Vajpayee Is Really A Mask

There is no denying that Mr Vajpayee is the most acceptable face of the BJP in terms of mass popularity. That is his leverage with the BJP. But he also knows that without the BJP, he will be political zero. He had explained this dilemma when the BJP was in the midst of the Ayodhya agitation: Jayein to Jayein Kahan.. He feels he is too old to make a new political beginning. The Sangh Parivar is aware of this dilemma, so there is an uneasy relationship between it and Mr Vajpayee.

Mr Vajpayees search for moderation started roughly 25 years ago when Indira Gandhi launched her Garibi Hatao programme. Before that, he used to talk like a RSS worker. For instance, in a debate in 1970, he scandalised the Lok Sabha with a statement that for 900 years, Hindus have tolerated Muslim domination, but now they will not. However, that was, perhaps, the last of such public statements, except, perhaps, his provocative speeches during the ill-fated 1983 Assam elections.

 

Mr Vajpayee seemed to have been greatly impressed with Indira Gandhis success in the 1971 elections. His sympathy was with her and he was quite uncomfortable in the company of the Swatantara Party. He and the late Deendayal Upadhyay made the Jan Sangh (predecessor of the BJP) a populist understudy of the Congress. The Emergency brought the Jan Sangh closer to the Opposition parties. He was reluctant to leave the Janata Party in 1980, but was forced by others. He then insisted that the new party be named the Bharatiya Janata Party to carry forward the legacy of the Janata Party. But by 1987, he was outmanoeuvered and the Ayodhya issue was officially taken up by the BJP. Mr Vajpayee did not take part in the Ayodhya agitation. He was kept in the dark about the conspiracy to demolish the Babri Masjid. But he could not have completely disassociated himself from the demolition. He cleverly put the blame on Narasimha Rao for the delay in taking a decision.

The Sangh Parivar is committed to an anti-Muslim ideology. Its ideology is Hindutva. The Supreme Courts judgement created a confusion when it mixed up Hindutva with Hinduism. Hindutva is not Hinduism. The father of the term Hindutva is Veer Savarkar. According to him, Hindus have both a holy land and a fatherland in India. For Muslims, India is, at best, their fatherland, their holy land being Mecca. So the Muslims are half as patriotic as the Hindus.

All these years, this was an abstract philosophy till L K Advani found in Ram, a folk hero, a symbol of Hindutva. The Sangh Parivars concept of nationhood is exclusive, not inclusive. It does not recognise the cultural pluralism of India. One country, one culture is its slogan.

Obviously, with such an ideology, the BJP has limits for growth. Its relationship with the Sangh Parivar is marked with tension. The strategy of the Sangh Parivar is to generate enough mass pressure on the BJP leadership so that it finds it difficult not to respond.

In 1987, when the entire Opposition was pre-occupied with Bofors, the RSS cadre was busy painting the country with the slogan Garv se bolo, hum Hindu hain. The result of this mass pressure was the Palampur resolution of the BJP Ayodhya was brought on the centre-stage of Indian politics. The RSS has floated parallel mass organisations like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Sadhu Samaj and the Bajrang Dal, which are used by it to generate mass pressure on the BJP leadership. More than three-quarters of the BJP leadership has an RSS background. The RSS keeps a tight control on the organisation of the BJP. So when the chips are down, the BJP leadership is too eager to listen to the RSS, which is a closed organisation, not amenable to change.

Mr Govindacharya had called Mr Vajpayee a mukhota (mask) of the BJP. Mr Govindacharya is the RSS man in the BJP. Mr Vajpayee tried to remove him from the post of party secretary, but did not succeed. Mr Vajpayee also lost the battle to dilute the Hindutva agenda within the party. The manifesto is a statement of partys intentions. The BJP has taken the position that after the polls it will formulate a common minimum programme with its allies. But which of its allies agree with its manifesto? The Samata Party and Ms Jayalalitha have already come out against Ayodhya. Even if it formulates the common minimum programme, the Sangh Parivar will not let the BJP government rest in peace. Its government in UP was made to extend all facilities for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. And a BJP government at the centre may follow the same example.

Therefore, the best course for Mr Vajpayee to follow is the example of Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, whose head was with Savarkar and heart with Gandhi. When Savarkar, a Hindu militant, took over the leadership of the Hindu Mahasabha, Madan Mohan Malaviya quietly withdrew from active politics.