Author:
Publication: Rediff
on Net
Date: November 22, 2000
K N Govindacharya complains
that wherever he goes journalists quiz him about his study leave.
The former general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party is currently
on a one-and-a-half-year study leave to document his understanding of rural
India. As part of the exercise, he intends visiting all Indian villages
to interact with ordinary rural populace and intellectuals.
On a visit to Chennai,
he insisted on speaking in Malayalam when Shobha Warrier approached him
for an interview at the Centre of Policy Studies. After much persuasion,
he agreed to speak about the study project -- which according to him was
still in its preliminary stage -- and the role of the RSS in nation-building.
Q.: I assume that the
study leave that you have taken from your party, is to study rural India.
Is it because you feel rural India is being neglected in the new economic
scenario?
A My study pertains
to the impact of globalisation, which has been un-calibrated and ill-thought
of in the last fifteen years. The impact has to be studied in the
civilisational context, that includes economy, polity, society and culture.
Rural poverty, unemployment
and disparities have increased. Naturally, without pre-supposing
the adversity of the impact, it is better to be objective. For example,
in the IT or communication sector, we might have gained but in many other
sectors, something more has to be done.
Q.: When you say 'other
sectors,' do you mean agriculture?
A.: Small-scale industries
have been the worst hit. This has resulted in more and more unemployment.
New employment avenues are few because capital may or may not produce employment.
New economics also does not ensure employment. In the Indian context,
hunger and unemployment have to be focused upon as far as economic policies
are concerned. So global economy on one side and hunger and unemployment
on the other, have to be balanced. With this in view, my first task
is to study objectively. I have decided to devote two years to this.
Q.: When did you first
get the signal that rural India was suffering?
A.: Since 1990 itself.
When the Dunkel draft was discussed and some people had started talking
about the corporatisation of agriculture. What has happened to other
countries in the last 15 years -- Latin America, East Asian countries,
African countries? In all these countries, the poor have suffered.
Since 1990, I have been trying to strike a balance between active party
work and my studies.
Q.: In what way will
your study be able to make the decision-makers understand their folly and
change their stance?
A .: That has to come
at a later stage. Now, I am concentrating on my studies, which has
four dimensions.
One is studying the situation.
The second is, interacting
with those who are already engaged in studies.
Third is, getting field
level experience and empirical evidences.
Fourth is, interacting
with those who are engaged in the alternatives at the micro level and a
few people at the macro level.
So, all these four dimensions
will definitely take about one-and-a-half years' time. Afterwards,
I will have to compute all that data and put it in the form of a document
which may have some recommendations and suggestions, not only for the government
but for the others too. That's the purpose of my study.
Q.: The new communication
network has made the world smaller. At the same time, the rural-urban
India divide is widening.
A.: Yes, the spectrum
is very wide. Some people are languishing in the 18th century milieu.
Many other countries also have experienced this but they have been able
to tackle the problem and their own needs in a better manner, relatively.
Q.: Do you only blame
liberalisation and globalisation for the pathetic state of rural India?
What about the path of socialism that we followed for nearly fifty years?
A.: My contention is
that we entered into hype about so- called socialism. This ended
up in economic stagnation, bureaucratic inactivity and political corruption.
And, that did not tackle the problem of unemployment for 30 years -- from
1950 to 1980.
We committed another
mistake by putting the cart before the horse. Before changing the
mindset and tuning it to the changed conditions, we just went in for external
liberalisation. Actually, internal liberalisation should also have
taken place at least a decade earlier. We are suffering now because
of that. Society, Bureaucracy, everyone should have been prepared.
Internal strength should have been boosted first but we didn't do that.
China entered the WTO
only to entertain their trade surplus. That could not be attempted
here. I don't see China as the model -- it has an anti-democratic
polity. But there was a need for a kind of consensus, a kind of detailed
study -- like what would it cost and what precautions were needed.
Nothing was done. We went in for an ill-thought globalisation and
liberalisation programme.
Q.: Is the population
explosion also a reason for poverty in rural India?
A.: I don't think so
as far as the fulfillment of the basic minimum need is concerned.
Agricultural growth has increased six times and the population has increased
only three times. It is one mouth and two hands to work. It
is for the first time after Independence that an agricultural policy has
been put forth. Till then, nothing was done. A mismatch was
attempted in the name of industrialisation.
Q.: Dr M S Swaminathan
says we produce enough food grains to feed the whole country but many people
have no access to food because they have no money to buy grains.
A.: Yes, that is the
paradox. Production has increased. The Green Revolution ended
up as the wheat revolution, that too in the limited areas of Haryana, Punjab,
western UP, etc. Therefore, nothing much can be said about it.
Q.: Farmers are committing
suicide because they cannot repay their loans.
A.: The police party
comes to raid them for a pittance -- to claim the payment -- while big
industrialists are left untouched!
Q.: Here, aren't you
talking more like an idealist than a politician?
A.: I think without
any isms. Politics ends up merely as crass sale of power at the cost
of people's interest. If you take politics as a profession, then,
it may be alright. Then it will be at the cost of the people -- but
that is not politics.
Q.: But politicians say
politics is a number game -- a game of arithmetic.
A.: Politics and politicking
are quite different. Politicking is about the number game.
It does not require morality. One can attain the seat of power through
politicking. Then what? For what? If power is for a purpose, you
have to have some ideals. What can I say if power is the only purpose?
Q.: Did your party colleagues
agree with you?
A.: They accepted my
view and heeded to the request of my study. I am satisfied because
they permitted me to take two years' leave.
Q.: Do they understand
your point of view?
A.: The study will also
help them.
Q.: ... to understand
rural India better?
A.: Yes.
Q.: Were you unhappy
with the BJP's economic policies? Is that the reason why you took this
study leave?
A.: I have spoken enough
about all that. It's stale now. There is nothing new.
Q.: Are you basically
a RSS swayamsevak or a BJP man? Who exactly are you?
A.: There is no conflict
in these two identities. I am a RSS swayamsevak working in the BJP
as a national executive member. When I am working for the BJP, I
will be accountable to the BJP.
Q.: Can I say the RSS
identity overtook the BJP identity when there was some unhappiness?
A.: You are pre-supposing
some kind of unhappiness. What can I do? I request you not to pre-suppose.
Q.: Can we say the RSS
operates at the socio-cultural plane and the BJP at the political level?
A.: The RSS is just
like a school which inculcates patriotism, dignity of physical labour,
social awareness, sense of social responsibility and discipline in one
hour in 'what we say shakha.' Then, that swayamsevak strikes a balance
between his family, social responsibilities as per his choice and preferences.
He gets involved in some kind of nation-building activity in some sphere
of national life. Therefore, the RSS work is confined to imparting
these sanskaras to the swayamsevak in our shakhas. The RSS is fully
satisfied with its contribution to the nation.
Q.: Long back, there
were discussions on dual membership. While the RSS is a Hindu organisation,
the BJP is a political party. The BJP now rules the country, which
has people belonging to all religious groups. So, can a BJP member
be a part of a Hindu religious organisation also?
A.: The RSS is not a
religious organisation. It is a socio-cultural organisation.
When we say, it is a Hindu organisation; we ascertain that Hindutva or
Hindu-ness is not a religion. Therefore, Hindutva and Hindu should
not be compared, and kept at par with any religious organisation.
Maharashtra Governor
P C Alexander visited the Malankara church and addressed the people there.
He was garlanded by people. Did anybody find anything wrong in that?
You can't have different rules for the ruling party and other parties.
Many political party leaders go and prostrate before Imam Bukhari.
Does anybody find fault with that?
Hindutva is not a religion.
Hindutva is the quintessence of Indian nationalism, which is equally applicable
to every person. If s/he is religious, then, s/he can profess any
mode of worship. Hindutva cannot be treated at par with any kind
of mode of worship.
Q.: The RSS defines Hindutva
this way. But people belonging to other religions do not consider
themselves as Hindus.
A.: They understand
the tradition of this land. It is only some people who indulge in
vote bank politics who talk like that. That is why slowly, the believers
of Islam and followers of Jesus are seeing through this game of petty politics.
Q.: The RSS has asked
Muslims to accept Rama and Krishna as their gods. Is it possible?
A.: There is no question
of 'possibility.' It is very much existent now. In the minds of the
common Muslims and Christians, there is no disrespect towards Rama or Krishna.
Q.: But they don't worship
Rama or Krishna.
A.: They need not worship
them. Even Arya Samajis do not involve in any kind of idol worship.
Even Jains. Where is the question then? That is why I always say
that if you are able to understand India in the Indian context, these questions
are simply irrelevant and hypothetical.
Q.: The RSS has also
asked people belonging to other religions to accept their Hindu ancestry.
Don't you think the ancestors of these people converted because they were
not treated well by Hindus? I mean, untouchability and practices like that.
A.: Conversions were
affected because of many reasons. Conversion to Islam may have had
its own historical background in India. Most of them were converted
by force or by fear or by temptation. It happens. One need
not find fault with the present day Muslims with regard to that.
Similarly, about Christianity also. How did the church flourish in
Goa? If you go into the records, you will find that it is not because of
service and charitable activities. One need not go unnecessarily
into history. One shouldn't.
Q.: But the RSS is going
back into history and asking these people to accept their Hindu origins.
A.: It is not asking.
They are just stating what is happening. It is only those with obstructionist
attitudes, those who have some vested interests who are trying to keep
some sections of society alienated. The statement is addressed to
them. Otherwise, there is no problem at the societal level.
