The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  I am not merely recalling history. I would like to submit to this august assembly that the agenda for democracy is by no means over, all over the world. The principle of the system is perhaps universally accepted now, but even this acceptance is not unqualified. In the ultimate analysis, the survival and acceptance of any system would depend crucially on its capacity to deliver the goods. This may not be so obvious in countries where democracy has become a way of life and the political process has got rooted in the principle for centuries, making it normal and unquestioned. But elsewhere, the temptation to cut corners for immediate benefits and the tendency to superficialize democracy while the real wielders of power only make it a mask—these are phenomena that should make genuine votaries of the system sit up and think.

  I may be forgiven for striking this new, if discordant, note in the orchestra of prevailing opinion. I submit, that the basic and most essential agenda of the world hereafter, perhaps through the next century, is the consolidation and concretization of democracy. On this single plank, directly or indirectly, will depend the prospects of peace, disarmament and development—in one word, the survival of humankind. I am not referring to the processes of democracy but to its content which should, in essence, mean that the will of the ordinary citizen, as it is and not as it is manipulated for a given occasion, prevails. I do realize that this is a tall order; yet nothing less will do, if the dangers to democracy are to be met effectively. The twenty-first century must prove that development is best assured when democracy is assured.

  The crux of the matter is, how much is the real stake in democracy that has been created for all people of the world, not just some? How effective is democracy in solving the problems of the people where it has been newly adopted? This is a crucial question for the system to take root in what may be called somewhat alien soils.

  In developing countries, government is a serious matter. A much larger proportion of people are affected by changes in government there, than in affluent countries. This can be easily seen. It accounts for the heavier turnout of voters in developing countries when elections are held. By the same token, one could imagine the frustration and consequent erosion of faith in the system if the system fails to deliver. The success of democracy is, therefore, a very important part of political stability everywhere. The question therefore is: Since the bloc configuration, which did not, and perhaps could not, put any great value on democracy then, is not such a compelling necessity now, what can the established democracies do for the success of their system in the world so that governments become transparent and are run according to the common aspirations of the common people everywhere? I have no ready-made answers, but I am sure that the task is worth taking note of. And I beseech your attention, as a tested and tempered person from the grassroots of a developing society who, in the footsteps of great stalwarts, struggled for freedom, attained freedom and has ever since been involved in consolidating that freedom—in a vast and complex country where nothing has been easy through the long centuries, where life has been a perpetual walk on a razor’s edge.

  There is another matter in which we come face to face with the need for responsibility, in thought and in action. It is a similar sense that must inform our tending of our planet’s resources. The pace of development often prompts the appropriation—or misappropriation—of what is not ours, this generation’s alone, legitimately. I recall the felicity with which I, in my campaign to be a state legislator, promised roads to my constituents forty years ago, we built the roads but lost the forests. That, perhaps, epitomizes the dilemma of a development that must sustain itself and sustain the heritage within which it is rooted. Today’s easy options could prove to be tomorrow’s regrets; so it is in the quest of technologies that allow development with responsibility that we have yet another critical area for the partnership between India and America and our peoples.

  Mr Vice President, two years ago you authored a book which one critic, very aptly, described as remarkable for a political figure, in that you wrote it yourself. Going through it with an interest compelled as much by your style as your subject, I came across an anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi that I had not chanced upon earlier. It bears repetition, and I hope you will allow me. Gandhiji, you write, was approached one day by a woman, concerned that her son ate too much sugar. She requested him to counsel her son about its harmful effects. The Mahatma promised to do so but asked her to return after a fortnight. This she did and Gandhiji advised the boy as he had promised. The mother was profuse in her gratitude but could not conceal her puzzlement as to why Gandhiji had insisted on the interval of two weeks. He was honest in his reply, and said, ‘I needed the two weeks to stop eating sugar myself.’

  We are now in the closing years of a century ravaged by war, made heroic by the scientific, intellectual, and creative attainments of man, enfeebled by want and deprivation and yet made strong by our collective cap a city to identify solutions that had eluded us in the past. We recognize those solutions, but like Gandhiji, we will have to take our two weeks to practise them before we acquire the authority to prescribe them to others. That, in a sense, is what responsibility is all about.

  Lala Lajpat Rai, one of the great fighters for India’s freedom, had written of the ‘numberless American men and women who stand for the freedom of the world, who know no distinctions of colour, race or creed and who prefer the religion of love, humanity and justice.’ The people of India count upon those numberless women and men of this great country to work together with them and their representatives to realize the vision that our shared experience and practice of democracy have made possible and the responsibilities of our times have rendered necessary.

  Why Ayodhya is a setback1 (New Delhi, December 1992)

  L.K. ADVANI (1927–)

  On December 6, 1992, a mob claiming allegiance to various Hindu fanatical organizations, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, razed the sixteenth century Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to the ground. The Sangh Parivar averred that the mosque had been built on the site of a temple that marked the birth place of Rama. Advani was one of the leaders who had campaigned for the Ram mandir. On December 6, he was actually present in Ayodhya and saw the mosque being demolished. At one point he did try to restrain the mob, but in vain. When the destruction had been carried out, one of the chief functionaries of the Rashtriyaswayam Sevak Sangh, K.S. Sudarshan, told Advani, ‘accept what has happened.’ Advani replied he would ‘publicly express regret for it’. In this speech he came close to expressing regret.

  Last year, a Calcutta daily asked me to identify a day or moment in my life which I regarded my happiest. I named October 30, 1990, and more specifically, the moment I heard the BBC broadcast that kar sevaks had and broken all barriers put up by the Mulayam Singh’s government, penetrated into Ayodhya and performed kar seva.

  Ironically, this year’s kar seva day at Ayodhya, December 6, 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 December 6 happenings had impaired the reputation of the BJP and the RSS as organizations 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 whereunder 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.

  The BJP’s action plan contemplated delinking the dispute about the structure from commencing construction at the shilanyas site (within the 2.77-acres 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 organizations can certainly be blamed for not being able to judge the impatience of the people participating in the movement.

  No one can deny the manner in which courts had been dragging their feet on all issues relating to Ayodhya, and the obstructive and obtuse role of the Centre 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 purposes) 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 themselves to ensure 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 elections would be held within six months.

  It did not take Arjun Singh even 24 hours to come forth with a contradiction, saying polls in these three states would be held after one year!

  In a recent article (Hindustan Times. December 17, 1992), former Statesman editor S. Sahay has noted: ‘The feedback is there were elections to be held today in UP, 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.

  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 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 policemen. 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 sarva-pantha-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 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 criticized by the Muslim League as being an exponent of Hindu raj. The League did not relish the chanting of Ram dhun, when at Gandhiji’s meetings or his insistence on goraksha (cow-protection).

  The 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 had become a euphemism to cloak their intense allergy to religion, and more particularly, to Hinduism.

  It is this attitude which the BJP characterizes 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 V.P. Singh stopped the rath yatra, and put me and my colleagues in the yatra behind bars, A.B. Vajpayee called on the President, and informed him the BJP had withdrawn support to the National Front government. It was obvious to all that Mr Singh’s government had been reduced to a hopeless minority. But he did not resign. Instead, he convened a special session of Parliament to vote on 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 him not to confine it to the four walls of Parliament, but to take it to the people.

  V.P. Singh was defeated in Parliament that day. But he shied away from accepting our challenge. Events nevertheless move inexorably towards the trial of strength we had asked for.

  Seven months later, people went to the polls to elect the country’s 10th 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 state legislatures has been growing at a rapid pace, but that acceptance of our ideology in all sections of society and at all levels has been growing simultaneously.

  A silent minority has been building up even among the Muslims which appreciates 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 had added considerably to the BJP’s credibility in this regard.

  It is the process of widening acceptability of the BJP 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 December 6 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 1,000 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 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 realize 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 happenings of December 6 have given our opponents a han
dle to malign the Ayodhya movement as being fundamentalist and fanatic.

  Amidst the hysterical breast-beating that has been going on for over a fortnight now, there have been in the media’s voices of reason, a few distinguished journalists who have tried to put the events in proper perspective, and to emphasize 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 Press Journal (Bombay, December 17, 1992), Mr M.V. Kamath, former editor of the Illustrated Weekly of 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 mosques 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’.