Author:
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: April 17, 2005
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=68576
Sarsanghchalaks of the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are normally content to remain in the political
shadows, patriarchs of cultural and nationalist ideology rather than commentators
on day-to-day politics. Yet Kuppahalli Sitaramayya Sudarshan, who became
head of the RSS in 2000, has presided over the organisation at a time of
dramatic shifts in the RSS-BJP relationship, and is known for speaking
his mind. Sudarshan has not shied away from controversy, often taking potshots
at the former Vajpayee-led NDA government on issues ranging from appointment
of bureaucrats to economic policy. In a rare interview to Shekhar Gupta,
Editor-in-Chief of The Indian Express, on NDTV 24X7's Walk the Talk, Sudarshan
elaborates on his disenchantment with the BJP leadership.
Q.: You are very media shy.
A.: The reason is that as children
we would sing a song.
(Recites the song)
Q.: This song means shun the media
and fame, and work to make the nation strong.
A.: Once a person becomes publicity-conscious,
he loses his way; he just wants to see his name in print. That's all he
wants. Work is no longer a priority. To give you an example, during a flood,
several leaders visited the spot. They stood in knee-deep water and asked:
'Where is the photographer?' All they wanted to show was that they were
there.
Q.: Just as ministers who undertake
an aerial survey.
A.: Yes. They just want to show
that they were there. But that does not solve the problem. We have to be
like stones in a foundation and help build the nation. Our people, therefore,
work in remote areas for social causes.
Q.: Thirty-three of your organisations
are working at various places.
A.: I've lost count, but there
must be at least 33-34 important ones. A person is teaching in Dharchula.
Who goes to that place in Himachal Pradesh?
Q.: Is that why the RSS leadership
maintains a low profile?
A.: Yes.
Q.: But those who come into politics,
like BJP leaders?
A.: That is the nature of politics.
People in politics have to be in the public eye, in the limelight. The
danger is that they may end up only seeking fame.
Q.: Have you seen people getting
lost, like so many people in politics, from RSS?
A.: Yes, people lose their way,
but that does not surprise us. Politics is a game that has elements of
jealousy, anger, covetousness, fame. That's why a lot of people get spoilt.
So, if someone adheres to our principles while in politics, we take it
as a victory.
Q.: Do you think most of the people
who've gone into politics from the RSS have been able to stick to its principles?
A.: Some have been able to do it,
but others have lost their way.
Q.: Have you thought about why this
has happened?
A.: No, no. This is politics. In
1962, at an election meeting Deen Dayal Upadhyay was asked what was the
guarantee that after coming to power the Jan Sangh would not become corrupt.
Upadhyayji replied that there is no guarantee. Power is intoxicating; whoever
gets it wants more.
Q.: When the BJP was in power for
six years, some of its leaders were part of embarrassing controversies.
They were from an RSS background, even the dissidents - Kalyan Singh, Uma
Bharati. The common view was that the people from RSS would be disciplined.
A.: It's not like that. Even though
people are from the Sangh, they are human. They can be influenced by a
lot of factors. If a person gives in to outside influence, he may be spoilt.
Chances of this happening in politics are more than in any other sphere
of life. All we say is that our values were not strong enough in the person.
Q.: What are you doing to correct
this?
A.: To correct it, all you can
do is leave politics. There are a lot of party workers who have left politics
to come to the Sangh.
Q.: Are there any senior politicians
who should come back to the Sangh?
A.: We have taken some back. Some
have come back to Sangh.
Q.: I would like to especially talk
about Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharati. They are spoiling the BJP's image, do
you agree?
A.: Uma Bharati has two personalities.
In her last birth she must have been a yogi, which is why even as a six-year-old
she would give pravachans on the Bhagvad. But in this birth, she has been
born into a not-so-cultured family. The best in her comes out when she
gets a platform or is faced with a challenge. Her speech against the no-confidence
motion in the Lok Sabha was the best. But on the other extreme she behaves
like a child, she is obstinate. I've told her this. I've known her for
a long time.
Q.: What did she say when you told
her?
A.: She didn't say anything. But
she heard me out.
Q.: Does she listen to you?
A.: Yes, she does.
Q.: If so, you must be the only
one she listens to.
A.: That's okay.
Q.: Can somebody with this attitude,
whether you call it a dual personality or confusion, be made a chief minister?
A.: Once she was in the BJP, it
was the leadership's prerogative to give her what they liked. But, very
soon she realised that something was wrong. She was told that she'll have
to meet people, but the sheer number of people who came to meet her scared
her. And in front of all the reporters she started crying. She knew that
it would not work. And that's why we told them to send her where there's
a challenge and make her primarily do party work.
Q.: What about her boycott of Advaniji's
meeting?
A.: Yes, that was wrong.
Q.: The party's image as well as
the RSS's image was sullied.
A.: Not the RSS's image, she is
not a member of the RSS.
Q.: But she's identified most with
RSS, whether it is her clothes or what she says.
A.: She is identified more with
the VHP. People call it Sangh Parivar but they should actually call it
the vichar parivar (family of ideas). All organisations are independent
from the Sangh. People don't understand that. They think that if RSS says
it, it'll happen. But that is not right.
Q.: But in the cusp of the RSS and
politics, two people who most symbolise it are Uma Bharati and Govindacharya.
There has been talk that they have spoiled the image of the Sangh.
A.: At one time they wanted to
get married. But, Bhaurao Deoras told them that it wouldn't be good for
them. So, they didn't go ahead. He then called Swami Vishesh Tirth, chief
acharya of the Madhav Sampradaya, to Amarkantak and Uma Bharati was given
sanyas diksha. I was also present. Later, after she became chief minister,
she told a reporter that Govindacharya was like a brother to her and that
was the only relationship the two of them shared.
Q.: What was the harm in their getting
married?
A.: It wasn't meant to be. Bhaurao
Deoras felt it was wrong and she took sanyas.
Q.: But people comment that they
do everything together. Whether it's politics or dissidence against Atalji.
A.: No, there's nothing like that.
That's their independent thinking and they act according to it.
Q.: Govindji is a senior leader,
he's vocal, intelligent; so when he criticises the BJP on its 25th birthday
and says that BJP has lost its way...
A.: He's not in BJP anymore.
Q.: Do you agree with his points
of criticism?
A.: What points?
Q.: That BJP has lost its way and
that it has forgotten the Hindutva path.
A.: VHP has also been saying this.
Q.: You just said that VHP and RSS
are separate.
A.: Yes, they are separate. VHP
and BJP are also separate. But the point is they had to be part of a coalition.
After the elections, there was a debate on whether the BJP should or should
not form the government.
Q.: You wanted them to form the
government?
A.: We wanted it. Because the other
option wasn't acceptable, a foreign woman being made the PM. That wasn't
good for our country. So, I told him that you should be the PM. And so
they had to compromise. They had to put aside their own agendas of the
Ram Mandir, Article 370 and the common personal code.
Q.: What is the balance sheet of
the BJP-led NDA's six-year rule?
A.: First, as soon as they came
to power they made India a nuclear power and this got India prestige in
the world. Moreover, they did it with such stealth that even the US spy
satellites didn't get to know.
Q.: When did you learn about it?
A.: Later. We knew that during
its 13-day rule the NDA had spoken to experts and told them that they wanted
it done. The scientists had said that once they win the vote of confidence
and give the go-ahead, it would take a month of preparations after that.
Q.: They didn't talk to you about
the consequences?
A.: No, they didn't speak to us.
Q.: Did they tell you after the
13-day rule?
A.: During the 13 days, they found
out that they would need a month to get it done. Next time that had the
month.
Q.: What were their other achievements?
A.: As a fallout of the nuclear
tests, the US got angry and imposed sanctions, but the NDA did not let
this bother them.
Q.: Then the US tried to improve
the relationship.
A.: The US took the first step.
The US thinks that its biggest enemy is China, and India is the only one
capable of standing up to China. But at the same time, the US is also helping
Pakistan.
Q.: But the NDA government and this
one, both have been working to improve ties with China?
A.: While improving relations,
you should keep the national interest in mind.
Q.: So, according to you the NDA
government's biggest achievements have been its policy on national security
and foreign affairs?
A.: Yes.
Q.: Was the NDA right in the way
it handled Pakistan?
A.: Pakistan's identity depends
on its enmity with India. And if this is removed then Pakistan will be
finished. Pakistan's administrators know this very well. If the people-to-people
relations improve, then Pakistan will not be able to survive. This whole
partition is artificial. They blame India for all their problems. For example,
in Bangladesh the price of salt had soared to about Rs 4-5. When the experts
were asked for a reason, they said because of India. When asked the price
of salt in India, the professors replied: Re 1. So, the poor man said then
why don't we become India. That is the belief of the common man.
Q.: The common man believes that
the Sangh does not want relations with Pakistan and China to improve. Do
you agree with the policies that the NDA government followed and now the
Dr Manmohan Singh government is following?
A.: We don't want the national
interests to be harmed in any way. There should be no compromises on that.
Today, Pakistan is sending militants trained in PoK to Kashmir to terrorise
people. Musharraf, under pressure from the US, has banned terrorist organisations.
Even so, they (militants) are being trained in PoK.
Q.: What will India gain if relations
with Pakistan improve?
A.: If the image improves among
the common people, then Pakistan will be finished. So, our gameplan should
be to try and improve relations.
Q.: That is why the Army is always
in power in Pakistan.
A.: Yes, the Army is always in
power. More importantly, they have removed all the madarsas from there.
However, the chief of all madarsas has said, 'We have been banned in Pakistan
but we will continue in India.' In border areas we have madarsas where
Pakistanis come to study.
Q.: Do you support the peace talks
with Pakistan?
A.: Yes, our only worry is national
interest. If Pakistan keeps promoting terrorism, we will not support the
peace talks.
Q.: I'll re-phrase the question.
Are the peace talks begun by Atalji and taken forward by Manmohan Singh,
in India's national interest?
A.: Yes, we should have peace with
all our neighbours.
Q.: What is happening right now,
is it in the national interest?
A.: Right now, they are promoting
terrorism. Terrorists are coming here after being trained there.
Q.: You believe terrorism has not
come down at all? Two Army chiefs and two PMs have said that infiltration
has come down.
A.: It has come down because of
border fencing. In Jodhpur, Army personnel told me that it (infiltration)
has come down. But PoK's a mountainous region and people keep coming in.
The Army has made the right arrangements but it should be given full powers.
Under international laws, if a country promotes terrorism in another country,
the latter has the right to wipe out all terrorist areas.
Q.: What is the final solution for
India and Pakistan?
A.: There is only one solution,
Pak should leave PoK. It is the only solution.
Q.: It's being said that the LoC
would be the solution now.
A.: We don't agree, because it
will not end there. It will whet their expansionist hunger; they would
want more - the whole of Kashmir.
Q.: But there has to be give and
take in a compromise?
A.: Give and take, why? They were
the ones who attacked.
Q.: Like this, there will be a war.
A.: Last time, when there was a
bomb explosion, the Army had said let us go and we will destroy the whole
area. But at that time, we didn't have the courage.
Q.: Now both countries have nuclear
weapons, is there any use of a war?
A.: If it happens, it'll happen.
We can't keep quiet all the time because of the scare of nuclear weapons.
Q.: Nuclear war is not an option.
A.: That's okay, but what's the
guarantee that they won't do it even after acquiring nuclear weapons. There's
no guarantee. Pakistan has converted all its money into Euros, so the US
has no control over it anymore.
Q.: The BJP has been there for 25
years and the RSS for 80 years. There's a generation gap between the two.
A.: Where do you see BJP in the future and where do you see BJP-RSS relations?
The whole Sangh has been told that
a new leadership should be allowed to emerge.
Q.: The BJP should also have a generational
shift?
A.: Yes, there should be a generational
shift in BJP also. We asked them, 'Till when are you going to be there?'
Q.: Atalji has been saying again
and again that he's tired and getting old.
A.: Yes, we are also saying it.
We are telling them to move aside and bring in new people. We are telling
them, as seniors advise the younger generation.
Q.: So it's time for some people
to retire in the BJP?
A.: It's also a matter of age.
It (generational shift) should happen. It has happened in RSS. When Balasaheb
in RSS got tired, he gave the reins to Rajju Bhaiyya.
Q.: When Atalji says, 'I'm tired,
I should retire', do you agree?
A.: Yes, I've been saying it for
a while now. When I met him, I told him, get new people and watch them.
Keep an eye on them and see the new leadership stand up in front of your
eyes. See that they stand properly.
Q.: There are a lot of new leaders,
from the RSS also, who don't match the RSS culture - a pen worth Rs 1 lakh,
a watch worth Rs 5 lakhs, a car worth Rs 25 lakhs.
A.: Those are not the people who
should be brought to the fore. They should bring people who can convey
the right values. It's their job to find these people. It's their job to
find the right people.
Q.: If it's only about age, Advaniji
is not much younger than Atalji.
A.: We think both of them should
step aside. And after stepping aside, they should watch the new leadership
come up. They should keep an eye and see that the new leadership is coming
up properly.
Q.: Whom do you see coming up in
the BJP?
A.: It's their job to think about
it.
Q.: The NDA-BJP was in power for
six years, it achieved some things. On others - Ram Mandir, Article 370
- it couldn't make progress. What was the level of communication between
the RSS and the BJP in these six years?
A.: They never consulted us. We
did not go to them either. But whenever we felt something was wrong, we
would speak to them. We told them to be in constant touch with the other
Sangh organisations. Everyone understands that there are limitations and
they'd have to work within these limitations.
Q.: But some people abused them.
A.: That was because there was
no dialogue. What could these people have done? So they said what they
wanted.
Q.: But the language they used.
A.: We told them, you have to control
your tongue.
Q.: Were you hurt by the kind of
language that was used against Vajpayeeji?
A.: Yes, we told them to watch
their words. Criticism is okay, but calling names is not.
Q.: Do you remember a time in the
six years when you had to tell the NDA that it had done something wrong?
A.: I had written a letter to them
asking them to meet representatives of the Vidyarthi Parishad, which had
a list of 74 demands, and look into their problems. At that time, Murli
Manohar Joshi was there. He agreed to some of the demands and for the rest
he set up a committee, which would look into the demands and make suggestions.
Q.: Did you tell them that you were
not satisfied with any of their foreign policies?
A.: Whenever it's about national
interest, we did tell them. For example, when Hindus were being tortured
in Bangladesh, we met them and told them that they were not doing anything,
and that's not good, because who else will care for the Hindus.
Q.: Did they do anything after you
told them?
A.: They heard us, but they didn't
really do anything. When we asked them what they were going to do, they
didn't have an answer.
Q.: There were two types of leaders
in the BJP government - one from RSS backgrounds, like Advani, Vajpayee,
Murli Manohar Joshi, and the other a new lot - Jaswant Singh, Sushma Swaraj,
Yashwant Sinha, Arun Shourie. Did you feel the performance of people with
a non-RSS background was better?
A.: It was good. Sushma Swaraj's
performance was good. Arun Shourie became controversial because of disinvestment.
We told him not to disinvest firms that are making profits. Disinvest only
those running in losses, we didn't have a problem with that.
Q.: The feeling was that leaders
from the RSS were playing the game of the corporate lobby.
A.: No, definitely not, there's
no question of the corporate lobby.
Q.: Didn't your people play the
game of the corporate lobby over telecom?
A.: No, telecom is a part of our
country.
Q.: Pro-Reliance, anti-Reliance,
pro-Essar, anti-Essar?
A.: We said that you should not
let foreign players come into telecom. You say 50 things over a phone;
those 50 things should not get into the wrong hands. That would not be
right. It should stay with the government.
Q.: What do you see as the future
of politics - BJP leaders, leaders with an RSS background or non-RSS background
leaders?
A.: All we want is the right people.
Q.: Do you want the BJP to widen
its reach?
A.: The BJP has to do it. If it
has to be in politics, it will have to go to all kinds of people. They'll
have to take new people with them.
Q.: And there will have to be a
generational shift?
A.: Yes, there will have to be.
Q.: You have seen politics for a
long time. Who do you think are the greatest leaders of the nation?
A.: When Nehruji came to power,
everything he did was not in the nation's interest. When the three defence
chiefs met him and told him their needs for the next 10 years, he said
that there is no need for an Army because we will not attack anyone.
Q.: Who are the two-three greatest
leaders of the nation?
A.: Indira Gandhi, her plus point
was that she never gave in to pressure. But she was self-centred. And so
whatever she did, she did to keep herself in power.
Q.: But you think she was a great
leader.
A.: Yes, from the national interest
point of view, we believe that she was good, but there's another side,
she was self-centred. The reason was that as a child she lived in Anand
Bhavan. Anand Bhavan is very big and she imagined ghosts in the rooms there.
Another thing, she grew up with servants. So whenever she wanted something,
they would give it to her. She got used to getting her own way. And because
she was scared, she kept saying that all these people are attacking us.
Q.: When I asked you about great
leaders, you first mentioned Indiraji.
A.: Indiraji knew how to find the
right people. Only if she had taken decisions in the national interest,
India would have got a new Chanakya.
Q.: Name another significant leader?
A.: Narasimha Rao, because he was
the only one who ruled for six years without being a part of the Nehru
clan.
Q.: Atalji called him guru ghantal.
A.: He was that in politics. But
he put a ban on the Sangh.
Q.: Both the leaders you have mentioned
are from the Congress. Name someone from another party, your group?
A.: In our group, Advaniji has
the administrative ability. But he did not want to be an alternate source
of power. So he never opposed Atalji in public, even on decisions that
were not in our interests.
Q.: On which issues did you tell
him to talk to Atalji?
A.: For the Bangladesh issue. We
told him to speak to him about the atrocities being committed on Hindus.
Q.: He didn't say anything in public?
A.: He didn't say anything in public.
He said that this is the first time we've got power and we should make
it work. We said being in power is not the only goal.
Q.: You haven't named Atalji in
the list?
A.: We don't think he's done anything
great. Atalji has taken some good decisions, but he cut himself off from
everyone, didn't communicate with anyone. This angered them and it gave
the impression that a big fight was going on.
Q.: According to you, will Vajpayeeji
be named when the history of this nation is written?
A.: It will depend on the person
writing it. It is difficult to assess the achievements of contemporary
personalities. Maybe after 30 years someone will make the right assessment.
Q.: If you are writing the history,
will you write about him?
A.: He improved the prestige of
the country, but he could have done a lot more. He didn't do it. For instance,
on the Supreme Court's decision on Ram Janmabhoomi, he could have given
it (undisputed land) back but he did not.
Q.: Did you consider a leadership
change in the last government?
A.: We didn't say it then but we
wanted new people to come up.
Q.: Did you ever think the PM should
be changed in those six years?
A.: No, we didn't think about it.
It is the BJP's job to think about the PM; we just advise them.
Q.: This is significant. You have
named Indiraji, Narasimha Rao, Advani, but you say that Atalji did some
great things but he could have done more. So can we say Atalji has denied
himself greatness.
A.: It's difficult to say. The
historians will decide. We can't say anything.
Q.: What is your view right now?
A.: We are very clear that Atalji
did things to improve the prestige of this country, but he should have
kept the lines of communication with everyone open and that he didn't do.
Q.: Since you criticised him a lot
after Tehelka, the feeling was that there was a lot of tension in the Sangh.
A.: The Sangh is aware, notices
things and says it. At baithaks we would explain it to him.
Q.: You were getting complaints?
A.: We would tell the BJP that
people are angry, and the only solution is to talk to them.
Q.: Did the public criticism tarnish
your image?
A.: We didn't criticise in public.
Q.: You did after Tehelka.
A.: What did we do after Tehelka?
Q.: You said things about Brajesh
Mishra.
A.: Yes, I said things about Brajesh
Mishra and they were absolutely right, he got very angry. Brajesh Mishra
had ties with both fronts. He had relations with both the BJP and Sonia
Gandhi. We told them, you have given him two responsibilities - he's the
national security advisor and also foreign affairs advisor. To do justice
to both he'll need 36 hours but there are only 24 hours in a day. Since
he's served abroad let him be foreign affairs advisor, find someone else
for national security advisor.
Q.: You were absolutely sure?
A.: I said it at a meeting in Delhi.
He got very angry because of it.
Q.: Didn't you feel that you were
interfering in matters of government?
A.: No, we just told them what
we thought was in the national interest. To do it or not was their choice.
Q.: And then, you spoke about Vajpayee's
family.
A.: When he became the PM, we told
him that you are old and you need somebody to take care of you. It's good
that your son-in-law is taking care of you. But don't let him interfere
in party affairs or government affairs. He replied what you are saying
is right but it's a little difficult.
Q.: Why was it difficult?
A.: We didn't ask.
Q.: After Tehelka, you said something.
A.: A lot of things were brought
to our attention.
Q.: You told Atalji about these
things?
A.: We told him, but he had his
compulsions.
Q.: What did he say?
A.: He didn't say anything.
Q.: Did he ever say don't say all
this, it's unfair?
A.: We never said anything outside.
Q.: He told me people were falsely
accusing his son-in-law.
A.: Yes, he said that. He said
people are just trying to malign his name. So, we said if people are saying
it, there has to be something behind it.
Q.: RSS people told us that he is
the NDA's Sanjay Gandhi.
A.: I don't know who's said it
in RSS. Advaniji has never let his son or daughter take advantage of his
position, he has told them to get ahead on your own. So, that was the kind
of ideal we wanted from Atalji also.
Q.: In the past 25 years, it has
happened twice that the RSS has helped Congress. Once was when Rajiv Gandhi
won the elections.
A.: No, this is wrong. At the time
of Rajiv Gandhi, there was a sympathy wave, because Indira had just been
killed. So, he got a majority.
Q.: The RSS was disillusioned with
the BJP. The BJP had said that RSS is talking about Gandhian socialism.
A.: Yes, it said that if you leave
your vote bank with them, it would be wrong.
Q.: You don't agree with Gandhian
socialism?
A.: It's not about Gandhian socialism.
Gandhiji never talked about socialism. These are opposite viewpoints. Gandhiji
talked about decentralising power but socialism talks about centralised
power.
Q.: And the second was in Kerala.
You have said it earlier too that the RSS helped the Congress to defeat
the Marxists.
A.: Yes, in 2001 we told the BJP
to put up 40 candidates in the elections and that its main aim should be
to get two-three of them into the Vidhan Sabha, so that they would have
a voice. But the leadership wanted to field candidates from all places.
Since the contests would be close, and given the RSS's violent struggle
with the Marxists, we had to do something.
Q.: Vayalar Ravi came to meet R
Hari.
A.: In Cherthala in 1991, he came
at midnight. He wanted us to join him but we told him to come back in daylight.
Q.: He has denied the meeting.
A.: He can say so. He hasn't seen
me and I haven't seen him.
Q.: Today, to keep BJP-RSS out of
power, Congress and Marxists have come together. Will it ever happen that
to keep Marxists out, Congress, BJP and RSS will join hands?
A.: It can happen. In politics,
it all depends on the situation. Nobody is a permanent friend or a permanent
enemy.
Q.: And no one is untouchable?
A.: No one is untouchable.
Q.: But you are considered untouchable
right now?
A.: We can't do anything about
it. Earlier the Congress was the focus of all opposition. Now it's BJP.
Q.: You don't rule out this kind
of an alliance? This turnaround can happen in politics?
A.: Yes, it can happen.
Q.: So, Congress is not untouchable?
A.: We don't consider them untouchable
even today. The Sangh has no politics of its own.
Q.: And Marxists?
A.: Sangh members can be a part
of any party that doesn't believe in violence and has the country's interest
in mind. In 1949, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had passed a resolution that
Sangh members can join Congress. Nehruji was not in the country at that
time. When he came back, he was told that if this happens, then the Sangh
would form its own group and displace you.
Q.: Who is the bigger enemy today
- the Congress or the Marxists?
A.: It's not like that. It depends
on the situation. In any case, the Marxists have never been a part of this
country. Now, since they are not getting any help from China and Russia,
they are saying that it's no use looking that way. In Kerala, they are
even talking of a fourth world.
Q.: One M is for Marxists and the
other M is Modi. Have Narendra Modi's actions marred the nation's image?
A.: After the elections, Modi got
a majority. Gujarat's affairs are given undue importance.
Q.: Marxists have also been winning
with a majority in West Bengal.
A.: They have been winning but
they haven't done anything for the people. Modi has done a lot. And that
is why, even though all this was happening, foreigners were still coming
to Gujarat. The problem is his style. He's takes right decisions, but he
needs to take everyone along.
Q.: When the riots happened in Gujarat,
did you ever feel that it was wrong?
A.: I said it at that time too
that a lot of innocent people are getting killed.
Q.: So, you would want people to
be punished for it?
A.: It was the people's anger at
that time. It wasn't just people from the BJP. It was a lot of other people.
Q.: But 2,000 people died. Somebody
should be punished for it.
A.: Hindus also died in the riots.
You say the law rules. Even in the Bombay blasts a lot of people died,
but all the accused went free. That's the way the law works, everyone goes
scot-free.
