Let me make it clear that Swadeshi does not mean that India will become an island by itself or become isolationist. Neither does it mean that we will not allow the inflow of new ideas and new technology or, for that matter, foreign investment. Swadeshi essentially means that people should have the confidence to build a modern and prosperous India by working hard and making the maximum use of the resources that are available at the moment. It means making India a global player. It means strengthening our indigenous research and development. Swadeshi ultimately means ensuring a reasonable standard of living for all citizens. Those who say that India cannot move forward unless others come to our aid, are wrong. We have an abundance of natural resources, trained techincal manpower and our achievements in science and technology are remarkable. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not have pride in our national capabilities. I would say, in a nutshell Swadeshi means "  India can do it and India will do it". 

Would you reconsider liberalisation?  

There can be no going back to a completely state-controlled economy in which, instead of rewarding private sector for higher production, limits were imposed through quotas. Since its inception, right from the days of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, my party has all along demanded deregulation of the economy and cutback in Government controls. At a time when every party was singing paens to the Nehruvian model of command economy, the Jana Sangh was demanding that the economy be freed from the clutches of Government control. However, in a developing economy, the state has to play an important role in the social sector. For instance, it is the state's responsibility to ensure health, education, nutrition, drinking water and housing for all its citizens. Key areas of physical infrastructure like roads, too, should be the concern of the state. 

Economic reforms have raised crucial questions about role and future of public sector enterprises. What is your attitude to the public sector? 

We must not ignore the fact that the public sector has contributed to the growth of the economy. But indiscriminate expansion of the public sector without developing a professional managerial class for the public sector enterprises has made many of them unprofitable and unviable. I believe that we should try and revive those undertakings that can be turned around. In any event, I am against substituting the earlier policy of indiscriminate expansion with indiscriminate closure. In all this, the workers' interests need to be safeguarded. 

There is this view in your party against consumer items, especially those manufactured by MNCs...  

What I and my party are opposed to is allowing the Indian market to be swamped by products that offer an illusion of prosperity but in reality meet the demands of a very narrow band of people. Putting it simply, we are against unlimited consumerism which may appeal to cosmopolitan, upwardly mobile Indians, but ignores the needs of 75 per cent of the country's population that lives in our villages. Other countries in South-East Asia that have prospered, have done so through high rates of savings. We, too, must strive for higher savings rates. 

If you were the Prime Minister, would you recommend a change in the manner of approval of foreign investments or regulate its inflow? 

I would ensure that every investment offer is decided on merit and whether it meets our country's needs. I would bear in mind our national interests. 

There is an increasing demand from Indian industry for a level playing field. Which essentially means a degree of protection for local industry... 

I am inclined to agree with them. Indian industry has to be given time and all help to prepare itself to meet the challenges of globalisation. Till recently they operated in a largely protected market. To suddenly push them into competition, that too with those who are at a more advantageous position, especially as far as access to capital is concerned, is unfair. Yes, I do favour a level playing field. If in the USA they can have this slogan, "Be American, Buy American", why can't we say, "Be Indian, Buy Indian?" Instead of being swamped by foreign brands, why can't we make Indian brands globally acceptable? 

There is also this thing that economic liberalisation has not benefited small scale industry and agriculture...  

Small scale sector deserves full protection and all possible incentives. As for agriculture, we all know that investment in this crucial sector has declined, resulting in a slowdown of agricultural growth despite a good monsoon. I would consider investment in agriculture one of the top priorities for a government committed to good governance. 

The monster of corruption is threatening our polity. How, in your view, could we battle this monster?  

As I see it, good governance is possible only when a Government has an ethical base. Tragically, morality and ethics are at a discount in politics today, not only in India but countries across the world. Today we find country after country grappling with the monster of graft; competitive politics is increasingly relying upon the strength of money, more so with the waning of ideology. But corruption cannot be just wished away; it needs to be fought at every level, beginning with the cleansing politics of the influence of money power. The second requirement is extensive electoral reforms... 

You have often talked about the need for systemic changes, that we need to have a second look at our Constitution... 

After 50 years, yes, the time has come for a second look at our Constitution and to explore the possibility of institutionalising some systemic changes. Some people have pointed out the merits of the presidential system. But here, too, the question arises as to what sort of a presidential system would suit India. You know, there is this Supreme Court judgement prohibiting any change in the basic structure of the Constitution. We have to bear that in mind. But even within the present structure, certain changes can be brought about, especially to ensure stability. For instance, we could consider a five-year mandate for the Lok Sabha, thus preventing mid-term polls. We could also consider the German system that doesn't allow a no-confidence motion against the incumbent Government but only a motion of confidence in an alternative Government. Whatever it is, but we must look for a cure to this instability. I would suggest that we appoint a high level Commission on the Constitution to take a fresh look at it and recommend systemic changes. 

What sort of electoral reforms would you recommend?  

Our electoral system is flawed on several counts. For instance, the first-past-the-post system which India borrowed from Great Britain does not appear to have served the country well. Perhaps the time has come for a review of this system and to take a close look at other systems prevalent elsewhere in the democratic world.A fundamental flaw in our system is that often a party's support base is not reflected in the number of seats it is able to win. With a huge share of the vote, you could end up with seats much below the number required to obtain a majority in the House. Conversely, with a smaller share of the vote, a party could find itself on the Treasury Benches. A direct fallout of this, especially in the wake of the collapse of the Congress which has vacated political space at a rate faster than in which any single political party can occupy this vacuum, is the current political instability. So, why don't we have a look at the list system or a mixed system of representation? 

In recent years we have witnessed the emergence of regional parties and the decline of national parties like the Congress. What reasons would you attribute to this... 

In the wake of India's independence, there was a tendency to centralise power in Delhi. Primarily, there were two reasons for this: Our experience of Partition and the need to consolidate more than 500 states and the provinces into a Union. Essentially, the idea was to avoid further fragmentation. There was this additional factor that the Congress was the dominant party both at the Centre and in the States.With the national parties fully engrossed by national problems, region specific problems and aspirations were ignored. Over-centralisation also resulted in Chief Ministers running to the Centre for the smallest of clearances and permissions, not to mention funds. All this resulted in the emergence of regional parties. So long as these parties have a national outlook, I see nothing wrong with them. 

This brings us to the issue of decentralisation and giving more powers to the States... 

Yes, there has to be decentralisation of political as well as economic powers. Decision-making cannot be restricted to the Centre alone. We have been arguing for greater fiscal autonomy for the States as well as shifting the balance of resources in favour of the States. As far as political powers are concerned, on issues like the appointment of Governors, the consent of the Chief Minister should be secured. Needless to add, I am totally against the misuse of Article 356 and given a chance, would amend this Constitutional provision so as to prevent its abuse. The Sarkaria Commission's recommendations were allowed to gather dust. Many of those recommendations need to be updated and, more importantly, implemented. 

What, in your opinion, should be the character of a stable coalition Government? And, why do you think coalitions have failed till now? 

Let me answer the second question first. As a people we are yet to learn the art of working together. If individuals in a party cannot function smoothly, leading to fragmentation of parties, how can parties come together and function smoothly? In any case this 14-party Government was a joke of a coalition. As for the first question, well, ideally a stable coalition should have a large party as its nucleus. This has been proved in States where coalitions have worked, for example West Bengal.

Let us move towards issues like national security and foreign policy. You and your party are perceived as hardliners on the issue of national security...

I believe that the highest importance should be accorded to national security. India has fought three wars; a huge chunk of our national territory lies under alien occupation; and, our territorial integrity continues to be under threat. Our concerns essentially stem from these realities. There is no doubt that a developing country cannot afford to divert substantial portion of its resources to acquiring arms or increasing defence spending. But neither can we discount the fact that we need to secure our frontiers in order to maintain our sovereignty and our territorial integrity. Nor can we turn a blind eye to defence acquisitions and transfer of military hardware by our immediate neighbours... 

There is something which a lot of people want to know: Would you go in for the Bomb? 

I do believe in a re-evaluation of India's nuclear policy and exercising the option to conduct nuclear tests in order to keep up with the latest developments. This does not detract from the fact that I and my party are committed to a nuclear arms-free world. Indeed, India has been in the forefront of the demand for a time-bound global nuclear disarmament programme. But, on the other hand, we are opposed to the practice of nuclear apartheid which appears to be the order of the day. It is in this context that I and my collea-gues pressured the Government to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the absence of a simultaneous agreement for a time-bound global elimination of weapons of mass destruction in their entirety. 

I would like to point out that a strong India, a secure India, does not mean a militarist India. As trustees of our civilisational traditions, we believe in peace and fraternity among nations. 

You are remembered as the best Foreign Minister India has ever had. What changes would you bring about in the area of foreign policy? 

There has all along been a broad consensus on foreign policy. We would maintain continuity with change. We would definitely want peace in the neighbourhood and friendly relations with our neighbouring countries. I would ensure that India, because of its strength and size, gets its rightful place in the comity of nations. 

Mr Vajpayee, the BJP's detractors have often suggested that they have no problems with you, but with your party which they describe as a "Hindu fundamentalist party"... 

I represent my party and there is no question of liking me and not my party. That is really not the issue. There is this motivated campaign to run down the party by describing it as a "Hindu nationalist party" or "Hindu fundamentalist party". I have no hesitation in reiterating the nationalist credentials of the Bharatiya Janata Party; indeed, we put the Indian nation and its interests above everything else. As far as we are concerned, there can be no compromise on that front. 

This, however, does not make us the purveyors of sectarian interests or, as many of these so-called secularists choose to describe as a "Hindu fundamentalist party". Those who coin such meaningless descriptions are ignorant of the fact that as a people, Hindus cannot be fundamentalists. The Hindu worldview, we must remember, is inclusivist, as opposed to the exclusivist worldview of other faiths. And if 50 years after its independence from foreign rule, India still remains a secular state, it is essentially because the majority of the country's population is Hindu and this nation's culture and traditions are rooted in the Hindu ethos. 

Yet, and this bears reiteration, India was never a theocracy and shall never be one. I can assert with conviction that India shall always remain a secular state. Historically, there has never been any discrimination or favouritism on the basis of religion in India. 

The Ayodhya dispute has become a bone of contention... 

The Ayodhya dispute has been there for a long time. It has been dragged through courts and is still pending there though decades have passed. It can be solved either through dialogue or by law. 

Recently a suggestion has been made by the holy imam of Kaba. He has urged Muslims to give up the Ayodhya site if it is established that a temple existed at the spot. This has opened a new window of opportunity to solve the problem. 

What are your views on secularism as it should be in India? 

I believe that we should be promoting social reconciliation rather than conflict; that we should move towards putting an end to the politics of competitive communalism rather than succumb to the temptation of `vote-bank' politics; that we should break free from the politics of casteism, of pitting community against community which has so asundered India's social fabric. 

Curiously, `secularism', which in the Western context means separating the church from the state, has been over the years perverted by the non-BJP parties into electoral politics. Justice Chenna Reddy, who sat on the bench of the Supreme Court, once observed that it was the so-called secular parties that had done the most to promote religious intolerance, religious backwardness and religious superstition. It would also be appropriate to quote M.C. Chagla in this context: "Secularism in India is not really secular. It has the name and the outward appearance, but at heart it is communal. It is my profound belief that all governments that have ruled this country have been communal. Our Constitution proclaims that we are secular, but our actions prove that we do not behave in a secular manner at all." 

We began with this thing about what should India be like. Secularism in India should ensure equal space and justice for everybody. Indian secularism should draw its inspiration from the concept of Sarva Dharma Samadar equal respect for all religions. More importantly, the state should not be seen as tilting the scales in favour of any one religion. 

All this is fine, but Muslims continue to have apprehensionssionate and caring. 

There is no basis for these apprehensions. For fifty years the Muslim community of India has been treated as a mere vote-bank. Through a sustained campaign of untruths, the BJP's opponents have made Muslims victims of a fear complex that is not founded in facts. The time has come for Muslims to break free of this fear complex and cease to be a vote-bank for those who have used them all these decades without improving their lot in any manner. Muslims in India have equal rights as enshrined in the Constitution. We guarantee to protect the lives, properties and honour of India's Muslims. 

What about the ticklish issue of a Uniform Civil Code? 

A Uniform Civil Code has nothing to do with minority or majority identities. After all, it was incorporated in the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution. Surely the framers of our Constitution cannot be accused of being anti-Muslim. The issue of Uniform Civil Code is linked to women's rights and if we demand a common civil code it is because we are concerned about these rights. Indeed, it is this commitment to gender equality that inspires us to campaign for a uniform civil code equally applicable to all regious groups. The personal laws as they exist in India today, are in constant conflict with the very concept of equality among the sexes and form the source of continuous discrimination against women in all areas of life. This is not the place to go into specific details, but suffice it to say that a civil society cannot allow women to be discriminated against in the name of religious practices. I would also like to clarify that bringing in a Uniform Civil Code does not mean imposing the Hindu code on others but evolving a code based on the best traditions of every community. 

This brings us to that other point of friction casteism and caste politics... the upsurge of Dalit sentiments and resentment... 

We have to understand the cause of this resentment which is being exploited for political capital by some parties. You know, 50 years after independence, the fruits of freedom are few while the claimants are many. There has been no effort at an equitable distribution of these fruits. The bulk of those who have been denied a share are the Dalits. We have to bake a bigger cake so that the largest number of people get a share. We need to devise the right development model for this purpose. But till then, there is bound to be this resentment among the Dalits and other vulnerable sections of Indian society. There is also the social aspect. After all, we have had social discrimination against them, for example the sin of untouchability. 

I recall a Lok Sabha debate on untouchability during which I had asserted that not only is this practice a sin but also a blot on our culture. I am not prepared to accept untouchability even if God tells me to do so, though I know that he won't do that. Untouchability has nothing to do with dharma, it is a degenrate perversion. Shudras have been kings in this country.As for political exploitation of this resentment, well, I can only hope that the people will soon realise that 

yeh theek nahin hain. As Government control and scope for patronage decreases, casteist politics will lose its appeal. In any case, casteist politics works only up to a point, not beyond that. Our system of election has also contributed to this practice. If we had a list system, it would not have been so pronounced. 

Would you suggest that politics of casteism is not here for all time to come? 

Yes. This is a passing phase. A society as large as India needs time to find an equilibrium and social stability. 

How do you think this equilibrium can be expedited? 

Through Samajik Samarasata, or social harmony, which is rooted in the concept of integral humanism. The very concept of integral humanism rules out contradictions between society and its various components, as also between society and the individual. From this stems our commitment to eradicate social and economic disparities; to the creation of a socially integrated Bharatiya samaj. 

It is with a view to forge this samrasata that we had entered into an alliance with the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous State. The BSP, in some ways, represents Dalit interests and I believe that these interests cannot be excluded from the concerns of any Government. Due to extraneous pressures on the BSP, the coalition did not last long. But the fact that a sizeable section of the BSP legislators chose to back us, reflects on our commitment to protecting Dalit interests. 

Similarly, in Punjab we are partners in Government with the Akali Dal. While in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP-BSP alliance was forged after elections to the State Assembly, in Punjab we contested the elections along with the Akali Dal on the strength of the slogan of "ekta" unity. There may be issues on which we differ with the Akali Dal, but on one issue there are no differences: Indian society cannot be fragmented into exclusive caste, class, linguistic or regional compartments. This is not to suggest that these identities need to be obliterated in their entirety, but to reassert the fact that these identities together coalesce into the larger Indian identity. Neither is complete without the other. 

Has this approach begun to show results? 

It is essentially because of our commitment to Samajik Samrasata which, incidentally negates this oft-quoted description of the BJP as a Brahminical party with an upper-caste agenda that we have received tremendous electoral support in areas that are pre-dominantly inhabited by tribals and members of the Scheduled Castes. We have a high success rate in constituencies which are reserved for Scheduled Castes while in the tribal belt of Bihar, the BJP has been sweeping nearly all the Assembly and parliamentary seats. 

You have just mentioned your concern for women's rights and emancipation. What are the key areas of concern? 

To begin with, we must instil a sense of confidence among women. Then comes education. Our national literacy rate for women is abysmal. Simultaneously, we need to fight against social evils and make women conscious of their rights which are no less than those of men. We need to ensure women have property rights equal to those of men. We also need to make them co-sharers in the dispensation of power and in the decision-making process. 

Are you in favour of reservations for women? 

The whole idea of positive discrimination is to provide a sense of equality in an unequal situation. Yes, I favour reservations for women both in services and in legislatures, including Parliament. The women's quota Bill giving them 33 per cent seats in legislatures should have been passed by the 11th Lok Sabha. If I get a chance, I will make it one of the top items on my agenda list. 

There was a time when India was described as a population bomb ticking away. The bomb has already exploded and we are heading towards the billion-person mark. What are your views on this issue? 

India's population explosion is no doubt a major problem that needs to be tackled on a war-footing. What we need is a multi-dimensional approach. At one level, we have to concentrate on mass awareness campaigns and education. Kerala is an example of how results can be achieved by these twin means. At another level, we have to introduce both incentives as well as disincentives. Till now Governments have avoided disincentives on the specious plea that it would hurt the religious sentiments of some groups. This is ridiculous. In ancient times, a bride would be blessed with the wish that may she be the mother of eight sons (ashta-putravati bhava). This was seen to be in accordance with dharma. But in the present times, if we start fulfilling such a wish, imagine what would happen to the country in a few years! 

Do you feel that those who hold public office have a responsibility, too? 

Yes, of course. If we are recommending the two-child norm to our people, then we who hold public office should also follow the norm and set an example. I am quite game about the idea of debarring those who have more than two children from holding public office. 

Mr Vajpayee, what is your vision of a modern India? 

An India that preserves all that is good about the past and is yet forward-looking. A society which is conscious of its rights but vigilant about performing its duties. A society which is prosperous but, at the same time, one in which person's worth is not judged by his wealth alone. An India free of social conflict, an India free from the curse of illiteracy and malnutrition. An India at peace with itself and confident of its place in the world. A technologically strong India that can harness science for the welfare of all Indians. We can create such an India by giving top priority to maintaining law and order, preserving life and honour, ensuring basic amenities and providing a corruption-free administration. All that India needs is a strong Government, a transparent Government, a dynamic Government which is compassionate and caring. 

Mr Vajpayee, a large section of India's youth feels cynical about politics and politicians. The fervour of the early years of Independence is missing from today's young generation. What is your message to the country's youth? 

The youth, especially those who belong to the under-privileged sections of society, have every reason to feel angry and disillusioned. The misgovernance of the past five decades and corruption at high places have contributed in a large measure to this sense of disillusionment.But merely feeling angry or disillusioned is of no use, nothing is going to change unless you play an active role in bringing about that change. All those who are 19 years or more have the right to vote. 

email: abvajpayee@bjp.org