'The BJP does not find the same hostility to us as there was 10 months ago'

Kewal Ratan Malkani came to India from Hyderabad, Sind in 1947. An ardent member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh even in Sind, he later became close to Lal Kishinchand Advani. Considered one of the Bharatiya Janata Party's leading thinkers, along with Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, Govindacharya and Jay Dubashi, he entered the Rajya Sabha in 1984. In this interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf, he discusses the latest political developments:

After the fall of Deve Gowda's government, what kind of political situation is likely to emerge?

The Congress has clearly stated that it wants the UF to change its leader... Even if the UF agrees to do that, there is no guarantee that the Congress would not withdraw support, say, after two months or four months.

There lies another problem in the UF. They have leaders like Harkishan Singh Surjeet who say that the Congress must not dictate terms to them. He does not realise that no party will support another party if its cause is not served... The Congress may keep quiet today. But they will ask for their rights tomorrow or maybe after some months.

Going by experience, the Congress has never enjoyed 50 per cent power. So, they cannot adjust to the fact that someone else is enjoying power with their support. At the same time, the UF won't like interference in their policy matters by another party as they now have their personal egos and ambitions to consider. So even if the crisis is solved, in the coming days it will not give the country a stable government. One option left is that regional parties join hands with the BJP... If even that does not work out, there is no other option but a fresh election.

Seeing the present constitutional crisis, do you think India needs a Presidential form of government?

The Presidential system is okay. There is no harm in it. But, the only problem is that for the last 50 years our country is used to a parliamentary system. So people will not easily understand the Presidential system. Perhaps, we can work out the combination of the two, as in France.

Do you think we need to amend the Constitution?

We want to amend some articles... For example, Article 370. And also, Article 356. Under this Article (356), the government can, under some excuse or the other, dismiss duly elected state governments. We would like this to be amended. We would also suggest that it requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament to okay Article 356 and not a simple majority. A couple of other Articles -- 29 and 30, which give minorities rights to run their institutions etc -- must also be amended. This facility is denied to Hindus. We would like to enlarge this Article so that all the sections of society have this right.

Do you think India should opt for a system wherein any government must compulsorily rule for a minimum period, and which, under no circumstances, can be pulled down?

No, this is not feasible. Under a parliamentary democracy, if a government loses a majority, it has to go. However, if this matter is considered apt by all parties, then we can have a system where the ruling party rules the country for a minimum period.

The BJP says the UF should not be allowed to form a government as it has lost its majority in the House. What right has the BJP to form a government since it too could not prove its majority 10 months ago and had to resign? How do you expect the President to invite you to form a government?

We have issued that statement because the UF government was dismissed now. Our experience happened last year. So much has happened in this time. And today, we do not find the same hostility to us as there was 10 months ago. So, it is possible that if we are allowed to form the government, many regional parties will join hands with us and share power.

Why has the BJP not been able to do better with the regional parties in the south?

Apart from Karnataka, we do not have a big presence in the South. South Indians don't know much about us. And we too do not know much about them. Secondly, a party like the Tamil Maanila Congress was born yesterday; it may disappear tomorrow. The Telugu Desam Party basically started as an Andhra Gaurav Party, because NTR was insulted by late prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. The DMK, of course, is a different kettle of fish.

But we are beginning to have some kind of understanding with all these parties. And I am sure that some time in the future some kind of arrangement can be worked out.

What is your opinion about a national government?

A national government has been mooted earlier also. National governments are formed on a consensus basis. But after the election the party should come together, join hands, share responsibility and power. You see, except in one election in 1984 when the Congress won an absolute majority, no government in India has got over 50 per cent of votes.

Now that power is enjoyed by those people who enjoy less than 50 per cent votes; the remaining 50 per cent of the people feel neglected. So it will be good for not only the biggest party, but also the second- and third-largest parties to be invited to form the government.

Imagine a government headed by A B Vajpayee and Jyoti Basu. There will be no corruption in these parties. And today the situation in India is that people who are second rate politicians are in power only because their party is in a majority.

So do you mean that a national government is a solution?

No, I mean to say that people have suggested this national government. But the problem is that people are not used to it. Some people say that a national government was formed only during a war in the United Kingdom. True enough. But the UK is smaller than our state of Bihar. Here we have to put our heads together to solve this problem. And if we don't, the people suffer.

Why then didn't you support Deve Gowda's government?

You see during this crisis, people have been meeting A, calling B, calling on C... How could we associate with a crowd which had leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav, Laloo Prasad Yadav. We were opposed to that kind of a combination.

When the BJP could convince parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party to form an alliance in Uttar Pradesh, why could it not convince other parties?

May be sooner or latter, we will have arrangements with other parties also. It takes time for an understanding between two parties.

What about George Fernandes's suggestion that the Congress and BJP should form a coalition government?

You see, there was a time when the Congress used to lead the country. And now it has ceased to do that. Even if the BJP joins the Congress, it will be a kind of opportunist alliance. The BJP has a certain philosophy... The Congress has no philosophy. If Nehru was alive today, all Congressmen would become secular and socialist. And if Manmohan follows liberalisation, all Congressmen will talk about globalisation. So the Congress party has no conviction. It does not have an ideology.

Can you name any Congress leader today who is close to the BJP-RSS, since there are allegations that P V Narasimha Rao was hand-in-glove with the BJP?

I won't agree that Rao was close to the BJP. But I don't hesitate to say that, privately, most Congressmen agree with the BJP's ideology. Publicly, they will not. They tell us privately, "If we get close to you, we will lose the Muslim vote."