Sanctimonious Samata

The noise being made by the Samata Party about its disagreement with the BJP on certain key issues like Ayodhya, Article 370 and a uniform civil code seems to have two main objectives. One, it will strengthen the party8217;s bargaining capacity during the talks on sharing of seats and, two, it will leave the field open for it to have post-election tie-ups in case the BJP-Samata alliance fails to click at the hustings. It is to hide this narrow agenda that the party has suddenly hit upon the idea of openly distancing itself from the BJP on these issues. But however hard it may try, such efforts are unlikely to make an impact given the fact that Samata has a fairly long association with the BJP, having jointly and successfully fought the 1996 Lok Sabha election in Bihar. The issues on which Samata differs with the BJP happen to be the distinctive core programmes of the party even though it had put them on the backburner during the 13-day tenure of A.B. Vajpayee. To be fair to BJP spokesperson Sushma Swaraj, she cannot be faulted for her statement that the BJP expected its allies to subscribe to its viewpoint on such major issues. In other words, the allies should have known with whom they were aligning.

The argument that Samata and the BJP can have two different manifestoes and yet contest the election unitedly and convincingly flies in the face of hard political realities. Samata should know that in case its alliance with the BJP helps the latter to get an absolute majority in the 12th Lok Sabha, nothing will prevent it from pursuing its own agenda. In such a situation, the BJP will be under no compulsion to respect the sentiments of the Samata Party or, for that matter, any other alliance partner. For instance, in the 1989 election, the electoral understanding the BJP had with the Janata Dal helped it to increase its strength in the Lok Sabha without in any way curtailing its own freedom. But for George Fernandes and other Samata leaders, the issues are inconsequential so long as they are able to ensure one or two more seats for themselves. They probably think they can pin the BJP down like they once did in the case of the Jan Sangh constituent of the Janata Party on the much-discussed dual-membership issue. However, they do not realise that their ability to manoeuvre will end once the BJP gets an absolute majority.

The controversy is bound to cast a shadow on the BJP-Samata alliance and its ability to put up a determined fight. If the Samata Party campaigns against the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu despite the latter8217;s alliance with the BJP, as it threatens to do, it will further confuse the voters. It is the BJP8217;s decision to forge electoral tie-ups with as many parties as possible, irrespective of the contradictory stand they have on various issues, that has landed it in this situation. And to confound its problems, the results of the Legislative Council elections in Maharashtra and Karnataka have not been very favourable to the party. This will further weaken its bargaining capacity as underscored by its failure to dissuade its partner in Punjab, the Akali Dal, not to support Prime Minister I.K. Gujral8217;s candidacy from Jalandhar. It cannot play the role of Big Brother as long as its bigness is in doubt.