Commentary/ Saisuresh Sivaswamy

Gujral knows the JD is a lost cause, and that no sacrifice will save it at this juncture

Those who forget history, so goes the overused cliche, are condemned to repeat it. And braving the risk of being termed cliche-ridden, the aptness of the phrase compels one to use it in the context of Janata Dal's recent paroxysms.

For, Laloo Yadav is only the latest in the run of wreckers this centrist Opposition party has been burdened with since its earlier incarnation as the Janata Party. Pundits of numerology may demur, but a change in its name has not resulted in any favourable change in its fortunes, wracked as it is with the overweening ambitions of the very men sworn to uphold its fair name.

In that sense, Prime Minister I K Gujral's reluctance to involve himself with, or to fight against, historical forces is understandable. As someone who has seen the internal fracas of the party cost it one federal government after another -- first in 1979 and then in 1990 -- he knows the party is a lost cause, and that no sacrifice will save it at this juncture.

Which is a real tragedy, for there is certainly room within the polity for another centrist party. The Bharatiya Janata Party has been quick to see this vacuum (and the JP/JD's own internal contradictions that prevent it from bidding fair for this place) so quickly that it has already converted itself into a similar outfit, with far greater success.

Looking back, it is a marvel that the first of JD's experiments with power, in 1977, lasted as long as it did, for there was no end to aspiring prime ministers in its ranks. Finally, Indira Gandhi managed to inveigle one of them into backstabbing Morarji Desai, a phenomenon his close associate Chandra Shekhar repeated with untold glee 11 years later. And that has been the tale of the JD since then, whether in Karnataka -- where the internal wranglings between senior leaders are the stuff political potboilers are made of -- or Uttar Pradesh, where its erstwhile pillar of strength was taught fresh lessons in chicanery.

The latter's mention is an appropriate reference, for soon after his exit from the JD, Mulayam Yadav virtually became the Samajwadi Party. With minatory noises coming from Patna, it is clear that the remaining Yadav in the JD's quiver is all set to emulate Mulayam.

So where does it leave the Congress party? Where it has always remained, I guess -- at the nonstarter level.

It is a moot point if any other prime minister would have let things take this turn without interceding, but Gujral who, for the sake of the record, was sent to the Rajya Sabha from Bihar -- thanks to Laloo -- is an avowed apolitical man; not for him the cut and parry of politics, which, ultimately, is what the JD's contortions are all about.

Perhaps Gujral's insouciance also stems from the knowledge that Laloo's exit will not seriously drain his legislative strength, and it is also possible that a solution may be worked out even after the cliched eleventh hour. That, however, shows a touching faith in humankind, but it does not apply to politics.

In essence, what is being played out in Patna and New Delhi is not history, but its flipside. While the earlier crises in the party owed their origin to a contender claiming to have a greater hold over the organisation, this time it is the incumbent fighting to stave off a takeover.

To some extent, Laloo is perhaps justified in resisting the moves to replace him. After all, it was he who enabled the JD to put up a good fight both in Parliamentary and assembly elections, becoming in the process the first Bihar chief minister to be re-elected. How many remember that his contestant for the post of party president, Sharad Yadav, was given a safe Lok Sabha ticket in Bihar by Laloo?

The latter's mistake, at the same time, has been his reluctance to indulge in what the public perceives as a free and fair fight. The Supreme Court -- which, for the citizenry at least represents the last hope in a fast-crumbling society -- entering the picture and ordering the completion of the electoral process by July 3 and Laloo's intransigence in the face of it, have sent wrong signals to the same people who, barely six months ago, were singing hosannas to him.

Ultimately, in India, that is what the voter looks for in his elected representatives, the same vanvaas syndrome that has been dinned into our common psyche since our early days on this planet. There are a few who mastered this technique, like V P Singh, but by and large Indian politicians have not realised this trait among the voter.

In the final analysis, Laloo may be a vote-catcher par excellence, he may even be a good administrator, possibly he is not corruptible too, but the minute he behaves like a model in a Fevicol advertisement, down goes his popularity ratings.

Of course, for the present he may retain the upper hand in the legislative numbers game. For his supporters he may remain the single mass leader in a party populated with unpopular figures, but in the final analysis, there is also something called the moral authority to govern, which Laloo Yadav lost the minute he refused to step down following his chargesheeting in the fodder scam.

The party, then, is over him and others in JD. By Thursday night, history will have triumphed yet again over men and matters in that outfit. In a sense it has been a souring of the dream of 1977, when the nation really expected the Janata movement's leaders to be making history, not merely repeating it. In this particular instance, the future will hold Laloo Yadav guilty, never mind his immense charisma, never mind his dehati persona.

Tell us what you think of this column