& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Say Why not Me and Split!

Sabir Mustafa
THERE Is a story that during the Non-aligned summit in Algiers In 1973. General Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria had asked Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman if it was really necessary to create Bangladesh
"Why do you have three countries in India? Why not one?' Oowon had asked Bangabandhu. according to the story.
In reply. Mujlb was saidN have turned the table on Gowon and asked back. "Why do you have 47 countries in Africa? Why not one Africa?'
The Nigerian general, who only a few years back had bloodily put down the liberation movement in Biafra, took the point.
Contrary to current wisdom, the habit of bickering and splitting is not unique to the Indian subcontinent as the above story illustrates, though the British always thought the Bengalees were particularly susceptible to it. They ascribed this tendency ft the 'Why not me?' syndrome with which Bengalees were thought to be seriously afflicted
The British stumbled across a veritable epidemic of 'Why not me?’ in the late 18th and early 19th centuries when the British army tn India still recruited Bengalees. The descendants of Seraj-ud Dowla and predecessors of Subhas Chandra Bose were found to be pretty poor when it came to taking orders.
But it wasn’t so much that they minded taking orders from the alien Brits; the general Impression was that Bengalees did not have much time or patience for orders of any sort, from any quarters. Again. It’s not that they disliked the idea of orders in principle. Certainly not. Its just that they would much rather give the orders, than be ordered: Why should he give the orders? Why not m e Instead? A whole nation of aspirant Chiefs, but precious few Indians. A people permanently In a mood with themselves and anybody else who came to boss them about, but never quite managing to become the boss themselves, leading to greater bouts of stroppiness.
Bickering is a favourite pastime for a Bengalee. He la wonderful when it cornea to damning hia nextdoor neighbour, from pouring scorn on his son's chances at the university to setting fire to his property. The Bengalees bickered until the country itself was split into two; then when the Punjabis came and tried to be the boas around here. their stroppiness reached a height not seen since 1857. With the foreigners gone, the bickering has turned inwards and "Why not me?" has spread like wildfire.
No one and nothing is safe from the syndrome, from neighbourhood sporting clubs to major political parties. Even the army. supposedly a bastion of organised and enforced discipline, goes through periodic attacks of the plague — Junior officers kill national leaders, sepoys rebel against commissioned officers, colonels suffer from acute envy while major-generals mint money
But it is in the political arena that Why not me? reigns supreme. Why do political parties split? Why are there so many of them anyway?
Some blame it on the lack of any democratic tradition or culture. Parties, particularly those most vociferous In demanding democracy, are anything but democratic In their handling of internal affairs, so the arguement runs (in Bangladesh every arguement has to run, or it is liable to be stamped to death by the thousand and one other arguements chasing It). Bickerings don't lead to votings and acceptance of majority decisions, but to factional dog-fights and expulsions followed by counter-expulsions, with two or more factions hanging on to the same party name.
But how about those who say the-opposite is true? That it is so. because what we have is an undiluted, uncontrolled version of democracy? The real stuff. in fact? Individualism at Its most unrefined? Why not me. to be precise.
Every party seems to have more "leaders’ than members But since there can only be one president and one general secretary per party, it becomes necessary to set up your own combo in order to be the leader. Clearly, it is thought much better to be a shark in an aquarium than a minnow In an ocean. Everyone is so sure of his leadership potential and popular appeal, that he finds it well nigh impossible to imagine anybody else being the leader.
’Why not me?’ he asks with a vengeance and splits. But the trouble is that the faction he takes with him may well contain an aspirant shark or two as well, ready to engage In an ideological dispute whenever the need arises.
And aquariums continue o proliferate faster than nuclear weapons in South and West Asia put together.
There was a story doing the rounds during the anti-Ershad mass movement in 1987 that a "leader" had formed a political party for reasons quite explicitly other than any grave, Ideological difference.
"When Ershad has thrown all the leaders into jail", the leader had reportedly explained to baffled Inquisitors. "I will be the only one left whom the BBC can turn to for an Interview!"
On such earth-shattering logic are epoch-making political decisions taken. And who says the BBC does not have any bearing on the politics of this country? But unfortunately, the British Broadcasting Corporation never did get around to interview the man, thus destroying the raison d'etre of him being the leader of a party. Inexplicably, his party split too. Rather less Inexplicably, neither faction managed to win a seat at the February polls.
I once heard a joke which sounded suspiciously like a true story, and went something like this: The leader of a new party, during his maiden interview to the press, revealed he was the president, secretary general as well aa the treasurer of his party.
■Is there nobody else in your executive committee?" asked a reporter.
'None at all', the leader emphatically replied.
"How about members?" the reporter persisted.
'Oh no, no members in my party', the leader said.
■Weir, sighed the disappointed newsman, ‘at least your party won't split'.
"You never know', said the thoughtful leader, “I might end up disagreeing with myself!"
He probably failed to come to any seat-sharing arrangement with himself during the elections, leading to a wholly unnecessary debacle.
Left-wing parties are, of course, renowned throughout the world for their splitting habit, and also their incredible ability to make every split look the result of some profound ideological dispute. If a communist has never been expelled from the party or a (Marxist-Leninist) faction of it. for revisionism, ultra-left adventurism, Bonapartism. Stalinism. Maoism, middleclass devlationism or any one of a thousand other unspeakable isms, then he has never really been a communist.
Not surprisingly, a Bengalee finds left-wing politics quite fascinating, since it allows him to split right, left and centre without so much as batting an eyelid. Only the dedicated follower can keep track of all the JSDs and BSDs of this world. But one thing is pretty clear: they all originally split from the centre, gravitated towards the left and simply kept on splitting. Why not me? has had a field day. but the syndrome has never been given the credit it deserves.
But the right-wing elements have not done too badly either. The once-mighty Muslim League split into four ( or was it three?), then re-united in a wonderful display of brotherly spirit, only to discover nobody was taking them seriously anymore.
Recently, the two founderleaders of the National Democratic Party each claimed that the other had never belonged to his party! Did that mean a split? Difficult to say, since It is not entirely clear if there was any animal called NDP to split in the first place.
But where the right hasn't split, it has proliferated. The standard-bearers of ultra nationalism — some call it fascism — are many, but they are really splinters of s something which they haven't quite managed to identify yet When they do. they'd split from it again without a
■ moment's hesitation.
Why not me? works very well at the highest level of state machinery as well, manifesting itself in various other ways (it's not possible to split the state, because then you'd really be asking for trouble).
Imitation and duplication are two ways of making sure you too enjoy all the trappings of state power just as the other fellow before you did. After all. while the other fellow was doing it. you were denouncing It as symptoms of autocracy on the one hand, but on the other, you were secretly fuming. "Why not me instead?!'
So, when you get your chance, you simply follow the textbook: TV cameras whirr as you stand regally, while humble citizens hand you cheques that could easily have been deposited in a bank account: you wheel out ministers and dignitaries and get them to line-up at the airport whenever you and your ever-increasing entourage leave on one of your foreign trips; then you make sure TV puts out a special programme on your trip which shows how those foreigners very nearly fell off their chairs by your charm. It was all done by the other fellow, wasn't it? So why not you too?!
Then there was the great cyclone. All the disastor-management mechanism were In place, but they were all in, somebody else's name — president's this, president's that. So all of them had to duplicated, relief fund, relief godown, the lot. After all. why should it be him? Why not me? Never mind that precious days, weeks went by before the clones could begin to operate as efficiently as their originals, that was never the point anyway
But what is the point? The point is simply me — from the captaincy of the neighbourhood cricket team to the leadership of the state, it has to be me. Or I will simply go and split (failing that, duplicate).