In the ‘moderate PM’ vs. ‘hard–line Hindutva’ debate, the Vajpayee tradition must be recognised for what it is — a slice of the same saffron cake

For many who have watched Atal Behari Vajpayee as Prime Minister, he remains an enigma and mystery. His latest statement that there are no forced conversions in the country knocks the bottom of the ‘justification’ of the recent tension in various parts of the country following the insensate attacks on Christians. Prior to this, Vajpayee had sat on a day-long fast on the anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s martyrdom on January 30. All along, there has been a concerted effort on the part of his advisors and media managers to project the image of a leader hemmed in by his followers. He cannot openly take on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, we are given to understand, but he is pursuing a centrist agenda. Pluralism is secure in his safe hands. From the iftaar parties he has hosted to his bid to build better relations with Pakistan, he does seem a man for all seasons.

Amidst all this is his own amazing observation that he is not a helpless Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister was giving the idea more credence by denying what has become a widely shared perception of his regime. The declaration issued by the BJP and his allies asking the affiliates of the Sangh to be responsible and restrained has been brushed aside by Ashok Singhal. The members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, he said in no uncertain terms, are answerable to no one but themselves.

The implications are clear. The ideologically driven members of the Sangh combine are free to carry out their programme as they are not part of the party. In turn, the latter can and will disown any actions it finds unpalatable, while deriving political mileage when possible. None of this is new. What makes a qualitative difference is that the executive head of government of the Union is supposed to play both Pope and Luther. This is clearly an impossible task.

In any case, it is necessary to ask ourselves what the past reveals about the present. After all, in May 1996, in his second speech as Prime Minister, it was the same Mr. Vajpayee who rallied to the defence of the RSS. He further states that his party was committed to the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya once it gained a majority on its own. In other words, there are differences in perception within the Sangh fraternity and no doubt in the party itself on the timing of specific decisions and the course to be adopted at particular junctures. The saffron combine is not a monolith but it does share a certain idiom of politics, a way of thinking about itself and the country at large. It is because of the internal divisions within, that a leader like Vajpayee becomes all the more important. His wit and repartee, his long experience at coalition-building and his natural affability make him a far more acceptable ‘face’ of the Sangh fraternity than any other leader it has had in the last half century.

This allows for a certain limited scope for tactical elbow room. But this has clearly shrunk in comparison with the past. In 1980, after the break–up of the Janata Party and the creation of the BJP, he scripted its slogan of Gandhian socialism, which always had its opponents in the rank and file as well as in the higher echelons of the organisation. Four years later, reduced to only two seats in the Lok Sabha, the front organisations of the RSS began their first Ram Jyoti Yatras. At the time, leaders of the BJP were quick to silence critics with the words, "This is not on the agenda of our party". At an opportune moment, the temple became ‘the ideological mascot’ of not only the VHP but also the BJP.

This points to a second part of the pattern. The multitude of organisations, such as the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, the now ‘disowned’ Hindu Jagran Manch and the Vanvasi Kalyan Ashrams, can indulge in a certain amount of kite-flying. If a certain strategy yields dividends, it can then be seized upon by the parliamentary leadership.

Despite his return to the centre stage as leader of the party in the Lok Sabha in 1996 following the hawala scandal, Vajpayee has at no stage been a critic of the main plank of the movement for the Ram Mandir. The closest he came was in a statement issued with Jaswant Singh in 1990. On the eve of L.K. Advani’s journey in a DCM Toyota from the city of Somnath, the former urged his followers to be restrained. They were proceeding after all, the former reminded them, to the city of Ayodhya, not to Lanka. Had either signatory carried the argument to its logical conclusion, they would have had to part company with his caravan. Yet this never quite came about. It is unlikely to in the future. Look carefully at the record and it suits the party to project more than one kind of leader, to allow for a multitude of voices. One calls for restraint, the other for direct action. Depend on either and you are deprived of any real choice. It is a choice between suffering the blows and hearing soothing words.

Those who draw a parallel with other ideologically charged groups that moderated their stance after coming to power miss out on a crucial aspect of the Sangh. Virtually all the key office bearers of the BJP are also members of the parent group, the RSS. Many joined it in their youth, either just before adolescence (via the Bal Sangh or children’s sangh) or as teenagers. The links that are forged within the branch unit often last a lifetime. For instance, should any member have a death in his family (there are no women members of the RSS), the shakha or branch members are duty–bound to assist in the last rites and participate in the mourning.

Given such close personal and ideological ties, it is no wonder that all attempts to prise the party out of the iron–like grip of the RSS have always failed. One has perhaps to look at some of the Protestant vigilante groups of Ireland, at the sectarian militias of Lebanon to find such strong indoctrination at such a young age, or else at some of the Islamist militant groups closer home.

Lest it be forgotten, Atal Behari Vajpayee was a pracharak or ideologue of the Sangh before the birth of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, let alone the BJP. He said as much in 1979. It was he who asked critics how those who had spent their life in the RSS could possibly turn their backs on it. Even the present controversy over conversions to Christianity is nothing new. In 1978, there was a concerted bid to take up the question. The following year, Member of Parliament, O. P. Tyagi, belonging to the Janata Party (and to its Jana Sangh faction) proposed a Bill to ban forcible conversions. Only because of grassroots protest by many civic groups and political rivals as well as countrywide mobilisation by Christian institutions was the move shelved. True to form, neither Vajpayee nor Advani — both were Union ministers then — openly spoke out on the issue. But they have never opposed it. All you have to do is to look at back issues of Organiser or Panchjanya, the weeklies of the RSS when they were its editors.

Why then is there such a perception today, of a PM who is ‘taking on’ the hard–liners? One reason is that it makes it all very simple to speak in terms of extremists and moderates. It is much more complicated to sort out the differences and nuances of speech, to analyse the politics of changing stances. After all, even if we accept the logic, the moderate in order to gain legitimacy requires the extremist. To put it differently, a Vajpayee needs a Singhal, a Govindacharya requires a Vishnu Hari Dalmia. And the BJP needs the VHP. The divisions in this once undivided family reflect an eagerness of each and all to grab a slice of power. Or else they show that some of them believe in their ‘maximum’ programme and will go ahead and try to achieve it using whatever means are found necessary.

But the other reason is more relevant. A section of articulate opinion realises there is a contradiction at the heart of the present Union government. It is obvious, for instance, that the open espousal of a sectarian agenda whether in the form of the Ayodhya campaign or the attacks on tribal Christians will make governance impossible. The ideas and policies of the parivar constitute a problem for a government headed by its own veteran and loyal adherent. To recognise the conflict is one thing, to expect the PM to resolve it is to bid goodbye to reason. After all, the creation of a coalition was not a matter of choice; it was a political compulsion forced upon the adherents of Hindu rashtra. It is only natural that several devout Hindus who stamped the lotus symbol ‘to give the man a chance’ or to ‘try something new’ are shocked to see the gloves come off.

It is this that will eventually undo not only the BJP but also those who have been sold to us as moderate, reasoned, pragmatic leaders, men and women of calibre. With the immense power of the Union government in their hands, they first under–estimated their opponents in the Congress. Since the electoral shock last December, a section of the Sangh, its most well–honed and dominant group, has realised that it will stand to lose its core constituency unless it takes up its own ideological agenda.

Making India saffron or spreading Hindutva is likely to increase tensions not only with minorities, but also with those who dispute the claims of the parivar to monopolise Hinduism. In the process, they have succeeded in undoing the appeal of perhaps their most widely known leader to date. If India is to move into the new century without a hate agenda ruling the mind, it has to recognise the Vajpayee tradition for what it is — a slice of the same saffron cake.