BACK TO AYODHYA

The terrorist attack in Ayodhya offers hardliners in the Sangh Parivar a good opportunity to pressure Bharatiya Janata Party president L.K. Advani to "correct" his course and work in tandem with the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh leadership as a Hindutva soldier.

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN in Ayodhya, Surat and New Delhi

ON the morning of July 5, even as the battle between terrorists and security forces continued on the premises of the makeshift Ram mandir in Ayodhya, the top brass of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) broke custom and sent out a spokesperson from the closed-door conclave of pranth pracharaks (heads of State units) in Surat to convey its reaction on the development. Ram Madhav, the spokesperson, came out of the meet to express serious concern over "the terrorist strike" and "appealed to the people to register their strong protests in a peaceful manner". This immediate reaction also contained the allegation that the government was not protecting sacred places of Hindus properly and that security was lax even at important religious centres.

It was of course a special reaction to a special situation, but normally the Hindutva organisation is not given to such outbursts. As a matter of policy, its leadership keeps away from the media and issues a press statement only when "it is absolutely necessary". Not only that, the organisation had declared at the beginning of the three-day Surat conclave that there would be "no interaction at all with the media" during the meeting. This resolve was in effect on the first and second days - July 3 and 4 - of the conclave. But the developments in Ayodhya were reason enough to break the resolve.

However, by evening on July 5, it was clear that the RSS leadership was motivated by other factors to call the media. This was indicated by some of the participants at the conclave themselves.

A senior leader of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the professed ideological sword-arm of the RSS-led Sangh Parivar, said that there was general agreement at the conclave that the terrorist attack, despite being unfortunate, helped highlight a social, political and ideological factor that the RSS leadership was repeatedly trying to assert over the past year, particularly in its interactions with the Sangh Parivar's political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The leader pointed out that the RSS leadership had been telling sections of the BJP, including its president L.K. Advani that the time had come to correct all ideological deviations from the "nationalist Hindutva cause" and return to the "fundamental task of waging a sustained struggle to protect the nation and national interests from the attack of the forces of Islamic terrorism and minority appeasement". The fact that one of the major items on the agenda of the Surat conclave was the "deviations from the Hindutva cause" as manifested in Advani's recent pronouncements, including his praise for the secular vision of Pakistan's founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and related initiatives from sections of the BJP, enhanced the political value of the Ayodhya attack.

According to the VHP leader, the RSS leadership hoped that the attack would "once and for all open the eyes of those sections of the Sangh Parivar that were deviating from the basic Hindutva ideology in order to make temporary political gains". He also said that the RSS leadership hoped that the "terrorist attack" would forge a renewed commitment in favour of the Hindutva cause among Sangh Parivar constituents.

Beyond the ideological jargon, the predominant message that emanated from the Surat conclave was one that asked Advani to abandon explicitly all efforts by himself and his associates in the party - such as his erstwhile political secretary Sudheendra Kulkarni - to adopt a "secular, moderate image". The RSS had been maintaining for long within the Sangh Parivar's internal fora that the whole effort was misplaced. The Ayodhya attack reinforced that understanding and the context created by it gave the BJP president a "good opportunity" to correct the course and work in tandem with the RSS leadership as an out-and-out Hindutva soldier. The order of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court that came one day after the attack, on July 6, setting aside the discharging of Advani in the case related to making inflammatory speeches in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, the day the Babri Masjid was demolished, was also seen as a factor that Advani could use to turn around.

Yet, there was little doubt in large sections of the Sangh Parivar that accepting this direction would not be an easy task for Advani. For this militated against the very perception he had of contemporary politics. Advani's view, as expressed to several leaders and activists in the party hierarchy, was that the BJP should continue to project itself as a potential ruling party during the current term of Parliament or at least when the next Lok Sabha comes into being. And for this, he was convinced, it was important to maintain the alliance with the secular parties in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), who did not accept many parts of the BJP's core political agenda. In fact, he and other senior leaders of the BJP, including former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and former party president M. Venkaiah Naidu, had carried out a hasty operation in October last year and brought him back as party president essentially to prevent a complete return to the core Hindutva agenda.

At that time the RSS was working on plans to remove Venkaiah Naidu and appoint the "more committed" Murli Manohar Joshi to the position. In this background, the RSS leadership and other uncompromising sections of the Sangh Parivar closely scrutinised the reactions of Advani and his associates to the July 5 attacks.

According to informed sources in the Sangh Parivar, the initial reactions from the BJP were noted with satisfaction by the RSS leadership. The party called nationwide protests against the attack and even took the initiative to hold general strikes in a number of States. However, the poor response in many States to the strike call worried the Sangh Parivar activists so much that they resorted to violence in an unprecedented manner. In many towns of Uttar Pradesh, the activists threatened shopkeepers and office-goers with arms, and in Tamil Nadu, the agitation spread to the airports and even into aircraft getting ready for takeoff. Despite all this, the VHP complained that BJP activists had not tried enough to make the agitation a success.

Also sections of the Sangh Parivar did not take Advani's delay in making a visit to Ayodhya lightly.

By all indications, it was the cumulative impact of this growing dissatisfaction among the RSS leadership and the mounting complaints from the VHP that compelled Advani, during his visit to Ayodhya, not only to talk about building a Ram temple at the disputed spot but also to seek a rapprochement meeting with the VHP's international president Ashok Singhal, who has been critical of Advani's recent pronouncements. Singhal had even called for his ouster. The rapprochement was aided by former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharati and former Bajrang Dal president Vinay Katiyar.

Advani and the BJP leaders who accompanied him to Ayodhya, such as Kalyan Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Rajnath Singh and Ananth Kumar, were accorded a reception at Karsevakpuram, the VHP's headquarters in the temple town. Uma Bharati told Frontline that it was the beginning of a sustained joint campaign by the BJP and the VHP on the issues thrown up by the terrorist strike. However, according to VHP sources, Advani apparently sought some more time to embark on an aggressive Hindutva course. He was reportedly of the view that for the time being the BJP would highlight issues such as the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's laxity in fighting terrorism and upholding national security along with taking a soft Hindutva line.

The public meeting, which followed the Singhal-Advani meeting, was addressed significantly only by the BJP leaders and reflected this line demarcated as Advani's by the VHP leader. Advani focussed his speech mainly on the UPA government's laxity in fighting terrorism as reflected in the withdrawal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). He, however, finally said that the "people of Hindustan would not be satisfied if a grand Ram temple is not built in the very Janmasthan (meaning disputed site) at Ayodhya."

The speeches of Sushma Swaraj and Kalyan Singh had a more aggressive Hindutva quotient. Sushma Swaraj said that ever since the UPA government assumed power a mentality to humiliate the Hindu community was gaining ground. She added that the Ayodhya attack too was the result of such a mentality. She exhorted Hindutva activists to resist and defeat this trend. Kalyan Singh reiterated the VHP's demand for the resignation of Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil and State Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav owning responsibility for the terrorist strike.

It is not known whether Singhal, who did not participate in the public meeting, put his stamp of approval on this mixed line. Although there is no confirmation, indications are that Singhal has not found this line acceptable.

Other leaders of the VHP, including its international general secretary Pravin Togadia, have apparently made it clear both to Singhal and to the RSS leadership that the recent developments, including Advani's visit to Ayodhya, have not brought about any fundamental change in the situation and hence the RSS' original decision to oust him must be implemented at the earliest. The RSS statement that came from Delhi a day after the BJP team's performance in Ayodhya is perceived by sections of the Sangh Parivar as a clear indication of the failure of Advani's conciliatory tactics. The statement issued as a summing up of the Surat conclave said that the prant pracharaks "expressed serious concern over the ideological erosion, behavioural misdemeanour and violation of organisational discipline with impunity by some functionaries of a couple of like-minded organisations. The Sangh has taken serious note of this and our elders will soon talk to concerned people and convey the Sangh's reservations".

Whether conveying the RSS' reservations would immediately lead to the removal of Advani or whether it will be carried out in a phased manner is to be seen. But there is little doubt that the RSS wants the BJP leadership to return to aggressive Hindutva soon.

Sangh Parivar sources told Frontline that the Surat conclave did not decide on Advani's successor. Temperamentally, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was rated as the best choice to lead the organisation, but there were also arguments that it may be too early to shift him to Delhi. Names such as Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitley, Sushma Swaraj and Uma Bharati evoked mixed opinions. It is in the context of this lack of clarity vis-a-vis the next leader that Uma Bharati and Vinay Katiyar tried to get Advani an extended lease of life by negotiating with the VHP. Another cause of concern for these leaders who act as go-betweens and many other advocates of a pro-Hindutva line is the lack of popular response to the Hindutva agenda. It was noted by supporters of Uma Bharati and Katiyar that even the visit of the high-profile BJP team and the meeting at Karsevakpuram was marked by a stunning lack of response from the public and the sants and mahants of Ayodhya.

"It of course did evoke memories of the Sangh Parivar's passionate Ram mandir campaign of the late 1980s and early 1990s, but the lack of enthusiastic public response was devastating," said a Katiyar supporter. A crowd of less than one hundred people gathered near the makeshift Ram temple to receive Advani and there were hardly a thousand people at Karsevakpuram to hear his speech. Significantly, there were no slogans hailing Advani at either locations.

Will Advani be able to underscore this lack of response to the Hindutva agenda and the apprehension it has caused among some pro-Hindutva leaders of the Sangh Parivar to buy peace with the VHP? Or will the RSS reject these apprehensions and effect a change of leadership in the BJP.

Although there are no firm answers at the moment, the internal churning in the Sangh Parivar has probably reached the final stage.