Two Fundamental Questions

Way back in April, we had tried to put in perspective the controversy aroundthe remarks by the RSS Sarsanghchalak, .K.S. Sudarshan. In our April 25, 2005print issue, in a story titled, Patriarch's Hard Glare,Saba Naqvi Bhaumik had reported:

in March end, a group of BJP and RSS 'intellectuals' gathered in Bhopal for what was dubbed a two-day 'thinkers meet', chaired by Sudarshan and his deputy Mohanrao Bhagwat. The RSS members viewed the event as an opportunity to discuss problems between the Sangh and the BJP. But they came away with the impression that the BJP representatives had responded to even mild criticism with arrogance.

L.K. Advani's aide Sudheendra Kulkarni calmly told Sudarshan the Hindu vote was "a myth" and chasing it was "undemocratic". For effect, he said the BJP must reach out to Muslims and even defended Jawaharlal Nehru.

It is significant that the Sarsanghchalak had not only singled out Nehru andVajpayee for criticism or asked Vajpayee and Atal to step down, but had alsolavishly praised Indira Gandhi and P.V. Narasimha Rao's tenures as primeministers. Recently, the RSS sarsanghchalak was in news again for his praise ofIndira Gandhi and criticism of Nehru. While the RSS was quick to"explain" the remarks on Indira Gandhi and Congress to take umbrage atthe remakrs on Nehru, the on-going battle between the RSS and the BJP was out inthe open once again with a national daily front-paging more details from thepaper presented by Sudheendra Kulkarni at the ‘Thinkers Meet’ in Bhopal on March 23 and 24,reported above by Outlook in its April 25 issue.

It needs no stressing that Kulkarni has been widely seen as the ideological aide to both Vajpayee when he was prime minister and to Advani in his current term as BJPpresident, the man widely held to be responsible for their formulations onPakistan and Muslims, and, indeed, for the recent controversy over Advani'sremarks in Pakistan.

As per the report, the bulk of the paper by Kulkarni is a passionate argument in favour ofBJP adopting the path of secularism and the current face-off between Advani andthe RSS when seen in this perspective provides enough reasons for the"ideological divide". Main points of Kulkarni's paper:

For or against secularism: The BJP must settle "two fundamentalquestions" that are "at the heart of all the challenges and opportunities beforeus: Are we for or against secularism? And are we doing enough to practice even what we ourselves say is genuine secularism —namely, ‘sarva panth sambhav’?...If we are sincere about ‘Justice for all but appeasement of none’, isn’t there a crying need for a non-appeasement approach to the welfare and development of the poor among non-Hindus, especiallyMuslims?"

Can't ignore Muslims:  "By now every objective election analysis has established, without the thinnest shadow of doubt, that with zero or insignificant support of our Muslim brethren, no political party in India can aspire to have a majority of its own in Parliament. And should a party like the BJP ever come to power in alliance with other parties, we’d be living in a fool’s paradise if we thought that we can retain power from one election to another, by ignoring Muslimsaltogether." 

No nationwide "Hindu disquiet" led to BJP's electoraldefeat: There may have been disquiet among a section of Hindus but ‘‘that section is so small that by itself it can neither vote the BJP to power, nor dislodge the BJP frompower. " It  "would be chasing a chimera if they thought that a ‘critical mass’ of Hindus would some day bring a"Hindu political party’" to power in India on a "Hindu politicalagenda" ... Apart from the impossibility of achieving this task, what should be noted is that this task is also undemocratic and not in the interests of thenation."

Inescapable Truth: "We may not like it, but here is the INESCAPABLE TRUTH OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY—at best, the BJP will remain one of the most important poles in Indian politics and, at worst, it will become a slightly larger version of the Hindu Mahasabha. But, with a narrow Hindu-only approach, never will it occupy the dominant position in Indian politics that the Congress once enjoyed.... In fact, this narrow approach is the surest way of allowing theNehru-Indira-Rajiv-Sonia-Rahul dynasty to remain alive, and as a dominant player, in Indian politics.’’

Ayodhya: mutual settlement is the best option: "However, hopes of such a purposive dialogue[between representatives of the Hindu and Muslim communities] were considerably jolted by the communal violence in Gujarat in 2002. It is not out of place to mention here that the communal violence in Gujarat hardened the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Ayodhya issue when the ‘Shila Puja’ campaign was undertaken. This closed even the small window of opportunity that Atalji’s government had for making any kind of executive move in the Ayodhyamatter"

Violence after Godhra?  "But the question we should honestly ask ourselves is: Was enough done to control the violence that took place after Godhra?...Quite apart from the vilification campaign carried out by our opponents, hasn’t Gujarat—and the irresponsible statements made by some self-styled Hindu leaders devoid of ‘vani sanyam’—sullied the image of the Hindu movement, both within India and abroad?"

Predictably, the response from the BJP has been to call these the views of anindividual:

Arun Jaitley: Linking of personal views expressed at a non-party forabehind closed doors will not be doing justice with the party or theindividual. 

Jaswant Singh: It was Kulkarni's personal view at a private forum. You cannot censor personal utterances. Every leader usually airs his personal views at variousfora. 

But the RSS view as enunciated by Murali Manohar Joshi has been unambiguous:

Murali Manohar Joshi: "Such controversial statements should not be given by any partymember. Before any such comment by any member or leader, a discussion should be held at the party fora on it and only the statement authorised by the party should bemade. These are Kulkarni's personal views. The BJP's ideology (on the issue) is clear and there can be no compromise onit."

Meanwhile, George Fernandes is busy writing letters to the RSS protestingagainst its chief''s praise of Indira Gandhi and the RSS says it would bereplying to him soon, and that its remarks on Indira Gandhi have beenmisinterpreted. Now, why wouldn't it grant the same leeway to Advani on Jinnah?Watch this space.