ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/Era Sezhiyan -- II

'The party system has given way to a personality cult. It is a dangerous trend.'

In 1996, you said the United Front chose to take the help of the Congress to form the government at the Centre because you considered the BJP a greater menace. Don't you feel the same now?

I don't feel that way now. What is politics after all? We want to give maximum benefit to the maximum people. The aim of politics should be to raise the standard of the people to the maximum.

But how many parties are really interested in raising the standard of the poor?

I can understand the people's sentiments. Let me tell you about our alliance with the BJP. First, a coalition with the BJP is not new. When Mrs Gandhi split the Congress into Congress-I and Congress-O, stalwarts like Kamaraj and others from the Congress-O, who had hitherto opposed the BJP, which was then called the Jan Sangh, went in coalition with it. In 1975, when the entire structure of the democratic form of government came close to extinction under the Emergency, the Congress-O, Jan Sangh and all Socialist groups joined. That was the beginning of the Janata experiment.

The government of Morarji Desai in modern phraseology was a coalition government where George Fernandes, Vajpayee, Advani, Sikander Bakht and many such leaders from different parties were there. Later it got divided and the reason was personality clashes.

The institution of party became the personal property of individuals in 1969. Individualism took over from the party system. Mrs Gandhi started it. Charan Singh did it later. Chandra Shekhar also did it. They did not differ in the basic policies or approach of the parent body; what they wanted was power to themselves.

So the deterioration started with Mrs Gandhi.

That's right. The party system has given way to a personality cult. It is a dangerous trend. That is why I said, differences of opinion are bound to be there in a democracy. If they are not there, it is not democracy.

We were talking about your opinion on the Lok Shakti's alliance with the BJP.

Yes, different parties have different ideologies. Just because I am in the coalition does not mean I have accepted the BJP's ideology or what the BJP did earlier or what they talk about now. I may not accept the basic ideology of the BJP though I am its coalition partner. If I had accepted all their programmes and policies, I need not be in another party. I should become a member of the BJP.

But though we have our own ideologies, we have come together for a certain purpose. What is that purpose? That has been laid down in the national agenda for governance. Whenever a decision is taken, I look into the national agenda and see whether it comes within its orbit. If not, I am free to oppose it. To that extent, yes, we have restricted our own scope of governance.

Do you still consider the BJP a communal party?

The same charge can be made against many other parties. I don't deny that the BJP has a communal base. The more regional a party, the more communal and parochial it is. If I go and work in a place where the dominant group is one community, most of my pronouncements will be in favour of what the people want for that community.

Then why is only the BJP labelled communal? Many intellectuals and parties call themselves secular, but at the same time cater to a particular caste or religion.

That is because of past experiences. The BJP was a party that stressed on Hindutva and many such things. But I don't accept people calling it communal. The definition of communalism differs from state to state, party to party. Take, for example, the Left parties. They call themselves radical. Then how do they ally with the Muslim League in Kerala? They say they are against corruption. But they support the Bihar government. Every party, every government swears by secularism and purity of political conduct, but how do they behave?

How do you define secularism and communalism?

It is very, very difficult. If you are for the protection of certain basic rights denied to a class of people like the labour class, the suppressed communities, etc, you are not communal. Remember, in India, class is synonymous with caste. If you want to improve the status given to a scheduled caste person, you are not indulging in communalism because you are protecting certain rights.

[But] if a party wants to help the dominant community, which already enjoys economic and feudal power, then you can say that party is perpetuating a centuries-old dominance, which they have gained illegally and surreptitiously. We condemn that as communalism as it adds to the misery of another group of people. If the Muslim League says we are a minority and want to protect our rights, then we have to help them and bring them to the mainstream.

So it is because the BJP talks in favour of the majority community that it is called communal?

Even there, I do not have any opposition to them helping the majority. But the rule of the majority should not be at the expense of the minority. The basic principle of democracy is that every individual has the right to live. Ninety-nine members of a society cannot join hands and persecute one person.

Then why can't we have a uniform law for all citizens?

The famous American jurist and judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said the essence of law is not logic but experience. If you take the case of Tamil Nadu, a boy can marry his father's sister's daughter. This is pure incest in Europe. In the Muslim community, a man can marry his 'father's brother's daughter, which we consider incest. In Egypt, brothers married sisters; that was how Cleopatra's brother became her husband. If I go to Europe, I have to abide by their law, which is not in consonance with my experience.

Legality alone will not survive in a society unless people accept the law. Gandhiji once said that in the land of thieves, an anti-thievery law will not survive.

What about the codification of Hindu law, leave alone the mistakes, as it varies from community to community and region to region? A common law should not be the law followed by the majority. What I say is, first you define a common law for Hindus, as a common Hindu law is not there.

Going back to the BJP's governance, are you happy with the way the central government is functioning? What do you say about the rise of small fascist groups, which are supposed to be close to the BJP? Are they not inflicting more harm on the BJP than anybody else?

You are right. We alliance partners have come together on a national agenda. Even Vajpayee tries to govern based on that agenda. But those friendly parties that claim to be nearer to the BJP are doing more harm to the government than anyone. With such 'friendly parties' around him, Vajpayee need not have any enemies.

The approach of those parties is different. It is not political but built on certain beliefs and rituals. So we shun their approach. I feel even the BJP has realised this. So they are trying to come out of the grip of these parties and their ideology. To that extent, it is good for the country.

Now the problem is, there is a general belief that the continuance of the government is not only in their hands but also in the reluctance or un-preparedness or the opportunistic waiting of the Congress. Let me tell the Congress one thing. If it feels that this government is not good, let them form the government. But they do not want to fall into the trap. They may be waiting for an absolute majority. But the truth is, people have given the BJP-led coalition the mandate. So, we should continue governing.

But are you happy with the way the BJP has governed in the last one year?

In the present circumstances, what with the partners not supporting them in a cohesive way, they have performed in the best possible way. Let me first mention the good deeds. Communal harmony has not worsened.

Two, we have improved relations with neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan. The bus journey to Lahore has given confidence in the minds of people not only here but there too. Nobody can change the fact that we are neighbours.

Three, within the framework of the economic crisis that has [gripped] the world, India has remained the same. Japanese growth has faltered, production in China has fallen, the value of money has fallen in many countries, but we have not gone down.

Yes, the government appears to be tottering. But you have to admit that it is more transparent than all other governments we have had till now, (laughs) whatever happens inside, whether it is the transfer of one person or posting of another, is out in the open the next day!

What are the negatives?

People expected stability from the government. I feel Indians prefer stability to goodness. In that context, people may feel this government has failed. It appears to be unstable all the time (laughs again).

Isn't this feeling of instability created by the BJP's own partners, especially the AIADMK?

I am not blaming this partner alone. There are others too, who create the same type of havoc. One day they will condemn an act of the government. Next day they will themselves say they support it.

The negative image is helping the Congress a lot. The Congress has not done anything positive, but the negative image of the BJP strengthens them. I also agree that people are not satisfied or as enthusiastic as they were a year ago, although in the last one or two months, the government is performing well. You need a mandate not only in the elections, it should continue also.

Here, let me tell you something about the CPI-M which is considered to be more organised, more experienced. The same CPI-M, the same CPI, were clamouring for the dismissal of the Bihar government because of rampant corruption and communal politics one year ago. Now Jyoti Basu says his party will support the Rabri Devi government in the vote of confidence. What does it mean? Why should the party change its stand?

Why, indeed?

Because opportunism has come to the forefront. Political standards have deteriorated.

These days all politicians say that everything comes down to numbers, politics is a game of numbers. They have no qualms talking about the numbers game. Is that not the real deterioration?

Yes, it is. It will take some time to change. Quite often, people have asked me whether democracy has failed in India. I will say, democracy has not failed in India, we have failed democracy. Parties, politicians and intellectuals have become destroyers of basic democratic practices. First, you have not provided the people with education. You have given them an opportunity to choose a person, but you have not given them the opportunity to learn how to choose.

'There is nothing wrong in being a regional party. You may confine yourself to a region, but your outlook should be national.'

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview