In his foreword to Mr LK Advani's autobiography, My Country
My Life, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee has observed that during
the course of his long and eventful political life, Mr Advani
has, at times, been misunderstood, and as a result "become
a victim of the dichotomy between image and reality".
Similar sentiments were echoed by Mr Jaswant Singh, another
leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party at the formal launch
of this book on March 19 when he said that "Advaniji
is the most misread, most misrepresented politician"
in the country.
Anyone who reads My Country My Life will realise the obvious
chasm between reality and image in respect of its protagonist.
Whatever be the shortcomings of this book, it must be said
that Mr Advani has achieved substantial success in bridging
this gap. But how does some one in an India's public life
get a society steeped in illiteracy and poverty to read
a 986-page tome and re-evaluate him?
Meanwhile, we need to ask the question, who creates this
dichotomy between image and reality of political leaders
like Mr Advani and why? Because Mr Advani is not the first
victim of such image distortion. Nor will he be the last.
This chasm between reality and image is the result of a
pseudo-secular and indeed a pseudo-democratic environment
that has been manufactured and sustained by members of a
school of thought that owes its allegiance to the Nehru-Gandhi
family. This school, which has been active since the days
of Jawaharlal Nehru, has, with mischievous intent and consistency,
promoted false gods and tarnished the image of the real
heroes of India
Among the early victims of this fraudulent enterprise were
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and BR Ambedkar, but the list of
illustrious Indians who have fallen prey to this propaganda
machine is pretty huge. It includes persons like Netaji
Subhas Chandra Bose, Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari
and Syama Prasad Mookerjee, apart from Congress presidents
like Acharya Kripalani and Purushottam Das Tandon. During
the Indira Gandhi era, every effort was made to besmirch
the image of Sarvodaya leader Jayaprakash Narayan, S Nijalingappa,
who was president of the Congress during the 1969 split,
and a host of other leaders who were morally and intellectually
way above Mrs Indira Gandhi. It has been a systematic effort
to distort the reality and to raise questions about their
commitment to fundamentals like democracy (Netaji Bose,
Jayaprakash Narayan), egalitarianism (Rajagopalachari) or
the secular order (Rajendra Prasad and Syama Prasad Mookerjee).
In respect of some others, attempts were made to destroy
their image by caricaturing them as weird characters (Morarji
practices urine therapy).
So, it should surprise nobody when this school brands Mr
Advani, the man who was thrown in jail by a fascist Congress
that wrecked the Constitution and destroyed the independence
of Parliament, the judiciary and the media during the infamous
Emergency of 1975-77, as being anti-Constitution. The Congress,
of course, is a party of democratic angels! Again, the perpetrators
of all those heinous crimes against humanity and democracy
during the Emergency including forcible sterilisation of
Muslims, are supposedly "secular" people, but
Mr Advani is a Hindu communalist! Further, the man who suffered
incarceration for 19 months to defend our basic democratic
rights and our Constitution and who took the first opportunity
that came his way (as Information and Broadcasting Minister
in 1977) to undo the fascist laws passed by the Congress
to gag Parliament and the media, is a fascist, but those
who conducted themselves like the Nazis and raised loathsome
slogans like Indira is India and India is Indira' are democrats!
Take the case of Patel and Ambedkar, contemporaries of Nehru,
who made a critical contribution to the idea of India. At
the time of independence, there were 564 princely states
which had the option to join India or Pakistan. Nehru asked
Patel to handle the responsibility of integrating 563 of
these states into the Indian Union. The task of integrating
the remaining State -- Kashmir -- he kept to himself. While
Patel completed his task within a remarkably short span
of time, Nehru made a mess of Kashmir. He not only complained
to the United Nations and internationalised the issue, but
also took the fateful and unpardonable decision to prohibit
the Indian Army from throwing out the Pakistani intruders
who had occupied one-third of Jammu & Kashmir. One shudders
to think what political map, generations of post-independence
Indians would be drawing in school but for the determination
and patriotic zeal of Patel.
Yet, this pseudo-secular enterprise promoted by the Nehru-Gandhi
dynasty has sought to sully the image of Patel while vesting
the very average Nehru (who later subjected India to an
even greater national humiliation during that hopelessly
one-sided 'war' with China) with heroic virtues. This very
enterprise has similarly downgraded the phenomenal socio-political
reform carried out by Ambedkar through the instrumentality
of the Constitution. The majesty of his ideas and his grand
scheme for the establishment of political and social democracy
in India are best explained in his summing-up remarks at
the final reading of the Constitution in the Constituent
Assembly on November 25, 1949. This is a speech which would
have made an Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson proud.
Therefore, if 60 years after independence, we sense a deep
and abiding commitment to India's unity and integrity across
the length and breadth of the country, we owe a debt of
gratitude to Patel. Similarly, if one senses social and
political cohesion across the land and a desire, despite
our diversity, to resolve differences through democratic
means, we owe a debt of gratitude to Ambedkar. He spelled
out the grand scheme for democracy and social cohesion in
that immortal speech in the Constituent Assembly, which
would certainly rank as one of the greatest speeches delivered
by a national leader. Nehru's 'Tryst with destiny', in comparison,
would sound very pedestrian indeed. Yet, thanks to this
pseudo-intellectual enterprise, our children have never
been properly introduced to Ambedkar's work and philosophy
which have ensured democracy and national unity.
In recent years, this pseudo-intellectual enterprise has
successfully distorted the image of leaders like Mr Advani,
who have been active participants in the democratic process
for over six decades. Seeds of doubt have been sown in the
minds of citizens about Mr Advani's commitment to core constitutional
values. Though Mrs Gandhi turned India's democracy into
a dictatorship and presided over an authentic fascist regime
for 19 months, the pseudo-secular enterprise has unfortunately
succeeded in painting the victims of her regime as "fascists".
The arrival of My Country My Life on book stands is, therefore,
an important development. Hopefully, this book will encourage
citizens, who have been fed distorted images of Mr Advani,
to gravitate towards the truth -- at least in respect of
this contemporary public figure.