 |
||
|
||
|
||
What is the BJP's relationship with the sangh parivar and what is
the nature of your relationship, as BJP president, with Professor
Rajendra Singh, the RSS' sarsangchalak?
L.K. Advani: The RSS reflect., a bias, an attitude, towards the
BJP. Studies on the working relationship between the RSS and the
BJP have been done, unfortunately, in large measure, by foreigners.
In the Indian media, any writing of all this is absurd, even
amusing. It reveals a very shallow understanding of this
relationship,
The RSS is a separate organisation, The BJP is a separate
organisation. They take their decisions independently. But
ideologically, there is a close affinity.
Sometimes, I have compared it with the relationship that most
Congressmen had with Gandhi, irrespective of whether he was a
primary member of the Congress party or not, or the relationship
that we had with Jayaprakash Narayan in the Janata Party. JP had
no constitutional authority but we often went to him. He gave
advice.
That is the relationship between the BJP and the RSS, with this
difference. Jayaprakash and Gandhiji were individual leaders of
stature, whereas, in case of the RSS, it is not necessarily their
leaders whom we hold in esteem. But because of the ideological
affinities between the BJP and the RSS, the BJP people at various
levels would like to involve swayamsevaks from time to time.
This may be, for instance, at the time of the elections.
Consultations and interactions with the RSS at all levels continue
all the time. But political decisions have to be taken by the BJP
and organizational matters have to be dealt with by, the RSS. By
and large this separation of functions has worked very well,
Q: There are often reports in the newspapers that the RSS
leadership is unhappy with the lifestyle of some BJP leaders.
A: Not at all. Things happened in Gujarat and in Rajasthan. We
are as unhappy with some of these developments. But somehow, that
is never noticed and commented upon. The RSS is unhappy., that is
the news. Things that would make anyone unhappy make us unhappy
too. If any of my colleagues act in a manner to make us unhappy,
we would pull them up. The BJP, on the whole, in this matter, has
been doing very well. But there are aspects that are fairly
disturbing.
Q: The BJP is commonly perceived to be formed of a smallish central
core of RSS Pracharaks seconded to it, then of a slightly larger
number of persons, not of the RSS, but who came to the BJP because
of some ideological affinities, and finally, of a large number of
persons attracted to it because of its power prospects. There is a
view that this last group, which is the largest in number, is
infecting the other two groups with its
Congress-style culture and ethos... '
A: The Jan Sangh was founded by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Who was not
an RSS member. He did seek the assistance of Golwalkar. Golwalkar
told him that the RSS would not formally support any political
party, but since he approved the manifesto, he would commend the
Jan Sangh to any swayamsevak who wanted to go to it.
In the course of that, some of us did go there. The organisation
was small. The organisational secretary did wield considerable
influence. As the organization grew, it attracted many new
persons. Shekhawat came. He was not an RSS person. They still
joined because they felt an ideological affinity to the Jan Sangh.
Most MLAs and most MPs are such persons.
The BJP is open to anyone. It is not a limited party like some of
the other parties. You have to undergo a short indoctrination
course and all that before you are entitled to a card. We have had
problems before. We have dealt with the problems of corruption,
indiscipline and such things before. They did not damage the
reputation as just an indiscretion by a manual president does now.
This is because the BJP has shot into the limelight so suddenly.
Q: Do you accept such a term as the sangh parivar, and if You do,
what is your explanation for it?
A: I have reservations about accepting such a term. Many in the
RSS also do not like it. I would rather say that it is an
ideological family. Parivar connotes that there is a head of the
family. That is not true. The nexus is not organisational but
ideological.
Q: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) says that you are curbed by the
Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act from giving support to
it for "liberating" Kashi and Mathura.
A: The decision of the BJP not to support the Kashi and Mathura
movements was taken before the Plates of Worship Act. It is a
decision taken on principles. We decided to take up the Ayodhya
issue but not the others. A sessions court declared the place a de
facto temple by issuing an injunction that the Ram Lalla idols be
restored.
Q: So Kashi and Mathura are not on the agenda.
A: They are not on the agenda. Ayodhya, to begin with, was also not
on the agenda.
Q: Would you say that Hindutva has died as a political force?
A: Hindutva, meaning cultural nationalism, will never die so long
as pseudo-secularists are there. It will continue to be a powerful
force in Indian polities.
Q: Many big and small movements have corrupted with power. The
Congress party, once synonymous with the Freedom Movement and the
ideals of Gandhi, is the worst example of such transformation. What
future, then, does the sangh movement have if your party comes to
power?
A: Every country deals with problems at two levels. First comes
the creation of effective institutions, putting safeguards in
place, appointing an ombudsman, and establishing a Lok Pal, etc. A
vigilance commission, an ethics committee, etc, come under this.
But I believe that this issue of corruption or the following of
ethical standards has a lot to do with examples set by those at the
helm of affairs. And, in the Congress party, there has been a
progressive decline of values. Degeneration and decadence has set
in to such an extent that the party is irreparably damaged.
The BJP will have to be concerned about it. Environmental
pollution affects even healthy people. And, we think that our
relations with the RSS, which has a body of thousands of public
workers who are not directly in politics, nor being politically
ambitious, is a source of great strength for us.
|
||
|
||
|
||