There was, therefore, nothing unusual if the BJP raised a storm over a non-issue and tried to make it the focus of attention, if not a major issue before the electorate. It has ably done so in the past and raised several issues to a feverish pitch. Whether it led to discord and the killing of hundreds of innocent people was not its concern as long as it was able to reap electoral rewards. While Ram was in deep slumber, the BJP woke up suddenly one day to ride on a rath to the throne of Delhi. It did not bother to ask: How many were mercilessly crushed underneath, and what cost the nation paid for their power game?

CHAUVINISM WITH COMMUNAL TINGE

The BJP's stance on the so called issue of foreign origin is motivated by chauvinism with a communal tinge. The Sonia issue had been decided long before the BJP sought to rake it up. While it is anti-democratic to deprive any citizen of his or her rights under the constitution, there is no other factor to stand against Mrs Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi took over the Congress campaign in the midst of the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, and later on the reins of the party itself. Nobody then raised any objection to her taking over as the Congress president, not even the BJP. Her origin was not an issue at that time. How did it suddenly become an issue, so much so that it threatened to take the centre-stage? The reason is: the fear of the BJP leadership to face the people on the basis of their government's performance. Not surprisingly, the BJP is seeking a diversionary tactic, lest people judge it on the basis of its performance and render it a smashing defeat in the forthcoming elections. It is in order to insulate itself against such an eventuality that it raised the issue in the first place.

Soon following in the footsteps of the BJP, three Congressmen -- Sharad Pawar, P A Sangma and Tariq Anwar -- raised a banner of revolt within the Congress. After raising it in the Congress Working Committee, the trio sent a letter to the president of their party calling for the inclusion of a clause in the party's election manifesto that Indian citizens of foreign origin wpuld be debarred from holding the office of the republic's president or prime minister. They, however, were quick to add that they were not challenging her authority as party president, which position they said she should continue to occupy.

It is a mystery as to why Pawar raised no objection earlier when there was a possibility of Mrs Gandhi heading a Congress government, after the fall of the Vajpayee government. Pawar was leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and was himself party to asking Sonia Gandhi to stake claim for forming an alternative government after the Vajpayee government lost the confidence vote. He was very much part of the Congress delegation that went and met the president of India to stake claim. Had not the SP headed by Mulayam Singh and the RSP and Forward Bloc refused to support a Congress government, Smt Sonia Gandhi would have become the prime minister. Why this sudden reversal, is what Pawar and company will find difficult to answer. But by raising the issue in such a manner, they are only lending credence to the non-issue raised by the BJP. The BJP is no doubt very happy about this development.

The Left and other secular democratic forces, that had come out in support of a Congress government, very well knew its limitations. They and specially the Left have serious differences with the Congress party,particularly its economic policies. But as the interests of the nation, national unity and communal harmony weighed paramount, the CPI(M) and the CPI agreed to back a Congress government on an issue to issue basis.

NO SUDDEN DECISION

Even while not explicitly stating their intentions with regard to policy and perceptions, Sharad Pawar revealed a bit of his mind at a press conference held on May 24. Where his political sympathies lie became clear the moment they refused to take a forthright stand against the BJP. Pawar has tried to use the garb of his being secular to evade categorically calling the BJP a communal party. The three leaders also expressed themselves in favour of the economic policies pursued by the Congress.

It is evident that the decision to raise the issue was not made suddenly. They had been deliberating on it for some time before taking the plunge. This is evident from the fact that they first said they would attend the CWC, and later on avoided attending it and went on to announce the formation of a new party immediately after their expulsion. They have tried to indicate that they would like to form a third front including parties like the SP, Lok Shakti, Trinamul Congress etc. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that by remaining in the Congress they would not be able to gain access to power. Assuming that no party would be able to get majority in the next elections, they think this would give them a chance to manoeuvre.

The decision of Smt Sonia Gandhi to tender her resignation from the presidentship of the Congress immediately after the said trio's letter was made public, led to a serious crisis inside the party. While initially Sonia was adamant on not withdrawing her resignation, she finally relented after a week of mounting pressure from Congress leaders and cadres. The AICC, which had been summoned on May 25 to adopt a resolution asking her to withdraw her resignation, was converted into a session expressing full confidence in her leadership. Sonia Gandhi utilised the opportunity to lash out at her detractors and send down a warning to those still inside the party who were entertaining such feelings. She struck an emotional chord through her passionate speech, invoking the fact of her marriage, motherhood and widowhood in India. She also reminded the delegates that it was because of the pressure from the leaders and cadres to save the Congress from disintegration that she had agreed to take the responsibility. Mrs Gandhi also astutely tried to disarm her opponents by stating that it would be the elected Congress members of parliament who would choose their leader. With the AICC session, she has now been able to consolidate her hold on the party apparatus and it is doubtful if the dissidents would be able to win any disgruntled Congressmen over to their side.

BJP: DEVOID OF ISSUES

As I have pointed our earlier, the three leaders were echoing the sentiments of the BJP. Raising the issue in such a manner would only help the BJP. The BJP would be now able to show that it has got support outside its own fold, though it is known that many of its allies have not endorsed its stand on the issue. As I have stated elsewhere, having failed to project any achievement of their government, they are seeking to rake up an issue in a bid to polarise the masses. This issue, it is obvious, has got communal overtones. The BJP, one need not be reminded, is opposed to the very concept of the secular and federal principles enshrined in our constitution. Its concept of one nation, religion and culture militates against the rich diversity and plurality of the country. By now the BJP has come to realise the fact that it will not be able to gain the support of the vast majority of the country because of its reactionary outlook. Having made successive abortive bids to come to power on its own, from the 1996 elections onwards, it sought to enter into alliances and extended it further in the 1998 elections. Even within its own alliance, there is little common ground on social issues. Whether it be article 370, uniform civil code, the question of temple construction at Ayodhya, or other religious or social issues, the alliance is badly divided with the BJP finding itself isolated. The only binding factor is their lust for power.

It is therefore no wonder that even while publicly binding itself to a common programme called the National Agenda for Governance, the BJP sought to pursue and nakedly push forward its own Hindutva agenda. The mounting attacks on the Christian community and the raking up of several other similar issues; the attempt to foist known RSS men on institutes of higher learning and the education apparatus; its fiasco at the education ministers' conference wherein it tried to give the floor to a non-official, RSS man, etc, are pointers to the covert agenda that it was pursuing. While on the one hand it sought to take credit for the achievement of the scientific community, on the other it sought to stoke jingoistic and chauvinistic feelings after the Pokhran blasts. It may be noted that this is the one singular "achievement" that the BJP has been boasting of. And what have they achieved by it? International isolation; spoiling of relations with neighbours; mounting pressures from US imperialists forcing India to commit to sign the CTBT; and above all, more and more concessions to international capital and MNCs.

SUBTERFUGE TO HIDE INTENTIONS

Now they have announced the formation of the National Democratic Alliance. Even before it could start off, the Trinamul Congress has dissociated itself from it. More and more allies will realise that this alliance is but a subterfuge for the BJP to hide its real intentions. As for the allies, they will only be forced to give up their position of demarcation from the BJP and merge their own separate identity with that of the alliance.

The BJP's propaganda that some parties had conspired to bring down the Vajpayee government has failed to cut any ice with the people. The people realise that it is the BJP's own pre-poll ally, the AIADMK, whose withdrawal of support led to the fall of the BJP-led government.

AIMED TO HARM THIRD ALTERNATIVE

As against the claims made by the Congress dissidents, the fact of the matter is that, excluding Maharashtra to an extent, they will not be able to make any impact elsewhere. Their projection of a third front is edged against the third alternative projected by the Left. Even The Indian Express, a spokesman of the big business, commented in its editorial: "The split in the Congress is churning things up in ways that do not seem advantageous to the revival of the third front led by the Left parties. In the calculation of the CPI(M), the third front was supposed to provide a solid platform for secularism. But that vision took a severe beating with the alleged Mulayam Singh betrayal. Now there is a further setback with the Pawar-Sangma-Anwar revolt, which has weakened the Congress, the only national party capable of challenging the BJP. If all Pawar's efforts come to no more than emergence of a new regional party in Maharashtra, the chances of it supporting a Congress-led secular coalition are slim given the circumstances of the break-up. If some kind of "new national alternative" is put together, it is likely to be at the expense, in part, of the existing third front...."

Imperialism and the Indian big business have made no secret of their antipathy towards any front in which the Left plays a dominant role, towards any alternative which would be dependent on the Left. Given the Left's consistent opposition to the policies of liberalisation and privatisation, this opposition is understandable.

The Left and the CPI(M) will continue to play this role, and more vigorously, in the coming days. There can be no compromise on economic policies. And the fact of the matter is that all the major bourgeois parties, whether it is the Congress or the BJP, are in the same boat as far as economic policies are concerned. In fact the BJP, which had opposed several measures while in the opposition, has been much more vehement in pursuing these policies and pleasing multinational capital. It took no time to jump from swadeshi to videshi.

Despite the setbacks in the recent period, the Left will continue its efforts for the revival and development of a third alternative which will be able to provide a real alternative to both the Congress and BJP. In the recent period, we have seen that several regional parties that represent the interests of the local bourgeoisie have compromised their positions and even joined hands with the communal forces. This vacillating attitude is bound to continue for some more time till the masses force them from below to change tack.