Choice for secularists

Nitish Kumar, over the years, has shown he is the quintessential Indian politician

In the supposed treachery and deception in the upheavals of Bihar politics, several things have come to the forefront in such a clear manner that not being able to see them would do one enormous discredit. First, without going into the ethicality of what Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar did, let those who are angry with him take note that this is not the first time that he has done such a thing. As an astute political observer has pointed out on Facebook, Mr Kumar did almost exactly the same thing four years ago, when, in protest against Narendra Modi being nominated the National Democratic Alliance’s prime ministerial candidate, he snapped the alliance with the BJP. Before that, in 2010, he fumed when, in an advertisement put out allegedly by the BJP (the party said it had nothing to do with it), he was seen holding Mr Modi’s raised hand, in a celebratory mood at that. But there he justified his stand by saying that it was Modi who was his bugbear (the advertisement did not suggest that and his anger went unquestioned) and not the BJP that had been given shape by Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani. And now that Mr Modi is no more the prime ministerial candidate but the prime minister, Mr Kumar has not made clear how he would adjust to the new BJP and how he would justify his realignment with it.

At a personal level also, his treatment of George Fernandes, who was his senior party colleague when they were both in the Samata Party before it merged into the Janata Dal(U), does not give a good account of him being a most excellent human being. So today Lalu Prasad, who should be aware of Mr Kumar’s political career, should not feel too let down. 

Nitish Kumar, through his actions over the years, has shown he is the quintessential Indian politician who finally falls prey to his own conscience. But where does all this leave the liberal intelligentsia, the class that is otherwise admirable for upholding values and keeping alive the ideas of a just and humane society. Why do they go wrong very often? The answer lies in the fact that while they sometimes identify ideological enemies correctly, they are generally wrong in their choice of friends when it comes to choosing individuals or parties. In other words, they too are guided by convenience. The best example of this is the very fateful year, 1989, perhaps the most important one since 1947. This year changed many things that 1947 had promised to bring in.

What happened in 1989? 

Rajiv Gandhi went out as prime minister. What else happened? The Left shared power at the Centre in a big way with the BJP after Rajiv Gandhi. And who supported this? Perhaps the entire intelligentsia, fed on the belief that the ‘bad guy’ was Rajiv Gandhi. It still baffles the imagination as to why the Congress had to be opposed when much that the party in power was doing had an easy commerce with what the articulate classes had, or have, been asking for? Social welfare programmes were on the upswing, and the central government was attacking communalism in a most forthright manner. The answer is if Rajiv Gandhi was bad, inevitably those who opposed him were good. Was this stupidity? Or just plain innocence? 

The BJP is without doubt a divisive party and its history conclusively proves that. But is opposing the BJP enough to establish a party or an individual’s secular credentials? Here the problem has been compounded by the fact that while secularism in India and that in Europe are by broad definition the same, that is, separating church from state, in India, owing to the diverse nature of the country, a whole lot of things have got loaded into it. It is not happenstance that words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were inserted into the Constitution in the same year. Socialism came gradually to be seen as germane to secularism and sometimes acquired primacy over it. This gave an opportunity to people such as Ram Manohar Lohia, for whom socialism meant just being anti-Nehru and serving their own constituencies, to have occasional flirtations with the Jan Sangh. This trend continues today if you look at the tallest Lohiaite, Mulayam Singh Yadav. And so long as these parties and individuals remain opposed to the BJP, they are acceptable even to the finest minds. Remember Amartya Sen’s praise of Nitish Kumar?

Secularism and democracy in India, though both were adjuncts of the Congress-led freedom movement, have not acquired a strong domain because there were no mass movements specifically in their support. ‘Not in my name’ is wonderful, but the liberals cannot afford to restrict themselves to that. Without feeling embarrassed, they have to take their message forward. They must realise secularism has to be worked upon, unlike communalism, which feeds itself largely on people’s fears and anxieties. If they don’t, they would always be hoodwinked by people — just ask anyone from Bihar.