INTERVIEW WITH GEORGE FERNANDES Convenor of the National Alliance (1) and Minister of Defense THE ART OF COALITION GOVERNMENT Serge Berthier.- For 45 years, India was under a one-party rule. You were part of the first government that broke that system more than 20 years ago. Since then, you have been part of every coalition government, but it so happened that none of them lasted the term and therefore many expect the present coalition to suffer the same fate. I don't expect you to tell it won't this time, but to explain why the National Democratic Alliance has a better chance to last than the previous alliances. In other words, what did your colleagues and yourself learn from the past failed experiments? . George Fernandes.- My political life has been a long journey. I joined a socialist party 52 years ago, (the Prime Minister of India was then Nehru) working firstly with the peasants, with the students and other deprived sections of our people. In 1974 I led a railway strike by 1.5 million workers. That strike lasted about 20 days and saw repression of unprecedented dimension against the workers. When Mrs Gandhi declared a state of emergency on June 26, 1975, effectively closing down India's democracy, I was the Chairman of the Socialist Party. I went underground but was arrested about a year later. I was tried for treason, for waging war against the government and fighting to overthrow the government by using force. I was jailed. I won the election of 1977 from inside the jail in a constituency in Bihar and got my first ministerial job in the Moraji Desai government coming out of prison (2). My first assignment was Minister of Communications, three months later I became Minister of Industry and remained in that position till the government failed.
SB.- That government lasted 28 months only, from March 24, 1977 to July, 28 1979. What went wrong? GF.- At the time, the Janata party that came into being was formed (January 1977) by four parties, the (Jana Singh) Socialist Party, my party, and the other three parties that came together were the Jan Sangh, with our current PM, Mr. Vajpayee as the president (3), the Congress (O), to which Mr. Desai belonged, the president being Mr. Ashoka Metha and the (Bharatiya) Kranti Dal to which Mr. Charan Singh (4) belonged who, after the Janata government failed, became Prime Minister for six months. And what really happened was that the Prime Minister Mr. M. Desai, who was 81 at the time, was chosen on the basis of the moral authority of Jayaprakash Narayan. The P.M. was in fact chosen when I was still in jail.
SB.- Do you mean that you had a personal grudge against the man? After all a coalition is based on the tacit understanding that you give some, you lose some, otherwise it does not work. GF.- Yes, but the fact was there was no election, no vote, no count. The election was a one man-vote, the nomination was a Jayaprakash Narayan's single vote.
SB.- Jayaprakash Narayan was not even an elected politician. Why would he sway the vote in favor of an 81 year old man who was a former Congress minister? GF.- Jayaprakash Narayan was an historical figure, he was the leading figure of the fight against Madame Gandhi, and her corrupt ways. Together with J.B Kripanali who had been the Congress President of the Congress Party during the freedom struggle, and therefore also a very tall leader of that movement - they used their moral authority to nominate Morarji Desai. When I came out, and found out immediately what had happened, it was my very first day of freedom after nearly a year in prison, I went straight to the Gandhi Peace Foundation where Jayaprakash Narayan was staying . He was sleeping. I woke him up, and I told him: "why did you have to do this? We have begun on a wrong note…"
SB.- Why? Was the Prime Minister that incompetent? GF..- He was, maybe, the right man, but then the coalition should have been formally asked to elect him. I told JN that it was wrong. The Prime Minister should have been elected out of the convictions of the parties. I told JN that anyone who wanted to fight for such election should have been allowed to fight for the leadership. In a democracy, we should never shy away from facing the electorate, whether it is the people at large or it is the party's members (5).
SB.- Indeed, but, after two years of Gandhi's dictatorship and so many years of one party rule, was it that important? GF.- Although Jayaprakash Narayan explained to me the circumstances causing him to make such a decision, I could see that he had sown with it the seeds of future dissent.
SB.- And that was the beginning of the end for the first coalition government? GF.- It is exactly what happened. Within a year and a half, dissent within the government began to descend. It was centered on the ambition of other senior colleagues, I was the youngest minister of the government, who thought they had a better chance to manage the government than Morarji Desai.
SB.- Your portfolio was in the economic sector. Was there any dissent in the economic field that was making your job impossible? GF.- My job was then also to see that somehow the differences were reconciled to honor the people’s mandate for five years. But it was not to be. That government failed because of this original sin.
SB.- I don't understand. Was it a matter of policies or a matter of political ambition? GF.- Everybody who had prime ministerial ambition, was quick to tell Morarji Desai that, after all, he was not there because people had supported him and he had been elected. He was there because someone had imposed him on the members of the parliament.
SB.- Ever since, you have been belittled for your role in the fall of the Desai government, while Mr. Vajpayee's role in that government, he was Minister of External Affairs, and said to support the proposal that the Prime Minister should step down, has never been criticized. GF.- True, I was to face a lot of flake. You see I was prepared to defend the government when nobody was prepared to do it. Then when it became obvious that the government was falling apart and the party was going to break up, I chose to go with my colleagues in the Socialist movement and to this day, critics and those whose job is to belittle the politicians…
SB.- Criticize you… GF.- They keep saying: "You supported the government, you spoke for the government, and twenty four hours later, you got out of the government. How consistent!" They don't realize, and never will, that when I spoke for the government, nobody was prepared to do so. At one time, the Prime Minister begged all his senior cabinet colleagues to support publicly the government they belong to. They decline to stand up for it. He asked me too, with the right words, to do it. I told him, as you ask me, I will, and I did. But then, ultimately, we had no choice but to leave. No one was willing to support the government. And the first lesson I learnt was that, in a coalition, transparency and the maximum internal democracy is what is needed. You should not have, could not have the tight-fisted and high disciplinarian approach a one-party government running the government all by itself can have.
SB.- Ten years after the collapse of the Desai government, you came back to power in the coalition government of V.P. Singh (6) which lasted less than a year (December 1989 - November 1990). What did you learn about coalition politics in that experiment? GF.- The second experience was of another nature, in the sense that we were a minority government. The Janata Dal (7) itself had secured 143 seats out of 543 seats in the Lok Shaha (the House of Representatives). Following the break-up of the Desai government, the former Jan Sangh members had formed a new party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and elected Mr. Vajpayee as its first President. V.P Singh (Janata Dal's President) had entered into a three-party seat-sharing agreement with the BJP and the left parties (8). It was not a 100%, it was not even a 50% seat-sharing agreement, but there were constituencies which were known to be BJP consistencies, where BJP was going to win, and similarly, there were Marxist constituencies which Marxists were going to win. The Janata Dal chose then not to contest those seats. And so there were formal and informal discussions of tactical adjustments. Together, the three parties had an overwhelming presence in the house.
SB.- Then why was it so short-lived? GF.- The government failed on the implementation of the Mandal commission recommendations (9). The Mandal commission was a body that was set up by the Desai government I joined, to look at the problem of the backward castes. Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes had then, from way back, constitutional safeguards that the backwards castes didn't have. The commission gave them that facility. It recommended that reservation in education institutions and jobs be made for people belonging to those castes which were known as backward castes. It is a vast problem because altogether the total population of the backward castes is more than half of the country’s population. Nevertheless, the Congress government which was in power when the recommendations were released, refused to implement them. It resulted in innumerable agitation inside and outside the parliament. At the time of the election, the Janata Dal party, to which I belonged, made a promise to the people that when we are returned to power, we shall implement them. The BJP had made a similar promise. Should they come in power they would implement it. And of course it was part of the left manifesto.
SB.- What was the problem, since the government had a large support for the measure? GF.- It was understood that no-one within the coalition would take credit for such a move. It was a common cause. The government failed because it implemented the recommendations, without taking the coalition partners in the confidence, without giving them face. As there was no formal coalition, the partners did not share any office, but without the external support of the BJP and the left, the government would not have been there, since every law needed 272 votes and we were only 142. BJP and the left provided us with the requisite majority, and it was right and proper to expect that we would take them in the confidence when we would take up any kind of legislation.
SB.- If that was the key element in the partnership, how come the Prime Minister did not realize such a move would torpedo his government? GF.- I was not in the confidence, but my understanding is that it was a deliberate political move which went wrong. That is what brought the government down.
SB.- You mean that it was a gamble but what was the calculation since the arithmetics were not in favor of the Janata Dal? GF.- It was a conscious gamble on the part of the Prime Minister in the belief that by doing a favor to a segment of the population which represents more than half of India, that segment will immediately rally around him. And therefore he could expect to win a single majority.
SB.- Then, the partners were certainly right to interpret the overlook as a political ploy. GF.- The BJP felt it was done deliberately to undermine their standing among their own electorate because we were trying to get the credit for having done something that the Congress did not do.
SB.- What should have been done? GF.- It was fair enough to fulfill our promise, but since the BJP did not have any opposition to the idea, they should have been made a party to it. They should have been given the opportunity to show their support by making some adjustments. Then the government would have revised the package and presented it to the parliament. In such a way, it would have been a collective achievement of the supportive parties and the Janata, but it was not done.
SB.- Political gambles to achieve one's ambition are very much the fabric of politics. What did you learn of that failed gamble? GF.- Then again, you come to the same ingredient: confidence. In a coalition, taking your colleagues and their supporters in the confidence is a necessity. You have to show the same kind of transparency with your partners that the one you show your own supporters, otherwise everything is doomed to collapse.
SB.- Since then, you have joined the first Vajpayee government, which was a small coalition which did not last, then the second Vajpayee government supported by the National Democratic Alliance, a mega-coalition of more than twenty parties with the BJP as its core. Is there any reason to believe that it will be easier to achieve transparency within a coalition as large as the present one? GF.- As regards the first BJP government, we went to the poll with only seat-adjustment agreements and on that basis the coalition secured a narrow majority, but as regards the next election, the whole of the government decided we should go for a more stable coalition. For that we needed a different structure, and a real one to manage everyone who wanted to be part of this exercise. We formed that National Democratic Alliance and went to the people with one single manifesto.
SB.- Quite recently, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Ram Prakash Gupta declared that the Ram temple issue - to be built where the Ayodhya mosque stood remains on the BJP's agenda. Are you not afraid that once again, tangential issues are threatening the cohesion of the alliance? GF.- When the first Vajpayee government was formed (in March 1998), my party took the position that if the BJP did not give up three of its very contentious goals of building a Ram temple in Ayodha, abrogating article 370 of the Constitution (which gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir) and introducing a uniform civil code, we will not be a part of the government. The BJP was quick to accept our suggestion and we all came together and formed the government, but as I said it was not a government which had adequate support.
SB.- Why, as a socialist don't you support the introduction of a uniform civil code which would certainly go a long way in delivering a more equitable society? GF.- By virtue of the power and the numbers we have in parliament, we could implement certain decisions but a uniform civil code will bring no good. The Muslims take strong exception to it because they believe that it is an attack or an assault on their personal law. To push a certain section of our population to the wall could only upset the social and political equilibrium. There is always a difference between an agenda for governance and a party's agenda, and learning from these past experiences, in particular the 1998 experience, we decided that we should have a pre-election platform and a single manifesto of that platform irrespective of what other convictions may be. The manifesto is the National Democratic Alliance's manifesto which is the name of our platform, and I believe that today we are a more homogeneous group. There is a much greater internal relationship between us, and decisions are taken by the National Democratic Alliance of which I happen to be the convener and the Prime Minister the chair person. We have pre-session meetings, post-session meetings and whenever it maybe necessary for any special reason. As a result, we have a government which is operating with much greater transparency and greater cohesion at the same time. And more importantly, the personal relationship of all the partners in the coalition are excellent (10).
SB.- But the same was said at the onset of every coalition, and as you said yourself, people do have prime ministerial ambition. GF.- I do not visualize any problem intra party or in the alliance because the manifesto has been worked out by us and no other party. Our direction has also been collectively decided by us. It has been agreed by each one that no party will raise any issue which goes beyond the National Democratic Alliance agenda and I have reasons to believe that every partner in the coalition is conscious of the responsibility that rests on its party’s shoulders because we have had three elections in three years, and given the size and the kind of electorate we have, 600 million electors, apart from the expense, it is not something that is conducive to the flowering of our democracy.
SB.- Aren't elections a sign of the flowering of democracy? GF.- Short-lived governments are considered and continue to be seen as a failure of the political system. That perception is not a good thing as it can give other ideas to other people. I think that awareness is there, at least among all the participants of the Alliance.
SB.-There is the perception, maybe wrongly, that there is no national party anymore and that the Center is very much dependent on the goodwill of the regional parties which control the States with the support of a regional majority. As a result, the initiatives don't come anymore from the center but from the periphery. If that were true, it would really be a break from the past. GF.-We are a federal republic, but not a federation of states as the United States are. Still, various tasks are divided between the States and the Union. There is also a common area between the States and the Union and therefore they have tremendous constitutional power authority. They cannot be played about by the Union. There is also a provision in the constitution that says that if there is a total breakdown of the constitutional authority of the States, then the Union can intervene. There are checks and balances in the constitution and the people have in fact far too many options. They do not tolerate any kind of games between the center and the States, by the same token, the center cannot act tough because then the people in the States will defeat the party which is in power at the center when it comes to the State elections.
SB.- In the past, the Congress was basically ruling both the States and the Union. There was no possibility of conflict within the Union. Today, no party is able to control a majority of States, and some say that such set-up is highly inefficient. GF.- No, on the contrary I believe that the power of the States to decide the future of their regional State is a part of the devolution process. In fact in that process, our constitution went even further in providing for election at the panchayat level (11). Those panchayats have a lot of constitutional backup and power also for local development…
SB.- Certainly, but on the other hand, it could work the other way round. I am told that education is not compulsory in India because the Union does not have the authority to make it compulsory. It is a State matter. GF.- Education at the State level is a State subject. The Union can enact a law (on education) but then, the States will never ratify because education is their prerogative.
SB.- Are the panchayats made of elected members or is it just a gathering of the elders or powerful clans who, by tradition, have always been in control of their village? GF.- The Constitutional requirement is that panchayats be elected, but it is a fact that in Bihar, there has never been such an election at the panchayat level. The traditional leaders have gone to the Supreme court, to argue on one point or the other that Bihar is different. In any case, the Bihar State is notorious for having looted the treasury. The point is therefore that if the panchayats get a real power, then a lot of money will have to be handed over to them and the center will have to do with less. As a result, the center and its allies are trying all sorts of things not to do it (12).
SB.- I would like to come back to what is today your specific portfolio in the government, in addition to your responsibilities as the convener of the National Democratic Alliance. You were a Trade Unionist, a socialist. Your previous portfolios were in communication, industry and railways. Today, you are Defense Minister. Given your background, people are surprised to see you handling Defense matters where, in the past, you never showed an inclination for external security issues. GF.- Security has been one of my concerns from day one of my political life. In the second government, when I was Minister of railways, Kashmir erupted. I was then handed over special responsibility for Khasmir affairs. It was not a portfolio per se but nevertheless I was in charge of it and so I was called Minister of Kashmir affairs. That experience brought me close to problems linked to our security.
SB.- Ten years later, the Kashmir problem seems to be as intractable as ever. Can it ever be sorted out in a rational manner since the Muslim Kashmiri are not giving up their claim to leave the Union? GF.- There are two aspects to the problem. One is the Pakistan factor. Pakistan believes that Kashmir has to be part of Pakistan because there is a Muslim majority. India was partitioned on the ground of the demand by a section of the population that Muslims are a separate nation. In other words, the theocratic nationhood idea was brought into play and, as a result, Pakistan came into being as a theocratic state. India has more Muslims than Pakistan has, population-wise, and we are a secular state (13). Our state has no religion, all religions are treated equally, and there is absolute freedom of religion. If India today is to accept that a part of India which has a Muslim majority population has to become now part of Pakistan, then we are striking at the very root of our raison d’être for our state. We have innumerable pockets in parts of our country where the Muslims are the majority. Then, there are some territories where the Christians are the overwhelming majority (14). So, the basic question is: are we going to face the situation where theocracy is going to be the ideology of the subcontinent? It is not acceptable to us and therefore we have a problem there. The second factor is our own failure. The problem of theocratic versus secular nationhood is being compounded by the shortcomings of our own administration. I won’t point fingers to anyone in particular, but I believe that we need to be much better at governing at the local level where people’s problems must be resolved. It is not easy, because you have land-mines being laid everywhere, improvised explosive devices going around, self-taunting men around. It is factors you have to take into account when you pass on a value judgment on what is going on. Obviously, the district and local authorities have problems. Those factors have accentuated and complicated the matter.
SB.- Kashmir is getting poorer by the day. Do you think that the instability is linked to the high level of unemployment and the lack of prospects for the Muslim population there? GF.- If the people had jobs, it would be different, but we have more or less in Kashmir the same numbers as elsewhere. In India, the number of unemployed today is large. We have over 40 million educated people registered with the employment exchanges, the number of people who are not registered is at least two times that, because only the educated are registered. The illiterate or the semi-illiterate or unskilled by definition are not allowed to register. But whereas elsewhere opportunities are growing, in Kashmir, there are no opportunities because there is no investment. What Pakistan is doing there is to create conditions in which investment does not come. Existing factories do not run. But Kashmir is not a no-man's land as some would like to present it. We have district magistrates and policemen that are often paying with their lives. There are people there committed to India. And people are getting on with their lives as before. Just last year, there was an annual pilgrimage to a shrine that drew more than 100,000 people, while the Kargil war was going on, and right now, you have a number of film-producers shooting there. Kashmir is not a war-zone. There is a certain normality of life also. But what we really are having with Pakistan is a war that has been on as far as Pakistan is concerned since 1947. The recent hijacking is just one more event in a long chapter, the big picture is the same.
SB.- India is a nuclear state, and so is Pakistan. Only months after both countries achieved officially that status, they were fighting each other in Kargil. Does it make sense? GF.- Being a nuclear state is to use the strength of deterrence (15). Anyone who casts an evil’s eye on India is aware that we have the nuclear weapon.
SB.- But no one has ever used a nuclear weapon since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because everyone is scared. People don't believe in that kind of deterrence. Are they wrong? GF.- China and Russia fought a war in 1969, both are nuclear powers and they lost a large number of men in the icy tundras of the two countries. That limited war lasted several months and nobody thought of pulling out their nuclear missiles or weapons or whatever. United States suffered a bloody nose in Vietnam. Fifty thousand men died and we don’t know how many have been crippled, but the US could not have used even a small tactical nuclear weapon. People are scared and won't use them. And I believe that is what is going to happen in the future. But the media does not believe in deterrence. Pakistan thought the same in Kargil. The military thought they had a nuclear weapon and that we had a nuclear weapon. So we would hold back our fire-power because we would have been scared to respond. It was a miscalculation on their part (16).
SB.- You are Minister of Defense of a country which is surrounded by instability and acts of war. India has a border problem with China in the North, a problem with Pakistan in the West, a problem in the South with the war in Sri-Lanka, and cold relations in the East with Burma and even Bangladesh. Why so many festering problems? GF.- First, let me point out that India has never ever been to war outside its territory. China is occupying a large chunk of our border (17). I think the talks are going on and the fact that they are going on is to me important. I don't see that as being a problem. As for the issues the Tamil people are raising, and the backdrop against which they are raising such issues, these cannot be dismissed (18). They need to be resolved and that resolution should come through dialogue. Unfortunately somehow from one mishap to one wrong step to another there have been innumerable mistakes on both sides. India had also in the past in its own way compounding that. That is why it is a very sad situation there As far as I am concerned, I have been associated in a number of meetings that have been held in India, and in Hong Kong more than once. In all these meetings we have been trying to find ways of reconciling the differences. It is another matter that we have not succeeded in that but I believe that those efforts should continue, first and foremost both sides should have confidence. I don’t think that there is anything that we can do to help both sides for the simple reason that unless they ask us for some help we can’t possibly come into the picture and say we are going to help. And that situation I do not see happening, at least not in the immediate future.
SB.- India was totally opposed to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, until it became nuclear. Now that the CTBT is basically dead, the BJP-led Government is basically giving-in to American pressure. What is the reasoning behind such a shift? GF.- Frankly I have always believed that either there is a complete disarmament or there is no disarmament. If we all agree on that, then we would like to use whatever little clout we have as a way to up the stake, this is our first and foremost idea. Disputes between countries will occur, but we think they should be settled by dialogue. If a war becomes inevitable, then conventional weapons, no weapon of mass destruction, should be used or come into play. As of now our position on the CTBT, there was a resolution of our parliament that we shall not sign the CTBT because it is going to affect our security concerns. Now with our security concerns being taken care of, because we are a nuclear state, it is the reality, and once that reality is accepted (19)…
SB.- The group of five seems not to be inclined to accept Pakistan and India in a group of seven nuclear states… GF.- We don't expect anyone to give us a certificate saying that we are a nuclear state, but once the ground reality is accepted, there is going to be a positive consensus within India, the parliament should accept that we sign the CTBT. We do not want to make our friends and allies round the world who are concerned about the nuclear weaponry feel that India with all its concerns for the issue is not taking note of the implication to the world.
Winter 2000
Notes; 1.- On 3 October 1999, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) head Atal Vajpayee was sworn in as Prime Minister of India's National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.. Unlike the coalition the BJP led in the last parliament, which ruled India for 13 months, the NDA and allied parties have a comfortable majority of the 543 seats in India's lower house of parliament. The Indian media claimed that India was entering a new period of political stability because of the very nature of the NDA. It was indeed an electoral bloc, uniting two dozen parties with widely disparate histories and ideologies. Apart from the spoils of office, the chief binary force underlying the coalition being opposition to the Congress (I) led by Sonia Gandhi. The core of the NDA is the BJP. With 182 of the NDA's 298 seats and six times more MPs than the NDA's second largest component, the BJP's commanding position in the coalition is in fact unassailable. Yet the BJP is itself a political formation fraught with contradictions. As a party identified with extreme anticommunism, support for the United States and opposition to price controls, the BJP and its predecessor, the Jana Sangh, have always enjoyed the support of some sections of business. But for most of India's first four decades, big business was allied with Congress, which was the architect of the program of national capitalist development which served them well for a long time. The principal leaders and activists of the BJP have always been drawn from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu organization which is considered fascist by many and that has repeatedly been implicated in communal violence. The elements that currently comprise the BJP leadership first got a share of national office as part of the Janata Party coalition that was swept to power in 1977 because of popular opposition to Indira Gandhi's suppression of democratic rights under the 1975-77 "Emergency." The refusal of Vajpayee and other ex-leaders of the Jana Sangh, which had been dissolved into the Janata Party, to disassociate themselves from the RSS was a major factor in the collapse of the Janata Party government. In 1984, the BJP, the new political vehicle sponsored by the RSS, won just two seats. The BJP's rise to power has been bound up with the Indian middle class and bourgeoisie's shift in economic orientation and the collapse of the Congress party. In the late 1980s the BJP secured widespread middle-class support by projecting itself as the party of economic liberalization. At the same time, it exploited caste and communal divisions, first championing opposition to the attempts of the National Front government to give itself a progressive image by extending the policy of caste reservations (affirmative action) in public sector employment, then leading agitation for the erection of a Hindu temple on the site of a mosque in Ayodhya. The latter agitation, which was led by the current Home Minister L.K. Advani, ended in the destruction of the mosque by Hindu fanatics, in defiance of the express orders of the Supreme Court, and the worst outburst of anti-Muslim violence in India since 1947. As part of the agreement that led to the creation of the NDA, the BJP has committed itself to a moratorium on so-called contentious issues such as Ayodhya. The Mahashhtran-based Shiv Sena (literally Shiva's Army, a reference to a Maharashtran warrior king) is the only one of the BJP's allies that shares its Hindu nationalist ideology. It has been the senior partner in the Shiv Sena-BJP coalition that has ruled India's third largest state, Maharashtra, for much of the 1990S. (The state election held concurrently with the national poll resulted in a hung parliament). Led by Bal Thackeray, a former newspaper cartoonist who advocates an authoritarian form of government, the Shiv Sena first came to prominence in the 1960s by protesting against the marginalization of the Marathi-speaking middle class in Bombay's economy. In the early 1980s it won big business backing by organizing scabs to break a major textile strike. The Shiv Sena played only a minor role in the last BJP-led coalition. But in the recent election, the feel-good factor due to the Bombay stockmarket boom in its stronghold State allowed it to increase its Lok Sabha representation from 6 to 15. The Telegu Desam Party is, next to the BJP, the largest parliamentary party aligned with the NDA. A regional party based in the Telegu-speaking province of Andhra Pradesh, it holds 29 seats in the new parliament and forms Andhra Pradesh's state government. Previously, the TDP was an important component of the United Front Government, which ruled India between 1996 and 1998. TDP leader and Andhra Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu, who served as United Front convener, has frequently been applauded by foreign investors as among those most supportive of the speedy dismantling of India's nationally regulated economy. The TDP has refused to officially join the NDA or the new government. It has promised instead to give the NDA regime "issue-based" support. There are several reasons for this: the TDP does not want to alienate its Muslim supporters; Naidu calculates he can best influence the government by keeping his distance and making the BJP solicit his support. The Tamilnadu-based DMK is another regional party that participated in the United Front, one of whose ostensible principles was to uphold India's "secularist" character by keeping the BJP from power. In April 1999, when the AIADMK, its principal rival in Tamilnadu, broke with the BJP-led government and aligned with the Congress, the DMK, which forms Tamilnadu's state government, crossed over to the BJP. Two smaller Tamilnadu-based parties, the PMK and MDMK, which in the 1998 elections fought alongside the AIADMK, did not join the AIADMK in bolting from the BJP and were partners in the DMK-led NDA bloc in Tamilnadu in the 1999 election. The three Tamilnadu-based parties hold 21 seats. The Biju Janata Dal is a regional party based in the east Indian state of Orissa. It emerged in 1998 out of a split-off from the Janata Dal following the fall of the United Front government. The Trinamool [or Grassroots] Congress is the BJP's West Bengal ally. A breakaway from the Congress in West Bengal, it has eight seats in the Lok Sabha. But its importance to the BJP is greater than its seat total would suggest, because it is the principal opponent of West Bengal's Left Front government. The Shiromani Akali Dal is a Sikh fundamentalist party that has been aligned with the BJP for several elections. Although it won only two Lok Sabha seats, it is the ruling party in the Punjab. The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference is another former United Front participant that has subsequently aligned itself with the BJP. Although it holds just four Lok Sabha seats, the National Conference is politically important because it is the largest pro-India party in the contested state of Kashmir. Traditionally, the National Conference and the BJP have been bitter enemies, for the BJP's pro-Hindu policies are inimical to the National Conference's mainly Muslim membership and because the BJP has long called for the abolition of Jammu and Kashmir's special autonomous status under India's constitution (today, it is backtracking on the issue). The National Conference's four MPs constitute two-thirds of all Muslim NDA parliamentarians. The other important constituent of the BJP-led NDA is the Janata Dal (United). It holds 20 seats, most of them in Bihar. The JD (U) is the largest surviving fragment of the ostensibly socialist Janata Dal. The Janata Dal was the largest party in the 1989-91 National Front and the 1996-98 United Front governments but broke up later as George Fernandes explains. Prior to the 1999 election, the majority of what remained of the Janata Dal reunited with George Fernandes and his Samata Party and a Janata Dal split-off in Karnataka, the Lok Shatki, to form the JD (U). 2.- Morarji Desai was born in 1896. He was educated in Bombay and joined the Provincial Civil Service of Bombay in 1918. He resigned in 1930 and joined the Civil Disobedience movement against the British rule, as a result of which he was imprisonned twice during 1930-1934 and again in 1940-41, then detained during 1942-1945. In the first Indian government after independence, he was Minister for Home and Revenue for Bombay. In 1952-1956, he was Chief Minister of Bombay. In 1956-1958, he was Minister for Commerce and Industry of the Union government. In 1958-1963, he was Minister for Finance. In 1963, soon after he faced his first ever no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, Nehru engineered a reshuffle of his government (known as the Kamaraj Plan) to eliminate Moraji Desai who was already considered in many circles as the next Prime Minister and therefore a threat to the Nehru clan which considered Indira Gandhi as the rightful heir to her father. After the narrow Congress victory of 1967 (the majority of the party was reduced to 25 in the Lok Sabha and it lost eight States), Indhira Gandhi offered him the position of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. In 1969 Indira Gandhi stripped him of the Finance portfolio, pushing him to resign his position as deputy Prime Minister. In March 1977, he became Prime Minister. He died in 1995. 3.- Atal Behari Vajpayee was born in 1926 in Gwalior. He started as a social worker and journalist and has been a life-long political activist. In 1956, he was Secretary of the All India Jan Sangh, one of the founder-members of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh formed on the eve of the First General Election by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherji. The party secured only three seats in the Lok Sabha and four in 1957, with Vajpayee as one of the elected. He cooperated with leaders of Congress (O), Bhartiya Lok Dal and the Socialists headed by Fernandes to create the Janata Party. After the fall of the Janata government, the section consisting of the former Jan Sangh members decided to form a new party (Bharatiya Janata Party) and elected A.B. Vajpayee as its first President. The BJP is virtually a revival of the Jan Sangh although another party under the name Bharitya Jan Sangh (BJS) still exists. 4.- Charan Singh was born in 1902. He was educated at Agra college. Associated with the Congress as soon as 1929, he leaves when Indira Gandhi becomes its leader. He founds the Bahratiya Kranti Dal in 1967 which folded into the Lok Dal in 1974 and then the Janata Party in 1977. He is Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in 1967-1968, and again from February 1970 to October 1970. He becomes Home Minister of India in March 1977, in the Desai government. He becomes Prime Minister on July 28, 1979 until January 14, 1980. 5.- The remark has a political overtone. The political parties in India are characterized by laxity of discipline (the corollary is that the parties are quite often organized around an eminent leader and not a program). The party organization is often determined by the leaders according to their convenience and sweet will. The exceptions are in the leftist parties and the BJP, but Fernandes is here alluding to the fact that the Congress (I) which possesses an elaborate apparatus is in fact dominated by the party President and for more than fifteen years no organization elections were held. Most of the party office bearers are nominated directly by the leader Sonia Gandhi. The Chief Election Commissioner has now requested the party to hold elections without delay. 6.- V.P. Singh was born in June 1931. He is the adopted son of a Raja. He is a graduate of the Allahabad University. He is elected at the Allahabad legislature in 1969 and at the Lok Sabha, as a Congress (I) member in 1971. He is Union Deputy Minister of Commerce before and during the Emergency years (1974-1976). In 1980, he is elected Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. He is Union Minister in January 1983 (Commerce, then Finance in 1984 until 1987). Minister of Defense in 1987 for three months. He is expelled from the Congress (I) on July 1987. Launched Jan Morcha in October 1987, he is elected to the Lok Sabha in June 1988. Convener National Front in August 1988. President of the Janata Dal in October 1988 he becomes Prime Minister on December 1989. On August 7 1990, he announces the implementation of the Mandal Commission. Resign on November 7, 1990. He is reelected at the Lok Sabha in 1991. Still politically active. 7.- The party came into existence on October 1988 as a result of the merger of three parties (Janta, Jan Morcha and Lok Dal). The party elected V.P. Singh as its President. Janata Dal took part in the ninth general election as partner of National Front comprising of Janata Dal, Congress (O), Telgu Desam, D.M.K, and Assom Gana Parishad. It captured 143 seats and formed a government as partner of the National Front. However the government fell within a year, and in the subsequent election, it got only 55 seats. The party was further weaken by internal bickering and in December 1993, the Ajit Singh faction opted out to form a separate group. Since then Ajit Singh and his followers have joined the Congress (I) without any condition. 8.- The Communist Party is the largest of the leftist parties. It was founded in 1924 but was soon banned until 1952. In 1953, the party emerged in Kerala as the largest single party and formed a government while capturing 29 seats at the Lok Sabha. The Party Communist was a the time confronted with a cleavage among its members, with those favoring closer links with Soviet Union and those, led by Jyoi Basu (today the longest serving Chief Minister of India, in West Bengal), believing in revolutionaries activities. The cleavage came to the fore following the border dispute between India and China. In 1964, the two groups split, one of them headed by A.K. Gopalan forming the Communist Party Marxist Leninist (CPM). In 1977, the CPM captured West Bengal and kept it until now. 9.- For a long time, the Indian leaders of the early days made very possible effort to discourage the caste system, but the Constitution by reserving seats for scheduled casts and scheduled tribes in the legislatures provided in fact impetus to an anachronistic social division. The decision of the V.P. Singh Government to implement the Mandal commission recommendations met with vehement opposition from those that already were benefiting from the Constitutional reservations, the upper caste people. A large number of teenaged boys and girls immolated themselves, which brought down the Government quickly. Whatever the justification, the Constitution has resulted in the aggravation of the caste antagonism. See on the subject the interview with Professor Jain in this issue. 10.- While Mr. Fernandes was declaring that the personal relationship of all the partners in the coalition were excellent, the party he chairs was refusing to merge with the Janata Dal (U) and the Lok Shakti, two of the partners of the National Democratic Alliance, because neither Mr. Yadav, leader of the Janata Dal (U) nor Mr. Hedge, leader of the Lok Shakti, want Mr. Fernandes as the leader of the newly merge party. At the same time, one associate of Mr. Fernandes, Shamvhu Srivastava, was launching a new think-tank, the Rashtriya Vikas Morcha, providing a platform for people critical of the BJP. 11.- See note 3 of the interview with former President R. Venkataraman. While the Union government, and in particular the Socialist leaders such as Mr. Fernandes support the panchayat system, the bureaucracy and some State governments undermine it, as they consider it as a potential challenge to their authority. For example, even in the state of Karnataka (population: 45 million) which has the highest literacy rate and is the center of the internet industry of the country, the election to the Gram Panchayat were delayed for two years because the State government, irrespective of which party was ruling, had been reluctant to hold them. They were supposed to be held in December 1998. The State government then chose to change the Panchayat Raj Act of 1993 to enlarge the size of the gram panchayats (a district of several villages) in the name of making them viable to a minimum of 10,000 people (instead of 5,000) The changes were promulgated through an ordinance on January 28,1999, but no election took place before February 23 and February 27, 2000. People's participation, over 70%, in these elections was much more than in the Assembly and parliamentary elections held in October 1999. 12.- Bihar is one of the poorest, if not the poorest state of India. But the remark is not what it looks. A state election was to take place in the state in February and Bihar is the Samata Party stronghold. It is the third largest party of the state, with 10 seats in the Assembly out of 54. It secures about 16% of the popular vote, against 26% for the RJD, its opponents in many ways, and about 24% for the BJP. In its constituencies, the Samata party enjoys a strong following with 45 to 50% of the votes but it does not contest all the constituencies under a complicated seat-sharing agreement with its partners. 13.- About secularism, see interview with Professor Jain. In fact, Pakistan and India have about the same Muslim population. It is however a fact that in India, 14% of the population, the Muslim one, cannot today secure more than 7-8% of the seats in the Lok Sabha. 14.- Unless Mr. Fernandes refers to the small territories of Goa and Pondichery, both with a majority of Christians since they were Portuguese and French territories until recently, no State has a real majority of Christians, although there are numerous pockets of Christian majority. Nearly half the number of Indian Christians in India (19.6 million according to 1991 census) belong to Tamil Nadu and Kerala. They are also spread in Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi area and Madhya Praddesh. India has three main branches of Christianity, the Catholic, the Orthodox and the Protestant (about five million, most of whom live in the Northern and eastern regions). On the other hand, about 14% of the population is Muslim against 27% before the creation of Pakistan. 15.- See interview with K. Subrahmanyam about the Kargil war which took place from May 4th to July 10th, 1999. 16.- China and India are approaching accord on the border dispute in the Ladakh region which led to a war in 1962 and resulted in the loss of the Aksai Chin glacier. 17.- See interview with K. Subrahmanyam about the nuclear policy of India. 18.- In December 1997, George Fernandes, then out of the government, was the convener of the International convention for Solidarity with the Eelam Tamil of Sri Lanka (I.C.S.E.T.S.L.) which was scheduled to be held at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) auditorium in New Delhi. Two days before the meeting was to take place, the Samata Party leader was informed by the Delhi police that permission to hold the conference would not be given. The Delhi police had also warned the FICCI authorities that it should not allow the 'misuse' of its premises for 'anti-national activity'. But Fernandes held a press conference, on 12th December 1997 and announced that the convention would take place, saying that if the ban was enforced, the Government of India would be going against the constitutional right to freedom of expression. "We have an opinion as to what happens in Sri Lanka and it cannot be tailored to the requirements of a family. Government have different opinions if it does not suit it or its proxy owners", he stated. Union Home Minister Inderjit Gupta requested George Fernandes to "reconsider" the decision to hold and participate in the convention. He pointed out in his letter that the LTTE leadership based abroad were trying to "reactivate" their support base in Tamil Nadu in the aftermath of the U.S. decision to declare the LTTE a "terrorist organization". With this objective in view and at the "behest" of the LTTE leadership, the conference was being organized. The Home Minister said "reports" were received in this regard also indicated that "funds" for the purpose were being channeled from the US and Australia-based LTTE leaders, through Mr. Nedumaran. Mr. Fernandes, at the time of releasing copies of the letter to correspondents, had Mr. Nedumaran by his side. Mr. Fernandes, who strongly reacted to the contents of the letter, said it was being made out that he was either "an over ground operator for underground LTTE of being a nit-wit". He said he had been to almost every convention as a "human rights activist" since 1983 in India and abroad. Furthermore the First Secretary of the Sri Lankan High Commission had expressed interest in attending the conference because of the nature of issues being discussed and a member of parliament from Sri Lanka, Mr. J. Pararajasingham, had already confirmed his participation. Finally the convention was held as scheduled, but in a different venue - at Mr. Fernandes' residence. Speaking at a press conference held on the eve of the convention, Mr. Fernandes criticized the ruling class of India for their indifference to the plight of the Eelam Tamil. "It is shameful that the Indian Government does not have a word to say against the fate of the Tamil who are at the receiving end of state sponsored terror by the Sinhala Army in Sri Lanka... There are very powerful groups in this country who would not care at all about the Tamil and they treat them as second class citizens. Fifty five million Tamils in Tamil Nadu are watching the indifference of the central government towards their brothers and sisters in Sri Lanka". Winter 2000 | |||
 | | | |