Friday September 21, 2018
Home Uncategorized How emergency...

How emergency bridged barriers between RSS and Muslim leaders in captivity

0
//
128
Republish
Reprint

MVI_00081

By Ishan Kukreti

Sadanand Panday has been associated with the esteemed Hindi daily Vir Arjun for more than 20 years. The daily, once a staple diet of nationalists and an unrelenting voice for freedom, had Atal Bihari Vajpayee as its editor at one point of time.

NewsGram talked to Sadanand Panday, associate editor of the newspaper about the situation during emergency and his views on Democracy and Dictatorship.

Ishan Kukreti- How was the experience of emergency by the media fraternity?
Sadanand Panday– Senior journalist Kuldeep Nayyar has often told me how during emergency power supply to the press area on Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg was withheld. The editors had to get their news stories pre-approved from Press Information Bureau. Because of this distribution of the papers suffered a lot during this period. It can be said that newspapers weren’t printed during emergency, only pamphlets were.

IK- What was the treatment meted out to Vir Arjun during emergency?
SPVir Arjun faced the atrocities of emergency, like the rest of the newspapers. The paper had to be discontinued because of the pressure from Mrs. Gandhi. K. Narendra, the then editor of Vir Arjun was given an option of either publishing pro government stories or facing closure. He chose the later. Vir Arjun broke down, but it did not bend.

IK- How was everyday life and ordinary populace affected by emergency?
SP– I remember, people were scared. Many of my teachers were arrested and treated with complete disregard for human and fundamental rights in prisons. They had to face a difficult time there. But, at the same time, there used to be a lot of intellectual people in the jails like journalists, politicians, lawyers etc and the kind of company one had there was very revolutionary.

I was told a very interesting incident by Mr. Arif Beg of BJP. The RSS members and the Muslim leaders who were locked up, although initially sat in opposite corners of the cell, by the end of it all, became close friends as they suffered similarly at the hands of the government.

Mr. M. Faruqi of CPI( Communist Party of India) told me that there was an unsaid understanding amongst all prisoners that Indira Gandhi had to be dislodged from power to maintain the democratic nature of India.

IK- Was there a sea change in the situation during and after emergency?
SP– People were quiet at that time, but they were angry. Although Vinoba Bhave called the period an ‘Anushashan Parv‘, it is completely wrong. Emergency was the decision of a weak and scared woman who feared losing her power. This was felt by everyone.

At that time a pamphlet used to be published called, ‘Ram aur Sham‘, which laid bare the atrocities committed during that time. It was widely read by people. They used to listen to BBC instead of AIR. Literate people liked the speeches of Richard Nixon where he criticized Mrs. Gandhi. Henry Kissinger was popular for his comments against Mrs. Gandhi. Although people could not express their anger openly, they pledged to punish Mrs. Gandhi in the next elections, and they did.

Some Congress members too could not express themselves freely because of the fear of top party officials. They tried to create a favorable image of the efforts/atrocities committed by Sanjay Gandhi force without being convinced or convincing others.

IK- Which were the sections that were most aggrieved by the situation?
SP– The lower classes, who had to face forced sterilization drive were too scared to openly say anything. But there was resentment in their hearts too. The Muslim section was completely against the Congress and Mrs. Gandhi as the period saw the demolition of Turkman Gate. I’d say all the sections were equally outraged by the imposition of emergency. Even many Congress members just paid lip service to the higher authorities in the party.

IK- Before the 2014 Parliamentary Elections, there was a section of people who believed that India needed a dictatorship to make it a superpower. Do you agree with this contention?
SP– No. Not at all. Dictatorship has never created a successful nation, and it never will. Democracy and freedom have their own charm and there is no substitute to it. I don’t think anywhere in the near or far future, Dictatorship can replace Democracy as a better model of governance.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 NewsGram

Next Story

Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A Peace Visionary and a Man Who Believed in India’s Destiny and was Ready To Fight For It

It was precisely this persona of Vajpayee -- one merged in Hindutva ideology yet seemingly not wholly willing to bow to it -- that won him admirers cutting across the political spectrum.

0
Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India's peace visionary. Image: Flickr

Atal Bihari Vajpayee was a man of moderation in a fraternity of jingoistic nationalists; a peace visionary in a region riven by religious animosity; and a man who believed in India’s destiny and was ready to fight for it.

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (93), who died on Thursday, will go down in history as a person who tried to end years of hostility with Pakistan and put development on the front burner of the country’s political agenda. He was also the first non-Congress Prime Minister to complete a full five-year term.

Even though he lived the last 13 years of his life in virtual isolation, dogged by debilitating illnesses and bedridden, he has left an enduring legacy for the nation and the region where he was much loved and respected across the political spectrum and national boundaries, including in Pakistan.

Vajpayee, former Indian Prime Minister
Vajpayee stunned the world by making India a declared nuclear state. Image: Wikimedia Commons

In the tumultuous period he presided over the destiny of the world’s largest democracy, Vajpayee stunned the world by making India a declared nuclear state and then almost went to war with Pakistan before making peace with it in the most dramatic fashion.
In the process, his popularity came to match that of Indira Gandhi, a woman he admired for her guts even as he hated her politics.

He also became the best-known national leader after Indira Gandhi and her father Jawaharlal Nehru.

After despairing for years that he would never become Prime Minister and was destined to remain an opposition leader all his life, he achieved his goal, but only for 13 days, from May 16-28, 1996, after his deputy, L.K. Advani, chose not to contest elections that year.
His second term came on March 19, 1998, and lasted 13 months, a period during which India stunned the world by undertaking a series of nuclear tests that invited global reproach.

Although his tenure again proved short-lived, his and his government’s enhanced stature following the world-defying blasts enabled him to return as Prime Minister for the third time on October 13, 1999, a tenure that lasted a full five-year term.

When finally he stepped down in May 2004, after an election that he was given to believe he would win, it marked the end of a long and eventful political career spanning six decades.

Vajpayee had gone into these elections riding a personality cult that projected him as a man who had brought glory to the nation in unprecedented ways. The BJP’s election strategy rested on seeking a renewed mandate over three broad pillars of achievement that the government claimed — political stability in spite of the pulls and pressures of running a multi-party coalition; a “shining” economy that saw a dizzying 10.4 percent growth in the last quarter of the previous year; and peace with Pakistan that changed the way the two countries looked at each other for over 50 years.

The results of the elections could not have come as a greater shock to a man who was hailed for his achievements and who was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 influential men of the decade.

Success didn’t come easily to the charismatic politician, who was born on Christmas Day in 1924 in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, into a family of moderate means. His father was a school teacher and Vajpayee would later recall his early brush with poverty.

He did his Masters in Political Science, studying at the Victoria College in Gwalior and at the DAV College in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where he first contested, and lost, elections. He began his professional career as a journalist, working with Rashtradharma, a Hindi monthly, Panchjanya, a Hindi weekly, and two Hindi dailies, Swadesh and Veer Arjun. By then he had firmly embraced the ideals of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).
But even as he struggled to win electoral battles, his command over Hindi, the lingua franca of the North Indian masses, his conciliatory politics and his riveting oratory brought him into public limelight.

Also read: For Modi, Road To 2019 Will Be Steeper

His first entry into Parliament was in 1962 through the Rajya Sabha, the upper house. It was only in 1971 that he won a Lok Sabha election. He was elected to the lower house seven times and to the Rajya Sabha twice.

Vajpayee
Vajpayee spent months in prison when Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency rule in June 1975. Image: Wikimedia Commons

Vajpayee spent months in prison when Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency rule in June 1975 and put her political opponents in jail. When the Janata Party took office in 1977, dethroning the Congress for the first time, he became the foreign minister.

The lowest point in his career came when he lost the 1984 Lok Sabha polls, that too from his birthplace Gwalior, after Rajiv Gandhi won an overwhelming majority following his mother Indira Gandhi’s assassination. And the BJP he led ended up with just two seats in
the 545-member Lok Sabha, in what looked like the end of the road for the right-wing party.

In no time, Vajpayee was replaced and “eclipsed” by his long-time friend L.K. Advani.
Although they were the best of friends publicly, Vajpayee never fully agreed with Advani’s and the assorted Hindu nationalist groups’ strident advocacy of Hindutva, an ideology ranged against the idea of secular India.

Often described as the right man in the wrong party, there were also those who belittled him as a moderate “mask” to a hardline Hindu nationalist ideology. Often he found his convictions and value systems at odds with the party, but the bachelor-politician never went against it.

It was precisely this persona of Vajpayee — one merged in Hindutva ideology yet seemingly not wholly willing to bow to it — that won him admirers cutting across the political spectrum. It was this trait that made him the Prime Minister when the BJP’s allies concluded they needed a moderate to steer a hardliner, pro-Hindu party.

He brought into governance measures that created for India a distinct international status on the diplomatic and economic fronts. In his third prime ministerial stint, Vajpayee launched a widely acclaimed diplomatic initiative by starting a bus service between New Delhi and Pakistan’s Lahore city.

Its inaugural run in February 1999 carried Vajpayee and was welcomed on the border by his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif. It was suspended only after the 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament that nearly led to a war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

The freeze between the two countries, including an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation on the border for nearly a year, was finally cracked in the spring of 2003 when Vajpayee, while in Kashmir, extended a “hand of friendship” to Pakistan. That led to the historic summit in January 2004 with then President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad — a remarkable U-turn after the failed summit in Agra of 2001. Despite the two men being so far apart in every way, Musharraf developed a strong liking for the Indian leader.

His unfinished task, one that he would probably rue, would be the peace process with Pakistan that he had vowed to pursue to its logical conclusion and a resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

He was not known as “Atal-Ji”, a name that translates into firmness, for nothing. He could go against the grain of his party if he saw it deviate from its path. When Hindu hardliners celebrated the destruction of the 16th century Babri Mosque at Ayodhya, he was full of personal remorse for the apocalyptic action and called it — in a landmark interview to IANS — the “worst miscalculation” and a “misadventure”. He even despaired that “moderates have no place — who is going to listen to the voice of sanity?”

In his full five-year term, he successively carried forward India’s economic reforms programme with initiatives to improve infrastructure, including flagging off a massive national highway project that has become associated with his vision, went for massive privatisation of unviable state undertakings despite opposition from even within his own party.

While his personal image remained unsullied despite his long innings in the murky politics of this country, his judgment was found wanting when his government was rocked by an arms bribery scandal that sought to expose alleged payoffs to some senior members of his cabinet. His failure to speak up when members of his party and its sister organisations, who are accused of killing more than 1,000 Muslims in Gujarat, was questioned by the liberal fraternity who wondered aloud about his secular proclamations. He wanted then Chief Minister — now Prime Minister, Narendra Modi — to take responsibility for the riots and quit but was prevailed upon by others not to press his decision.

A day before his party lost power, Vajpayee was quoted as saying in a television interview that if and when he stepped down he would like to devote his time to writing and poetry. But fate ruled otherwise. The man who once rued that “I have waited too long to be Prime Minister” found his last days in a world far removed from the adulation and attention — though across the nation people prayed for his well-being — surrounded only by care-givers and close family whom he even failed to recognize. (IANS)