden of not one but two prime ministerial candidates, though one is from the other parivar. And the UF, true to its traditional emphasis on multiculturalism, remains a loud example of diversity in unity. It’s a vicious triangle, and for a decent, consensus-seeking Gujral, it is too political as well. Hence this laborious shift in Gujral-speak: the Congress, a party of atrocious apologies; the BJP, `no comment’. This selective savaging of opponents is perhaps explained by the essentially non-aligned mind of anaccidental politician like Gujral. So, apology, as far as Gujral is concerned, is very American. Apologise to Iraq and its beloved leader Saddam. Apology, in the narrow provincial sense, is very Jalandhar-centric. That is why he is rather apologetic when it comes to the BJP. In Jalandhar, for the politically short-sighted, the wheel of the Dal resembles a lotus. Certainly, in such a context, even a Gujral becomes political.
Accidental? No, there is a history, of wishy-washy consensus and cultivated evasion. Remember Gujral expressing disgust with his aviation minister, that too in a foreign capital? He had `freedom’ in Kathmandu. Once in Delhi, he had to subordinate that freedom to the multipolarity of the Janata Dal. And C. M. Ibrahim continued to outfly I.K. Gujral. Gujral’s freedom, both as a Janata Dal politician and as the prime minister, was very conditional — until the election announcement. Gujral seldom dared to say stop-torturing-me to Kesri. Gujral never challenged the multipolar power structureof his party. Gujral was friendly and was for friends; Gujral wanted to perform the job pleasantly, without ever upsetting those people who could never be the members of the Saturday club in India International Centre. Gujral had a very peculiar kind of ethic system.
Where’s it gone? He is out there inaugurating a private television news channel — not in Kathmandu but at Race Course Road itself. Interestingly, not long ago, the Gujral regime demanded an explanation from the `undesirable’ owners of this channel within 72 hours. Now he is doing a political Dushasana on the lady dressed in dynasty, with Gujral the minor singing from the podium: “In this election you must send them back to Italy”. The same Gujral who once so obediently cohabited with the Congress. And, who knows, he may have to do it all over again. Currently, Gujral, the secularist, has no harsh words against the Akali Dal or the BJP, whose benevolence, not the Janata Dal’s secularism, is the last resort of a re-awakened `Punjabi’. Really?If he loses his private Punjabiyat, an internationalist like Inder Kumar Gujral can easily take refuge in the open arms of Saddam Hussein, who, too, is a secularist and an old friend.
