What's common between Bal Thackeray and the young men in Bharatpur, Chapra and Darbhanga who rioted and broke up army recruiting centres because they wanted to join the army? They represent danger signals, warnings of the anti-national channels into which the national fervour aroused by Kargil can be diverted if mishandled. The riots demonstrate how frenzied is the youthful desire to join the jawans seen fighting and dying on TV, and how easily it can turn to frustrated violence. Bal Thackeray's attempt to refuel communal fires by questioning the patriotism of Dilip Kumar because the film icon is a Muslim is more dangerous, for it is set against the background of a wave of nationalistic emotionalism. Finding occasions to doubt the patriotism of eminent Muslims is a popular pre-election tactic of the Shiv Sena leader and like-minded leaders of the bjp and the Sangh parivar. Similar smear campaigns are reported from Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
Yet the unprecedented upsurge of patriotic fervour provides a unique opportunity. The widespread response is a historic expression of a popular reply to an external threat. At the same time, it is fuelled by deep-rooted domestic frustration generated by feelings of helplessness in the face of prevailing corruption and maladministration. The contrast between Kargil, where officers are prepared to die with jawans, and the corrupt, self-serving style of the political system, is strikingówhich is why the enthusiasm to enlist so easily turns to violence. If there is no change in the system after Kargil, if the political game turns out to be the same and people feel let down, the consequences may be far-reaching.
Unlike previous wars, in which popular enthusiasm was neither lasting nor widespread, Kargil is imprinted on the national memory. Nothing has ever stirred the country as much as the media coverage of the operation. Nowhere in the world has such a battle been fought, with jawans required to scale high mountain ridges to evict a well-prepared enemy, often in outmoded hand-to-hand engagements. This was no push-button war waged safely beyond enemy range, as in Kosovo and Iraq. Emotions have been aroused further by the ceremonial honours paid to the fallen.
The national upsurge must have come as a shock to those in Pakistan and elsewhere, who assumed that the spirit of nationalism is fading in India. They could also see that among the Indian troops were Muslim, Christian and Buddhist soldiers. Instead of flickering into frustration, such a unified national response needs to be directed into constructive channels. Other countries have set up land armies and labour corps on similar occasions. But this requires imagination and skill, and, above all, leadership.
But our leaders have little time for conceiving such projects with the approach of the elections. Campaigning is already beginning to fragment the cohesive national sentiment aroused by Kargil. Even as the dead and wounded are being taken home, political parties are back to making and breaking electoral alliances. Three weeks after propping up the chief minister of Haryana, the Congress is trying to topple him. In Tamil Nadu, old allies are rejected and a new one, charged with massive corruption, is embraced. The bjp is responding in kind. The disparate elements of the Third Front are fragmenting before one's eyes. No ideological or programmatic factors underlie these manoeuvres. Money and plum posts are the currency. The attempt is to buy up religious and caste vote banks. If preparations for elections continue along the familiar corrupt channels, there is no chance of the new government being less shaky than its predecessor. After Kargil, however, the popular impact of disappointment may be shattering.
Even more destructive forces could be unleashed if the spirit of nationalism aroused by Kargil is frustrated. Moves to interpret the war against Pakistani and mujahideen forces in terms of Hindu-Muslim hostility can have disastrous repercussions at home and abroad. The shockwaves can go beyond our borders because Kargil is projected as vital to the defence of Kashmir, which is again at the focus of world attention, and the world is aware that most of its people are Muslim. India's case will lose all credibility if our Bal Thackerays continue to promote suspicions about Muslim loyalty to India.
To the extent that the popular response to Kargil has been unprecedented, the management of the post-Kargil scenario presents unprecedented challenges. This, at a time when recognised leaders with a national following and national vision are rare. In this gathering of pygmies, Vajpayee stands out despite his failings. His personal standing has risen following the restrained handling of the crisis, making up for his government's serious blunders in the first months of office and his previous inability to lead. The PM projects a sensitive, moderate personality, free from communal and sectarian prejudices, though not always able to counter such feelings in his party.
Not much time remains before the first polls open. The challenge for Vajpayee is to rise above petty, partisan politicking; to appeal to and nurture the non-party national sentiment aroused by Kargil. He will need to reach out to personalities outside the bjp. Persuading Arun Singh, once a minister in Rajiv Gandhi's government, to act as adviser could be a pointer. But unless the PM can distance himself from those in the bjp who arouse communal sentiment, he will continue to be seen as a well-meaning bjp leader with an uncertain hold over his party. The most he can then expect is to cobble together an unstable coalition once more, in which he is again held to humiliating ransom by the likes of Jayalalitha.
