By Mayank Chhaya,IANS,
The more expelled Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Jaswant Singh exposes embarrassing machinations and failures in his former political sanctuary, the more he also implicitly acknowledges his own acquiescence in the goings-on.
For some strange reasons the media has not asked him two fundamental questions. Why did he choose to remain in a party that seemed to be unravelling under the weight of its own contradictions and compromises for at least 10 years? Would he have disclosed any of these details had the party bitten its lips over his Jinnah book and not expelled him?
After all, Jaswant Singh has admitted to “covering up” for former home minister Lal Krishna Advani over whether the latter knew about of the swapping of three terrorists to secure release of about 140 passengers on board a hijacked Indian Airlines plane in December 1999. At the very least that incident alone is a great marker of all that went wrong with the BJP since its rise to power. If Jaswant Singh felt compelled to cover up for Advani for whatever mystifying rationale he may offer now, the fact remains that at that particular juncture he was party to the very machinations and lies that he is now out to nail.
Another equally damning disclosure that Jaswant Singh has made since his expulsion relates to the “cash for votes” scandal, in which BJP members loaded with Rs.3 crore (Rs.30 million) in alleged bribes told parliament that the money was part of an attempt by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to buy votes to save his government in 2008. According to Jaswant Singh, this stunt was backed by Advani.
These two transgressions alone should have ignited righteous rage in someone like Jaswant Singh and challenged the party leadership. It is possible that he did indeed let his displeasure be known to the leadership without making it public. But what he says now and what happened then is separated by a wide chasm in terms of his response.
That’s where the second question becomes important. It is anybody’s guess whether Jaswant Singh would have exposed such serious lapses had he not been expelled. The ferocity with which Jaswant Singh has gone after Advani in the aftermath of his ouster may make for a thrilling political drama, but it constitutes unconvincing extenuating circumstances for his own questionable conduct. For the country’s home minister to claim that he did not know about the release of three terrorists is a stunning instance of cynicism that has overwhelmed political discourse in India. By the same token, a transgression of that magnitude should not have been “covered up” by Jaswant Singh in the name of party discipline or out of consideration for a senior colleague.
Jaswant Singh was quoted as saying: “I treated it as part of my continuing sense of commitment.” On whether he regretted his action he said: “I don’t regret because that was the step I had taken. But it was part of an election campaign… I was being very conservative with truth.” Even if one discounts the poor phrasing of his response it is hard to explain why his “continuing sense of commitment” to whatever he was talking about should have been more important than national interests.
To say that he did not regret it because “that was the step I had taken” and then compound it by adding that it was part of an election campaign is an extraordinary illustration of how political leaders put personal and political interests before the interests of the country and people they seek to serve.
It is commendable that Jaswant Singh has chosen to speak out without fear or favour, but that should hardly excuse his expedient silence and acquiescence.