No third chances in politics

There are some evident similarities. They are both regional leaders. They were either in the Congress or allied to it, yet went on to flirt with the Bharatiya Janata Party. Having recanted, they are now both suspicious of Sonia Gandhi’s policies. But that is where the similarities end.

The chief minister of Tamil Nadu has made headlines for three reasons. She had Vaiko arrested for supporting the LTTE. She spurned a suggestion by Ramadoss of the Pattali Makkal Katchi that a separate state be carved out for the Vanniyars. And she took the Government of India to task for not asking her to the inauguration of President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. I have to say that she is right on all three.

To take the last first, common civility demanded that the chief minister(s) of the home state(s) of the outgoing and the new president be invited to the ceremony (A.K. Antony and Jayalalithaa today). It was stupid to say she should have applied for an invitation. Stupid because it turned out that Tamil Nadu Bhavan had made overtures. And doubly stupid because it offends both the spirit of federalism and good manners.

Moving on to Vaiko and Ramadoss, the chief minister took a lesson from judo and applied it to politics — namely using a foe’s strength against himself. Vaiko is reputedly the most outspoken politician in Tamil Nadu, somebody who wears his heart on his sleeve. Ramadoss succeeded by casting himself as the champion of the Vanniyar caste. Today, those assets are looking like liabilities.

Vaiko was always vocal in backing Eelam (a Tamil homeland carved from Sri Lanka). His commitment to the LTTE was no secret. Jayalalithaa probably calculated that if she waited patiently the MDMK leader would dig a pit for himself. And so he did.

It is impossible for anyone to support Vaiko. For one, India has repeatedly affirmed support for the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

For another, the LTTE has done such a splendid job of blowing away rivals that to support Eelam is to back the LTTE — an unthinkable proposition after Sriperumbudur. Whatever the sympathy for Vaiko as an individual, no Indian should support his cause. (Sympathy for Vaiko is, anyhow, more of a headache for Karunanidhi — who sees the man as a rival in popularity for his son, Stalin.)

That holds true for Ramadoss as well. The case is still not proven that linguistic states are a good thing; it is just plain idiotic to ask for a state created on the basis of caste. Nobody in Tamil Nadu shall back his cause, certainly not his allies in the National Democratic Alliance.

Jayalalithaa won an immense mandate in 1991, which she lost by her arrogance. Having won back the chief minister’s chair in 2001, it seemed the AIADMK leader had learned nothing. (Has anyone forgotten the fiasco of arresting Karunanidhi in front of television crews?) But she has learned from the past. Today, she is selecting her battlegrounds carefully, choosing issues where it is impossible to oppose her.

Learning from her mistakes appears to be exactly what Mamata Banerjee is congenitally incapable of doing. She was whimsical and impulsive yesterday; the same follies drive her today. She walked out of the National Democratic Alliance in a huff yesterday; she seems set to do so again today.

Does everyone remember why Mamata Banerjee resigned from the Union cabinet? She said it was to protest against George Fernandes’s continuance in the Union cabinet despite the Tehelka scandal. Had she waited, instead of rushing to confront the prime minister with a deadline, she would have found the defence minister was moving out anyway. It was, of course, all a put-up job; the real reason was that Mamata Banerjee wanted an alliance with the Congress for the assembly polls.

One year later, Mamata Banerjee is again fooling nobody. The real reason for her rift with the prime minister is that she was desperate to get back the railway ministry. She was denied this, partly because there was no need to shift Nitish Kumar, partly because her performance as railway minister was nothing to write home about. The opportunist in Mamata Banerjee rose to the fore, and she chose to make an issue of an organisational matter, not caring that it would snowball into a ‘Bengal vs Bihar’ issue. (Did she even realise the possibility?)

The decision to create a new divisional headquarters at Hajipur was made in 1996. There have been several railway ministers since then, not least Mamata Banerjee herself. Why didn’t any of them reverse the decision? Instead of answering, the Trinamool Congress boss goes at a tangent; at her rhetorical worst, she claims the decision is ‘worse than Partition’. A million dead and millions more displaced are nothing compared to removing an office from Kolkata? Talk about stupid comparisons!

Frankly, we all owe the prime minister a vote of thanks for refusing to give the railway ministry to such a weathercock! Mamata Banerjee was free with her advice to Jayalalithaa in 1998-1999. She should swallow some of it herself today — but crow is never pleasant to eat.