They all have the same DNA. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Subramanian Swamy. Lal Krishna Advani and Narendra Modi. Now forgotten, but founder of the Jan Sangh, Balraj Madhok and Nanaji Deshmukh. Now sidelined, but once media-savvy Murli Manohar Joshi, and KN Govindacharya. Their DNA is shaped by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Yet they represent more than fifty shades of saffron.
How Vajpayee Came to be Known as ‘Secular’
The death of Atal Bihari Vajpayee has led to a whole industry of obituary tributes, either whitewashing his gross shortcomings or sanitising his grotesque failures.
The popular invention is that he was “secular”, and did not really get constrained by Guru MS Golwalkar’s version of the Hindu ideology; LK Advani was considered as the symbol of Golwalkar’s vision.
Vajpayee is being described today as being representative of the “tolerant” and “inclusive” Hindu leader, unlike his comrade-in-arms (sic) LK Advani, and his even more unbridled protégé Narendra Modi.
The humiliation of LK Advani at the hands of Modi has made Advani look liberal. Indeed, some tribute-writers have gone to the extent of saying that Vajpayee’s legacy will be preserved only by Advani. They forget that Advani brought Modi to the centre-stage, and Modi directly inherited the Hindu extremism from him.
The common element between them is supposed to be Hindutva. But there is no agreement on the definition of the term Hindutva; the only unifying factor is the strong anti-Muslim sentiment. That anti-Islamism may have its philosophical roots in the thesis propounded by Dayananda Saraswati, in the last century. The Sangh Parivar often quotes Swami Vivekananda, or these days, Veer Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha. Vivekananda’s writing and speeches do not show strident anti-Muslimism. Savarkar, on the other hand, defines his Hindutva, only on that violent expression.
RSS’ Version of History & Politics
Too busy to read? Listen to this instead.
There are five Shankaracharyas, but they are hardly even referred to by the Sangh Parivar. India’s former President Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan had written, several decades ago, a book titled Hindu Way of Life. He also wrote two jumbo volumes on Indian philosophy, mainly enunciating various threads in the Hindu ethos. Sri Aurobindo has written extensively on the Vedic scriptures, the Bhagavad Gita and a spiritual treatise called Savitri. But the RSS has neither concern for these scholarly studies nor any use. Their Hindutva is plain, unabashed, anti-Muslim politics. No ideology.
The point is, even Vajpayee was politically groomed in the same tradition. He shared most shades of saffron, but for political purposes, exhibited so-called ‘inclusiveness’.
Either that could have been Vajpayee’s personal approach towards political ambition, or the RSS’ strategy to project a ‘tolerant’ face. No wonder, the ‘game’ was exposed by no other than the spartan RSS leader Govindacharya, when he called Vajpayee ‘Mukhauta’, and Advani the real face!
Be that as it may, if indeed Vajpayee was hostile towards the strident, non-inclusive line of the RSS, he had a grand opportunity in 1979, when socialists, led by Madhu Limaye, demanded that the ‘dual membership’ in the Janata Party was not acceptable. The Janata Party did not subscribe to the Hindutva agenda and should not accept the members who follow that agenda. Under the Vajpayee-Advani leadership, the Jan Sangh members of the Janata Party walked away, and the party split up.
Why didn’t Vajpayee take the plunge, when he could have emerged as a genuine liberal – both secular and tolerant?
But he did not, rather Vajpayee could not – because his hands, feet, tongue and mind were tied to the ideology of the RSS. Therefore, those who tried to project Vajpayee as above and beyond the RSS, were clearly distorting history and politics.
Where Was Vajpayee During Anti-Liberalisation Protests?
There were also some commentators who have tried to convince the gullible, that Vajpayee was the ‘real’ economic reformer, suggesting that Dr Manmohan Singh was not what he is credited for. This was truly a full toss. Because it is on record that when Dr Singh announced liberalisation, and privatisation, and opened the doors for globalisation, the BJP, under the leadership of Vajpayee, opposed every inch of economic liberalisation. His party said that GATT was aimed at bringing back the East India Company’s version of colonial economy.
The party opposed everything “foreign”, from Coca Cola to Enron, to opening of retail trade. The vans carrying Coca Cola bottles or cans were stopped at the Gujarat border, and even burnt.
The so-called hardliners in the party, who had launched the ‘Swadeshi Jagran Manch’, opposed the launch of colour television, and ridiculed and condemned Rajiv Gandhi as ‘computer boy’. Later, the party opposed mobile phones, protested against all multinational companies – from McDonald’s to Motorola – saying that they brought ‘indirect foreign rule’, opposed Valentine’s Day as a reflection of cultural imperialism – so on and so forth.
Where was Vajpayee during all these protests?
If indeed he was the ‘liberaliser and moderniser’ as his neo-apologists are saying now, he would have come forward and supported Dr Manmohan Singh’s initiatives. The BJP actively opposed all liberal initiatives, often stalling the Parliament and creating a ruckus in the House. Arun Jaitley went to the extent of saying that the disruption of the House was a ‘democratic parliamentary strategy’!
Where Was Vajpayee When Gujarat Was Burning?
Vajpayee is often described as a ‘decisive person’ and a ‘governance man’. But nobody has explained so far, that beyond asking Narendra Modi to observe ‘Rajdharma’, what steps did he actually take as a prime minister, to rein in the then chief minister of Gujarat, in 2002? Did he summon the military? Did he dismiss the Modi government?
Did Vajpayee ask those famous BJP karyakartas to work for harmony and peace in Gujarat?
The RSS often proudly claims to go as ‘swayamsevaks’ wherever there is a tragedy, and need for assistance. Hundreds and thousands were killed or injured, and many rendered homeless in Gujarat in the 2002 riots, often called a ‘pogrom’. Where were the patriotic soldiers of the Sangh Parivar? I ask this question because Vajpayee told a Sangh-organised gathering in the US, that he was a ‘swayamsevak first’ and then Prime Minister. Later, Vajpayee cleverly twisted the argument saying that he was the ‘swayamsevak’ of the nation!
The BJP often raises the issue of the 1984 Sikh genocide after Mrs Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and asks ‘what was Rajiv Gandhi doing?’. The BJP even seeks an explanation from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. Then, is it not legitimate to ask, what was Vajpayee doing when Gujarat was burning? Did he ask Narendra Modi even to apologise to the people of Gujarat for the anarchy that prevailed, and atrocities that took place on his watch, for over three months in 2002?
Vajpayee is No Nehru
Therefore, the so-called governance, decisiveness and leadership responsibilities that he is supposed to have shown, are media-created myths. The media has always been soft and tolerant towards Vajpayee, the primary reason for it being his media-savviness. Vajpayee was never crass, self obsessed, or indifferent; Advani too, was cordial with the media, but Vajpayee had finesse and style.
Finally, Vajpayee’s frequent comparison with Jawaharlal Nehru. The BJP as a whole, and Vajpayee or Modi in particular, suffer from an acute inferiority complex vis-a-vis the Nehru-Gandhi family. Nehru is quoted (falsely of course) far too frequently by Modi and Vajpayee’s admirers.
Nehru was prime minister from Day One of Independent India. Vajpayee became PM after 52 years of Independence, and oversaw the great institutions that Nehru had built—from the Planning Commission to the IITs, from atomic energy to ONGC. Vajpayee was in power for a little over six years. What institutions did he build during his tenure? What values did Vajpayee promote? Since there is not much to show, his supporters call him ‘Nehruvian’.
How can the ‘founder’ of Independent India, be compared with an occupier of the office, ie Vajpayee, five decades later?
Can Abraham Lincoln be compared with Ronald Reagan, just because both were Republicans? Or can even Obama be compared with Lincoln, just because the latter brought the anti-slavery bill, and in the final analysis, Obama could become President of the US after 140 years?
Emperor’s New Clothes
Then the question is: why did Vajpayee receive such an overwhelming (even melodramatic) outpouring of emotion and admiration? One reason perhaps is, even that superficial soft touch that Vajpayee gave to polity has been undermined by Narendra Modi. After all, though both of them came from the same mould, there was no love jihad, lynchings or violent beef bans during the Vajpayee years. There was no fear psychosis within their own party or outside. The media was free to criticise the PM and the government. Media persons were not bullied or terrorised.
So, for the media (even the Modi supporters) it was a nostalgic journey into the late nineties.
They have come to realise (belatedly perhaps) that the tolerant, liberal, and by and large secular environment (legacy of the Nehru era) is now the thing of the past.
In the Modi regime, the anxiety and spectre of anarchy is in the air.
Even Modi bhakts (privately) realise this. The passing of Vajpayee proved to be a cathartic shock to their psyche. Even Modi must have realised that howsoever he may want to emerge as an emperor, the people have begun to see him ‘without the robe’. The feeling that there are no clothes, but just the crown, must indeed be frustrating.
Marshall McLuhan, the great Canadian philosopher and media theorist had famously observed in the sixties, that if there was no mirror, there would have been no cosmetics. The cosmetics provided the fake images and helped conceal reality. But when age catches up with reality, the cosmetics don’t work. Then it is painful and pathetic. Therefore, the medium should never be treated as the message!
(Kumar Ketkar is the former editor of ‘Dainik Divya Marathi’ and ‘Loksatta’. He is now a Congress member of Rajya Sabha. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)