Posted on Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 02:04 am:

---

quote:

Q) But the Sangh doesn't seem to favour personality-based politics and would want the BJP to adopt a collegium approach to decision-making?

A) The collegium method doesn't work in politics. You can have players like Sachin Tendulkar but you need a captain, a Mahendra Singh Dhoni. You will have to have someone who is the last word in the party. In the Jan Sangh days, it was first Shyama Prasad Mookherjee, and then Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, and later Atalji. Since the BJP was formed in 1980, Atalji and I got involved in the decision-making process. True, the Sangh does not believe in the importance of individuals but we cannot avoid personalities in a political set-up.

Q) What do you wish to do from now on?

A) When we started the Jan Sangh, our focus was on national unity by agitating against the divisiveness caused by special status for Kashmir. Later, our party worked to end the Congress hegemony that saw Deen Dayalji back Ram Manohar Lohia and we worked with Jayaprakash Narayan between 1975-1977. The Ayodhya movement's biggest contribution was also towards this end. When I undertook the Swarna Jayanti Rath Yatra, it was good governance and development. Now, the need is to fight corruption.

Q) How do you propose to fight corruption?

A) When I first raised the issue of black money stashed away abroad, people laughed it off. Now, everyone realises how serious the problem is. Corruption first permeated the bureaucracy, then the political class and has now reared its head among the judiciary too. The influence of money on the media, seen in the last few elections, is also very worrisome for a democracy. I wish to propagate the cause of compulsory voting too. Modi has taken the initiative. Those who don't vote are the educated class. We must change them.

Q) Were you disappointed that you failed to become Prime Minister after the Lok Sabha polls? There was so much in-fighting within the party…

A) I was not disappointed for myself but felt bad for the party. I knew mid-way through the elections that we were losing, particularly after the talk of third front and fourth front, which scared the voters to prefer the Congress than try other parties. We did not lose because of the infighting, which, of course, damaged our image, but due to the rise of these formations that instilled fear of instability. In any case, I am not going to get more affection after becoming PM than I already have. Power only helps to bring much-needed changes in the country.

Q) Did you lose out because you did not have an Advani to help you like you did for Vajpayee?

A) I did miss (late) Pramod Mahajan, his managerial skills in the last polls. He had shortcomings but he had exceptional abilities too. My strength has always been to utilise those who are committed to the party.

Q

---

Posted on Sunday, December 20, 2009 - 02:00 am:

---

quote:

Q) How do you feel at this moment?

A) I feel relieved and satisfied that there's a good team in place in Parliament. Sushma (Swaraj) will take care of the day-to-day work in the Lok Sabha and Arun (Jaitley) is there for the Rajya Sabha. I will get more time to do other things.

Q) Many people are saying your exit is the end of the 'Advani era'?

A) How many people can feel as satisfied as I am today after such an eventful life? I got the support and affection of so many people. My years may have been spent more in the opposition than in the government, but I have had a satisfactory innings. As I told the MPs, there cannot be an end to a yatra that began for me when I joined the RSS at 14, which was to see India emerge as a great country. I mean it.

Q) But were you not pressured by the RSS to leave?

A) Not at all. A point comes in a person's life when one ceases to be pro-active on account of health reasons — as it happened in the case of Atalji, who is three years elder to me, and George Fernandes, who is three years younger to me. I do not want to use the word "retire".

Q) But why now?

A) I didn't want that I should stop being pro-active only when my health gives away. I am fit and want to spend some time with books, writing and doing other things. In fact, I wanted to quit when I completed 80 in 2007 but the RSS and my colleagues decided that I should be projected as a candidate to be Prime Minister to which I had to agree.

Q) Didn't the RSS want you to play the role of a mentor?

A) When Mohan Bhagwatji (RSS chief) and I discussed the future of the BJP (after the Lok Sabha polls), he wanted that I should play that role and must oversee the transition, without which the Sangh would not want to get involved. I conveyed to him that I considered Sushma as the best choice for Opposition leader though there were other aspirants too. But Sushma said she would not like to be the leader of the party in which I was only an ordinary member. She and others then thought of the post of chairman of the BJP parliamentary party.

Q) Didn't the RSS force you to accept Nitin Gadkari as party chief?

A) That is not so. When we discussed the issue, I told the Sangh that Modi (Gujarat chief minister) is the best choice since he can revitalise the morale of the party, which was down after the elections. The Sangh agreed with me and I talked to him. But he was not inclined to leave the state and come here now. Then, we decided that Nitin is the best choice.

Q) Do you still stand by your view after the Jinnah episode in 2005 that the RSS should not be interfering in day-to-day affairs of the BJP?

A) Yes, I do. The Sangh also believes so today and appreciates what I said. The RSS definitely has a moral influence on the party but micro-management of its affairs should be left to the BJP. Both sides should avoid conveying what they wish to tell one another through the media. That's how the BJP-RSS relations were in the early years, whether it was the Jan Sangh or the BJP.

---