Rajnikant burns several bridges
In 1996, Tamil superstar
Rajnikant held such sway over audiences that he could have taken over the mantle of Chief Ministership had he taken the right steps then. Some say he developed cold feet when he could have aligned with or joined the Congress and formed a government of his own. Some others felt the then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao did not encourage his efforts, although G K Moopanar was fully behind him. In any case, Rajni, being at the peak of his popularity then, failed to take the plunge. At least when Moopanar launched the Tamil Maanila Congress, he could have aligned with it or joined it, and this party could have swept the 1996 polls, riding on the strong anti-Jayalalithaa wave in Tamil Nadu. According to most analysts, Rajni missed the bus then. However, he did support the TMC-DMK alliance which threw out the AIADMK government.
In 1996, Rajni at least supported the right parties and
didn't go against popular opinion. In 2004, Rajni faces the danger of burning several bridges, while going against popular opinion in favour of the DMK-led front.
All opinion surveys have shown a wave prevailing against the AIADMK, even if is not as strong or as virulent against that party.
Has Rajni gone wrong in his assessment of the political situation or is he being led astray by some advisers, is the question.
His last film Baba, much hyped, much sold and much touted, was one of the biggest flops in the history of Tamil cinema though the star was laughing all the way to the bank despite making 'compensation' payments to the tune of Rs 20 crore to exhibitors. Right from 1998, his political clout has been on the descent. In 2004, he is faced with the unpleasant task of antangonising DMK president M Karunanidhi, the Tamil Nadu Congress (led by G K Vasan, the son of Moopanar whom he held in high esteem), and also the Congress Jananayaga Peravai leader P Chidambaram, who had earlier placed all his eggs in the superstar's basket.
The decision of the Rajnikant Rasikar Manrams to work for the defeat of the six Pattali Makkal Katchi candidates in the Lok Sabha
elections to be held in May this year may please some of his fans but will certainly not be welcomed by the vast majority of the Tamil population in the State who seem all set to back the DMK-PMK-Congress-MDMK-Communists combine, or at least seem determined to vote out the AIADMK-BJP combine in the State.
Whichever way you look at it, Rajnikant has chosen a path of self-destruction here for he moves away from several major parties in the State and also goes against the prevailing sentiment among the people here.
Right from the Lok Sabha elections in 1999, Rajni has avoided taking a stand on the electoral scene in Tamil Nadu, given the parting of ways between the DMK and the TMC in 1999.
However, perhaps under the influence of some multi-faceted advisers, he has shown a leaning towards the BJP. Is he being grateful for being awarded the Padma Bhushan, going beyond the Padmasri given to
Kamal Hassan earlier or is his strong religious, spiritual streak getting the better of his
political
judgement?
Ideology-wise too, Rajni seems to be a confused man -- wavering between a commitment to a Hindutva appeal of the BJP and an illogical support to a right-wing, capitalist philosophy represented by P Chidambaram's political and economic ethos, although Rajni is seen as a pro-poor, anti-rich and anti-establishment person. He also
cannot totally break free from the commitment given to Karunanidhi in 1996 and is therefore reluctant to take an anti-DMK line, at least as long as Karunanidhi heads the
DMK.
Therefore, what Rajni manages to do is to please his advisers partially on the specious plea that the Rajni fans should work against the Pattali Makkal Katchi's six candidates because the PMK worked against his film Baba. The Baba episode is obviously a bogey so that Rajni can partially help the BJP-AIADMK combine in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. Rajni obviously cannot go beyond this extent, but the BJP leaders will hope that the message will be interpreted by Rajni's fans to work for the BJP-AIADMK candidates in all the constituencies and not just six. It was to please these same advisers that he took the illogical stand of asking the people to reject the parties which voted against the BJP-led government at the Centre in 1999. He obviously meant that the people should not vote for the AIADMK, the TMC and the Left parties which voted against the Vajpayee government then. The question which Rajni conveniently ignored was that while the AIADMK was perhaps the only party of these committed to vote for the BJP-led government having been its ally in the 1998 Lok Sabha
elections, the TMC and the left parties were in no way obliged to do so. They had stated in their election manifestoes that they would work against the BJP because of its non-secular character and sought a clear mandate against the BJP. Therefore, in a democratic set-up, they were quite entitled to carry out their mandate and vote out the
BJP.
On the other hand, it was the DMK which went against the mandate it secured in 1998 to work against the BJP. The DMK had already voted out the Vajpayee government in 1996 after Vajpayee was invited to form the government though he was clearly in a minority. The attempt at weaning away parties or defectors having failed, Vajpayee failed the test in Parliament. The DMK, TMC and the Left parties voted against the Vajpayee government. Why did not Rajni condemn this and and ask the people in the 1998 elections to reject the DMK, TMC and the Communist parties. On the other hand, he made a vague statement on the eve of the elections which indirectly asked the people to vote for the DMK-TMC-Left combine and vote out the AIADMK.
The DMK, the TMC and the Left parties had at least on three occasions voted against the BJP combine -- in 1996 to bring down the Vajpayee government, later when they voted in the confidence motion for the Deve Gowda government, for the Deve Gowda government during the no-confidence motion, and also for the I K Gujral government which was formed after the resignation of Deve Gowda. Therefore, being a part of the same United Front which took these decisions, they were also duty-bound to stand by their commitment against the BJP and vote against it in 1999 too. However, the DMK chose to conveniently get close to the BJP (in violation of the 1998 mandate) and
Rajni chose to ignore all the above factors and singled out the 1999 vote against the Vajpayee government in an act of opportunism to seek a vote against the TMC and Left parties, besides the AIADMK. It was obvious that he was using, or he was asked to by his advisors, to use the 1999 confidence motion alone as an excuse to benefit the BJP in the 1999 Lok Sabha elections. And wonders why Rajni also studiously ignored the BJP's attempts to topple the Narasimha Rao government (which government's performance he publicly in a Doordarshan interview hailed as one of the best in the history of the country) in the vote of confidence sought by the then Prime Minister? And why did not
Rajni attach any
seriousness to the BJP voting against the Deve Gowda government in Parliament, voting against the I K Gujral government which fell? Were these not crimes as well, judging by Rajni's logic? And what punishment did Rajni want to be meted out to the BJP for withdrawing support to the V P Singh government in 1989, after having given a letter to the President assuring outside support? Did not this act lead to elections in the country?
Rajni has chosen a blind eye to the BJP's acts of voting against governments in Parliament, even having brought down governments in the past, and yet wanted the people to teach a lesson to only those who voted against the Vajpayee government in 1999? Even if
Rajni believes that this logic should apply only from 1999, why is Rajni not sticking to this stand and asking the people to again reject the AIADMK, which voted out the Vajpayee government in 1999, and ask them to defeat the AIADMK in 2004? Perhaps, one should not expect consistency. The fact of the matter is that Rajni too has somewhere down the line lost that fervour and fire to fight injustice and is now adopting a stand that is politically expedient, just like any other
political party. Which is sad because for a section of the people, Rajni shone like a beacon in 1996 with his fight against the establishment in 1996 and his appeal to usher in
democracy and clean politics in the State.
Settling scores with the PMK at this juncture some two years after a few minor incidents in a few pockets of the State is one thing. But to use it as a bogey to seek a mandate for the very people whom he opposed right from 1996 and asking his fans to work with them in the 2004 elections is something that takes the sheen off the Rajni aura, and lowers his own stature and dignity. Some saw in the 1996 avatar of
Rajni the last beacon of hope for Tamil Nadu, due to his professed commitment to democratic values, clean public life and anti-corruption stand. Sadly, in 2004, we must admit that this beacon has been extinguished -- by Rajni himself.
Microscope
