There is great rejoicing in the anti-BJP camp over the
fall of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government. Fawning
sycophancy -- or what Nirad C Chaudhuri eloquently
described as one of the two characteristics of a true
Congresswallah, 'depthless cowardice before power,' the
other being 'limitless insolence before justice', -- is
once again fashionable in the durbar of a reigning
Congress president. Sensing that Sonia Gandhi nee Maino
could well become India's (second woman and first
foreign) prime minister, those who flourished during the
days of the dynasty and have been desolate since the
tragic murder of Rajiv Gandhi, are back in business.
Comrade Harkishan Singh Surjeet and fellow apparatchiks
are wallowing in unrestrained triumphalism while the
AIADMK's "revolutionary leader" is basking in the glory
of destructivism of the worst kind. Meanwhile, the two
Yadav warlords of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, after the
initial euphoria over the fall of the government, are
now haunted by the memory of their guru, Ram Manohar
Lohia, spending an entire lifetime in politics
militating against the Congress and the Nehru-Indira
dynasty.
It would, however, be churlish to criticise the Congress
and others for toasting the fall of Vajpayee's
government. There would have been equal, if not more,
cheer in the BJP ranks and among its allies if, instead
of a BJP-led government, some other regime had been
defeated. That is what politics is all about today,
never mind the facade of morals and scruples behind
which politicians take refuge while denouncing
immorality and unethical practices.
Sonia Gandhi nee Maino had once famously said that she
wants to serve, and not rule the country ("Main desh ka
sashan nahin seva karna chahti hoon"). Today, having
come out of purdah and confident that nobody remembers
the woman who took refuge, husband and children in tow,
in the Italian embassy at Chanakyapuri after Indira
Gandhi's defeat in 1977, she wants to rule the country.
She would justify this shift by arguing that ruling the
country is the best way of serving the country. Don't
all Indian politicians aspire to rule India? And aren't
all of them dedicated to serving India?
Seen from the cynical perspective of an insider in
politics, the happenings since last Saturday are least
surprising and of even less consequence. Apart from the
attendant spectacle, they add up to nothing more than
one government being replaced by another. Yesterday's
lofty promises will be replaced by today's solemn
pledges. Tomorrow's India will remain the same -- a
wretched land of unmitigating poverty where hunger,
disease and death will stalk a hapless people afflicted
by illiteracy, superstition and fundamentalist bigotry.
As other countries march towards prosperity and
strength, we will slide further back.
But what about those who have held out against such
cynicism? Those who, despite the overwhelming all-round
cynicism, chose to believe in what Vaclav Havel
articulated as the 'politics of hope'? That politics
"can be not only the art of the possible, especially if
the 'possible' includes the art of speculation,
calculation, intrigue, secret deals, and pragmatic
manoeuvring, but that it can also be the art of the
impossible, namely, the art of improving ourselves and
the world"?
Speaker after speaker during the debate on the
confidence motion moved by Vajpayee at the behest of the
President of India, denounced his government and painted
it in the bleakest of colours. Minority communities,
they claimed, were feeling unsafe. But no proof was
given to substantiate this allegation. They chose to
ignore the fact that the incidence of communal violence,
compared to the previous 10 years, was the lowest in
1998 when the government they were denouncing for being
"communal" was in power. The leader of the Opposition,
Sharad Pawar, recalled the more than four decades of
"communal peace" when his party, the Congress, was in
power. He conveniently forgot that India witnessed
72,000 riots during those decades of "communal peace".
Speaker after speaker charged the government with
accentuating India's economic problems. There was
selective amnesia over the fact that while other
economies in the region were falling like nine pins, the
Indian economy survived due to the exertions of
Vajpayee's government and the GDP grew by 5.8 per cent.
Tears were shed over the lot of farmers, while the truth
is that the farm sector has performed the best during
Vajpayee's tenure. The Opposition railed against the
government for seeking foreign investment, unmindful of
how the World Bank was allowed to dictate India's
economic policy during the last Congress regime.
And while these imaginary grievances were being touted
as part of an all-party chargesheet against the
government, the stock markets were taking a nose-dive.
More than Rs 40,000 crore (Rs 400 billion) have been
wiped out since the onset of the current political
crisis, shaking investor confidence and forcing
ruination upon tens of thousands of small investors who
had staked their savings in a resurgent India. The rupee
has taken a battering, pushing up India's debt burden.
The Budget, which had been widely hailed, has gone for a
toss and will never regain its fizz even if it is passed
without amendments.
There are other incalculable damages caused by the
political upheaval -- India's image as a mature
democracy has been bruised (notwithstanding the
patronising noises made in Washington, DC), the gains
that had accrued from Pokhran II have been frittered
away and popular faith in politicians has been rudely
shaken. Moreover, although nobody is talking about it,
the inevitable mid-term election has been brought nearer
than it was thought to be, thus forcing a huge burden on
the people. India is being punished for a fault that
entirely lies with the practitioners of politics as the
art of the possible who speculated, calculated,
intrigued, struck secret deals, and indulged in
nauseating manoeuvrings.
Those who have thrown away what was clearly the only
chance at sensible governance in the absence of a clear
mandate by pulling down Vajpayee's government are
welcome to believe that they have emerged winners. But
the cruel fact is that the outcome of last Saturday's
vote was not a victory for those who voted against the
motion -- it was a defeat for those who do not share the
cynicism of the tribe of comrades, revolutionary leaders
and exalted widows that has come to occupy the
centrestage of Indian politics. It is a blow against the
belief, still held sacred by many, that politics can
"also be the art of the impossible, namely, the art of
improving ourselves and the world".
At a time when the very concept of politics of hope is
threatened by the practice of politics of cynicism, the
responsibility of the President, who is the custodian of
all that is sacred to the Republic of India, increases
by leaps and bounds. In the present instance, this is
all the more so because it is a Presidential initiative
that has precipitated the current crisis. It could well
be argued that if K R Narayanan had not asked Vajpayee
to move a confidence motion, the Opposition could have
moved a no-confidence motion. But it is rather late in
the day to debate 'ifs' and 'buts'; the deed has been
done, the consequences are there for all to see.
Even at this stage, the President can minimise the
impact of the blow against politics of hope by halting
the practitioners of politics of cynicism in their
tracks. Admittedly, this is not an easy task. But
through his actions he can demonstrate that politics is
not entirely devoid of morality and ethics. Or he can
prove that those who believe that politics can "also be
the art of the impossible, namely, the art of improving
ourselves and the world" have no place in the business
of managing India's affairs.