No one can blame Atal Bihari Vajpayee for reacting sharply to his long-time comrade-in-arms, L K Advani's far from honourable attempt to convey to the country that, as Deputy Prime Minister, he had opposed the Kandhar tradeoff between the passengers of the hijacked Indian aircraft and three of the worst Pakistani terrorists in this country's prisons on the last day of the last millennium.

The appropriateness of the decision to exchange the hostages for the prisoners -- a delicate and difficult subject in the circumstances -- is not the issue here. What understandably infuriated Atalji was that never having done what he tried to hint at in a self-seeking exercise, Advani was putting all the blame for the shame of Kandhar on the former Prime Minister.

So much so that he invented the story that the then External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, went to Kandhar, along with the three released jihadis, "in pursuance of the cabinet decision". This is absolutely false.

The truth is precisely the opposite. Jaswant Singh sought the cabinet's permission to escort the terrorist trio and bring back the hostages. Of his attempted bonhomie, in full glare of TV cameras, with the thugs running the Taliban regime the less said the better.

As for his own role in the terrible Kandahar tragedy, Advani used his lackluster rath yatra to spread the word that he was "opposed to the decision and gave my opinion within the government". But he did not wish to discuss the matter further with the media.

"It is an old issue." This is as good an example of eating one's cake and having it too as we are likely to witness. This kind of erratic and errant behaviour dates back to Advani's sudden discovery that Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the proponent of the two-nation theory and the founder of Pakistan, was a paragon of secularism.

His ouster from the presidentship of the BJP has made matters worse for him.

Since then he has been striving for a second coming and thinks that the only route to it lies through the 'Hindutva high ground'. So a little disinformation about Kandahar should not matter.

However, after Vajpayee's reprimand, he has had to run for cover and to try to limit the damage. But it is a measure of how badly shaken he is that Advani fell back on the hoary and pathetic ploy of blaming the media of 'distorting' his remarks.

Sadly, the apologia is worse than the original offence. No wonder the former deputy prime minister and current Leader of the Opposition has created for himself a credibility gap, not merely with the public at large but also within the ranks of the BJP.

Yet, one must have some sympathy with Advani. He rightly believed that the BJP’s surge in 1989 was due primarily to his original Ayodhya rath yatra. He has therefore been coveting the office of Prime Minister ever since but had to concede the superiority of Atalji's claim.

Even so, it was revealing that shortly before the 2004 Lok Sabha poll, an Advani acolyte, Venkaiah Naidu, floated the idea of the party going to these elections under the 'joint leadership' of the Vikas Purush (Development Man) Atalji and the Loh Purush (Iron Man) Advaniji”, only to be slapped down by Vajpayee.

By the start of 2004, with 'India shinning' -- in their belief at least -- BJP leaders were confident that they would win the Lok Sabha poll. The May 2004 election results disoriented them.

At first they refused to believe that they had been voted out of power. Then they convinced themselves that the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government would collapse very soon.

Not only has this expectation evaporated, but also the fractious and faction-ridden BJP is in an awful state. No wonder Advani is anxious to ensure that he is the party's candidate for the office of Prime Minister whenever the next elections are held. But he must know that at present he has made a hash of things.

How the BJP and Advani cope with the problems that seem to be engulfing them is entirely their own business. Others can only wait and watch.

But Advani's strange and errant performance over the Kandahar affair raises serious and significant questions affecting the functioning and future of Indian political system.

This country is a federal parliamentary democracy. Among the basic tenets that underpin the entire system is the principle of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.

Of course, as far back as 1951, Ivor Jernnings, arguably the greatest expert on the cabinet system, had acknowledged that the doctrine of primus inter pares (the Prime Minister being the first among equals) had gone by the board.

A Prime Minister could easily become an 'Imperial or dictatorial Prime Minister', provided he or she could continue to command the support of a majority of the House of Commons. In the recent British history, Winston Churchill, Harold Wilson and Lady Margaret Thatcher are examples of what Jennings was talking about.

In this country, Jawaharlal Nehru could have emulated their examples, but chose not to. Indira Gandhi did so, of course, indeed with a vengeance.

But then, except during her 33 months in the wilderness, she had two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha, consisting of Congressmen who fell over each other in proclaiming undying loyalty to her. This should also explain why P V Narasimha Rao's occasional attempt to issue a diktat -- such as his 1996 order to the Tamil Nadu unit of the party to stick to the alliance withJayalalithaa failed.

In this age of coalitions, a dictatorial Prime Minister would be a contradiction in terms. Against this backdrop it is regrettable, to say the least, that Advani, for reasons of his own, should have dealt a blow to the fundamental principle of the Cabinet's collective responsibility, his subsequent retraction of sorts notwithstanding.

If he was appalled by the proposed exchange at Kandahar, why did he not resign and come out in the open?

Whatever, his internal feelings remained within him. After it became clear on that traumatic night that the public reaction to what had happened at Kabul was hostile, Advani's spin-doctors briefed journalists to the effect that the Deputy Prime Minister was 'opposed' to the deal and had even 'hinted' at resignation. Some of this stuff did find its way into print.

But Vajpayee had got wind of what was afoot -- as he was bound to, unless the Intelligence Bureau and other agencies were sleeping -- and he chastised his colleague in no uncertain terms. If, in spite of all this, Advani found it expedient to revert to making false claims, one can only sympathise with the BJP, which once used to boast of being a party with a difference.