Some talking heads were even trying to say that the emotional outpouring for Vajpayee was much more than it was for Indira.
Instead of comparing the working styles of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, television channels were plumbing new depths of absurdity last week by comparing the funeral processions of Indian leaders. The melodrama over Vajpayee’s death featured anchors asking panelists if the turnout was more at Jawaharlal Nehru’s funeral procession or Mahatma Gandhi’s.
They had to prove that Vajpayee was more popular than Nehru or Indira and could be in the league of the Mahatma. Some talking heads were even trying to say that the emotional outpouring for Vajpayee was much more than it was for Indira.
One of the panelists pontificated that Indira was assassinated and was the Prime Minister at that time. Vajpayee did not hold any post since 2004 and yet enjoyed such love and affection.
Some TV anchors were so impressed with the walk of Modi and Amit Shah during the funeral procession that they said no Prime Minister had undertaken such a trek.
Also read: My encounters with Vajpayee, a statesman who could smile even in a tough situation
Most political leaders, from Mamata Banerjee to Farooq Abdullah, Sharad Pawar to Naveen Patnaik, were making their obituary notes, stating that they were missing the “warm and human” touch that Vajpayee brought to politics. Sidelined BJP leaders like Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie were almost openly critical of the present Prime Minister while paying tribute to Vajpayee. But that kind of discussion was quickly shunned or discouraged.
One anchor noted that the BJP, and particularly Modi, have shown great respect to a “buzurg neta” like Vajpayee because that is the kind of gratitude they show towards elders. He either forgot or deliberately did not even mention the kind of treatment meted out to L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi in the last four years.
But despite the effort of TV anchors, it was hard to not compare. Modi has such deep hatred for Nehru and Indira that he is even trying to erase them from the national memory. But independent commentators recalled how Vajpayee was fond of Indira, how he described her as a courageous leader, and called her Durga. They talked about how Rajiv Gandhi went out of the way to ensure Vajpayee got excellent medical treatment in the US.
But the real blow to Modi’s sustained campaign against Nehru came when some news outlets quoted the former PM as having said in 1957 that “this man (Vajpayee) would become the Prime Minister one day”. Vajpayee, in a speech after Nehru’s death, had said: “In Panditji’s life, we see a glimpse of what the great poet said. He was a devotee of peace and yet the harbinger of revolution, he was a devotee of non-violence but advocated every weapon to defend freedom and honour”.
Also read: Vajpayee on Nehru’s death: Bharat Mata has lost her favourite prince
Why was this constant comparison made between Vajpayee and Nehru, who was the Prime Minister for straight 17 years, from 1947 to 1964? He was never defeated in any election. Vajpayee was defeated in 1984 by Madhavrao Scindia in Gwalior constituency. He was the PM for only six years (1998 to 2004, which includes the confidence vote defeat in 1999).
In fact, nobody gave any details of that confidence motion which the Vajpayee government lost by just one vote in April 1999. The architect of that defeat was Subramanian Swamy. He had reportedly joined hands with J. Jayalalithaa to topple the government. She had withdrawn her ministers from the cabinet, one by one, and that led to the crisis. Swamy roped in even Sonia Gandhi, and organised a tea party for her. He was so friendly with her then that it would hugely embarrass him today if he were to see the photos of that tea party.
Sharad Pawar negotiated with Mayawati and the Chautalas to vote against the government. But the clincher came from Giridhar Gamang, whose vote toppled the government.
That entire nail-biting drama was one of the major tragi-comic episodes in Vajpayee’s political life. But no channel asked Swamy or Pawar or Gamang (who joined the BJP later) about the no-confidence vote.
The villain of the piece was not the Congress but Swamy. Pawar had perhaps joined the game thinking that he had an opportunity to become the Prime Minister because he was the leader of the opposition (Congress). But then politics changed course radically. Mulayam Singh stalled Sonia Gandhi’s move (by raising the issue of her foreign origin) to claim a majority. A couple of months later, the Congress was vertically split by Sharad Pawar, who opposed Sonia’s Italian roots. No media outlet thought of recalling that thrilling drama.
Also read: Vajpayee was popular even among citizens who didn’t vote for him, writes his PMO aide
The birth of Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party and defeat of the Congress in 1999 election, bringing back the Vajpayee government to power (with the same number of seats – 182), were the fallout of this situation. Without that split in the Congress and the Kargil War, Vajpayee perhaps would not have got the easy majority. He subsequently completed his tenure as the PM from 1999 to 2004.
No channel even bothered to analyse why the “towering leader” lost in 2004. An objective media should have analysed the context without undermining Vajpayee’s legacy. All absurd comparisons were made but an opportunity was lost to recount the events which, after the UPA interregnum of 10 years, brought Modi to power.
Kumar Ketkar is a former editor and Congress member of Rajya Sabha.
Counting and comparing the number of mourners accompanying the funeral procession. Oh, come on…The population has increased tenfold since Indira and Rajiv Gandhi died…The key sentence is the last one which carries a lot of weight…
History has recorded the contribution all the past Prime Ministers made during their reign. Circumstances and problems were different and each if them did their best. Definitely Atal Behari Vajpayeeji showed great vision and statesmanship. His chief objective was what was best forvthe country. His humility and humane qualities revealed that he regarded all including the opposition and foreign keaders with civility. He never would say it is ” vajpayee Govt as against today’s “Modi’s Sarkar” . The party seems to his first concern before the country. Parliament functioned normally and Atalji encouraged debate and listened to contrary views. History will judge the present Govt in time. The truth will prevail. The present Govt too is endeavouring to do good for the country but probably some aspects need correction and hopefully the PM will remember Vajoayeeji and take a corrective steps to bring Vajoayeeji’s vision to fruition.
“former editor and Congress member of Rajya Sabha”, says it all! We used to read this writers comments with interest earlier. Now they have become a propaganda outlet for the corrupt relics of the dynasty and their croneis!
These are views of congress party jealous of the popularity of vajpayee and using the opportunity to attack modi due to their hatred and intolerance for modi.
Ketkar, first look at the treatment meted out to Respected Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao by congress
Sir very good analysis of the entire scenario. I am very sorry to say that most of the channels and their anchors are like monkey’s and they dance at the beating of stick by the ‘madari’. They are worst then ‘bhands’. Semething applies to journalists in print media too. Very few have courage to write truth.
Vajpayeeji has earned his place in history, and his final resting place close to Nehruji, the man whom he admired and emulated through much of his political life, despite their different ideologies. The tributes which poured in were genuine, heartfelt, not dulled by the passage of fourteen years of being out of power and then out of the public gaze. In that sense, he has already stood the test of time. It is for historians – not breathless TV anchors counting the mourners at his final journey – to accord him his rightful place in the pantheon of great Indian prime ministers. 2. When Justice Sinha ruled against Mrs Gandhi, she started the practice of bussing in supporters from neighbouring states, to show how strong and popular she was. A sort of Dutch courage. Neither her father nor ABV ever felt the need to do something similar. Not at all difficult for a PM in office to organise one – or one dozen – votes to prove his majority. Even the honest Dr Singh was not above a little good natured commerce to see the nuclear deal through.
The kind of discourse people are forced to witness off-late is toxic. People observe events through their own lenses of biases and motives to make personal gains for themselves or their respective organisations. Broadcasts of irrelevant melodramatic episodes from the funeral and then this follow up article on how the media screwed up the coverage by failing to talk about the negatives or failures of the deceased makes me wonder if anything would really help in focusing on the actual issues that plague the nation. At the end of the day I feel that day is not far off when people lose faith in the media as its happening in the US where the leader of the nation constantly dubs the press the ‘enemy of the people.’ Media houses are driven by their sole motive of gaining more eye balls and therefore pander to their respective loyal customer base by showing them what they would like to see. NDTV’s coverage vs that of CNN-NEWS18 or Times Now showed that these news organisations live in different countries even though they were covering the same issue.. Also The Print’s critical coverage of the current government and its leaders from the past highlights the fact that they are deeply interested only in pandering to their base. It would be nice to see these institutions rise above their short term goals of maximising profits and harming the nation in the process and instead cover the issues that actually matter. Intellectual masturbation through opinionated write ups and political panels is not going to get us any where. Looking at how China is progressing it seems like their founding fathers were smart in understanding the flawed ways the human mind operates and curbing the right of press agencies and internet giants is helping them keep away from the nonsensical debates spewed by these organisations and keeping the nation focussed on the goals of progress, pulling people out of poverty and marching towards their goal of becoming a responsible superpower. I’m not in favour of curtailing freedom of speech but as human we are so fallible and naive at times that these modern institutions such as media organisations and internet giants do need to be reined in for the greater good of mankind in the long run.