India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU

Vol. 16 :: No. 04 :: Feb. 13 - 26, 1999

---

COVER STORY

'I will fight within the party'

The resignation of Madan Lal Khurana from the Union Cabinet and the Bharatiya Janata Party National Executive in January exposed the fissures within the BJP. Khurana had earned the displeasure of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in recent months by questioning the organisation for its criticism of the A.B. Vajpayee-led coalition Government. Khurana was largely instrumental in the BJP's growth in Delhi. He was replaced by Sahib Singh Verma as the Chief Minister of Delhi in 1997 when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) decided to charge-sheet him in the Jain hawala case. He tried in vain to get himself reinstated as Chief Minister after the court dismissed the charges against him.

In this interview to V. Venkatesan, Khurana speaks of the attempts he made to make himself heard. However, he was isolated within the party by the Sangh Parivar and was left with no choice but to resign from the posts he held. Now he challenges the party leadership to expel him from the party. Excerpts:

Could you explain the circumstances that led to your resignation?

At the BJP National Executive meeting in Bangalore on January 2 and 3, I tried to make a speech, a copy of which I have given you. That was not allowed. At the BJP National Executive meeting in Jaipur in August last year I was not allowed to speak. After being successively denied an opportunity to speak, I tendered my resignation to Kushabhau Thakreji. I sent a letter saying: "I am not allowed to speak, so what is the use of my sitting here?" These were the issues. I met Vajpayeeji and told him that after I resigned from the BJP National Executive, it was possible that he would be under pressure to remove me from the Cabinet. I told him that I would give my resignation so that he need not remove me.

From January 7 (when I gave the resignation letter) to January 24 (when I announced the resignation to the media), no one sought to dissuade me. I am a senior leader and it was their duty to talk to me and find out what the problem was. But no one talked to me. I had sent the resignation letter to Thakreji with copies to Vajpayeeji and Advaniji. Then Thakreji said that I had given the letter on January 7 but withdrawn it later. Why should I do that? If I had withdrawn the letter from him, I would have withdrawn the copies given to Vajpayeeji and Advaniji too. Even if Thakreji thought that I had withdrawn the letter, why did he not ask me?

On January 24, the media reported the murder of the Australian missionary (Graham) Stewart Staines in Orissa, allegedly by Bajrang Dal activists. This forced me to act. On the same day I told them that my resignation letter sent on January 7 should be accepted. On January 26, the newspapers did not publish any news of my resignation. It was reported that I wanted permission from Thakreji to atone for the incidents of violence against Christians. By "atonement" I meant "resignation"; hence I expressed my desire to atone (for the mistakes) and I wrote in that letter that I wanted to resign. On January 30, Vajpayeeji told me that he was facing pressure to drop me from the Cabinet and that he wanted to know whether I would resign. I told him that my resignation letter was already with him and he could accept it if he was under pressure.

Who was putting pressure on Vajpayee?

You know and I know.

Was it Thakre?

From wherever it was, this was the fact. But don't call me a dissident. Dissidence refers to opposition to the establishment, for the sake of power and position. I am still in the party after quitting my posts in the party and the Government. I am only against some people whose actions during the last nine months have achieved one thing: raising the esteem of Congress(I) president Sonia Gandhi in the country. In the first six months, Jayalalitha was front page news. For the next three months, our family members' (read Sangh Parivar) statements against the Prime Minister - that he was selling the country, that he was engaged in anti-national activities, and that he was the most incompetent Prime Minister the country had seen - got media attention. Another report quoting a Parivar member from Calcutta said that Vajpayee was all right but his advisers were "foreign agents". All these reports appeared on the front pages of newspapers.

K.GOPINATHAN

Do the different organs of the Sangh Parivar not have functional autonomy? Each one is supposed to have different functions.

True, but the Sangh was our guide and philosopher. I have never spoken out against the Sangh. But if the Sangh Parivar acts like this as part of day-to-day functioning, then this should not happen. The Government should be the centre of power. Two parallel centres of power create problems like the ones we are facing here. You remember, in 1977 the issue of 'dual membership' was raised. I am not against dual membership, as I have been a member of the RSS and a member of the BJP for 54 years. Dual membership can remain, but the centre of power should not be split: you cannot say that we have the responsibility to govern, but orders will come from them. This cannot happen.

Were orders coming from the RSS?

Pressure is there on many fronts. Who ordered all these campaigns? Who issued the order against me? Vajpayeeji cannot ever have ordered them. There was an order that Jaswant Singh should not be taken into the Cabinet after the list that included him was sent to Rashtrapati Bhavan. Where did that order come from?

Why did you not protest then?

Look, there was no issue then. The Government was being formed after the elections. Had I protested then, people would have blamed me for creating a crisis. But now the situation is different. The country's image has been sullied. I get so many calls from my friends abroad, especially NRIs (non-resident Indians), because the media there have been publishing news daily about the attacks on Christians. I thought there should not be any backbiting. I have taken guidance from the Sangh on general matters, for instance the number of candidates we should field in Delhi. I would ask the Sangh to give us the list. The Sangh cannot complain about our failure to follow its principles and policies.

I would like to underline that the issues that I raised were repeated at the meeting of the Coordination Committee of the BJP and its allies. Why did they raise them? If they wanted to sort out the issues, they could have discussed them with Vajpayeeji. If he could agree, he would; otherwise he would have said so frankly.

Do you think Vajpayee is a weak Prime Minister?

I cannot say that. I cannot answer this question. I have not ever said that he is weak. But the situation is such that it makes one weak. He told me that people told him that I was made a scapegoat instead of him. I cannot say whether he is under pressure.

The party leadership has said that it could take action against you if you violate discipline.

Look, I have already quit the Cabinet post and the National Executive. If they want to take away my party membership, let them do it. I am not worried. After all, I have already given up many bigger posts. I have received huge appreciation for my decision from everywhere. I have never received such appreciation earlier in my life. NRIs tell me that I saved them. They cite my example and say that I am the real BJP. So, I will fight within the party.

Your critics say that you did not protest when there were atrocities against Muslims, allegedly by the Sangh Parivar. You did not oppose the Babri Masjid demolition, for instance.

In 1992 it was a communal clash, whereas the 1984 riots against Sikhs were one-sided killing of innocents. I organised protests against the 1984 riots and compiled the number of Sikhs killed then. Similarly I mobilised opinion against the killing of innocent Hindus by Sikh extremists in Punjab.

Do you regret the demolition of the Babri Masjid?

I don't want to talk about it now. No regretting. You may remember that I had described the incident as unfortunate at a few public meetings and in Parliament immediately after it happened.

You have alleged that the Bajrang Dal had a role in the Orissa incident.

I read the statement of the I.G. of Police (Orissa) in the newspaper alleging the involvement of the Bajrang Dal. A senior official of the Union Home Ministry also told me that the main accused, Dara Singh, had campaigned for the BJP in the last general elections as a Bajrang Dal activist. I told the official and the media that even if Dara Singh was involved, it was not fair to declare the entire organisation to which he belonged guilty. Since a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court is inquiring into the incident, it is not proper to comment on whether or not the Bajrang Dal was involved.

On the one hand, you want to atone for the mistakes and quit the Cabinet and the party body in the wake of the Orissa incident, but you are not prepared to blame the Bajrang Dal because an inquiry is on.

No. I wanted to atone for the incidents in Gujarat, where the involvement of members of the Sangh Parivar was clear from the arrests made by the police. I named these persons in my speech, which was not allowed to be made at the Bangalore meet. Then there was the statement criticising the missionaries, issued by Ashok Singhal of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad from Jaipur. This created the impression that Singhalji was supporting the attacks against Christians.