Symphonist In A Solo Orchestra

All great leaders are products of a dialectic with history. They are shaped by history. In turn, they strive to shape history. The legacy they leave behind depends upon what they learnt from the depth and breadth of history, what specific circumstances they had to confront, the agenda they set for themselves, and, of course, their own innate leadership qualities. Willy Brandt foresaw the reunification of Germany and boldly advocated the policy of detente, which resulted in a bloodless end to the Cold War. Deng Xiaoping rescued China from the catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution and laid the foundation for the country’s spectacular modernisation, while retaining the one-party Communist rule. Lee Kuan Yew understood that the only way Singapore could survive as a tiny city-state was by securing for it a place on the global economic map crazily disproportionate to its size.

Atal Behari Vajpayee’s legacy lies in four mutually supporting areas. Firstly, both as prime minister and long before he became one, he made a stellar contribution to strengthening the edifice and ethos of India’s parliamentary democracy. Secondly, he brought political stability to India at a time when, in the 1980s and 1990s, it suffered debilitating instability. Had the instability continued, India would have faced grievous economic and social security consequences. Thirdly, he, ably assisted by L.K. Advani, made the Bharatiya Janata Party the second pole of Indian politics, one capable of dislodging the Congress from its dominant position—a feat Narendra Modi achieved decisively in 2014. However, Vajpayee’s unique role in the birth and evolution of the BJP is that he wanted it to become, much as an extension of his own persona, a liberal, inclusive and secular party occupying its own distinctive place in the mainstream of Indian politics. This achievement is frequently coming under threat from within the RSS-controlled Sangh parivar, of which the BJP has chosen to remain a constituent. Modi’s own leadership will be severely tested by how effectively he counters this threat.

The fourth area of Vajpayee’s legacy—his passionate and persistent pursuit of normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan—is still a work in progress. But when this work is completed at some point in the (hopefully) near future, it will be a spectacular game-changer for India’s internal progress as well as for its external profile in the region and around the globe.

All the four components of Vajpayee’s legacy are anchored in his deep understanding of the lessons of India’s history. For example, like Nehru, he believed that India’s unity is guaranteed only by respect for its immense diversity, including religious diversity. Hence, secularism, which is reviled by many in the BJP and the larger Sangh parivar, became a core conviction for him. “Secularism humein ghuttee mein milee hai (Like ghuttee, the food a mother gives to her newborn, we have received secularism from our earliest days),” he affirmed in his landmark speech in May 1996, while replying to the trust vote debate that brought an end to his 13-day government. Predictably, the same stirring speech also paved the way for his becoming prime minister again in 1998.

The other lesson Vajpayee learnt from India’s history and philosophy is that the truth is multi-sided and never monochromatic. Every issue and every problem, he would repeatedly tell his colleagues, should be viewed not in parts but holistically. As a result, he freed himself from the vice (and vice-like grip) of dogmatism and developed the virtue of recognising the validity in the points of view of others, including his political opponents. Precisely for this reason, he earned the respect of his opponents, many of whom later became his political allies.

India’s system of parliamentary democracy, despite all its flaws, has remained robust because of the devoted efforts of the likes of Vajpayee. He will be remembered as an ideal parliamentarian not just because he was a mesmerising orator but principally because he set the gold standard for using Parliament as a meaningful forum to debate serious national issues. Forty-four out of his over 50 years in Parliament were spent in the opposition benches. But right from the first time he set foot in Parliament in 1957, he earned the accolades of the treasury benches. Among those who praised his abilities was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, whose standing in national life at the time had scaled Himalayan heights. “Democracy,” Vajpayee would emphasise on many occasions, “is not a game of numbers where the majority can claim to be right simply by being the majority.” What is right, and what is good for the nation, can emerge only out of a constructive debate among representatives of our multi-party system. Our MPs and MLAs must not forget this lesson.

Non-partisanship is another of Vajpayee’s virtues our political leaders, and our current prime minister, should emulate. He never hesitated to applaud the good work of his political opponents. Here is an example. After the devastating earthquake in Gujarat’s Kutch region in 2000, he set up a national committee on disaster management to create a long-term institutionalised strategy to deal with national calamities in the future. It was this committee that recommended the setting up of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). As prime minister, Vaj­payee was chairman of the national committee. But whom did he appoint as the executive vice-chairman of the committee? Sharad Pawar. Why? Because Pawar, who was chief minister of Maharashtra at the time of the devastating 1993 earthquake in Latur, had handled very well the huge task of rescue, reconstruction and rehabilitation that the government had to undertake.

Once Omar Abdullah made an impressive speech in Parliament, somewhat critical of the Vajpayee government’s handling of the situation in Kashmir. (Omar’s party, the National Conference, had not yet joined the ruling NDA coalition.) Later in the evening, he received a phone call from the prime minister’s residence. Vajpayee congratulated young Omar on his speech.

Vajpayee firmly believed that normalisation of the situation in Kashmir was integrally linked to normalisation of India’s ties with Pakistan—and vice versa. This may seem obvious, but this self-evident truth is, unfortunately, not accepted by many jingoistic elements in India’s political establishment. He also believed that normalcy could return to Kashmir only by healing the wounds of its people with a combination of empathy and genuine democracy, while uncompromisingly combating cross-border terrorism. It is remarkable that, in spite of being the leader of a pro-Hindu party that had long demanded the abrogation of Article 370, he earned the respect of a broad cross-section of Kashmir’s social and political establishment, including the Hurriyat. Modi would do well to adopt this inclusive approach. He has already done well by endorsing the formation of an innovative pdp-BJP coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir. He has reiterated Vajpayee’s promise of following the principle of Jamhooriyat (democracy), Kashmiriyat (the distinctive syncretic identity of Kashmir) and Insaaniyat (humanism).

Modi should now also follow Vajpayee’s footsteps to improve relations with Pakistan, with faith in the power of uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue. There will definitely be provocations and obstacles, just as there were during Vajpayee’s premiership. Nevertheless, Vajpayee persevered with the path of dialogue, with remarkably encouraging results. He once told me in 2005, when he had ceased to be prime minister, “Had we got another opportunity to form the government, we would have solved the Kashmir issue and normalised relations with Pakistan.” Modi has a historic opportunity to succeed where Vajpayee and Dr Manmohan Singh failed, especially since Pakistan’s rulers have realised, at long last, that terrorism and religious extremism have become a deadly threat to their own nation’s security and well-being. In order to succeed in this mission, Modi must keep the hotheads in the Sangh parivar at bay. He should also, like Vajpayee, reach out to the Congress and other parties to create a national consensus on resolving the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. He should also make full use of the painstaking groundwork done by Vajpayee, Dr Manmohan Singh and their interlocutors over the years in keeping the process moving.

Owing to his prolonged ill health, Vajpayee—known for his eloquence—could not even speak when he received the Bharat Ratna at the hands of President Pranab Mukherjee on March 27. But his legacy speaks to us eloquently, and will continue to do so for a long time.

(The writer served in the Prime Minister’s Office under A.B. Vajpayee between 1998 and 2004.)