Expendable Dalit blood

Arjun Singh explains this strange twist of morality by stating that the central government is under the thumb of the RSS, and has hence lost its moral right to rule. The Congress must, therefore, side alongside Laloo Prasad Yadav. Don’t ask me to explain that, I freelyconfess that I can’t.That is the stated reason for this amazing twist.

The rationale expounded by the likes of A.K. Antony in the confines of the Congress Working Committee (CWC) is that the Congress can’t afford to be seen siding alongside the BJP on any given issue. Doing so, they say, would hand the Muslim vote to the non-BJP, non-Congress parties on a platter. (Actually, I have no idea why they didn’t say so openly; given the way the CWC leaks, it was a dead certainty that someone would blow the whistle on Antony and his ilk!)

So which do I believe: the public explanation or the private reason? Or could there be a third one, something no Congressman would dare to mention, that forbidden word Bofors’?

The Supreme Court, no less, has directed Ottavio Quattrocchi to present himself before the authorities no later than March 15. This ruling, please note, was given on the same day the CWC met to consider the issue of Bihar. There is no reason to believe that he shall do anything of the sort, but can theCongress afford to take the chance?

Deny it as they might — and some undoubtedly shall — the spectre of Bofors continues to haunt the Congress. One decade ago the party lost power largely because of the stench of that scandal, and the last thing any Cong-ressman desires is any further raking of the muck. In justice, I sh-ould add that there is still no legal evidence linking the late Rajiv Gandhi directly to Bo-fors. But ponder over what we do know.

It is an undisputed fact that Bofors gave money to middlemen though Rajiv Gandhi stated that there would be nobody coming between the government and the chosen firm. There is sufficient reason to believe that Quattrocchi, officially nothing but the representative of an Italian fertiliser company, was one of the recipients of the funds disbursed by the Swedishi armaments company. Nobody can deny that Quattrocchi was a friend of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi. Finally, the Gandhi regime displayed amazing tenacity in first steering the guns contract to Bofors, and thenscuttling the probe.

As I said, the Nehru-Gandhi clan may not have received the Bofors pay-offs. (To borrow a line from the Professional Golfers’ Association, “Anything is possible!”). It is, if anything, even less probable that the Italian businessman shall obey the court summons. But if he does, he can’t successfully deny his association with Bofors. Either way, Bofors and Quattrocchi would have made a reappearance in the headlines by the Ides of March.

Can you think of a better way to divert public attention than by raising the issue of Bihar? The fact that Sonia Gandhi herself expressed repugnance at the Na-rayanpur massacre and called for the downfall of the Bihar ministry is conveniently forgotten. What does the Congress care if Dalit blood is split with impunity when the name of the Fa-mily’ could come under attack?

Assume if you will, however, that the Neh-ru-Gandhis are pure as driven snow. That br-ings up the reasons offered when the CWC sat to debate the situation in Bihar. By allaccounts, not a single person present differed with the Union government’s assessment of the law and order situation in that unhappy state. But all that was debated was whether or not backing the Vajpayee ministry’s decision would lose Muslim votes.

If anything, this is even worse than creating trouble for fear of the Bofors issue flaring up. That was cynical and amoral, this is immoral plain and simple. The Congress knows that Bihar is the ideal case for utilising Article 356. The Bihar unit of the party has been repeatedly pleading that the Congress should snap links with Laloo Yadav, and several Congressmen from that state have openly expressed their anger and disappointment at Sonia Gandhi’s changed stance.

Of course the bitterness in the Bihar unit is understandable. Standing by Yadav and his dynasty is costing the Congress dearly. Having Laloo Yadav in power will polarise voters between him and the BJP-Samata Party alliance effectively shutting out the Congress altogether. (Not that they have muchto lose, just five seats out of the 54 in the state).

Let us be honest, there is no moral reason for the Congress to oppose the use of Article 356 in Bihar. They can’t even claim that they are opposed in principle to the concept of President’s rule, having used it dozens of times. In fact, there are few major parties that have not used/abused it. The Akali Dal was a member of the Janata coalition that lopped off nine Congress ministries at one go in 1977, the DMK and the Telugu Desam upset BJP ministries in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh in the days of the United Front, and so on.

But let us return to the Congress. Does the party genuinely believe that putting Rabri Devi back in the saddle is an affirmation of secularism’? No, as one Congressman told me, “We have an opportunity to embarrass the BJP, perhaps even get Advani’s scalp!”

It is said that Pontius Pilate refused to crucify Jesus, knowing that he was innocent. But some of his enemies forced the issue, the Pilate gave in, crying out, “Then on yourheads be his blood!” The Congress, like Pilate, knows the difference between right and wrong. If the party makes the wrong choice, the blood of unavenged Narayanpur shall lie on the heads of the Congress.