Bharatiya Janata Party vice-president Jana K Krishnamurthy met Special Correspondent Shobha Warrier at his modest home in Chennai to discuss a wide range of issues.

A survey conducted by India Today recently shows that the popularity of the National Democratic Alliance has declined. Has this survey come as a shock to you?

If you read it carefully, you will find there is a .6 per cent fall in the NDA's popularity and a gain of 2.65 per cent for the Congress. That is because they have taken the opinion polls in various zones. Elections are coming. So, there is this anti-incumbency factor in all those zones.

They have found that the anti-incumbency factor in Kerala will affect the LDF. So, there is a gain for the UDF. But the BJP is not in the UDF. So, they said the strength of the Congress would go up. In Tamil Nadu, the anti-incumbency a factor will affect the DMK. So, they found it would affect the BJP too. As the Congress is with the ADMK, it gains a little.

So, what I want to tell you is that the reality is not this.

The prime minister's statement on Ayodhya in the Lok Sabha was described by everyone as the 'unmasking of Vajpayee.' What do you think of this statement?

Like the prime minister stated, there are only two possible solutions for Ayodhya. One is the verdict of the highest court. The second is to have the representatives of the two sides -- the Hindus and the Muslims -- coming together and arriving at a mutually acceptable solution. I don't think there is any third way.

The BJP has endorsed the PM's stand. Not because the prime minister has said it. But it was the stand of the party earlier also.

I personally feel if we want a real solution, the political parties should keep out of the issue completely. We should allow the representatives to meet and have talks. Today, it appears to be an irreconcilable decision but given mutual goodwill and understanding, I feel the leaders of both communities are capable of coming to a solution. But interference of political parties may aggravate things.

So, the BJP has made its opinion clear. Ayodhya is not on the agenda of the NDA, and we endorse the PM's view.

His statement in the Lok Sabha created such a furore, not only in Parliament, but elsewhere as well. Even the NDA partners reacted to it sharply.

There was nothing in the prime minister's statement. The Congress was just waiting for an opportunity, that's all. They didn't like the NDA government. So, they want to bring down the NDA government.

Sonia Gandhi's advisors perhaps might have said, 'There are two points of strength in the NDA. The first one is the image of Vajpayeeji and the second one is the allies sticking together.'

So, the Congress wanted to raise an issue by which they could throw some mud at the image of Vajpayee and also create a wedge between the allies and the BJP. The third objective was to try to get back the support of the minorities through this. These were the three objectives. Unfortunately, it boomeranged on them.

They never succeeded in dividing the NDA because Vajpayeeji's statement was crystal clear. The Congress demanded the resignation of the two ministers. Atalji said they had not committed any crime. It was a political movement based on national sentiments, at that time. Now, a solution can be found either by court verdict or through talks.

They do not know the facts of the case. The police wanted to file a charge sheet and the lower court permitted it. That order of the lower court was challenged in the high court. The verdict is yet to come.

The very order of the lower court to allow the police to file a charge sheet has been challenged. So, there can be no charge sheet till the high court judgment comes. So, where is the question of the resignation of these three ministers? That was what Arun Jaitley said. He told them, 'You don't even understand the basic jurisprudence. And you want to bring in political jurisprudence?'

The Congress failed in their attempt. The allies are still with the NDA. And Atalji's image was not at all affected.

That is not exactly true...

You just wait and see. You may feel that Vajpayee's image was affected. I feel it was not. Both of us have got one vote each! Let us see what the verdict of the people is going to be.

Of course, a section of the press took it up in a big way. According to our feedback, their conclusions are not correct. If his image was affected really, then, the India Today opinion poll would not have given such a good rating for Vajpayee. There would have been a considerable fall in his popularity too. The truth is nobody is anywhere near Atalji today.

The efforts of the Congress and the Left parties have failed.

So, you do not agree with the description that it was the 'unmasking of Vajpayee.'

Absolutely not.

The prime minister told the House it is in the interests of all Indians that a temple be built at Ayodhya. Do you feel that is so?

I feel this issue is being kept alive deliberately by Opposition parties. It is not an issue at all actually. From 1936 onwards, no namaz took place there. That is the court verdict. Nobody can deny that. From 1949 onwards, puja has been going on there.

These are the two basic facts. Can anybody deny that?

It is only on this basis that the talks are going on. Why should we talk about it? Let us leave it to the persons concerned.

Is it in the national interest that a temple should be built there?

Whose interest? Are you the sole custodian of national interest? Am I the sole custodian of national interest? Is the Congress the sole custodian of national interest?

Who is?

Let us hear the public opinion. Those who are interested should tell us. The VHP says there should be a temple. The Babri Masjid committee says there should not be. The talks are going on. Ultimately the two representatives will come together and settle the issue

But my question was about national interest…

Again, you are saying national interest (gets angry). How do you define national interest?

It was the prime minister who said the building of the temple was of national interest. Does it really matter to the people of Kerala or Manipur or Arunachal Pradesh that we have a temple in Ayodhya?

Why do you say it is confined only to Uttar Pradesh?

It matters to all those who are interested in a temple. There are so many people in India who are interested, and for them, it is the biggest thing. There are people who want a temple there. There are people who do not want a temple there. Somebody wanted a hospital there.

Our country is a democratic country. So, everybody can have his or her opinion. But I feel the issue will take care of itself.

So, you say that all political parties should keep themselves out of the issue.

Yes. And, that includes my party also.

I also feel the media also should keep out of the issue and allow the matter to settle down.

The VHP has fixed a date for the temple construction. How will the government deal with that?

Why should the government deal with it so long as they are not breaking the law? If anybody tries to take the law in his hands, then law will take its course, the prime minister said.

Even if it is the RSS or the VHP?

Whoever it is. You must also understand that the VHP has responsible leaders wedded to the interests of the country. Why do you think they will do something which is against the interests of the country?

But they said they were not concerned with the BJP's opinion. They said, irrespective of the BJP's stance, they would go ahead with the temple construction. So then?

Let us cross that bridge when we reach it. Why should they not tell us their vision? Just because you and I object to it? Let them have their vision. The government will interfere only when they cross the law. This is a democracy. You have the freedom to criticise them. Do they not have the freedom to express their views? It is not democracy if you impose your views on somebody else.

But they say they will build a temple at Ayodhya.

Let them build. Then, you can step in. Do you know anything about how temples are constructed? I know. I am born in Tamil Nadu. Construction of a temple is not a day's affair, Madam! It takes years and years. They have to collect money and they are answerable to all those from whom they have collected money. Every village contributed one brick inscribed with 'Hey Ram'. All those who have given money and bricks will ask the VHP, 'What are you doing? What are you going to do with the bricks? Are you going to build a VHP office?'

What kind of a relationship do you have with the RSS?

I consider the RSS to be a university. What is the relationship between a student and his alma mater? We learn things at the university, and then we go into our field. Once in a while, a meeting of all old students takes place at the university. All students are proud of their university. I am too. All of us graduated from the RSS. But now we have our own life.

We say, yes, we are proud that we are products of the RSS. But how far is a student connected with his alma mater after he leaves?... Except that he remembers that he was a product of the university once? I consider the relationship between the RSS and the BJP like the relationship between an alma mater and its student.

But the RSS is the most vocal critic of the NDA government's economic policies.

They are free to raise their opinion.

Is there not some truth in what they say? For example, they say mindless liberalisation will adversely affect the life of the poor.

I have publicly made a statement to Govindacharya that we are also wedded to swadeshi. It is in our blood. The BJP is wedded to self-reliance. Not only Bharat but every country would like to be self reliant. No country would like its economy to be controlled by outside forces. We accept it.

But in the case of implementation of specific programmes, in the present world context, we cannot insulate our economy from the world economy.

Govindacharya is devoting two years of his life to this. I said, 'Very good, go ahead. If you can present me a plan that is acceptable to my party and government -- and if it is in the interests of the country -- we are open to it. We do not have a closed mind.'

But till then, we cannot remain still. Time will not stand still. The country has to move on. We are committed to the WTO. The WTO agreement was not signed by the BJP. The Narasimha Rao government signed it. We can't say no now. So, we are doing our best, keeping all those obligations in mind. I don't say that all that we are doing is correct. We are using the trial and error method.

Isn't Indian agriculture going to suffer once the WTO agreement comes into force?

Those who offering the criticism do not know what agriculture is and what the problems are.

It was Dr M S Swaminathan who said so.

Dr M S Swaminathan is a great expert. We have great regard and respect for him. You should also understand that we have to go ahead as a government. Do you know what is the present position of the food grain in the country? We had been a deficit state where food grain was concerned. India has emerged as a surplus state.

But that is what Dr Swaminathan said. He said the godowns are full, but the poor cannot get access to food. The poor has no money to buy food.

We are trying to deal with the problem. We are consulting experts. The government has announced free rice of 10 kilos to the senior citizens. The state governments have to follow this up. We are giving 25 kilos of rice to all those who live below the poverty line through PDS.

Certain decisions are being taken. The administrative machinery has been moving at a particular pace in the last 50 years. We have also said that when there is a natural calamity, no warrant should be taken against anyone's property. Nobody can be arrested then. That is why in our national executive, we have made an important suggestion -- providing farmers insurance cover.

People have given 50 years to the Congress, but they are not ready to give five years to the BJP.

Design: Uttam Ghosh

ALSO READ:

'The Sangh Parivar has no role to play in governance'

'The Vajpayee government will survive withdrawal of support by the AIADMK'

The Rediff Interviews