SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA
ARCHIVES

Rajeev Srinivasan

Z, Presidents and Pyrrhic victories: Is it all a Greek Tragedy?

The UP fiasco -- which it was for all concerned with the single glorious exception of President Narayanan -- reminded me, quite curiously, of Z, Costa-Gavras's epic film, which I personally consider the best political film ever made. For it was the integrity of one man that saved the day, both in UP and in Z.

Conventional wisdom is that Sitaram Kesri and Mulayam Singh Yadav were the big losers in that sorry episode, because their ability to bend the central government to their personal whims was seen to be very limited. Of course, Inder Gujral's credibility in terms of his ability to control his own Cabinet also suffered. But perhaps the putative winners, the BJP, have also achieved a Pyrrhic victory, as Frontline claimed in its analysis.

It is becoming sadly clear, after the creation of the jumbo UP cabinet and the accommodation of every one of the defecting deputies in the cabinet, that the quid pro quo for support for the BJP was a license to share the spoils of office. Yes, it is true that the BJP managed to stay in power in the UP, which is worth a lot should a general election be on the cards. It is also true that the BJP has strengthened its chances of gaining power at the Centre.

However, what they lost in the process was perhaps more valuable: the image of the party as one consisting of committed cadres, and of possessing some scruples. Last year's mess in Gujarat had already tarnished the party's image of discipline; sadly, the manoeuvrings in UP indicate that the BJP is no more scrupulous than the Congress and others in its quest for power.

I am reminded of the Communists of Kerala. Once upon a time, they were men and women of integrity. Whatever one might say in hindsight about Punnapra-Vayalar as a freedom movement (I personally find it hard to believe it was one) it was definitely a revolt for economic justice. Old-time Communists can take a fair amount of the credit for the fact that Kerala's masses are so aware of their rights and are willing to stand up for them.

However, this was all true only of pre-1957 Kerala. Once the Communists tasted power, they were rapidly corrupted by it. To the extent that, today, it is hard to find any difference between the various varieties of politicians in Kerala -- as far as the man in the street is concerned, they are villains, practically every last one of them. Whenever the current bunch gets to be altogether too unbearable, Kerala elects a new batch of rascals, fully expecting them to be just as bad.

E M S Namboodiripad's Communist government was sacked in 1959 using the selfsame Article 356 as was at issue in UP. That was the first misuse of Constitutional provisions to get rid of state governments the Centre didn't like. The Communists then had a majority in the assembly, but an alliance of conservative elements created a law-and-order situation with a so-called vimochana samaram (liberation struggle), which was the excuse for the imposition of President's Rule.

Thus began the sorry saga of central interference in state affairs, and the UP debacle is the logical result of the descent down that slippery slope. I am not particularly enamoured of federalist rhetoric, primarily because Indian history shows that the lack of centralised authority has been the a major reason for our inability to articulate a coherent defence or foreign policy. Nevertheless, there are certain well-defined limits for states' rights, within which the centre should leave them alone.

In this latest instance of central-versus-states's rights confusion, I am personally sorry to see that the BJP have proved themselves to be no less Machiavellian than the next guys. Thus the Pyrrhic part, the argument goes, of their victory.

This kind of least-common-denominator-isaton is a sad comedown for the BJP. For they have been the Great White Hope of the electorate: somebody who apparently stood for something other than pure corruption. Sensing which, all the other parties have been shunning them in their plans for electoral alliances. In many ways, the BJP, rather than the Congress, had become the party to beat. Of course, they continue to have the disadvantage that they are not a truly national party, because the entire South is indifferent to their appeal.

The most interesting part of the UP misadventure for me is the lionisation of President K R Narayanan. Those who referred to him derisively as the 'Dalit President', the 'Reservation President', and so forth are now deafeningly silent. At one stroke, the President has become India's saviour, and has been elevated to the ranks of the Olympians. If there were a to be a Mount Rushmore in India, President Narayanan would surely be considered for it!

The most lavish compliment paid to President Narayanan was some talk of sambhavami yuge yuge... referring to Lord Krishna's promise in the Bhagavad Gita that whenever injustice rules, He will reincarnate Himself to save the world. Not bad, avarna (low-caste) to avatara (incarnation) in record time!

I am sure the erudite President is enjoying the irony of it all -- after all, Narayana is one of playful Lord Krishna's names.

The analogy with Z is striking. This magnificent film, set in Greece in the 1960s, is based on true events (and it won the Jury Prize at Cannes in 1969). A right-wing government is concerned about the possibility that a socialist candidate for prime minister (played by Yves Montand) might gain power. They plot to assassinate the candidate; an elaborate conspiracy involving police officers uses extremists to attack and murder the candidate, making it look like an accident.

There is a perfunctory 'investigation', and the public prosecutor (who if not an active participant in the plot was generally aware of what was going on) asks his young deputy, a new magistrate, to handle the case, fully expecting it to be a formality. But the conspirators do not reckon with the righteousness of that one man.

In an incandescent performance, Jean-Louis Trintignant (Best Actor Prize at Cannes in 1969 for this role) portrays the magistrate who, aided by an investigative journalist, systematically and methodically pursues the case in the face of outright threats from the establishment including his bosses. In the end, he indicts every one of the senior figures involved in the case.

Alas, life isn't quite so simple. There is a military coup, and the magistrate is relieved of his duties. Various witnesses die in suspicious circumstances: suicides, accidents, 'a fall from the seventh floor while attempting to escape during questioning.' The officers are let go after serving very abbreviated sentences. And the army bans a long list of things as subversive, including the Beatles, Socrates, Beethoven, long hair on men, and even the letter Z, because in ancient Greek, it means "He is alive!"

An extraordinarily gripping film, it is a powerful indictment of authoritarianism. There is a happy postscript to the events in the film, however. The magistrate survives the purges, and years later, he becomes the president of Greece. A fitting tribute to moral rectitude!

And that brings me back to our President Narayanan. How appropriate that the President should be the one to show the country the meaning of uprightness! How appropriate it is that this man, gentleman and scholar that he is, should be the one to stand between the barbarians and the rape of the Constitution! And how appropriate that it was the very party that was least enthusiastic about him that would gain by his impartial defence of the Constitution!

Sometimes, despite all the talk to the contrary, one might see a glimmer of hope in India. What if... others were to emulate the President, and refuse to do unethical things? What if... we collectively refuse to co-operate with the bribe-takers and the influence-peddlers? What if... as in the Greek play by Aristophanes, where women refuse to have sex with their men until the men stop fighting a war, we common people simply refuse to collaborate? A new satyagraha? Maybe there is room for morality after all.

Rajeev Srinivasan