|
Literary Review
FACE TO FACE
Changing with the times
ANITA JOSHUA
|
Former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani’s just released memoir My Country My Life, published by Rupa and Co., has generated considerable controversy and kept the spotlight on the National Democratic Alliance’s prime ministerial candidate.
|
Photo: V. Sudershan
Moving away from the past? L.K. Advani.
While his detractors have described the autobiography as an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to place himself at the centre of the national discourse ahead of the next Lok Sabha elections, Advani says that he was just responding to repeated requests from various quarters to pen his memoir. Excerpts from an interview…
Your critics say you are attempting an image makeover with this autobiography, to project yourself as a moderate.
They said that when I went to Pakistan. I’ve read everything that’s being written about this book. If my party had not declared me the prime ministerial candidate, nothing of this kind would have happened. There would have been no controversy. The issues don’t seem to be important. What’s important is Advani. I accept it. I would have been bothered if there had been any reaction of the kind that took place when I went to Pakistan. On the whole, the book has been received very positively. The party has reacted positively, all the support base has reacted very positively. Adversaries are understandable. They can’t even react normally to my going and presenting a book to Soniaji or to the Prime Minister.
You are very critical of the Congress and the Left parties in your autobiography but soft on other parties both in and outside the United Progressive Alliance. Is it that you do not wish to burn your bridges with these parties in view of the next Lok Sabha elections.
Suppose I was not a political person. I may have differences with my family. Would I write about them? I’m part of the family even now. Is it not natural to be cautious about colleagues or NDA partners?
There seems to be an acknowledgement — particularly, with reference to your declaring Atal Bihari Vajpayee as prime ministerial candidate in 1995 despite sections in the Sangh Parivar preferring you — that
India does not offer space for hard-line politics. Would that be a correct conclusion to draw?
Broadly, yes. I believe that Atalji is committed to the party’s ideology and approach but he has a wider acceptability among people than me or anyone else. No doubt about it.
My Country My Life, L.K. Advani, Rupa and Co., Rs. 595.
Can you get into that mould?
I can’t change myself. I am what I am. With time, things have changed. How come Pakistan today views me in a different light totally? I regard it as my biggest achievement. That, to some extent, has influenced people here also.
So, you do think the Pakistan visit has been to your advantage despite the initial adverse reaction from your party...
Yes, absolutely. Personally, it has helped me a lot. If I were to identify two events of my life that have greatly transformed me — at least my image — it is the Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya and the Pakistan visit. The Rath Yatra gave me an image more than that of a party organisational man or an ideologue. In Pakistan what I said and did left an imprint on the mind of the people there. They realised I was not anti-Pakistan, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam. They understood that I was proud of Hindutva and, therefore, very happy to be invited to inaugurate the project for the restoration of the Katas Raj temple. And, it is that which triggered off the reference to Jinnah’s speech. They also realised that I wanted to normalise India-Pakistan relations. It’s not a small achievement. My distress is that my party missed an opportunity because otherwise that would have been a credit given to the party. Now that has also changed in a way with the party projecting me as prime ministerial candidate.
But, these two milestone events in your life are so contradictory.
Yes. When I undertook the Rath Yatra, I picked upon Somnath. Why? Because Somnath was Nehru and Sardar Patel’s contribution. My resolution at Palampur asked why the Rajiv Gandhi’s government can’t do in respect of Ayodhya what the Nehru government did in case of Somnath. Through the Yatra, I tried to project genuine secularism.
You are critical of dynastic politics. Isn’t your party guilty of the same with children of various senior leaders being brought into Parliament? Can the BJP claim to have inner-party democracy when it has been ordaining leaders from the Jana Sangh days… Vajpayee named you its president in 1973, you declared him prime ministerial candidate in 1995, and now you are saying Narendra Modi should succeed you…
I’ve given the example of a cricket match. There has to be a captain. That doesn’t mean there is no democracy. The captain consults many people. For a long time, even in our party, whosoever may have been the president, it was Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s word which was final. Even in the Congress, the word of Gandhi was final. It happens in all parties. But, Congress party never before reserved the slot of president for a dynasty. That’s happened only recently. Other parties… I don’t want to comment on them. Only the Communist parties and the BJP have been free from this.
You quote Golwalkar advocating the need to bury differences in the face of the enemy. But, repeatedly, the BJP has stalled proceedings in Parliament on terrorism.
Because, no action has been taken by the Government. You see the Mumbai terrorist attack. Not one person has been arrested. Whatever success we got against terrorism was because continuously terrorist modules used to be traced and destroyed. People arrested or finished off. During our period nearly 300 such ISI modules were busted. This has practically stopped. There has been no follow-up on terrorist attacks in the last three years. We used to follow-up immediately. All those involved in the attack on Parliament were caught. But, one has still not been hanged. In dealing with terrorism, it’s important that the government’s attitude to terrorism should be perceived by the terrorists as one of “no compromise”, “zero tolerance”. This is what countries which have somehow succeeded in dealing with it have done. It’s a serious matter; so, we have been critical of them. There, I can tell you, consideration of vote bank is very important. The entire idea of the Sachar Committee is totally contrary to the thinking of the Nehru government.
You accuse Indira Gandhi of using the threat of a foreign power to perpetuate her rule. The BJP often uses terrorism to consolidate its position....
No. We are not using terrorism. Except that we think that the softness towards terrorism is only because of vote bank politics. Indians are not a monolithic group, Hindus are not a monolithic group. So, the approach of political parties is appeal to the minorities in the name of their religion and community, appeal to sections of the Hindus in the name of their caste or language. When we talk of vote bank politics, we are not talking about only the Muslim minority but all sections. Which is why after the U.P. elections, I told the Prime Minister about the worry among political observers that mainstream political parties are shrinking and caste-based parties are occupying the space that is being vacated.
Has the BJP — which came in with a promise of being a party with a difference — been able to offer an alternative political culture?
I would say that there is an alternative political culture that we have presented. But because of the phenomenal growth in two decades and the nature of the whole political system you cannot confine it to cadres — it has to be an aggregative party — shortcomings creeping in at any level are attributed to the party. We felt very distressed when some of our own MPs were found taking bribe. But, by and large, it has been very satisfying.
You talk of an agreement on the Ayodhya dispute between the parties concerned at the fag end of NDA rule and the understanding was that it would be announced after the elections on the presumption that you would return. But there are no details in the book.
Broadly, it entailed us giving up claim to the disputed structures in Mathura and Varanasi and they would withdraw their claim to the structure in Ayodhya. It was also felt that a compromise between the two communities would be a more enduring solution than a court verdict. I was very optimistic; only all parties were keen that an announcement be made after the elections.
Did you share the compromise formula with the UPA Government?
No.
Why not?
They are not interested in the temple. They just keep mocking us.
You claim to have been opposed to the personal attacks on Sonia Gandhi yet several BJP leaders — let alone middle-level functionaries — have used intemperate language against her. Why were you unable to rein in your leaders; considering BJP’s claim to being a disciplined party?
During election campaigns, a lot is said about every one. All sorts of things were said about me. You just have to digest it. Some feel I’m not as thick-skinned as a politician should be.
Do you think the BJP has played the role of a constructive opposition? The general perception is that the BJP has been obstructive and opposing just for the sake of opposition.
A bit of disruption is always there… I don’t like it. By and large, the BJP has acquitted itself well though I would like to have more colleagues who are in the Rajya Sabha in the Lok Sabha.
You sign off your autobiography with a chapter titled ‘I have no regrets’ in which you say ‘let us not remain prisoners of the past”. Isn’t BJP’s entire politics anchored in the past …
You should not disregard history. Not being a prisoner of the past is one thing but disregarding history is quite another. Think of the future, no doubt, but don’t forget the past.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Literary Review
|
