'Mandal Rides Over Everything'

Transcript of the BBC Hindi Special Programme Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath with the former PrimeMinister on: Do political parties care for the common man anymore?

Nagendar Sharma: Is there any space in Indian politics for issues that concern the common man today?

V.P. Singh : These issues have been ignored to a large extent. Politics is being done on emotive and casteist issueswhich has increased the problems of poverty,employment, and food for the common man. But I feel that now these issues are beginning to trouble the rulingclass and in the coming days politics would be dominated by developmental issues.

BBC listener from Katihar (Bihar) : Why is it that the electoral promises are never implemented. Forexample during the last elections the NDA had promised to provide one crore jobs a year. Why can’t theelectoral promises be made legally binding on the political parties so that they do not deceive the innocentvoters?

V.P. Singh : Such promises remain largely unfulfilled and have become meaningless. I feel that it is the public, the voters, who have the solution, and it is the pressure thatthey should exert on their representatives. The public pressure should be so intense that politiciansthink twice before making tall promises. At the same time, I favour a broad framework which oversees thatimpractical promises are not made before the elections.

Nagendar Sharma: But, Mr Singh, is this not really a joke on the democracy, that one crore jobs were promised by thecoalition last time, which came to power, and after five years, this time the main opposition party has madethe same promise? All such things--making promises, forgetting them for five years and again comingup with them in another form--are leading to a loss in people’s trust.

V.P. Singh : Yes people are losing trust in electoral promises and manifestoes are not being taken seriously bythe voters, but the public anger required for action is missing. 

It is the public which would have to show anger to wake those making wild promises. Till the time the elected publicrepresentatives--ministers etc.-- face protest demonstrations and are gheraoed, they wouldnot understand the disservice they are doing to the public. So it is the public that is the raja in democracy- a raja has to punish those who deliberately make mistakes. Therefore the public--the raja-- must punish those in the elections who do not work.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Singh, the forces whom you brand communal today are the ones with whom you aligned to defeatthe Congress in 1989. In fact you provided them with a strong foothold in the country’s politics...

V.P. Singh : Let's  look at the picture in totality and bear in mind the atmosphere of that time.Everyonewanted to remove the Congress from power. There was a tremendous pressure from the minorities to remove theCongress. I had the JP experience and example in front of me. Still, only after consultation with all likeminded parties and leaders was it decided that we would, as Janta Dal, have an understanding with the BJP at thestate level only. Despite that, we fought against them in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa and all other Southernstates. The understanding in states also was not complete.

But I did not compromise on principles, and did not share a common platform with them. When people say Iwas with BJP, they forget the other side of the picture. What were the options for the BJP? They came to anunderstanding with us because they had no other option.

Still, we made it clear that no divisive issue would be allowed, and all these things like templeconstruction, and other communal issues were not touched. It is true that the BJP did not live up to its promise, and all of a sudden raked up thetemple issue, butit did not take me a minute to part ways. I did not think about the Prime Minister’s chair even once, whileparting ways with them. When they resorted to such a divisive game, I did not compromise with principles andgave up the chair. I admit that now, after Gujarat riots, I feel sad and I regret that I ever had an understanding or anyrelationship with such forces. 

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Singh, you formed the government in 1989 with the support of BJP. Their top leadership says yourgovernment fell because Mr Laloo Yadav stopped the rath yatra of Mr Advani and arrested him. Do you agree withthem that Laloo Yadav was responsible for your government’s fall ?

V.P. Singh : How could Laloo Yadav be held responsible? It is the BJP, which was directly responsible forthe government’s fall. Today I saw Mr L K Advani on the TV, saying that the Ayodhya dispute can be resolvedeither by the verdict of the court or through mutual talks. Who would oppose this? I hope I could be presentwhere Mr Advani was giving this sermon. I would like to politely tell him that it was you only who opposedthis same solution 15 years ago.

At that time Mr Advani was adamant in saying that temple construction is a matter of faith. I, being Prime Minister, had suggested to them that either the court verdict be honoured else the settlement has to bemutual. But Mr Advani and VHP said they needed the temple at any cost, and they put the country on fire. 

Nowwhat happened today? If what they are saying today was to be the solution, they should apologise to thosefamilies whosemembers were killed in the temple movement. Let's leave this. I have no regret for the loss of my government on an issue of principle.

BBC listener from Raipur : Mr Singh, you are the leader who highlighted the Bofors issue. But being theDefence Minister at that time, were you also not responsible for all that happened? And are you not theperson who raised an issue like Bofors the mystery of which can never be known, except that during everyelection it is raked by one party or the other for political reasons? Why don’t you apologise before thenation ?

V.P. Singh : Let me make it clear: Bofors issue was not my creation. It was Radio Sweden which broadcast thestory first of all. It is misleading to say that I am the one who was behind it. And that too after I hadresigned from the post of Defence Minister.

Then it was The Hindu which published all the documents of Swiss bank accounts. All I was saying was only that allthis should be probed, and that too because of the reason that the government was consistently changing itsstance. First the government said no money transfer was involved. I challenged it, and it was proved thatmoney had been given. Then the government said no middlemen were involved. I challenged that too, and the roleof middlemen was proved. Finally, the government said the money given was for winding up charges. I challenged thattoo. And what Iwas saying was proved. Why should I apologise when what all I had said turned out to be correct?

Bofors is perhaps the only case, in which the wrong transfer of money has been proved in the court beyonddoubt, people involved have been identified, and I cannot recall any other case which had so much success. Sowhyshould I be apologetic ? I am clear to the extent that after Rajivji's assassination, I have never raked up this issue. Please askthose who are doing it now. 

BBC listener from Meerut : I feel that issues do not matter in Indian democracy. Look at Mr V.P. Singh himself--he began the Mandal issue, but today he is noton the scene, and it benefited the likes of Mayawati,Laloo and Mulayam. How do you feel ?

V.P. Singh : One thing is clear, Mandal rides over everything. Every single political party has to accommodatebackwards and poor in the party. Mandal is a historic element, which nobody can ignore. I agree that political parties now use the issues to come to power and then conveniently forget thoseissues. Look at those ruling today, they began shouting "Swadeshi, Swadeshi".. May I know what happened toSwadeshi today?

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Singh, if we look down the Indian electoral history, 1989 was the only election which wasspecifically fought with corruption as the major issue, and you were seen as the hero by the Indian masses,though subsequent developments made that issue irrelevant. Why is it that elections in India are not fought onissues concerning the people?

V.P. Singh : Because the political parties have learnt the art of swaying people by emotive issues, whichat least last till the voters reach the polling booths and cast their votes. Now look at the present example of‘feel good’. It is ridiculous that a government is making such claims, at a time when 21 women lost theirlives during the free distribution of sarees, the cost of which is being cited at Rs 20 now. Is it India Shiningor India in the dark?

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Singh the ruling NDA has been able to divert the attention of the people from issues, whichcould have created anti-incumbency, and at the moment they are leading a positive campaign, and the oppositionlooks issueless to grill the government...

V.P. Singh : I think this is not the case, though the media might think on these lines. Tell me what about thosepoor farmers who are having to commit suicides because they are unable to clear the debts? Look at the plightof weavers. Workers are being thrown out of factories. And the condition of the unemployed youth is not hiddenfrom anyone. Therefore the present government is like Nero of Rome, who was happy fiddling when Rome wasburning. Similarly,these people are spreading ‘feel good’ when the hungry stomachs of poor people are burning. Is itIndia burning or India shining ?

The reality cannot be ignored by mere propaganda. Maybe a small strata of economically well-offpeople are feeling good – those who have airconditioned cars, big bungalows and sleek mobile phones, butcertainly not the common people of India. Though nobody denies that globalisation and privatisation is to happen

BBC listener from Bihar : Mr Singh you have described it as ‘India Burning’. But what do you have tosay during your own tenure when hundreds of budding engineers and doctors burnt themselves in protest againstMandal recommendations? The reality is let any party rule, it is the common people who are burnt.

V.P. Singh : It is the newspapers who flamed the fire in the minds of youth and created such a situation.Newspapers must take the responsibility. Had they acted responsibly--leave aside my version, had theywritten even a little bit on what the Supreme Court was saying at that time, which was impartial, so manylives would not have been lost.

And see what happened after that--not only the apex court of the country, but all the political partiesadopted what I was saying at that time. Remember I had appealed to the youth of the country that if they wantto fight against me, they should remain alive and not give up their lives. 

It is the newspapers of that time who gave a wrong direction to the entire happenings. But at least thepoor, the backwards and the downtrodden did not feel neglected during my tenure as they do feel now.

BBC listener from Aligarh : Mr Singh despite all the controversies, you started the process of social justicein this country. But the BJP had the emotional Ram Temple issue to divide the public, which resulted in yourgovernment falling and social justice was lost. Why don’t you re-start your efforts, what are the hurdles?

V.P. Singh : My limitation is my body now. I go for dialysis thrice a week, and recently I have been asked toundergo Chemotherapy. But despite all these limitations, I would continue my efforts for the people, throughmedia, newspaper columns and till the time I can, I would definitely fight for social justice.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Singh are there chances of your returning to active politics?

V.P. Singh : It is the limitation of my body. I go for dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.Thesethree days I am fighting for my life. Then once a week I fight for those poor people living in jhuggi-jhoprisof Delhi.

It is difficult for me to do the running around, and I feel that if once you take some task, you shouldcomplete it and it should not be abandoned midway. If one does that, it would be deception, and I would not liketo do such a thing. Still I do what all I can, but my body has made things difficult for me.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Singh, I am asking you this question because you are seen as the rallying forces fornon-Congress and  non-BJP forces. You were offered prime-ministership in 1996, but you declined. What could be the situationafter this election, if you are not returning to active politics, what is future of these parties?

V.P. Singh : I declined the offer in 1996 only to prove that I do not run after the chair. Even in 1989, Iwas reluctant to take up the prime-ministership, but partymen and allies forced me to accept it. Therefore in1996 I was determined to give an answer to my critics and that is why I declined the offer. As for now, despite my ailment, I would do whatever I can to prevent the communal forces from coming topower, as India should not be divided on communal lines.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Singh, those people and leaders who were with you in your fight for socialjustice aretoday standing with those whom you describe as communal forces. How do you feel?

V.