)
Vinay Sahasrabuddhe is national vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party and a key member of the party's think tank, the Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini. He tells Archis Mohan that the Modi government is committed to good governance and constructing a post-Nehruvian India. Edited excerpts:
Many, including top Sangh leaders, had proclaimed the Narendra Modi government as the first non-Nehruvian or post-Nehruvian government of India. What have been the post-Nehruvian characteristics of this government in the last one year?
Just to put things in perspective, K B Hedgewar too was once upon a time a Congress worker but after a point, he got frustrated due to certain policy positions adopted by the Congress and decided to establish the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh).
For the first time, a genuinely non-Congress establishment with full majority in the Lok Sabha has taken over, so it has more legroom to shift the focus and move away from whatever that was negative or has become irrelevant of the so-called Nehruvian model. But ideological shifts cannot happen all of a sudden. It is a transitional process and the basic grain of Indian world view is continuity with change.
As for the changes, first is the issue of secularism. Pandit (Jawaharlal) Nehru's politics, even right before independence, was associated with his own idea of secularism, at the centre of which was the accommodation of the Muslim view or Muslim sentiment come what may or at any cost, and this continued after independence. I think this government certainly is miles away from that. We are for genuine secularism with its roots in the Indian tenet of Ekam sat, Vipra: Bahuda Vadanti! (Truth is one; sages call it by different names).
Point number two is about socialism. Even the Congress bid goodbye to Nehruvian socialism in the 1990s but unfortunately what the Congress did not stop was the habit of indulging in politics of poverty. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA), and especially the way aspects of creation of permanent assets was wantonly disregarded in the previous regime; obviously had some element of politics of poverty. This government does not want to pursue the path of economic populism. MNREGA funds need to be invested in the creation of permanent assets.
Thirdly, this government is non-Nehruvian in its approach to the voluntary or social sector. While I don't think Nehru had anything to do with it, this government is breaking from the trodden path of previous governments and finding a new approach. While this government appreciates the importance of voluntary sector it also believes that with so many of them mushrooming, they can't escape public scrutiny. They do have their own frailties, infirmities and limitations and need to be made more accountable. Let any wrongs committed by them come to the fore. If certain voluntary organisations associated with certain funding organisations, including from abroad, have indulged in some kind of international politics related activities as well, let the government look into them. This unconventional and bold stand is a departure. We are not against the voluntary sector. After all, the origin of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) is in the RSS, which is the largest voluntary organisation in the world.
On defence and foreign policy, Nehru was guided by the idea of Panchsheel on national security and foreign relations. I would say this government's policies are more India centric. That the friendship with other countries is always based on reciprocity and mutuality is, I believe, at the core of this government's approach.
On the question of socialism, why is the government then so sensitive about the criticism that it is pro-corporate and anti-farmer?
This is because the entire public discourse in our country, including the academia, is also dominated by Nehruvian thinking. It looks at with suspicion everything with which Nehru had some strong reservations. This kind of thinking is the source of misperceptions about us and to fix these one has to go the extra mile. This game of perception also has to do with the ideology of political untouchability.
There is a strong feeling among people associated with the Sangh that their views never find proper reflection in the media, that they are cornered or ignored or treated as secondary citizens even in opinion-making circles or academia. Those swearing day in and day out of liberalism are unfortunately the most illiberal. They are not prepared to tolerate the other view, and look at it in a more objective and dispassionate manner, and that is why we have to on the one hand cater to these classes and on the other underscore the facets of our policy.
The education sector was expected to lead the post-Nehruvian change. But the human resources development ministry is in news for all the wrong reasons, and even fellow travellers of the Sangh are feeling insulted.
I think some mishaps, if any, are worth ignoring as there is no doubt about the intentions.
As for the education sector being at the vanguard of this ideological shift, to some extent, things were taken care of during Murli Manohar Joshi's time and whatever that is remaining, I am sure, will find some reflection in the new education policy that this government is currently working on. So, let us wait for some time because as it happens we have burnt our fingers previously, even small changes were seen through the magnifying glass and needless colour was added to that. We will go slowly but with more certitude in our approach and you will see the results in the days to come.
I believe, as somebody who has worked in the field of education, our education system needs to encourage a sense of ownership and belonging for this country among our youth. The other challenge is to enhance the employability of our youth and focus on skill-development.
There is increased criticism of the government from the Sangh Parivar affiliates.
I would say, of late, there is no criticism because whatever the dialogue deficit that was there has been taken care of. There were a series of meetings between the Kisan Sangh, Mazdoor Sangh and the government. See, one must accept that we cannot have a situation with hundred per cent unanimity. These are all independent organisations with work of several decades behind them, their own knowledge base and insights. Equally, there is a view in the BJP because they have seen the government from within, and after all, the BJP has to win elections. What is important is the basic conviction that we cannot and we should not doubt the intentions of the other.
How do you see the renewed attack by Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi?
After vipassana, one becomes more introspective and looks within. But I am finding a different Rahul Gandhi. It doesn't match with his recent past. Whatever he is talking today, he, for at least a decade, had absolutely forgotten to walk (when the Congress was in government). No amount of vipassana can wash away the element of hypocrisy. His own state governments implemented certain ideas that he is talking against from the rooftops now.
You are closely associated with the training of BJP legislators. But the training is yet to get institutionalised in the BJP?
In fact, the BJP is the only party to have consciously tried to institutionalise training. But conducting training sessions is not all that easy. As (L K) Advaniji said once, the party is compelled to remain permanently in election mode. So, there are limitations to training of our cadre because of the dynamic nature of politics. However, no other political party can dream of training 1.5 million of its cadre. We want to become a cadre-based party with a mass following. A renewing process is inherent to have that kind of cadre base.
