'Some More Competent Persons Should Be Inducted Into The PMO'

K.S. Sudershan has been treading a minefield of controversies ever since he tookover as RSS sarsanghchalak last March. Starting with his suggestion to Indianise Islam andChristianity to the "bomb theory" on the Babri Masjid demolition, almost all hisstatements evoked varied reactions ranging from anger to sniggers. His latest salvoagainst the prime minister's men—Brajesh Mishra, N.K. Singh and foster son-in-lawRanjan Bhattacharya—was seen as a direct attack on Atal Behari Vajpayee. Alreadyknee-deep in the Tehelka crisis, the PMO's public denial forced Sudershan to retract hischarge about the "extra-constitutional authority" in the prime minister's house.His retraction was preceded by an all-out criticism from within the rank andfile—probably the first time in the history of RSS that the sarsanghchalak came undercriticism from his own swayamsevaks.

Even though resentment exists in the RSS about Vajpayee's style of functioning, it wasfelt that criticising the government at an hour of crisis would mean helping the Congressand the communists. However, Sudershan sticks to his stand that "more competent"people should be inducted in the PMO. The RSS sarsanghchalak spoke to Rajesh Joshi.

You have categorically said that the officials in the PMO are not competent enough. Doyou have some names in mind who could serve the PMO better?

We do not have any names. It's for the government to find out. What I mean to say isthat ultimately, there are many things that a single man cannot handle. A single manhandling two important things: foreign affairs as well as national security. Each of themrequire 16 to 18 hours of monitoring. So one man cannot handle them. It is for thegovernment to decide. Brajesh Mishra is adept in handling foreign affairs because he hasbeen in the field for long. Now, he has been given an additional charge. It's the primeminister's prerogative to choose his own team. But if two important matters are handled bya single man, will he will be able to do justice to both? Therefore some more competentpersons should be inducted.

I don't want to compare at all. I do not know much about what Ranjan Bhattacharya isdoing. So whether he is an extra constitutional authority or not I don't know. How can Icompare him with Sanjay Gandhi?

The image of the RSS built by the sacrifices by our swayamsevaks over the last 75 yearsand it cannot be sullied by such political storms. Though it did engulf one of ourswayamsevaks, we are satisfied that he has resigned the post and is ready for a judicialprobe and wants to get his name cleared. As far as the moral authority is concerned, itdoes not mean that we can dictate to any of our sister organisations. They are allindependent organisations and take their own decisions.

There is no question of being apologists or play down the wrongdoings. We take anoverall view of the national situation. As the story is slowly unfolding, there appears tobe a well-considered conspiracy to destablise the present government.

Who do you think is responsible for this?

There are some vested interests. Maybe in the economic field -- in the stock market.Some political figures may also be involved.

Are you saying that the media is just a puppet?

I am not saying that. The controversy is being probed by the government. At the presentjuncture, to destabilise the government without an alternative in sight will be disastrousbecause the country is facing so many problems. There are many defects in the government;they can be pointed out. The government itself has come forward for a thorough discussionin Parliament and have a judicial probe into the allegations that have been levelledagainst it. Instead, the Opposition is this as an opportunity to indulge in streetpolitics. That is not proper at this juncture.

We expect all our organisations to grow and act on their own. We don't expect that theyshould always come to us for guidence etc. It's only in the initial stages that we givethem some logistic suport. And we don't consider ourselves to be experts on every field.

As far as the RSS constitution is concerned, we have given freedom to our swayamsewaksto join any political party provided it does not believe in violence and does not have anyextra-territorial loyalty. But as things stand today, other political parties are notaccepting our swayamsevaks unless they sever their links with the RSS, which ourswayamsevaks, are not ready to do. Therefore, while earlier it was the Jana Sangh, now itis the BJP that’s left for swayamsevaks who want to opt for a political career.That’s why you find many of the swayamsevaks in the BJP today. But the BJP does notconsist only of swayamsevaks, it’s a mass-based organisation.

(Laughs) There is no subtle change. When some pointed question was asked about SanjayGandhi and (Ranjan) Bhattacharya, I made only a general statement that as far as theresignation of the government is concerned, the government should not resign. So, if it ismisreported and we correct it, you say we have changed our stand. That is wrong.

I don't talk of the media, but I can tell you that we had our national meet here and wedid not discuss the subject at all.

Were you criticised within the RSS?

Not at all. As we have so much of faith amongst ourselves, they believe that whateveris being done is in the right perspective and in the national interest. The swayamsevakswere a bit sorry that one of our swayamsevaks was engulfed in the (controversy). We knowthe limitations of the present government. I don't mean that the PM doesn't (listen). WhatI mean to say that in the present state of affairs, when he is running a coalitiongovernment, it may not be possible to follow all the suggestions that we give him fromtime to time. We understand his constraints also.

But the controversy was created when the PMO issued a statement criticising your stand.

That’s all right. What happened was that Doordarshan presented my statement insuch a manner…. While I had made a general statement that there should be noextra-constitutional authority.

And you still stick to that?

Yes. Every decision should be taken by the cabinet. That’s what I said. Thequestion itself mentioned Ranjan Bhattacharya’s name, somebody twisted it and saidthe RSS does not approve of it….

But, if Ranjan Bhattacharya does something objectionable, don’t you have the moralright…

That’s all right, but I don’t know what he is doing there. I only said he isthe adopted son-in-law of the present PM. I don’t have any direct (introduction) withhim. I can go and meet A.B. Vajpayee when it is required. He’s the kind to give anaudience and we discuss if it’s needed. In the initial stages, I sometimes saw him(Ranjan) at meals, that’s all. Otherwise, I’ve no interaction with him.

Don’t you think you’ll now lose direct access to the PM’s house?

No never. Because Atal behari Vajpayee and we have been together for many years. Hedoesn’t have any wrong opinion about the RSS. So many people come to the primeminister, feed him with so many different sorts of news and opinions. But ultimately, theprime minister is intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong. He can neversay that the RSS is wrong.

Aisa hai, koi policies is prakar ki hongi na !! If we say this particular policy isnot good in the national interest that’s because we consider everything from theangle of national interest. We then write about it, speak about it and pass resolutions.Why do you take it as our criticism of the government. The government has a differentperception and I have a different one. For example, when the government extended theceasefire in Kashmir for three months, we had a different perception based on ourfeedback. Maybe the government was right because they had to take into account severalthings including the international situation. So, at times it may appear that there is adifference between the government and our thinking. Arre, ghar ke andar bhi kisi baatpar do logon ke beech matbhed hita hai ki nahin? (Don’t two people in a familydiffer on some questions?)

We did not question the competence of Jaswant Singh. We had suggested that since he hadlost the election, inducting him as a minister would have send a wrong signal. Thereforeif he were to be allowed to work for the party for some time and then inducted and broughtto the Rajya Sabha, it would be better.

Because of the tremendous public support that the Ram temple movement generated, thethen Congress government also had to bow to public opinion. Rajiv Gandhi agreed to earmarkthe place for shilanyas and commenced his election campaign from Ayodhya. When such strongsentiments are sought to be flouted either by political machinations or by creating legalhurdles, public anger can flair up. That's what happened on December 6, 1992. No politicalparty can go against public sentiment.

What they will do, I don't know. There is a strong public sentiment and even theCongress will not be able to go against it.

The RSS does not have any understanding with the governemnt on economic matters. Thepro-West, pro IMF-World Bank officers are still there in the government. Whenever you wantto change track, you cannot do it all of a sudden. If you want to make an about turn, youcan do it immediately. There are many people who feel that the Western model ofdevelopment is good for the country.

The SJM does not take money from the government. It does not have a fund of its own. Inswadeshi melas government departments put up their stalls. How do you think the SJM isgoing to meet the ends. They are not accepting any money from the government because onceyou accept the money from the government, you cannot do anything.

We do not carry out a tirade against anybody. That's the way the RSS is sought to bepainted by vested political interests. Had we been anti-somebody, we could not have grownto such extents, despite the propaganda that has been unleashed against us.

He did not comment on the whole community. His observation was only on that sectionwhich acted against the interests of the country and was trying to instigate the Muslims.

A condensed form of the interview has appeared in the magazine issue dated 9 April 2001.