In June 1975, Kedar Nath, a journalist from The Caravan—which had been launched by the Delhi Press as its first magazine in 1940—conducted an interview with Lal Krishna Advani at his residence in Pandara Road, Delhi. Advani, now a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was serving his third year as the elected president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS). The BJS was the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and was in existence from 1951 to 1977, after which it merged with several parties such as the Bhartiya Lok Dal, Swatantra Party, the Janata Morcha and the Socialist Party of India of Raj Narain and George Fernandes to form the Janata Party. However, as differences began cropping up within the alliance, the erstwhile Bhartiya Jana Sangh formed a separate party: the BJP.
During this interview, Advani spoke of the widening gap between the political elite and the masses in India, why he believed Indian Muslims had to shed their “separatist tendencies” to achieve the vision of an Akhand Bharat—undivided India—and his view on the prevailing opinion that the RSS wielded an undue amount of influence on the Jana Sangh.
CARAVAN: Do you feel the gap between the political elite and the masses is widening and something should be done in the direction of bridging this gap? When I say political elite, I have in mind not only the ruling parties but the Opposition parties as well.
Advani: I wouldn’t deny what you’re saying. It is true that the most important conflict in our society is between the political elite and the masses. The closed elite system as it has emerged on the scene has alienated itself from the masses and this situation has led to social tensions. The rot set in immediately after the independence. The ruling party and its fountainhead, the late Jawaharlal Nehru have been to a great extent responsible for the existing not too happy situation. As for the survival of democracy, it raises a big question mark.
CARAVAN: What role do you have in mind for your party to bridge this gap?
Advani: The Jana Sangh is a cadre-based party and we in the party through our Mandal Samitis (Block-level Committees) are trying to educate the masses. Moreover, we believe that example is better than precept. We live a simple life. There is nothing ostentatious about our personal, social or political life. We have nothing to conceal from the masses. We know that the masses are supreme and they should be the arbiters of our conduct.
CARAVAN: What is the strategy of your party to combat political corruption in the country?
Advani: Political corruption can be checked by individual and institutional safeguards incorporated in the Constitution. The cancerous growth of the malady has its deep roots in the political offices through which the politicians of the ruling party try to derive pecuniary benefits at the expense of the State. The reports of the Administrative Reforms Commission and the Santhanam Committee on checking political and bureaucratic corruption can prove greatly effective, if fully and properly implemented But the ruling party has ignored these recommendations to further the interest of its own survival. It needs money to fight elections.
Moreover, all corruption in political life flows from the top. If the top political leadership is above board, corruption can be checked. The government should appoint Lok Ayuktas and Lokpals to inquire into the charges of corrupt practices. In case of reported corruption by an incumbent holding political office by five or six MPs or MLAs, the case should be inquired into. If a prima facie case is established, the incumbent should be removed from office.
I feel, if Lal Bahadur Shashtri had lived for a few years more, the nation would have been freed of corruption as he was an honest man to the core.
CARAVAN: We have had three major wars with Pakistan and as the situation exists today, how do you visualise the goal of Akhand Bharat, an article of faith with your party?
Advani: I’m an optimist. The three countries of the Indian subcontinent can join in a federation. It will not only help India but also Pakistan. Akhand Bharat manifests unity in diversity.
CARAVAN: The genesis of Pakistan is such that so long as it exists it will continue to be hostile towards India. In such circumstances, how do you feel a federation could be established?
Advani: It is very simple. When Indian Muslims shed their separatist tendencies and attune themselves to the national tradition and heritage that very day Pakistan will lose it raison d’etre. And Pakistan will join the federation.
I may say here that many people are doubtful whether Akhand Bharat could ever be achieved. Their doubt is the result of their defeatist mentality. The defeat of 1947, when Bharat was partitioned was the defeat of those particular efforts that were made in the name of national unity. We failed not because our goal was wrong, but because our means were wrong.
CARAVAN: As the situation exists today, there is no opposition to the Congress Party in the real sense. What strategy do you have in mind to create a viable opposition?
Advani: Through a growing consensus among the Opposition parties. The Jana Sangh is supporting JP’s movement in that direction. Possibly, it might establish the primacy of masses over the Government. Out of this movement would emerge a viable alternative. The Congress Party has lost in the recent elections to the ‘people’s Candidates.’ That augurs well for the country.
CARAVAN: Political opinion in the country is not favourably inclined towards another experiment similar to the 1967 coalitions with the diametrically opposite parties life the Communist Party of India. In case of multi-party system even in JP’s movement, when it will come to sharing power there will be in-fighting among the partners.
Advani: The collapse of general confidence in the ruling party and the government has resulted in a challenging situation. A vacuum is developing and it would be dangerous to let it remain unfilled. I fully agree with you that coalition Governments in 1967 in a number of States set a bad precedent but you will also agree with me that these Governments were far more honest than the Congress-led ministries.
It is no doubt a fact that the Opposition parties cannot claim to have built up a credible alternative to the Congress as yet. Occasionally we hear of moves to persuade all non-Congress, non-Communist Opposition parties to fuse into one, or forge a united front against the ruling party. The efforts are no doubt well-intentioned, but I feel it would be more fruitful for Opposition parties to come together on specific issues and to keep widening this area of concerted action, rather than talk vaguely about a merger or united fronts. For example, barring the CPI, the entire opposition has backed JP’s movement. We should never forget that the strategy of non-Congressism or anti-Congressism has obvious limitations and that these have now been demonstrated in case of the Bhartiya Lok Dal, where every constituent party abuses the other.
CARAVAN: It is said that the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and the Nagpur Orthodoxy always try to bully the Jana Sangh. As the President of the party, do you feel so?
Advani: I don’t agree with your statement. RSS and the party are two different entities. What you describe as the “Nagpur Orthodoxy” never dictates the terms to the part as such. However, I must admit that the Jana Sangh to a large extent derives its cadres from the RSS. It has been providing the rank and file of the party.
I may draw your attention to the fact that when Dr Shayama Prasad Mookherji decided to establish the party after leaving Nehru Cambinet in 1951, he held counsel with Shri Guruji and sought his advice and assistance in launching a political organization committed to the resurgence and revitalisation of the Bhartiya values in the national politics. Shri Guruji readily blessed Dr Mookherji’s move. Against the background of the Jana Sangh’s genesis, the laboured writing we see in a section of the press—some innocent, other not-so-innocent—dwelling on the relationship between Jana Sangh and the RSS (as if there was something mysterious and esoteri about it) would seem pointless and even amusing. Organisationally, and in respect of the spheres of activity, the tow bodies are entirely distinct, but historically, they are facets of the same ideological movement.
CARAVAN: A number of part workers and legislators have left your party in recent years. Their contention had been that there is too much of ‘suffocation’ in the party. Is it because if intra-party fight or for certain other reasons?
Advani: We are the most disciplined party. We would opt for the Opposition benches than tolerate indiscipline. If someone talks of this discipline as ‘suffocation,’ well, he is at liberty to do so.
CARAVAN: It has been maintained that rationalism has not been the strong point of Hinduism-oriented ideology of the Jana Sangh. Would you like to elaborate on this point?
Advani: Too much rationalism leads to individualism, which further leads to social disorder.
CARAVAN: Does unity in your part reflect the irrationality of your partymen?
(There followed a hearty laughter.)
Caravan: What alternative economic programmes do you have in mind?
Advani: As early as 1952, the party viewed with concern the economic imbalances in the national economy. We are in favour of a mixed economy and feel the necessity of State-control to some extent to shape the economic policy. But economic activities should be diversified to meet the present challenges. We feel that agriculture should be given top priority so that the country becomes self-sufficient in food. More consumer goods industries in small sector should be established.
The income-gap between the highest and the lowest should not exceed the ration 1:20 ratio. However, we do not believe in socialism as a panacea of all ills. We feel that exploitation and inequality as they exist today should be removed. But exploitation is the result, not of owning property, but of using it in an undesirable manner. The ownership and management of property can always be subject to social sanction and regulations.
CARAVAN: Does your party believe in the use of force as held out to the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) by Dr Henry Kissinger?
Advani: We do not subscribe to the idea of force by the USA. The USA could use other means to settle this dispute. (He refused to make a categorical statement when asked to elaborate.)
CARAVAN: There has been a lot of thinking on electoral reforms. What kind of reforms do you have in mind?
Advani: We have been carrying on a systematic and sustained campaign o f electoral reform since 1967. The Indian Constitution has accepted the majority system of elections under which the legislators are elected from single-member constituencies, not by an absolute majority but by a relative majority. As most contests are multi-cornered, very often a candidate polling just 30 to 2 per cent votes in the constituency romps home to victory. This system has aptly been described as the first-post-the-post-system. He horse that goes past the victory post first is the winner, be it just a hair-breadth ahead of the second.
For electoral reforms, therefore, India needs to consider the experience of European countries which have adopted simpler forms of proportional representation. The most popular of this is the List System. There are many variants of this method but the underlying idea is that the lector votes not for an individual candidate or candidates but for a party list. The constituencies are generally multi-cornered and after the poll each party receives a share of the seats in the constituency corresponding as nearly as practicable to the percentage of votes polled by it.
In this process, there is no element of gamble and the risk of a party getting into power on the basis of minority votes is eliminated. An obvious merit of this device is that it would effectively check floor-crossing.