The Rediff Interview/O Rajgopal
'If Muslims hand back Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura to the Hindus, they can earn the love, respect and regard of the whole community'
O Rajgopal,
Bharatiya Janata Party vice-president, defends his party's reputation and
discusses its likely future, in this lively conversation with Shobha Warrier.
The BJP has been branded a communal, non-secular
and fundamentalist party. How do you respond to these accusations?
From the description, one thing is clear. The BJP
is different from other political parties. This was the way
the Congress was described before Independence. The
Congress was described by the Muslim League as a Hindu communal
party. So this kind of labelling is nothing new. These gentlemen
cannot say why they describe the BJP as communal. They cannot
pinpoint a single BJP programme to establish that
it is communal.
We believe in a general secular polity which is
guaranteed under the Constitution. In our party, we
do not discriminate between any community
while giving membership. If a person is 18 years old and if he
believes in the party's principles, irrespective of his religious
or caste affiliations, he is welcome. A good number of people
belonging to various communities, including the so-called minorities
like Christians and Muslims, also have became members.
Some of them are party officebearers.
Not only political parties, the public also
looks at the BJP as a Hindu party. You also talk about Hindutva.
We do talk about Hindutva.
A Hindu Rajya?
No, we don't talk about a Hindu Rajya. Never.
Ram Rajya?
Yes, Rama Rajya. Rama Rajya is a concept first
projected by no less a person than Mahatma Gandhi. When he was asked
about the ideal State, he talked about Rama Rajya.
That was symbolic, was it not?
It is symbolic. Symbolic in the sense that under
Sri Rama there was justice for all. It was our ideal about the
polity. There is nothing wrong in that. When we talk about Hindutva,
it is not as a religious concept at all. After all, there is no
religion strictly called Hindu. A religion means an opinion, math am.
The view of Christ is Christu matham, the view of Prophet Mohammed
is Mohammed matham or Islam, the views of Buddha is Buddha matham.
This is the way in which it is understood. Similarly, there is
no such thing as the view of the Hindu.
We have Hindu matham also.
Nowadays, such a description has come into existence.
It has become popular also. I do agree with you. But I am talking
scientifically. Strictly, there is nothing called a Hindu religion.
The word Hindu has got a very wide meaning even according to our
Constitution. It includes all religious faiths except Christianity
and Islam. Like the Jains, the Buddhists, the Advaitists,
the Saivites, the Sikhs, etc. This is the definition given according
to our Hindu law. The word Hindu is used to described those who believe
in all the faiths that have sprung up in India.
When we use the words Hindu and Hindutva, we only
refer to them as cultural nationalism. What is the name of the culture
of our country? Hindutva. Actually, this is accepted by very many
political observers not belonging to the BJP also. I recollect
what Joseph Parekkattil, who was the cardinal of the Catholic Church
in Kerala, used to say, 'I am by religion a Christian. But by
culture, I am a Hindu.'
A few months back, when Advaniji (L K Advani, BJP president) had
a reception in Hyderabad, Reverend Irulappa, the bishop of Hyderabad, came to meet him and said the same thing. He said, 'By
religion, I am a Christian. By nationality, I am an Indian. By
culture, I am a Hindu.'
But it is not interpreted by many this way.
We are trying to make them understand. That is
because the BJP is more understood by the propaganda of its opponents.
They are more powerful because there are so many voices, and we
are only one. Parties like the Congress, the Communists and
every other party have nothing more to say about the BJP. So,
they say the BJP stands for Hindutva and Hindutva is communal!
If people have begun to like the BJP more and more
now, in spite of the consistent propaganda by every other political
opponent, it is because of the common perception among the common
people in India. They feel it is only the BJP which
is there to protect the Hindus. And in a country where 85 per
cent of the people are what you call religious Hindus, it
doesn't do any harm for the party.
It is only the anglicised,
Westernised, elitist section, the so-called intellectual section,
who are much worried about that. As far as the common people are
concerned, they are not afraid of that.
And, in a state like Kerala, where people are quite
educated, they have seen for themselves how all the other political
parties like the Congress, the Communists, the Janata Dal bow
before communal forces like the Muslim League, the Christian
Kerala Congress, the caste-based parties like the Nair party,
the Ezhava party, the SNDP, the SRP...
How come only the BJP got this communal label?
Because this is propaganda let loose by the
Communists. They are anti-religion, especially anything Hindu.
Hindu is anathema for them. Probably they are following the footsteps
of Mohammed Ali Jinnah. When Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress party
stood for the whole country, when they fought for freedom
without any distinction between one religion
or the other, the Muslim League thought it fit to describe them as
a Hindu communal party.
So any party which has a perception of
the whole country before them, and if they want to have policies
and programmes which will have an impact on the entire population
of the country, it will necessarily have a Hindu impact because
85 per cent of the people are Hindus.
When you are targeting 85 per cent, won't the
rest feel alienated?
We are not targeting the 85 per cent. We are targeting
the entire community. And in the entire community naturally, the
85 per cent form a big chunk.
Won't the others feel alienated?
We tell everybody in India,
whether you believe this god or that god or whether you are worshipping
in this fashion or that fashion, so long as you love your motherland,
so long as you love the traditions of this country, you are a
Hindu.
What exactly do you mean by "traditions"?
Our Congress friends say this nation has
come into existence from 1947 onwards. Therefore, somebody has
been described as the father of the nation. This is one view. Then,
we have our Communists friends who say this is not one nation
and there are 17 or 18 nations; they call it a union of nations
like the Soviet Union.
There is a third viewpoint which we uphold.
We say this is a nation which has been in existence from times
immemorial, for more than five thousand years. Freedom in 1947 is only a new chapter in the history of the nation.
So, we are carrying forward the history, the achievements and
the failures, the aspirations and goals of the people. It is a civilisational
concept. Those concepts do play a major role in the psyche
of the people.
Is it not true that when the British came
here, we had many princely states in India and they remained
independent of each other?
Yes, there were (several princely states). Therefore,
the unity of this nation is not based on any political leadership.
We had a number of kings, a number of empires, but at the same
time we were one people; from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari.
Just think, so many centuries back, before any of
these foreigners came to India, a boy from Kerala, from Kaladi,
walked all over India, established mutts all over the country.
He also ensured that all the mutts are properly maintained. He
wanted to strengthen the unity of the nation like this. So, the
concept of a nationhood was in existence for thousands of years
in spite of the fact that political entities were manifold.
There was a feeling among all that we had
one common civilisation and we belonged to one nation. Right
from the Vishnu puranas, references about one nation
exist.
One charge against the
BJP is that you do not accept pluralism. In a country like
India, we have people belonging to various states, talking in
different languages and following different cultures.
But we do accept pluralism. There may be many
types of plants and many number of flowers of various hues and
colours in a garden, it is still a garden. Similarly, in this country
of multifarious diversities, there is common unity. If you can
describe in one word the common unity pervading the entire country,
it is only Hindutva.
When you go to Kashmir and Kanyakumari,
the same national ethos is reflected. So that does not stand
in the way of various people adopting different religions, speaking
different languages, worshipping differently or dressing differently.
That is the beauty of India, its diversity.
Is it because people in northern India accepted the BJP first that you try to talk about Hindi and the Hindi heartland culture? At least that is the BJP's image
in the south.
Yes, that is the way in which some people look
at the BJP. But may I remind you of one thing? Any national current which
had its impact in the entire country had its origins in the Indo-Gangetic
plain. The impact was first felt there. Take any religion.
Take the Congress party itself. It had its origins
there and only from there did it spread to other parts of the
country. The Indo-Gangetic plain forms the heart of the nation
and every other part gets the impact later on by a slow process.
So, if the BJP first emerged as a major political force in
northern India and subsequently in southern
India, it does not make any difference. We are only following
the old tradition.
Tell us what you think of this interview
|