The successors have not done too well. Jawaharlal Nehru in India is receding into the background because of ever-new appraisal of his contribution. Liaquat Ali Khan in Pakistan never had that type of sheen. He went into oblivion long ago. Tajuddin in Bangladesh was killed in jail along with other three national leaders. Those who came after them were leaders of political parties. They did not make the grade. Some stole the show but only for a short period. Lal Bahadur Shastri and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, moulded in different cast, still retain their popularity. One was modest and unassuming, the other flamboyant and swaggering. There is nothing common between the two except that they have left behind something for people to recall.

The Congress had ignored Shastri for years. The party displayed in pandals and posters the photos of only Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. Shastri's picture, if at all exhibited, was on some distant pole. Someone prodded the Congress to celebrate his 100th birth anniversary. He too, like Mahatma Gandhi, was born on October 2.

The cultural ministry woke up five days before his centenary and constituted a national committee to chalk out the programme. The best the government does on these occasions is to issue advertisements. Shastri's photo appeared in papers as an advertisement. The ministry also held a function but in a hurry failed to invite even members of the national committee. It was probably a ritual. I want to keep my comment reserved till Shastri's next birthday. I have known the committees formed in the name of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Dr Rajendra Prasad and forgotten before the next birth anniversary.

Shastri, let me remind the Congress men and others, was the toughest Prime Minister India ever had. At Tashkent, there came a point when the then Soviet Union Prime Minister Kosygin, asked him not to insist on Pakistan President Ayub Khan to renounce force for the solution of problems with India. Shastri's reply was: "You will have to talk to another Prime Minister." Ultimately, Ayub wrote in his own hand that Pakistan would not resort to arms. This document is in the archives of our External Affairs Ministry.

I saw former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee attending Shastri's function but not that of Mahatma Gandhi at the Gandhi Smriti. He was there last year when he was the Prime Minister. Why not this time as former Prime Minister? Mahatma Gandhi is father of the nation. The Congress may try to over-own him but he belongs to all, whatever one's status, caste or creed.

The RSS has included his name in its prayers but does not display his photo at its headquarters in Nagpur. However, my biggest shock was over the absence of Sonia Gandhi at the Gandhi Smriti. The Congress presidents seldom missed the function. This time, except for the Prime Minister, Home Minister and one or two other ministers, none from the pantheon of the Congress leaders was present. Not long ago, even the President and Vice-President of India attended the function.

I do not know what protocol considerations came in the way. Or, they kept themselves on their own choosing? However, the vice-president was present at the birth centenary celebrations of one RSS pracharak, Saheb Apte. Was it because K.S. Sudharshan, the RSS chief, was in the chair?

But what is really disconcerting is the language which politicians in the subcontinent have begun to use against their opponent. Some years ago none would even think of hitting below the belt. Today they start with it. Personal abuses have become part of political jargon. Even when pointed out, the abuser seldom offers apologies.

Former BJP minister Yashwant Sinha says that he is not sorry for having compared Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with Sikhandi (eunuch), a character from the Mahabharat. Sinha was India's finance as well as foreign minister. He does not have to be told that there is something called decorum in public life. The Prime Minister is an institution. He is the country's face. To whatever party he belongs, the Prime Minister represents the nation. One can be his opponent, a

critic or a dissenter. But nobody has any right to malign the institution and try to pull it down. By abusing Manmohan Singh, Sinha has only lowered himself in the eyes of the public.

My disappointment is over the silence of both Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, the two top leaders of the BJP, who often talk of values. I thought they would tick off Sinha in one way or the other to make amends. Their attitude speaks volumes about their preference when it comes to the BJP. They had exposed themselves over the carnage in Gujarat by siding with chief minister Narendra Modi. Still I hoped against hope that Sinha would be taken to task.

Is power so crucial to Vajpayee and Advani that they do not mind even their senior party Members denigrating the Prime Minster? What message are they giving to the youth or what type of heritage are they trying to leave behind? I have seen the standard of politics falling over the years. But I know of no example where a person having occupied a high position runs amuck the way Sinha has done. The BJP brought him to the Rajya Sabha after his dismal defeat in the Lok Sabha election. They probably wanted someone to articulate the party's point of view. What kind of case would he build when he does not know which word to use and when?

There is yet another person who is giving a bad name to the BJP. What Uma Bharati has done brings no laurels to the party. She has politicised even the national flag which transcends parochialism and party considerations. Once again Advani exposes his sense of discretion when he compares Jayaprakash Narayan's movement with that of the Tiranga yatra by Uma

Bharati. Not long ago, he used to compare his Babri masjid yatra with Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi Salt march. After he was chastised for that, he is more "modest" than before.

I returned from Bangalore a few days ago where I saw the damage Uma Bharati has done to the homogenous society of Karnataka. Several areas are now considered "sensitive" and people living there do not know what will happen to them in the days to come. "Communalism is beginning to creep in the south," says Janaki Jain, a renowned economist living in Bangalore, as her husband L.K. Jain, a Gandhian, who was once a member of the Planning Commission, nods in assent.

I do not know why the BJP does not understand that Hindutva will destroy the very fabric of our society. In a secular polity, it has no place. The party should have learnt the lesson after its defeat at the Lok Sabha polls. But then its problem is that it has no other programme to offer. The campaign during the Maharashtra assembly election showed that.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.