Blast from the Past - An Article by Shri LK Advani

This piece was first published in the Indian Express, 27 December 1992. While some of the assertions in the article have not fructified, it does provide a good insight on the salience of the Ramjanmabhoomi issue to the BJP leadership.At the same time, the continued relevance of quite a few issues highlighted by Shri Advani more than two decades back is a sad reflection on the ineffectualness of the Hindutva movement in India.

Extract from L.K. Advani, ‘The Ayodhya Movement’

Last year, a Calcutta daily asked me to identify a day or moment in my life which I regarded as my happiest. I named 30 October 1990, and more specifically, the moment I heard the BBC broadcast that kar sevaks had overcome all obstacles and broken all barriers put up by the Mulayam Singh government, penetrated into Ayodhya and performed kar seva. Ironically, this year’s kar seva day at Ayodhya, 6 December, turned out to be one of the most depressing days in my life. Of course, most others there were ecstatic with joy, a mood I just could not share. I have seldom felt as dejected and downcast as I felt that day. My sadness, however, did not stem from any disenchantment with the Ayodhya movement, or with the path the party had chosen for itself, or, as the trite phrase goes, that we had been riding a tiger which we could not dismount. In fact, the post-demolition developments have fully vindicated our misgivings about the opponents of this movement, and have reinforced our resolve to pursue the path more vigorously. There were three very specific reasons for my distress. Firstly, I felt sad that the 6 December happenings had impaired the BJP’s and RSS’s reputation as organisations capable of enforcing discipline. True, a very large percentage of the over two lakhs assembled at Ayodhya were not members either of the BJP or of the RSS. But that did not absolve us of our responsibility.

Secondly, I felt sad that a meticulously drawn up plan of action where under the UP government was steadily marching forward towards discharging its mandate regarding temple-construction, without violating any law or disregarding any court order, had gone awry.

Delinking Move

The BJP’s action plan contemplated delinking the dispute about the structure from commencing construction at the shilanyas site (within the 2.77 acres of acquired land), negotiating about the structure while the construction work proceeded apace, and, if negotiations failed, resorting to legislation. If State legislation was blocked by the Centre, we intended to seek a national mandate. We were thus working towards achieving our objective peacefully, and by the due process of law. Not only the BJP, but the RSS, the VHP and the sants were all agreed on this approach. If the exercise contemplated has now been short-circuited in a totally unforeseen manner, the above organisations can certainly be blamed for not being able to judge the impatience of the people participating in the movement. No one can deny that the manner in which courts had been dragging their feet on all issues relating to Ayodhya, and the obstructive and obtuse role of the Central Government had tried the patience of the people to the utmost limit. The third and most important reason for my unhappiness that day was that, in my perception the day’s incidents would affect the BJP’s overall image (not electoral prospects) adversely, and, to that extent, our cause would suffer a temporary setback. When I speak of a setback I am not at all thinking in political terms. In fact, politically, these events have boosted the BJP’s poll prospects no end. The Congress, the JD, the Communists all are frantically exerting to ensure that no elections are held for at least a year. After the three State Assemblies controlled by the BJP were dissolved, Congress spokesman V.N. Gadgil said that elections would be held within six months. It did not take Mr Arjun Singh even 24 hours to come forth with a contradiction, saying that polls in these three states would be held after one year! In a recent article (The Hindustan Times, 17 December 1992), Mr S. Sahay, former editor, The Statesman, has noted: ‘The feedback is that were elections to be held today in Uttar Pradesh, Congress candidates would find it difficult to retain their deposits.’ Reports pouring in from other parts of the country are no different.

Despite what our adversaries have been saying about us day in and day out, we have never regarded Ayodhya as a ladder to power. Through this movement the BJP has only intensified its ongoing crusade against the politics of vote-banks, and the politics of minorityism, which we believe is gravely undermining the fabric of national unity.

A Mass Movement

The Ayodhya movement, according to the BJP, is not just for building a temple. It is a mass movement—the biggest since independence—to reaffirm the nation’s cultural identity. This reaffirmation alone, we hold, can provide an enduring basis for national unity, and besides, the dynamo for a resurgent, resolute and modern India. It is slanderous to say that the Ayodhya movement is an assault on secularism. It is wrong to describe even the demolition of the Babri structure as negation of secularism. The demolition is more related to lack of a firm commitment in the general masses to the Rule of Law, and an exasperation with the frustrating sluggishness of the judicial process.I remember very well the Bhagalpur episode of some years back. The whole country felt outraged that undertrial prisoners—they may have been notorious dacoits—should be so cruelly blinded by police-men. But when I visited Bhagalpur I was surprised to find that among the people at large there was little disapproval of what the police had done. Many lawyers of Bhagalpur actually came out in defence of the police action! The BJP is unequivocally committed to secularism. As conceived by our Constitution makers, secularism meant sarvapantha sama bhava, that is, equal respect for all religions. Secularism as embedded into the Indian Constitution has three important ingredients, namely (i) rejection of theocracy; (ii) equality of all citizens, irrespective of their faith; and (iii) full freedom of faith and worship. We also believe that India is secular because it is predominantly Hindu. Theocracy is alien to our history and tradition. Indian nationalism is rooted, as was India’s freedom struggle against colonialism, in a Hindu ethos. It was Gandhiji who projected RamaRajya as the goal of the freedom movement. He was criticised by the Muslim League as being an exponent of Hindu Raj. The League did not relish the chanting of Ram Dhun at Gandhiji’s meetings or his insistence on Goraksha (cow-protection). The Muslim League at one of its annual sessions passed a formal resolution denouncing Vande Mataram as ‘idolatrous’. All this never made leaders of the freedom struggle apologetic about the fountainhead of their inspiration. Unfortunately, for four decades now, in the name of secularism, politicians have been wanting the nation to disown its essential personality. For the left inclined, secularism has become a euphemism to cloak their intense allergy to religion, and more particularly, to Hinduism.

Pseudo-Secularism

It is this attitude which the BJP characterises as pseudo-secularism. This attitude is wrong and unscientific. Coupled with the weakness of political parties for vote banks, it becomes perverse and baneful. In October 1990, the day Mr V.P. Singh stopped the Rath Yatra, and put me and my colleagues in the Yatra behind bars, Mr A.B.Vajpayee called on the Rashtrapati, and informed him that the BJP had withdrawn support to the National Front Government. It was obvious to all that VP’s Government had been reduced to a hopeless minority. But VP did not resign. Instead, he convened a special session of Parliament to vote on a confidence motion tabled by him. He said he was doing so mainly to precipitate a debate on secularism and communalism. We welcomed the debate, and challenged VP not to confine it to the four walls of Parliament, but to take it to the people. VP was defeated in Parliament that day. But he shied away from accepting our challenge. Events nevertheless moved inexorably towards the trial of strength we had asked for. Seven months later people went to the polls to elect the country’s Tenth Lok Sabha. Unlike as in 1989, when we were part of an opposition combine, the BJP fought the election all on its own and emerged the principal opposition party in the Lok Sabha. What has gratified us all along is not merely that our numerical strength in Parliament and the State Legislature has been growing at a rapid pace, but that acceptance of our ideology in all sections of society and at all levels has been simultaneously growing. A silent minority even among the Muslims has been building up which appreciates that the BJP is not anti-Muslim as its enemies have been trying to depict it, and more importantly, the BJP leadership means what it says, and says what it means, and is not hypocritical like other political parties. The BJP Government’s track record in the matter of preserving communal peace in their respective States has added considerably to the BJP’s credibility in this regard. It is the process of widening acceptability of the BJP’s ideology within the country, and also among people of Indian origin overseas, which has upset our opponents the most. It is this process precisely which may be somewhat decelerated by the 6 December events. I have little doubt, however, that the party can, with proper planning and effort, soon get over this phase. It is sad that over one thousand persons have lost their lives in the aftermath of Ayodhya. It is certainly a matter of anguish. But when one compares this time’s fallout with what has been happening in earlier years over incidents which can be considered trifling, this time’s has been a contained one. And in most cases the deaths that have occurred have been the consequence not of any clash between communities but of security forces trying to quell the violence and vandalism of frenzied mobs. I wonder how many in Government, in politics and in the media realise that their stubborn insistence on calling this old structure (which was abandoned by Muslims 56 years back and which for 43 years has been a de facto temple) a ‘mosque’ has made no mean contribution towards building up this frenzy. Even so, there is little doubt that the 6 December happenings have given our opponents a handle to malign the Ayodhya movement as fundamentalist and fanatic.

Voices of Reason

Amidst the hysterical breast-beating that has been going on for over a fortnight now, there have been in the media voices of reason, a few distinguished journalists who have tried to put the events in proper perspective, and to emphasise that the happenings are unfortunate, but that it is no occasion either for gloating or for self-condemnation. In an excellent article written for the Free Journal, Bombay (17 December 1992), Mr M.V. Kamath, former editor of The Illustrated Weekly India, has written: ‘Let it be said even if it hurts many secularists: in the last five years, several temples have been demolished in Kashmir without our hearing one word of protest from them. There has been no hue and cry made about such wanton destruction...We are lectured to by Iran and some other Muslim countries on our duties. Has Iran ever been ruled by Hindu monarchs, and had its masjids pulled down to make place for temples to Shiva or Vishnu?...We should not bear the burden of history. But neither should we be constantly pilloried. There has to be some way to heal past wounds, but reviling the BJP or the VHP is not the best way. The anger of the kar sevaks has to be understood in this context. They have not gone around demolishing every mosque in sight. It might even be said that they were led down the garden path by Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao who kept promising that a solution was near, even while he was trying to pass the buck onto the judiciary.’

Feeble Voices

For four decades, the pseudo-secularists have commanded undisputed supremacy in Indian politics. Jana Sangh’s and BJP’s was, at best, a feeble voice of dissent. Ayodhya has enabled our viewpoint to become a formidable challenge. Unable to meet this challenge at the ideological and political level through discussion and debate, the Government has pulled out of its armoury all the usual weapons used in such situations by repressive regimes—arrests, ban on associations, ban on meetings etc. Demolition of the Babri structure is only an excuse to carry out what they have been itching to do for quite some time. After all, all this talk about the need to have BJP derecognised or deregistered has not started now. Mr Arjun Singh had formally petitioned the Election Commission in this regard more than a year back. The Election Commission rejected his plea. Ever since, the ruling party has been toying with the idea of amending the Representation of the Peoples Act to achieve this objective. Without naming either the BJP or the RSS, Mr Narasimha Rao himself, in his Presidential address to the Congress Session at Tirupati, had endorsed the idea. When I met him and registered my protest, he tried to backtrack, and maintained that he had in mind only organisations like the Majilis (of Owaisi)! Elementary political prudence should have restrained the Prime Minister from taking the series of unwise steps he has taken after 6 December: banning the RSS and VHP, dismissing BJP Governments of Rajasthan, HP and MP and promising to rebuild the demolished ‘mosque’. But then, history keeps repeating itself in a quaint fashion. Left to himself Shri V.P. Singh may not have obstructed the RathYatra of 1990. But the internal politics of Janata Dal forced his hand. To prove himself a greater patron of the minorities than Mulayam Singh, VP asked Laloo Prasad to take action before the UP Chief Minister did so. Laloo did as he was told, and became instrumental for terminating VP’s tenure. This time it has been Mr Arjun Singh who has played Mulayam Singh to P.V. Narasimha Rao. The denouement may well be the same.

Prime Target

In Parliament, as well as outside, a prime target of attack for our critics has been Mr Kalyan Singh. He is being accused of betrayal, of ‘deceit’, of ‘conspiracy’ and what not. The general refrain is: Kalyan Singh promised to the courts, to the National Integration Council, to the Central Government, that he would protect the structure, New Delhi trusted his word; he has betrayed the trust. None of these Kalyan-baiters even mentions that along with every assurance, there was an invariable addendum: that he would not use force against the kar sevaks, because he would not like to see any repetition of the traumatic happenings which took place in 1990 during Mulayam Singh’s tenure. This has been stated even in the affidavit given to the Supreme Court by the UP Government. On 6 December, Mr Kalyan Singh stuck to this stand. When in-formed that all efforts at persuading the kar sevaks to desist from demolishing the structure had failed, and that protection of the structure had become impossible except by resort to firing, he forthwith resigned. When political leaders have been driven into such difficult corners, they have been generally inclined to issue oral orders. Bureaucrats have often had to pay the price for such deviousness. In contrast, MrKalyan Singh acted in an exemplary manner. He put down his orders about not using force in writing so that the officers were not punished for what was entirely a political decision. I shudder to think what would have happened that day at Ayodhya if firing had taken place. Jallianwala Bagh would have been re-enacted many times over. There would have been a holocaust not only in Ayodhya but in the whole country. Mr Kalyan Singh acted wisely in refusing to use force. It is significant that the last phase of the demolition, the clearing of the debris, installation of the Ram Lalla idols with due ceremony, and erection of a temporary temple to house the idols, all this happened after New Delhi had taken over the State administration. Yet, wisely again, the Narasimha Rao Government made no attempt to use force to prevent this happening. No doubt, it was Mr Kalyan Singh’s duty to protect the Babri structure. He failed to do so; so he resigned. Protection of the country’s Prime Minister is the responsibility of the Union Home Minister. The country should not forget that Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao was the Home Minister when Mrs Gandhi was brutally killed. It can be said that P.V. failed to protect more than 3,000 Sikhs who were killed in the wake of Mrs Gandhi’s death. Today, I am not arraigning him for failing to resign on that score. I am only trying to point out how outraged he would have felt if, say, in 1984 he had been accused not just of a failure to protect, but of actual complicity in the perpetration of those horrendous crimes! Political observers who have been feeling baffled by the abrupt change of mood of the BJP-RSS-VHP combine from one of regret on6 December to one of ‘determined belligerence’ from 8 December onward, must appreciate that it is a similar sense of outrage over all that the Government and our other opponents have been saying and doing that fully accounts for it. Let it also be realised that once you start circulating conspiracy charges with irresponsible levity, the distrust generated will ultimately boomerang, and get back to its source. I was really amused to read a column by Tavleen Singh in which she summed up the attitude of Congressmen towards Mr Narasimha Rao in these words: ‘Those who are still with him charge him only with being indecisive and weak. Those who are against him are saying much more. Even ministers are admitting, albeit privately, that the Prime Minister had adequate information, before 6 December, to be prepared for what eventually happened. Some go so far as to charge him with collusion with the BJP on the grounds that he is not interested in a Congress revival in North India as this would make it harder for a Prime Minister from the South.’ (The Observer, Dec. 18.) Some of our critics have been comparing the demolition of the Babri structure with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The comparison is ludicrous. But from a purely personal angle, I can establish a nexus. I was 20 years old at that time, and an RSS pracharak in Rajasthan. Mahatmaji’s murder also was followed by a ban on the RSS. I was among the tens of thousands of RSS activists jailed at that time. I recall that the accusations and calumny heaped on us then were far more vile and vicious than we are having to face today. The trial of Godse and the Commission of Inquiry set up later nailed all the lies circulated, and completely exonerated the RSS from the libelous charges hurled at it. The RSS emerged from that first major crisis in its life purer and stronger. It is not without significance that one of those who was spearheading the anti-RSS campaign in 1948, Mr Jayaprakash Narayan, later became one of its most ardent admirers and protagonists. When the RSS was banned the second time in 1975, JP and RSS became comrades-in-arms waging an unrelenting battle for the defence of democracy. In one of his speeches in 1977, the Loknayak observed: ‘RSS is a revolutionary organisation. No other organisation in the country comes anywhere near it. It alone has the capacity to transform society, end casteism, and wipe the tears from the eyes of the poor. May God give you strength and may you live up to such expectations.’

Lemming Complex

Self-preservation is a basic instinct of all living beings. Only a human being can think of, and commit, suicide. There is, however, a rodent found in Scandinavian countries, called Lemming, which in this context is supposed to be unique among animals, and behaves unnaturally. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes Lemming as a ‘small arctic rodent of the genus Lemmus...which is reputed to rush headlong into the sea and drown during migration.’ To me, it seems the Congress Party these days is in the grip of a terrible Lemming complex! Let the Congress do with itself what it wishes. For the BJP, the situation poses a challenge which, if tackled wisely, with determination and readiness, if need be, to wage a protracted struggle, can become a watershed in the history of independent India. Let us also realise that intolerance and fanaticism are traits which may appear to give a cutting edge to a movement but which actually causes great damage to the movement. They have to be consciously eschewed. Once that happens, even our Muslim brethren would appreciate that in India there can be no firmer foundation for communal harmony than cultural nationalism. The present situation presents to the country a unique opportunity. Let us grab it by the forelock. December 6 did not turn out to be as we expected; we did not want it to happen that way. But then, as the famous essayist Sir Arthur Helps has said: ‘Fortune does not stoop often to take anyone up. Favourable opportunities will not happen precisely in the way that you imagined. Nothing does.’

Or, as Goswami Tulsidas has put it in a somewhat different vein: ‘Hoi hai soi jo Rama rachi rakha!

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.