Atal to Modi: Amazing continuity
by Sandhya Jain on 21 Aug 2018 14 Comments

When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was finally elected for a full tenure in 1999, his detractors began to acknowledge his virtues (liberal, poet, orator, consensus builder) and denigrate his party and parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Yet the slogan, ‘right man in the wrong party’, was inaccurate as Vajpayee founded the Bharatiya Janata Party with L.K. Advani in 1980, after the Janata Party regime fell on the pretext of the Jan Sangh members’ affiliation with the RSS. From a nadir of two seats in 1984, the duo took the BJP to the top of the political pyramid in little over a decade; Modi led India’s first full majority government after 1984.

 

Vajpayee never wavered in his allegiance to the RSS. Handpicked by Deendayal Upadhyaya, Vajpayee’s potential as a non-Congress prime minister was recognised by Jawaharlal Nehru and he was nurtured by the Parivar, despite differences of perception (not substance) on some issues. Vajpayee may not have relished the forceful reclamation of the Ram Janmabhumi, but he didn’t want Ayodhya to be relinquished either.

 

After his demise, some critics alluded to grave failings; many praised him while snidely demeaning Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This writer believes that in the broad contours of their leadership, there is far more continuity than difference between Atalji and Modi. We need to nail the canard that Vajpayee failed by letting Modi continue after the Gujarat riots.

 

On January 26, 2001 a powerful earthquake struck Kutch district, flattening the town of Bhuj. Seeing Keshubhai Patel’s poor leadership, Narendra Modi was asked to takeover in October and focus on rehabilitation and reconstruction. The Godhra carnage of February 28, 2002 came out of the blue; the subsequent riots could hardly be called state-sponsored. Vajpayee would have had the sagacity to realise this and the wisdom to be silent through the orchestrated hysteria that has not subsided to this day. The fact that Parliament was attacked in December 2001 also needs to be factored into this equation.

 

Then, there is the allegation that the RSS worldview excludes Muslims. One writer has claimed that Vajpayee told Indira Gandhi that the RSS wanted Muslims to “join the mainstream”, and wondered what that means. The reply has been given by Narendra Modi: not pandering to false emotions by wearing a skullcap; encouraging modern education; protecting personal dignity by tackling triple talaq, nikah halala, and female genital mutilation; and respecting Rifleman Aurangzeb’s murder by quitting the debilitating coalition in Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Many admire Vajpayee’s leadership during the Kargil intrusion, especially his decision to confine the conflict to the Line of Control. Yet Vajpayee stood by the Air Force’s shooting down Pakistan’s surveillance aircraft, Atlantique, over the Rann of Kutch, on August 10, 1999 soon after the War. Congress president Sonia Gandhi had scoffed that Kargil was not a victory of the leadership (of BJP, Vajpayee). Time has made her more circumspect; the leader who did not allow the body of former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao into the party headquarters for public darshan came to pay respects to Atalji; Rahul Gandhi attended the funeral.

 

Post-Kargil, despite anger with Gen. Pervez Musharraf for the Kargil conflict, the October 1999 coup, continued sponsorship of cross-border terrorism and patronage of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that humiliated India in the episode of the IC 814 hijacking (December 24-31, 1999), Vajpayee made a grand gesture for peace by hosting Gen. Musharraf at Agra in July 2001. One reason was that in 1998, Vajpayee had undertaken a series of nuclear tests, to which Islamabad responded with copycat tests; hence there was need to lower temperatures. Indeed, this likely influenced Vajpayee’s decision to meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at Lahore in 1999, the potential of which was undone by Gen. Musharraf. Anyway, the Agra summit ended in failure and in December, when Parliament was attacked, Vajpayee found the world far more responsive to the grim reality of cross-border terrorism against India.

 

Modi, too, has made grand gestures for peace, beginning his innings with an invitation to all heads of SAARC countries, plus Maldives, to attend his swearing-in ceremony, and attending Prime Minister Sharif’s granddaughter’s wedding. But the military establishment did not allow any initiative to succeed. Oddly, Atalji and Modi have some mistakes in common, viz., the unreciprocated Ramzan ceasefire of November 2000 and 2018, in Kashmir. Both men strove for an understanding with Beijing despite hiccups; China invaded Vietnam when Vajpayee made his maiden visit as foreign minister; however as Prime Minister he established the Special Representative mechanism to cool border tensions.

 

Vajpayee got the diaspora to support the economy in the wake of American sanctions after the nuclear explosions; Modi has made the diaspora a pillar of his foreign policy. Both men have invested in relations with Washington, Moscow, and the neighbourhood. Atalji reached out to the military regime in Myanmar and also Bangladesh, and got insurgent camps shut down in both countries. Our ‘Neighbourhood First’ and ‘Act East’ policies are an extension of the ‘Look East’ policy. Above all, Atalji upgraded diplomatic ties with Israel, which have blossomed under Modi.

 

Surprisingly, even critics acknowledge that Atalji’s economic initiatives paved the way for India to experience 8 per cent growth; the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act 2003 laid the basis for macroeconomic responsibility; disinvestment happened in redundant or losing enterprises; the mobile revolution took off; and the 3-tier VAT that replaced excise duties was the precursor of the current GST regime. Moreover, the Modi government is continuing Vajpayee’s highly successful program of road connectivity, port connectivity, and all weather rural roads. Despite sincere efforts, both regimes have failed to assuage the plight of farmers, largely due to reliance on urban ‘experts’ with little connection to village India and traditional farming methods.

 

Atalji overcame a humble background (his father was a school teacher) and became a popular leader on the strength of an organisation that has been vilified for decades by the Lutyens elite. Serving stalwarts like Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Deendayal Upadhyaya, he rose through the ranks, ultimately leading India from the turn of the century into the 21st century. Modi’s origins are humbler (his father sold tea on a railway platform); his caste miniscule and virtually unknown. Rising without godfathers, he needed more grit and tenacity than charm and grace.

User Comments Post a Comment
Sandhya, can we say that Vajpayee & Modi are two sides of the same coin?
Ashok Mehta
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
Excellent analysis by Sandhya Jain on the achievements and failures of our former & late PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the present PM, Sri Narendra Modi. What is very much significant is Sandhya Jain's contention "there is more continuity, than differences between Atalji and Modiji"

I appreciate Sandhya Jain for highlighting the unity among the two BJP leaders. To digress a bit, this aspect of continuity needs to be compared with another article, published in the Pune Mirror dt 17 Aug 2018 with the name of one Radhika Ramaseshan mentioned /associated with it. To make the story short, let me quote a few words of that article "Atalji often dubbed a" mukhota " for BJP stridency" and (2) tolerance might not emanate from RSS ".

Admittedly, Atalji is one of the tallest figures of the BJP, but you don't have to cut off the head of Modiji or Mohan Bhagavatji of the RSS to make them look shorter.

Let me state to Modiji 's opponents, Atalji being a" mukhota " is a baseless, politically motivated propaganda against the RSS. The invitation recently extended by RSS chief to the ex president Sri Pranab Mukherjee demolished the false concept of intolerance by the RSS leaders.

To conclude, despite some failures by Atalji or Modiji, they have achieved much more in the last thirty years than what other previous govts have done during the last sixty years.
Panikkath Krishnanunni
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
It is a very well argued article. What patriotic Indians need to know, at this juncture, is that we need a leader with determination and grit like Shri Modiji.

As the author rightly explains, there is continuity in the work ethics of both late Atalji and Modiji. One can see that the current aim of some Indian politicians is to somehow project Modiji in poor light - the vested interests we may say.

If India has to march forward Modiji must be given one more term to rule.
Kodoth Prabhakaran
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
Very right perception
Ajay
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
I wish the author had mentioned that Vajpayee's decision to confine the Kargil conflict to the line of control cost the lives of 450 Indian soldiers. But then, who cares for their pathetic lives anyway ? The author says both Vajpayee and Modi have made grand gestures for peace with Pakistan. She should also say all gestures by both Hindu leaders were dismissed by the Islamic jihadi nation with the contempt that they deserved. When will Hindus learn anything at all ?
P s nair
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
A fine timely article detailing the historical evolution of the common policy threads of both Atalji and Modiji. This continuity needs to be stressed since the Lutyens media have tried to downgrade Modi by their false contrast with Atalji.

Yes indeed grit and tenacity are the requirements for the country during this period when the enemy is at the gates (and not just the external ones !) and those who would seek to divided India once more
are emerging.
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
August 21, 2018
Report Abuse
Essentially, both Modi and Vajpayee are what the great historian and researcher Sita Ram Goel called 'windbags'. Both long on words, both very short on action. Both made right royal fools of Hindus. For both, appeasement of the staunchest enemies of Hindus is an article of their bogus faith called secularism. Both tried to play the alleged Mahatma, the greatest sinner ever to be born in this unfortunate Hindu nation.
P S Nair
August 22, 2018
Report Abuse
@P.S.Nair ,

Agree with what you have written. It does take tremendous courage to state the truth than succumb to group think.
J.Rajalakshmi
August 22, 2018
Report Abuse
Contrary to what many keep repeating , it was with the approval & knowledge of Nawaz Sharif Kargil intrusions took place. Musharraf came later.
J.Rajalakshmi
August 22, 2018
Report Abuse
The comparison is clear, precise and in the right perspective.It needs strong spine to call a spade a spade.
B.S.Harishankar
August 23, 2018
Report Abuse
Vajpayee was a superior leader. There was one mistake he made however. He allowed the flight from Kathmandu to New Delhi to be diverted to Kandahar. He should have stood his ground and not yielded to the terrorists. That decision may have led to the loss of innocent lives on board the flight. But by agreeing to the release of arch Pakistani terrorists, Vajpayee unwittingly helped the upsurge in terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan and India as the brains behind South Asian Islamicism that had been released.

The author refers to Deendayal Upadhyaya who had inducted Vajpayee to the party. Deendayal's concept of Antyodaya differed from Mohandas Gandhi's concept of Sarvodaya. The latter entailed the upliftment of all. Antyodaya on the other hand emphasized those who were last on the line, a point that Modi exemplifies contrary to allegations that he is the child of Gujarati capital.

It was that philosophy of Integral Humanism that stood with the last person in the line i.e. the exploited, the marginalized and the persecuted. Religion, caste or beliefs mattered little to the concept of Antyodaya that instead sought out those in pain and embraced them. This is Hinduism at its best. The BJP needs to live up to its legacy which has been deliberately maligned by the Nehruvians.
Anjugam
August 23, 2018
Report Abuse
I wonder why Sandhyaji did not extol another of Vajpayee's stellar contributions to the nation: the alphabetical continuum IJK (Insaniyat Jamhuriat Kashmiriyat) and "winning hearts and minds in Kashmir" both of which are as prescriptive and universal as Gandhi's non-violence. And the decision to confine India's response to the Kargil invasion within the LoC had nothing to do with Vajpayee. His arms were twisted by the White House and the Pentagon. However, this is a feel good article for all of us who don't like intellectual scavenging.
Radha Rajan
August 23, 2018
Report Abuse
The article is insightful and logical. The continuity through examples
Prerna
August 24, 2018
Report Abuse
Ataljee had to run his government as per coalition Dharma.Modi has the advantage of 282 seats.BJP could not win in 2004 under Ataljee.Modi could become the first non Congress PM to return to power come 2019.
Jitendra Desai
August 24, 2018
Report Abuse