Sangh talk of civil war to stop possible arrests of sangh parivar activists

Times of India, 20 Nov 2008

Editorial

Mind Your Words

Recent statements by senior BJP leaders on the Malegaon blasts probe are now a bit alarming. On Tuesday, the party's PM-designate and the nation's leader of the opposition, L K Advani, defended Pragya Thakur, a sangh parivar activist facing charges of terrorism. He accused the police of bias against Pragya and army personnel and called for changes in the anti-terror squad (ATS), which arrested Pragya and others. His party president, Rajnath Singh, went a step further and spoke darkly of civil war. Do these leaders understand the import of their statements?

The ATS probe is far from complete and political parties must not try to scuttle it. If the conclusions of the probe are unconvincing, they can be challenged in courts. Any other method to influence or disrupt the investigation is simply unacceptable. The nation expects senior politicians, like L K Advani and Rajnath Singh, to respect the sanctity of the institutional process and not cast aspersions on investigators. Both Advani and Rajnath have politicised the stray case of an errant army officer by claiming to speak on behalf of army personnel. As we have argued in these columns, the armed forces have an exemplary record as an apolitical institution. Political parties must respect that record. The threat to subvert terror probes will appeal to sangh parivar activists but such talk by leaders of the country's largest opposition party may seriously hurt public institutions.

Extremists in the sangh parivar have already upped the ante by attributing communal undertones to the terror probe. A meet of sadhus in Panipat last Sunday decided to launch a mass movement against the "vilification of Hindu monks and army personnel". The talk of civil war by the likes of Rajnath to stop possible arrests of sangh parivar activists can give political legitimacy to such blatant communal mobilisation. India can't afford such an outcome.

Countries ravaged by civil war surround India. This country too could have gone their way but for a relatively responsible political leadership — including the BJP's thus far — that to a large extent respected the independence of public institutions. And the armed forces, unlike in our neighbourhood, always shunned politics and took orders from the executive. Surely, leaders like Advani and Rajnath would want this state of affairs to continue. They, therefore, must ask themselves whether loose talk will do any good to this nation. A strong state is one that has mature politicians. Mature politicians think before they speak.