Felt ‘soft approach’ would’ve vitiated atmosphere more, says Ram Madhav
BJP leader says gap between both parties was widening, and that the time had come to part ways
BJP general secretary Ram Madhav, who played a key role in stitching up the alliance with the Mehbooba Mufti’s PDP in 2015, told Hindustan Times in an interview that the gap between the two parties’ approach had been widening.
“We tried to convince our partner about a tough stand against terrorists... A message was constantly conveyed that we need a soft approach... We felt this will further vitiate the atmosphere. We noticed growing radicalisation, growing attacks on army and CRPF convoys in the last a couple of months.”
RAM MADHAV, BJP national general secretary
NEWDELHI: BJP national general secretary Ram Madhav played a key role in stitching up an alliance between his party and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in 2015. He worked closely with Sayeed, who died in January 2016, and his daughter and successor Mehbooba Mufti, in Jammu and Kashmir. A day after the alliance broke up, Madhav spoke to Kumar Uttam and Prashant Jha about the reasons that led to the split and what lies ahead for the state. Edited excerpts: What was the immediate trigger behind the decision to pull out of alliance with the PDP? In view of the developing situation in the Valley, some thinking was going on for the last couple of months. This included handing over the state administration to the governor for some time. Security forces were also demanding it. Politically, we felt the gap between the two parties’ approach was widening. We hold larger national interests and concerns above everything. Being a regional party, regional political considerations were important in PDP’s decision making. Can you give instances where PDP presence in the government impeded security operations? We tried to convince our partner about a tough stand against terrorists, handling the overground operatives through strong legal means. The Valley needed active political engagement. Suspension of operations was a decision taken at the insistence of state government and Mehbooba-ji. Some of us were not very much in favour of it. However, there was a feeling that let us give it a chance. It was a goodwill gesture. Such gestures needed some reciprocation from terrorists and separatists, and also some active political engagement. Neither happened. We saw the broad daylight murder of journalist Shujaat Bukhari. Terrorists exploited the suspension of operations. The required political initiative did not happen. Are you accusing Mehbooba Mufti of being soft on security issues and not reaching out politically? She headed the unified command and the security forces largely have had their way. They were able to execute whatever operations they had planned. My larger point is about the much-needed political activism. A message was constantly conveyed that we need soft approach, we do not want operations and we need to talk to Pakistan. We felt this will further vitiate the atmosphere. We noticed growing radicalisation, growing attacks on the army and CRPF (central reserve police force) convoys in the last a couple of months. You changed you ministers in the state oneandahalf months ago. Between then and now, the suspension of operations and its return was the major development. Do you blame it for the end of the alliance? The recent reshuffle was thrust on us. Two ministers had to quit because of Kathua incident. We had to bring new people. We always thought or tried to see if we can run this government for its full term. But there was a feeling in the past also, and in the last couple of months it further fortified, that it was becoming untenable to continue. Was the decision to halt security operations (ceasefire) a mistake? No. It was a goodwill gesture by the government. It is another thing that the opportunity was lost. It was not seized by the other side - the separatists, the terrorists and the political establishment in the state. How strong were the electoral calculations and the pressure on you from the Jammu region to get out of the alliance? If pressure or electoral calculations was to be the reason, we would have done it long ago. We had tremendous pressure on a number of occasion, whenever there was a big incident in the Valley. The situation in the state was the one and only consideration behind Tuesday’s decision. The BJP has a commitment to restoring peace, curbing terrorism in the Valley and also the larger political mission of national integrity.
That is the only factor that played a role in yesterday’s decision. Never in our discussions with the Prime Minister, home minister or National Security Advisor did any political consideration come up for any discussion. When you forged the alliance with PDP, you said it will bridge the emotional gap between Jammu and the Valley; and between Kashmir and the rest of the country. Looking back, do you feel it is also your party’s failure? Not really. Why was that alliance formed? We are poles apart ideologically. Mufti (Mohammad Sayeed) Saheb used to describe us as the North and the South Poles. Ideologies can be in black and white, but politics in a democracy has many shades, many colours. You have to manage this variety of colours. You can create a rainbow. By its very nature, rainbows are short-lived. Any alliance is difficult. The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government fell because J Jayalalithaa pulled out. We had no ideological differences with her. Alliances are formed with an objective, but it is always difficult to run alliances. The whole objective was to let us try and bridge it (the gap). We do not believe in political untouchability. We tried to give it a chance and to a great extent it worked. We could succeed in bringing development to different regions in the state. Can the BJP absolve itself of responsibilities about the worsening law and order situation when it was part of the government? This is a very silly question. If you take that as a technical question, then I will say home ministry is not with me. It is a technical answer. Governments are essentially run by the head of the government. The head of the government was also holding the responsibility of security, and in any case, and as the head of the unified command, she had her issues. But Mehbooba has allowed security forces to operate, that is why in the last three years we have been able to neutralise close to 600 terrorists. The PDP started taking a political stance of late, probably for political reasons. The BJP cannot be supporting a party for a soft approach that means raising issue of Pakistan again and again...We felt that probably because of the local political considerations, our partner has started taking a slightly different stance. That is when we felt it is not tenable. The mismatch was growing. Was there a fear that Mehbooba might dump the BJP, and did you try to preempt such a situation by pulling out first? National integrity, interest of the nation and people of Valley and the state entire were the only consideration for us. The PDP allied with the BJP despite the Valley rejecting the BJP. Has the BJP weakened a proIndia force such as the PDP and strengthened the separatist forces by ending the alliance? I do not agree with the analysis that we have strengthened the separatists. We wanted Governor’s Rule to ensure that the campaign against terrorists continues with further vigour. We had planned a four-pronged approach for Kashmir. One, neutralise the terrorist to the last man. Two, tackle over ground network of terrorists through legal means. Three, approach all stakeholder through dialogue. Four, work for the development of state. All four dimensions are important. We would want the present administration and the governor to pursue. There is no way that separatists or terrorists will succeed in the Kashmir valley. The BJP is facing criticism about the point that dialogue has not happened and Mehbooba, too, blamed the Centre for not doing enough. I don’t think Mehbooba said that. Let us give her the due. She, in fact, criticised others for not responding to the home minister’s open appeal for talks, even with the Hurriyat. The government has appointed a former DIB (director of intelligence bureau) as the interlocutor for Kashmir. He is continuing his work and will continue his work. I can tell you that there was some definite progress about talks with the Hurriyat. Unfortunately, things suddenly deteriorated and Shujaat’s (senior journalist Shujaat Bukhar) killing happened. I think there will be some stalemate for some time. Is the talks option on the table now? We never closed that option. The government is open to talking to all the sections. I don’t think that position will change.