INDIAN POLITICAL SCENE
Dr. R. Gangadhara Sastry
The present day political scene – especially – does not appeal to be very encouraging mainly due to certain highly disturbing parochial and fundamentalist tendencies gaining political space in an unexpected and totally unwarranted manner. Presently though the nation appears to be silently and helplessly watching what all has been and also what is being perpetrated in recent times by the ruling coalition masters-more specifically those belonging to the BJP ranks and their supporters - (of course even their allies in power in certain of the States as well), there would certainly be a time very soon when the entire political establishment would come to grief. The BJP and its Hindu fundamentalists though appear to have succeeded for the time being in hijacking the NDA partners to be on their side at least to a certain extent in pushing forward a pro-Hindu agenda on the most controversial Ayodhya Babri Masjid issue, it would not be in the interest of the nation to pursue the agenda any further. However, the role of the NDA partners-more particularly those of the TDP, the DMK, and the Trinamool Congress in trying to resist the BJP and its supporters brings comfort to the liberal democrat sections of the country. These parties have at least succeeded in forcing the Prime Minister to commit himself to the court’s judgement on the Babri Masjid issue. It also brings to the fore the internal contradictions in the ruling coalitional dispensation. Though the ‘commitment’ pacified the allies and the nation to a large extent, the liberal democrat mask of the Prime Minister appears to have fallen off his face with his portrayal of the Ram temple project on the disputed site as an “expression of national sentiment”. The opposition demand relating to the resignations of the three CBI charge sheeted cabinet ministers has also added to the woes of the Prime Minister as he struggled hard to reject the same.
The real contention that led to the unwarranted and avoidable episode on the Mandir-Masjid issue, according to a learned scholar, consisted of three formulations offered by the Prime minister i.e., “(1) the movement for the temple was an expression of national sentiment; (ii) the issue could be settled by courts or by agreement between Hindus and Muslims; (iii) and the agreement could be for building the temple at the present site and the mosque at an alternative site. Mr. Vajpayee stuck to the three points – explicitly in the first two cases, implicitly in the third”. Even as the Prime Minister assured of his commitment to the NDA agenda on one hand – with the hard line adopted by hin on the mandir issue due to the internal compulsions from the Hindu hardliners–on the other hand, the assurance that the Government would abide by the court verdict did not succeed very much in carrying conviction with the allies. However, the hard reality remains that the allies have as strong a vested interest in staying in the power structure as the BJP has, and hence it does not suit them to rock the NDA boat for the following reasons as given by a critical commentator: “(1) that the size of the NDA’s lead over the Opposition numbers acts as a deterrent against minor revolts: (ii) that the line-up is different now from what it was during Mr. Vajpayee’s first tenure, when one political party (AIADMK) could and did bring down the Government: (iii) that alternative grouping does not seem feasible, even if some of the allies were to switch to a non-BJP combine: (iv) that there is a risk of a fresh bout of instability leading to another general election – which none of the allies wants: (v) that for some like the Telugu Desam and the DMK, a tie-up with Congress is out of the question” (The Hindu, Dec. 18, 2000, p 12). At the end of all that had happened, - “the Ayodhya – related developments, with out posing a threat to the Government as of now, has introduced a shrill note in the NDA orchestra. Whether it will get louder or become muted remains to be seen”.
It was, in fact, a few days back that the Prime Minister looked highly pragmatic as he took the unilateral Ramzan cease-fire initiative in Jammu and Kashmir in an attempt to bring peace to the strife-stricken state and country at large. The move – very aptly described as “the Lahore -II theme “or India’s “second” major peace initiative after the Prime Minister’s bus journey to Lahore in 1999 – is believed to have been addressed to Pakistan as well. And the crowning glory of the move is that, countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia and China have all appreciated and welcomed the initiative while calling on the militant groups and Pakistan to seize the opportunity and take appropriate steps to further the peace process. Any way, it would benefit us to note, as pointed out by a critic that, - “What stands out in all the cease-fire centered rhetoric emanating from the powers that we in so far as it related to Pakistan - is the Vajpayee administration’s two track approach of being seen internally as tough towards Pakistan even while projecting itself to the outside world as reasonable and gracious towards a wayward neighbour”. However, as of now, it would be encouraging to note that the All Party Hurriyat Conference and the Hizb-ul Mujahideen while not rejecting the offer outright have expressed some serious reservations and would like India to ‘improve’ upon the initiative. In this context the prevailing conditions in Pakistan with the former Minister in exile through an ‘understanding’ with the military dictator-whose very position does not appear very stable – should be of some consolation to India. Violence being scaled down from all quarters and the extension of cease-fire time deserved to be positively looked at for better and peace-oriented results in the days to come.
On the international scene – having successfully and in full measure resumed and strengthened its relations in various areas of co-operation with the United States and Russia. India has begun to tread a cautious middle path as to its relations with the Arab and the Muslim world. According to a section of observers, restoration of diplomatic relations in recent time with Israel - to an extent - is the factor that sent a sort of disturbing note to the Arab and the Muslim nations, and hence, India should have pursued the same age-old policy towards Israel. However, India establishing diplomatic relations with countries like Jordan, Tunisia, Iraq, Iran, Morocco, and Algeria should be noted as a sign of mature diplomatic policy formulation and it should certainly strengthen this trend. The efforts being made to reach-out countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey prove this beyond doubt. In fact, as rightly commented upon by a foreign policy observer, “All major powers maintain links with both Israel and the Arab nations, and manage the tensions that arise out of that policy. There is no way for India to return to the simplistic rejection of Israel. And no sensible foreign policy in New Delhi can ignore the enormous political, economical and strategic stakes that India has in west Asia”. Above all India should concentrate on its Look-East policy also. In recent times the talk on Mekong – Ganga project goes with out saying as a move towards strengthening this policy. According to V. Jayanth, “In a reaffirmation of its Look-East policy, India floated a new cooperative forum with five of its eastern neighbours, the Mekong-Ganga Co-operation (MGC) forum, from the Laotian capital of Vientiane on November, 10. Though similar in approach to the sub-regional grouping called the Bangladesh. India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC); the areas of focus may be somewhat different in the case of the MGC. Since Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam are the other members of the MG-Six, there are not only areas of overlap, but a much greater responsibility on New Delhi to make a success of this venture.” (The Hindu, Nov. 28, 2000, p-12)