Two makeover
artists
Last month I described the transformation
of General Musharraf from a no-holds-barred adversary of India to a jigarjaan
doast. Indians have regarded him a bugbear for a long time – certainly since he
masterminded the Kargil adventure and showed up the Vajpayee government’s
lethargy and incompetence. But ever since he gave that televised breakfast to
Indian editors in 2001 in Agra, he has also been the best actor on the Indian
political screen. He is a great communicator – articulate and quick-witted –
and extremely entrepreneurial.
Politics is an entrepreneurial game;
risk-taking is its essence. But it is populated by risk-minimizers – people who
are always looking over their shoulders to make sure they do not fall foul of
Sonia or cross the Lakshman Rekha over Ayodhya or whatever. Vajpayee made some
highly entrepreneurial moves as Prime Minister – most of which failed. But he
made them in such a timid manner that his image as an easy-going granduncle was
not dented. Whereas Musharraf is not just a risk-taker, but a passionate,
flamboyant one.
That was until
last week; then he was suddenly upstaged by Lal Kishenchand Advani. In Lahore,
Advani said that the day when the Babri Masjid (“the disputed structure” in
Hinduspeak) was demolished was “the saddest day in his life”. That, perhaps,
should have surprised none, for he had used precisely those words for that
event before. Then he had bewailed the fact that Hindutwit workers had pulled
down the mosque in an undisciplined manner. He said nothing different in
Lahore; but since the bit about indiscipline was left out, those Pakistanis who
heard him heard what they wanted to hear – that the Maharathi who had run
around India campaigning for the replacement of the mosque by a temple was now
regretting the campaign.
But about the
other turnabout there was no such ambiguity. In a speech he gave to the Council
on Foreign Relations, Economic Affairs and Law in Karachi, Advani read out two
paragraphs from Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s speech to the Constituent Assembly of
Pakistan on 11 August 1947, and then said about them, “What has been stated in
this speech – namely, equality of all citizens in the eyes of the State and
freedom of faith for all citizens – is what we in India call a Secular or
Non-Theocratic State. There is no place for bigotry, hatred, intolerance and
discrimination in the name of religion in such a State. And there can certainly
be no place, much less State protection, for religious extremism and terrorism
in such a State. I believe that this is the ideal that India, Pakistan as well
as Bangladesh – the three present-day sovereign constituents of the undivided
India of the past, sharing a common civilisational heritage – should follow.”
This speech of
Advani, came as it did after he had paid homage at Jinnah’s grave, caused
outrage in the Hindu joint family and earned him the derision of secularists. I
think he was only quoting Jinnah in a place where his name was revered; I also
believe that Advani has always believed in a certain concept of secularism.
That is the whole point of his criticism of pseudo-secularism – that there is
something like secularism which the pseudos have perverted. And we know the
context of this distinction – the way Rajiv Gandhi changed the law to deprive a
poor Muslim widow of alimony granted by the courts. So if Jinnah is a
secularist, so is Advani. Everyone is a secularist in his own judgment; and
political figures do often have a number of faces for different occasions.
Hence I do not believe that Advani was dissembling. But still, the about-face
was a dramatic one; and in normal circumstances it would have persuaded no one.
Advani a secularist? Tell me another – that would have been the general
reaction.
Advani went to
Pakistan on invitation from General Musharraf. Mursharraf thinks that Advani
wrecked Agra; Advani is the archetype of Hindu chauvinist Muslim-baiter. So why
Advani? Because Musharraf has an image problem; he is a hawk claiming admission
to the pleasure house of doves. Doves like Vajpayee or Manmohan Singh are nice
people; they would give a certificate of docility to anybody. But most Indians
would not. Musharraf a dove? Tell me another – that would have been the general
reaction.
Unless the
certificate came from a Hindutwit hawk. And that is why Advani met the bill.
Nothing could attest to Musharraf’s change of heart better than a hardhearted
Hindutwit.
Musharraf needed
to change his image; the old macho, trigger-happy image was all wrong for the
post 9/11 world. But Advani did not have to change his. He has been comfortable
in his extreme image for 60 years; it carried him all the way to Deputy Prime
Ministership. Why then did he take such an extreme measure?
I think that
shrewd strategic thinking is behind it. Advani is all for building the temple,
for abrogating Section 370 of the Constitution, and for a common civil code.
But none of these things is conceivable unless the BJP comes to power on its
own steam. And he has calculated that it cannot do so unless the Muslims vote
for it.
This is not the
first time that the Muslim vote has figured in his calculations. Ten years ago,
when the BJP and Shiv Sena won in Maharashtra and the BJP in Gujarat, he had
said that they had done so because of the Muslim vote – that the Muslims had
seen through the pseudo-secularism of the Congress and decided to trust the
Hindutwits. After that, there was the Gujarat massacre; elements of the Hindu
joint family orchestrated it, and the entire BJP conspired in defending and
covering it up. Overcoming this impression of complicity was an uphill task. It
required extreme measures; and Advani found one.
But this superb
move would be useless unless the BJP went along with it. It would never have if
Advani had started a “debate” over it; whenever the BJP people want to bury
something, they say, “Let us have a national debate.” Instead of a debate,
Advani has thrown the gauntlet: either you are with me, or you have to have a
debate on what to do with my corpse, and I dare you to reach a conclusion on
that.
So I think the
BJP will have a debate. A handful like Philip Foqatia and Ohshucks Jingles may
leave the Hindu joint family; but the rest will fall in line. The question that
has been put to them is: which strategy is going to get them more votes in the
2009 general elections: blowing conch shells about the temple, or aiming at a
secular South Asian Federation? The answer is so obvious that even Hindutwits
must ultimately get it.
The real issue,
however, is whether the Muslims will see the BJP’s change of heart as
sufficient reason for voting for it. If they are disinclined, the Congress will
help them make up their minds. For despite having perhaps the most intelligent
Prime Minister of India ever, all that the Congress has for minorities is
targeted handouts; they reach only a minority of them and alienate the rest.
The BJP calls it vote bank politics, but it is really votebank-emptying
politics; it has only harmed the Congress in the past. So if the Congress
continues to act according to form, it will provide the most crucial stepping
stone for the BJP’s return to power.
