NEWS
INTERVIEWS
CAMPAIGN TRAIL
ISSUES '98
MANIFESTOS
OVERHEARD
POLLING BOOTH
INDIA SPEAKS!
YEH HAI INDIA
CHAT
ELECTIONS '96

The Rediff Election Special/N Ram

'Sonia Gandhi and her family have much to hide'

Fifty years of Independence provides people the chance to take stock of how India has done politically, economically, and socially. I too thought about it, and would go along with the readings of Amartya Sen, at least to a certain degree. India can be happy about the fact that it has been able to maintain the institution of democracy, starting with the Constitution itself. Although it has suffered several amendments, it is a very good document and has worked to a significant extent.

We have had elections without any interruption, with the exception of the Emergency. The Emergency was an awful thing. Fortunately, it was short lived and rejected peacefully. Barring that, nobody has been able to block Indian elections or put them off, as has happened in Pakistan and several other developing countries.

But we are concerned about the corruption of the election process, especially money-power and the criminalisation of politics. There have been attempts to cleanse the system and I wouldn't be too cynical about that. In fact, the secret ballot is guaranteed to millions of Indians and the turnout has been quite decent, reflecting a very high level of political participation, including in rural India, and among the illiterate. Corrupt politicians do give money to buy votes, but very often people take the money and vote for whoever they want. You can't buy votes. Otherwise, the Congress would not have lost so badly.

I welcome the work of the present three-member Election Commission. Seshan did a few good things but completely went over the top by withholding elections, blackmailing, and threatening the system. Yes, he deserves credit for conducting elections in a relatively peaceful manner. But we must also criticise and we at Frontline have done that. Seshan's doctrine of skyhigh powers tend to give the Election Commission authority as are not vested in the Constitution.

There are other institutions in this democracy like the relatively independent press. On the whole, India has done a great job.

We can't help frequent elections; it is the way Indian politics is evolving. The Congress, the party of traditional dominance, has lost that position forever. We thought it would disappear in 1977 but it came back in 1980. It looked in trouble again, but Indira Gandhi's assassination gave them a huge victory. The problem with the party is they promise too much, but do not deliver anything.

For example, Nehru in his 'Tryst With Destiny' speech said, the main challenges are to combat ignorance, poverty, and destitution. I am ashamed of the fact that by 2000, India will have half the world's illiterate population, 50 per cent or more. This is because we don't have compulsory primary education like most other countries. What needs to be done is quite obvious, but no one does it. For instance, land reforms were not undertaken except in Kerala and West Bengal.

The biggest problem, the real hurdle, of India is mass poverty, mass destitution, and illiteracy. On one side, there is impressive industrial growth, modernisation, computerisation at various places, brilliant accomplishments in science and technology. We are all proud of that. Nevertheless, we failed to make headway in the main areas. The Congress, which ruled the country all these years, can be blamed for their policy failures and poor performance. Not that it did nothing. It did something, but failed in these areas.

The early warning signals of the Congress's degeneration came during the 1967 general election. Earlier, the assembly elections were more or less held along with the general election. Now, when general elections are held, state assembly elections are not because we don't want stable assemblies dissolved. That is symptomatic and indicative of how the problem started. The democratic model has worked, but not the stability that we aspired for. The main reason for this is the policy failure of the central government.

The degeneration coincided with the food crisis. The monsoon failed, there was a famine in Bihar. It was a shock to the Congress, hitherto the dominant party in India. Though the Congress retained modest majority at the Centre in 1967, it lost the election in more than half the assemblies. It lost more than half of India at the state level, never to return to the pre-'67 position. People often miss that. In India's political scene, 1967 is a watershed.

The Congress split in 1969, the fight between the Indicate and Syndicate, was another major landmark. Indira Gandhi ran away with people in the 1971 election. The Syndicate was a gang of reactionaries who wanted total alliance with the United States, landlords to be fully protected, etc. Not that Indira Gandhi was genuinely progressive or had an effective answer to the problems facing the country; but she gave the impression of being pro-progressive and forward-looking compared to the Syndicate. That is why she won the support of both the Left parties and DMK at that time. Without their support, she would have collapsed.

Two years after that, she was in big trouble. Had elections been held in 1973 to 1974, she would have lost miserably. When a challenge came against her legitimacy, she declared a state of Emergency.

I don't think Indians are slaves of this family. So, what is behind this dynasty? The idea is that this family has a privileged position. I am sympathetic to a part of the argument and am not against the dynastic principle as such. Jawaharlal Nehru did a great deal for the country. He was an outstanding leader and the greatest prime minister India has ever had.

Nehru was secular; participated in the freedom struggle; made a lot of sacrifices; had a progressive foreign policy; was rational; had good knowledge of science and technology. Then he had the huge organisational advantage. Such a heritage is to be recognised. It can't be blamed on Nehru as Lohia, George Fernandes, and others have done. Fernandes has scowled at that family, cursed that family, and pinned everything to this dynastic principle.

The Mahatma was a greater person. That is why none from his family entered Indian politics. He had a troubled relationship with members of his family, and was even considered harsh to them. Today, when you weigh these two (Gandhi and Nehru), Gandhi had at a much higher level separated public interest from family interest. There is no doubt about it.

I differ on many things that Gandhi stood for, but the purity in his personal life is great. Even though he incurred the enmity of one of his sons, he kept them away from politics. The image of Mahatma Gandhi was such that no member of that family would dare try to exploit it. That is the power of the Gandhi heritage or legacy. Notice how modest Gopal Gandhi, one of our distinguished diplomats, is. In fact, he is almost embarrassed to mention his lineage although he is part of the great heritage. He is also Rajaji's (C Rajagopalachari) grandson. This is how people should behave. Exemplary!

Nehru, I think, didn't have the same standards. I wouldn't blame him too much if your only daughter was interested in politics. Though he did not actively promote her, he gave her a sort of privileged position, and allowed sycophants to make her the Congress president and in which capacity she dismissed the Kerala government in 1959. It was a major blow to democracy. Despite such wrongdoings, Nehru kept quiet. It was a very early warning signal about how the dynastic principle could work, how it would go on the wrong road.

Indira Gandhi's opponents underestimated her. There was something admirable in her fight. I am not going to condemn Indira Gandhi completely. For example, on the Bangladesh issue, she stood up to the United States when the battleship came towards India threateningly. It was an admirable thing. Though there were allegations of corruption, it was not the type that you have today, that came with Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao.

Indira Gandhi undermined the democratic functioning of the party. She never took inner party democracy seriously. Yes, it was never done perfectly in the Congress, even during the Freedom Struggle. Netaji Bose was elected party president and Mahatma Gandhi used his powers in a somewhat arbitrary way to have Netaji out because he didn't like Netaji's left leanings. Netaji's himself took the wrong road, but that is a different matter in my opinion.

On the question of dynasty, it deteriorated particularly with the induction of Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency. He was an extra-constitutional authority and much of the people's hatred was against him. Indira Gandhi promoted him as she believed that this family had a privileged right to rule the country. At the height of her power, she had many enemies and felt isolated within the party. She got paranoid and turned to her sons. Two were available, but one was not interested: the elder one, a pilot, happily married to Sonia Gandhi, and very domestic. He was not, however, above enjoying the privileges. Rajiv did not keep himself away like the Gandhi family did.

The younger son came to his mother's rescue. A notorious fellow, Sanjay stood for all the worst things and some thugs entered politics during his time, beginning the criminalisation of politics. He dealt with people like (Jarnail Singh) Bhindranwale. One of the worst phases of Indian politics was the brief period of Sanjay Gandhi's ascendance, expressing the worst feature of dynastic principle. After his death, the shattered mother turned to her elder son, and put pressure on him, who was still very unwilling then.

Sonia Gandhi's introduction in the book Rajiv is very interesting. Self-serving in parts, it falls in other parts. She focuses on an episode in which she says she fought like a tigress against the mother's pressure to induct Rajiv into politics. Eventually she also felt 'Who am I to stop it'. She also began believing in the divine right of this family, in its destiny to serve India, to serve sacrificial goats as she put it.

Sonia believed to the point of superstition that whoever enters politics from this family, starting with her husband, would be killed. She wrote that Rajiv Gandhi was offered as a sacrificial lamb and that she fought like a tigress but failed from preventing him being served on the altar of the national cause. That is how she sees it.

After the tragic assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia responds in a way which makes it clear that she didn't have the heart and stomach for politics. Eventually the dynastic principle takes over. We cannot oversimplify her motives. I respect and even admire the spirited way in which she is taking on the BJP, communalism, etc. She claims she is not interested in power and so on, but I don't believe that. She enjoyed power in the sense of taking the top job in the party. The party was shameless enough to refer back everything to her although she was not the president. Whatever he is worth, they have a senior leader, an elected president, and they have made him a dummy (I don't think he is a dummy), and sidelined him.

Who can speculate what will happen? There is tremendous pressure on her to take up the mantle of leadership. It is very interesting.

Sonia Gandhi and her family have much to hide. There is no doubt about that. The Bofors scandal stares them on their face. On one hand, she genuinely did not want to enter active politics. But she wants influence because she has something to hide. Above all, there is Bofors, where the allegation is that her husband took the money. He was corrupt.

A combination of factors attracts crowds to her campaigns. Belonging to the family, maybe her looks, a known face, sympathy for her because her husband was assassinated in such horrible circumstances....

I must say that her campaign is based on some falsehood. Bofors was the first, because she alleged that it was a malicious slander against her husband. This is false because there is a criminal case. The money paid was the equivalent to $ 50 million, clearly a corrupt payment. When the story came out, Rajiv Gandhi and his administration covered it up. I was personally involved in the investigation that uncovered hundreds of documents, every one of them authenticated by the CBI. The first information report on the criminal case alleges that there was an improper decision to buy the gun. The Ardbo diary makes a reference to a Gandhi trustee lawyer involved in secret dealings in Switzerland. I have no doubt that Rajiv Gandhi was involved in the scandal. Otherwise, why did he try to cover it up?

In Singapore, there was a Bofors scandal. Immediately, the government investigated and people were convicted. It took only months because there was no cover up. If you are clean, you won't cover up. The cover up of corrupt deal is an extension, and therefore a part, of the corrupt deal. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a conspiracy to suppress also becomes a part of the offence. This is Sonia Gandhi's falsehood number 1.

Falsehood number 2 is Ayodhya. Everyone knows that Rajiv Gandhi pursued a soft policy towards the aggressive saffron mobilisation and, in fact, opened the gates in Ayodhya. On the eve of the 1989 general elections, he manoeuvred and negotiated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to allow the shilanyas puja on the disputed site. What is legally disputed you declare non-disputed and allow shilanyas?

I call Rajiv Gandhi the author of the soft saffron policy because he played the Hindu card. His mother also played it towards the end of her innings. It is very unfortunate because Rajiv bears a heavy responsibility for what has happened: the decline of his party and its failure to uphold secularism.

Secularism is not some noble principle that you may or may not follow. It is mandated by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court made clear in the Bommai judgment of March 11, 1994. Secularism has been placed on a pedestal; nobody can take it away, it is inalienable. Of course, Narasimha Rao and his government's record was disgraceful. Rao could not prevent the wild and barbaric act of the demolition of the Babri Masjid; he just stood helplessly.

Yes, we were happy that during Rao's time, the dynastic principle was not put into effect. But his government was very corrupt, and authoritarian in conducting party affairs. I agree that it was healthy to experiment with somebody other than the family. I pity the servility of the Congressmen. Sometimes it is ridiculous, sometimes touching, sometimes pathetic. And I am not surprised. This sculpt of the family has been around for a long time. It is very difficult to escape it.

The BJP has grown because it has very capable leaders and a programme that can manipulate public opinion. In a country where Hindus are an overwhelming majority, it is not surprising. This is a country with a lot of backwardness like feudalism, traditional values, curse of caste, untouchability, etc. All these are a volatile combination and a fertile breeding ground for a reactionary phenomenon.

The worst manifestation of the BJP's growth is the use of communalism as a political mobilisation strategy. Such use has a fairly long pedigree in India, going back to 100 years, but not beyond. Communalism existed during the Freedom Struggle, but the Freedom Struggle opposed it. At certain junctures, the Congress did not fight it intelligently. But, on the whole, communalism did not prevail. That is why the Constitution of India is dutifully secular, more than most constituencies in the world.

The main reason for the BJP's rise is the Congress's decline. The Congress used to get over 40 per cent of the votes at the all-India level; that declined to the over 30 per cent by 1989. In 1991, despite the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, it came down to 36 per cent; in 1996, to 28.5 per cent. According to public opinion polls, thanks to the Sonia effect and the decline of the United Front, the Congress vote percentage may go up to over 30 per cent this time.

The BJP under Vajpayee did not have Ayodhya on its agenda. Vajpayee spoke about Gandhian socialism and some other things which did not enthuse his flock. Once Advani came in and the Congress made the mistake of adopting a compromising attitude -- the soft saffron policy -- the BJP understood this is what pays.

I know Advani very well: a very soft-spoken individual who rarely raises his voice. Now he has become the symbol of fierceness in the BJP, somebody who is feared by the minorities, somebody who went on the awful rath yatra in a comic version of an old chariot, decorated fraudulently just to drive fear and hatred. This is not just the work of an individual but a movement. The BJP learnt the lesson that this is what pays and after that, it has been on the ascent.

I don't think minorities in India are appeased. Sikhs are not discriminated against; they are not even in a disadvantageous position. I agree that justice has not been for the massacre of the Sikhs after Indira Gandhi's assassination, something which even the BJP has condemned strongly. If you look at the Muslims, the largest minority in India at over 100 to 120 million people, there are very successful and highly educated Muslims. But the mass of Muslims in India are worse off than the mass of Hindus, not that the Hindus are well off. Muslims suffer from poverty and unemployment in the urban areas like old Delhi, Lucknow, Hyderabad, etc. And they are also the victims of the mafia.

You can't suddenly demand a uniform civil code. The Hindu camp will use it as an instrument to divide the Hindus and the Muslims further. This is not the time to push it. But it is very unfortunate that we have not worked into our system secular laws relating to areas of personal law such as marriage, inheritance, property, divorce, maintenance, adoption, etc. There are the same set of criminal and civil laws but as far as personal law is concerned, you have different laws for different people. This can be understood in a theocratic society or a non-secular state, but it goes against the grain of secularism. The worst compromise made by the Congress was bowing down before Muslim fundamentalists and orthodox opinion after the Shah Bano judgment.

Our Frontline-CMS poll has found that one third of the respondents seek stability as a top issue. People don't want another election immediately. I foresee two things. The BJP and its friends in a clearly hung Parliament will be invited by the President to prove their majority first, and they will have a hell of a problem doing that. It will be difficult for them to break other parties, but they may get a chance.

Nobody says the Congress will get 200 seats; it will get clearly below that. So the other possibility is that the Congress and its allies plus the United Front make the majority. But it will be asking for a lot immediately after the announcements of the results. I personally feel the BJP has a slightly better chance of being given the first shot. Either way, political instability is ahead. There will be enormous political obstacles.

I really do not know whether Sonia will accept the top job. But almost everyone in the party is telling her, 'Please come and save us.' She is a human being and it is very hard to resist all that. You have to be a saint to resist. As far as her husband's legacy is concerned, she is sitting on a bed of scandals. She knows all that. Therefore, you cannot rule out the possibility of her taking over the mantle.

According to our poll survey, 41 per cent want Vajpayee as the prime minister and 30 per cent want this woman, who has not even announced her candidature. If she had declared her candidature, it may have gone up, who knows?

But one thing we can predict: the next prime minister will not be Gujral. It may be Vajpayee on a minority basis; Sonia Gandhi may be recruited against her wishes; it could even be Manmohan Singh. Or it could be somebody else.

N Ram, editor of Frontline magazine, spoke to Shobha Warrier.

Views

Tell us what you think of this report