HVK Archives: RSS has a kind of moral authority over the BJP" - Interview
RSS has a kind of moral authority over the BJP" - Interview - Outlook
Ishan Joshi
()
6 April 1997
Title: "RSS has a kind of moral authority over the BJP" - Interview
Author: Ishan Joshi
Publication: Outlook
Date: April 6, 1997
BJP president L.K. Advani has no intention of retiring from politics, and
seems positively rejuvenated at the completion of his gruelling
two-month-long swarna jayanti rath yatra. In turn incisive, analytical and
aggressive, Advani is not a politician on whom it is easy to bestow soft
contours. The BJP may be in the throes of debate over matters of
realpolitik, but Advani is clear about the direction he wants the party to
take. The sharpness came through in an hour long interview with Ishan
Joshi. Excerpts:
You have said that the Muslim community is 'beginning to understand' the
BJP's thesis of cultural nationalism/Hindutva and that you would not like
an entire community to perceive the party as 'hostile'. Is there any plan
to attract their support?
I don't need to do anything. What should I do? If the Muslims come close
to me and say you should do this or that, we will consider it. But I know
that the Congress party, prior to 1947, with leaders like Gandhi, Nehru and
Maulana Azad, could not counter the Muslim League appeal to the Muslim
community. And Muslims in the country, broadly speaking, despite the
opposition of the Congress party, favoured Partition. How do you explain
that? If Gandhi is to be blamed for that, I am also to be blamed for the
present situation.
You are being supported by different people for totally different reasons.
How will you handle the pulls and pressures of various constituents?
At the moment, we are not facing any such problems. The BJP is not an
umbrella organisation in the sense the Congress was. In the old Congress,
you had coexistence of extreme viewpoints because freedom was the larger
goal. In a democracy, a political party with an ideology, like the BJP,
cannot really be an umbrella organisation.
Aren't disparate communities, castes, regional and linguistic groups
essential for a national political party?
Trying to bring within our fold all sections is one thing, but becoming an
umbrella organisation which is a hold-all for all, ideologies included, is
not on our agenda.
Maybe because of that, has the BJP reached a plateau, doing close to its
best in the north and west in the '96 Lok Sabha polls, and still weak in
the south and the east? I don't agree. How can you talk of a plateau when
the party is growing at a fantastic rate? No political party in a democracy
has grown at the rate we have over the past decade. How do you explain an
opinion poll in January giving the BJP and its allies 257 seats? There has
been a world of difference between then and now. Whatever we may have
exerted through the rath yatra, our adversaries are doing their utmost to
enhance the BJP's credibility. If there is an election today, the BJP with
its present allies will win a comfortable majority.
Indiscipline, groupism and personality clashes now afflict the BJP too. If
your reaction to these issues is the same as that of the other parties,
isn't it fair to say that the 'Congressisation of the BJP' is a reality?
No. Because Congressisation would mean something entirely different. (It
connotes) a party which because of these problems did not have elections
for a number of years. The BJP, apart from the Marxists, is perhaps the
only party which holds its elections every two years. But there is groupism
and other problems which arise out of proximity to power. We are conscious
of them and are tackling them effectively.
In the case of BJP MPs B.L. Purohit and Gangacharan Rajput, who went
against the party, and the Sahib Singh-Khurana battle over Delhi you seem
to be using classic Congress tactics-of sitting on recommendations and
delaying decisions.
We are not using Congress tactics. It depends upon what you think is the
right solution in a certain case. In the case of Purohit, he happens to be
a member of the parliamentary party so it is the parliamentary party leader
who deals with him. The same goes for Rajput. As far as Khuranaji and Mr
Sahib Singh are concerned, they have both put up their case. I will apply
my mind. I cannot decide this matter abruptly. But both have agreed to
abide by what I say. We are not the kind of party where every thing is
kept hush-hush.
But you have been accused of being hush-hush about your relationship with
the RSS.
Not at all. People talk about it so freely. We have great respect for the
RSS leadership. And the RSS has a kind of moral authority which I believe
is health-giving for the BJP.
What about the recent meeting at Chitrakoot between RSS and BJP leaders?
Wasn't it another of their regular 'consultations and discussions'. What
transpired?
I was not present at Chitrakoot. But these are not meetings for a
political purpose. As far as political decisions are concerned, they are
taken by the BJP. The RSS has nothing to do with the proposal that only a
full-time worker be appointed to the post of party general secretary
(organisation). Till the BJP has its pool of full-time workers, this will
mean that the post (at district, state and national levels) will be filled
by RSS pracharaks.
Yes. But it is we who ask for a pracharak. It is not they who force a
pracharak on us. This is the misconception. It is not the RSS which wants
to control the BJP. It is the BJP wanting pracharaks to work for us.
In the wake of the desecration of the Ambedkar statue in Mumbai and the
riots which followed, how does the BJP reconcile to allying with Shiv Sena,
which is seen as anti-Dalit in Maharashtra, and with the BSP in UP? But
then, the BJP isn't seen as anti-Dalit in Maharashtra.
You are in alliance with the Shiv Sena and part of a coalition
government... The BSP is in alliance with us in UP, and according to some
we are a feudal, anti-Dalit party. Does that make the BSP anti-Dalit? How
about guilt by association?
If parties that are different come together for certain aims, it does not
mean they abandon their own stand or following. Our association with the
BSP has certainly changed its rhetoric. The BSP does not make the kind of
remarks it made earlier.
Do you support the contention that Ambedkar conceded that Hindutva was a
project of both caste Hindus and Dalits?
I believe Hindutva is the only solution to the casteist tensions that have
been let loose in the past few years by political parties to build
votebanks. The only period when caste played a secondary role in elections
was in the 1991 polls in UP and Bihar, because of the Ayodhya movement.
Ambedkar's protest was against the distortions which appeared in Hindu
society in the name of ritualism and the upper castes. The VHP, similarly,
is to be given credit for ensuring that the foundation stone of the Ram
temple was laid by a Harijan.
The BJP was earlier projected as the party of the 'strong Centre'...
(Interrupts) Not strong Centre, strong country. But we also want
devolution of power-political and economic and even to local governments.
We are not in favour of debilitated and anaemic state governments, as they
are today. Our recent conference of BJP (and allied) chief ministers at
Jaipur emphasised this at length.
Is that because you now admit that India is a coalition? At least in
social terms.
(Pause) No. I would say that when people talk of coalition, they have at
the back of their minds the concept of a multinational state. Which is
dangerous for India. I regard India as being pluralistic, but not a
coalition. India as a single nation, with elements having their own
diversities. There should be no attempt at uniformity.
But the basic fact is that the underlying unity of the country is there.
Is not having a single opponent-such as the Congress of the past-working to
your disadvantage?
>From the point of view of the health of parliamentary democracy, I am not
happy at the Congress floundering. It would have been best if the
political system at the national level had developed in a manner in which
the BJP was one pole, Congress the other. With certain parties aligning
with either, such as the situation in Kerala with the Marxists and the
Congress. But by becoming part of the establishment in 1996, the Congress
has in a way undermined itself. Whether or not they overcome this, it
remains our main opponent.
Back
Top
|
