WHEN Pandit Nehru accused the Chinese of betrayal in 1962, he spoke for the nation, though the charge was misplaced. Indeed, the Chinese have spared little effort, especially after the revolt in Tibet in 1959 leading to the fight of the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans into India to put New Delhi on notice. In I960, Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-Lai visited New Delhi in a bid to settle the outstanding border dispute.
Anyone aware of the bitter power struggle in China in the wake of the disaster of “great leap forward” initiated by Mao Zedong and its offshoot in the shape of the dispute with the Soviet Union would have realized the consequences of Mr Chou-En Lai’s failure to clinch a deal. Even if earlier warnings were not sufficient, the Chinese entered into a deal with Pakistan in respect of the northern border of Kashmir territory under Pakistani occupation. Even so, with the exception of communist leaders who subsequently came to constitute the CPI-M and their supporters, most Indians felt betrayed by the Chinese.
But when Mr PV Narasimha Rao speaks of betrayal by the BJP-RSS-VHP combine in connection with the demolition of the ambiguous Babri structure in Ayodhya, the charge is not only misplaced but also unrepresentative of the mood of a vast majority of the Indian people. A majority of Hindus, if not an overwhelming majority of them, either does not hold the BJP-RSS-VHP combine responsible for the demolition or does not think that it is the disaster it has been made out to be by Leftists and liberals in the English-language media and academia and anti-BJP parties. The initial sense of guilt among Hindus has, by and large, been washed away by the massive destruction of temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh, on the one hand, and the government’s decision to ban the RSS and the VHP, dismiss BJP governments in UP, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, on the other. Hindus are not belligerent; they never are for long. They are certainly not anxious to provoke violence. But they are not apologetic.
Two features are, however, common in the two situations. Just as Pandit Nehru became a victim of his belief that he could wish away the border problem with China by arguing that it had no good reason to exist since India’s traditional border in the Himalayas was well-known, Mr Rao has fallen a prey to the view that he could preserve the Babri structure and permit a temple on the adjoining site. Like the former prime minister, the present one has allowed himself to be seduced by the music of his own words.
Secondly, just as Pandit Nehru’s standing in the ruling party had been weakened in 1962, so has Mr Rao’s in 1992. Being a party of power holders and power seekers, the Congress does not find it easy to accept even a temporary setback. Pandit Nehru got over his ‘little’ difficulty by getting rid of dissenters, actual or potential, from the Union government with the help of a plan fabricated by the then Congress president Kamaraj. This enabled him to demonstrate that he was still in command.
It is difficult for me to say whether or not such a ‘solution’ is available to Mr Rao. But it can safety be predicated that if it is not his position in the Congress is likely to continue to be eroded. He must also know that what is called the Congress culture does not admit of more than one power centre and that the creation and sustenance of such a centre is not a gentle affair.
Thursday’s extended meeting of the Congress Working Committee, where ministers and party leaders from states will be present, will be significant. It will show whether or not Mr Rao intends, and is in a position, to resort to the traditional party method of reasserting his leadership. Clearly, the room for manoeuvre available to him is rather limited. He cannot, for instance, invoke the ‘foreign hand’ though Pakistan is seeking to arm groups even outside Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. For that would weaken his anti-BJP-RSS platform and call for a different agenda. The Committee will doubtless issue a ringing declaration in support of secularism and call for a relentless struggle against forces of communalism. But that will be like appealing to the faithful.
When I pointed out the unhappy consequences of “not an inch” resolution adopted by Parliament in 1962 in this space on December 17, my intention was to warn the Congress leadership of the danger of continued overreaction. The warning has been ignored. The suggestion that it should not think in terms of launching a mass anti BJP-RSS campaign is also certain to be ignored. But in reality, the Congress has not much choice but to lie low not only because it cannot sell its proposal to rebuild the Babri structure but also because it is not in sufficiently good health to undertake a mass campaign.
Indeed, there are signs that it is trying to wriggle out of the fatal commitment to rebuild the Babri structure. Even the warrior on a white charger out to get the BJP and the RSS has spoken of the need to allow passions to cool down. And obviously inspired reports have pointed out that the Allahabad High Court’s decision to declare invalid the acquisition of the adjoining 2.7 acres by the UP government has complicated the Union government’s task. Other courts can also be expected to ‘oblige’ by issuing all manners of orders on all manner of applications. The Indore branch of the MP High Court has already taken the lead.
Some Muslim leaders, including Mr Jawed Habib and Ali Mian, continue to demand that the ‘mosque’ be rebuilt on the same site. Mr Habib has even set January 26, 1993, as the date by which the government must announce a decision. These may or may not be meant to be taken at their face value. But they would serve as grist to the BJP-RSS mills.
The demand is pertinent in another respect. It will make it difficult for the Congress to win back the Muslim vote. For, it will tilt the balance in favour of the National Front-Left combine. As such, it will render infructuous Mr Rao’s appeal for an anti-BJP front. In order to have any chance of being effective, such a front must address itself to Hindus and that can be possible only if at the very least Muslim leaders keep quiet on the question of the reconstruction of the non-mosque.
A section of the Left may have served Pandit Nehru’s and Mrs Indira Gandhi’s requirements, but it cannot serve Mr Rao’s. The circumstances during the cold war were very different and the government was then not implementing an economic programme which enjoyed the endorsement and support of the World Bank and the IMF. An anti-BJP common platform is a non-starter.
But whatever the calculations and motives of Mr Rao, his colleagues and ‘potential’ allies, they have given the BJP the status it would have done anything to win. They have made it the central fact of Indian politics, with themselves defining their positions and policies in reference to it. Possibly this accords with the reality on the ground. Possibly the BJP has replaced the Congress as the fulcrum round which Indian politics would revolve.
The Observer of Business and Politics, 24 December 1992