Life Among the Scorpions

by Jaya Jaitly

  Provocative and pugnacious, but I got my anger off my chest. The law minister went silent.

  ~

  Two memorable moments that helped keep a balance, follow.

  One day, I received a packet from a gentleman named Gyanesh Nigam. He had meticulously researched all the documents put out publicly by the government and Tehelka on Operation West End, analysing and scrutinizing the facts and logic of everything that happened or was said. His extremely well-written and neatly bound document referred to the McCarthy trials in the USA, and how its targets were hounded. His arguments were incisive and highly logical. It was the best use of the English language I had seen on this issue. I couldn’t believe anyone who had never met me would be so interested, and take the trouble to do what no one in India had bothered with. I couldn’t use it anywhere but I did contact him by email. He spoke in admiration of George Sahib and even my work in handicrafts. I think he was an analyst with Deutche Bank in Singapore where I have often been but have still not met him.

  The next and most memorable ray of light was a five-page beautifully handwritten letter in Hindi I received from a number—yes, the identity of the man was just a number. This happened a short while after the Tehelka storm hit us. He wrote that he was a life convict at the Panaji Jail in Goa. I have no idea what crime he committed or what his former status in society had been. All I could see was he was well-educated and knowledgeable about the history of the Lohia socialists in India. He expressed his deep admiration for George Sahib’s valour and integrity, and my lifetime of work in rural areas. He expressed deep sympathy for what had happened to us. I read the letter many times over, just for the beauty of the sentiments and handwriting. I carried it in my pocket diary all the time. Sadly, on a trip to South Africa in 2003, the diary fell out of our vehicle and it was gone. I have tried to search for this nameless ‘prisoner for life’ through the Governor of Goa so that I could visit him some day. No one has been of help yet, but I haven’t given up hope of thanking this nameless individual personally for his kindness, if he is still alive and in jail. A convicted criminal with intellect, education and compassion is worth pursuing.

  *See http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/world/a-web-site-in-india-that-revealed-graft-becomes-a-target.html?mcubz=1

  *’Tehelka Commission wound up’, The Hindu, 5 October 2004, http://www.thehindu.com/2004/10/05/stories/2004100509240100.htm

  21

  A SMALL MOMENT OF GLORY IN MANIPUR

  This Is Politics

  WHEN WOMEN IN POLITICS SAY or do something, their words and actions are viewed differently from those of men. Or at least, the attacks on women in public life, are either harsher or more underhand.

  Within the trade union and the Party, I always knew that the men felt they could not attack me openly since I was ‘obviously under the umbrella’ of the big boss George Fernandes, whose support, benevolence and leadership they could not risk losing. Was I the protégée? Protectee? Undeserving confidante? Keeper of the purse strings? Puppet? Slave? Or something worse? All those with self-serving ambitions that overrode the Party’s collective interests certainly put me in one or the other of these slots. Some honourable exceptions were always decent and supportive, but in a slightly condescending or patronizing way. There was no doubt that even they were perfectly prepared to dump a woman at the drop of a hat if their own interests were affected within the Party.

  A small example of how a woman can be treated can be seen in what happened to me once. I was fast asleep a little after midnight at my Khirki home when the phone rang. A loud male voice in heavy Bihari accented-Hindi filled my ears. I kept asking the caller to slow down and speak softly. He finally did only to ask, in carefully chosen words: ‘What kind of a randikhana (whorehouse) do you think you are running in Delhi instead of a political party? Do you know what’s going on in Bihar? So and so is attending a meeting called by Shakuni Choudhury (at that time a dissenter who later joined Lalu Yadav). What have you done to stop it?’

  Stunned, I couldn’t answer but concluded he must have been drunk even though his words hadn’t slurred. I asked who he was. He gave me a typical north Indian name—Ram something or the other—Prasad. It’s hard to recollect now. I put the phone down but it took a while to get back to sleep. When I told George Fernandes about it at office the next morning, he was shocked and called up a few colleagues. They all unanimously agreed that the real person of the same name was a soft-spoken, decent veteran politico who would not have spoken like that. They concluded it must have been an impersonator.

  There is a more significant story to share since little is remembered about a very interesting, short-lived saga in the recent history of Manipur, which was always a state close to my heart. For certain concerned people, it is a time best forgotten. The story here may be longwinding, but it helps demonstrate the following:

  1)common occurrences in the Northeastern states which lie ignored by the Centre,

  2)how governments can, at times, be formed without any exchange of money,

  3)how good men are not allowed to govern for long if it clashes with other interests,

  4)how political allies at the Centre can become rivals in a state,

  5)how a Party leader can abort a decision to be taken in the Party’s and state’s interest for the sake of personal interest, and

  6)how all this set me up as a target of ire of such Party leaders.

  It was late into the year 2000. Manipur was at a standstill. Earlier in 1997, Wahengbam Nipamacha Singh, the Speaker of the Assembly, had quit the Congress, formed the Manipur State Congress Party (MSCP) and become the chief minister. Later, he became an ally of the NDA under Vajpayee in 1998. By late 2000, many MLAs revolted against Nipamacha Singh and collected together in a ‘camp’ at Speaker Dhananjay Singh’s residence to pull the chief minister down. While most MLAs were from the Congress; there were six from the BJP, one from Manipur People’s Party, and one (Basanta Kumar Singh) from the Samata Party.

  The chief minister’s supporters huddled in his home. This ridiculous situation continued for more than three months. Government operations came to a standstill. At such times, local militant groups have a heyday and the common people are put through immense discomfort. Basanta contacted his friend Radhabinod Koijam, MLA and former chief minister from the Congress, and suggested he join the Samata Party and the NDA since George Fernandes, its Convenor, was considered a popular and trusted national leader in the Northeast. They came to Delhi to meet George Sahib and me. Koijam agreed and led nineteen MLAs, excluding the veteran Rishang Keishing, out of the Congress, and into the Samata Party. The BJP lost the opportunity to stake its claim. Some Congress MLAs were still at Dhananjay’s camp. They were invited by Samata Party General Secretary Shambhu Sharan Srivastava to breakfast at Koijam’s home the next morning and agreed to pledge their allegiance to this side.

  Hemachandra Singh, son of an old socialist colleague of Fernandes, and collegemate of my son Akshay, assisted Srivastava to go undercover to Nipamacha Singh’s residence at 2.30 am to persuade those who were there to leave his government since it had no hope of survival. Some gentle arm-twisting later, Nipamacha agreed to let his people go, provided Koijam’s group had the numbers. Typical of local friendships overriding political rivalries, the two remained friends till Nipamacha passed away in 2012. Interestingly, the entire exercise was carried out in close coordination between Shambhu, who had stationed himself in Imphal through all this, and me. With great difficulty, I managed to track down Nitish Kumar in Bihar to apprise him of the developing situation. He said, ‘go ahead’. I do not recall where exactly George Fernandes was but he was on tour and was not in contact on telephone. He got to know a short while later. The Samata Party then created a historic majority—it got fifty-eight members on its side in a house of sixty!

  The BJP was astonished. Its senior representatives in Imphal met Srivastava and requested he speak to L.K. Advani before taking any further steps. We all did not feel it was necessary to se
ek the permission of another Party when our Party’s interests were at stake. No Party does that, not even the BJP. It is an understandable political stance to take in a democratic polity. Advani was the home minister then and the point person for all federal issues. His office called me late in the evening and requested me to meet him at his North Block office. He looked very displeased and asked me what had happened. I recounted the events faithfully and argued that Koijam had all the credentials to be a good chief minister and that we, as NDA, after months of instability, now had a good majority government in place in which we were all partners. Salaries to civil and police officials had not been paid for months and the militants were on an extortion spree at the time. He did not argue but was clearly most unhappy. I could not understand why. I met Jana Krishnamurthi, President of the BJP, to apprise him of Koijam’s credentials and felt I also had the tacit support of Khushabhau Thakre whom I met several times during this period. They gave in to my submissions, and expressions of solidarity and goodwill, as ally to the NDA without much objection.

  The BJP and others wanted to be sworn in as ministers in the first round along with the chief minister, but there was already the predictable tussle for ministerships between all parties which took place in the presence of George Fernandes in Delhi. So, Koijam was sworn in alone at first. George Fernandes and I went for the next round of oath-taking when those nominated by all partner parties were inducted. We were quite pleased at having been able to install the very first Samata Party state government in the country. We thought we had pulled Manipur out of a stalemate. Not a penny was exchanged or anybody lured through extraneous promises. The BJP was still unhappy.

  Koijam and his team came to Delhi for funds to tide over the financial crisis. Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha promised to do the needful and set the ball rolling among officials. Koijam announced salaries would be paid by Holi. Sadly, half the money was held up for various reasons under instructions from the Home Ministry.

  There was a serious issue hovering in the horizon at that time. Manipur’s people were against the extension of ceasefire outside the territory of Nagaland into Manipur and other states. It was a major emotional matter in Manipur which had seen unanimous resolutions in the Assembly and mass demonstrations on the streets. However, a mere courtesy call on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee by Koijam on the same trip to Delhi was announced by the Home Ministry as a meeting in which Manipur had agreed to the extension of ceasefire. The chief ministers of other affected states in the Northeast including Koijam made contradicting statements. They said they were not in agreement as the Centre could not decide an issue which encroached upon their federal rights and territories. Koijam also held a meeting in which all security forces, including the army, were on board announcing a temporary ceasefire within the state for Holi, unitedly appealing to all insurgent groups within Manipur to reciprocate. This infuriated the home minister who questioned Koijam’s move. Koijam argued it was his right to do so as the head of government in charge of law and order in the state. Koijam also made a bold move in cutting the direct external telephone lines of all officers within the Secretariat to prevent militant groups from harassing them directly to extort a part of their salaries as they regularly did.

  The Centre insisted that the proposal to extend the Nagaland ceasefire to other states would remain. The people were incensed and lost faith in the Samata Party-led government. The end result of this was that Koijam’s residence was attacked while his family was inside. They managed to escape unharmed. He was the target of rumours that he was close to drug traders. The Assembly building was burned down. Eight people died in the unrest.

  The Home Ministry was forced to withdraw the proposal for the extension of the ceasefire. The chief minister called for a show of strength in the Assembly to demonstrate that he had support for his actions. I did another round of visits to the BJP headquarters in Delhi to seek their issuance of a whip to their members to be present and vote. Though they promised to do so and said they had, their MLAs in Manipur denied receiving any instructions. The three-month-old government fell.

  The Centre then had no option but to impose President’s Rule in June 2001. I say this now with no rancour towards the BJP. This is all a part of what is known as ‘politics’. There is nothing dishonest or illegal about it. The BJP did some similar fleet-footed activity to its advantage in Goa and Manipur in 2017, after the results of the Assembly elections were announced. Radhabinod Koijam is now with the BJP, which currently governs the state. So who can blame the other in the game of Round Robin? I have known this quaint phrase for years, but in the age of technology I find the Google description amusingly apt:

  Round-robin (RR) is one of the algorithms employed by process and network schedulers in computing. As the term is generally used, time slices (also known as time quanta) are assigned to each process in equal portions and in circular order, handling all processes without priority (also known as cyclic executive).

  The reaction of the Samata Party leaders from Bihar to the Manipur events was revealing. The Samata Party held a National Executive at Vishwa Yuvak Kendra, Delhi, soon after President’s Rule was announced, to assess the situation of our own senior ally toppling our state government, of which it was also a part. I described the broad picture. Shambhu gave the step-by-step details. There was great indignant oratory and disapproval of the central government’s actions. Shambhu proposed the ministers in the NDA from the Samata Party sign a collective letter resigning from their ministries and hand it over to George Sahib. It was mostly a symbolic gesture but some of us were serious about it and George Fernandes did not object to this line. After all, we were not withdrawing support from the government; we were just refusing to being ministers in it.

  After everyone left the meeting, Nitish Kumar turned on Shambhu and said, ‘Ek chhote mote rajya ke liye aap ne yeh kya kar diya?’ (For the sake of one small inconsequential state, what have you done?) He seemed to refrain from expressing his anger towards me. But we could see that he did not perhaps appreciate the fact that it was another state that had held up the Samata flag first, before he could do so in Bihar. Moreover, some other Bihar leaders had hoped for ministerial births in an expected expansion of the cabinet in the wake of the formation of Samata Party in Manipur. They couldn’t have cared less for Manipur though. Nitish Kumar was maybe voicing the collective concerns of this group as well. In the end, Shambhu and I made some enemies. George Fernandes was ultimately a practical politician who could swallow his emotions and indignation, so the letter of resignation of our ministers never saw the light of day. In the following elections, the Congress won a comfortable majority and the NDA lost its opportunity to demonstrate honest and sane governance in a crucial state. Here was a lesson in one facet of coalition politics.

  22

  THE POLITICS OF COALITIONS

  George Fernandes, the Leader and Firefighter

  COALITIONS ARE TRICKY. EACH CONSTITUENT looks for extra leverage, and the tensions between the leading party and its allies are always below the surface. Anyone rocking the boat is condemned by all.

  Post the 1980s, many fell away because George Fernandes gave the fight against injustice greater priority than acquiring power. An example of this was his decision to resign from the Janata government in 1979, despite having personally suffered the excesses of the Emergency. Essentially, the Janata government of 1977 was a coalition government in which parties had technically submerged their identities for what turned out to be a very short period. He had then defended the government powerfully in Parliament in 1979 upon the request of Prime Minister Morarji Desai. Overnight, he changed his stance, shocking and deeply disappointing his socialist colleagues and the rest of the country. During the night, having tried his utmost to persuade the Left parties headed by Jyoti Basu, and other senior colleagues in government, not to contribute to the imminent collapse of the government, he was subjected to a long political and finally emotional argument by Madhu Limaye. Limaye failed
to convince George Fernandes with his ideological arguments to resign on the issue of the Jan Sangh’s dual membership in the RSS. Finally, he lobbed him a big sentimental ball: ‘Do all our years of friendship mean nothing to you?’ he asked. At that point George Fernandes stood up and said, ‘Madhu, if it all comes down to just that, I will submit my resignation tomorrow morning.’ And that is what happened.

  George Fernandes’s action had many unpleasant repercussions. The ones that dogged him as an individual lasted almost a decade. He was well aware of the negative impact his political reputation suffered because of his old comrade-in-arms Madhu Limaye; however, although he visited the latter less often after that, he never said anything to blame him.

  George Fernandes fought his way out of an almost isolated political existence by leading the battle against the Rajiv Gandhi government’s reported corruption in the Bofors and HDW submarine deals. He constantly hurtled through the length and breadth of the country for trade union gatherings. During this time, he also played midwife in the delivery of V.P. Singh as an alternative ‘clean’ leader. It was during this entire period that I believe he decided that he would never again be responsible for the fall of a government which he helped create and thus became a disciplined soldier in other coalition periods.