Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango

Wake up. You have spent the past couple of weeks imagining L. K. Advani as a white dove against a dark sky, L. K. Advani as a seraphic Vajpayee, L. K. Advani as Jinnah-lover, L. K. Advani as born-again secularist, and L. K. Advani as the saffron brigade’s latest whipping boy.

What most people have not realised is that the sado-masochism is consensual. They are doing it in tandem. This con-game has been going on for over a decade now and I am surprised at the naiveté of the so-called analysts.

Advani’s Pakistan visit, his comments on Jinnah and the responses to it would constitute important media reportage. But to have reams of opinion by people not directly involved in party politics, and that too in such a knee-jerk fashion at the initial stages, is blind-folded opportunism. The papers went haywire with indepth articles on Jinnah’s house, his wife, his wardrobe, his eating habits, his legal fees. This was irrelevant to the context.

Where was the Advani trivia?

I was in Delhi when the tamasha began. Late one evening, in a roomful of primarily starchy pedagogues, I found uncharacteristically animated faces as the words flew fast and furious. There was no question about my seeming to rudely eavesdrop. They wanted to be overheard. My right ear was ringing with the baritone, “Yeh secularism kuchch zyaada hi ho raha hai.” The left ear evidenced the dryness of a “Laloo Prasad ne sahee kahaa – aakhir uska janmabhoomi ke saath rishta to hoga na….” I returned to the right ear perking up with amusement when it registered the remark, “They say Jinnah is a Kutchi. Kutchis are handsome; Jinnah was not.”

These were the intellectuals of the Capital – bureaucrats, academics, senior media persons. They were quoted, called on TV panels, wrote ponderous pieces in the papers about Jinnah’s past, Advani’s future (they clearly had no idea about the present). They did not use the language they used in the room that day.

One of them felt it incumbent to demonstrate politeness and asked me my opinion about the resignation. I knew only too well he was least interested in it and would interrupt me with some more googled gems to display his research skills. I merely smiled enigmatically and shrugged, “I have nothing to say right now.” I was certain the resignation would be withdrawn. Fortunately, I happened to meet someone who knows his politics, having spent a few decades in it. “Why are people jumping the gun? Should they not wait a fortnight before making sweeping comments?” I asked him.

That’s precisely what I did. Waited. Now we can talk.

The few points that have been raised need to be seen from the con-game perspective.

The leopard’s spots

Was Advani reinventing his image?

All this talk of his trying to be another Vajpayee is nonsense, for Advani is far more ambitious and Vajpayee is not a good role model for Atalji himself forget about anyone else. The only thing the two of them have in common is the easy ability to talk with a forked tongue. It must be noted that when Vajpayee held centre-stage, Advani stood in the wings ostensibly as kingmaker but also to give cues when Atalji forgot the rehearsed lies. This time round, Vajpayee was the only senior BJP leader who stood by Advani. Why?

They have learned the ropes of fake moderation from the same school – the RSS. Advani messed up Agra; Vajpayee looked pained at his efforts failing. This was predetermined. To use the RSS’ newfound love for filmi patois, the nayak would talk peace; the khalnayak would botch up the plans. The hero would do nothing and the nayika would take a midnight flight back home.

They would remove their respective black and white masks and return to the sallow grey arms of their parent. Months later, Vajpayee would be instrumental in initiating the peace process with Pakistan. He would not remember Jinnah. Because the mai-baap told him to leave something for the brother to say and do.

So, why was all the fuss created? What did people expect him to write in the visitor’s book at the mausoleum? That their Quaid broke up the country?

Typically, the BJP has been referring to the episode as evidence of it being a democratic party “where both ideology and grassroots workers matter!” Where is the ideology and, more importantly, where are the grassroots workers?

The resignation was a drama, as is now well-known. He carried it in his pocket on the flight itself. It was probably drafted by the Sangh Parivar for him. When a delegation went to ask him to rethink, he told them, “Kya bachchon jaisi baat karte ho, main istifa waapas nahin lene waala hoon (You are speaking in a childish manner. I am not withdrawing my resignation).” But he did. I suppose he is vulnerable to the pleas of children.

I feel a little sorry for all those who started applauding him a bit too soon. This includes the Pakistani press.

Daily Times: “It was a masterstroke on part of Advani. By resigning he has signalled that he is prepared to rise above the narrow agenda of the Parivar and the latter can either fall in line or lump it.”

They don’t have to do either; Mr. Advani is the line of actual control.

Jang: “Advani’s about turn after seventy years in politics proves he is a wise person who is reading the writing on the wall…Advani’s courage would be remembered in subcontinent politics and it may change the shape of things to come.”

Wisdom after 70 years? What writing and on whose wall? What will it change?

Dawn: “He has managed to bring into focus the dilemma of religio-political parties in today’s rapidly globalising, and inevitably secularising, world. It was Advani who led the notorious ‘rath yatra’ that culminated in the cruel destruction of the Babri Mosque in 1992….if a person like him believes that is time to re-evaluate the role of revivalist parties, it is as much political realism as an intelligent realisation of the irresistible forces that now confront many traditional political notions and practices.”

Did anyone hear him discuss the role of revivalist parties? Has he said he has changed? These are his words, “What I am today is what I am tomorrow. I have not changed. I am a misunderstood person in Pakistan…I don’t hate Pakistan.”

As an Indian I don’t care what he thinks of Pakistan. But he is playing a dangerous game. There have always been innuendoes that if you create a good impression of yourself in Pakistan, then the Indian Muslims will be pleased. We are not amused. It is an insult to IM intelligence and patriotism.

Unfortunately, this well-orchestrated affair has not left senior commentators unmoved. M. J. Akbar wrote, “One can sense the depth of shock within the BJP. They had barely managed to digest the liberalism of Atal Behari Vajpayee, and now they were being confronted with a recast Advani.”

Really? So, what was Vajpayee’s Goa speech all about? What is the continuing support for Narendra Modi all about? Was it done under RSS pressure or with their connivance? If the demolition of the Babri Masjid was indeed “the saddest day” in Mr. Advani’s life, then why did it take 14 years and six months to be raked up again? Why had he allowed even more sadness to permeate the country when his party was in power?

Pakistan as willing pawn

Why was he invited in the first place? If Pakistan wanted to show it was secular it could have got one of its senior Hindu leaders or religious heads or an Indian mahant to do the honours. At one time they used to talk about how Hindutva parties had demoralised their brothers across the border. This was the man behind it. And there they were in rapt attention as he cavalierly spoke about sending a message to Pakistan about minorities. As Sharad Pawar put it so effectively, now that Advani has discussed secularism in Pakistan he should perhaps practise it in his own country.

Where was Pakistani self-respect? Why were they jumping around only because he was stating the obvious? Jinnah being called a secularist by a bigot should have been deemed an insult. To add further injury, Advani has been talking about how he was telling our neighbour about their founder’s original plan. They listened. They feted him. They let him sway to the tune of a Sindhi pop singer and get away with his spiel.

Only a fool would believe that praising Jinnah was a paean to secularism. On the surface the cop-out reason was the above-mentioned one that was touted. Advani who has always toed the RSS line would never go against it. There has been a tacit understanding: Use Jinnah who they say fractured the country along communal lines to justify and legitimise your own communalism.

The Jamaat-e-Islami termed Advani’s resignation as an “eye-opener” for Pakistani rulers. “Those who talk about soft borders with India should now review their thinking that Hindu hardliners are not ready to accept Pakistan.”

Advani has followed his brief well: Create confusion. He has fulfilled the mission of the Hindu hardliners.

The Hindu card

After the Karachi whitewash job, we now get to hear from the likes of Sudheendra Kulkarni that there is no such thing as “the Hindu vote”. Smart. In India, the deciding factor is the Hindu vote, therefore stating it would anyway be a non sequiter.

We have this interesting yoyo going back and forth. The VHP starts worrying about the BJP becoming the “Bharatiya Jinnah party”. It asks Advani to take sanyas for hurting the feelings of 85 crore Hindus.

This is ironical – it ought to really mean that they are not the thinking like Hindus if they are missing all those Muslims who left because of Jinnah.

Venkaiah Naidu jumps in to say, “Advaniji’s contribution to Hinduism and nationalism is unparalleled….He is the man who set an agenda for a debate across the country on the true meaning of secularism, tearing apart the pseudo-secular politics practised by other parties.”

Please note that there does not seem to be the necessity for political correctness here – it is Hindu first, nationalist next. For the record, “tearing apart of pseudo-secular politics” is an old RSS hobby. And why have we not heard about secularism in India as practised by Indian Muslims?

Because that would be so much appeasement. As one RSS leader said, Jinnah “subsequently became a communalist and an anti-Hindu leader who espoused the two-nation theory. How can Advani call such a person secular?” Are only anti-Hindus communalists?

And how many people have heard about the Katasraj temple revered by all Hindus in the subcontinent as the resting place of the Pandavas? Do you imagine Advani went on the invitation of the Pakistan government to inaugurate the restored portion without the knowledge of the RSS? The BJP has said this was a “turning point in removing long-held misgivings between the people of the two countries”. Are the people of the two countries such idiots? Do the Indian Hindus care about any temple in Pakistan?

That is not even the issue. Advaniji is in beatific mode now, “Consciously or unconsciously (Bhagwat Gita) had an impact on me during the phase I underwent recently. I decided to stand by my conviction and face the situation rather than engage in escapism.”

Of course. The situation as it stands today is the RSS is now praising Vajpayee for his stand against the UPA government, the same Vajpayee who has stood behind Advani. Got it? And the RSS is now declaring that it is not anti-Muslim. What do you make of this? Elementary politics. Advani was the RSS’ loyal foot soldier who did everything he could in Pakistan to lay the foundation for the return of Hindutva and to prepare for the early 2007 elections in Uttar Pradesh where they plan to raise the Ram temple issue once again.

Shri Lal Krishna Advani is known to be stupendously good with temples.

Game, set, match

What Advani did by rattling Jinnah’s skeleton was to in fact draw attention to the two-nation theory. The RSS may have called him old and wanted him to retire, but what they have in mind for him is something larger than party leadership. They want him to ‘create’ history, much in the manner he talked about Jinnah. (“He created Pakistan single-handedly.”) By suggesting he ‘capitulate’, they are ensuring that he becomes a hero-martyr. Do not forget for a moment that L. K. Advani IS the RSS.

Part of the strategy is that one section will prop up Modi as “a unique combination of Loh Purush and Vikas Purush.” Would this create fissures? No. Advani uska baap hai and he knows it. This is part of the RSS game-plan.

Advani’s comeback line is, “I keep saying that the ugly image of the Indian politician should change, especially of those involved in governance.” Did he tell Modi that in 2002? Did he ever tell himself that? Does he even know what an ugly image is when they use gods as a cover-up for their dirty deeds?

I am surprised that no comment has been made about Advani’s meeting with Maulana Samiul Haq, who is known for his support to the jihad in Afghanistan and Kashmir. A report in ‘The Week’ states, “Haq runs a seminary in Akora Khattak, the North West Frontier Province, which reportedly has trained many Kashmiri militants. Advani and Haq shook hands at a dinner and said that the leadership of both sides should join hands for a peaceful future.”

This, to my mind, is more significant than the scrawl in the visitor’s book at the Quaid’s mausoleum. Why has the Hindutva lobby been silent on this? Because both these gentlemen are cut from the same cloth. When they talk about peace it must be understood that the underlying message is that it can come about only with a religious grounding. And if they can have a jihad and talk about amity, then we too can have a saffron holy war and do the same.

The RSS and L. K. Advani have just given us a lesson in perfect event management. Never mind that it appears less of a tango and more like dirty dancing.