ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/ Shalabh Kumar

L K Advani is no Sardar Patel

If there were any doubts about this, the recent fracas involving Bal Thackeray and the Pakistan cricket tour firmly establishes that. It was a classic terrorist-hostage situation and Advani not only blinked, he buckled. By threatening the cricket tour and the safety of the cricketers, Thackeray did what most terrorists down the years have done. The pretext for doing so is irrelevant -- a plane hijacker or a terrorist planting a bomb also sometimes have similar morally or politically justifiable grounds. That does not change the nature of the act. A threat, direct or indirect, to the law of the land is a terrorist act.

By negotiating with Thackeray, nay by begging Thackeray, to withdraw the threat, Advani demonstrated how weak he and the government, that he represents, are. In Advani's capitulation there is a story. But first let us simplify the issues involved.

There are legitimate grounds to debate the desirability of the cricket tour. Strong arguments can be made for both sides of the case. In favour of the cricket tour is the argument that singling out the cricket tour is senseless. While Kashmir is a thorny issue between us, we do not treat Pakistan as a pariah nation -- we maintain diplomatic relations, engage in problem-solving talks, trade (in a manner) and have other sporting and cultural exchanges. To make an issue out of a cricket tour then is meaningless. Against the cricket tour is the legitimate question whether we should have these cultural and sporting exchanges, and indeed any diplomatic relations, with Pakistan at all. It is a country hostile to Indian interests in every which way and, hence, there could be a genuine case for treating it as one.

There is a simple point here. Since there are strong arguments on both sides of the case, we need to publicly debate this issue. Government policy will follow, hopefully, the popular and considered opinion. If the public opinion is in favour of the decision to suspend ties with Pakistan and to declare it a terrorist / hostile nation, the government must do so. Any such policy declaration must, however, be the government's prerogative. No individual can usurp its right to do so or through the use of violence, blackmail et al threaten to do so. These are fundamental pillars of a democratic and civilised society.

In principle, universal franchise provides us with the choice to elect the government that we want and the policies that it should pursue. Institutions like a free press and freedom of speech and expression allow us to comment on and express opinions on the continuing state of policies and governance. The laws of behaviour, encoded in the criminal and civil statutes, similarly represent the popular and considered opinion. In such a system, any individual who directly threatens or challenges the superstructure of governance is going against the popular opinion -- if he is not, by logic he will not need to go against the superstructure because popular opinion allows the structure to be modified. This was never more true than in this case.

Thackeray is, for all practical purposes, a part of the governing group -- he can have his opinions heard at the highest quarters more than most of us ordinary people, even if they do not reflect popular opinion. Yet, he chose the methods of the lunatic fringe. His motives, well commented and reflected upon, are not of interest to me -- there are a number of similar 'goondas' in my native town in Bihar. I have seen enough to realise that the lunatic fringe is a reality in most societies and we have to learn to live and deal with them.

The results of his actions are, in contrast, of tremendous interest. It was not just the government's prerogative to decide on policy that Thackeray challenged, he also challenged the very rule of law. After all, there have been many people who have questioned the desirability of the Pakistan cricket tour. That is what freedom of expression is all about. But only Thackeray threatened to take matters in is his own hands. When the prime minister cleared the cricket tour, he publicly supported what has been government policy for years -- build relations with Pakistan on other fronts while we talk to resolve the Kashmir issue.

It must be noted that the prime ministerial declaration was not met by a public uproar. The government policy over Pakistan, sustained through various regimes, is quite well-known and is generally accepted. This official support by the prime minister were supposed to remove doubts about the government support to the tour, if any existed. Thackeray's reaction, as said earlier in this column, was classic terrorism -- "Since you will not do what I want you to do, I will make you…!" Hence, the vandalism in Ferozeshah Kotla and the threats of physical harm to the cricketers.

Advani couldn't have had a simpler situation to show his mettle. One individual had directly challenged the government, threatened that he would use illegal means to wreck declared government intentions. Question -- what would Advani do if an individual were to publicly declare intentions of disrupting say a Head of State visit? Or if someone were to publicly incite assassination of the prime minister? Would Advani go and negotiate with the would-be arsonist or assassin for a year-long moratorium? Of course not. He would have the man arrested and tried -- lest it be forgotten, the threat to commit a crime is also a legal offence. So, why wasn't Thackeray arrested?

The answer, dear readers, is because Advani is no Sardar Patel. To take tough decisions you have to be a tough man. Political compulsions and mitigating circumstances can be found for every easy decision. I am sure Advani's conscience is clear. He would have many logical and compelling reasons why he chose to negotiate with Thackeray, instead of putting him behind bars. He even has precedent behind him. V P Singh's government chose to negotiate with the kidnappers of the daughter of the then home minister, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. A number of terrorists were released as a part of that bargain. Advani ostensibly did not make any such damaging compromise.

Yet, the compromise is in the act of negotiation itself. It is now a matter of historical record that it was not just the terrorists released in that very expensive bargain in Kashmir but also the act of the Government of India capitulating to terrorist demands that set the fight against terrorism in Kashmir back by a number of years. The long term implications of Advani's surrender are, unfortunately, going to be similarly disastrous.

Once the law of the nation is shown to be negotiable, every street-side goonda will seek to bargain with the State. A precedent such as this can be an extremely powerful motivator for law-breakers of all kinds. In any case, it would be naïve to believe that the storm has passed. Thackeray's followers are bound to feel encouraged by such open submission to their threats. I dread to think what Act II of this drama could be.

The villain of this story is not Thackeray. As I said earlier, every society has to learn to live and deal with its lunatic fringe. The Thackerays of the world will not disappear nor can they be wished away. But to contain the damage that they do, we need strong men who are willing to recognise the dangers these people pose to civilised society. Such people do not buy year-long moratoriums from terrorists, they do not negotiate either. They put terrorists where they belong -- behind bars.

Advani surely is not such a man.

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature