SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

The President can halt the politics of cynicism

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.

Kanchan Gupta is a political analyst based at the Bharatiya Janata Party headquarters in Delhi and editor of the party's official organ, BJP Today.

Kanchan Gupta