The L K Advani shadow on Narendra Modi

The L K Advani shadow on Narendra Modi

Anil SharmaUpdated: Friday, May 31, 2019, 09:39 PM IST
article-image
L K Advani |

Later day political historians would perhaps fully assess all aspects of Lal Krishna Advani’s contribution in shaping Narendra Modi’s rise to the prime minister’s post, and other related issues, but prima facie one thing is certain. Even when he has been sufficiently sidelined by both Modi and the BJP-RSS combine, the patriarch continues to cast a long shadow on the Modi Sarkar.

There have been three occasions in the last few days when Advani’s words have been nothing short of an indictment of the present regime. Interestingly, two of these have had something to do with the 1975- emergency that is the darkest period in the history of our democracy. But first came his condemnation of the Shiv Sena’s black paint attack on his one-time aide Sudheendra Kulkarni for the innocuous act of hosting an event to mark the release of former Pakistan external affairs minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri’s memoirs “Neither a hawk, nor a Dove.”

In fact, when Advani said: “I strongly condemn whosoever has done it…. In the last few days, there are these signs…where any person or any point of view is not acceptable, then you resort to violence or turn intolerant towards them….This is a matter of concern for the nation. Democracy must ensure tolerance for a different point of view,” it was not seen as a comment aimed only at Shiv Sena but it also included in its ambit all the acts of violent intolerance on the part of the extended saffron brotherhood that are being seen in the country these days. His comments with regard to the Emergency and the possibility of it being re-imposed at some time or the other made headlines when he first made them in June this year and recently when in prime minister Modi’s presence he said: “It is our collective duty to ensure that democracy and fundamental freedoms of citizens in India will never again be infringed. We need to promote the values of tolerance, consensus-building and cooperation, transcending political, ideological and social differences in all walks of life including politics and governance.”

Now these could have been treated as the theoretical concerns of a frustrated old man who is out of favour with the ruling establishment. But in practical terms these ideas got a renewed lease of life when Justice J S Khehar heading the five judge constitution bench that rejected the National Judicial Appointments Commission recalled them in his judgment and described these as “dreadfully revealing”. The learned judge also observed the Constitution does not envisage the “spoils system”, also known as the “patronage system”, wherein the party which wins an election gives government positions to its supporters, friends and relatives.

As various controversies have raged, it has been seen that the government’s response has been to dismiss these as motivated. The most famous description has come from the articulate union finance minister Arun Jaitley who has labelled these as ‘manufactured dissent.’ The protests have always met with the proforma rejoinder questioning the so-called ‘double standards’ of these protesting writers on the grounds that they kept quiet when some incidents took place during the erstwhile Congress regimes.

However, the strongest validity of the criticism coming from Advani is that none of these rejoinders can be made applicable to him. He has been the fountainhead of the ideology that is being practised by the Modi Sarkar and in fact was the leader of the anti Babri Masjid and pro-Ram temple movement that ultimately saw the BJP catapult to power at the centre for the first time. The tectonic shift from two seats in the Lok Sabha in 1984 to six years in power at the centre from 1998- to 2004 at the head of a coalition came primarily because Advani shaped the Hindutva ideology via the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Though Vajpayee became the prime minister, he was never the sort of person who openly associated with Advani’s venom spewing rath yatras.

It is a different matter that with him ageing the BJP-RSS have calculated that the law of diminishing returns applies to Advani’s leadership and after two successive defeats in 2004 and 2009 have opted successfully for another leader. Even before he won that solid 282 strong mandate, Modi had smothered away Advani’s political position and  now his views do not matter either in the running of the party or the government. The subsequent formation of the margadarshak mandal (that hardly meets) has only formalised the complete marginalisation of the one-time all powerful persona.

However, others are not bound to give him the same treatment, and it is quite clear that the Supreme Court banked on Advani’s observations to deliver a stunning blow to the Modi’s sarkar’s aspirations of changing the face of the judiciary. The BJP may not have any use for his views, but the same cannot be said for others. In terms of political realities, no one expects that the BJP would pay any heed to Advani’s experience and ideas. The snub from the Supreme Court is not likely to persuade the Modi Sarkar to adopt any course that would be different from the one it has been following so far. From its standpoint, it has the popular mandate to go ahead with the implementation of its ideas, and as long as that position obtains the others can keep on criticising it. Union parliamentary affairs minister Venkaiah Naidu puts it very eloquently: “In a democracy, the opposition can have its say, but ultimately the government will have its way.”

Yes, the government can surely have it way but then it would be useful to remember that whether it is the Dadri mob lynching or the return of the awards by the writers, these are all acts that actually demonstrate the government’s intolerance. When some like Advani, who has personified this intolerance for decades, observes that there is growing intolerance, then the situation does not need any further description. The government will have to face the situation, if Parliament is now paralysed over the demand for its culture minister Mahesh Sharma’s resignation. What will it say then? Will it still have its way? Would it not be better to heed to Advani and take corrective steps?

RECENT STORIES

Editorial: Need To Look After The Aged

Editorial: Need To Look After The Aged

Analysis: Anonymous Electoral Bonds Reined In — But What About Anonymous Cash Donations?

Analysis: Anonymous Electoral Bonds Reined In — But What About Anonymous Cash Donations?

Editorial: Government Cannot Be Run From Jail

Editorial: Government Cannot Be Run From Jail

Decentralisation Can Build Better Cities

Decentralisation Can Build Better Cities

Analysis: Elections Are The True Test Of Democracy

Analysis: Elections Are The True Test Of Democracy