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

Srikrishna travesty will cost the Sena-BJP dear

It is an unusual sight, the so-called votaries of Ram trashing Srikrishna. And where else can such things happen if not in Maharashtra, which has had the misfortune of being misruled by the Shiv Sena-Bharatiya Janata Party for more than three years now?

The circumstances in which the saffron alliance managed to seize power, democratically of course even if the uncrowned king of Maharashtra and the patriarch of the Sena has often rubbished the very system that propelled his party to power in India's most influential state, are a little clouded in the mists of time. Three years, after all, is a long time, in politics, and collective memory needs constant reminders.

The two soulmates had jointly fought the assembly elections, and reduced the Congress to a minority. Not that majority was with the Sena and BJP, but they managed to cobble together one, just as A B Vajpayee did at the Centre five months ago.

The Sena-BJP's rise in Maharashtra, three years ago, was phenomenal, and the election results were directly influenced by the Bombay riots of December 1992-January 1993. For most of us living in Maharashtra, 'outsiders' like me who had made this state and city their home, as well as natives had been watching with horror and alarm the constant decline in public life, as headed that time by Sharad Pawar of the Congress. Jokes were being cracked in Bombay about Pawar's penchant for dereservation of plots, and not all of it had merely humour as their intent. It was as if the populace was merely biding its time, which it did in March 1995 when it voted the government out.

For the electorate, the riots were the last straw. Everybody knew in Bombay that it was the Sena that ran the riots. And even if Thackeray may say today in his organisation's defence that he defended the Hindus against the rampaging Muslims, everybody knew that the dogs of war were the Sainiks. So why was the Congress voted out? Does it mean the local folks had found common cause with a party of rioters?

The truth is a little complicated than that. For a lot of people who were watching the state slide into non-governance under Sharad Pawar, the conclusion was that it was the Congress' wrong policies that were responsible for the riots as well as the subsequent, and retaliatory, bomb blasts. True, the Sena ran riot, one knew, but one also knew with clarity that for days the Congress government *did absolutely nothing* to stop the carnage. It was administrative delinquency at best and criminal abetment at the worst. The Congress lost the public's mandate with that, it was not a cachet for the Sena.

The only positive component of the Sena's vote came from those who believed that perhaps a regional outfit like the Sena could do justice to the state, whose interests had always been subservient to that of New Delhi's under the Congress regime.

Today, it is a double-whammy for the Sena voter.

Those, like me, who voted the Sena to punish the Congress for its misrule, are left aghast at the summary rejection of the Srikrishna Commission report. And those who believed that Maharashtra would be better served under the regional combine, live to hope another day.

Three years of living under Thackeray's benign gaze is enough to convince one that this is not a party of governance, but of survival. There is nothing that the Maharashtra government has done in the last three years that can convince one of the contrary.

And I think people are normally willing to overlook most faults, deficiencies, so long as one does not tangle with the legal process. Attribute it to prevalent middle-class moorings if you like, but luckily in India, the judiciary remains largely untouched by the cynicism that is directed at most areas of public life. And the trashing of the Srikrishna report thus, is something that hits at this faith in the judicial process.

True, it would have been surprising had the Shiv Sena government accepted the report in toto, and not just the parts that deal with police reforms. For, ever since this government took over, it had made its views on the commission very clear. Nevertheless, in politics, it is well known there is a huge gap between statement and policy, and I for one had hoped that the Shiv Sena would have the grace to accept Srikrishna's unflattering references to it.

The Shiv Sena, given its brief brush with governance, can be excused for carrying on as if it is in the Opposition. But this can be no ground for excusing its refusal to accept certain laid-down principles about the democratic system, even if it does professes lack of faith in the system.

Thackeray, perhaps, is not aware that the judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy, and in some respects acts as arbiter over the executive's excesses. A commission of inquiry is sanctified by an act of Parliament, and as such is an attribute of the judiciary. Even though the Commission of Inquiries Act empowers government to accept or reject reports, even the Maharashtra government's biggest supporter would not deny that the trashing of Srikrishna's labour, even if legally sanctified, is amoral in the extreme.

Governments are expected to rise above politics, and show due regards for the system it functions within. As an opposition party, one has extensive freedom to do and say as one pleases. But when in power, one's words and deeds are heavily circumscribed, both by precedent and the system. The Sena has given ample demonstration of its reluctance to learn the ropes, none being as blatant as its disregard for the Bombay riots report. What it is doing now is to trash the system, even while drawing sustenance from the same system. This may preserve its present, but will not do much for its political future.

Saisuresh Sivaswamy