By Balraj Puri
After its debacle in Lok Sabha elections, the BJP did start some rethinking on its core ideology. But soon organizational crisis, including expulsion of Jaswant Singh and challenge to its leadership, diverted the attention of the party from ideological issues. However the BJP Chief Rajnath Singh and the RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat reiterated the commitment of the two organizations to Hindutva and abrogation of Article 370 as the core of its ideology . They were speaking at a function organized by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukerjee Research Foundation at the University of Jammu on the occasion of 57th death anniversary of the founder President of the Bhartiya Jana Sangh, Dr. Mukerjee some other leaders also reiterated the commitment.
The only dissenting voice was that of Sudheendra Kulkarni, whose affinity with the BJP and its top leaders like Vajpayee and Advani was well known, and who has since resigned from the party. He had advised the party to keep away from Hindutva for the sake of its own future growth. In his view Hindutva had never been the foundational ideological representation of the BJP and its predecessor, Jana Sangh.
He quotes from a revealing conversation between Dr. Mukerjee and Vir Savarkar who met on August 26, 1952. The former requested the latter to bless the Jana Sangh. Savarkar wanted the philosophy of the Hindu Maha Sabha ie Hindutva to be adopted by the Jana Sangh, as his pre-condition which Mukerjee declined to do.
The Jana Sangh had adopted “integral Humanism,” as propounded by Deen Dayal Upadhya, its foremost ideologue and organizer” as the party’s guiding ideology, according to Kulkarni. He further adds, “when the BJP was born it adopted Gandhian socialism as its ideology and changed its flag from saffron to add a green patch to it, perhaps as an overture to minorities . Vajpayee, he says, never used word Hindutva.
M G Vaidya, senior RSS ideologue asked the BJP to quit Hindutva agenda, so that it could win back its former allies like Trimamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal Telegu Desam and ADMK.
Striking a via media, Advani defined Hindutva as a way of life and not a religion and was inclusive and respected all faiths alike.
The issue of Hindutva could not be discussed in the Chintan Baithak at Shimla. However the wisdom of launching Hindutva offensive at Jammu is questionable. The BJP’s predecessor the Jan Sangh had launched its first popular movement in the country from Jammu in 1952 and led a very population mass agitation over the Amarnath shrine land row last year. Yet it could not get majority in the state assembly election and lost both seats of Lok Sabha from the region because Muslims, who constitute a decisive vote in Jammu did not respond to the Hindutva appeal.
A more relevant issue raised on Mukerjee’s martyrdom day, for the state was the claim of the RSS leader that “he (Mukerjee) laid down his life to oppose the theory of two constitutions, two flags and two heads of state within one nation.” (which were agreed upon under Delhi Agreement between Indian Prime Minister and Kashmir leader Sheikh Abdullah in 1952).
This claim is factually not correct. No doubt that the Jana Sangh came to Jammu to support the movement of the Praja Parishad for this objective. But after a prolonged correspondence with the then Prime Minister Nehru extending for two months of January and February 1953, and considering the arguments of Nehru, Mukerjee, in his letter to Nehru dated February 17, 1953, offerered to withdraw the agitation and support the Delhi Agreement, which “should be implemented in the next session of J&K Constituent Assembly.” He further suggested that “both parties reiterate that the unity of the state will be maintained and that the principle of autonomy will apply to the province of Jammu and of course to Ladakh and Kashmir Valley.”
This was precisely the formula that I was able to persuade Nehru and Abduallh to agree which they announced at a joint press conference on July 24, 1952. The unfortunate and untimely death of Mukerjee on June 23, 1953 only hastened the process of implementation of the offer he made to Nehru. The leaders of the Praja Parishad agitation were released on July 1 and invited to Delhi and on July 3, they met Nehru where they agreed to the offer of regional autonomy made by Nehru and to withdrew their agitation. Meanwhile a 45 page draft on Regional Autonomy was sent by the state government to the underground leader of the Praja Parishad agitation Durga Dass Varma which he returned after approval by the party experts. There might have been no Kashmir problem and further complications added to it if the agreement between Nehru, Abdullah and Mukeejee on autonomy of the state within India and of the regions within the state had been implemented.
Many months later, the Jana Sangh, under directions from Nagpur (RSS headquarters), according to Jana Sangh leader Balraj Madhok, withdrew support to Delhi Agreement and Regional Autonomy. The consequences of this volte facie are well known. Its opposition to the idea of regional autonomy has provided the main excuse to the National Conference to wriggle out from its commitment to the idea.
As far as Article 370 is concerned, the issue was raised in Parliament when the BJP led government was in power. In reply, its law minister had said that Parliament had no power to abrogate it. Can the BJP ever dream of getting a majority in the state assembly to pass a resolution for abrogation of the Article? In any case Article 370 has nothing to do with the question of regional discrimination which is the main agenda of the BJP in Jammu. Then what is its solution to the question of discrimination if its rejects regional autonomy?