Budh Singh's relevance today as inter-religious and inter-regional bridge

By Balraj Puri

It has been my ambition for the last many decades that Mahatma Budh Singh should get the recognition that he deserved. For he was undoubtedly the most prominent political leader of Jammu in the first half of the 20th century and his role as a unique inter-regional and inter-religious bridge is most relevant even today.

I was therefore happy that Jammu Doordarshan agreed to make a Docu Drama on Sardar Budh Singh, scripted by me. His 118th birthday which almost concides with his death anniversary was observed recently by a large number of his admirers, belonging to various parties and non-party intellectuals of Jammu to express their gratefulness to the pioneering and monumental contribution he had made to the politics of the state in the first half of the 20th century.

He was founder of the freedom movement in the state. He resigned from what used to be a very prestigious post of the deputy commissioner (then called Wazir Wazarat) in 1925 to lay the foundations of the movement for freedom and against autocracy in the state six years before the Muslim Conference was formed and fourteen years before it was converted into the National Conference Sheikh Abdullah, therefore used to call him as his spiritual father.

There is no other political leader in the state who earned goodwill of his community, his region and that of the other region and communities also. Sikhs of the country honoured him by selecting him one of the Panj Piaras (the holy five) to lay the foundation stone of the renovated Panja Sahib, Dogra of Jammu gave him the highest honour they could give by thrice electing him the president of the Dogra Sadar Sabha, the most representative Dogra organisation at that time. And the people of Kashmir gave him the unique honour of twice electing him president of their premier political party, first in 1942 and second in 1944. The only other person who occupied this august office in its long history was no other than Sheikh Abdullah. During his three year presidentship of Dogra Sabha Budh Singh politicised it and declared it as the Congress Party of the state. The Dogra Sabha was banned when it gave a call for hartal on the arrest of Mahatma Gandhi. Thereafter Budh Singh founded the Kisan Party in 1934. The same year he was elected to the first State Assembly called the Praja Sabha from Mirpur-Poonch constituency. Thus the freedom movement and secular politics started in Jammu much earlier than in Kashmir Valley.

Even in service he had espoused the cause of common man and identified himself with Congress and Mahatma Gandhi. In 1915 he was the first known person in Jammu and Kashmir State to respond to the Swadeshi Call of Mahatma Gandhi and started wearing black turban to identify himself with Akali Dal which had launched and British agitation as an ally of the Congress. He was also the first person to give vocal expression to protest against the practice of ''begar'' according to which any person could be coerced to do labour work without any compensation. He organised a public meeting in Srinagar in 1915 to protest against this inhuman practice. Perhaps this too was the first public expression of the grievances of Kashmir. Budh Singh was imprisoned for varying terms for three times. For the first time he was detailed in a dungeon Cell of Bahu Fort. Though no formal charge was made for this detention yet the Cabinet had taken exception to and prescribed his two Urdu pamphlets entitled ''Kisan ki dastan'' and ''Garibon ke dukh ka ilajh''. The cabinet got special permission, to detail him, from Maharaja Hari Singh who was at that time abroad. His last imprisonment was in May 1946 for participating in the Quit Kashmir Movement. Though his earlier statements, memoranda and presidential addresses as Party President were radical enough, he declared during what was called a treason trial in 1946 that the time was past for tinkering with the system through reforms. Freedom and revolution were his new goals.

For all these reasons, I have been pleading for formal recognition of the role of the most honoured personality of Jammu. Wlhen I was the President of Jammu Provincial National Conference in 1975, his potrait, which was an artist's tribute by a well known Jammu Painter, Mr T S Batra, decorated the office of the party. But in 1977 when I was dismissed from the party for unknown reasons, his potrait to was thrown out, more inexplicably. After my protests year after year, I am now told his photo adores the office of the party once again.

In fact Budh Singh had become embarrassment for his other party colleagues soon after they assumed power after independence. His austere and some what puritan and exacting standard of life was out of tune with the new culture of power. In less than two years, his portfolio was changed from Relief and Rehabilitation to Health and then to Information & Broadcasting. Eventually he resigned from the cabinet in October 1950.

I was one of those who demanded setting up of a separate Provincial Committee of the National Conference for Jammu region. Budh Singh was the natural choice to be its President. But this role, too, was not much palatable to some of his Kashmiri colleagues. He records in his autobiography that it hurt him when Sheikh Abdullah assured him of regional bias in his role as Provincial President of the party. He was got rid of this role as also removed from the state politics when he was sent to Rajya Sabha in 1952.

Some times history repeats itself. As a colleague of Sheikh Abdullah from the day I joined public life in 1942 including the period when he was not in power before 1947 and after 1953, my experience was not much difference from that of much greater personality of Budh Singh.

When Sheikh Abdullah resumed power in 1975 after Indira-Abdullah accord in which I was the principal mediator, Indira Gandhi insisted that I should stake my claim to be in the Cabinet for effective implementation of the Accord and to give Jammu a sense of assurance. Otherwise, she warned, Kashmir problem might explode again at some future time. I did not have the courage to stake my claim as I thought it would be like seeking a personal favour which I had never done in my public life. Not only that I was not included in the Cabinet I was not even tolerated long enough as President of the party. Like Budh Singh I was also sought to be removed from state politics to Parliament. But the difference in my case was that a large section of the ruling party alongwith Congress and its Ministers in the government, using all official machinery, manoeuvred against my success and helped my rival Jan Sangh candidate. Thereafter I was expelled from the party, though Budh Singh was spared this ignominy.

While Budh Singh parted company with Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, I publicly condemned his arrest and detention without trial and continued to fight for justice to him and the people of Kashmir of whom he was then the undisputed leads.

Sheikh Abdullah had not forgotten or forgiven Budh Singh's differences with him in 1953. When the Sheikh came from Delhi to Jammu to assume the Chief Ministership, I advised him that the first thing he should do was to see Budh Singh and seek blessings. Abdullah angrily resorted that he would not do so on account of Budh Singh's role in 1953. I, too, protested in almost similar tone that the Sheikh was joining hands and seeking cooperation of the Congress party which was wholly responsible for his dismissal and arrest in 1953. He had also accepted a dinner invitation from Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad who had stabbed him in the back. He had also condoled the death of D P Dhar at this residence who was the key figure in the coup of 1953. On what basis he could single out Budh Singh for such a hostile atttude. I left the Sheikh at that. But in my very first next meeting, he told me that soon after I left he rushed to see Budh Singh and got his blessings. He thanked me for my frank advice. Otherwise, he said, this lapse would have been a permanent burden on his conscience. He was deeply moved by the affection with which Budh Singh received him and gave him his ''Ashirwad''. However, I had continued to insist on formal recognition of Budh Singh. In 1989 I was part of a Dogri Sanstha deputation which reminded the then Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah about the injustice that had been done to the symbol of freedom movement and secularism in Jammu. I was glad that he readily agreed to name a road which started from Indira Whowk and ends at the Chowk near New Secretariat via M.L.A. Hostel. After his resignation in 1990 the plague of commemorating the naming ceremony was removed as also Budh Singh's name from the road sign board. I continued to protest against this insult to the sentiments of the people of Jammu to the succeeding Governors. On enquiry, Jammu Municipality reported that this was an act of vandalism by some miscreants. But the mystery remains why that vandalism had been perpetuated and why miscreants have not been taken to task. The first thing that I did after the present Chief Minister took over was to remind him about restoration of the name of the road named after Budh Singh and also to instal a suitable statue. He was agreed to do whenever I met him. He also repeated his commitment at the last function on the occasion of 114th birthday of Budh Singh. I have repeatedly requested him and the Speaker of the Assembly to instal his potrait in the assembly hall because he was the first person to demand establishment of legislature in the State. But what stands between well intentioned commitment of the Chief Minister and its implementation since he returned to power in September 1996 and why culprits of ''the act of vandalism'' i.e. undoing the commemoration ceremony are being shielded. Why Farooq's writ on crucial ideological and political issues is as ineffective in Jammu as in Kashmir?

This year again, I reminded him at a public function to celebrate the birthday of the Mahatma of my previous requests and his promises. He again promised to do the needful. Let us see whether he remembers them this time.

No winners in human election

By M J Akbar

India is the only nuclear power in the world that is frightened of Bangladesh. But that is another story, although it does link the two themes of this column: the BJP can hardly expect to triumph in Assam and Bengal when a whimper is its primary response to the horrific events on the Bangladesh border. The nuclear story of the moment deals with that happened in London on 4 June 1998, some three weeks after we announced, to loud applause at home and loud walling abroad, that we had unilaterally joined the Big Stick Club. Soon after Pakistan also became, officially, a nuclear-weapons power.

Brajesh Mishra, Principal secretary in the Prime Minister's Office was among those tasked to explain our decision to influential allies, a perfectly legitimate responsibility. In the process he carried a letter from Prime Minister Vajpayee to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Brtain. Mr Mishra bypassed our High Commissioner and got an appointment with Tony Blair through the Hindujas, the world's most famous arms agents, who owned at least some of their fame to the BJP's strident campaign against them during the prime ministership of Rajiv Gandhi following the investigative stories done by a gentleman who is now a minister in the Central Government, Arun Shourie.

The influence of Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie in this Government does not need endorsement from a mere columnist, but I had no idea that their philosophy of privatisation and disinvestment had become so contagious. This Government has gone ahead and privatised foreign policy as well.

As is only to be expected in best-of-breed practice, foreign policy has gone to the highest bidder. The Hinduja brothers, when not selling arms, do like foreign policy on the side. They got the foreign policy franchise for the United Kingdom from their friend Brajesh Mishra (I hope our High Commissioner in London 1998 has retired fromthe service by now, otherwise he would have to resign in embarrassment.) The Hindujas were delightfully coy about their friend. This is the opening paragraph of their letter to Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to Tony Blair, sent on the morning of 5 June 1998: "GP and I, with our Indian friend, look forward to seeing you and the Prime Minister later this morning. Our friend will have with him a letter from the Indian Prime Minister to give to Mr Blair."

No names mentioned. Very hush hush. As if Brajesh Mishra was head of the Indian secret service who travelled with a forged passport and a false moustache. What was the need for such mystery? I presume the Prime Minister of Britain prefers to know the identity of anyone bringing a letter from another Prime Minister, so Mr Mishra's credentials could not have been a secret from him. Did Brajesh Mishra want secrecy? He has made an extraordinary statement that this meeting with Blair could only have been arranged by the Hindujas. Why? Can't an Indian ambassador keep a secret? Mr Mishra must have an extremely low opinion of India's diplomats if he believes this of his old service.

You do not have to be a nuclear scientist to realise that the exercise was an effort to imrpove the standing of the Hindujas with 10 Downing Street, a pre-arranged opportunity seized eagerly by the author of the letter to Powell, Srichand P. Hinduja, and his ubiquitous brother, Gopi.

The two do everything in tandem, as the Supreme Court of Indian of India fully appreciated when it (very correctly; there was no justification for keping the brothers in a kind of permanent house arrest in India) permitted Srichand and Gopi Hinduja to continue their lives in London or wherever their British passports permits them to travel. It was the kind of help that the Hindu as desperately needed in their search for British passports. Effectively the Government of India was helping them to change their nationality at a time when they were on a potential chargesheet in the Bofors case. It is as simple as that. What would Atal Behari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani have done if they had been in Opposition and discovered a high official of the Government of India helping the accused inthe Bofors case? There is an answer to this question and it is with a man called P V Narsimha Rao who once had an external affairs minister called Madhavsingh Solanki. Mr Solanki tried to help the Hindujas by handing over a letter on their behalf to a head of Government. Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani demanded his resignation. Mr Rao forced Madhavsingh Solanki to resign.

In this shadowy world of power, reputation is as good as reality. The Hindujas, who love using first names (they just spoke to Tony, while Bill was trying to reach them onthe other line), as masters in the manipulation of their image. From arms dealers they have repositioned themselves as power-brokers, with a little help from "our Indian friend."

P. V. Narasimha Rao had an Opposition to contend with. Atal Behari Vajpayee is fortunate that he still does not have to worry about an Opposition. The Congress reacts only if there is any suspicion of attack on its exalted leader Sonia Gandhi. It stopped Parliament when it felt that the CBI might enquire into allegations against Sonia Gandhi; she is clearly above anything so gross as suspicion. The party refuses to recognised that there can be any other issue on the national agenda. Or perhaps the Congress feels beholdend to the Hindujas for some reason and prefers silence when the principal secretary to the Prime Minister avers that he prefers ams dealers to his embassy in his dealings with the British Government.

Mr Vajpayee has been sending out signals much before the results of the current round of Assembly elections indicating two things: first, that the BJP will not do well; and second, that nothing will happen to his Government in Delhi. He is absolutely right on both counts. The BJP did not have any chance in Kerala, Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Pondicherry but it had a vote share in all four places that was increasing. That trend will be reversed. It will lose its vote share everywhere. As if the cumulative effect of its policies was not enough, its unconvincing mismanagement of the border incidents with Bangladesh have struck a negative nerve in the Indian psyche. The Indian voter has suddenly remembered that this is the same Government that crawled before hijackers when it was only asked to bend (Mr Advani might remember this phrase; he made it famous after the end of the Emergency when he thus summed up the behaviour of some journalists during censorship and tyranny). Assam was one State where the BJP was poised to leap into the forefront and become an alternative to them AGP. Instead of the BJP lost its confidence, with good reason, and joined a declining ruling party.

But nothing will happen to Mr Vajpayee's Government. There will be no pressure on the BJP's allies to break the coalition. Why? Because there is no credible national alternative. Mr Vajpayee has been getting a little irritable with Mrs Sonia Gandhi of late. This is an error. He should continue to show fulsome gratitude to her. Under her the Congress will continue to remain a stagnant force. I am writing this after the exist polls (which can be, like opinion polls, misleading) and before the results are known, but it is safe to suggest that the Congress has been a liability for its friends an an indifferent option for voters. The Congress may claim victory in Assam because it will certainly be the largest single party, but the fact is that a Congress victory in Assam should hve been as clear-out as the UDF performance in Kerala. The anti-establishment mood in Assam was if anything stronger than in Kerala. Then the Sonia - minus factor came into play, starting with poor selection of candidates (any other adjective would be far more pejorative).

As she compaigned Sonia Gandhi inadvertently aroused the "foreigner" sentiment. Despite all her years in India, Sonia Gandhi simply has not acquired either the local inflexion or a feel for Indian sentiments. This is curious. Indians have no difficulty in sounding like Americans or Britishers (very clipped) or Europeans if they settle abroad; but Sonia Gandhi still sounds as if she is a chance visitor from Italy. If Mamata Banerjee does not win in Bengal, she will not wait very long to point every finger she has (as well as her toes) at Sonia Gandhi. In Tamil Nadu of course Sonia Gandhi has converted the Congress into a reluctant tail of Jayalalitha (the reluctance is on the part of Jayalalithia, not the tail).

A Government falls midterm in Delhi if two conditions are met. The credibility of the ruling party or coalition has to collapse, of course, but that is not sufficient. The Opposition also has to be certain that it an either form an alternative Government or win a general election if that becomes essential. No political party today believes that it can gain from a collapse of Government. The BJP knows that it will suffer if it goes to the voter now.

But the Congress also knows that it has not gained enough goodwill to win more seats in the Lok Sabha: it will win by default in Gujarat but lose or barely survive everywhere else. Sonia Gandhi has campaigned for the Congress in two general elections: she got a little over 140 seats the first time and 112 the second time. If a general election were held now she would not cross three figures. She has therefore no interest in destabilising the Government. A general election now would turn the Lok Sabha into a multi-party mess.

This is the inevitable consequence of what might he called India's first hamam election: an election in which the voter is convinced that all parties are equally exposed, equally corrupt, equally unreliable. If there is tehelka in the BJP there is the constant image of Bofors around Sonia Gandhi, spiced by regular stories of this ticket or that being sold, as in Assam. If the voter in Tamil Nadu turns away from Karunanidhi, who does he find? Jayalalitha, with an unsavoury track record. And so it goes.

When you touch nadir you reach an interesting syndrome. Someone will lose. But no one will win. That is what a hamam election is all about.