For many decades, the Congress party offered an inspiring vision, justifiably invoking the names of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The Bihar elections have dramatically proved that a once-very-great party has run out of ballast.
Not so long ago, it used to be said that Bihar was a political casino where the bad guys won. No longer so. The turnaround in Bihar is spectacular. Let us hope it is a national trend-setter.
Dynastic politics will, however, not disappear. Look at the map of India. From Kashmir to Karnataka, political dynasties flourish. They are not imposed on the people. Their members win elections with big margins.
Let us look at the Muslim world. The president of Egypt has been in power since the assassination of President Sadat in 1981. He is now, it is alleged, promoting his son. The president of Libya came to power in 1969. His son is likely to succeed him. The present president of Syria succeeded his father who had ruled for 28 years. We are all familiar with the dynasties of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Also Sri Lanka.
In North Korea, the Kims have ruled since 1945. In Cuba, the great Fidel Castro came to power in 1959. He shed office four years ago. His brother succeeded him.
In America, the Bushes outsmarted the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. Bush senior and junior became presidents. Brother Jeb adorned the governor’s mansion in Florida.
More From This Section
Has the Congress party reached a political cul-de-sac? No one in his right mind can write off the Congress. Its resilience and survival instincts must never be underestimated.
One recent development in the Congress must depress its non-Congress admirers. Does Prime Minister Manmohan Singh need honesty certificates? For the past weeks, Congress persons of all ages and status are saying how upright the PM is. His integrity is impeccable. He is above board. This must be making Manmohan Singh squirm with acute embarrassment. People half his age are patronisingly commending his incorruptibility. He could well do without such certification. The man is honest. He needs no morality props.
The release of Aung San Suu Kyi was overdue. She is a heroic leader. Frail in body. Stout at heart. I was for a number of years vice-chairman of the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust (IGMT) — 1990-2008. Sonia Gandhi is life chairman. It was decided to award the Indira Gandhi International Prize to Suu Kyi. I flew to Oxford to convey the decision to her husband, Michael Aris, who was teaching at the university. I also met his two sons. He conveyed his appreciation and was grateful to the IGMT.
Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao was not in favour of the award being given to Suu Kyi. The IGMT jury decided not to change its decision.
When, as foreign minister, I paid an official visit to Myanmar, I did some diplomatic tightrope walking. I met the entire top leadership of Myanmar but the name of the great lady was not mentioned. I personally felt bad but I had not gone to Yangon on a personal jaunt. National interest and realpolitik could not be brushed aside. Nations and their high officials have to make such agonising choices.
While India has welcomed her long overdue release, I do not see changes in India’s Myanmar policy. Nor do I see the Congress having party-to-party parleys with the leaders of the National League for Democracy without consulting the prime minister. The world is not an ideal place for idealists. Alas!
Do circumstances make a leader or does a leader create circumstances to suit her? In India, at the moment, circumstances are getting the better of leaders with one or two exceptions. Napoleon was candid enough to declare, “Circumstances!!, I create circumstances.” At last, circumstances beyond his control banished him to a dreary island in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean, where he died in 1821 at a relatively young age of 51. Did Madam Suu Kyi create the circumstances or circumstances created her? The jury is still out.
Tailpiece
Some of the most enterprising young ladies and gentlemen of the electronic media take themselves too seriously. They should pause and introspect. A few of them repeatedly commit cliché- ridden verbal atrocities: “Return back”. Why two words where one would do? “At this point in time” is a favourite . Why not as of now or as of this moment? “Much lesser” — reminds one of Sarah Palin. “Meet with” is a recent infliction. English is no longer a foreign language in India. Those who use English are not an insignificant minority. The numbers are increasing by the month. Salman Rushdie, born in India, has further enriched the language of Shakespeare and Shaw. So have Vikram Seth, Amitav Ghosh, Upamanyu Chatterjee, Shashi Tharoor and the hyperactive Arundhati Roy. Good examples to follow.