HVK Archives: BJP, the only alternative
BJP, the only alternative - BJP Today
M.C. Chagla
()
16-31 August 1997
Title: BJP, the only alternative
Author: M.C. Chagla
Publication: BJP Today
Date: August 16-31, 1997
(From Shri M.C. Chagla's address to delegates to the first plenary session
of the Bharatiya Janata Party at Samata Nagar, Bandra Reclamation, Bombay
on December 29, 1980)
I am not a member of the party and I am not addressing you as a delegate.
Still I assure you that when I am talking to you I do not feel like an
outsider. I honestly and sincerely feel that I am one of you. This is
because all of you have come here for a cause that is as dear to me as it
is to you. This huge gathering that I see before me is Bombay's answer to
Indira. This gathering tells her plainly that those gathered here are
opposed to her authoritarian methods and her intention of becoming a
dictator. These people are here to fight for the cause of democracy. They
are here to tell her that the country is in a terrible state, that there is
chaos, mismanagement and corruption everywhere. We are not being ruled by
the rule of law but by a group of opportunists, hypocrites and sycophants.
Under these, circumstances the party you represent has a big role to play.
I was pleased to read in the Times of India-even in the Times of
India-glowing reports of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee's procession. But this
huge procession was not due to a personality cult, because I do not think
Vajpayeeji has any ambition to have charisma. This big procession and the
admiration showered on him are due to the fact that he is one of the finest
men in India today.
I do not want anything from Vajpayeeji. I assure him that when he becomes
Prime Minister I shall not ask him for an ambassadorship or for a seat in
the Cabinet. I shall continue to serve the country in my solitary way. But
I can say from personal experience that Shri Vajpayee was one of the finest
Foreign Ministers India has had. He raised the image of this country in
the eyes of the world and made our neighbours feel that we were true to our
spiritual culture and did not want to play the big brother. I was told by
someone high up that when Vajpayeeji first-went to Pakistan the people
there were surprised and wondered how a Jana Sanghi could come to Pakistan
and expect to bring about friendly relations between the two countries.
Yet when they met him and he talked to them with his quiet diplomacy he won
them over and they all felt that Vajpayee was the finest ambassador India
could have sent to their country.
Intimate Contacts
Earlier too I knew Vajpayeeji in Parliament. He faced me both in the Rajya
Sabha and the Lok Sabha and opposed me, but his opposition was always
civilised and cultivated; so we were friends and understood each other. I
want to say that Vajpayeeji was one of the finest speakers I heard in
Parliament. Of course he is an outstanding speaker in Hindi, but he is
also a first class speaker in English. Later, during the Emergency I went
to Bangalore to defend Vajpayeeji. Shri Advani and others. And I remember
the learning and the scholarship that my friend Shri L. K. Advani
possesses. I realized when I was arguing his case. He sat next to me. The
government applied that he should not be permitted to sit next to me, but I
must say to the credit of the judge that he ruled they were talking
nonsense and that he (Shri Advani) had every right to sit next to Mr.
Chagla and issue instructions. That was the independence of the judiciary
in those days. And all the time I was arguing he had his notebook before
him and was solemnly and sedulously taking notes of whatever I said,? which
was not worth it. I hope it helped him a little bit in his after life.
Thus my contacts with the leaders of this party have been many and intimate.
I was really happy when under the auspices of Jayaprakash Narayan the
merger took place that led to the formation of the Janata Party. I was
happy that a united party had come, into being, of which the Jana Sangh was
a constituent. I admired the Jana Sangh because of its discipline and its
honesty. These days 'politician' has become a byword for dishonesty. But
the Jana Sangh was an honest and dedicated party.
I see that the present party also believes in principles and adheres to
them. One reads of defections from this party to that, but I have not read
of persons defecting from this party. Rather, they defect to it. Shri
Vajpayee has said that this party, of which he is the president, is the
only alternative to Indira's Government. He is justified in saying so,
because in my opinion there is today no other party that can replace
Indira. This replacement may take place either at the next elections or
perhaps even before that. We have, therefore, to consider whether the
Bharatiya Janata Party has the credentials for achieving this. The former
Jana Sangh was considered mainly an urban party, a middle class party and a
party primarily concerned with domestic problems. It is now time to spread
wings and get out of these domestic perimeters.
Truly National Party
I am happy to learn from the figures I have received that about 50,000
people have come here from different parts of India. They have come not
only from the Hindi belt, not also from regions where Tamil, Telugu and
other languages are spoken. This disproves the charge that this party is
parochial. It is a national party in the real sense of the term. It is
interested in the various problems, difficulties and sufferings of the
people of the country as a whole, and not of any particular part.
The second charge against this party, when it was the Jana Sangh, has been
that it was a communal party. Indira keeps repeating in the newspapers and
on the radio every other day that this party is dominated by RSS, that it
is communal, and that every communal riot that takes place is caused by the
RSS, or some other imaginary element. This is a charge that I would like to
refute. The Bharatiya Janata Party is not a communal party and I am glad to
know today that large numbers of delegates who have come here were not even
members of the RSS. I had supported the Jana Sangh when the controversy
arose, and I had said it was disgraceful that the formula which could have
kept the Janata Party together, and was accepted by Shri Advani, was thrown
out, thus forcing a separation on those who could no longer remain in the
party with any sense of self-respect.
As for communalism, you may have read in the papers that while presiding
over a conference of the Rationalist Society the other day, Justice Chenna
Reddy, a very able judge and one of the judges of the Supreme Court,
observed that it was the secular parties that had done the most to promote
religious intolerance, religious backwardness and religious superstition.
In other words secularism in India is not really secular. It has the name
and the outward appearance, but at heart it is communal. It is my profound
belief that all governments that have ruled this country have been
communal. Our Constitution proclaims that we are secular, but our actions
prove that we do not behave in a secular manner at all.
The British believed in communalism in order to keep the Hindus and the
Muslims apart so that they could govern the country for all time to come.
Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India, said, "Rally the minority,
support the minority." The Romans had said the same, and the British
followed in their foot-steps to implement the 'divide-and-rule' policy.
But thanks to Gandhiji, and thanks to the sacrifices of our people, their
plans were foiled and we got freedom.
No Political Minorities
What happened after freedom? Did we take to heart the real meaning of
freedom? All should have thought-by all I here mean the largest minority
in India, the Muslims, not all of them but those who believed in it-that
with Pakistan the Muslims got their homeland. Personally I have always felt
that the creation of Pakistan was a crime and folly, and could have been
avoided if we had shown some sagacity. Unfortunately Pakistan is there and
our motherland, our Bharat, has been divided when it should not have been
divided. Look at the map of the world, look at the Peninsula of India, and
we can see that the gods in their wisdom wanted this country to be one,
wanted us to have one culture and spread it to the whole world. But after
partition no minority in this country has a right to be called a political
minority. The minorities have a right to their culture, education and
religion. No other Constitution in the world has said so more definitely
and more clearly. No minority can nom, say that its faith or its culture
is in danger.
After partition took place the minority that remained in India, that chose
to remain in India and subscribe to our Constitution, is as much Indian as
the Hindus, Christians or Parsis. The divisions between the communities are
now at an end, and we are together the Indian Nation. Then why should it be
divided into so many political minorities? The answer is that the Congress
deliberately encouraged separate formation of minorities, because they
wanted their votes. They have even coined the new expression 'vote bank'.
To them the right to govern and the prestige that it brought were more
important than the unity of the nation. As a result we are in the same
position as we were before partition. There are Hindu parties and Muslim
parties and caste parties, and people are selected to stand on the basis of
caste or religion. They are also elected and are taken in the Cabinet on
that basis.
Further, we have been told from house-tops that the Directive Principles of
the Constitution are more important than fundamental rights. This is the
cry of the people of the Congress(l) who want to carry out propaganda on
Mrs Gandhi's' behalf. But if this is really so, one of the most important
principles, to my mind, is that there shall be a uniform civil code in
India. Why do we not carry it out? You have only to introduce a Bill for
this purpose and pass it. It would not cost a penny.
What Actually Happened?
But what actually happened when they tried to bring about a small change in
the adoption Bill? Legal adoption is possible only among the Hindus, but
non-Hindu children have no such protection. So such a Bill was drafted for
non-Hindu children, accepted by a Select Committee with a majority of 45
and only two members, who were Muslims, voting against it, and came before
the Lok Sabha. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, the then Law Minister, got up, and
eloquently declared that the passing of the Bill would give new life to the
cause of children's welfare and he knew the House would pass it. But what
happened? Members of all political parties said that they were opposed to
it because their Muslim friends would not like it. Let it be said to the
shame of the Janata Party that Mr. Shanti Bhushan or those higher up
withdrew the Bill. As a result there is to date no legal adoption among the
non-Hindus. Why was this done? Why were the members of the Lok Sabha not
told that they were governed by Indian law and not by Islamic law? Why were
the Muslim members not reminded of the Directive Principles? Because those
who wanted the Bill were afraid that they would lose Muslim votes.
Charge Cannot Be Sustained
Therefore, to say that the Bharatiya Janata Party is communal is absolutely
absurd and without any basis. No evidence has been produced by Indira to
show that this party had a hand in inciting any riot that has taken place,
and yet she goes on repeating like a parrot that the RSS or the Bharatiya
Janata Party (for her the two words are interchangeable) is responsible for
riots all over the country. This charge cannot be sustained, and to my mind
this party has completely established its credentials as the alternative
that can replace the present Government.
As I have said earlier. I admire your discipline, your honesty and your
dedication. Let me now suggest that you project your future as a national
party. Go round the country and tell the people that you are not a
regional party, that you are not the former Jana Sangh. As Vajpayeeji has
rightly said, this is a new party, a national party, and the only party
that can replace Indira. Look at other parties, like the Lok Dal or the
Congress (U). These parties have leaders without followers. The communists
may have a following, but they are not nationalist parties. They look to
Moscow or Peking to get their orders, so their credentials for
consideration as replacements for Indira Gandhi are immediately ruled out.
Therefore, this is the only party left.
Back
Top
|
