As the government prepares for another round of talks with protesting farmers on Wednesday, RSS No. 2 and the organization’s secretary general, Suresh (BhaIyyaji) Joshi Talk to The Indian Express.
How do you see the ongoing farmer protests against the new farm laws?
In a democracy, there are always many sides and each organization has its own expectations. Generally, it is difficult to find common ground. Thus various demands are raised. Those who have to meet these demands have their own limitations. It is not possible to meet all demands. I do not want to comment on whether the demands are justified or viable.
Democracy provides an opportunity for both parties. I consider that both sides are in place. The agitators must consider that whatever they can achieve through dialogue, they must accept. The government must think about what more it can give. The upheavals run and end too. So a movement must consider the space it has, and the government must take theirs into account. As a government has to make several provisions, it has limited space, while those who demand have more.
That is why it is important to find that point where the two parties can agree and the agitation can end. Any agitation for a long time is not beneficial. No one should have a problem with agitation. But a middle ground must be found. An upheaval not only affects the people associated with it, but it also impacts society, directly or indirectly. It is not good for the health of society if an upheaval goes on for too long. Therefore, a middle ground must be found and both parties must work to find a solution.
But it seems that the government does not agree with the demands.
Whenever a discussion takes place, there can be no argument that my position is non-negotiable … The government repeatedly says that we are ready to discuss, but (the protesters) say that any discussion will take place only after it is repeal the laws. How will such a discussion take place?
So what is the way out?
I think farmers should have a discussion with the government about the problems they have with the laws. So far, it seems the government is ready to argue. There should be a positive initiative from both parties. If the shakers also take a positive approach, it will be good.
But how will there be a positive approach if those associated with the government call on the agitators Khalistani and Maoist farmers?
Some people may be saying this, but the government has not said it. All I will say is that a rigidity has crept into the whole issue. Who are the people behind this, must be investigated. Are there such elements that you don’t want resolution to come? This should be tested.
It appears that anxiety over laws could not be measured within a section of farmers.
It’s the government’s job, not ours. But we can see that the upheavals are not receiving any support from the rest of the country. In many places, like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, farmers are also speaking up for the laws. Even among agitated farmers, there are people who support them. So there are two points of view within the movement.
At the Singhu border, Tuesday. (Photo: Abhinav Saha)
What else can the government do to solve it?
I do not know. It is up to the government to think. But if there are more problems of this type that need a solution, the government must do it. But I don’t think that in any country a law like this will be repealed… If there are any positive suggestions, the government should consider. We just want the agitation to end quickly now.
A similar agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was held a year ago, but the government did not engage with the protesters.
The interior minister gave assurances repeatedly. But if you don’t want to believe even a high-ranking minister in the government, how will things move forward? He said that no minority community will suffer and that no one will be expelled from the country … If people start saying that we have no papers or proof, are we going to allow anyone to reside in the country? Go to the US, once your visa expires, you will be expelled. India has not done that.
Does the government have the right to designate foreigners living in the country? That is what the government was trying to do. What’s the point of opposing that? Yes, it must be ensured that a law does not cause injustice to anyone.
The RSS was accused of pushing an agenda to reduce minorities to second-class citizens.
Is there something in that law that says that Muslims should be treated in any particular way? Yes, it is our long-standing demand that Hindus have no other country to go to except India. That is why India has to think about granting citizenship to Hindus who come from abroad. Many people from Pakistan, after suffering atrocities there, have come to India and live on the trails of Delhi. And we are also giving citizenship to the Muslims of Pakistan. If the government were against minorities, it would not have given them citizenship.
A mural on the Singhu border in New Delhi, where farmers protest against the new agricultural laws, on Tuesday, January 12, 2020 (Express photo: Abhinav Saha).
How do you see the recent approval of the so-called ‘Love Jihad laws’?
Is it okay to attract someone and then convert them? Today it is happening in many states. First declare that you are Hindu, start a relationship, and then reveal your true identity while getting married. There is no objection to people falling in love and getting married. But there is a difference between love marriage and jihad love. On the one hand, there is love and consensus, on the other hand, there is seduction. So if something is being done by falsehood, there should be a law to deal with it. Now how strict the law should be and who should be protected, only experts can know.
The chances of abuse and misuse are high.
Whenever such laws are passed, some problems arise. I won’t call it misuse, but you have to fight to prove your innocence. What happens in the (SC / ST) Atrocity Act? I am not saying that it is being misused. But then the case drags on and then it is proven not true. Until then, both sides suffer. Whenever a law is passed, its implementation will bring some difficulties, which some innocent people will also have to endure.
Whether it’s Boy Right or Taandav, cultural nationalists have once again been offended.
When people enter this field (of show business), they must be prepared for a critical examination. Well, you created something and it caused a controversy. So give it a solution. If you do something that goes against ancient principles and traditions, there will be controversy … Creative freedom does not mean that you will hurt the feelings of any society on the basis of unproven facts. Even the truth that can cause social unrest should not be told. There should be no obligation to tell the truth. But show things that do not cause misunderstandings in society. No one should feel humiliated by your show.
RSS Secretary General Bhaiyyaji Joshi in New Delhi
But should it be done through FIR and cause fear?
There are elements in society that try to cause fear. They are not part of any organization. There are individuals and they are wrong. There is no need to cause fear. Whenever you have the law, turn to it. But the idea of not causing fear should apply to everyone. It cannot be selective. If one side does, the other side will too.
There has been violence and tension during the donation drive for Ram Temple spearheaded by the VHP.
VHP is not doing this (violence). When a crowd gathers, some violent elements also infiltrate. I understand that this gives us a bad name. So the organization is working to keep the movement safe from such elements. Whatever happened was not right.
In the last six years there has been an atmosphere in which dissent is branded as anti-national.
I disagree Maybe it has happened sometimes, but this is not the norm. There is always opposition in a democracy. Not everyone is called anti-national. Even the opposition is not accused of that. If someone has accused the opposition of being anti-national for asking questions of the government, that is not right. But there is also background to the person asking the question. That also has to be seen.
How do you see the long-term coexistence of India and China in the context of the current tension?
Only time can answer that. If relations need to improve, that will be up to both parties. India has never shown aggression towards China or Pakistan. We have only responded to their aggression. So we have always stayed positive. Now they have to think about what kind of relationship they want with us. However, we will not jeopardize our respect for ourselves and our sovereignty. There should be cultural relations. As Atalji said, we can choose friends and enemies, but not neighbors.
.
