Vajpayee was supremely conscious of India’s self-esteem as a country of 1 billion people and he as the leader clearly emphasized that to one and all.
NEW DELHI: My first memory of Atal Bihari Vajpayee dates back to the mid 1960s, when I was a high school student in the southern city of Bangalore as it was then called. A classmate of mine introduced me to the Jan Sangh (the forerunner of the BJP) and gave me a Jan Sangh brochure, which had a picture of Atal Bihari Vajpayee alongside that year’s calendar; for a long time I carried this brochure in one of my notebooks. Around the same time, Vajpayee visited Bangalore to address a public meeting. I was too young to be allowed to attend the meeting, but an older college-going neighbour did; he told me of the overflowing crowd of at least 1 lakh people who had turned up to hear him and the rapt attention with which they listened to Vajpayee.
Who was this man who could draw thousands with the skill of his oratory and the logic of his thoughts in a political environment, which was overwhelmingly in favour of the Congress party? He piqued my interest in Hindu Nationalism, inspired me to delve further into this ideology and formulate my own thoughts as I grew up.
Setting aside this schoolboy infatuation with a great leader, I have over the years attempted to objectively analyse Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both as a political personality and as a national statesman. I have not been disappointed.
When Vajpayee began his political career in the early 50s in post Independent India, the country was still heavily under the influence of Gandhian pacifism despite the horrors of partition; this mindset continued for several more decades. Indians failed to see the ills of this blind pacifism that had wreaked havoc with the nation. Nehru, Gandhi’s avowed disciple continued to further this ideology crafting a warped type of secularism that believed in suppressing India’s Hindu identity. In contrast, the Jana Sangh felt that India needed to be reformed in the image of its ancient civilization with an emphasis on its Hindu ethos.
A more decidedly radical exponent of this alternative ideology would have scared away many Indians with little chance of Hindu Nationalism making any headway. But Vajpayee was different. Vajpayee was a transformative ideological leader. He represented a bridge between the nuanced anti-Hindu secularism of Jawaharlal Nehru (coopting his eloquent oratorical skills) and the fiery radicalism of Veer Savarkar. With his non-confrontational manner, easy affability and mild but convincing demeanour, Vajpayee was one of the key leaders who helped make the BJP and its ideology an acceptable entity across the broad spectrum of Indian political thought.
It was this endearing quality of Vajpayee that helped form the first BJP led coalition government in 1966 and subsequently in 1998 and 1999. The cohesive manner in which he led his coalition government, and his handling of controversial issues helped allay any concerns that many Indians harboured about an inexperienced and seemingly radical BJP forming the government at the Centre. He proved that the BJP was more honest, more balanced and more effective than the previous Congress government, setting a new benchmark for good governance; this helped consolidate the confidence of the Indian people in the BJP. It would not be wrong to say that Vajpayee as the first BJP PM paved the way for more definite and decisive BJP governments of the future.
His directive to go ahead with the nuclear weapons test in May 1998 that confirmed India as a full-fledged nuclear state must rank as the highlight of his career. It was a big bang in more ways than one. It was a reflection of his unequivocal decisiveness—previous governments had timidly dithered often succumbing to the US threat of sanctions. Vajpayee brushed aside these hurdles and concerns with a finality that was remarkable for a PM who had been barely in office for a few months. Vajpayee was clear where he wanted to see India on the world stage and was determined to do what it took to reach there. Despite the initial reaction s and sanctions imposed by many countries, the perception of India internationally changed once and for all; we have not looked back since then.
Dr S. Jaishankar rightly summed up the consequences of this nuclear testing: “the nuclear tests of 1998 and the declaration of weaponization…also provided the attributes later on of a leading power…the Pokhran II tests sought to project Prime Minister Vajpayee, a non-Congress leader, as embodying a new, strong political leadership that ended decades of Indian nuclear indecision.”
He was an ardent champion of democracy who led from the front. He spent several months in jail fighting against the draconian measures imposed by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. And who can forget his exemplary gesture during his second tenure as Prime Minister which must go down in history as the finest moment of Indian democracy? In late 1999, after a successful tenure of 13 months, the BJP was forced to seek a vote of confidence as a result a realignment of political parties. It was a test that the BJP lost by a single vote in a house of 540; a vote whose legitimacy was questionable being cast by a Congress member (Girdhar Gamang) who had ceased for all intents and purposes to be a member of the august body after being elected to a state legislature.
Yet, without a murmur of protest, Atal Bihari Vajpayee put in his papers, in the larger interest of democracy. Compare this to what Indira Gandhi did when confronted with a similar situation. In 1975 when the Allahabad High Court struck down her election, she suspended the Constitution, threw scores of political leaders in jail and imposed a state of Emergency signalling the death of democracy.
Vajpayee was supremely conscious of India’s self-esteem as a country of 1 billion people and he as the leader clearly emphasized that to one and all. During the Kargil crisis, he stood firm.
“There was no give in,” Bruce Riedel, Special Assistant to former US President Bill Clinton at the time said in a recent article. Riedel was part of the testy negotiations that the US had with Pakistan to force it to withdraw from Kargil unconditionally. Clinton had invited Vajpayee to Washington for a meeting with Sharif, but Vajpayee declined the invitation citing the security situation and his need to be with his people. Vajpayee was adamant that India would not negotiate under the threat of aggression and would not be pressurized to do so even by the foremost power in the world.
Summing up, at the heart of his persona was an intense, unparalleled love for his nation, an indefatigable patriotism that guided all his actions. His mild mannerism masked a steely interior, an inner core of stupendous courage, gritty determination and an unswerving allegiance to the cause of his country and his people. The Hindu nationalism that he endorsed in his own polite but firm manner was too a product of his patriotism.
There have been several epithets to describe Atal Bihari Vajpayee. One that has been most frequently quoted by the opposition was that he was the right man in the wrong party. I beg to differ. He was the right man in the right party and at the right time for India who through his suave personality, mature outlook and fearless courage prepared India for a radical ideological nationalist shift away from the tepid and dated policies of the Congress Party and secured India’s place on the world stage.