Author: Alok Mehta, Saba Naqvi
Bhaumik
Publication: Outlook
Date: June 30, 2003
URL: http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20030630&fname=Sudershan+%28F%29&sid=1
In his only interview till date
this year, the media- shunning RSS-chief spoke on a wide range of issues
in the context of the Atal-Advani leadership row and the VHP's raised pitch
on the mandir issue.
RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan normally
shies away from the media. In his only interview till date this year, he
spoke to Saba Naqvi Bhaumik and Alok Mehta on a wide range of issues. The
interview took place in the context of the Atal- Advani leadership row
and the VHP's raised pitch on the mandir issue. Full translation from the
interview that appeared in Outlook Saptahik. Excerpts from the interview
appeared in Outlook, the English print magazine.
Highlights:
"The Shankaracharya says, give up
Kashi and Mathura. If we had to do this compromise, we would've done it
in '91."
"[VHP] think some people want to
finish them off. A sort of persecution phobia has set in and therefore
they lash out. We have told them that there is no need to get aggressive."
"The court verdict has not arrived
in the last 50 years. It does not seem as if that would provide a solution."
"Why base the party on personalities?
Don't forget who made the big leaders: the cadres. New leaders will come."
Q.: Is the appeal of the Sangh in
attracting new following still continuing? Sometimes it appears as if this
attraction is on the decline...
A.: This is not the case. The Sangh's
attraction is its ideology and its work. Hindutva ideology is gaining momentum.
People have begun accepting the Sangh ideology today. Particularly in the
last two years, since we launched the Rashtriya Jagran Abhiyan [National
Awareness Campaign], Sangh ideas have reached as many as 4,05,000 out of
the 6,05,000 villages in India, and these are getting appreciated everywhere.
Q.: The BJP has been long considered
your political wing. Is the BJP still fulfilling its role as your political
wing? Some people say it is no longer a Hindutva party.
A.: First let me correct you. BJP
is not the political wing of the Sangh. There is no political wing as such.
The working of the Sangh is not understood many a time. The Sangh prepares
individuals. The Sangh is working towards the aim of overall development.
And towards that end, we develop individuals. We expect three-four things
from our workers. First, that they take pride in Hindutva. Second, that
they have knowledge of Hindutva. Third, that they have the ability to expend
time and energy, and be ready to meet responsibilities given. And they
have to have discipline.
As our workers get ready, they are
sent, for overall development of society, to different fields according
to their abilities. Their main task is to take along other sections of
society and to try and find solutions to problems in those assigned areas,
under the Hindutva ideology.
But all our organisations are independent.
They all have their own constitutions. They have their own position-holders.
They have their own work-culture. We are related to them organisationally
[sangathan ke naate se hamaara unse sambandh hai]. Our relationship is
with the swayamsevaks. Where our swayamsewaks are is where we have a relationship.
Our relationship with them continues. We don't tell them to do this or
do that. Therefore to say that the BJP is a wing of the RSS or that the
RSS is a volunteer core of the BJP or a party of the swayamsevaks is not
a matter to be accepted.
Q.: But are they living up to expectations
or not? You say they have been given one set of values and responsibilities.
Atalji also says with pride that he is a Sangh Swayamsevak, which is what
Advaniji says too. Do you think they are living up to expectations at the
summit of power..?
A.: We believe that politics is
the toughest of all fields because the dirtiest tricks that humans can
use are used in politics-greed, jealousy, enmity. It's very difficult to
maintain your values in politics. It does not surprise me if people just
slip after entering politics. We take pride in many such swayamsevaks who
remain committed to their ideology in spite of being in politics.
Q.: When you say people slip, what
do you mean? In terms of ideology? Or do they become corrupt?
A.: I have said greed, jealousy,
enmity happen. There's always a potential for everyone to go wrong. Tulsidas
has said, "prabhuta paaye kaaye madnaay". Which is why democracy has an
inbuilt mechanism to ensure that any one party should not remain in power
for too long. There should be change every now and then. In our country,
Congress remained in power for 40 out of 50 years because of which corruption
has seeped down to the lowest levels. Even if there is a change at the
top, it does not reach the bottom.
Q.: But the BJP also gave up Ayodhya
and Section 370 to remain in power. Are you not saddened by this?
A.: No, it is not so. We understand
their compulsions [majbuurii]. The public did not give them a clear majority
and so they had to make a coalition government. And because of that, to
take along other allies, their special issues - because of which they had
a special identity - had to take back-seat. Issues such as Ramjanambhumi,
Section 370. Uniform Civil Code had to be put behind because they had to
take others along. Now it can be argued - what was the need for that, others
should have been allowed make a government, and that it should have been
done on getting a clear majority. But then people would have said that
you did not make use the opportunity that came your way despite emerging
as the single largest party. So they thought that as the single largest
party, they should take the initiative. Which is why they kept those issues
on the back-burner and went along with others.
The government that is working right
now is working under three constraints. First is that they had to carry
along 25 allies which has never been done before for five successive years.
It should be considered a big achievement. Second, the agreements entered
into by the earlier governments - these become obligatory for the succeeding
government to meet and fulfill. The third is our bureaucracy which has
not changed at all. This government has worked within these constraints
and from that point of view, they have a limit.
Our people understand the circumstances
under which this government is working, and therefore whether we are saddened
or not does not make a difference. But this much is true -- afterall, of
all the other allies, none of them have given up their agenda. so why should
BJP alone have to leave its agenda? Therefore, the BJP should go to the
people on the basis of their agenda, and try to get more support than what
they have right now. And they have said this too, that the BJP would try
to get 300. If you have an absolute majority, you can implement your policies.
Q.: But in between there are reports
that you get very upset with Atalji. That is, the Sangh is very upset with
Atalji, and very fond of Advaniji ... and this is echoed across the country
again and again. What is the reason for that?
A.: This has been created deliberately
and systematically - that there are differences between Atalji and Advaniji;
that there are differences between the government and the BJP; that there
are differences between the government and the Sangh Parivar. From the
beginning, the media has played a role - after all, with the decline in
each section of society, there is also a decline in the media. In a hurry
to create sensation and spice, things are twisted and mangled out of shape,
and I myself have been at the receiving end of this a number of times.
This is done by people to promote themselves and to create a sensation,
to make a name for themselves. This is not right. Which is why the newspapers
mangle and twist the truth. There is nothing like this.
Q.: Take the recent vikaspurush-lohpurush
episode when the prime minister showed his displeasure... the way he said,
'neither tired, nor retired'. Advaniji seemed very upset. It seemed he
set out on his foreign tour with a heavy heart and it seemed as if there
were tensions between individuals. What would you say on that?
A.: I am very clear that the ideology
should be that of the party not individuals. Parties fight elections, not
individuals, and therefore the ideology has to be that of the organisation.
There should be some thinking on this. The party includes every one - PM,
deputy PM, other ministers, ordinary workers of the party. But since independence
there have been attempts to create personality cults.
Once upon a time people asked -
after Nehru, who? Nehru died and Shastri came. He did not live long so
Mrs Gandhi came in. She did better work than Nehru. Then people asked:
after Indira who? Then Rajiv came though he was not very experienced. And
as a result of his lack of experience, the nation paid the price that had
to be paid. Then Narasimha Rao came. So there are always other leaders
to take over. Why make it individual- centric? It should be party-centric.
Even the party should not be individual-centric. The importance of the
ordinary worker and a big leader is the same. We should not forget who
made the big leaders-the cadres. From these cadres again some leader will
emerge tomorrow.
Q.: But after all people make an
organisation. If an individual has to be shaped by a given set of values,
then how can there be an organisation without an individual who is the
leader to give direction. As even the Sangh has had the tradition of who
would be the successor, who would be able to manage... From this point
of view, do you consider Advaniji to be Atalji's successor?
A.: We don't consider anyone the
successor. Though it is for the BJP to decide as it is an independent organisation.
For example take the recent changes made by them in giving positions in
the party to deserving younger people. This is a good thing. In the RSS
we have been doing it for the last 10 years. As age increases, newer -
younger - people come to the forefront. All the pracharaks of the different
states are now below 40. Every organisation should think about that. Since
the BJP is a democratic party and people come through elections, so new
people must come and replace the old ones. Old people should allow others
to come forward and take on their responsibilities.
Q.: You had said an individual can't
be bigger than the party. But many people believe that Atalji is bigger
than the BJP - because he is the only personality who can help win elections.
A.: In the kind of political atmosphere
that is there right now, naturally some people are played up. Media also
does this and builds up some personalities. He has become Prime Minister.
Now, the main question is whether in a democratic system the party is bigger
or the parliamentary party. Some people think the BJP is bigger and vice
versa. The Communist Party believes the party is bigger and not the parliamentary
party. The Congress probably believes the parliamentary party is bigger.
This is a debatable issue. In a democratic arrangement, obviously the party
is bigger.
Q.: But people seem to think that
the Sangh will decide who becomes the PM...
A.: No, that is not true.
Q.: Doesn't it seem that in future
the Sangh would decide which individual is right...?
A.: BJP has such people who would
decide. More people will come. Why should we decide?
Q.: Are you saying the big leaders
should make way for others, create a second-rung of leadership. Is it happening
in the BJP?
A.: They are doing it. As I said,
newer people have been brought into the party. Newer people have been brought
into the government as well. The process is on and it will go on.
Q.: But should some other name than
Atalji be thought about for the post of Prime Minister? Is it possible?
A.: It is for Atalji to answer.
You should ask him this question.
Q.: There are reports of this crucial
meeting you had with the VHP leadership -- did you have to pull them up
or counsel them? Can you tell us exactly what transpired?
A.: They had come to meet me. After
they reached here, we got to know that Ashokji [Ashok Singhal] and Tagodiaji
were to come and meet us at 4 o'clock. They came and we were briefed on
all that has transpired so far. They are unhappy with the kind of steps
the Kanchi Shankaracharya has taken on the Ayodhya issue. He is suggesting
that the Ayodhya issue can be solved if the VHP gives up Kashi and Mathura.
The Shankaracharya had spoken to me on the phone about this and had gone
to meet Ram Madhav as well.
So I told him that if we had to
make this kind of a compromise we would have done it in 1991. At that time,
in 1991, after 54- 55 kar sevaks got killed and 300-400 were injured in
the firing ordered by Mulayam Singh, there was a meeting in Delhi of the
Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC). The office-holders of the the VHP
also met in Delhi. We received a phonecall that was received by Vamdevji.
They said all of us of BMAC are sitting here and we are willing to handover
Ramjanambhumi to you, provided you give up your claims on Kashi and Mathura.
Vamdevji said that our demand is
for three places. If the Muslims give up claims on these three places,
then we would not raise the issue of those three-four-ten thousand mandirs
that were destroyed to make masjids. The phone was disconnected. If we
had to do this, then we would have done it then. The question is: how do
we develop the harmony that we want to create in the minds of the people?
How would it be created? The identity of Hindustan is linked with Ram,
Krishna, Shiva. Ram. Ram linked north with south; Krishna linked east with
west; and Shiva is present throughout India [note: 'Bharat' translated
as India; 'Hindustan' where used has been left untranslated] as a symbol
of welfare. So from that point of view, these three are important for us.
These is where maximum tourists go too. So if the Muslim community gives
up these three places, we'd have the same goodwill [sadbhavana] towards
the Muslim society that we have towards the Hindu society.
The same thing was expressed by
Morarji Desai in 1977 when he went to Aligarh Muslim University. A delegation
of teachers and students had come to meet him and they complained of discrimination
in society. At that time Morarji Desai had said, you talk of discrimination
-- if you want the goodwill of Hindus, then please handover these three
holy places so that harmony and goodwill between the communities can be
established.
So it is with this perspective it
is said that handing over of these three places would establish harmony
between the communities.
Q.: So in the meeting - what have
you told the VHP? That they should continue with their movement?
A.: No, their Ramjanambhumi movement
would continue. They told us in that meeting that they have thought of
reaching millions of people and tying 'raksha-sutras' [protective-thread?]
on them. That has been the speciality of VHP -- they always think up new
programmes. For social awakening, whatever work they have ever done --
be it in the form of shila-pujan, or, after that, the concept of lighting
a lamp [deepak] at the place where Bharat once sat, and lighting such lamps
throughout the country, or, uniting people through signature-campaigns
-- has all been done in a fully democratic process. So now they have thought
of this 'raksha-sutra' and after tying these all over, they intend to tell
people that if they have to struggle for it, they should be ready...
Q.: Before or after the verdict
by the court?
A.: The court verdict has not arrived
in the last 50 years. People think that no matter what the verdict is,
it would be contested - there'd be an appeal. Three-four years would go
away in that. So it does not seem as if that would provide a solution.
Q.: But, in a sense, a temple was
already constructed there. After the complete structure was destroyed,
the roof over the head of Ram is also gone...
A.: I have told the Liberhans commission
about the complete structure, what was destroyed, and the role of the then
government as told to us by a senior Maharashtra Congress leader. He had
sent a handwritten fax in Marathi to Narasimha Rao on December 10, 1992.
I saw that fax. It basically said that that the VHP and Shiv Sena may have
had a hand in the December 6 incident, but it had the hand of their kitchen-
cabinet.
It is for certain that Narasimha
Rao assisted the demolition of the structure as I know that some of the
Shiv Sena people were also in that cabinet. Rao thought it would demolish
the root of the problem itself, that all the four governments will be removed,
and that the Sangh would be held responsible. Though court cases go on
against VHP, there was a government involvement as well and those were
Congress men.
Q.: Now what do you think is the
solution? There is talk of a legislation in Parliament, but there is no
majority there...
A.: Efforts are on. VHP says that
they would go to each Loksabha constituency and ask each MP, prominent
and common people that these are our sentiments, that Ramjanambhumi be
returned to us, that you tell us what you think, that you sign on the signature-campaign.
Apparently, they have obtained many signatures, and efforts are on to get
more. These include sadhus and sanyasis of many areas. Now they are saying
that at the time of elections in 2004, this issue would also be on the
fore-front. We will tell the Hindu society that they should vote for those
who co-operate in building the Ramjanambhumi temple.
Q.: The Kanchi Shankaracharya has
suggested a formula and it has been mentioned at a recent function...
A.: In the same function he also
said the credit of erecting a temple there goes to Narasimha Rao.
Q.: Mahant Paramhans recently had
a heart attack after meeting L.K. Advani. What got him so upset?
A.: It was the same suggestion
that the VHP be prepared to give up its claims on Kashi and Mathura for
a settlement on Ayodhya.
Q.: Atalji mentioned a formula.
Is this the Shankaracharya's formula? What is this formula? Are a hundred
mosques mentioned in this formula?
A.: This is a new controversy that
has been raised. Some Muslim leaders are saying that they must be allowed
to pray in all the prominent mosques currently under the Archeological
department. Many of these mosques may also be such that have been built
over temples.
Q.: Has Babri Masjid Commitee asked
for this?
A.: That's what people say. I am
not aware of what is being discussed or what is the formula. It has not
come before us. Now there is one H.K. Lal from the All India Ex Serviceman
Congress who has been corresponding with us since 1992. He is with the
Congress. He has sent us a letter which says that several idols were found
when a mosque wall caved in at Vidisha. Praying in a mosque which has idols
is not allowed in Islam. And this is what he has written that similar things
are going on at Ayodhya. Many idols were found in Ayodhya too, so the Muslims
anyway should give up that place as Namaz is not accepted from such a place.
But now it is politicised and the issue has got even more tangled.
Q.: Do you think this could be a
big issue to get a clear majority?
A.: This would be one such issue.
Nowadays there are many issues. Terrorism is an issue. National security
is an issue. These are the issues that influence people.
Q.: How right do you find Atalji's
initiative on Pakistan? It is said that Atalji has taken the peace initiative
with Pakistan in order to find a place in history.
A.: People should not view it in
that way. Look at it this way: Atalji's initiatives have clearly exposed
Pakistan. In an influential way, it has been exposed, not just to the US
or UK but to the entire world, that Pakistan is involved in terrorist activities.
This has been clearly established to the people around the world. He has
said that this is our third initiative. As for us, we want that we should
have good relations. But we have known that since Pakistan's very basis
for existence is anti-India, they are compelled to keep antipathy alive
so as keep their identity secure.
Q.: But hasn't the government made
a mistake? There was an opportunity at the time of Kargil. If India wanted,
it could have stepped up and destroyed the terrorist camps and succeeded
in solving a permanent problem...
A.: People thought so.
Q.: It is said about Atalji that,
like Nehru, he too tries to project his own image...
A.: Nehru after seeing Vajpayee
had said, "I see my image in him"
Q.: Recently, Venkaiah Naidu said
that a mosque should be built near the temple. Then he made the vikaspurush-
lohpurush statement . Why are such controversies being raised?
A.: I have already spoken about
this. He should concentrate on the party, not individuals.
Q.: How appropriate was his suggestion
about building a mosque?
A.: He clarified later that he
hasn't said that the mosque should be built in Ayodhya or at the same place,
that he hadn't said it. Now we do not know what he really said and what
appeared in the newspapers. That whatever appears in the newspapers is
true is not something we believe.
Q.: But it was a recorded statement
he changed..
A.: Now that these things (pointing
to the tape recorder) have come, clarifications are very difficult
Q.: But one thing is certain. The
aggression displayed by VHP leaders in recent months, hasn't been seen
in the past 55 years of the Sangh. It seems they want to take on Taliban
in Taliban's own fashion. Do you find this appropriate?
A.: As I have already said, every
organisation has been built after a lot of hard-work and effort. They have
taken their ideology to the masses and based on that ideology they have
built their organisation. When the government's decisions go against this
ideology, they have to protest for the sake of saving their organisation.
They would protest.
Q.: No, this aggression. Aggression
beyond control that comes across as hatred...
A.: When certain decisions are
taken, they too become aggressive. After all it depends upon the nature
of an individual. They think some people want to finish them off. A sort
of persecution phobia has set in and therefore they lash out. We have told
them that there is no need to get aggressive. Do say what you want to say.
But getting aggressive is not necessary. One can say what one has to say
and get one's point across in a civilised and effective way. Some people
have such a nature...
Q.: There aggression is directed
not only at the government, but at the society too. The Sangh has never
said that the Muslims should be thrown out of India. But Some VHP leaders
are making such noises. Is this right?
A.: They have only said that the
people who do not consider India their homeland need not live here. If
they consider India their own, then there is no cause for worry. Sometimes
it happens that some things come out and some things are left out. Some
things are said in a certain context. If taken out of that context, the
meaning changes. They have never said this. After all where will the 15
crore Muslims in India go? There was this Id- milan function when I met
that Imam of ours. I talked to him. I asked him why the Muslims consider
themselves a minority? A minority is one which comes from a foreign land
and settles down here. The Muslim society needs a leadership to emerge.
That leadership has not yet emerged. The kind of social movement required
hasn't happened in the Muslim society. The Muslims need to change themselves.
Q.: Swadeshi Jagran Manch leaders
are against up in arms against the government's economic policies. Thengariji
and Govindacharya have prepared lengthy documents. What's your stand?
A.: I have already told you that
the government is constrained by the treaties of the past governments.
Now that the WTO was already signed, the government has to follow its policies.
It is our misfortune that a large section of bureaucrats is influenced
only by western economics and western education. Now efforts are being
made to gradually change this. We believe that it is necessary to develop
using swadeshi resources.
Q.: Now the Prime Minister is going
on a visit to China. What are the chances of improvement in relations with
China?
A.: There is no doubt that together
India and China can become superpowers and challenge anyone. But, China
should abandon its expansionist policy.If China agrees to return our land
and grants autonomy to Tibet, then Indo-China relations can really improve.
If India, China and Russia come together American hegemony over the world
can be reduced.
