SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Power draws its blood...

I've spent the last two days and a night glued to the television, madly switching between two channels. The delirium produced two divine revelations. Ponder over my proposals very seriously, for the results of their implementation can have splendid repercussions on the morale of Indians: One, each time India loses to Pakistan in cricket, the captain loses a finger. Two, any MP who interrupts another member's speech, gets shot by the Speaker. Think about it.

Enough dreaming. I'm back in a place I've inhabited ever since I became politically aware: Except for the last year and a brief spell after Mrs G's demise, I've always been the opposition. But, strange as it may seem, this is hindsight; it was only after I began to snap with embarrassment at a governing BJP's silliness did I realise just how rooted I was in anti-Congressism. And yes, I feel more alive when I'm in campaign mode. For this gal, even when it has zero to do with tall hunks, the chase is the thing...

In December, Vir Sanghvi wrote, "[Sonia] has one great advantage over every other Indian politician: she does not long to be prime minister. This makes her less greedy and more rational than the rest. Unlike the others, she is not in politics solely to win power." And I'd laughed: "The sole thought Karl Marx got right in his thesis was: the greed for money has no limitations. That applies even more to power. 'Does not long to be PM'? You gotta be kidding!"

Contrary to the Pachmarhi resolution, and after having all along denounced the concept of coalition governance, the Shroud finally accepted it: "As and when the situation develops, we certainly can reconsider our position on coalitions." Sonia had realised that unless she gave signals about an alternative government wherein the Laloos could share in the take, her chances were bleak. The greed for power wins every time.

They say that the Congress will support a "third front" government from the outside rather than lead one; that the Shroud is "reluctant to lead a coalition government with every ally having its own agenda." Rubbish. This is only crediting her with an undue intelligence. They'd like to have us believe that the poor dear is being pressed into a position that goes against her grain. Fact is, the dame is clueless.

If the Shroud were "more rational than the rest", if she had little interest in power, she'd certainly have discerned that all that the Congress can achieve is a knick-knack coalition -- a government wilting under *its own internal contradictions*. If, as Sonia's apologists say, her original masterplan was simply the salvaging of the social base that had once made Mrs G indomitable, she'd never have agreed to head such a government... What's the next line of defence? The sacrifice of the supposed masterplan to save India from disaster...? Oh don't make me laugh.

Power draws its blood. It's not yet been a day and, already, the Press has turned. The Deccan Herald: "That the Congress can even think of doing a deal with [JJ] is evidence of its haste to come to power by whatever means... By placing itself at the head of what can only be described as potentially a dangerous and unstable coalition, the Congress has shot itself in the foot." Vir Sanghvi: "Only a fool or a power hungry Congressman will fail to recognize the obvious: there is enormous sympathy for Vajpayee and a general disgust with the antics of India's politicians." Welcome back, my love.

In May 1997, this column had stated, "With the Election Commission having set the deadline for Congress's elections, Sonia's timing for joining the party should come as no surprise. She will be nominated as party president, after which, she will go straight to the top."

Just maybe I'm wrong, but... Asked if the Shroud will be the PM of a Congress-led government, Sharad Pawar said that she is the chairperson of the party in Parliament and had the "legitimate" right to succeed Vajpayee. I still think, in a few days, India will have the first prime minister who has never been elected by the people... In a few days, India will, once again, be ruled by a person of foreign origin...

Am I mad at the Shroud? Nope. I anticipated the course she would take. Am I furious at the BSP? Nah, I couldn't possibly expect anything better from it. As things were, on Friday night, the BSP announced its decision to abstain from voting; on Saturday morning, the Shroud summoned Mayawati -- and Pawar admitted that it was this meeting "which clinched the issue." Much has been said about the BJP's horse-trading and Chautala's volte-face... What about Mayawati's eleventh-hour change of mind? For the party which defeated the motion to save the Dalits of Bihar...? Yeah right.

So, am I all fire and brimstone at Saifuddin Soz? Nonsense! He broke ranks to vote according to his beliefs: "The people of Kashmir had not given a mandate to the NC to go with a communal and religious organisation like the RSS." In Soz's place, I'd have done the same. Besides, I worry over only those whom I hold in esteem. Like Farooq Abdullah. And he came through. I'm happy.

But there's a footnote to the Soz vote, and I mention it for the benefit of dear Rajeev, ever-blooming fan of the abhorable Mandalite: Even lying precariously ill in a hospital in London, VP Singh had to have his rotten thumb in the pie. He called Soz at 2.30 am, urging him to vote against the government despite the resolution of his party. Soz obeyed.

No, I don't get ball-mad by perceivable actualities. What gets my goat is the misplaced "ethics" of GMC Balayogi. WHAT was he thinking about when he left the option of voting to Giridhar Gamang? The Lok Sabha was held up for over an hour, with members plunged into a debate after Kumaramangalam asked for a ruling on Gamang's eligibility -- since he holds the office of CM and had been absent from the House for more than 60 days. And Balayogi simply rules that it was left to Gamang's "good sense"?!!

Gamang should not have been *allowed* to vote -- every rule pronounced against his participating in the proceedings of the House. It's safe to conclude that the fact that Advaniji had come prepared with references, he knew what had transpired between Mayawati and the Shroud. But, WHY did they wait to raise the issue till after the voting had begun?! I don't get it!

Ultimately, that one vote made all the difference. That one vote ensures Mulayam's presence at the Centre. That one vote secures the happy future of the Round Mound. That one vote will usher in the reinstatement of the Naval Scumbag. That one vote has sabotaged India's nuclear agenda... I hope to god that Chandrababu Naidu does question Balayogi about this. I *detest* people who so want to be admired and remembered for their "decency" that they happily sell Justice down the river.

India Today informs us that Balayogi's decision "has been hailed as 'right' by constitutional experts. Former secretary general of the Lok Sabha Dr Subhas Kashyap said the precedent was that a member after becoming the chief minister of a state should not participate in the proceedings of Parliament. However, as the Speaker left it to the conscience of Gamang whether to vote or not, the casting of his vote was valid, he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said since Gamang continued to be a member of the Lok Sabha, he could not be debarred from voting... Senior advocate Arun Jaitley said 'in the interest of democracy, the Speaker did the right thing and left it to Gamang himself. Or else in such a situation, it would have been a tie and resulted in the technical exercise of casting of vote by the Speaker himself'."

I'm not debating whether the cast vote is valid or not. It is. But this is what makes me see red now: Compare the thoughts of Congressman Sibal and the BJP's Jaitley... What's terrible in the Speaker's casting of his vote? When so much is at stake, what's wrong in going for a tie?? How is it "in the interest of democracy" to upset a precedent?? How was Balayogi right in disregarding a precedent? Who the hell has made the BJP the Keepers of Rectitude? Do they really think the rest observe their RSS standards?! Another proposal from Bhosle: the next BJP person to play fair -- loses a finger.

To top it all, Dilip D'Souza mourns the BJP's lack of principled politics. "Who rode to power last year on the broad back of Jayalalitha's support? Consider how much more respect Atalji would have commanded had he responded thus to her tantrums: 'I will not run my government on the whims of a woman being tried for corruption; I would rather resign.' But he never did that."

I'm happy to quote Virendra Kapoor: "J Jayalalitha... was desperately looking for a face-saving formula till the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government blocked all chances of rapprochement... Evidence that Jaya had cried wolf once too often is available from the two AIADMK ministers who resigned... 'Only when the Vajpayee Cabinet formally rejected her demands did she take it as a personal affront... Otherwise she was ready for a compromise,' Janardanan said."

And speaking of riding on broad backs, here's The Pioneer editorial: "Having breathed fire and brimstone against the Congress for many years, the CPI-M general secretary now sees untold virtues in the same party that they once accused of physically liquidating their cadre in West Bengal. Having ranted and raved against the 'corrupt' bourgeois system throughout this century, the Communists now choose to overlook a formidable pillar of India's corrupt society -- Ms Jayalalitha Jayaram."

Still, D'Souza rails, "When we are so miserably unfortunate as to have our fortunes governed by Swamys, Mayawatis, Thackerays, Jayalalithas, Sonias, Joshis, Chautalas -- I mean, really, what the hell difference will it make?"

How touching. But it would've been more convincing if Harkishen Singh Surjeet -- oops, sorry, "Papaji" -- and Jyoti Basu -- oops, sorry "Bashuda" -- were present in D'Souza's list of power-grabbing, unscrupulous and corrupt politicians...

I quote Rajinder Sachar: "The spectacle of Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet begging the Congress to agree to form the government and assuring Sonia that they will remain her faithful courtiers, is shameful. They have justified their stand by adding that they will extend only issue-based support but issue-based support is finalised on the basis of a common minimum programme."

Hari Shankar Vyas: "On Thursday evening, Gujral raised a very pertinent question in the meeting of the Janata Dal, who is Surjeet to decide the course of our destiny? Shall we have to take a certificate from Papa Ji as to who is communal and who is corrupt? And should the party give any credence to the certificate that he is now giving to Jayalalitha."

The Pioneer: "The damage Mr Surjeet's political machinations have done to Marxist ideology and the self-esteem of Communists is incalculable. Such behaviour, howsoever regrettable, has become routine among those whom the Marxists condescendingly describe as "bourgeois" parties. But when Communists indulge in the same opportunism and seek to drape it in a veneer of ideology, even those who despite disagreeing with their politics, nevertheless respected them for adhering to principles, are bound to be disgusted."

Boy, talk about disgust... Quite right: "Principles mean something not when you simply spout them, but when you take a stand for them." Does D'Souza....?

Varsha Bhosle