The struggle for India

But above all, it was a party that believed in seeking power for its own sake. The one god that was worshipped above all others was the god of power. To propitiate that god and to attain that objective any means was permitted and used. Since the path to power was the use of power, the means became the end.

It was this moral ruthlessness that distinguished the Jan Sangh, the first incarnation of the BJP, from the Hindu Mahasabha. It was this ruthlessness, too, that enabled it to take over and practically decimate the Hindu Mahasabha. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was no match for Guruji Golwalker when it came to a tussle for power. Incidentally, in these days of uncleared mysteries of the violent death of political leaders, it is as well to remember that the circumstances of the death of Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay have not been satisfactorily explained.

The late Madhu Limaye told all who cared to hear that for most of his listeners the unscrupulousness of Nazis and fascists was something picked up from textbooks. He had had first-hand experience when he was a leader of the Janata Party, which included the Jan Sangh. The manner in which its leaders plotted and manipulated against the other components of the Janata Party horrified him. The BJP has not departed from the practice of its predecessor. It has carried forward that tradition.

But there is a difference. The internal conflicts in the BJP now have turned uglier. The clash between Vajpayee and Govindacharya is only a trailer of the film that is in the making. The former is the butt of the slander campaign of his more RSS-inclined colleagues. The charge is that his personal ambition to be Prime Minister during the tenure of the eleventh Lok Sabha is responsible for driving him to try to repeat Lucknow in Delhi.

The BJP is no less amoral than other parties in pursuit of the goal of being the ruling party. It has, however, been more ruthless.

As for following in the footsteps of the Congress in securing defections, the BJP’s performance in Lucknow is not new. Wherever and whenever it has been in a minority, it has not hesitated to increase its numbers by dubious means. It is true that it was hoist on its own petard by Vaghela. But it should not be forgotten that the latter learnt his politics in the BJP. He did to the leaders of that party what they had taught him to do unto others.In any event, for sheer effrontery in violating all democratic norms in Lucknow, the BJP has beaten all records. It is absurd to try to cover up the atrocious nature of the BJP’s dagger thrust against parliamentary democracy by making snide and cynical remarks about the Congress.

It is, however, a fact that the Congress has an unenviable record on the protection of democratic norms. There has been a sad departure from the high standards set by Pandit Nehru. The founders of parliamentary democracy have been found wanting at times in protecting it. A special responsibility devolves on the Congress to try to regain the status that it once had.

Straightaway defection can be defined as voting by a member against a whip. The person should lose his or her seat, should the party make such a demand to the presiding officer of the Assembly or Parliament. At the same time, taking up issues or making speeches against the party should not be made a ground for disqualification. Dissent has to be separated from defection.

The Congress would redeem some of its prestige were it to take the initiative on this issue. Simply finding fault with the BJP is not enough.

The BJP and all other parties should also compete on this issue. This would do more than anything else to restore the faith of the common people in the multi-party parliamentary democratic system.

It would be a pity if such healthy competition were not to take place. The pity of pities is that this is unlikely to happen. The BJP believes that as matters now stand it may even become the ruling party at the Centre. Even if this were to happen the BJP would face a debacle: the debacle of its identity.

The debacle is inherent in its identity. Recent events have only brought this out into the open. The BJP cannot come to power on its own, least of all at the Centre. It also cannot be itself and yet be part of a coalition. The reason is its false belief that communalised Hinduism can be the basis of State and society in India. It further falsely believes that it can camouflage this belief in the guise of cultural nationalism.

As far as State and society in India are concerned, it is secular nationalism that has been and remains the norm. Communalisation is an eruption and aberration. Indians of different religious beliefs and of the same religious belief have fought with and killed one another on several occasions. But they have settled down after these negative interruptions to once again being good neighbours. Religion does form an important part of our lives but not in a divisive or demonic manner. It occupies a large part of our space but not all of it. Though integrated as a people, our lives are loosely woven, a many-hued mosaic.

Certainly, Hindu dharma has played a large part in making this so. But the biggest shaper has been the process of the making of ourselves as a nation.

It has not been the process of the melting pot which is said to have made the US a nation. Nor is it an ordained or imposed identity as was attempted in the Soviet Union. It has been shaped by accretion reaching a critical point through our national revolution and the winning of the national state.

Behind the cacophony of seemingly myriad noises of dispute are two strong themes. Both concern the survival of India. Both have their versions of nationalism. One is the continuation of what came to a climax with the establishment of the nation State. The other is the substitution of this state by an ideological-denominational State, by a theocracy, call it by whatever name you will. This is at the heart of the present struggle for India.