From
Cho Ramaswamy, actor, commentator, journalist, and now television personality, discusses the state of India 50 years after it won freedom.
A candid conversation on India's leaders, its people, its future, and, of course, corruption and liberalisation, with Shobha Warrier.
How old were you when India won freedom? What do you remember about the day?
Thirteen years. It was then that I had been given a box camera by my father. I took some photographs of the function held in my school. I remember the scene very well. Apart from that, I don't remember anything. In those days, nobody took photographs in school. So, my photographs became very popular and I became quite important (
chuckles). Independence made me important!
Do you feel the Mahatma was forgotten soon after Independence? Now he is remembered only a couple of times a year, reduced to a paragraph or a photograph.
What else can a country do to persons of great eminence? What is Abraham Lincoln to America now? What is Mao Zedong to China now? Can a country follow the ideals of the Mahatma all the time? I doubt whether the Mahatma himself followed his ideals all the time, in all matters. He had to deviate now and then. In practical politics and administration, the Mahatma's ideals can be treated as a text, as a philosophy, not as law.
A philosophy which is to be followed or.....
A philosophy which is to be kept in mind and followed whenever possible (
laughs). Like the dictates of
dharma!
As a political analyst and not as a patriot, how do you assess Gandhi's contributions to the country?
If it was not for Gandhi, there could not have been a democratic India. He was a man who did not speak the languages of the people of many of the states but commanded total and unquestioning faith of all of them. He demanded struggle and sacrifice from them, while promising nothing, and they obeyed. This is unimaginable. I have great admiration for him.
What would have happened if he had lived a little longer?
His advice would have embarrassed the government. It would have succeeded in doing only that. Gandhi could not expect everyone to be a Gandhi, but he did expect. In the administration of the country, it is just not possible to adopt Gandhian ideals in everything. You can as well ask a butcher to practice
ahimsa in his profession.
Instead of Nehru, had Patel been made prime minister, how would it have been different for India?
There would have been greater discipline. After Independence, we lost sight of our duties and started remembering only our rights. With the Sardar at the helm of affairs, we would have been constantly reminded of our duties and it would have given character to the nation.
The Mahatma felt the Congress should have been disbanded after Independence. Do you agree?
I disagree with what Gandhi said. Had the Congress been disbanded after Independence, there would have been at least three parties, one led by Nehru, one led by Patel and another led by Kripalani. Lohia and others. What is happening today might have started then itself. It would have been a difficult situation to manage soon after Independence. The nation would not have been able to put up with chaotic politics so soon after becoming free. Now it is different. We have been made immune to chaos in politics, because we have been administered with it, in small doses, through the years.
Do you think dynastic rule did a lot more damage to the country than anything else, especially the reign of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi?
As far as Mrs Gandhi was concerned, she did a lot of damage, definitely to the polity of the country. In fact, it was she who weakened the Congress. She could get votes with sheer charisma. But she was not prepared to tolerate leaders of stature in any state.
That is why she saw to it that Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu, Nijalingappa in Karnataka, Sanjeeva Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, S K Patil in Maharashtra, every one of them was relegated, and the Congress lost many stalwarts because of that. And every state unit became totally subservient to the Centre.
The Congress leader of every state was seen as a peon of the Centre, whereas the leader of the local regional party was seen as a master. He shone brilliantly as against the Congress leader. That is why regional parties started flourishing in this country. That was a disservice done by Mrs Gandhi.
She allowed free rein to the corrupt. But she was able to provide a determined leadership to the country. In Punjab, it is my belief that she encouraged Bhindranwale in the initial stages to embarrass the Janata Party. That is another disservice to the nation. As far as the Sri Lankan problem is concerned, even today we have remnants of the problem created by Mrs Gandhi. She started funding and training the Tigers.
Due to her charisma, she was acceptable to all sections of society, all parts of the country. Unfortunately, her style was followed by her successors who did not have charisma and mass appeal, and that led to the decline of the Congress.
During his reign, Rajiv was not very brilliant. When he was out of power, he was a changed man. If he had not been killed and had come back to power, I think he would have had a good stint as prime minister. It would have been good if he had become prime minister instead of Narasimha Rao. But the Tigers thought otherwise.
Do you agree with the view that at least one good thing Rao did was that he put an end to dynastic rule? Indians had started believing that only someone from the Nehru family could rule them.
What is the big deal in that? Rao's government became totally corrupt.
Congressmen once again are going back to the Nehru family. They are after Sonia Gandhi now that Rao is out. Do you think they feel that only she can lead the Congress?
They think the Congress can become united again only under Mrs Gandhi. I don't think they have the confidence that she would get a mandate from the people. But it is their conviction that she would get a mandate from Congressmen. I think they would like to have Sonia Gandhi to lead the Congress, and allow somebody else to become the prime minister.
Will anything of that sort happen?
She seems to be very hesitant about entering direct politics.
Do you think Indians will listen to and worship only someone from the Nehru family?
Indians have been worshipping a Laloo Prasad Yadav, a Karunanidhi, an N T Rama Rao, an MGR, a Charan Singh, a Jayalalitha and a Devi Lal. Indira Gandhi was never worshipped like that. Why do you say that they always worship a Nehru or a Gandhi? An Andhra Pradesh was able to vote against Mrs Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. A West Bengal has been consistently voting against them. A Kerala has been doing it now and then. So, how do you say that Indians worship only that family?
The fact is that because of the Nehru legacy, because of the fact that we have not had a taller leader after him who could outshine him in his appeal to the people, there is a certain attachment to the family. But I don't say that Indians would not accept a leader who is not from the Nehru family. I don't accept the theory.
Do you agree with the view that a country called India was born only because of the British, and if were not for them we would have remained as small princely states?
Yes, it would have been true administratively and politically. But culturally we were one nation even before the British came here. The Mahabharata speaks of the participation of the Chola and the Pandya kings, and there is a Chera king who is reputed to have fed both the armies (Pandava and Kaurava armies). So, I don't think it was an act of kindness on the part of the British to have brought us together. We were one nation, but not administratively.
We talk in different languages.
Yes, we speak different languages, but we celebrate the same festivals. We speak different languages, but we utter the same prayers. We speak different languages, but have the same values.
We have problems in many parts of India -- the North-East, Punjab, Kashmir. People are agitating for a separate Gorkhaland, Uttarakhand, Vidarbha, etc. In spite of all this, do you think India will remain together?
India will remain one only if national leadership of substance emerges. That is what is wanting. We don't have a real national leadership. There must be individuals in every party who would appeal to all parts of the country. We now have only regional leaders.
A Karunanidhi will appeal to the Tamilians. A Chandrababu Naidu or Lakshmi Sivaparvati may appeal to the Telugus. A Bangarappa, to the Karnataka people. A Deve Gowda still is interested only in Karnataka. Laloo Prasad's territory is limited to Bihar. There is no national leadership. A Kamaraj, though he couldn't speak Hindi or was not fluent in English, could vibe well with people of all states. A Rajaji could do it from Tamil Nadu.
Why is it that today's leaders restrict themselves to a particular region?
It is the weakness of the leader of today that is posing the danger because he cannot operate in a wider field as he knows he is not equipped for that. Because of his incapacity, he wants to wield power in a small territory and make that as sovereign as possible. That is why people demand separate states.
A Karunanidhi cannot appeal all over India, so he wants a separate Tamil Nadu, if possible. He won't air it now but he would love (
to do) it. Then he would be the monarch of all that he surveyed.
Does that mean we don't have many leaders who have vision and a national outlook?
Yes, it is a fact, but it is happening all over the country. Only during big crises does leadership of vision emerge. Has France got a de Gaulle now? Can even Mitterand be compared with de Gaulle? Can Clinton be compared with Roosevelt? Can Major be compared with Churchill?
In every country, it is only during huge, big crises that real leadership emerges. Then people forget all other issues, all other ideological differences and look towards the personality, to the strength and moral calibre of one man and place faith in him totally.
Does that mean we are doomed to have leaders of this stature for a long time to come?
Yes, yes, for a long time. Till a crisis strikes us. So, pray for a crisis! We can take solace in the fact that other countries are also facing a similar dearth of leadership. You see when the power goes off in your house, you are upset, but when you look through the window and see that your neighbour also does not have power, you are satisfied. Like that, let's be happy in the fact that others also do not have great leaders.
What, according to you, are the qualities that should be there in a leader -- charisma, honesty or vision?
The ability to command the faith of large numbers of people. Leaders of different styles have functioned. Kamaraj was authoritative, he couldn't tolerate dissent for a long time. Nehru was also, I think, similarly disposed. Still, they were able to carry people with them. That is because people had faith in them. There must be some transparency in the leader.
Do you admire any leader in present day India?
Among the leaders that we have, I have great admiration for Advani and Chandra Shekhar.
Both of them are great patriots and have the interests of the people at heart. They have a very clear perception of the problems we have. Their vision is not confined to any particular region of India.
Even Advani?
Yes, yes. No doubt about it. I have had several discussions with them, I have moved with them. I think, I understand them and my opinion is that these are two leaders among the lot we have now whom one would point out as leaders inspiring some confidence in people.
Do you see them ruling the country?
Advani has chances. But (
for) Chandra Shekhar to emerge, the Congress must have vision. The Congress is a party without a leader, and Chandra Shekhar is a leader without a party. They can complement each other. If the Congress has vision, it should invite Chandra Shekhar. He is capable of rejuvenating the Congress.
Earlier, we had charismatic leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Indira Gandhi and even Rajiv Gandhi. Why is it that we do not have a charismatic leader now?
I don't think charisma could be easily defined. I don't think any nation can hope to have charismatic leadership all the time. As I said, it is only during crises that people start placing immense faith in a leader, and only then does he become charismatic.
When people start becoming questioning, it is rather difficult for a leader to enjoy charisma. When people start questioning, he stops so big. It is happening the world over. People have become more aware, and there is no implicit acceptance of leadership.
Is it because they don't have any faith in their leaders?
It is because they have more information. During the times of the kings, people had no information. Now we are aware of our rights, and we think it is dangerous to allow the leadership to have unquestioned authority. That is our general attitude. This is not the climate in which charismatic leadership can emerge.
You named Advani and Chandra Shekhar as two leaders who have vision. Does that mean, in a situation where the BJP did not come to power, and Chandra Shekhar is not invited by the Congress, we will only have leaders who cannot think beyond their territory?
We were talking about leaders who are possible candidates for the prime ministership. After all, he is only the head of an executive.
But we look at him as the leader of the nation. He keeps India one.
No prime minister all by himself can hold India together, however powerful he may be. It is the minds of the people which keeps India together. If tomorrow Karunanidhi, in spite of all his popularity, seriously advocates separatism, people will reject him.
The Dravidian movement started some thirty years ago, but they have not been able to sell the idea of division of the country to the people of Tamil Nadu. What does it show? People want this country to remain together.
Tamil Nadu is considered to be a marginal problem state in this matter. Not like Punjab or Kashmir but people still think this state has to be watched. But the people of this state have refused to buy that idea from the DMK, which they vote to power. I tell you, they (
the Dravidian parties) have been in power all the time, still they have been able to sell the idea because the people are not for it. That is what ensures the integrity of the country, not the leadership at the Centre.
Recently at a meeting an American asked me, 'After all, Russia has split into several countries. It has happened in Yugoslavia. Why not in India?' he said, 'even a husband and wife have got a right to separate.' I said it will not happen in India because here in India the states are brothers and there is no divorce between brothers. The relationship is not an artificially created one, like that of a husband and a wife. It is a creation of nature like between brothers. We are bound to be together.
There is much talk about autonomy for Kashmir these days. If it happens, what would be the repercussions for the other parts of the country?
I am against it. I am supposed to be highly reactionary in my thinking on certain matters. Kashmir is one example of that. If there is a demand for separatism in Kashmir, it has to be put down mercilessly, by use of force. As far as more autonomy is concerned, if Kashmir is granted that, then the other states also will start claiming it. Some of the North Eastern states already claim that. And it may spread to states like Tamil Nadu also. Not because the people want it, but because the political leadership demands it.
What will happen if regional leaders start demanding autonomy for their provinces?
I think the BJP will gain ground, if that happens. They will be the beneficiary ultimately, as they would emerge as the uncompromising champions of national integrity in such a situation.
The way things are going, do you think we will have a hung Parliament in the future too?
I think it is going to be the case for some more time. The Congress must get united. The Janata Dal must evaporate because it is a political anomaly and anachronism. It has no business to exist. They can merge with the Congress. The Congress and BJP must be the two parties contending for power. If that comes about, we can avoid a hung Parliament. I don't see it happening in the next five years or so. So, the next election also may produce a hung Parliament.
How do you assess the United Front government?
The prime minister's main job seems to be go, meet and placate all and sundry so that his chair is intact. As far as the United Front is concerned, they don't agree with each other on many issues. Just for the sake of power, they are trying to make certain compromises and carry on.
The one danger inbuilt in the situation is that foreign investors may hesitate because of the uncertainty. It will be in a confused state of affairs for some more time.
Do you think the BJP will be a major force in India?
I think so. I think it is destined to be one of the major political parties. It already is.
But even though the BJP emerged as the single largest party in recent elections, it did not have adequate numbers to rule. Take UP, for instance.
It will take some more time for them to obtain a majority by themselves. Take the Congress, it did not attain a majority even last time. When Narasimha Rao became prime minister, they were a minority government.
Why is it that all the other political parties see the BJP as a threat to the nation? They say the BJP is communal in outlook. At the same time they ally with casteist parties.
The other parties are casteist. As far as communalism is concerned, the BJP is not out to harm the Muslims. In my opinion, that is not the plan or idea of the party at all. The other parties perceive it (
the BJP) as a common threat because if the other votes get split, in many northern states and probably in Karnataka, the BJP will be the largest vote getter. Not only the largest single party.
I would personally like the BJP to abandon this temple politics. It is not a very encouraging sight to see sadhus with huge big beards, holding tridents in their hands and asking you to vote for a particular party. It is not canvassing, it is threatening. The BJP should get rid of this association.
It mught have helped them at a particular moment when V P Singh was trying to divide the BJP vote by promoting the Mandal concept. He succeeded to an extent, but it recoiled on him later.
At that particular time, the temple politics might have helped them but it is high time they gave it up. And I think the BJP leadership is aware of it, particularly Advani.
Why are the so-called intellectuals and media anti-BJP?
Everyone is very much concerned about a secular image without understanding the concept of secularism. No editor would like to be called communal. The moment you support the BJP, you are branded communal. Secularism in India is defined as an anti-BJP stance. If you are anti-BJP, you are secular. You may hobnob with the Muslim League, still you are secular because you are opposed to the BJP.
Was V P Singh's Mandal period one of the worst times for India?
V P Singh's period was an aberration. I have always been opposed to that man. So, you are at liberty to consider my views as prejudiced. From the moment he stepped out of the Congress and even before that, I was a critic of V P Singh and his politics. I warned Chandra Shekhar, I warned Hegde, I warned all my friends in the Janata Party. Beware of V P Singh, beware of V P Singh.
But they thought he just wanted the Opposition to come together and replace the Congress at the Centre and that he did not want to become prime minister. But I said that was his game. Becoming prime minister, making others propose him and then accepting the chair with great reluctance.
I was the only journalist who wrote that Devi Lal who betrayed Chandra Shekhar to make V P Singh prime minister would betray V P Singh to make Chandra Shekhar prime minister. It happened ultimately.
V P Singh serving as a minister in the Rajiv Gandhi Cabinet spied on him by employing an outside agency. A Cabinet minister who can do this to his own prime minister must be the worst betrayer imaginable. From the moment he did it I saw the man as dangerous. He was not a votary for reservation for the backward classes before he brought about the revival of the Mandal report.
The Mandal Commission was appointed during the Janata Party period. But the report was filed after the Janata Party government fell. When the BJP started disagreeing with him seriously V P Singh thought that he should contain the BJP by taking away the backward classes from them. That was why he brought about the implementation of the Mandal proposals.
Don't you think he did a lot of damage to India by doing that? These days even in school children talk about forward classes and backward classes.
Definitely. Yes, nowadays, in colleges, schools and everywhere caste is being talked about.
Is it not a dangerous trend?
One should blame V P Singh for this, nobody else. For his own chair, he divided Hindu society irreparably.
What is the biggest threat India faces now? Lack of morality, especially political morality, or the gap between the haves and have nots?
The greatest threat is the lack of attention to the rural areas. More than the gap between the haves and have nots, more than all the other differences, the difference between urban areas and rural areas is getting more and more accentuated. This will result in the migration of rural people to urban areas. This will pose problems to both the rural and urban areas.
Not only that, it will also lead to unrest. Development activities should be concentrated on the rural areas. I wouldn't be sorry if the government holds up for a while the development of urban areas and concentrates on rural areas.
Another (
threat) is lack of good education to the deprived classes. Now they are being sent to corporation and panchayat schools. There cannot be worse places for learning. So many undesirable activities take place there. The deprived clases are not going to be benefitted by reservation. If you pamper them with reservation, it will only weaken them further. What should be done is, they must be provided with the best possible education -- the kind of education that is provided to the elite.
You cannot expect them to be good at learning if they are asked to live in the slums. The moment they go back to their homes, they are going to experience things which are totally nonconducive to education, like gambling, petty thieving, rowdism etc. So they must be provided residential schools. This must be done, whatever the financial implications.
Industrial houses will definitely come forward to help. Industrial houses which are willing to participate in this exercise should be given some concessions. If this is done, in 15 years, they will be on an equal footing with the privileged classes. And the necessity for reservations will go.
Why cannot we provide at least one square meal to thousands of people in our country, after 50 years of Independence?
The number one reason is population.
Even though overpopulation is the biggest problem that we have now, why is it that no political party is taking any active interest in it?
Most political parties get their votes from the under privileged. The privileged classes do not go and vote at all. They are so privileged that they couldn't care less about what is happening to the country. The underprivileged are concerned, so they go and vote. And they abhor family planning. How could political parties dare advise them on smaller families?
Were you at any time influenced by Communism?
I have always been against Communism. In fact, one of the first series of articles which I wrote in
Tuglaq 26 years back was titled 'Moscow - our capital' taking to task the then Indira Gandhi government for being subservient to Moscow. I have been against Communism because it is against the nature of man. A talented man cannot be asked to be satisfied with what a man totally devoid of talent is able to obtain from life. Communism makes machines of men.
But what about social equality that is advocated by Communism?
There is no equality in nature. You cannot go against it. Have the Communists themselves been able to bring about the kind of equality in society? They have provided themselves and members of the Communist party with all comforts in Russia and in China. How then can you say that they have brought about equaliity?
Capitalism has always been projected as anti-society and anti-poor becasue it widens the gap between members of society.
It is not anti-poor. When capitalism thrives, the poor get to be employed usefully and profitably.
Why are our intellectuals against capitalism?
It is the other way around. Those who are against capitalism are supposed to be intellectuals. Those who advocate capitalism are supposed to be reactionaries and not intellectuals. A reactionary cannot be anything but an intellectual.
Is the path paved by Dr Manmohan Singh through economic liberalisation the right one?
Definitely. It should have been done much earlier. But we must be careful about what areas we let foreign investment in.
Do you think Dr Singh achieved something for the country through his economic policies?
No doubt about it. He is the man who put us on the right track. Of course, international conditions helped him.
There is considerable criticism about the Coke culture and Kentucky Chicken culture invading India.
What is this Coke culture and Pepsi culture? Because a multinational is permitted to open a shop to sell chicken, does that mean it is Kentucky Chicken culture? Then would you call our culture, Idli culture? Do we have Chappati culture? Or do you want Murgi culture?
By labelling something like this, you will not win an argument. If you can have a Limca culture, you can have a Coca-Cola culture. If you can have a Chappati culture, you can have a Kentucky Chicken culture too.
Do you think that whatever Dr Manmohan Singh achieved through his economic policies is lost because of the new government?
I'll tell you one thing. Manmohan Singh had an advantage. No doubt he is a brilliant and honest man. He was not blocked on all sides while he was operating. He had an almost free hand. Whereas Chidambaram has to satisfy the Communists, he has to satisfy the Janata Dal, he has to satisfy the ill informed criticism of V P Singh. So he is pulled on all sides. He is answerable to all and sundry. That is his problem. In spite of it, he is operating.
Does that mean the economy is going to suffer?
It is suffering because of this government. Not because of Chidambaram, but because of this government. In spite of Chidambaram.
When did corruption originate in India?
It was systematised and institutionalised in Tamil Nadu during Karunanidhi's regime, and institutionalised all over the country during Mrs Gandhi's time. But it existed much, much before that. Kautilya's
Arthasastra provides punishment for corrupt officials. Not only to corrupt officials, but for judges who accepted bribes. It would not have got mentioned in
Arthasastra, if corruption had not existed then.
Is it part of human nature to be corrupt?
Yes, it is so. But a successful society will be able to contain it in such a way that it does not reach dangerous limits as it reached in Tamil Nadu during Jayalalitha's days.
Why is it that we in India have started accepting corruption as a part of our lives?
That is dangerous for society. Mrs Gandhi was right when she said that it is a worldwide phenomenon. But in other countries, corrupt politicians were punished. In India it was not happening. Mrs Gandhi did not mention that crucial difference. But now they are made answerable.
Will it make any difference? Many people feel the politicians will go scot free after all this fuss.
The State is capable of making the prosecution cases so weak that they will be thrown out of courts. Then the courts will have no other alternative but to throw the cases out. What happened to the assault on advocate Vijayan? That could happen to these cases also. The present administration may strike a bargain with them and see that the cases are weak. But it is for the first time that the corrupt politicians are made answerable. So far even that had not happened.
At least now they are interrogated. They are asked to appear in courts. They are asked to face charges. How strong these charges are going to be, how efficient and sincere the prosecution is going to be, remains to be seen.
But the recent trend is to keep people in prison before the trial. That is, they are punished before the trial. Take Chandra Swami. I am no great fan of his, I don't even think he is a godly man. That's a different matter. But he was kept in prison for six months before the trial. He is already punished without a trial. Take Sasikala. I have been criticising her. But that is no reason for me to justify her being in prison for four months without a trial.
We have so many undertrials in prisons in India.
So far I have not followed up on this. I feel sorry for that. These remand prisoners are kept with convicts. Is it right? These people who are yet to face a charge, a trial, yet to be convicted by a court are placed in the same cells with the convicts. There should be a separate arrangement for them. That could even be a multistoreyed apartment complex with all conveniences. It is totally unethical on the part of the State to keep them along with the convicts.
I read this interview some 2 years back..of course remains my fav..What do you think? 