08-05-2007, 07:13 AM
Ansari is Left but still right
Swapan Dasgupta
In the past, I have made harsh comments about the brazenness with which the Congress and the Left, acting in tandem, burdened India with a Head of State who is not a model of rectitude. Fortunately, the shrill but unavoidable controversy surrounding the President of India may have had a beneficial side-effect. In naming the candidate for Vice-President, the Left - which seems to have emerged as the new certifying authority - and the Congress didn't make the same mistake.
Hamid Ansari, Minorities Commission chairman, is almost certain to be elected Vice-President. The numbers are decisively ranged in favour of the UPA and Left, and the Samajwadi Party, which is fast crafting out a role as the Congress' Trojan horse, has ensured that Najma Heptullah will not get all the Opposition votes. Whatever little chance the Opposition had of banking on cross-party Dalit MPs ended abruptly after some BJP leaders decided that Ansari's candidature did not warrant serious opposition.
It was not a wrong decision. Ansari's candidature may have been mooted by CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat for reasons that have as much to do with symbolism as with ideological compatibility. But that is no reason to dismiss it with disdain. Given that the UPA and the Left had decided to "reserve" the Vice-President's post for a Muslim - a decision that seems to have all-party blessing - Ansari was an edifying choice. Dignified, measured and charming - attributes that may or may not serve him well as chairman of an increasingly boisterous Rajya Sabha - Ansari has served India well both as a career diplomat and, since retirement, in various other capacities. A few years ago, I had the privilege of working with him in the Indo-British Round Table and can vouch for his intellectual erudition.
This may be a reason why I was somewhat taken aback by an interview he gave to Outlook last week. In that, Ansari was critical of the US invasion of Iraq and India's vote in the IAEA against Iran's nuclear programme. Per se there is nothing extraordinary or undignified in Ansari's position. His criticism of the US matches the liberal critique of the Bush Administration and his position on Iran is shared by a large number of Indians, including many in the BJP. Moreover, Ansari has every right to hold these views.
What I find somewhat disconcerting is that Ansari chose to air these views after he was named as UPA's candidate Vice-President. How Ansari views the world and India's foreign policy may form an important input in the larger process of decision-making. However, as the holder of a Constitutional post, he is not expected to proffer his personal views to the wider public. Just as a serving diplomat loses the luxury of having personal views, the President and Vice-President, too, are prisoners of well-established protocol.
It is important for Ansari to stress his bi-partisan credentials for two reasons. First, the Left and UPA have communalised the Vice-President's post as one for which only Muslims need apply. Though Ansari is in no way responsible for this perverse decision, it is important that he transcends the circumstances of his election. He must take exceptional care to not be compartmentalised as a "Muslim" Vice-President; he must see himself as India's Vice-President.
Finally, in its new role as the arbiter of correctness, the Left has sent unmistakable signals to the country that the road to personal advancement lies in joining the "progressive" bandwagon of the Left. Ansari, for example, was chosen because his views broadly correspond to the editorial positions of The Hindu newspaper. Would the Left, for example, have even considered a Muslim in the mould of the late MC Chagla?
Karat is a clever man who has done as much as former CPI general secretary P C Joshi to enhance the intellectual appeal of the Left. At the same time, he has triggered a dangerous trend that violates the pluralist ethos of India. It is now up to Ansari to restore the balance.
Swapan Dasgupta
In the past, I have made harsh comments about the brazenness with which the Congress and the Left, acting in tandem, burdened India with a Head of State who is not a model of rectitude. Fortunately, the shrill but unavoidable controversy surrounding the President of India may have had a beneficial side-effect. In naming the candidate for Vice-President, the Left - which seems to have emerged as the new certifying authority - and the Congress didn't make the same mistake.
Hamid Ansari, Minorities Commission chairman, is almost certain to be elected Vice-President. The numbers are decisively ranged in favour of the UPA and Left, and the Samajwadi Party, which is fast crafting out a role as the Congress' Trojan horse, has ensured that Najma Heptullah will not get all the Opposition votes. Whatever little chance the Opposition had of banking on cross-party Dalit MPs ended abruptly after some BJP leaders decided that Ansari's candidature did not warrant serious opposition.
It was not a wrong decision. Ansari's candidature may have been mooted by CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat for reasons that have as much to do with symbolism as with ideological compatibility. But that is no reason to dismiss it with disdain. Given that the UPA and the Left had decided to "reserve" the Vice-President's post for a Muslim - a decision that seems to have all-party blessing - Ansari was an edifying choice. Dignified, measured and charming - attributes that may or may not serve him well as chairman of an increasingly boisterous Rajya Sabha - Ansari has served India well both as a career diplomat and, since retirement, in various other capacities. A few years ago, I had the privilege of working with him in the Indo-British Round Table and can vouch for his intellectual erudition.
This may be a reason why I was somewhat taken aback by an interview he gave to Outlook last week. In that, Ansari was critical of the US invasion of Iraq and India's vote in the IAEA against Iran's nuclear programme. Per se there is nothing extraordinary or undignified in Ansari's position. His criticism of the US matches the liberal critique of the Bush Administration and his position on Iran is shared by a large number of Indians, including many in the BJP. Moreover, Ansari has every right to hold these views.
What I find somewhat disconcerting is that Ansari chose to air these views after he was named as UPA's candidate Vice-President. How Ansari views the world and India's foreign policy may form an important input in the larger process of decision-making. However, as the holder of a Constitutional post, he is not expected to proffer his personal views to the wider public. Just as a serving diplomat loses the luxury of having personal views, the President and Vice-President, too, are prisoners of well-established protocol.
It is important for Ansari to stress his bi-partisan credentials for two reasons. First, the Left and UPA have communalised the Vice-President's post as one for which only Muslims need apply. Though Ansari is in no way responsible for this perverse decision, it is important that he transcends the circumstances of his election. He must take exceptional care to not be compartmentalised as a "Muslim" Vice-President; he must see himself as India's Vice-President.
Finally, in its new role as the arbiter of correctness, the Left has sent unmistakable signals to the country that the road to personal advancement lies in joining the "progressive" bandwagon of the Left. Ansari, for example, was chosen because his views broadly correspond to the editorial positions of The Hindu newspaper. Would the Left, for example, have even considered a Muslim in the mould of the late MC Chagla?
Karat is a clever man who has done as much as former CPI general secretary P C Joshi to enhance the intellectual appeal of the Left. At the same time, he has triggered a dangerous trend that violates the pluralist ethos of India. It is now up to Ansari to restore the balance.