Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
HVK Archives: If Vajpayee decides not to contest

If Vajpayee decides not to contest - Sunday Observer

S S Bhandari ()
April 5-11, 1998

Title: If Vajpayee decides not to contest the polls after five
years, someone else will fill the gap
Author: S S Bhandari
Publication: Sunday Observer
Date: April 5-11, 1998

>From the debate on the vote of confidence in the Atal Behari.
Vajpayee government to the one on the president's address to the
joint session of Parliament, the Bhartiya Janata-Party did its
best to affirm its secular credentials. But at the same time,
party vice-president Sunder Singh Bhandari was busy drawing
affiliations with the parent organization the Rashtriya Swayam
savak Sangh. "I am in the BJP, but my leaning remains of the RSS.
It is the same with all of us who have an RSS background " he
admitted in the Rajya Sabha, creating a furore.

This may have provided fuel to the Opposition, debating hard on
the BJP's "hidden agenda", but firebrand Bhandari is undeterred.
A hardliner within the party, Bhandari explained to SHIVANI SINGH
in an exclusive interview the BJP-RSS link. Excerpts.'

Is Atal Behari Vajpayee under pressure when he says he will not
contest another election?

Vajpayee may retire, but the partymen won't. The party is not
dead. If Vajpayee takes the responsibility [of governance], is it
his personal responsibility? No, it is not. A political leader
speaks in a representative capacity. He is the spokesperson for
his party and nothing else.

However, the party is yet to discuss it [Vajpayee's renunciation
of electoral politics]. But if Vajpayee decides not to contest
the polls after five years, someone else will fill the gap.

Won't It be difficult for the BJP to find another Atal Behari?

It is the individual who works for the party. If today I decide
to renounce politics, can the party stop me? But Vajpayee is
there for five years. He will be leading the party and conditions
will become conducive for another member to take over.

We will try to convince him, but if he remains adamant, we will
find someone else. Vajpayee is representative of the BJP, not of
Chandra Shekhar's oneman show.

Do you realize that he Is Atal Behari and not just another party
worker?

We realize that he is Atal Behari Vajpayee. That is why the party
has given him the top job and he is the prime minister. It is not
just anybody who is leading the party and the government. The
party took into account his political sagacity and his power to
bring the people together. But ultimately the human being
prevails.

Don't you agree that Vajpayee gave the BJP a liberal face?

Does a liberal face exclude Hindutva? It is how you paint it.
You paint one of us in one colour, the other in another. But I
tell you, our understanding is the same.

There is a lot of obscurity about the relationship between the
RSS and the BJP. Being an important link between the two, can you
make some differentiations?

The RSS is a Hindu nationalist organization. In India, Hindus are
a nation. But they are not a nation because of Hinduism. Hinduism
is a cult. The national concept of Hindustan is Hindutva. There
are Hindus all over the world, but there Hinduism is not
nationalism. In India, it is because the term "Hindutva" has a
different connotation - it is all inclusive. It includes all
religions which exist in India. This is the basic difference.
Hindus do not mean a religious unit, but a cultural unit. The
RSS has maintained this throughout.

The BJP is a political party. It is concerned with the citizens.
For the BJP, as a political outfit, the concept of nationalism as
propagated by the RSS does not hold much meaning. Nationalism is
not a political concept. It is a cultural concept. All those who
are citizens of India are Indian nationals for the BJP.

In the past 50 years, it war a different ideology that ruled the
country. Now the BJP with its strong RSS affiliations is in
government. What changes can we expect?

We have tried to explain to the political outfits the ideologies
and principles of the RSS and the BJP. But they had a mental
block. But there has been a welcome change and people have
accepted our thinking.

We have always stood by the principles of "one people, one
nation". The mode of worship has never been a factor. The State
guarantees equal status to all.

But, you see, the RSS is confined to the Hindus. It aims at
endowing the Hindu community with consciousness of a
civilizational base. It does not, in any way, go against the
nation's interest. But a political party has to take into account
the interests of all, and go along what is termed as a secular
approach.

But there are some basic problems with this approach. According
to them, Hindus are communal because they are in a majority. For
them, secularism has been a way of Muslim appeasement. We will
try and do away with this line of thinking.

The RSS is "a Hindu nationalist organization" and the BJP "a
secular nationalist party". How does one influence the other?

The BJP as a party does not have an RSS leaning. Those within the
BJP, whose social and political upbringing has been through the
RSS, do have an RSS leaning. But the BJP's decisions are not
guided by the RSS.

Isn't this like separating the mind from the body? If those
within the BJP have an RSS leaning, it only suggests that the
party is influenced by its parent body.

Being an RSS member is not a criterion for admission to the BJP.
Anybody who is willing to adhere to the BJP's principles is
welcomed in the party. Members come from all walks of life. Some
may be Muslims, some may be Arya Samajis, some may be Jains or
Sikhs.

A man is a composite of various activities that he performs. I
have impressions of the RSS guiding my perception, but I am in
the BJP. This is my mindset and, if at any time an idea
contradicts my perception, I will have to say goodbye to the BJP.
It is a subsequent addition to my political discourse.

Ayodhya, a Uniform Civil Code, and Article 370, issues which are
fundamental to your disposition, do not figure in your national
agenda.

Since we do not have a majority, we took the support of allies
and had to formulate a programme that was common to us all. Yes,
these issues were the basis of our ideology and we went to the
polls banking on them. [But] the political compulsions are such
that we cannot bring them forth. Our allies do not agree to this
programme of ours.

If the people want us to implement what we had promised, they
will have to give us a two-third majority.

But the complexion of your government Is dictated by your allies.
Jayalailtha walked away with key portfolios - all that she had
bargained for. Same is the case with other allies. Comment.

We are not dictated to, we are assisted by our allies. We
considered each ally's suggestions and gave them what we thought
was right. Even if we have conceded their demands, what is so
wrong? They are after all our partners m the government. It is a
team we are working with.

But Law Minister Thambidurai's statement that Jayalalitha has
been falsely Implicated in corruption cases - shows that
Jayalalitha has achieved what she wanted.

There has been a lot of misquoting on this issue. Thambidurai did
not say that she was falsely implicated. He only said the
government would review the cases with an open mind. What is so
wrong with that? A review with no preconceived notion does not
mean exoneration.

The Telugu Desam Party's decision to extend support to the BJP
was a surprise as all this while N Chandrababu Naidu had been
asserting "equidistance" from both the BJP and the Congress.

The United Front was an opportunistic add-up. It was clear that
once they went out of power, they would not be able to stay
together. Even while they were together, their efforts were
guided towards labelling us as political untouchables. But not
many in the UF were subscribing to this stance. After all, the
accountability of the regional parties lies with the states, it
is that on which depends their political existence.

But the way people are deserting the TDP suggests that regional
forces are still divided over the idea of extending support to
you.

If [Basheeruddin] Babukhan and the likes are resigning, it is
their concern. It's the same fundamentalist approach of negating
a political party because of certain preconceived ideas.

But this group stands isolated. Even the Muslims are not buying
their idea that the BJP is an anti-Muslim party. Babukhan is
unable to veer people towards his viewpoint.

An addition to your list of allies In the states has been the
scam-tainted Sukh Ram In Himachal Pradesh. How could the BJP,
with all its high-sounding ideals, take the support of Sukh Ram
whose expulsion from the Congress on the grounds of corruption
was once demanded by you?

The uproar over this issue was started by the Congress. But it is
the same Congress which after Sukh Ram's recent poll victory
invited him back to its fold. They were trying desperately to
forge an alliance with him. But Sukh Ram came with us instead.

These are political compulsions. We made him a minister as he
commanded certain support and was ready to help us in forming the
government in the state. But all this does not mean he will get
exonerated. He will have to face the law, whether he is a
minister or not.

Vajpayee has been talking about the politics of consensus. But
after the speaker's election, what remains of these claims?

The Congress was trying to take advantage of the ruling party's
weakness. Ideally, the speaker is from the ruling party and, if a
consensus emerges, the deputy speaker is elected from the
Opposition. But at that time we were in a tight corner and did
not want a showdown. But when we found a non-Congress member who
would have made a good speaker, our situation improved. We then
told the Congress that we would field that candidate. We saw the
consensus emerging among our allies and some factions of the UF
on the choice. But if the TDP hadn't bailed us out, we would have
definitely backed the Congress choice.


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements