Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. One month after the change in leadership in the BJP, what does it mean for India’s principal Opposition party? That’s the key question that I should put today to the Leader of the Opposition - the man they consider the founder of modern BJP, L K Advani.
Mr Advani, there’s a widespread notion that you as the Leader of Opposition and Rajnath Singh as your successor and president of the party are saying different things or emphasisng them differently. Do you two stand for different visions of the BJP?
LK Advani: I don’t think any of the statements made by the two of us these days should create any such impressions.
Karan Thapar: I'll come to the facts in a moment. But are you telling me that your outlook, your ideology, your attitude are broadly the same?
LK Advani: Yes, they are the same.
Karan Thapar: Well, in that case then let’s come to the facts of the matter. To start with, the two of you say different things about Hindutva. After the Goa Chintan Baithak in 2004, you said to me that Hindutva word was stressed. Indianness was stressed and so was nationalism. And it was emphasised that when we talk of Hindutva, we do not mean anything except Bhartiyatta or Indianness. And now compare that with what Rajnath Singh said on the 20th to your party’s National Council.
He says: ‘Hindustva is not only the icon of Indian culture and tradition, but also the source of economic resourcefulness, strength and intelligence. Hindutva above everything is the symbol of national way of life. Completely different statements.
L K Advani: You have recalled a statement of mine after Goa and there too I have stressed that Hindutva is synonymous with Bhartiyatta or Indianness. And this is a statement that’s not Advani’s. That is of a BJP ideologue, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhaya of the '50s and '60s with which none can differ and certainly not the President of the BJP.
Karan Thapar: Except that Rajnath Singh stressed Hindutva. Remember it is all at the Chintan Baithak that Hindutva was stressed upon. You said it was Indianness and Bharatiyatta, while he did not use these words.
L K Advani: I don’t think these things like word-stressing or emphasizing in a particular context may be important, but only because these days there are statements made like ‘so and so drifted away from Hindutva and ideology’ therefore perhaps Singh must have felt the need of stressing that.
Karan Thapar: Except that it's not just over Hindutva that you and Rajnath Singh say different things. Even on the issue of ideology and the role it plays in the BJP. You as the Leader of Opposition and Rajnath Singh as part President say different things. In March 2004, I quote you on what you said: "A country as vast and pluralistic as India cannot be ruled by a party such as Jan Sangh. Otherwise, don’t think in terms of ruling the country and exist just as an organisation and propagate ideology." What does Singh say in 2006? He says: "From the time, we have started our political journey in the Jan Sangh, we’ve been guided by a particular ideology and we remain committed to it." Once again, you de-emphasise on ideology, while he emphasises it. You make a split with the Jan Sangh, he unites with it.
L K Advani: No, I still think that if he were to elaborate anything then he would say exactly what I have said.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: That’s like wishful thinking on your part.
L K Advani: No, it’s not wishful thinking.
Karan Thapar: He has created a perception in the press that he and you speak different things on core subjects.
L K Advani: My own development in this matter grew at a time when we were associated with J P Narayan.
Karan Thapar: That’s right. But Mr Rajnath Singh hasn’t developed as you have developed. You have changed and moved on, but he is where he was.
L K Advani: He will also be where I am. There is no problem.
Karan Thapar: Perhaps some day in the future, but not now.
L K Advani: No, even now. Even now if he were to elaborate then we would say the same thing.
Karan Thapar: All right. Let’s test this on details. In fact when one comes to details, the divergence between you two becomes yet more stark and obvious. On March 25, 2004, you said time wasn’t right to repeal Article 370. A week later, your party’s vision statement (which, mark you, was the vision statement for 20 years) didn’t mention abrogation of Article 370 at all. Yet this January, addressing the National Council as party President, Rajnath Singh called on every party in the country to reconsider its commitment to maintain Article 370. Once again, you are saying different things.
L K Advani: No. You see, here also he realises that repealing Article 370 may not be possible and therefore, he appeals to all other parties, particularly those are likely to be our partners in the NDA, to reconsider their approach to Article 370.
Karan Thapar: It comes across to everyone as if he was telling all parties ‘reconsider your commitment to maintaining it and not reconsider your commitment repealing it.’
L K Advani: Karan, just as this Article 370 issue has come up, similarly I would say that Uniform Civil Code is desirable, but we don’t stress on it today.
Karan Thapar: I am glad you brought up Uniform Civil Code. I was going to come to that in my second detailed example.
L K Advani: No, no. I would think that both Article 370 as well that the Uniform Civil Code are in a category which are desirable things.
Karan Thapar: But once again, what you said when you were the party Presdient about the Uniform Civil Code and Rajnath Singh said today are not subtly different. They are very significantly different. Let me explain, in the vision statement of 2004, you clearly said that a social and political consensus has to be evolved before the enactment of the Uniform Civil Code. In January this year, speaking to the National Council, Rajnath Singh forgot about all the nedd for a social consensus. He only talked about a political consensus. That’s a significant shift.
L K Advani: I would think that in both cases he has talked about consensus.
Karan Thapar: No he hasn’t. I have been through his speech as published on the website of the BJP. There’s not a hint of social consensus. He only talks about political consensus.
L K Advani: Why differentiate between the two.
Karan Thapar: But your vision statement does.
PAGE_BREAK
L K Advani: Article 270 apart from so far as the Uniform Civil Code in concerened, even the Constitution requires that we should have it.
Karan Thapar: No doubt, but I have been talking about.
L K Advani: Even announcements by the SC have repeatedly said ‘why are you negligent about Directive Principles?’
Karan Thapar: Undoubtedly true, Mr Advani. But I am talking about the difference in approach to the subject of Uniform Civil Code and before that to the abrogation of Artcile 370 between you and your successor.
L K Advani: Maybe in a certain context, he may have said it. He will also come back to the same point.
Karan Thapar: He needs to evolve as you have evoloved. That’s what you are saying with a big smile on your face.
L K Advani: I am not claiming to be on a different level of evolution, though. It is your greater experience to some extent.
Karan Thapar: But you Mr Advani, it is not simply on the issues of Hindutva and ideology. It’s not simply Article 370 or Uniform Civil Code that you and your successor differ on. Even in terms of attitude of the party and it’s a relationship with RSS. The two of you say significantly different things. In your famous speech in Chennai you said: "Lately and impression has ben that there’s no political or organisational decision can be taken without the consent of RSS functionaries. This perception will do no good to the party or to the RSS. Both BJP and RSS should consciously dispel this impression." What does Rajnath say in his interview to PTI in July 2006: "Whenever there’s confusion, doubt or problem, I will not consult the RSS." Two days later to the Indian Express he says, "We are going from the RSS experience and advice." You want independence and separation, he wants consultation.
L K Advani: Now, paraphrasing my statement as I want independence is not correct. I said the impression has to be dispelled.
Karan Thapar: And it’s primary and important that it is. And he’s creating that impression and also re-inforcing it.
L K Advani: He will consult the RSS, not that RSS will direct him.
Karan Thapar: Even worse. The impression that he is enforcing is that BJP goes on bended knees. It’s not even going as equal partner.
L K Advani: I’ll keep it in mind. So far as I am concerned, my view in public is something which ordinarily is not endorsed by others. And I have said it. Also there is no difference of opinion. Let me tell you that this should not be called a difference of opinion. It should be called ‘what should be said and what should not be said.’
Karan Thapar: At least you conceive that he said the wrong thing.
L K Advani: No, not the wrong thing.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: Many would say this is not a difference of opinion, but a difference of philosophy. It is a difference of outlook. It’s much greater.
L K Advani: I do not view it that way because I have discussed with him all these issues several times.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that it actually begins to colour the way the BJP as a party even approaches issues of foreign policy. In February 2005, when you were party President and the King of Nepal took over direct control of the country, you issued a public statement calling for the restoration of legitimate democracy. You also called for the release of all political leaders. At your National Council, 15 days ago, your new President actually called on Nepali politicians to parcipate in the King’s municipal elections which most people consider a farce. And Rajnath Singh did not say a word about the release of political leaders even though Sher Bahadur Dueba, the former prime minister continues to beat it in. Once again the BJP under you and the BJP under him seems like two different parties.
L K Advani: No, the first statement that was issued immediately after the happenings in Nepal and the situation today has in a way moved in a direction in which even those who strongly feel that both constitutional monarchy and the multi-party democracy have to co-exist there have a feeling that maybe what we promote as multi-party democracy maybe Maoist-controlled.
Karan Thapar: You see the truth is that Rajnath Singh was siding with the Hindu monarchy in Nepal and you were siding with Nepal’s democratic parties. That’s the real difference.
L K Advani: I would not say that what Rajnath said was different from what I have said earlier except that the situation has changed to make every patriot in India feel apprehensive lest a situation develops in Nepal which affects our internal security directly.
Karan Thapar: Mr Advani, just look at the situation: Rajnath Singh emphasizes ideology, Hindutva, the abrogation of Article 370 as well as about the need for a Uniform Civil Code. You have a platform which is non-ideological. You prefer the word Bhartiyatta to Hindutva. You don’t speak about the repeal of Article 370 and are quite happy to wait for a social consensus before a Uniform Civil Code comes into being. The two of you are talking about two different visions.
L K Advani: They are not two different visions. They only stress on different aspects of the situation, which can be included in my statements also.
Karan Thapar: Then let me ask you a blunt question. As far as the BJP is concerned in February 2006, whose view is carries greater importance? Yours’ as Leader of Opposition or Rajnath Singh as party president?
L K Advani: It will be the views of the party as it decides over a period of time.
Karan Thapar: But who decides the view of the party? You or your successor?
L K Advani: No no, it's all together.
Karan Thapar: But here are two different views we are talking about.
L K Adavani: No, it is not different views. They are different aspects of the same issue and same problem, which at different points of time different people have stressed on.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: That is how you are trying to explain it, but look how people will say. They will say that seven to eight months ago Advani went to Pakistan and was pushed out of his job as party president by the RSS. Today, Rajnath Singh has replaced him and is squeezing his political thinking. You are being minimalised in your party one way or the other.
L K Advani: I don’t think so. In a way, what has happened in these six months has enabled me to give more attention to my parliamentary responsibility rather than be engrossed in the day-to-day activities of the organisation.
Karan Thapar: You say that with a smile and a twinkle in your eyes. Let me quote what you said about PM Manmohan Singh earlier. You said he was one of the weakest PMs if not the weakest PM. Today, people would say Advani looks like one of the weakest if not the weakest Leaders of the Opposition. His part has pushed him out of his presidency. The successor is squeezing his thoughts and influence.
L K Advani: You have referred to the Prime Minister’s press conference held recently. And I am very happy that the PM while defending himself that he was not the weakest PM, brought in Pakistan and my comments on Jinnah to prove that "Who is saying this? Advani? And what happened when he said those things about Jinnah? He had quit his presidency." I would think there are situations where standing by what you believe in rather than trying only to stick on to office is a manifestation of strength not weakness.
Karan Thapar: So the fact that you didn’t change your position is your strength?
L K Advani: Yes, I think so.
Karan Thapar: Even though you had to sacrifice your post as the party president?
L K Advani: In fact, I have always felt in my long political career that there was an earlier occasion when I was charged with hawala and I had not merely resigned from Parliament, but had declared that I will not contest for Parliament again until I’m judicially exonerated from this charge. And I would say that since Manmohan Singh has brought in this topic, therefore, my statement would be that as Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has been compromising day after day only to stick on to office.
Karan Thapar: But I want to talk about you and not Manmohan Singh. I grant you that you stood by your convictions but you have been minimalised by your party. You have lost the job of party president and now Rajnath Singh is significantly shifting away from what you stood for as party President. Your views are being minimalised by your party successor.
L K Advani: I don’t think so. I don’t agree with you. And I would also say that by and large the party has been pursuing what I have stood by for in the last so many years.
Karan Thapar: The question is will be the same from hereafter. Both of you are actually leading in different directions. You are in danger of either confusing the BJP or even intellectually tearing it apart.
L K Advani: Not at all. I am confidant of that.
Karan Thapar: Now Mr Advani, let's turn to some of the recent political events. After the Supreme Court made public its judgment explaining why it had struck down the disillusion of Bihar Assembly. You called publicly for the resignation of the Prime Minister. Why did you not ask the President to accept responsibility for his share of the blame?
L K Advani: In fact what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said at the press conference only strengthens or vindicates our demand that he should resign. Because till now there was an attempt to project as if the fall guy in this episode was the governor alone. But to me it appears after the PM’s statement in which he affirmed that the Council of Ministers' decision was not wrong.
'In fact on the basis of information that was available then, it was a right decision.' Also the fact that two judges of the SC have given a dissent note which was what he quoted in favour of his government. Despite the fact that for the first time perhaps that the SC has found the Government guilty of acting not merely unconstitutionally, but acting malafide.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: So you now have greater reasons for calling for Manmohan Singh’s resignation, but what about the share of responsibility that falls squarely on the President APJ Abdul Kalam’s head as well?
L K Advani: Somehow in the Bommai judgment maybe the judges had anticipated a situation of this kind and, therefore, made a pronouncement, which saves the President from any accusation of bad faith.
Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you what Fali Nariman, perhaps India’s greatest constitutional expert wrote about the President. He said: “It was the President’s duty to ensure that the device given to him was not driven by petty party considerations.” He could only do this after fully informing himself of the contentions on both sides of the critical spectrum. But the President denied himself of such an opportunity. And then Mr Nariman adds, "He erred, he gravely erred." Surely as Leader of the Opposition, it is your duty to point that when someone as high as the President makes a mistake. It is a mistake.
L K Advani: It is a mistake. I accept that. He could have sent it back. He could have said that 'I cannot sign it here. I will come back and sign' but at the same time on the basis of what Bommai judgement has said, you cannot and should not attribute bad faith to the President.
Karan Thapar: Mr Advani, the Bommai judgment could never have imagined that the President would sign a proclamation dismissing a Government at 2 or 3 in the morning while out of the country without consulting any legal opinion and without asking for time to consider the matter. Surely, you don't want this to become a precedent for the future?
L K Advani: I don't want this to become a precedent for the future. But I did expect this judgment to say something about the President.
Karan Thapar: And you think it should have?
L K Advani: Yes. It should have. The judgment has spoken only about the Governor and the Council of Ministers.
Karan Thapar: In which case as Leader of the Opposition and someone who wishes to protect the society of the high offices as the President, surely it is your duty to point out lapses. Just as a way of guaranteeing that they don't get repeated.
L K Advani: I mentioned this to the President also and I pointed out to him that maybe because of this situation the Bommai judgment had this. I quoted that to him also.
Karan Thapar: Have you told the President that you believe he made a mistake?
L K Advani: I did not say that. Not in so many words. I focussed on the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers.
Karan Thapar: But today you are saying that the President made a mistake?
LK Advani: It was a mistake. He could have returned it or he could have taken time to consider it.
Karan Thapar: Could have or should have?
PAGE_BREAK
L K Advani: Should have.
Karan Thapar: And you are also saying that the Supreme Court judgment fell short?
L K Advani: It's not for me to comment on the Supreme Court judgment. But I went through the whole judgment thoroughly. All the 500 pages, and I found that all the comments were confined to the Governor and the Council of Ministers and when I sought an explanation from a legal luminary, he pointed out to me what has been written by the SC itself in the Bommai judgment.
Karan Thapar: Ok. Let's move on to a second critical issue that dominates the news at the moment. Virtually as we are speaking, the Iran issue is before the IAEA. If the Government of India choose to side with the P5 and refer Iran to the Security Council, will you as the Leader of the Opposition support the Government or be critical of the issue?
L K Advani: In our party, we are still to consider this collectively.
Karan Thapar: You mean the BJP hasn't considered this critical issue uptill now?
L K Advani: No, not fully. We were waiting for all people to assemble here.
Karan Thapar: But forgive me. You are saying something incredible. You are saying the main Opposition party right till the 11th hour has not considered how it is going to vote or what it is going to say about the Iran issue.
L K Advani: I would simply say that on the Iran issue, we should not be pressurised into doing anything that seems to affect our independent foreign policy.
Karan Thapar: What about the fact that India could end up having two nuclear countries in its neighbourhood, both of whom are Muslim powers. Wouldn't that worry you?
L K Advani: It is a matter of worry, but as I said I propose to discuss this matter thoroughly with my colleagues before saying anything publicly.
Karan Thapar: What about the July 2005 nuclear deal that PM Manmohan Singh signed in Washington? The Left are deeply critical. Where does the BJP stand on that?
L K Advani: We were not critical of the agreement, but we did say for the sake of getting nuclear fuel we should not compromise our independent foreign policy.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that when Brijesh Mishra, your national security advisor, sought the exactly similar relations with the Britishers, Americans, Russians who were reuctant to agree. Today, when the Americans have agreed, why is the BJP not standing by what it used to believe in earlier?
L K Advani: This is because subsequenly what the US Ambassador has said here or what has been said occassionally by spokesmen in Washington. One has to be very careful that we do not in anyway compromise our independent foreign policy.
Karan Thapar: So Mr Mulford's statement's have affected the BJP's thinking?
L K Advani: It has certainly shown what America's thinking is and my senior leader Atal Bihari vajpayeeji immediately reacted to it and said that it is an outrageous statement.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: In Septemder 2004, you said to me that it was quite likely that if the UPA Government completed its full five-year term, you would not lead the BJP in the next elections. Do you still stand by that or have you changed your mind?
L K Advani: Do you recall what I exactly said?
Karan Thapar: Quite likely was what you said.
L K Advani: I said I would be 82 at that time and I do not know what would be the position and it may be some one else.
Karan Thapar: May be or quite likely that it will be?
L K Advani: I can't say it today.
Karan Thapar: Is it fitting that in a country where 70 per cent of the population is under 30, a man who is 78 today and could be 82 at the time should hope to be the PM.
L K Advani: At least I have been a first-time minister in a government whose PM was 82.
Karan: So Morarji Desai is the precedent that you would follow?
L K Advani: No I don't follow any precedents. I'm simply saying that at that time I had said that I do not think this Government will last its full term.
Karan Thapar: But I'm asking whether in that eventuality will you be the candidate for the top job.
L K Advani: I can't say.
Karan Thapar: Which means you may well be?
L K Advani: It depends on the party's attitude.
Comments
0 comment