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