Blast from the Past: An interview of Shri LK Advani

‘It is my faith in our past which has given me the strength to work in the present and to look forward to our future.’ KM Munshi, Union Food and Agriculture Minister, in his letter to Jawaharlal Nehru, on the latter’s reservations on restoration of the Somnath temple. 

Browsing through old records is in quite a lot of ways, humbling. Humbling because even the relatively well aware forget the spirits of the past. Humbling, because these records indicate that one time colossuses, intellectual or otherwise, sometimes become a poor replica of their past selves. 

Following is the reproduction of some extracts of an interview of Shri L K Advani, reproduced from G. Vazirani’s ‘Lal Advani: The Man and His Mission (New Delhi: Arnold Publishers, 1991). If nothing, this extract offers glimpses of the man’s convictions which made him a leader of his people. Quite a contrast it throws against the tentative and apologetic approach of many of our leaders today.

Q. What; according to the BJP, is the main issue in the coming elections (of 1991)? 

LKA. The main issue is going to revert back to the what was being talked about two months back. Mainly how can the unity of this country be preserved? What is nationalism? How do you ensure social harmony? Communal harmony? And in that context what is secularism? These issues have been there all along but have been sharply focused on as a result of Ayodhya. I view this not as an issue of Ayodhya, though at the level of the common man, the common voter, it will continue to be Ayodhya. I view it in this context. And this I believe is going to be the principle issue in this election.

Q. How do you square a purely religious ritual like temple building with the larger Hindutva concept?

LKA. I would like to answer this question by recalling Sardar Patel’s approach to Hindu-Muslim problems. His approach was that it is a broadly Hindu country and the tendency to shy away from Hindu feeling is not secularism. Take the case of Somnath, something like this could not have happened now. Some might say it was the aftermath of Partition and therefore it took place. I would say no. It was because of Patel. Nehru did not like it even then.

Q. How do you justify the BJP stand that the Rama Temple issue is a matter of faith?

LKA. There was that theft of the Prophet’s hair at the Hazrat Bal shrine in Srinagar. Now if someone explains that the relic has been stolen and the state must exert its entire energy to see that it is recovered, and someone counters: ‘Can you prove that this is the Prophet Mohammad’s hair?’ Would it be a right question? But I for one would say, that as my Muslim brethren believe that it is the hair of the Prophet, I respect their sentiments.

Similarly if crores of Hindus believe that it is the birthplace of Rama, I would expect the state as well as other sections of opinion in this country, especially the minorities, to respect that sentiment and say, ‘Well, if you believe that it is the birthplace of Rama, it is the birthplace of Rama, we are not asking you to prove this.’

Q. Isn’t upholding the cause of temple construction communal? What about the Muslims’ claim that it is the site of a mosque?

LKA. As for the Ayodhya site, for 54 years no one has offered namaz there. From 1949, 40 years now, regular poojas are going on. One should end the dispute on this. Moreover, the VHP has offered that, if you are attrached to the bricks and mortar, which you call a mosque, we are willing to reverently shift it to another site where you can construct another mosque, we would even contribute to its construction. It would be an amicable solution and settlement of the problem.

Q. How do you relate your demand for the construction of the Rama temple at Ayodhya to the larger issue of secularism? How do you propose to dispel the misgivings among the Muslims on this score?

LKA. I am fighting against the attitude of politicians and political parties that anything associated with Hinduism is communal, their allergy to it and their idea that if you cherish this allergy, only then your secular credentials are proved.

I have not made it a temple issue. I have made is an issue of secularism, of national unity. I am also trying to convert it into an issue pertaining to the welfare of the so-called minorities – that this is not their interest. These days Muslims meet me and say ‘humko jahan phasa diya. Humko pata bhi nahi tha ki hum wahan jaa bhi nahi sakte.’

And these political parties have done a singular disservice even to the reputation of the country by propagating that the Hindus have suddenly gone mad under the leadership of the BJP and they want to pull down a 500 year old mosque and build a temple in its place. If the facts were to be presented, the impression would be totally different. Hindus have not become fundamentalists. Not at all. It is a remarkable though happy fact that there are 35 mosques in Ayodhya apart from the controversial one. Not one of them was touched during these months of turmoil. Lakhs of people visited the place. All of them extremely devout and passionate. Not one of them was touched. Why is that no Muslims were killed in Ayodhya?  No riots took place in Ayodhya, Why?

It is our responsibility to see that the misgivings which have been deliberately created by our adversaries are removed. But at the same time, the efforts to remove those misgivings should not tend to make us apologetic and defensive about our basic beliefs. 

Q. What do you mean by positive secularism?

LKA. Positive secularism flows from our commitment to national unity which is an article of faith for us and not just a slogan to be converted into slick spots for TV. Our Constitution seeks to strengthen this unity by rejecting theocracy and by guaranteeing equality to all citizens, irrespective of their religion. These are the two principal facets of secularism as our Constitution makers conceived them, For most politicians in the country, however, secularism has become just a device for garnering block minority votes.

I wish the country’s political leadership; irrespective of party affiliations, could realize that the utterances and activities of some elements among the minorities are becoming increasingly aggressive and are ominously reminiscent of the pre-1947 years. These elements must be isolated, not propitiated. If these elements are allowed to grow, the consequences can be extremely dangerous for national integrity. Appeasement failed to avert partition. Appeasement is no way of combating the present threats to national unity. These threats have to be met head on, and squarely spiked. 

The BJP believes in Positive Secularism; the Congress-I and most other parties subscribe only to Vote Secularism. Positive Secularism means; justice for all but appeasement of none. In the ensuing elections, let this become the BJP’s distinctive message to the nation. 

Q. Why do you say that the courts cannot settle the dispute about the Ayodhya site? Why are you not prepared to abide by a judicial verdict?

LKA. My party has never said that we will not accept a court verdict. What we have said is that the nature of the controversy is such that a court verdict will not solve the problem. That is all that I say. Further, I say, let us understand that this present turmoil, the present acute controversy has itself arisen from court verdicts. It is not arisen because of any agitation as much as it has arisen out of court verdicts – tow court verdicts, one of 1951 and the second of 1986.

The 1951 case was Gopal Singh Visharad vs Zahoor Ahmed and others, and the court was that of the Faizabad Civil Judge. The Judge observed in this judgement of 3 March 1951 that, ‘At least from 1936 onwards, the Muslims have neither used the site as a mosque not offered prayers there and that the Hindus have been performing their pooja, etc.’ on the disputed site. And on that basis, he granted a temporary injunction, against removal of idols, though for considerations of low and order he said that locks should be imposed on the gates, the pooja should be done from a distance, people need not go inside, In 1986, the District Judge, Faizabad, referred to this 1951 order and directed that, ‘As for the last 35 years, Hindus have had an unrestricted right of worship at the place’, the locks put on two gates in 1951 on grounds of law and order should be removed. This is Civil Appeal No. 65/1986. It is after this appeal that suddenly the controversy became very acute, very bitter. Shortly after this, the Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed. 

Now the people are asking why are these locks there even after 40 years, why are we not allowed to have pooja without any hindrance, without any difficulty? I for one am of the view that if the Central Government had taken note of the problem that obtained in Prabhas Patan, a seaside plant in Gujarat in Surashtra, where at one time there was that Somnath Temple which was razed to the ground many times, destroyed many times, reconstructed many times, it would have been different.

Q. What is wrong in making a national monument of the Ayodhya site so that it will be neither a Hindu nor Muslim but will be purely of archeological interest?

LKA. A similar suggestion was made in the case of Somnath also. Many bureaucrats were unhappy over the decision of the Government to reconstruct the temple. The Department of Archeology itself suggested that the site at Prabhas Patan – where originally, there was the Somnath Temple and subsequently there was a graveyard – should be declared a .protected monument’. The then Home Minister, Sardar Patel, put it down in writing his reactions to the proposal. The Hindu sentiment in regard to this temple is both strong and widespread. In the present conditions, it is unlikely that this sentiment will be satisfied by mere restoration of the temple or by prolonging its life. The restoration of the idol would be a point of honour and sentiment for the Hindu public.

----

Am planning to reproduce another interview, explaining why the acts of December 6, 1992 were a setback.

Unilateralism is not National Interest

Doing the same things again and again but expecting different results is a sure indication of madness.

The pending land swap deal with Bangladesh has taken a lot of space in newsprint and bytes. Most of these articles and op-eds refrain that it will be in the best interest of India to go-ahead with the land swap and that the opposition is putting sectarian interests over National interests.  On receiving end particularly is the Trinamul, which has been accused of constantly placing interests of West Bengal over interests of India, first when it torpedoed the Teesta water sharing treaty and now, when it has taken a stand against land swap. However, the accusers are probably not aware that such accusations in a way accept that the proposed treaties were not in the best interests of the State of West Bengal. Logically speaking, how could arrangements harmful for a state be beneficial for the Nation when it is states which comprise the Nation?

Another set of sage advice which our chattering classes have been offering pertain to our need to strengthen Nawaz Sharif and refrain from make a big issue of sundry killings of our soldiers. It is offered that while Sharif is keen on peace with India, the army establishment isn’t and hence is creating a situation where Indian reaction will force Sharif to adopt an anti-India stance. In the same breath, these worthies contend that it is the army which runs Pakistan and its nascent democracy rules only at the pleasure of the Army generals. If that be the case, then pray, what exactly will be gained by engaging with Sharif, a person not in control of his army’s actions?

A Nation displaying consistent behavior in its over 2500 years of chronicled history is not a commonplace occurrence. However, ethnographers have often commented on the amazing degree of continuity India has displayed over these centuries. In words of many, were it possible for people to travel across the dimension of time, an Indian villager of 500 B.C. would not have felt out of place in a 19^th century village. Why would he, when the mode of agriculture, allied occupation, festivals and the general way of life would hardly have undergone any change? Hence, given our natural tendency for status quo, it is not really surprising that India’s approach to its relations with neighbouring countries has been more or less consistent. There were aberrations though. Chandragupta Maurya, Kanishka, Chandragupta II, Alauddin Khilji and the British, all in varying degrees, followed policies which recognized that security of the heartland lies in fortifying its borders. Sadly, the cumulative impact of these regimes was not strong enough to bring about a change in the approach of other rulers. Overall, the approach of our rulers to our neighbours has been a mix of denial, disdain, fear and appeasement.

It must be said the Chinese cannot be accused of shortsightedness. Mao had seen the entire Himalayan region as ripe for China’s picking, with Tibet as the palm and Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh), as its five fingers. And what has our approach been? India unilaterally and unequivocally gave up all its rights in Tibet and the result was a belligerent China entering our backyard. If Tibet had been the only foreign policy disaster bequeathed as legacy by our first Prime Minister, it could still have been explained away as a misstep. However, the same fantasy filled foreign policy saw India gift Manipur’s land to Burma without any reciprocity, failure to stand up for the rights of Tamils of Indian origin in Ceylon and the summary expulsion of Indians from Burma. In face of huge resistance from within the Congress and from the opposition, our first Prime Minster entered into a pact with Pakistan on protection of minorities in their respective Nations. Just how effective was this pact can be gauged from the large scale pogroms which East Pakistan unleashed on its hapless Hindu minority soon after this pact.

One could say that India found a resolute leader in Lal Bahadur Shastri when he took the war to the heart of Pakistan. However, Shastriji too succumbed to the very Indian trait of magnanimity and ended up frittering the gains of that war at Tashkent. Indira Gandhi proved that was a cut above most politicians when she took decisive action to create Bangladesh. However, it was the same Indira who gave away all the leverages at Simla. It was the same Indira who handed over a strategic island to Sri Lanka without any reciprocation. The iron lady gave wound up Shanti Bahini without any counter benefit from Bangladesh and proved ineffectual in protecting the interests of the Indian Diaspora in East Africa.  

One would have imagined that a Government headed by the hyper Nationalist BJP would have steered India’s foreign policy to a more pragmatic plane. Indeed, it did seem so when India detonated atomic bombs. However, the Nation soon realized that all the gains of the blasts were squandered away, first by a unilateral moratorium on further blasts and then by adoption of an ill-thought no first use policy. Fifteen years after the blasts, it will not be unfair to say that the only gainer from May 1998 was Pakistan. That Nation not only achieved a visible nuclear parity with India, today it has a larger and much more potent nuclear arsenal and more critically, a more reliable delivery system as compared to us. Some of us may take solace that our atomic and missile journey has been largely indigenous while Pakistan’s weapons are a bastard child sired by China and North Korea. But how does it matter on the battlefield? Pakistani weapons won’t decide to reduce their potency out of respect to our efforts. How effective are our weapons anyway when the blasts allegedly failed to meet all of their vitals and a no-first use policy is certain to allow a hostile Nation to decimate our seats of power before India is even ready to react?

Probably in his quest for a Peace Nobel, Vajpayee inflicted significant harm to our National interests. If surrendering our last leverage on Tibet was not enough, he created further openings for China in the hitherto uncontested region of Sikkim. It was the NDA Government which legitimized Musharraf’s coup when it invited him to Agra. Each abomination, be it the Kaluchak camp massacre or the Parliament attack, India was adamantly consistent in its efforts to engage with Pakistan. And who can forget the spectacle of the tortured, maimed bodies of16 BSF soldiers, hung on poles like carcasses of dead animals, paraded gleefully from village to village by bloodthirsty Bangladeshi mobs? Even in that year, it was an India friendly Awami League Government at helm of affairs at Bangladesh and India’s shamefully muted protests were explained away as being driven by the need to strengthen Sheikh Haseena’s hands in an election year.

As far as the need for having a land-swapping agreement with Bangladesh is concerned, it is a no-brainer. For more than half a century, residents of those enclaves have led virtually orphaned lives. With there being no practical way of connecting those enclaves with their respective Nations, it is best that those pieces of land be exchanged. But, like any other human transaction, International relations too cannot be unilateral and devoid of a quid pro quo. Bangladesh will gain land out of this agreement. Bangladesh will gain water out of the Teesta agreement. What will India gain, if we leave aside the nebulous talk of some goodwill with God knows who! Will India gain transit rights across Bangladesh or will it see firm action from that country in holding back those who infiltrate into India? Or at the very basic level, will it result in Bangaldesh handing over an equivalent portion of excess land to India?

This will not be for the first time that sundry voices have asked India to play the magnanimous big brother to a smaller Nation. However, past experiences indicate that none of our actions have resulted in any gains for India. Much was made of the need to transfer the Tis Bigha corridor to Bangladesh but what did India gain out of it? Likewise, the Tin Bigha transfer in early 1990s achieved little other than creating new Indian enclaves in Bangladesh. India signed a heavily biased Ganga water treaty with Bangladesh in the hope the hostile Begum Zia would become friendlier to us. What exactly did we gain out of that give-away?

It is a truism that a Nation ought to strive to maintain healthy relations with its neighbours. It is even truer that a rigid adherence to a singular approach cannot be effective. Our standard approach of engagement, even in the face of gravest indignities and unilateral appeasement is not going to secure our neighbourhood. For too long has the Nation been held hostage to an unrealistic make believe world of low-impact diplomacy. Let our policy makers go back in ages and recognize the genius of Chankaya. Let them adopt the principle of managing our neighbours through a judicious mix of Saam, Daam, Danda and Bheda.