Power, not principles

It is ironical that Fernandes also claims to be a socialist. The theory or the system of social organisation does not entertain communalism. The means of production and distribution are owned or controlled by the community as a whole, not religion-wise. The late Ram Manohar Lohia, whom Fernandes considered his guru, would have been ashamed of his chella (follower) for having chosen communalism when given the option to confront the Congress. A staunch socialist Lohia was unbending in his opposition to the party. But his battle against communalism was equally fierce and relentless

Fernandes has talked about the Gandhi-JP-Lohia heritage. He is hardly the person to represent it. He, in fact, betrayed it when he aligned himself with the forces which were inimical to all that the three stood for. Nobody form among the secularists has trusted him since.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

However bad the Congress, the alternative to it is not what divides the country. Fernandes was too young to participate in the independence struggle. But he would recall how Mahatma Gandhi did not differentiate between man and man on the basis of religion. His faith in pluralism was resolute. He even sacrificed his life when Hindu fanaticism was raising its ugly head. A political party can be defeated at the polls. But once communalism takes over, it is the end of elections, democracy and secularism. Communalism is a doctrine or practice of living as a religious society.

How would India remain pluralistic if it were to adopt something divisive? Communalism has taken the toll of thousands of lives in the country. The recent example of Gujarat is bad enough. Any recurrence will destroy whatever is left in the shape of justice and fair play. Communalism suggests not only a religious strife but an approach which is wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised. A country wanting to modernise can ill-afford it.

The statement by RSS chief Sudarshan that the BJP must be reelected to make India a Hindu country should not come as a surprise. This is all that the organisation has preached since its inception in 1929. But how could BJP president Venkaiah Naidu say that they have not given up Hindutva? The BJP has of late been giving the impression that it is interested in development and governance and has left the baggage of Hindu Rashtriya behind. Naidu has let the cat out of the bag.

And what should the Islamic state of Pakistan infer from the observations of Fernandes and Naidu? It was overwhelmed by Vajpayee's approach which did not have a whiff of communalism. The Pakistanis make no secret of their confidence in him and go to the extent of saying that if Vajpayee were to contest from their country, he would be elected without any opposition. This was precisely what the Pakistanis said when he rode the bus to Lahore. At that time he swept them off their feet by his remark that the prosperity and integrity of Pakistan was essential for the prosperity and integrity of India. He meant it then and means it now.

By preferring communalism to a party he hates, Fernandes has given a new edge to Naidu's thesis of Hindutva. This weakens Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in his fight against fundamentalists and the jehadis. How does he curb religious forces in his own country when strident voices of communalism from across the border put a question mark against his resolve to give no quarters to religiosity and terrorism?

Fernandes, Railways Minister Nitish Kumar and Food Minister Sharad Yadav were all once the leaders of secular forces. Overnight, they changed their colour from red socialism to Hindutva saffron when they feared wilderness. True, they lost face in socialist and secular circles. But their commitment was to the chair, not ideology. Today, they have become part of the BJP furniture.

One thing peculiar about Indian politics is that except for the BJP and the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, there is no political party which prides itself in taking chauvinist Hindu stance. It is, however, amazing to see them jumping into the bandwagon of communal forces when they smell power. Take Tamil Nadu's DMK. It left the secular United Front and joined the NDA when it came to rule at the centre. Strange, the Congress should have embraced the DMK after it pulled down the Inder Gujral government on the ground that it had included ministers from a party which was mixed up with the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

On the other hand, Jayalalitha's AIADMK is tilting towards the BJP which fell when she withdrew support from the NDA government some five years ago. Her stand then was that she could not let communal forces take over the country. She has not given any explanation about her tilt so far.

I do not think principles and politics are compatible anywhere in the world. It is worse in India because politics has come to epitomise power. Politicians may not be a cancer in the body politic. But they have injected in it so much bad blood that the healthy cells have withered away. Rulers have polluted all segments of life -- economic, social or intellectual.

They have nexus with criminals to benefit their cronies, relations and party men. Since the whole gamut of political activity has come to revolve around those who are in the chair it is not surprising that all political parties, big or small, are on fire with ambition to rule. They are joining one combination or the other now that the next election is round the corner.

I am surprised over the disclosure by communist leader Harkishan Singh Surjeet during a TV interview. He said that UP chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav had the maximum number of votes in the United Front. There is no doubt that Surjeet wanted Mulayam Singh to be the prime minister. But it is equally true there was no consensus on his name. Andhra Pradesh chief minister and the Telugu Desam chief Chandrababu Naidu who had a substantial chunk of votes in the Lok Sabha was against Mulayam Singh. True, Surjeet had sewn everything in Mulayam Singh's favour before he left for Moscow. But the then West Bengal chief minister Jyoti Basu, the tallest among the communists, overruled Surjeet's choice. Gujral was the consensus candidate.

The issue before the country is not communalism or the Congress. It is the plight of 60 per cent people who still live in the cold. They have no dependable income, no roof on their head, no means to send their children to school and no money for medical attention. Half of them are destitute. The government itself admits that 40 per cent, that is 400 million people, live below the poverty line. Fernandes should be thinking of them instead of preferring communalism which can disintegrate India.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.