Recycled pledges
IT is not a minus point for a political party or a group of parties to recycle its one-year old electoral commitments as the National Democratic Alliance has done.

Round-the-clock channels
THE response to the Independence Day "bonanza" of round-the-clock Doordarshan channels is on expected lines.

The billionth Indian
IT is immaterial whether India’s population crossed the billion mark on Independence Day or the country would follow China in this respect nine months from now.

PROBLEMS OF DEFENCE FORCES
Urgent need for latest equipment
by Satyindra Singh
IN spite of the Kargil “affair” being classed as over, much tension, shellings, killings and intrusions continue, and these will remain there for we have a restless neighbour to contend with.

Sonia’s first manifesto
by L. H. Naqvi
IF the promises made in the Congress manifesto are all that the party has to offer for wooing the electorate, Ms Sonia Gandhi might as well drive down to 7 Race Course Road and offer advance felicitation to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for leading the National Democratic Alliance to a comfortable, if not emphatic, victory in the elections to the 13th Lok Sabha.

BJP ‘image theory’ fails to cut ice with allies
by P. Raman
DESPITE a plethora of wishful predictions and friendly poll analyses — one such expert has suddenly been made the BJP candidate for Rae Bareli — the election scene remains quite uncertain. For a decade and half, it has been the effectiveness of the alliances that decided the outcome of parliamentary elections in India. Not an all-India emotional wave or image of a national leader. Even if a survey reports 90 per cent support for a leader, in our system of indirect elections it is the word of the regional lords that finally decides the voting pattern.

Hosts & haunting ‘ghosts’
by I.M. Soni
IF a cricket match is being telecast, the good guest knows that the host does understand the finer points of the game. If he says LBW means leg between the wicket, tact demands that he agrees.

75 Years Ago

Destruction of cattle
August 16, 1924
THE question of undertaking legislation for the purpose of preventing the destruction of cattle was discussed by Sir William Morris during his recent visit to Benares in the course of his reply to the address presented by the Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal.

Recycled pledges

IT is not a minus point for a political party or a group of parties to recycle its one-year old electoral commitments as the National Democratic Alliance has done. In fact, it is quite logical since it is an incompatible grouping lacking in ideological cohesion and a common vision. Any major change in its programme would have needed much discussion and the parties are badly hardpressed for time what with the Janata Dal (U) issue and the candidates’ selection proving to be more tricky than it appeared at one time. Anyway, this time around the BJP and its allies feel that it will be a one-issue election and the release of the manifesto as it relates to other concerns is only a ritual. The all-important vote-getting point is naturally Kargil and the NDA document devotes a lot of space and tender attention to Operation Vijay-connected factors. The combat readiness of the armed forces is a top priority, it says, and for the uninitiated this translates into providing the soldiers with modern weapons and kit. Next only in importance is the commitment to ensure the welfare of the men in uniform, the dependents of those killed in Kargil and elsewhere in anti-insurgency operations and, for the upteenth time, one-rank, one pension. The last one does not require a large outlay but tough political will to overcome bureaucratic objections, particularly from the status quo-conscious IAS fraternity. These defence forces-friendly pledges are the core of the manifesto; the rest is plain padding to make it look respectable. Or, pious platitudes picked up at random from old and dusty manifestos like a “bhay-mukt, bhookh-mukt, bhrashtachar-mukt” society. One man who promised this finds his state sliding fast into anarchy and his name is Mr Kalyan Singh.

There is one proposal which has been somewhat underplayed but which will bob up in public discussion in the days to come. It refers to the Advani idea to provide for statutary five-year term for the Lok Sabha. It has the sole merit of answering to the present problem of the BJP and a slender hope that if the situation repeats in the same sequence as it did in March, it will continue to be a regular government without being burdened with the caretaker tag. But as everyone knows, history or parliamentary debacle, does not occur twice in the same form. The second time it appears as a tragedy. This could well happen if the Congress and its allies, and not the NDA, were to lose majority support. The latter will lose its bright chance to assume power until it can cobble together a majority. Its failure after the defeat of the Gujral government should be fresh in memory. Two, Home Minister Advani says this system works well in Germany. It does for the simple reason that in recent decades there was need to test and apply it. That country has a virtual two-party system with the Free Democrats and the Greens tilting the balance. India has 40 parties or so, and the fractured polity and society have a vital place for the multi-party system. Incidentally, the BJP demands a national debate on all conceivable issues from the foreign origin of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, attack on Christians and recently on striking out Mr Bal Thackeray’s name from the voter list. Is the demand for a radical surgery of the Constitution any less important?

Round-the-clock channels

THE response to the Independence Day "bonanza" of round-the-clock Doordarshan channels is on expected lines. While the official circles are going gaga over the long-awaited facelift and upgradation, many of the viewers have been yawning that it is the same stuff spread over 24 hours now. While the latter may be rather an extreme reaction, the fact remains that quality improvement has not kept pace with quantity. There is no change in the old habit of depending excessively on film-based programmes and that does not satisfy an intelligent viewer even if Bollywood is replaced by Hollywood. That, incidentally, is only a peripheral issue. The main problem is that Doordarshan continues to have the label of a "sarkari" channel and till a conscious effort is made to rub it off, it cannot acquire the reputation of objectivity. The bias is seen most clearly in its news bulletins, which are now available every hour. There is no decline in the slant towards the government of the day. Prasar Bharati's protestations of innocence notwithstanding, the government is not ready to let go the reins and Doordarshan just has to function within the narrow, clearly delineated boundaries.

All this used to pass muster some years ago. But with the advent of private channels, the viewers have become far more demanding and quality conscious. After all, they now have many benchmarks to evaluate Doordarshan and it has been falling short of expectations with clockwork regularity. The irony is that it has been accusing the private channels instead of emulating some of their plus points. Whether it is the quality of reception or the content of the programmes, private channels cannot be the permanent whipping boys. It may be correct to accuse cable operators of not putting DD on the prime band but what about the woefully bad reception even terrestrially? In any case, nobody has cared to explain why cable operators are so reluctant to show DD programmes if they are far superior to those of private channels, as claimed by the CEO of Prasar Bharati. Whenever viewers beg to differ, one excuse that is flaunted is that Doordarshan is short of money. That tells only half the story. The other half is wrapped in the mattresses of some of its officials, one of whom was recently caught with assets worth more than Rs 1.80 crore. If at all Doordarshan has to be nursed back to reasonable health, it requires a stiff dose of a very bitter pill: professionalism, autonomy and accountability. That, in fact, is the staple recommendation for each and every government department.

The billionth Indian

IT is immaterial whether India’s population crossed the billion mark on Independence Day or the country would follow China in this respect nine months from now. Domestic demographers believe that the one billionth Indian would be born in May next year while global population experts say that the dubious event somehow coincided with the day India won freedom. Those who are forever looking for symbolism in seemingly mundane incidents would say that “we, the people of India among other things won for ourselves on August 15, 1947, the absolute and unrestricted freedom to multiply without let or hindrance from any quarter” and, therefore, it was eminently appropriate that the billionth Indian should have arrived when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was addressing the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort. Was this the “tryst with destiny” Jawaharlal Nehru had spoken about as India awoke to freedom at the stroke of midnight 52 years ago? The only time a serious attempt was made to take away the “freedom to multiply” from a largely illiterate, ignorant and impoverished people was when Sanjay Gandhi forced his five-point programme on the country during the Emergency. The programme did more harm than good in spreading the message of voluntary family planning. Since then no political party even whispers anything on the subject because of the fear of being rejected by the electorate.

In his Independence Day address, Mr Vajpayee covered most subjects concerning the security and economic and social growth of India. But like his predecessors, he too made no reference to the programme which should be accorded the highest priority for saving the country from certain doom. To be fair, the Congress is the only party which in recent years has had the political courage at least to discuss the population programme when it met at Pachmarhi. However, it is not difficult to understand the reason why instead of promising to take the family welfare programme to the people the Congress decided that under the terms of the Pachmarhi Declaration it would first be applied to party members from the next year. Since patriotism is the flavour of the election season the entire political class needs to be told that patriotism is not limited to protecting the country’s borders from foreign aggression. It is also about fighting the enemies within. And the number one internal enemy of India is the “demon of population”, which is exclusively responsible for the major problems facing the country. But this demon cannot be killed without the necessary political will in favour of a balanced yet aggressive family welfare programme. Before such a programme is launched, the entire political class should take a pledge not to cause damage to it as was apparently done in 1975 when reports about forced sterilisation were deliberately exaggerated for embarrassing the Congress.

PROBLEMS OF DEFENCE FORCES
Urgent need for latest equipment
by Satyindra Singh

IN spite of the Kargil “affair” being classed as over, much tension, shellings, killings and intrusions continue, and these will remain there for we have a restless neighbour to contend with. And to compound the situation, we now have the Kutch border also tense after the Pak Atlantique and our helicopter shootings. Although we have been assured that there will be no war, the overall situation does make one feel very uneasy.

The probe panel constituted by the government has been asked to review all events leading to the intrusion and to recommend measures needed to safeguard national security, and asked to ensure that no department or event connected with Kargil is excluded from its purview.

This is a wide enough canvas for the panel which has three well-known professionals with it both civil and military, but with the impending elections, regular potshots are being taken at its composition and the inadequacy of its terms of reference. There is no ideology or national interest in these criticisms, but which side you are on! One of the members of the committee has gone on record to state that “we are not the kind of people who will remain silent in the face of any obstruction or obfuscation”. And so let the panel proceed with its deliberations. There is much to do in its short tenure of three months.

While intelligence failure is a much mentioned reason for our heavy casualties and large-scale intrusions and much more, I am sure this will be probed in a professional manner. But the panel needs to go into some of the basic inadequacies which have continued to prevail for many years and which regretfully make our armed forces much more vulnerable. There is ample evidence of these inadequacies being frequently brought to the notice of the government at different periods by the Chiefs of Staff themselves.

Let me start with the very pertinent observation of the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Ved Malik, at a specially convened Press conference in South Block on June 23, when we were in the midst of the Kargil conflict. Said General Malik: “If a war is thrust on us we will fight with whatever we have”. The meaning was very clear. There was much that had not been done, and in time, with regard to modernisation, upgradation and acquisitions. And if it had become a full-scale war, many inadequacies in this regard would have formed a part of a bigger probe. Let me go back a couple of years earlier to the observations of his predecessor, Gen Shankar Roy Chowdhary on September 26, 1997, as reported in a national daily: “The main problem faced by the Army has been the paucity of resources and from that have flowed all other problems....The areas where the Army’s modernisation had suffered included inability to purchase self-propelled guns, upgraded tanks, attack helicopters and some sophisticated force multipliers and other equipment and hoped that the Arjun main battle tank would soon be under production....”

The Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal A. Y. Tipnis, emphasised only a couple of days ago that this was only a “Small operation for the IAF”, but we urgently needed modern equipment, armaments, radars, etc, and more modern aircraft, and he stressed the importance of being prepared all the time, for the enemy does not give any notice. He emphasised that the Indian Air Force urgently required to replace its ageing aircraft by an Advanced Jet Trainer (AJT) which has now been hanging fire for over a decade. He termed the Air Force contribution at Kargil as “Operation Safed Sagar” (White Sea) because of the glacial terrain where the combat pilots flew successful missions to loosen the enemy’s grip on the snow-clad peaks.

Let us now recall the forthright views of Admiral V. S. Shekhawat on September 9, 1996, under the title “Low budget, red-tapism are scuttling growth” which was three weeks before he handed over charge as Chief of Naval Staff and Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. Painting a grim picture for the Navy, he admitted that low budgetary allocations and the resultant decline in force levels have left an adverse impact on the operational preparedness of the Navy. He said that “the process of damage has already begun even if orders are placed now. I can only do my part in informing the government....”

Lamenting that the Navy had been plagued with bureaucratic procedures (delays) and an overall lack of understanding of Navy matters by the government the Admiral said: “It is for the nation and the government to understand. They (the government) take a long time understanding. Most of the time it is too late.... “We have been telling everyone how we need more budget for the Navy. We have not placed a single order for a major warship in the last 10 years. You cannot maintain and develop a Navy like that.... Even things that can be done are not being done. Threats from the sea cannot be visualised easily as is the case on land. This requires an understanding of geography, of warships and about history of nations.... It takes 100 years to build a Navy. This requires continuous planning and a phased replacement at all times. You cannot sit tight for 10 years and then rush about for procurement.”

In an impoverished nation like ours, where millions do not even have basic necessities like food, shelter, uncontaminated water, primary education, communications facilities, etc, it is understandable that priorities have to be fixed for various subjects, and it is unfortunate that our western neighbour is continuously “restless” and bellicose and frequently talks of “revenge” for events which had to naturally flow sooner or later — like the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. And, therefore, the need for adequate national security by ensuring that both man and machine are consistently and adequately provided with sophisticated equipment to face and successfully tackle diverse situation. A former Finance Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, has gone on record as saying that “it should be possible to raise the defence expenditure and we should — to 3 per cent of our GDP”. At present, it is in the region of about 2.5 per cent. What made him and others not implement even this much pruned defence allocation? The Navy and the Air Force are highly capital-intensive services, and we have a large Army now with increasing commitments.

For those who are concerned about this probe not being comprehensive and fair for it is not statutory, they need to read the foreword of our senior-most soldier, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, to the book “IPKF in Sri Lanka” by Lt-Gen Depinder Singh, who was the GOC-in-C of the Southern Command and Overall Force Commander (OFC) of the IPKF. It covers many aspects of a very disastrous military operation undertaken by our Army over a decade ago. And there was no probe either. The casualties were 1157 killed and 2065 wounded. About a hundred are paraplegics for life.

Manekshaw has observed: “Our troops have suffered heavy casualties in the operations in Sri Lanka. Why? The operations of the IPKF had not been the success they ought to have been. Why? The Indian Army is a professional army. It has served with great success in various theatres and in different kinds of operations in the past, including the anti-insurgency operations in the Mizo hills. Why then did it not have the success in Sri Lanka? All these questions have remained unanswered”, he records.

(The author, a retired Rear-Admiral, is a former Member-Secretary, Joint Intelligence Committee, Cabinet Secretariat.)

Sonia’s first manifesto
by L. H. Naqvi

IF the promises made in the Congress manifesto are all that the party has to offer for wooing the electorate, Ms Sonia Gandhi might as well drive down to 7 Race Course Road and offer advance felicitation to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee for leading the National Democratic Alliance to a comfortable, if not emphatic, victory in the elections to the 13th Lok Sabha.

The only issue which should earn the Congress full marks was the decision to release the lacklustre election manifesto on Friday, August 13. A Friday which falls on the 13th day of a month is considered inauspicious. Any gesture which seeks to question irrational beliefs in a superstition-driven country deserves to be applauded. However, after the last vote has been counted, the Congress may find itself inadvertently reinforcing the people's belief in the ill-effects of a "black Friday" for the simple reason that what it has promised in the manifesto is not likely to impress the increasingly demanding electorate.

The second reason why the last "black Friday" of the millennium should be treated as special by die-hard Congress supporters has something to do with the decision of Ms Sonia Gandhi to remove the self-imposed "purdah" with the media. Like most of her maiden appearances, this one too was reasonably impressive — although not good enough for those who were expecting the Congress President to unleash a political storm which could make Mr Vajpayee and his companions in the BJP and supporting parties shake with fear. Those who have followed closely the style of functioning of the senior Gandhi 'bahu" after she stepped out of 10 Janpath to revive a dying Congress would have noticed her obvious limitations as a politician.

Considering the fact that the manifesto released by her on Friday is the first important political document of the Congress after she took charge of the party, it should have reflected her personality, political philosophy and vision of the country's future. Instead what was presented to the media was a rehash of much of what has been said before in earlier Congress manifestoes. Had she been in the audience, she would have noticed that the yawn was louder than the applause when the manifesto was formally made public.

Political pundits may have been impressed by her seemingly bold act of taking the Bofors war to the enemy camp. However, a close scrutiny would show that she was given the wrong brief by her so-called advisers, most of whom are neither sound theoreticians nor have any experience of grassroot politics. Ms Sonia Gandhi told the media that the Congress, if returned to power, would take the Bofors probe to its logical and legal conclusion. Not even a political novice is likely to take the bait. It would not be in the least unfair to ask her to explain the reasons why Mr P. V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister did not do the needful by procuring and making public the papers (she has been demanding from non-Congress Prime Ministers) which could prove Rajiv Gandhi's innocence.

Mr V. P. Singh, who won the 1989 election on the Bofors issue but failed to meet the unrealistic and populist deadline of naming the guilty within 15 days, did not stay long enough in office for completing the investigations. Mr Chandra Shekhar became Prime Minister with Congress support and, therefore, was politically and personally beholden to Rajiv Gandhi. There is no material or circumstantial evidence to show that Rajiv Gandhi withdrew support because Mr Chandra Shekhar's reluctance to expedite the Bofors investigations. He was shown the door because Rajiv Gandhi thought that he could do to Chandra Shekhar what Sanjay Gandhi had done to Charan Singh to ensure the return of the Congress to power.

Mr Narasimha Rao had a full five-year term for revealing the names of those who arranged or shared the kickback of Rs 64 crore in the deal with the Swedish firm which supplied the guns. She will also have to explain a Bofors-related note Mr Madhavsinh Solanki as Foreign Minister was caught carrying during a tour of Europe. Whoever advised Ms Sonia Gandhi to turn the Bofors gun on the ruling alliance either does not understand the nitty gritty of politics or deliberately led her up a politically slippery path.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Ms Sonia Gandhi is not another Indira Gandhi. The secret of Indira Gandhi's political strength lay in her ability to do all the thinking herself. She seldom encouraged others to give her advise but was quick to give a bit of her mind to those who dared to step out of line.

Ms Sonia Gandhi, if anything, is, perhaps, as politically innocent as Rajiv Gandhi was. Indira Gandhi's assassination and the consequent sympathy wave gave him an unprecedented majority. He frittered away the goodwill in his favour by collecting around himself a set of self-seeking advisers — at least two of the them, who both answer to the first name of Arun — are now with the BJP. He made avoidable political blunders while in power, most of the time because of the wrong advise he received from those whose careers he had helped build.

Ms Sonia Gandhi is having to make mistakes while out of power and with the help of an equally incompetent bunch of advisers.

To borrow an analogy from Indian cinema, the Congress without a leader of the stature of Indira Gandhi appears to have become a poor copy of Johnny Walker with one vital difference. The audiences never laughed at the comedian but at the comic situation he deftly created for breaking the monotony of a serious discourse. But the profile of Indian cinema has changed since then. Today the lead actor is required to play multiple roles, including that of the hero, the anti-hero and the joker.

One only has to look at the principal players in the Congress and BJP camps to understand why a leader who has the ability to play multiple roles will invariably be a step ahead of the one who does not even have a sound set of advisers. The Congress manifesto is not likely to help Ms Sonia Gandhi influence the voters and win, perhaps, the most crucial election in the 100-plus years history of the Congress. The electoral verdict in October, among other things, would decide the future of the Congress as a viable political party.

Hosts & haunting ‘ghosts’
by I.M. Soni

IF a cricket match is being telecast, the good guest knows that the host does understand the finer points of the game. If he says LBW means leg between the wicket, tact demands that he agrees.

If he insists Srinath has two good-for-nothing slips, laughing in the sleeves means a disaster. If he strongly feels that Ajay Jadeja is a good sweeper, let him have his say and keep it, too.

A good guest who looks upon his stay in the host’s house as a messing expedition, is bound to become as welcome as pips in the orange while the one who brings his own toothbrush, shaving kit, towel, soap, comb and bathroom slippers in an asset. His stay looks short.

The one who brings nothing except himself and his unwashed laundry makes the housewife’s blood pressure rise a few notches. His stay becomes a torment for the hostess who mentally beats him, not his laundry, with a wooden bat, if she does not have a washing machine.

Another peeve of the host is the one who imbibes one too many and then becomes loquacious. Drowned off his inhibitions, he becomes profusely complimentary.

This is because he sees many hostesses in place of one and therefore comes out with multiple compliments every time he opens his smelling mouth. No wonder the hostess has to agree with him: “It must be true as this is the 10th time (multiply by four) you have said it.”

The glutton is her worst scourge. His body-size is no measure of his rapacious appetite. The bird-structure may gulp food she has prepared for four at the table. This nimble-jawed gentleman is unmindful of the fact that gluttony kills more than famines.

The late-nighter becomes the “life” of the house after sun set. You can snooze or pretend all your worth but he turns a Nelson’s eye to it. He is as pleasing as a drum being beaten near your ears.

You may look at your wrist-watch a number of times, shake it, then take it your ear and loudly announce: “I think it has stopped ticking.” He replies: “You better buy a new one.”

The snorer wrecks the peace of the night which you cannot mend except with a dose of sleeping pills. His noisy slumber has been converted into a fine rousing art which makes you tear at the few remaining strands of your head crop.

You are mortified the next morning when he says, “Bhai Sahib. You snore very loudly. I could not get even a wink of sleep last night.”

If the guest has certain duties, so has the host: speed the going. The coming too must bear in mind that he is a guest the first day; a burden the second; and a pest the third.

BJP ‘image theory’ fails to cut ice
with allies
by P. Raman

DESPITE a plethora of wishful predictions and friendly poll analyses — one such expert has suddenly been made the BJP candidate for Rae Bareli — the election scene remains quite uncertain. For a decade and half, it has been the effectiveness of the alliances that decided the outcome of parliamentary elections in India. Not an all-India emotional wave or image of a national leader. Even if a survey reports 90 per cent support for a leader, in our system of indirect elections it is the word of the regional lords that finally decides the voting pattern.

In many cases, alliances are just about to firm up. We still do not know how the conflicting claims between the dominant state parties and their minor national allies will work on the ground. Barring a few unrepresentative rallies addressed by Atal Behari Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi, there are little indications of the possible public mood. All-India leaders have been busy forging alliances and fixing candidates. An early starter, Jayalalitha alone has begun her motorcade tours addressing wayside crowds along towns and villages. Provincialisation of politics accompanied by segmentalisation of leadership make pre-alliance predictions highly hazardous.

While the problems of the Congress are too apparent — a severe jolt brought about by the exit of the Sharad Pawar group, Mayawati’s refusal to have an alliance in UP, uncertainty in Bihar and the Jat revolt in Rajasthan — the BJP faces different imponderabilities. This is obvious from the starting troubles in forging alliances even with the BJP’s existing allies. In almost every state outside its domain, the party had to do aggressive bargaining for seats and face claims and counter-claims and a threat to go it alone. This was in sharp contrast to all the camaraderie and mutual accommodation displayed by the allies in 1988. This is apart from the fear of a minority backlash. Many see a difference in supporting a BJP government and seeking votes in its company.

The BJP’s persistent bargaining for the seats with its allies signals many disturbing aspects of the National Democratic Alliance led by it. First, by refusing to provide more seats to the BJP, the dominant allies have rejected the thesis that Vajpayee’s image is the NDA’s best USP (unique selling point). The BJP strategists have been arguing that the Pokhran blast, Kargil war and other “achievements” of its government had enhanced Vajpayee’s standing in the country. This alone would help the NDA get the support of the numerous Vajpayee fans. On this basis, the BJP state units had staked claims for more seats from other allies.

However, none of the allies have bought this “image theory”. They have flatly refused to allot more seats to the BJP on this premise. In Tamil Nadu, the BJP had demanded as many as 15 seats as the “price” for the Vajpayee image. But Karunanidhi curtly told them to accept six seats or “get out”. The BJP had to settle for the first option without a murmur. In Andhra Pradesh, the BJP had demanded 50 seats for the Assembly and a dozen for the Lok Sabha but the TDP was prepared to gift only eight Lok Sabha and 25 Assembly seats. In Bihar and Karnataka, the Janata Dal (United) of the Lok Shakti and Samata Party has asked for much more seats than last time. Thus, the JD (U) also has refused to recognise the ‘Vajpayee advantage’ and pay for his perceived image.

Second, Vajpayee’s perceived high standing and persuasive magic that had done wonders in earlier negotiations, have ceased to work this time. He repeatedly pleaded with both M Karunanidhi and Chandrababu Naidu to allot more seats to the BJP. But both politely but firmly refused to oblige. Even Mamata Banerjee has brushed aside all pleas from Vajpayee to accept the BJP unit’s demand for more seats in West Bengal. In the case of Bihar and Karnataka, both the JD (U) and the BJP units seemed to ignore Vajpayee’s fervent appeals for a mutual give and take. In Bihar, the JD (U) wanted 27 out of 54 seats while the BJP was ready to concede only 22. In Karnataka, the conflict is more complicated.

Vajpayee had done his best to force the Karnataka BJP to give in to the demands of the newly formed JD (U). The merger of the three parties was done with his blessings and after taking him into confidence by George Fernandes, Ramakrishna Hegde and J.H. Patel at every stage. By the time the Karnataka BJP’s objections were made known to him, Vajpayee had made it a prestige issue. A large section in the BJP, including L.K. Advani, had found it necessary to protect the Karnataka unit’s interests as against the JD (U)’s tall claims. This led to a fierce arms-twisting by the PMO group to force the Bihar and Karnataka units to submit to the JD (U) demands.

For instance, at the peak of the controversy, Vajpayee had at Lucknow himself openly ‘welcomes’ the newly formed JD (U) into the NDA. Two days later when the Karnataka BJP protested against the ‘Congress-style’ imposition of decisions from the above, BJP spokesman — and not the PMO or Vajpayee — came out with a bland denial of Vajpayee’s Lucknow remarks. The next day the BJP ‘high command’ directed the state unit to fall in line with the JD (U) demand. But the state leaders not only defied the PMO’s dictates but abruptly left for Karnataka. They may or may not finally yield to the high command’s pressures. But this has already exposed the increasing ‘high command culture’ of the BJP and its deleterious effect on the relationship with the state units. Hidden in this is a strategy war between Vajpayee and L.K. Advani.

Third, the process of seat sharing among the NDA, constituents indicates that the BJP’s strategy of using the power at the centre for the party’s own horizontal expansion has proved to be a far cry. The Vajpayee camp’s standard justification for jettisoning the RSS agenda (like Ayodhya, Article 370, common civil code, etc) has been that, if allowed, a brief spell of power at the Centre would subsequently help it get a majority of its own. With this it could implement the RSS agenda without the hindrance from the allies. Now after a year and half in power, its share of seats in areas where the allies dominate, has not gone up. In some cases, it would dip further. Even those partners who were thought to be ‘model’ allies, have not conceded the BJP’s claim of wider support and for more seats.

Apparently, the BJP seems to have replicated the National Front/United Front model of tendering statewise franchise of power to the respective dominant party. Accordingly, the local ‘big brother’ arbitrarily allotted seats to the smaller allies, including the BJP on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Last year, the BJP’s success in weaning away all smaller allies from the AIADMK was seen as a breakthrough in introducing a new system of power-sharing in “big brother” domains. But the adherence to the NF/UF pattern shows the fragility of their unconditional acceptance of the Vajpayee leadership and the BJP’s primacy in the NDA. Parties like the DMK, TDP and the Trinamool Congress now want to reassert their own identity and superior role in their respective domains.

All this has to be viewed in the light of the new incarnation of the Janata parivar and the formation of the Nationalist Congress Party. In fact, both are different manifestations of the same political process. It may not be interlinked or be part of a coordinated move. But essentially both have assumed the role of revolt against what they feel is power hegemony of mainstream parties. Actions of both are aimed at grabbing seats from the two biggest groups in the next Lok Sabha. Even in the most favourable post-election scenario so far predicted, the JD (U), if it so desires, is going to be in a position to upset the BJP’s applecart. Among the BJP allies, JD (U) alone can claim the status of an all-India party with representation from two major states.

In the early honeymoon days of the BJP alliance, everything was sweet and shining. Hegde and the Samata Party did not even bother about their legitimate share of seats in the respective states. Their preoccupation has been on settling scores with their state rivals like Deve Gowda and Laloo Prasad Yadav respectively. Eighteen months in power, they have an accumulated a list of grievances. Hegde legitimately argues that the sudden spurt in the BJP’s vote share in Karnataka has been due to his party’s support. The BJP not only refutes Hegde’s claim of underselling himself but attributes ulterior motives to the merger of the J.H. Patel group.

Even if the JD (U) dispute is settled for the time being, it is not going to be the same old friendly group. It is bound to fight for the accommodation of more of its leaders like Ram Vilas Paswan, Digvijay Singh, Sharad Yadav. The Samata Party had suffered desertions this year due to the failure of the leadership to provide ministerial posts for some of its leaders. Many in the BJP tend to allude the formation of the JD (U) to the birth of Krishna who was destined to kill his uncle Kansa. The parallel may not be quite appropriate.

But inherent in it is the fear that the regrouped parivar outfit might repeat their historic role of make and break in the event of a hung parliament. In such a scenario, the Sharad Pawar group can be a potential ally. Among the two dozen BJP allies, different outfits have their own main rivals and agenda to outwit them. Every coalition in India had survived on a delicate balancing of the intricate pulls and pressures of such interest groups. In the 12th Lok Sabha it favoured the BJP. In a different situation even other state allies of the BJP might shift loyalties in the name of averting another election. This makes the scenario more complicated.

75 YEARS AGO

Destruction of cattle
August 16, 1924

THE question of undertaking legislation for the purpose of preventing the destruction of cattle was discussed by Sir William Morris during his recent visit to Benares in the course of his reply to the address presented by the Sri Bharat Dharma Mahamandal.

The Mahamandal is in principle opposed to the interference of the Government in religious and social matters, but the preservation of cattle stands on a different footing and is, in its opinion, more a social than a religious question and as such affects the well-being of all classes of people.

The Mahamandal asked for special measures, both legislative and administrative, to prevent the destruction and export of cattle as well as to assist their preservation and increase.

As this question is expected to come up for consideration before the Legislative Assembly in connection with the Bill to be introduced by Pandit Shamlal Nehru, the speech of Sir William Morris is of more than ordinary value as showing the official attitude in regard to the question.