Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

BJP on J&K: reversing its own legacy

The Bharatiya Janata Party’s nimble-footedness when it comes to snatching a chance is hidden from no one. So it came as no surprise when BJP leaders, led by Lal Krishna Advani, swiftly sussed out the electoral potential of the inflamed Hindu passions in Jammu, and the separatist counter-response playing out in the Kashmir Valley. The Sri Amarnath Sangharsh Samiti (SASS)-led land-for-pilgrims movement fitted the BJP bill as no other recent issue: the Ramar Sethu controversy had emotional appeal but lacked the spark, volatility and spontaneity of the Sangharsh Samiti-led agitation. Similarly, while terrorism was a nationwide concern, it had not coalesced into a people’s movement; the issue had also been the staple of many previous elections.

The Jammu protests, on the other hand, resembled the Ramjanmabhoomi movement, matching it in intensity and potential, if not in scale and reach. Most attractively for the BJP, Amarnath was a mint-fresh, mass-driven movement and, therefore, much more authentic than any campaign originating from within the party. The Amarnath movement pulsated with promise in terms of two party objectives — the immediate one of winning seats in Jammu in the coming elections to the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly and the subsequent one of carrying that momentum to the rest of the country in time for the 2009 general election.

Yet the plot is riddled with contradictions: The divisions within the Sangh Parivar on the approach to the Amarnath agitation, Mr. Advani’s reinvented moderate image, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s grand Kashmir legacy, all complicate identification with the Amarnath project.

The BJP-RSS divergence has been clear ever since Jammu exploded in anger against the revocation of land allotment to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board. The BJP would like to take political leadership of the agitation while the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad fear precisely such a situation. The RSS and the VHP do not want a repeat of the Ayodhya agitation which passed into the hands of the BJP only to become a pawn in the party’s political games — to be used and discarded at will. VHP general secretary Pravin Togadia said as much at a recent press meet when he insisted that political parties intending to join the Amarnath campaign must “leave behind their party flags.” The warning had the intended effect: the BJP, which had planned a series of energetic agitations around Amarnath, in Jammu and outside, has had to temper its enthusiasm. For its part, the SASS, though welcoming of the BJP’s support, seems keen not to change the bipartisan, if increasingly belligerent, character of the movement.

The changed nature of the agitation is itself a barrier against the BJP’s leadership ambitions. Initially restrained, the protests have since become lumpenised and violent, damaging the party’s claim that it was a peaceful, nationalistic movement which contrasted sharply with the hostile, separatist uprising in the Valley. BJP spokespersons had delighted in pointing out the difference: In Jammu, the security forces were helpless, in fact, sympathetic, because the protesters carried the Indian flag and raised pro-Army and pro-police slogans. In the Valley, the protesters were fired upon because they attacked and abused the security forces.

“Who would attack people who carry the tricolour,” asked a BJP leader even as he unveiled the party’s new slogan: nationalism versus separatism. An aggressive, rampaging mob charging at police posts, torching vehicles, and attacking politicians comes in the way of the BJP claiming ownership of the Jammu agitation — and more so on the eve of a general election where it could be faced with charges of irresponsibility.

This is the crux of the problem for the BJP leadership, especially for its shadow Prime Minister. Over the last couple of years, Mr. Advani has worked hard to live down his reckless Ayodhya warrior image. His journey to Pakistan, where he lavished praise on Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s 1947 secular vision, was intended to undo the perception of a frenzied hardliner forever pandering to the Hindu cause, thereby surrendering his claim to be elected Prime Minister of a multi-cultural, multi-religious, essentially tolerant country. During his stay in Pakistan, the architect of the disruptive Ayodhya movement strongly supported the peace moves between India and Pakistan, as also the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government-sponsored initiatives for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

Upon returning home, Mr. Advani held firm to his belief that his support of Jinnah’s “secular” vision was an opportunity for the BJP to shed old shibboleths and recast itself as a modern, conservative party. Unable to stomach the insubordination from its ideological heir, the RSS extracted his resignation from the party chief’s post. That the Sangh resiled from its position and anointed him Prime Minister-apparent was seen as a vindication of the transformed Mr. Advani, now acceptable also to the previously hostile allies of the BJP.

Today the BJP’s Prime Minister-in-waiting is speaking a language that mocks at all that he has strived to achieve. Consider his incendiary August 9 speech to a gathering of the BJP’s youth wing in Delhi. The speech, peppered with phrases such as “quit India” and “do or die,” was ostensibly on the significance of the Quit India movement. Yet used in the context of the flare-up in Kashmir, the words acquired a deliberately provocative meaning: Who needed to quit post-Independent India?

The answer was self-evident. Nonetheless, Mr. Advani stressed the point. He called Jammu a “volcano” which meant he admitted to a potentially explosive situation. Yet he egged its people on, calling them “patriotic and self-respecting” and complimenting them on their “do or die” spirit. “To tolerate injustice is a sign of cowardice,” he thundered.

The address raises a pointed question, given the BJP’s recently reiterated position that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian state. Is the territory integral but not its people? True, the Valley is once again resounding to cries of “azadi” but for a mainstream party consciously and calculatedly to distinguish between the people and their land is to play with fire. This is tragic — for the country, for Mr. Advani who appeared to have buried his divisive past, and even more for Mr. Vajpayee who has left behind a formidable legacy in the form of his path-breaking initiatives in Kashmir and on India-Pakistan relations.

Look at the breathtaking nature and range of what Mr. Vajpayee attempted on either side of the Line of Control. In 1999, he made bold to visit the Minar-e-Pakistan — the ultimate toast to the idea of Pakistan. In 2001, overlooking Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure, he invited its architect, Pervez Musharraf, to walk with him on the “high road to peace.” A year earlier, he had unilaterally called off the use of force (non-initiation of combat operations) against Kashmiris to coincide with the holy month of Ramzan. In 2001, he extended the overture for the third time while simultaneously declaring in Parliament that he was ready to talk to “every group in the State.”

In January 2003, Mr. Vajpayee invited the separatist All-Party Hurriyat Conference for talks. The ground work for this was done by none other than Mr. Advani, Deputy Prime Minister in the Vajpayee government. The Hurriyat leaders met Mr. Advani and issued a joint statement that called for a “step by step solution” to the Kashmir problem. Two months later, Mr. Vajpayee became the first Prime Minister since 1987 to address a rally in Srinagar. The rally, high on atmospherics and symbolism, drew a 30,000-strong, applauding crowd that watched as the Prime Minister unwound a series of spectacular initiatives — from talks with secessionist groups through engagement with Pakistan to offers of jobs, reconstruction and peace. In January 2004, Mr. Vajpayee and General Musharraf announced the resumption of the composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan — a decision hailed as historic in India, in Pakistan and across the world.

The point here is not to project Mr. Vajpayee as a statesman truly above partisan considerations. The former Prime Minister was as apt to play the Hindu card as his less distinguished colleagues. Yet when the big idea called, he responded gallantly, displaying a maturity and sense of purpose completely at odds with the obscurantist world view of the Sangh and much of his own party. During Mr. Vajpayee’s tenure, India and Pakistan warred and engaged repeatedly. Mr. Vajpayee’s USP was his ability to recognise when to engage, and to engage disregarding previous history. On a visit to Germany in 2003, he admitted that the resolution of the Kashmir problem would require “serious compromises” which he was willing to explore through negotiations with General Musharraf. In 2004, he attempted to fulfil that promise.

Forget attempting a compromise between Jammu and Kashmir, the BJP is today pitting one against the other, which is a complete negation of the Vajpayee legacy. Mr. Advani must end this brinkmanship — as much for Mr. Vajpayee’s sake as his own. For he knows as does India that only a moderate Prime Minister can hold it together.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

India and the NSG
Obama chooses Biden
BJP on J&K: reversing its own legacy
Kerala and alternative energy resources
Looking beyond the NSG debacle
“Starving? No money? Try some organic food”
Kashmir issue
Curse indeed
Well done
Shabana’s remark
Media role

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu