The Union Minister for Human Resource Development, Mr. Arjun Singh, who was a front-runner in the leadership stakes in the Congress earlier and who is today a senior member of the Narasimha Rao Cabinet, is optimistic about this Government’s prospects. He believes that the Government need not feel hampered by its minority status, because when it takes decisions that “cannot be faulted from the point of view of national interest”, there would be little opposition to these decisions.
Mr. Arjun Singh explains in a conversation with Malini Parthasarathy the background to the suggestion, which he, among others, had been strongly mooting — that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi become party president. “Soniaji,” he argues, “has a cohesive and uniting role to play.” He also vigorously contends that for Mrs. Sonia Gandhi to play a political role was not at the expense of the position of Mr. Narasimha Rao. As for his own Prime Ministerial ambitions, the answer is a dismissive smile and he demurs: “I have no such illusions.”
Excerpts from the interview
Question:
Now that the budget session is over, this would be the time for the party to consolidate itself. The basic structural weakness of being a minority Government remains. What steps will the Government take to ensure its stability?
Answer:
I will try to recollect the circumstances in which this Government was formed. The assassination of Rajivji, the resultant trauma and the political void that was created in the Congress party and then the very acrimonious general elections. The Indian polity was never so fractured as it was during the two months of the election campaign.
In that background, this Government was formed. So it definitely not only suffers from the lack of a majority, but the effects of all these factors on the national consciousness also have their place in the totality of the circumstances.
The first thing was, how to get over the sudden void that has appeared in the political firmament and in the Congress party, because of Rajivji’s assassination. Well, you see ambition is a very common feature of any politician and legitimate also. But I must say to the credit of every single political leader in the Congress party that at that moment of crisis everyone set a limit on his own personal ambition. If that had not happened, the Congress would have disintegrated. And that goes to the credit of the party as a political entity.
Secondly, the message that the Indian electorate gave very loud and clear was that in spite of these acrimonious elections, in spite of the communal passions aroused, the electorate decisively negated the communal approach. The BJP increased its strength from 80 to 117. To that extent the BJP has gained. But that it was 117 and not 350 or 255 is the signal point. It showed that the electorate was certainly not in favour of the BJP in a big way. There was no “Hindu wave” coming in.
Because all the other people who were elected, apart from the 117, they also derived their support from Hindu, Muslim, Sikhs, all communities. That, I think, is a redeeming feature and in that background, the formation of the Government took place and the challenges that were on the national agenda were taken.
The choice of Narasimha Raoji as the leader, as Prime Minister, was dictated by the inner feeling in the Congress party, that he is the best among the seniormost, perhaps the most acceptable. All these factors, they were weighed and valued and everyone thought that this was the best thing to do. Having elected him as Congress President, it was natural for him to become Prime Minister.
To the extent, I can see, there was no focus of any kind of dissidence or dissatisfaction, which could be fanned into something politically damaging. That is why in spite of all the forebodings expressed, this Government could not only survive this Parliament, but also take some very bold decisions.
Question:
Why did the Congress Working Committee suggest Mrs. Sonia Gandhi? In a sense, there was a delayed acceptance of the choice of Mr. Narasimha Rao.
Answer:
I was one of those who had suggested this. Naturally you would like an explanation from me and that explanation should be cogent.
What is the relevance of the suggestion to make Mrs. Sonia Gandhi the party president? I do not deny that there was an emotional element to the suggestion and the fact is that for the last 35 years of my political work, all these 35 years barring the one year when I was an independent MLA, I have been in the Congress working with Panditji, Indiraji and Rajivji and I am proud of it.
The second thing was, according to my judgment, the sudden void that was created, there was a risk of people suddenly becoming totally directionless and, as happens in such moments, advantage is taken of by people who are inimical to the Congress and, if I may say so, I must say even at the risk of getting a lot of criticism, that for the time being, the unity and relevance of the Congress party are directly related to the unity and relevance of the Indian nation.
The unity and relevance of the Congress party have become coterminous with the unity and integration of the country. If the Congress had disintegrated at that time or if it disintegrates even now, there will be serious repercussions in the country.
So it was my feeling that she, Sonia Gandhi, would be a tremendous cohesive force, first in the Congress party. If the Congress is united and strong, only then will it be able to discharge its responsibility outside.
I felt then and I tell you I feel even now that in the Congress party, Soniaji has a cohesive role to play, a uniting role to play then and even now. Everyone agreed to it, but she turned it down and I think her turning it down elevated her status.
Question:
Don’t you feel that the possibility that she might at any time step into the ring weakens Mr. Narasimha Rao’s political authority?
Answer:
That can be relevant to the situation only if you feel or believe that there is some inherent conflict between Narasimha Raoji and Soniaji.
Question:
There would definitely be parallel power centres in the party...
Answer:
The power centres would be if only Mr. Narasimha Rao considers her as a threat or if she wants to usurp the powers of Mr. Narasimha Rao. When both do not exist, then how can that happen? I believe that both of these things won’t exist. Yet she remains a cohesive force or uniting force.
Question:
One element of your party’s recovery would involve reviving its support in the Hindi heartland. Do you think the party needs to project a leader from the Hindi belt?
Answer:
No, no. It is not the question of north and south. You see, the Congress organisation has had great presidents from the south. But the Congress has never thought in terms of north and south as a party and all the presidents that came from the south, they have never been inhibited in their day-to-day activity in getting their support or the full backing of the Congress in the north.
But in the new circumstances that have risen post-elections where the Congress has been routed in the north, what do we do? That is a very pertinent question.
I don’t think the conferring of leadership is the only way out. We have elected a leader so there is no question of now electing somebody else to take care of the Congress. Now we should go very carefully about what is needed and what has gone wrong and if there has been an erosion in the base or in the confidence that the Congress enjoyed in these areas from those people who were traditionally in the party, the Harijans, the minorities, the backward. What has gone wrong and that wrong has to be corrected not by speeches alone.
Question:
Wasn’t such an exercise undertaken after the 1989 defeat?
Answer:
It was begun in 1989 and it had an effect, but not to the extent that all of us wanted.
Question:
On the two key issues in the politics of the Hindi belt, Ayodhya and Mandal, has the party come to any conclusion as to how the treatment of these issues affected its election prospects?
Answer:
Both the issues must be met squarely. There cannot be equivocation. I think we suffered because some of us were equivocal and whenever — I am not letting out a secret — this is known. Whenever Rajivji wanted to be clear and categorical, some amongst us would advise him against it and that the net result would be that it would appear as if the party is equivocal. We had suffered because of that.
Question:
Do you have in mind the party’s support to the Mulayam Singh Yadav Ministry?
Answer:
No, I am not relating it to any individual. We are talking of the crux of the issue. Now at the moment, what is required is that on the Ayodhya issue, it should be very clearly understood that the Congress party is for the building of the Bhagwan Ram temple. When in reality, this was so, the impression went that we were against the building of the temple. Why, because we approached the matter with some equivocation.
Question:
Well, there was certainly a feeling that with the Shilanyas the Congress was pitching for the Hindu vote.
Answer:
Yes, because again the equivocation took its toll. Building a temple does not necessarily mean demolishing a mosque. And if the question of any demolition is to be taken up, then there are ways how to arrive at a conclusion about it. It has either to be by mutual consent or discussion, consultation or, as it happens in all civilised countries, through a judicial process.
On the issue of reservations, now here again while the Congress party has in fact initiated the concept of reservations for backward classes, we have been made to look as if we were totally opposed to the idea of reservation. Here again, I think we made some mistakes. And here again Rajivji time and again wanted to correct it and I am saying this without any fear of contradiction.
So on this subject, Rajiv Gandhi never wanted to be against the concept of reservation and he only thought that the element of backwardness among the backward classes should also be a factor. And since it also has an economic content, even those people who do not fall under the castes enumerated as backward, that is people from the upper castes also, who are in their economic category, should also get some benefit in the process. Now this we could not put across.
Question:
You have been at the helm in Madhya Pradesh, a State where the BJP is a force. In your opinion, how has the BJP emerged as a major political presence?
Answer:
The reason why the BJP has suddenly come up should be answered after taking a total view. You cannot answer this question constituency-wise and you cannot answer this State-wise.
See, so long as there were issues in the public mind which related to matters concerning the country, the community at large, the socio-economic scene, the Congress ideas or for that matter, even the Leftist programmes were the deciding factors for making public policy.
Now as soon as there was a slight unfocussing of these issues, then in public life there is never a vacuum. The BJP had never had any programmatic approach to the country’s problems. So they very cleverly took the opportunity of this vacuum and filled it with caste and communal and religious issues.
The BJP has no fixed national perspectives to guide the nation, they have to fall back on emotional issues, whether it is religion or it is Article 370 in Kashmir or whatever else it may be.
Question:
In your opinion, what should be done to refocus national priorities? How can the threat of religious chauvinism be handled?
Answer:
We have to again focus the nation’s attention on the socio-economic issues, on the political issues, on our international position. What we want this country to do and where we want it to go. All this has to be brought back into focus and then automatically and gradually this issue will be marginalised.
If we attach the same importance to it that they are attaching, then this debate will go on endlessly. We have strong attachments to regional and local affinities. There is hardly any area in this country which cannot look back nostalgically and proudly on its past and conceive of itself as being the centre of a great civilisation. In this you mix religion which becomes more potent and more dangerous also.
We have to get out of that frame of mind. India now is a modern country. We are proud of the Moghul Empire, we are proud of the Kalinga Empire, we are proud of the Marathas and we are proud of the other great political entities that have gone in the past. But they cannot become the focus for present greatness.
So secularism is not only the question of between Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian. It is what is our loyalty to. Our loyalty has to be to the country. Then only do we become Muslims, then we become Hindus, then we become Christians. Otherwise, those sub-loyalties all go to feed and add to the basic concept of fundamentalism.
As long as you go on dividing the basic loyalty of a citizen towards his country and you condition it with these sub-loyalties you are in fact helping fundamentalism.
Question:
Given these basic challenges to our national identity as, for instance, the attack on a secular political ethos, is there not a need for a realignment of political forces on a secular platform?
Answer:
I think it is a little premature to predict the pattern that is going to emerge in the near or distant future about the political realignment. But this much is now very clear. That all parties in which I include the Congress party also, have to think or rethink over their policies, programmes and principles which they have been pronouncing so far.
First, about the relevance of those things to the present context in the country. Secondly, as to whether those perceptions that grew out of those programmes and policies are at the moment adding or subtracting to the building up of a national identity. And thirdly, how those principles, programmes and policies are to be used to convert our stagnant industrial situation in the country.
I think, that kind of thinking is bound to take place, but what it will result in, frankly speaking, I am not in a position to say.
Question:
The economic reforms that have been brought in are certain to raise some concern over whether these may be at the expense of distributive goals. There was some discussion within the Congress also. Are you not worried that the new economic approach could have an adverse impact, politically speaking?
Answer:
Well, I must confess very clearly that I am no great economist. But as a public worker I can answer this question. Let us look at it rationally. I don’t think that there is anybody in the Left, who would support the idea that India should lag behind in becoming a strong industrial nation, producing the wealth that it needs for the present and also for investment in the future.
There can’t be any doubt on that. The question is how do we go about it. At the time when we became free, we lacked both infrastructure, capital, and also perhaps the expertise. And in that situation, the first industrial policy was formulated by Panditji.
It is very obvious that in that policy resolution these three things were addressed by him. That they were addressed in the correct way was borne out by the fact that where we started in 1947 and where we are today in 1991, I think even the worst cynic and sceptic will have to concede that India went forward and did not go backward.
That we went forward and have arrived here proves that the first postulates were correct. Because we are a poor country and because certain elements could have taken advantage of the socio-economic disparities to enrich themselves at the cost of the community, a lot of safeguards, regulations and controls were built into the system of industrialisation.
Indiraji started removing many of the regulatory functions which had become redundant. Now with this latest decision, we have taken a step which is required at the moment to further propel the industrialisation of this country.
Now unless we produce wealth, the distributive part will become almost an illusion. Now on the distributive part, I am quite clear in my mind that for a long time to come in India, the State will have to play a very decisive and crucial role in seeing that the distributive part is taken care of in such a manner that the weaker and poorer sections of the community get the maximum potential.
Question:
On Punjab, with President’s rule being extended again, is there hope of any political process being initiated? Your Government has promised elections by next February. But meanwhile, what about steps like reviving elements of the Rajiv-Longowal accord?
Answer:
I think in Punjab, what is missing today is mutual faith and trust. The Rajiv-Longowal accord means a lot of things in terms of paras and sentences and commas and full stops. But the whole thing that is underlined is mutual trust.
If Sant Longowal had no faith in Rajiv Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi had no trust in Sant Longowal, that accord would have never seen the light of the day. And mind you, this happened almost in the aftermath of Bluestar, almost under the shadow of Bluestar Operation.
So whoever feels that he has to contribute something to the Punjab solution, the first thing should be to contribute to the building of this trust and faith.
Question:
Postponing elections was hardly conducive to building trust...
Answer:
I don’t think that was the right thing to do. But it was done under circumstances which, perhaps could not be avoided. But now we have set a deadline and I think the Prime Minister is quite clear and we are also quite clear that there cannot be any more dragging on this non-election situation.
Question:
If a realignment of forces does not take place and you do not get a majority, how will your party be able to ensure the stability of this Government?
Answer:
You see, we cannot go by mathematical standards in achieving political ends and I think to say that we should get rid of our minority status and only then things will happen, well, time is not going to wait for it.
Secondly, we need not be hampered or totally limited by our minority status from doing what we think is right and correct for the country. And I think we will succeed if we are able to take decisions in a manner which cannot be faulted from the point of view of national interest.
Then even if there are some differences, they will be reconciled. Because everyone will ultimately see what the national interest is.
Question:
Are you an aspirant to become the Prime Minister? You were a front-runner earlier. You did say earlier that it was legitimate to have political ambition.
Answer:
I can become a prime target by having such illusions. Therefore, I don’t entertain these illusions at all.
“Contender” presupposes two things. One that there is something to contend for. Secondly, that I consider myself as eminently suited or as the only person who can fit that.
First, there is nothing to contend for. Because we have a Prime Minister whom we have all joined together to elect and all of us with our limited capacity are committed to help him to run the country. I am very insignificant, but I would like to be a part of the effort.
Secondly, I think there are many more people more eminently suited than me to hold this office. The question of having an ambition is not wrong. But to have a vaulting ambition which overlooks the realities of the situation can be the cause of great tragedy as it has happened.
Once you feel that you are being denied or deprived then processes are set in motion which are not only undesirable, unwanted, but I think, dangerous to the country’s interest and the party’s interest. I am not interested in that kind of process. I don’t feel deprived or denied of anything.
Question:
Could you be considered a Prime Minister-in-waiting then?
Answer:
No, I think as I told you, that germ that enters your mind that is the destructive germ. That is what I am trying to tell you. And so far, I have been able to keep the germ out of my mind, I have no intention to allow it to enter my mind now.