Atal Behari Vajpayee
Time passess off
quickly. Almost forty long years have elapsed. Still it looks as if
all this happened only the other day. It was the year 1957. The second
general elections for Lok Sabha were in the offing. My party—Bharatiya
Jana Sangh—was enagaged in the gigantic task of establishing itself.
The benign presence of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mookerjee was no longer there.
Neither was there a distinguished leadership nor was there a wide
mass base. Candidates were hard to find to fight the elections. There
was none who was willing to spend his own money to face forfeiture
of security desposit. Even so, elections had to be fought: what better
chance could there be to spread the message of the Party to the vast
masses, to the maximum possible extent?
It was decided to field me from three constituencies:
Lucknow, Mathura and Balrampur. I had earlier fought the bye-election
for Lok Sabha from Lucknow. Victory was out of question. Yet I had
polled a good number of votes. I helped to boost the morale of the
Party. Accordingly, it was decided to field me again from Lucknow.
I was sad at my failure
to get elected to the Third Lok Sabha. The span of time from 1962
to 1967 was the most significant period in the life of independent
India. During this short period the nation went to war twice. The
cruel hands of death snuffed out the lives of our two Prime Ministers.
The Chinese invasion left Shri Nehru a shattered man. Their betrayal
had shaken him to the core of his heart. Thereafter he never again
looked his old lively self. On seeing him one felt as if he had lost
his zest. Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri died of a massive heart attack.
He had been a heart patient but the circumstances in which he died
naturally led to the suspicion that he was subjected to great pressure
to sign the Tashkent agreement and that his heart could not endure
it.
Members of Parliament and Legislatures are expected to
look after their constituencies well, to visit them frequently and
share the joys and sorrows of their electorates. This expectation
is not unjust. I was elected member of the Lok Sabha for the first
time from Balrampur. I had always taken good care of my constituency.
Ever since my election to the Lok Sabha I had maintained close contact
with my electorate and brought Balrampur into prominence in Parliament.
After I lost the election I resolved not to lose contact. I was firmly
determined to seek re-election from Balrampur. I had to avenge my
defeat. Before the 1967 general election some senior leaders of Congress
suggested to me that I should leave the Balrampur seat and seek election
from elsewhere. Their logic was that I could win election from any
constituency, but for the successful Congress candidate to leave the
Balrampur seat would be a disgrace. I turned down their suggestion.
I again contested from Balrampur and won the seat. This time I won
by a margin of more than 30,000 votes. I secured 1,42,446 votes, while
the Congress candidate polled 1,10,704 votes. Along with me four other
candidates contesting the elections for the Legislative Assembly also
won on Jana Sangh ticket.
It is not surprising that
the difference between the two Houses arose on a relatively small
issue like dowry. But as a matter of fact, dowry is not a small issue.
It concerns with the social structure, old conventions, past traditions
and religious beliefs. In a tradition-bound society whenever a social
reform is brought about, it creates great controversy. The heat and
dust generated by the Hindu Code Bill all over the country is quite
well known. In fact the convening of a joint session of Parliament
on the question of dowry was more surprising because as against Lok
Sabha, the Rajya Sabha had taken a more progressive stance. Rajya
Sabha is considered to be more mature and is a House of elders. The
utility of a second House lies in applying the brake but in the matter
of dowry the Rajya Sabha was in favour of taking a rapid stride.
Every year hundreds of newly wed daughters-in-law are
sacrificed on the altar of dowry. The dowry seekers do not hesitate
to burn their daughters-in-law alive by dousing them with kerosene.
The law has been made quite severe. Still dowry-related crimes are
on the increase. What is required is that the law should be enforced
strictly and honestly. There is also need to awaken the conscience
of the people. In my speech I said: “What is needed is that the country
should make economic progress, education should spread, caste barriers
should be broken and boys and girls allowed to marry each other without
any inhibition. Marriages should no longer be arranged in heaven but
should be fixed by mutual consent. This alone can end the system of
dowry.”
I was elected to the Rajya
Sabha twice—first time in 1962 and second time in 1986. In 1962, our
Party had only two members in the House. In spite of this the then
Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Dr Radhakrishnan, allotted me a seat in the
first row. There was hardly any occasion when we were not given a
chance to put forward our Party's viewpoint during the course of discussion.
Dr Radhakrishnan used to conduct and control the proceedings of the
House with great modesty and dignity. Later, Dr Zakir Hussain assumed
the office of Chairman. He used to get distressed by the unruly noise
witnessed immediately after the Question Hour. The members of the
Rajya Sabha, being limited in number, get more time to speak. In accordance
with convention, members could speak on a non-official motion or Bill
for as long as they liked.
The question arises: when the founders of our Constitution
took the decision to constitute a Rajya Sabha, what was their objective?
Has that objective been realised? During a discussion in the Constituent
Assembly Shri Loknath Misra, a member from Orissa had said that the
Rajya Sabha in its present form would be unnecessary. But his plea
was not accepted. Shri Anantasa-yanam Ayyangar advanced three arguments
in favour of the retention of the Rajya Sabha. First, there is great
enthusiasm among the people for participation in politics, for which
they must be provided a chance and they should be given opportunities
to make use of their talent. Secondly, the Rajya Sabha can apply the
brake of ‘go slow’ on any legislation passed by Lok Sabha in a haste.
Thirdly, the Rajya Sabha will be a standing House, whereas the Lok
Sabha will not. Shri Ayyangar concluded that for the progress of the
country the second House was a must. Why did I contest the elections
to Lok Sabha in 1991 from two constituencies? This had a background
of its own. In those days I was a member of Rajya Sabha. I had announced
that I would not contest the election for Lok Sabha.
My term in Rajya Sabha had
not as yet expired. But the Party decided to field me from Lucknow.
The Party wanted to form its Government in Uttar Pradesh. To boost
the election campaign it was very necessary to field from there a
person who could muster more public support for the Party. Dr Murli
Manohar Joshi, being the national President of the Party, had already
taken the decision not to stand for election. There was also no question
of shifting Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia or Shri Lal Krishna Advani
from the seats they had won. The Party needed a good candidate to
contest the Lucknow seat. I had my old contacts with Lucknow and had
contested the elections thrice from there. It was because of this
that a decision was taken to field me from the Lucknow constituency.
Like 1979, this time too the rift in the Janata Dal did
not occur on any question of principle or matter of policy. The infinite
lust for power was alone responsible for the rift in the party. The
recommendations of the Mandal Commission were used by V.P. Singh as
a weapon to give an ideological twist to this rift. Even this was
done in hasty and in a clumsy way. The parties supporting the Government
were neither taken into confidence nor any effort was made to create
within the country a favourable opinion, especially among the younger
generation. Had it been announced on day one that along with social
and educational backwardness, economic backwardness will also form
one of the criteria, and some posts will be reserved for younger people
of the so-called forward classes keeping in view their economic conditions,
the anti-reservation movement would not have taken such a violent
turn. The younger generation suspected that the announcement to give
27 per cent reservation to the backward classes was not motivated
by any sense of social justice but was guided by the sole desire to
remain in power. The relations between the Janata Dal and the BJP
had become embittered. The anti-Congress attitude of Janata Dal had
also hardened. Would the formation of a National Government be possible
under these circumstances? In the event of war the necessity to form
a National Government can be understood, but in times of peace how
far will its formation be justified? What will happen in the next
elections? Will the parties in the Government fight the elections
on a common platform? If not, will not the preparation to fight the
elections on separate identities start while still working together
in the Government? The experiment of coalition did not succeed in
1977-79 nor did it succeed in 1990. In what way would a National Government
be different from a coalition government?
I am, as in 1990 and 1991, even today of the view that
to strengthen and to bring prosperity of this large country with many
diversities it is essential to evolve consensus on all national problems.
Solely on the strength of Government and administration no single
party or group of parties can keep the nation either united or fulfil
the demands of its development. We may not have a united Government
but we must not be divided in our resolve. This is the message of
Sam vo manaansi jaantaam (Let there be a union of minds).
Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri's election as Prime Minister
after Nehru highlights both the maturity and the apparent contradiction
of Indian democracy. Nehru had regal upbringing on the one hand, and
on the other hand Lal Bahadur Shastri fought his way through abject
poverty. A barrister who had acquired Western education and imbibed
Western culture at Cambridge University on the one hand, and Lal Bahadur
who had obtained the ‘Shastri’ degree at the Kashi Vidyapeeth on the
other. Despite this dissimilarity Shri Shastri proved a worthy successor
to Pandit Nehru, which shows the inner strength and elasticity of
the Indian society. Before becoming Prime Minister Shri Shastri had
impressed everybody with his capacity by working ably in many positions.
I still recall the time he presented his budget as Minsiter for Railways
in Hindi. Shri Shastri rose to dizy heights during the Indo-Pak War.
Had he lived he would have changed the direction of Indian polity.
the mystery that covered the circumstances of Shri Shastri's tragic
death in Tashkent has now been more or less removed. No basis has
been found for the suspicion that his death was not natural. I was
greatly relieved to read in the book by Shri Shastri's special assistant
Shri C.P. Shrivastav that I was not the cause for worry for Shri Shastri
that fateful night in Tashkent. What happened was that when the news
of the Tashkent agreement reached Delhi, the press asked for my reaction.
I criticised the agreement severely and called it a surrender. This
news was conveyed to Shri Shastri in Tashkent. When the news of his
death due to heart failure arrived, I got the guilty feeling that
my harsh criticism may have deeply affected him. But Shri Shrivastav's
narration of that fateful night in Tashkent has lifted a big burden
off my mind. During the Indo-Pak War Shri Shastri made arrangements
to keep Opposition leaders posted with news from the front every evening.
When necessary he would personally contact them and brief them. Shri
Shastri's sudden death posed before the country the question of choosing
a new Prime Minister. I often clashed with Indiraji in Parliament,
but she never let political differences effect personal relationships.
Her tragic assassination removed suddenly from our midst a personality
that will not only be remembered as the worthy daughter of a worthy
father but also for her own ability, dexterity, decisiveness and firmness.
Shri Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister at a tragic juncture.
He had no administrative experience. He did not even have any interest
in politics. He was happy to be a pilot. Once when I alighted from
a plane I saw a young man wearing his cap standing below and greeting
me with a smiling Namaskar. I could not recognise that he was Shri
Rajiv Gandhi, son of the Prime Minister. On another occasion, when
he was going out of Delhi with his family, there was unexpected delay
in the plane's departure. Had he so wished he could have returned
home with Smt. Sonia Gandhi and the children, but he decided to spend
time in the airport's resting lounge. He kept playing and chatting
with his children. But Prime Ministership greatly changed his informal
and simple nature.
Shri Rajiv Gandhi was always particular about etiquette.
Whenever he met anyone he did so heartily. He try to understand the
other's point of view and make him understand his own. But his lack
of experience and absence of proper advice made him commit many grave
mistakes. India is the largest democracy of the world. Leaving aside
the short span of 1975 and 1976 the reign of democracy has remained
uninterrupted. Adult franchise, impartial elections, independent judiciary,
multi-party system and free press are the cornerstones of our democratic
set-up. People change Governments through the ballot. In 1977, the
people defeated even a formidable Prime Minister like Smt. Indira
Gandhi at the hustings. In 1980, the Janata Party Government, which
had ascended the throne of power on the tide of people's wrath against
the excesses committed in the Emergency, and had the blessings of
Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain, was similarly swept out of power by the
same people. In 1989, even the Government of Rajiv Gandhi, to which
just five years earlier the people had given a massive mandate to
rule, was in a similar way swept off by the same electorates. In the
States also people have changed Governments in this way and demonstrated
the decisive power of the ballot.
In Parliament there is less discussion but more noise.
Elections have been reduced to a farce because of the use of money
power on an extensive scale. The party system is getting eroded due
to the unethical trend of horse-trading. Accusing fingers are beginning
to be raised at the impartiality of the judiciary. The Election Commission
has become a target for charges and counter charges. Politics is becoming
increasingly criminalised. The outer shell of democracy is, no doubt,
intact but it appears to be motheaten from inside.
In accordance with the West-minster system the Leader
of Opposition is accorded a special status and he gets salary, allowances
and perquisites equal to what members of the Council of Ministers
receive. Following the British convention in India too the office
of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee goes to the Opposition.
So much so the tradition of giving the post of Deputy Speaker to the
Opposition is also somehow or other being honoured. At the root of
these Westminster conventions and traditions lies a genuine respect
for the Opposition. It is needless to say that this sentiment is conspicuous
by its absence in our country. Far from basic respect for the Opposition,
even an attitude of tolerance towards it is lacking. The Opposition
is treated as enemy. Not only are they treated as such, but declarations
to this effect are publicly made. In fact the growing intolerance
is posing a serious danger to the democratic fabric. As a result of
imitating the Westminster electoral model, many divisive factors which
were already present in the Indian polity became more acute. Society,
divided by considerations of caste, subcaste, modes of worship, languages
and different life styles, is getting gradually disintegrated. Communalism
is at its worst.
The poison of casteism is playing havoc with public life.
The factors which once united the people have now assumed a divisive
role. Politics has now been reduced to a game of power. To capture
power by questionable methods and, after usurping it, to remain in
power by whatever means has become the sole objective of politics.
In their lust for power the political parties do not refrain from
giving encouragement to secessionist forces; they do not desist from
hobnobing with anti-national elements.
For the success of democracy it is very essential that
the party system should be strong. In a large country like India with
diverse traits the two-party system, unlike in Britain, does not seem
to be practicable. Nonetheless, it is imperative that whatever be
the number of parties, they should be based on policies and programmes,
should observe democratic norms, have regular membership, hold regular
organisational elections and on the basis of their clear-cut manifestos
should go before the voters to solicit their support. (Courtesy: Four
Decades in Parliament: Atal Behari Vajpayee)
