How consolatory for Finance Minister Arun Jaitley are Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks that he would come through “with flying colours” just as party veteran LK Advani did in the Hawala case in 1990s?
Coming at a time when none of Jaitley’s senior cabinet colleagues has shown any inclination to defend him in public, Modi’s remarks at the weekly meeting of Bharatiya Janata Party members of Parliament on Tuesday have left party leaders and political observers curious.
For the simple reason that there are many ways in which these remarks could be interpreted. One, of course, is the way in which it was done by Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu as he briefed media persons after the BJP parliamentary party meet.
“The Prime Minister gave the example of LK Advani. The government at that time tried to implicate him in the Hawala case. Advani came through with flying colours and the strategy of Congress boomeranged. Same thing is going to happen regarding allegations against Jaitley,” Naidu said, insisting that Modi’s remarks should be interpreted as a strong show of support for the finance minister.
Another reading
There, however, is another way to interpret the prime minister’s remarks. And this was done by the opposition as soon as these remarks became public. “By drawing a parallel with Advani, the prime minister is giving a hint to Arun Jaitley that he should resign, get himself cleared and come back. I read it as a signal to Jaitley that you also do the same thing,” said Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, who was the first among the opposition leaders to draw this inference. This quickly became the standard interpretation for the entire opposition, including the Congress.
Perhaps, that was not the way Jaitley would have liked to be defended. Advani had resigned from the Lok Sabha in 1996 after allegations were levelled against him in the Hawala case, which later collapsed due to lack of evidence. Jaitley, on the other hand, has so far been rubbishing the rising chorus of demands for his resignation. By bringing in the comparison to Advani, Modi – knowingly or unknowingly – has weakened the finance minister’s defence.
Political chessboard
That he may well have done this knowingly, rather than unknowingly, becomes clear if his remarks are seen in the backdrop of developments that preceded them.
According to a senior BJP leader, soon after Kirti Azad, the party’s Darbhanga MP held a press conference on December 20 and levelled charges of financial irregularities against Jaitley, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat informed the party leadership that the image of the organisation was much more important than any individual. “The RSS chief did not say anything more, but the message was clear,” he explained.
It is not that Modi always remains eager to toe the line laid down by the RSS. On the contrary, he has often prevailed upon the RSS in the past. But in today's changed scenario, he appears desperate to take the RSS in confidence, especially after the Bihar poll outcome ripped apart his aura of invincibility and turned his closest aide Amit Shah’s fate uncertain as president of the party.
“In the coming two weeks, a decision has to be taken about the next party president, and Modi obviously has a lot to lose if Amit Shah is removed,” the BJP leader said, adding that the only way the prime minister could keep his closest aide as head of the party is by securing the RSS backing for him.
Are the ambiguous remarks of Modi, therefore, meant as much for Jaitley as for the RSS? Are they a message that he is eager for conciliation, rather than confrontation, with the RSS? That, if the RSS so desired, he would sacrifice the pawn so that he could save the knight?
This interpretation of the remarks also explains why senior cabinet ministers are abstaining from defending Jaitley in public.
What must have been even more non-consolatory for Jaitley was the fact that Modi, despite hitting out at Congress and Aam Aadmi Party for levelling “wrong and manufactured” allegations to “defame” the government, did not utter a word against Kirti Azad, who levelled similar charges against the finance minister.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Coming at a time when none of Jaitley’s senior cabinet colleagues has shown any inclination to defend him in public, Modi’s remarks at the weekly meeting of Bharatiya Janata Party members of Parliament on Tuesday have left party leaders and political observers curious.
For the simple reason that there are many ways in which these remarks could be interpreted. One, of course, is the way in which it was done by Parliamentary Affairs Minister M Venkaiah Naidu as he briefed media persons after the BJP parliamentary party meet.
“The Prime Minister gave the example of LK Advani. The government at that time tried to implicate him in the Hawala case. Advani came through with flying colours and the strategy of Congress boomeranged. Same thing is going to happen regarding allegations against Jaitley,” Naidu said, insisting that Modi’s remarks should be interpreted as a strong show of support for the finance minister.
Another reading
There, however, is another way to interpret the prime minister’s remarks. And this was done by the opposition as soon as these remarks became public. “By drawing a parallel with Advani, the prime minister is giving a hint to Arun Jaitley that he should resign, get himself cleared and come back. I read it as a signal to Jaitley that you also do the same thing,” said Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury, who was the first among the opposition leaders to draw this inference. This quickly became the standard interpretation for the entire opposition, including the Congress.
Perhaps, that was not the way Jaitley would have liked to be defended. Advani had resigned from the Lok Sabha in 1996 after allegations were levelled against him in the Hawala case, which later collapsed due to lack of evidence. Jaitley, on the other hand, has so far been rubbishing the rising chorus of demands for his resignation. By bringing in the comparison to Advani, Modi – knowingly or unknowingly – has weakened the finance minister’s defence.
Political chessboard
That he may well have done this knowingly, rather than unknowingly, becomes clear if his remarks are seen in the backdrop of developments that preceded them.
According to a senior BJP leader, soon after Kirti Azad, the party’s Darbhanga MP held a press conference on December 20 and levelled charges of financial irregularities against Jaitley, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat informed the party leadership that the image of the organisation was much more important than any individual. “The RSS chief did not say anything more, but the message was clear,” he explained.
It is not that Modi always remains eager to toe the line laid down by the RSS. On the contrary, he has often prevailed upon the RSS in the past. But in today's changed scenario, he appears desperate to take the RSS in confidence, especially after the Bihar poll outcome ripped apart his aura of invincibility and turned his closest aide Amit Shah’s fate uncertain as president of the party.
“In the coming two weeks, a decision has to be taken about the next party president, and Modi obviously has a lot to lose if Amit Shah is removed,” the BJP leader said, adding that the only way the prime minister could keep his closest aide as head of the party is by securing the RSS backing for him.
Are the ambiguous remarks of Modi, therefore, meant as much for Jaitley as for the RSS? Are they a message that he is eager for conciliation, rather than confrontation, with the RSS? That, if the RSS so desired, he would sacrifice the pawn so that he could save the knight?
This interpretation of the remarks also explains why senior cabinet ministers are abstaining from defending Jaitley in public.
What must have been even more non-consolatory for Jaitley was the fact that Modi, despite hitting out at Congress and Aam Aadmi Party for levelling “wrong and manufactured” allegations to “defame” the government, did not utter a word against Kirti Azad, who levelled similar charges against the finance minister.
