Questioning govt has become a crime

The first fortnight of October has some important dates for Indians. Mahatma Gandhi was born on 2 October, Jayaprakash Narayan was born on 11 October, died on 8 October and Rammanohar Lohia died on 12 October. All three are important political icons of the country and have influenced Indian politics hugely. The latter two have played very important roles in post-independence Indian politics, and their followers are dominating contemporary politics in States and at the center.

The ruling BJP has always tried to associate with these and a few other icons of the freedom movement. All three icons have one thing in common: they firmly believed in politics with morality and considered any deviation from it as human degeneration. While inaugurating his statue at his birthplace in Sitab Diara at the Bihar border in Uttar Pradesh, Home Minister Amit Shah accused Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar of not doing the politics of non-Congressism of Jayaprakash Narayan. His assertion apparently looked like a routine attack on a political opponent that evoked only a few reactions and largely remained unnoticed. However, Shah's statement shows the current state of politics, which is largely devoid of content and originality. It only serves narrow political, social, and economic interests.

Shah has made the allegation that Kumar is not following the path of Jayaparkash Narayan and, instead of opposing the Congress, he has embraced it. It is apparent that Kumar has avoided an essential debate on the issue. Was the political ideology of Jayaprakash Narayan and Dr Ram Monohar Lohia involved only in removing Congress from power? Had the two most important political thinkers of independent India had nothing to offer other than this insignificant goal? Were they power-seekers? Was their politics inspired by vengeance and ill will?

We can take up the last question first. Shivanand Tiwari, a socialist leader and former minister in Bihar, has written an article on the personality of Jayaprakash Narayan. Tiwari was very close to JP and associated with him when he was leading the anti-corruption movement in 1974. He has narrated the incident of JP's meeting with Indira Gandhi after her defeat in the elections.

According to Tiwari, Janata Party leaders had gathered in historic Ramlila Maidan to celebrate their victory in the 1977 Lok Sabha elections, and JP was only a few furlongs away, but he chose to visit Indira Gandhi, whom he affectionately referred to as Indu. Indira, known as Iron Lady, became too emotional to control herself and started crying inconsolably. JP had been a close friend of his father, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the family. Her mother, Kamla Nehru, and JP's wife, Prabhavati Devi, were friends too.

At this meeting, JP asked Indira Gandhi as to how her expenses were to be met after losing her prime ministerial post. The incident signifies two things. One is that political rivalry should not be reduced to personal rivalry; another, and more importantly, power is a means to bring about changes in society and should not be used to achieve personal power. Kumar avoided engaging himself in a vital debate and got rid of it by dismissing the credentials of Shah, who had no experience of the kind of politics JP was pursuing.

Maybe this is a practical approach to handle such politically motivated allegations. He should have raised some more important questions that involve the party and organisation Shah belongs to – the BJP and the RSS.

Do the two organisations follow his ideology? Had they not abandoned the ideology of JP soon after they came to share power at the center with other non-Congress parties? Was not the revival of democracy the central theme of the JP movement and the BJP government is just doing the opposite of it and systemically destroying institutions that have the responsibility of upholding the Constitution?

These questions would have surely made the BJP uncomfortable. The questions are indeed relevant at a time when post-truth dominates the political discourse of the country and the media has turned into a propaganda wing of the government. Questioning the government has become a crime.

It is important to remember that Jayaprakash Narayan's Janata Party experiment failed due to the refusal of the Bhartiya Jan Sangh (the predecessor of the Bhartiya Janata Party) to disassociate itself from the RSS. The eminent socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, had raised the issue and had the support of other leaders, including JP. He wanted all the members of the Janata Party to take the pledge that they would not be part of any other organisation that was not sponsored by the party. He viewed dual membership as unethical.

The Jansangh leaders refused to do it. JP was upset and viewed it as a betrayal. After all, the leaders had assured him that they would follow his instructions. The RSS too had assured him of changing its anti-Muslim stance.

How can the BJP ask Nitish Kumar to follow ethics when the party itself does not care for it? Moreover, attacks by the BJP on Nitish Kumar are contrary to the politics pursued by JP. We have seen how the great socialist icon avoids the victory rally and chooses to visit Indira Gandhi. It shows the level of politics he was pursuing. Do the language and gestures of ruling leaders, including Narendra Modi and Amit Shah, match it? They do drop the names of Sardar Patel and Subhas Chnadra Bose. Do they emulate their elegance? Patel and Nehru had irreconcilable differences, but it never affected their personal relationship. The same was true for Subhas Bose and Gandhi. If anything, the BJP leaders could learn from these icons, it is political ethics.

(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)