Q. What transpired at the meeting you had with the prime minister?
A: We meet every three or four months. What information we have, we convey to them. We work on the ground; we know the realities. The information the Government receives is through its channels. We have other channels. These are exchange of thoughts.

Q. What points did you stress on?
A. We said that in villages and cities people ask only one question, 'Why don't you act against Pakistan?' The Government keeps talking about 'aar-paar ki ladai (decisive battle)' and 'sabr ka baandh toot gaya hai (we have run out of patience)'. Then for months the army stands eyeball to eyeball but nothing happens. People ask, 'Why does this Government not do anything at all?'

In the talks, Atalji said that we should have retaliated when Parliament was attacked. So why didn't they do so? We realise they have to keep the international situation in mind, but it all adds up and people expect something to be done.

We also told them that there are two streams in the Government. One feels we must get assistance from abroad and use it for development. The other feels that we should focus on the resources available in the country and that foreign capital has marginal use.

America is drowning in debt, but by keeping others' money it is progressing. In the US, they don't save. We save and they blow up money. America is individualistic, it's an atomised society. Their government or markets have to control only individuals-natural groupings like family and community have been destroyed. There is no inclination to save. Save for what?

At Stanford University, I met Henry Owen, a professor of South Asian economics. He said that India's liberalisation was proceeding well, but I told him that the US model of development wasn't of any use to us. Globalisation is flawed. Economic development is always country specific, area specific. How can one model work? Globalisation is helping big countries, not us. We feel globalisation, the western model of development, is exploitative. It is centralised, urban, highly energy-consumptive, capital intensive, labour displacing and eco-destructive.

"Atalji said we should have retaliated when Parliament was attacked. So why didn't they do so? People expect something to be done."

Q. You spoke of ground realities. What exactly did you mean?
A. We need to develop our own model. It must be decentralised, rural-based, consume less energy, be labour intensive and eco-friendly. This was the case before the British arrived. They destroyed it. Nehru prepetuated it-the administrative, economic and educational system. He said he was the last Englishman to rule India. So we exploited our own people. We have developed at the cost of our own people.

Q. What was the response of Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani?
A. This is not a BJP government, only a government led by the BJP. At least 25 parties are associated with it. They have adopted a common agenda on the basis of which they are working. So, as far as the Government is concerned, there are three constraints. The first is to keep the coalition going. Secondly, international agreements signed by previous governments have to be honoured. It can be changed only if there is a complete majority.

The BJP had earlier opposed the WTO, but in Government it has to implement these agreements. This is causing a problem because there is a difference between what the BJP said earlier and what it is doing now. There is unhappiness in the party. Despite this, answers can be found. We should try and increase interaction with people. If you (BJP) want to do something in labour, there's an allied organisation (Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh). They will tell you the ground realities. They will understand and maybe suggest a way out.

Q. You have said that those who believe in western-oriented reforms or models should quit their posts.
A. I have given examples. There is a group in the Planning Commission that feels there should be 100 per cent FDI in all sectors. There have been attempts to allow multinationals in retail trade. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) has gone to the prime minister thrice and got the proposal scrapped. But they are advancing again because there are officials connected with MNCs, or whose children are working in MNCs. MNCs are trying to capture every sector of this country and because of liberalisation the Government is not able to do anything.

Look at the small-scale industry (SSI). In the West, an SSI employs 500 people, here it could employ 50. We can argue that we will accept imports from only those units that employ 50 people. The SJM has offered many such suggestions but there are both kinds of people in the bureaucracy. There are constraints of coalition, bureaucracy and previous agreements. The Government's hands are tied.

Q. There is concern in the BJP over the Jammu experience where the RSS supported the SJM. Doesn't this nullify the basis of a Sangh Parivar?
A. Nahin hai na (No, it's not). We don't call it a Parivar at all. In the media it is called a Parivar. We say, Sangh and allied organisations. Allied in the sense that we take inspiration from the Hindu thought process, but each organisation is independent.

What's meant by a parivar? That there is a head who can impose his will. We can't thrust our decisions on anyone, we can only suggest. Our swayamsevaks decide where the suggestion is valid and get it accepted by the particular organisation. They try and ensure that this balance and cooperation is maintained.

Q. Has the balance gone awry? Is that why the October 24 meeting was scheduled?
A. This is not so. We understand the compulsions of the Government but still give suggestions. The press created a hype as if it were a meeting between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. This is a normal process. We gave our suggestions, they pointed out some difficulties. On the basis of this dialogue something will emerge. You develop a mechanism to have an exchange with allied bodies. When people feel totally neglected, who do they go to? They mobilise people. You (BJP) must not regard it as criticism. It is a democratic process to apply public pressure on the Government.

"Today, economic policies are being framed in a manner whereby India's security is being compromised. We will oppose this."

Q. What happened in Jammu?
A. We passed a resolution that Jammu and Kashmir be trifurcated. The resolution came to us two years ago but we didn't act on it. A study group went to the state and gave a report. In this context we passed the resolution. What went wrong was that as soon as the resolution was passed, the Government reacted. We told the leadership (on October 24) that they could have said, 'We will study it.' But they immediately said it was not in the national interest. We have been discussing this for two years. How could they say it was not in the national interest? They may not have agreed but to reject it out of hand ... That is why the BJP's condition worsened (in Jammu). Anyway let bygones be bygones.

Q. Can Jammu be repeated elsewhere in India?
A. That is not the situation right now. But what happens when you take decisions without considering the views of the state units? We said, don't tie up with Ramakrishna Hegde in Karnataka, and in Assam, with the Asom Gana Parishad. But they did. They shouldn't rely only on sources of information that accrue on the strength of being in power. It would be better if they also asked the local units. They were going to lose, so they did. In future it would be better to learn the lessons.

Q. It is felt that the Sangh has become too involved in politics, in micro-management.
A. That is not so. We only speak on issues where the nation's security and integrity are involved. Today, economic policies are being framed in a manner whereby India's security is being compromised. We will oppose this. We have spoken on Assam, on infiltration.

Q. On privatisation?
A. Oil is a strategic sector. Why was it nationalised? Because oil companies played mischief in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. If these companies do not behave properly during a war what will we do? We should treat oil as a strategic sector or suffer. Of course, the Government should not run businesses. Where the king is a businessman, citizens are beggars. But let only loss-making enterprises be sold. A Kochi hotel worth Rs 300 crore was sold for Rs 30 crore. There shouldn't be distress sales.

Q. How did Vajpayee and Advani respond?
A. We didn't seek a response. It's for them to decide. But there are people in the Cabinet who feel disinvestment should not be indiscriminate.

Q. In the RSS, a sarsanghchalak's utterances were once considered sacrosanct, but not any longer.
A. The Sangh never says, 'Do as I tell you.' Guruji Golwalker would bring things to the notice of the government, as he did on Tibet. We speak as jana prabhodhak (creators of public awareness). In a democracy this is the biggest task.

Q. Is the language used by VHP leaders Ashok Singhal and Pravin Togadia appropriate for this?
A. We aren't in agreement on this, not in the least. They hold positions that require the use of correct language. It is one thing for a junior functionary to use such language, but you must not. We tell them again. Please check your language. If you are balanced, your words will carry weight.

The problem is-I don't know why-the VHP feels that the Government is not paying them attention. The sadhus they have banded together are saying, 'Your Government isn't doing anything.' They can't be told everything and the Congress is making inroads. So they have to say something. A balance should be maintained. But their organisation has not been made at the behest of the BJP. It has its own imperatives. If they had understood this and held talks, then a way would have been found. Even now I say, do something-not all the land in Ayodhya is disputed.

Q. What transpired at the meeting you had with the prime minister?
A: We meet every three or four months. What information we have, we convey to them. We work on the ground; we know the realities. The information the Government receives is through its channels. We have other channels. These are exchange of thoughts.

Q. What points did you stress on?
A. We said that in villages and cities people ask only one question, 'Why don't you act against Pakistan?' The Government keeps talking about 'aar-paar ki ladai (decisive battle)' and 'sabr ka baandh toot gaya hai (we have run out of patience)'. Then for months the army stands eyeball to eyeball but nothing happens. People ask, 'Why does this Government not do anything at all?'

In the talks, Atalji said that we should have retaliated when Parliament was attacked. So why didn't they do so? We realise they have to keep the international situation in mind, but it all adds up and people expect something to be done.

We also told them that there are two streams in the Government. One feels we must get assistance from abroad and use it for development. The other feels that we should focus on the resources available in the country and that foreign capital has marginal use.

America is drowning in debt, but by keeping others' money it is progressing. In the US, they don't save. We save and they blow up money. America is individualistic, it's an atomised society. Their government or markets have to control only individuals-natural groupings like family and community have been destroyed. There is no inclination to save. Save for what?

At Stanford University, I met Henry Owen, a professor of South Asian economics. He said that India's liberalisation was proceeding well, but I told him that the US model of development wasn't of any use to us. Globalisation is flawed. Economic development is always country specific, area specific. How can one model work? Globalisation is helping big countries, not us. We feel globalisation, the western model of development, is exploitative. It is centralised, urban, highly energy-consumptive, capital intensive, labour displacing and eco-destructive.

"Atalji said we should have retaliated when Parliament was attacked. So why didn't they do so? People expect something to be done."

Q. You spoke of ground realities. What exactly did you mean?
A. We need to develop our own model. It must be decentralised, rural-based, consume less energy, be labour intensive and eco-friendly. This was the case before the British arrived. They destroyed it. Nehru prepetuated it-the administrative, economic and educational system. He said he was the last Englishman to rule India. So we exploited our own people. We have developed at the cost of our own people.

Q. What was the response of Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani?
A. This is not a BJP government, only a government led by the BJP. At least 25 parties are associated with it. They have adopted a common agenda on the basis of which they are working. So, as far as the Government is concerned, there are three constraints. The first is to keep the coalition going. Secondly, international agreements signed by previous governments have to be honoured. It can be changed only if there is a complete majority.

The BJP had earlier opposed the WTO, but in Government it has to implement these agreements. This is causing a problem because there is a difference between what the BJP said earlier and what it is doing now. There is unhappiness in the party. Despite this, answers can be found. We should try and increase interaction with people. If you (BJP) want to do something in labour, there's an allied organisation (Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh). They will tell you the ground realities. They will understand and maybe suggest a way out.

Q. You have said that those who believe in western-oriented reforms or models should quit their posts.
A. I have given examples. There is a group in the Planning Commission that feels there should be 100 per cent FDI in all sectors. There have been attempts to allow multinationals in retail trade. The Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) has gone to the prime minister thrice and got the proposal scrapped. But they are advancing again because there are officials connected with MNCs, or whose children are working in MNCs. MNCs are trying to capture every sector of this country and because of liberalisation the Government is not able to do anything.

Look at the small-scale industry (SSI). In the West, an SSI employs 500 people, here it could employ 50. We can argue that we will accept imports from only those units that employ 50 people. The SJM has offered many such suggestions but there are both kinds of people in the bureaucracy. There are constraints of coalition, bureaucracy and previous agreements. The Government's hands are tied.

Q. There is concern in the BJP over the Jammu experience where the RSS supported the SJM. Doesn't this nullify the basis of a Sangh Parivar?
A. Nahin hai na (No, it's not). We don't call it a Parivar at all. In the media it is called a Parivar. We say, Sangh and allied organisations. Allied in the sense that we take inspiration from the Hindu thought process, but each organisation is independent.

What's meant by a parivar? That there is a head who can impose his will. We can't thrust our decisions on anyone, we can only suggest. Our swayamsevaks decide where the suggestion is valid and get it accepted by the particular organisation. They try and ensure that this balance and cooperation is maintained.

Q. Has the balance gone awry? Is that why the October 24 meeting was scheduled?
A. This is not so. We understand the compulsions of the Government but still give suggestions. The press created a hype as if it were a meeting between President Bush and Saddam Hussein. This is a normal process. We gave our suggestions, they pointed out some difficulties. On the basis of this dialogue something will emerge. You develop a mechanism to have an exchange with allied bodies. When people feel totally neglected, who do they go to? They mobilise people. You (BJP) must not regard it as criticism. It is a democratic process to apply public pressure on the Government.

"Today, economic policies are being framed in a manner whereby India's security is being compromised. We will oppose this."

Q. What happened in Jammu?
A. We passed a resolution that Jammu and Kashmir be trifurcated. The resolution came to us two years ago but we didn't act on it. A study group went to the state and gave a report. In this context we passed the resolution. What went wrong was that as soon as the resolution was passed, the Government reacted. We told the leadership (on October 24) that they could have said, 'We will study it.' But they immediately said it was not in the national interest. We have been discussing this for two years. How could they say it was not in the national interest? They may not have agreed but to reject it out of hand ... That is why the BJP's condition worsened (in Jammu). Anyway let bygones be bygones.

Q. Can Jammu be repeated elsewhere in India?
A. That is not the situation right now. But what happens when you take decisions without considering the views of the state units? We said, don't tie up with Ramakrishna Hegde in Karnataka, and in Assam, with the Asom Gana Parishad. But they did. They shouldn't rely only on sources of information that accrue on the strength of being in power. It would be better if they also asked the local units. They were going to lose, so they did. In future it would be better to learn the lessons.

Q. It is felt that the Sangh has become too involved in politics, in micro-management.
A. That is not so. We only speak on issues where the nation's security and integrity are involved. Today, economic policies are being framed in a manner whereby India's security is being compromised. We will oppose this. We have spoken on Assam, on infiltration.

Q. On privatisation?
A. Oil is a strategic sector. Why was it nationalised? Because oil companies played mischief in the 1971 Indo-Pak war. If these companies do not behave properly during a war what will we do? We should treat oil as a strategic sector or suffer. Of course, the Government should not run businesses. Where the king is a businessman, citizens are beggars. But let only loss-making enterprises be sold. A Kochi hotel worth Rs 300 crore was sold for Rs 30 crore. There shouldn't be distress sales.

Q. How did Vajpayee and Advani respond?
A. We didn't seek a response. It's for them to decide. But there are people in the Cabinet who feel disinvestment should not be indiscriminate.

Q. In the RSS, a sarsanghchalak's utterances were once considered sacrosanct, but not any longer.
A. The Sangh never says, 'Do as I tell you.' Guruji Golwalker would bring things to the notice of the government, as he did on Tibet. We speak as jana prabhodhak (creators of public awareness). In a democracy this is the biggest task.

Q. Is the language used by VHP leaders Ashok Singhal and Pravin Togadia appropriate for this?
A. We aren't in agreement on this, not in the least. They hold positions that require the use of correct language. It is one thing for a junior functionary to use such language, but you must not. We tell them again. Please check your language. If you are balanced, your words will carry weight.

The problem is-I don't know why-the VHP feels that the Government is not paying them attention. The sadhus they have banded together are saying, 'Your Government isn't doing anything.' They can't be told everything and the Congress is making inroads. So they have to say something. A balance should be maintained. But their organisation has not been made at the behest of the BJP. It has its own imperatives. If they had understood this and held talks, then a way would have been found. Even now I say, do something-not all the land in Ayodhya is disputed.