AUTUMN OF THE PATRIARCHS

Admirers of the two stalwarts run shy of comparing the two leaders. ‘‘Surjeet has been a negotiator between the regional parties to stop BJP from coming to power even when the verdict was in our favour, as in 1998. Vajpayee built a genuine alternative to the Congress with his wide acceptability. The only comparison between the two is in age,’’ says Ravi Shankar Prasad, BJP spokesperson. On the other hand, A .Vijayaraghavan, Lok Sabha member and long time comrade of Sujeet, says, ‘‘Surjeet made alliances of common principles—such as fighting the Congress or secularism. He did not deviate from the party policy or made compromises to attain power. But Vajpayee’s politics has all been only to gain and sustain power.’’

Both Vajpayee and Surjeet took their respective parties to the tide that brought in coalition politics, while India’s Grand Old Party tried to stand up to the storm in vain. Both saw the waves of change and offered to be flexible and made their respective parties increasingly relevant. While Advani took the BJP to 112 MPs in 1991 on the springboard of Hindutva, Vajpayee took it to power by forming alliances.

Surjeet managed to bargain a clout much disproportionate to CPI(M)’s strength in Parliament, first by weakening the Congress and then supporting it. After getting the spotlight fixed on his party, Surjeet is now stepping out of it. His closest comrade in the phase of transition, Jyoti Basu, too is bowing out this year. Two years older to Surjeet, Basu has been his constant companion.

The Basu-Surjeet axis, though the most vintage of Marxist leadership, has also been its most pragmatic. But at their party’s Congress this March, neither will be present. But they can rest that, with Vajpayee, they have done their bit for the evolution of Indian politics.