Hindustan Times ST (Jaipur)

Beingsecul­ar doesnot meanbeinga­ntiHindu

-

because the revival of the party took a back seat and survival of the leader took the front seat.

Has Congress been able to get out of the existentia­l crisis you once referred to?

Our challenge is to convert the growing disenchant­ment with Modi into growing enchantmen­t with Congress. It happened in a small way in Rajasthan, in a bigger way in Gujarat. We will hold on to Karnataka. Chhattisga­rh has been a 1-2 percent margin state. In Rajasthan, we have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. In Madhya Pradesh, too, there is huge anti-incumbency.

You do well with strong leaders. In Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, you face a dilemma over the leadership.

It is more important to maintain party unity, rather than get involved in who will be the chief minister. The party has to win. In Karnataka, yes we have a strong local leader, but we also have a strong party organisati­on. The party structure, ideology, outreach, communicat­ion, is more important.

You led the rural developmen­t ministry. How do you judge the government’s track record?

Demonetisa­tion had a horrendous impact on the economy. It led to substantia­l unemployme­nt, huge dislocatio­n. It was a bad idea, implemente­d even more badly. GST (goods and services tax) was a good idea, implemente­d arbitraril­y. Modi came to power on the grounds he was an effective economic manager — that’s where many people are disappoint­ed. We knew he would be a divisive political figure, and he has not disappoint­ed us on that. He has squeezed MSPs (minimum support prices), rural spending, rural wages. There are issues of land, forest rights. It is not just agricultur­e. And it is not just rural economy. There is tax terrorism. People are not speaking because of an atmosphere of fear.

UPA focused on a rights framework. But this government has also focused on welfare — toilets, housing, health, banking.

We launched it; they gave it new names and took it forward. We gave bureaucrat­ic names like Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account. Modi converted it into Jan Dhan. Who remembers BSBDA? He rediscover­ed rural India last year. Will that help electorall­y? It didn’t help him much in Gujarat, Rajasthan and UP. Modi is now facing 3 Ds - disappoint­ment, disenchant­ment and disillusio­nment.

So what do you think the BJP will bank on in the elections?

They have only one card — the P card: polarisati­on.

But you are playing Hindu politics too with temple hopping.

That’s an intellectu­ally lazy argument. Mrs Gandhi always said we have to fight communalis­m of all kinds; that secularism is not just majority-minority but that the majority of people across religions want to live in peace while a minority section in each religion wants to spread prejudice. On 12 January, 1999, on Swami Vivekanand­a’s birth anniversar­y, Mrs Gandhi spoke at the Ramakrishn­a Mission and said India is secular largely because of the traditions and legacy of Hinduism. What Rahul is doing is not new.

Congress appears defensive on secularism.

You know how the term UPA was coined. It was initially to be called United Secular Alliance, which we ruled out because the acronym would be USA; then we thought of Progressiv­e Secular Alliance. Karunanidh­i, the arch-atheist, then said something at a meeting — ‘don’t use the word secular since, in Tamil, it translates into irreligiou­s’. We then thought of UPA. So what we have to convince the people about is that India is multi-religious; there is a place for all religions; but as far as the Indian state is concerned, it should have nothing to do with religion. That is secularism. I am more of a practising Hindu than 90% of the BJP guys. Because we are secular does not mean we are anti-Hindu.

Many argue that the notice for a motion to remove the Chief Justice was too drastic.

This was not sudden but preceded by months of deliberati­on. Weighing the pros and cons carefully, a considered decision to go ahead was taken in order to strengthen the judiciary to which we are irrevocabl­y committed -- vastly more so than Modi and his colleagues. It was an unpreceden­ted step, but the situation was truly extraordin­ary... it was a very sad moment and I can tell you the step was taken with a very heavy heart. I don’ think anybody wanted to but the five issues left us with no choice.

But will this undermine institutio­ns? Can a disagreeme­nt with a judicial verdict lead to a set of MPs taking such a step?

The move has nothing to do with judicial verdicts. All five grounds for impeachmen­t have to do with personal integrity. We believe what SC decides is final, even if at times we may not agree with it. Final, but not infallible, as a legal scholar wrote.

Some believe you have done this to prevent him from delivering the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoom­i case.

Absolutely bogus.

 ?? PRADEEP GAUR/MINT ??
PRADEEP GAUR/MINT

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India