Search the Internet           Tips

The Rediff Interview/ K N Govindacharya

K N Govindacharya complains that wherever he goes journalists quiz him about his study leave. The former general secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party is currently on a one-and-a-half-year study leave to document his understanding of rural India. As part of the exercise, he intends visiting all Indian villages to interact with ordinary rural populace and intellectuals.

On a visit to Chennai, he insisted on speaking in Malayalam when Shobha Warrier approached him for an interview at the Centre of Policy Studies. After much persuasion, he agreed to speak about the study project -- which according to him was still in its preliminary stage -- and the role of the RSS in nation-building.

I assume that the study leave that you have taken from your party, is to study rural India. Is it because you feel rural India is being neglected in the new economic scenario?

My study pertains to the impact of globalisation, which has been un-calibrated and ill-thought of in the last fifteen years. The impact has to be studied in the civilisational context, that includes economy, polity, society and culture.

Rural poverty, unemployment and disparities have increased. Naturally, without pre-supposing the adversity of the impact, it is better to be objective. For example, in the IT or communication sector, we might have gained but in many other sectors, something more has to be done.

When you say 'other sectors,' do you mean agriculture?

Small-scale industries have been the worst hit. This has resulted in more and more unemployment. New employment avenues are few because capital may or may not produce employment. New economics also does not ensure employment. In the Indian context, hunger and unemployment have to be focused upon as far as economic policies are concerned. So global economy on one side and hunger and unemployment on the other, have to be balanced. With this in view, my first task is to study objectively. I have decided to devote two years to this.

When did you first get the signal that rural India was suffering?

Since 1990 itself. When the Dunkel draft was discussed and some people had started talking about the corporatisation of agriculture. What has happened to other countries in the last 15 years -- Latin America, East Asian countries, African countries? In all these countries, the poor have suffered. Since 1990, I have been trying to strike a balance between active party work and my studies.

In what way will your study be able to make the decision-makers understand their folly and change their stance?

That has to come at a later stage. Now, I am concentrating on my studies, which has four dimensions.

One is studying the situation.

The second is, interacting with those who are already engaged in studies.

Third is, getting field level experience and empirical evidences.

Fourth is, interacting with those who are engaged in the alternatives at the micro level and a few people at the macro level.

So, all these four dimensions will definitely take about one-and-a-half years' time. Afterwards, I will have to compute all that data and put it in the form of a document which may have some recommendations and suggestions, not only for the government but for the others too. That's the purpose of my study.

The new communication network has made the world smaller. At the same time, the rural-urban India divide is widening.

Yes, the spectrum is very wide. Some people are languishing in the 18th century milieu. Many other countries also have experienced this but they have been able to tackle the problem and their own needs in a better manner, relatively.

Do you only blame liberalisation and globalisation for the pathetic state of rural India? What about the path of socialism that we followed for nearly fifty years?

My contention is that we entered into hype about so-called socialism. This ended up in economic stagnation, bureaucratic inactivity and political corruption. And, that did not tackle the problem of unemployment for 30 years -- from 1950 to 1980.

We committed another mistake by putting the cart before the horse. Before changing the mindset and tuning it to the changed conditions, we just went in for external liberalisation. Actually, internal liberalisation should also have taken place at least a decade earlier. We are suffering now because of that. Society, Bureaucracy, everyone should have been prepared. Internal strength should have been boosted first but we didn't do that.

China entered the WTO only to entertain their trade surplus. That could not be attempted here. I don't see China as the model -- it has an anti-democratic polity. But there was a need for a kind of consensus, a kind of detailed study -- like what would it cost and what precautions were needed. Nothing was done. We went in for an ill-thought globalisation and liberalisation programme.

Is the population explosion also a reason for poverty in rural India?

I don't think so as far as the fulfillment of the basic minimum need is concerned. Agricultural growth has increased six times and the population has increased only three times. It is one mouth and two hands to work. It is for the first time after Independence that an agricultural policy has been put forth. Till then, nothing was done. A mismatch was attempted in the name of industrialisation.

Dr M S Swaminathan says we produce enough food grains to feed the whole country but many people have no access to food because they have no money to buy grains.

Yes, that is the paradox. Production has increased. The Green Revolution ended up as the wheat revolution, that too in the limited areas of Haryana, Punjab, western UP, etc. Therefore, nothing much can be said about it.

Farmers are committing suicide because they cannot repay their loans.

The police party comes to raid them for a pittance -- to claim the payment -- while big industrialists are left untouched!

Here, aren't you talking more like an idealist than a politician?

I think without any isms. Politics ends up merely as crass sale of power at the cost of people's interest. If you take politics as a profession, then, it may be alright. Then it will be at the cost of the people -- but that is not politics.

But politicians say politics is a number game -- a game of arithmetic.

Politics and politicking are quite different. Politicking is about the number game. It does not require morality. One can attain the seat of power through politicking. Then what? For what? If power is for a purpose, you have to have some ideals. What can I say if power is the only purpose?

Did your party colleagues agree with you?

They accepted my view and heeded to the request of my study. I am satisfied because they permitted me to take two years' leave.

Do they understand your point of view?

The study will also help them.

... to understand rural India better?

Yes.

Were you unhappy with the BJP's economic policies? Is that the reason why you took this study leave?

I have spoken enough about all that. It's stale now. There is nothing new.

Are you basically a RSS swayamsevak or a BJP man? Who exactly are you?

There is no conflict in these two identities. I am a RSS swayamsevak working in the BJP as a national executive member. When I am working for the BJP, I will be accountable to the BJP.

Can I say the RSS identity overtook the BJP identity when there was some unhappiness?

You are pre-supposing some kind of unhappiness. What can I do? I request you not to pre-suppose.

Can we say the RSS operates at the socio-cultural plane and the BJP at the political level?

The RSS is just like a school which inculcates patriotism, dignity of physical labour, social awareness, sense of social responsibility and discipline in one hour in 'what we say shakha.' Then, that swayamsevak strikes a balance between his family, social responsibilities as per his choice and preferences. He gets involved in some kind of nation-building activity in some sphere of national life. Therefore, the RSS work is confined to imparting these sanskaras to the swayamsevak in our shakhas. The RSS is fully satisfied with its contribution to the nation.

Long back, there were discussions on dual membership. While the RSS is a Hindu organisation, the BJP is a political party. The BJP now rules the country, which has people belonging to all religious groups. So, can a BJP member be a part of a Hindu religious organisation also?

The RSS is not a religious organisation. It is a socio-cultural organisation. When we say, it is a Hindu organisation; we ascertain that Hindutva or Hindu-ness is not a religion. Therefore, Hindutva and Hindu should not be compared, and kept at par with any religious organisation.

Maharashtra Governor P C Alexander visited the Malankara church and addressed the people there. He was garlanded by people. Did anybody find anything wrong in that? You can't have different rules for the ruling party and other parties. Many political party leaders go and prostrate before Imam Bukhari. Does anybody find fault with that?

Hindutva is not a religion. Hindutva is the quintessence of Indian nationalism, which is equally applicable to every person. If s/he is religious, then, s/he can profess any mode of worship. Hindutva cannot be treated at par with any kind of mode of worship.

The RSS defines Hindutva this way. But people belonging to other religions do not consider themselves as Hindus.

They understand the tradition of this land. It is only some people who indulge in vote bank politics who talk like that. That is why slowly, the believers of Islam and followers of Jesus are seeing through this game of petty politics.

The RSS has asked Muslims to accept Rama and Krishna as their gods. Is it possible?

There is no question of 'possibility.' It is very much existent now. In the minds of the common Muslims and Christians, there is no disrespect towards Rama or Krishna.

But they don't worship Rama or Krishna.

They need not worship them. Even Arya Samajis do not involve in any kind of idol worship. Even Jains. Where is the question then? That is why I always say that if you are able to understand India in the Indian context, these questions are simply irrelevant and hypothetical.

The RSS has also asked people belonging to other religions to accept their Hindu ancestry. Don't you think the ancestors of these people converted because they were not treated well by Hindus? I mean, untouchability and practices like that.

Conversions were affected because of many reasons. Conversion to Islam may have had its own historical background in India. Most of them were converted by force or by fear or by temptation. It happens. One need not find fault with the present day Muslims with regard to that. Similarly, about Christianity also. How did the church flourish in Goa? If you go into the records, you will find that it is not because of service and charitable activities. One need not go unnecessarily into history. One shouldn't.

But the RSS is going back into history and asking these people to accept their Hindu origins.

It is not asking. They are just stating what is happening. It is only those with obstructionist attitudes, those who have some vested interests who are trying to keep some sections of society alienated. The statement is addressed to them. Otherwise, there is no problem at the societal level.

EARLIER INTERVIEW:
'A difference of opinion from the RSS does not mean that the Vajpayee government is in danger'

The Rediff Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview