JR: It is too bad this country does
not appreciate political humour. Her aside about being invited first
was meant to lighten the mood. The prime minister, who has in the past
shown flashes of wit himself, got rattled.

But this should not detract from the basic message which was that social
illiberalism makes economic liberalism unsustainable. Economic reforms
cannot be sustained if embedded in a framework of social obscurantism.
Arun Jaitley and Arun Shourie may have the right ideas on economic reforms,
but so did the nazis.

The difference between the Congress and the BJP is that the latter is
still mired in re-writing history and returning to India�s past. The
Congress wants to look ahead. Certainly, the Congress too has faltered,
but it was never ideological faltering.

What about 1984, the opening of the Babri locks, the shilanyas? For
every sin the BJP has committed, there is a precedent set by the Congress.

Does 1984 justify Gujarat 2002? 1984 was despicable. But 1984 was not
a product of a hate ideology. 1984 cannot be justified in any way.

At the same time, there is a fundamental difference. Our mindset is
not that of a Modi or a Thackeray. Yes, there have been communal riots
in Congress rule � Ahmedabad in 1969, Bhagalpur in 1989, Maliana, Bhiwandi…
But we did not instigate these riots. Gujarat 2002 is an organised killing,
sponsored by the state. Today, in Gujarat, the VHP runs the state.

I have myself heard and seen Praveen Togadia barking orders to the police
and the CM�s office. This is a VHP regime.

VS: Surely
your critics will point to the involvement of H K L Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar
and Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom?

JR: All three were denied tickets
in the 1998 Lok Sabha elections. J B Patnaik was removed after the burning
alive of Graham Staines in Orissa.

Madhavsinh Solanki and Chenna Reddy were removed after communal riots
in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh in 1985 and 1990. In 1984, Rajiv Gandhi
personally went around the Capital appealing for peace. The Lt Governor
was removed.

VS: Isn�t
the Congress once again in danger of falling between two stools?

JR: On the one hand, you don�t want
to alienate the Hindus. In 1992, Congress workers participated in the
kar seva at Ayodhya. Today, the Gujarat Congress does not attack Narendra
Modi for fear of upsetting the Hindus.

At the same time, you are also accused of pandering to Muslim communalism.

You are right. The Congress has always had two strands, one secular,
the other conservative. In the 1948 municipal elections in Faizabad,
the official Congress candidate was Acharya Narendra Dev. However, Gobind
Ballabh Pant supported Baba Raghav Das. And a virulent campaign was
mounted against Dev by the official Congress machinery. Nehru was livid.
There has always been tension between the social conservatives and the
secularists in the Congress.

As for minority communalism, a view has grown over time that the secular
forces do not sufficiently confront it. But the answer lies in going
back to Nehru�s code on communalism. Nehru held majority communalism
to be far more pernicious because it can degenerate into fascism. Ultimately,
the secularism issue is not a Hindu-Muslim issue. It is a battle for
the Hindu mind itself, for a proper interpretation of its past and for
a right vision of its future.

VS: So Abstracts
aside, how are you going to resolve the Hindu-Muslim dilemma on the
ground?

JR: The message sent out
by Sonia Gandhi from Guwahati is significant. First, her stress on good
governance. Second, her direction to the Congress chief ministers to
deal firmly with divisive forces, to act without fear or favour.

This means even-handed application of the law against all those who
disturb public peace, which means cracking down on the VHP and the Islamic
organisations.

Recently, a demand was made from the platform of Aligarh Muslim University,
asking that the Congress apologise for its past follies.

Mrs Gandhi has apologised for 1984. During the 1999 Lok Sabha campaign,
she actually used the word apology. In the speech made to the CII, she
admitted that the Congress has faltered. She has accepted that mistakes
have been committed. If you ask me, I think we should apologise for
the Babri masjid demolition. However, we should apologise to the Hindus
more than the Muslims, because December 6, 1992 was an anti-Hindu act.
We brought shame upon Hinduism that day.

Is it realistic for the Congress to hope that the Muslims will return
to the party? You have next to no presence in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,
Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

Muslims across the country are largely with the Congress. But it is
still a long haul in the Hindi belt, Bengal and Tamil Nadu. In UP, where
we are in competition with the BSP and the SP, the Muslims are listening
to us, watching us, but are not voting us.

The reason for this is that the Muslim vote is tied to the Brahmin vote.
Today, the Congress�s predicament is that its traditional Dalit-Brahmin-Muslim
social coalition has broken down. As a result, Muslims no longer see
it as a viable proposition. Ironically, it is the same coalition that
the BSP is trying to build through its alliance with the BJP. In the
long run, though, the only message that the Congress can send out is
the non- sectarian message. This message is difficult to convey in a
situation where passions have been whipped up on caste and religious
lines, but it is the only relevant and truly lasting message.

VS: Should
the Congress not be looking seriously at alliances?

JS: In Bihar, we have an alliance
with the RJD. While we fight the CPM in Bengal, we share a lot in common
at the Centre. Our social agendas are identical. A K Antony and Buddhadev
Bhattacharya espouse the same values. And yet, electorally we cannot
unite.

However, if push comes to shove, the Congress will support the Left.
On economics, the Congress has more in common with the BJP, but what
use is economics, if India is going to splinter into a thousand Lebanons?

Gujarat had an eight per cent growth rate. And yet, today the defining
issue is not economics, but where you stand on social issues, on secularism.
So in the end, we might just tell Sitaram Yechury: To hell with our
differences, let us get together.