ADVANI IN THE DOCK

It was a well orchestrated media campaign on Thursday when all the national channels had “exclusives” to corner Lal Krishna Advani on the Kandahar hijack episode. Former National Security Adviser Brijesh Mishra was quite generous in giving “exclusive” interviews to all those who sought one and he was there in almost all the channels saying the same thing. Was it just because of the competition among the channels or was there a design? Difficult to say! But, it appeared to have been orchestrated because all these channels devoted the whole day showing Mishra, Yashwant Sinha, George Fernandes and Jaswant Singh and also excerpts from an interview with Advani in 2008, just to prove a point that Advani was aware of Jaswant’s escort mission to Kandhahar along with three terrorists ten years ago.

While Times Now called it “explosive exclusive”, it was “Devil’s Advocate” special bulletin in CNN-IBN. How can NDTV 24x7 lag behind? It also had an interview with Brijesh Mishra with the same questions and answers. The only difference was the backdrop for the interviews. Where Mishra exposed himself as Vajpayee buddy was when he spoke for Atal Behari Vajpayee and thus underscored the existence of two powerful factions in the saffron party. He also said while Vajpayee is a statesman, Advani is a mere organiser. To a question as to how Vajpayee would have handled Jinnah book controversy, he said something to the effect that he would not have banned the book and would not have expelled Jaswant. His intent for revealing the “facts” after a lapse of ten years was obvious.

There were corroborative “exclusives” with the former Union Minister Yashwint Sinha as well. Well, nothing new can come further from Jaswant Singh who already described the party with which he had three-decade long association and held three most important portfolios in the NDA government, as an Indian equivalent of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) of the US. (For the uninitiated, KKK is a hate group created in 1865 to protect interests of white farmers and the group used to indulge in violence against immigrants based on race and torched churches.) So, he said, Advani was quite “economical” on facts.

For a better perspective of any controversy, context is important. In his book, My Country, My Life, published last year, Advani sought to give the impression that he was not aware of Jaswant’s mission to Kandahar. There were momentary ripples as you don’t expect the Home Minister of the country not to be privy to such a crucial decision. Of course, as usual, everything was forgotten thereafter until the Congress raised the Kandahar issue at the time general elections this year. Interestingly, Jaswant stood for Advani. Now, after he was expelled from the party in a most undemocratic manner, Jaswant says he covered up for Advani. It should be noted that other members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) who are opening up now were keeping mum then.

The talk shows that followed the so-called exclusives in all the channels had the same set of panellists – Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Chandan Mitra. Needless to say, discussions were on the expected lines except that the Congress spokesperson wanted an “apology” from Advani for “misleading the nation and his deception and prevarication”. On Times Now channel, Singhvi called Advani a “liar”, saying he would like to use a four-letter word for Advani starting with “l” and ending with “r”.

In none of these shows, the anchors asked a simple question as to whether the Congress party was aware of the decision to free three terrorists and why did the party wait for one full decade to raise the issue. Brajesh Mishra no doubt gave a juicy (or is it explosive?) bits. No one asked him why did he not rebut Advani immediately after the publication of his book? Poor Chandan Mitra was straining his vocal chords to make a point that there was an all-party meeting to find a solution to the crisis and that Sonia Gandhi was present at the meeting. There was no effort on the part of these channels to present the controversy in its correct perspective except to paint Advani black because as Singhvi said “he was caught with his hands on the till”

First of all, why did the Congress make Kandhahar an election issue? There were two reasons. BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate was caught on the wrong foot in his book where he demonstrated his selective amnesia. He made himself quite vulnerable and quite naturally, the Congress did not want to spare him. Two, the Congress wanted to push the principal Opposition into defensive position before the latter could succeed in targeting the ruling coalition for its successive failures in tackling terror culminating in 26/11 and the lacklustre performance of the then Home Minister Shivraj Patil leading to his unceremonious ouster. But the anchors were clinging to their blinkers.

Singhvi said during the show that the nation’s image was sullied when the country’s External Affairs Minister was seen escorting dreaded terrorists. True, if the incident is seen in isolation. The Congress spokesperson conveniently forgot that his own party activists were among those who made high decibel demand in December 1999, effectively channelized by the frenzied media, for the rescue of 160 plus hostages holed up in the Indian Airlines plane in a place surrounded by daredevil Talibans and extremists. Because the media was revving up the campaign for the release of hostages and the nation was sitting on an emotional tinderbox, the option before the government was either sacrifice the lives of 160 plus innocent hostages or free three terrorists as a trade-in. After a series of all-party meetings, the government decided to secure the release of hostages. Assuming for a moment that the government decided to sacrifice the lives of hostages, what would have been the impact of such a decision? It was therefore a Hobson’s choice for the then government.

Of course, this does not absolve Advani of his effort to distance himself from an important decision of the government when it does not suit him politically. To be fair to Jaswant, he clarified in his interviews that he had to escort the terrorists in the same plane for two reasons. Indian negotiators in Kandahar wanted the presence of a senior member of the government just in case of last minute hiccups and they did not want to take any chance with the lives of hostages and secondly, the Pakistan government had refused to allow two planes to overfly its territory and thus the minister and the terrorists had to be accommodated in the same plane. While Singhvi was talking about the “sullied image” of the nation, the channels did not think it fit to re-run the tape as they did in the case of Mishra’s bytes and other portions of Jaswant’s interview where he lambasts Advani.

So much for the national channels’ sense of objectivity and fair play.

NOMINATION IS THE NORM

When AICC President Sonia Gandhi’s “inner voice” told her that she should “renounce” the top post of the country, especially after her call on the then President Dr Abdul Kalam, the choice for the Prime Ministership of our great democracy fell on a pliable, gentle, soft-spoken and an efficient economist, Dr Manmohan Singh, who ushered in economic reforms under the tutelage of late PV Narasimha Rao. There were senior leaders and old war horses in the party who had much more administrative and political experience like Pranab Mukerjee, Arjun Singh than Dr Singh. They may not have had strong political base in their respective states, though Arjun Singh had once upon a time; but they had gone through the electoral mill on many occasions. They were politically sharp. The choice did not fall on them, but on Dr Singh who by upbringing and temperament is quite apolitical and that is the reason he earned the goodwill of every section as a suave, non-corrupt and gentleman Prime Minister in the initial days.

But there is a metamorphosis in him during the run-up to the polls and what we see today is a different Singh who is aggressive nit-picking and who doesn’t hesitate to use expressions which are not considered civil in political discourse and does not behove the status of a Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi may say that Prime Minister represents the entire country and any insult to him is an insult to the nation. But then, by the same token, the Prime Minister also should conduct himself in a manner that brings dignity to his office. He can’t stoop down to the level he did with prepared speeches in press conferences.

Why is Dr Singh considered “weak” in the perception of some. The convention in the Congress party right from the days of Indira Gandhi was that the Parliamentary party has only to endorse someone nominated by the Party president. Since Pranab and Arjun were not fully trusted by the high command for different reasons, Dr Manmohan Singh came quite handy. Never mind he had never been elected to the Lok Sabha and there is no state where he had a support base to get elected on his own political strength even for the post of a Councillor. So, he became a Prime Minister by proxy. The mantle fell on him not because he has been able to campaign effectively and sway the masses to mobilise numbers for the Congress to pip the winning post. Nor was it because he enjoyed the majority support of the Congress Parliamentary party. He has been there on 7 Race Course Road for full term because he is such a gentleman that he would not dare defy those who nominated him. Even for the 2009 polls, he was not allowed to contest for Lok Sabha, but has to be nominated by Sonia once again. The Congress which rejects the charge of “weak” PM has to explain to the nation as to why he is not contesting the polls, but is dependent on Sonia to extend his stay in Race Course road.

NDA’s Prime Ministerial candidate Lal Krishna Advani’s accusation against Dr Singh that he was the “weakest” Prime Minister the country ever had has to be understood in this context. That the buck did not stop with him is also not a personal attack. But the BJP spokespersons went a bit far when they called Dr Singh “glorified caretaker” “night watchman” etc and it was not in good taste. Were they provoked to make such personal attacks by Congress leaders like Kapil Sibal, Abishek Manu Singhvi and co. The limit was when Sonia Gandhi called Advani a “slave of RSS”. It does not lie in the mouth of any Congress leader, much less the Congress President, to call someone a slave because of slave-running is the principal avocation of the first family. The entire flock of Congressmen genuflect before the Gandhi family and the manner in which the Congressmen project any scion of the Nehru Gandhi family would put anyone who has the slightest regard for democracy to shame. What are the credentials of Rahul Gandhi to be portrayed along with Sonia and Manmohan? Yes, for her sister Priyanka, Rahul may be great, hard-working and can one day become the Prime Minister of the country. But the point is there are thousands of hard-working young men in this country and belonging to political families. After all, they don’t belong to the Nehru-Gandhi family and so they cannot aspire for the top post.

Coming back to the “slave of RSS” accusation, yes, Sonia may be partially right. BJP is the political wing of the RSS and the latter has youth wing, women’s wing, labour wing, student wing,etc, and BJP leaders have their umbilical cord tied to the RSS. It is an undeniable fact. Well, there is a difference. RSS is a mass-based organisation whether one agrees with its ideology or not and it claims to have intra-organisational debates and discussions before formulating its opinion on any vital issue. Most of the BJP leaders were groomed by the RSS. But the occupant of No 10 Janpath is just an individual and what she says is law for the party and the government. Moreover, it is in the DNA of Congressmen to pay obeisance at the door of the Nehru-Gandhi family. There was only one issue on which Dr Manmohan Singh had his way and that was the Indo-US nuclear deal. Sonia too had to yield to Dr Singh since she did not have any option. At the fag end of the term of the UPA government, she could not have opted for change of guard.

All this does not answer the basic question. Why did the political debate become so personal, dirty and acrimonious as never before. Why did the Congress extend the privilege to Advani to be brought to the centre-stage of electoral debate while denying him the privilege of considering him as alternative Prime Ministerial candidate. That is what the party said when it rejected the invitation of the NDA for a television debate.

There is an element of frustration in the Congress since important allies like RJD, LJP, SP, and NCP are charting their own political course even as they claim to be part of UPA. Congress is on a weak wicket in Tamil Nadu where it has allied with the DMK. Sonia knows that the country is aware of the fact that it was she who is calling the shot and Dr Singh is just an implementer and a faithful implementer at that. That is the reason the charge of Advani hurts Sonia and Dr Singh. The only way to deflect attention from this charge is to go on the offensive.

Advani is singled out because he is the only Prime Ministerial candidate in the fray among non-Congress parties while others are fighting shy of entering the ring. In a post-poll scenario, the Congress needs all non-BJP parties’ support. Hence, it cannot antagonise Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ramvilas Paswan, Mulayam Singh, Sharad Pawar, Naveen Patnaik, Deve Gowda, Jayalalithaa. Of course, Dr Singh has already made it clear that he would be too happy to work with the Left after the polls. Efforts are on to woo Nitish Kumar of JD(U) also. A clearer picture is therefore emerging. The Congress would like to do business with all the non-BJP parties after the polls to get the magic number as it is not sure of repeating its own 2004 performance. That is the reason, the party is not focussing on any issues and is readily swallowing all the insults from its allies while relentlessly targeting Advani.