Najeeb Jung Interview: Little On Ground Effect of RSS' Talks With Muslims But...

Video Editors: Prajjwal Kumar, Purnendu Pritam

Exclusive: RSS Chief Held Closed-Door Meet With Former LG, Other Eminent Muslims

This news break by The Quint in 2022 turned heads for obvious reasons. The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) extending an olive branch to the Muslim community surprised many, especially with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal being perceived to be one of the prime propagators of polarisation.

The RSS has held several meetings with prominent personalities of the community, including former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung.

"I think people believe that by polarisation you can attract a lot of people. So, it works both ways. I mean, if there is a Muslim party, they think that polarisation can help them get Muslim votes and it works the opposite with the other people," said Jung in a conversation with The Quint at his residence in Delhi.

Though Jung restricted his comments on his meetings with Mohan Bhagwat, he remains a firm believer of the fact that dialogue is the only way forward to establish peace between the communities.

"I study all religions as you can see there. I am reading the Granth Sahab (holy book of Sikhs) these days and you can see a copy of the Bible there. We must understand the ethos of others," he said as he pointed to the copies of the holy books kept neatly in one corner of his living room.

However, the ground reality remains largely unchanged. Leaders and representatives of several bodies associated with the RSS are often seen as being a part of movements against 'love jihad' and 'land jihad'. Meanwhile, hate speeches against minorities, too, remain largely unchecked, with a disturbing incident witnessed recently in the Parliament. That begs the question – is dialogue enough to establish harmony?

On 'Badi Badi Baatein!', Jung shed light on several aspects including distortion of history, the overlap of religion and politics, and talks with the RSS.

One of the most striking things that I came across was that you have played Emperor Akbar in a play not very long ago. What made you do that? How did that happen?

Oh, that was just for fun. I was at a dinner and I met Mr Aziz Qureshi, who started talking about this and said that I'm doing 'Salim-Anarkali' as a drama and will you play Akbar? I was then the vice-chancellor (of Jamia Millia Islamia University). I said, sure, why not? So, as long as I don't have to spend too much time outside the university. He said we will do the rehearsals in the university campus. So, I agreed. And there you are.

Did you have fun playing Akbar?

Oh, great fun! Yeah, I enjoyed it.

We are talking about rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb a lot lately. There are claims about them on the internet that I would like your response on.

Well, you know, you can make any claim. I mean, there are thousands of claims being made these days, but I think that's rather naïve. People have to understand and study history properly because needless claims to distort history would harm future generations.

Another one is that Aurangzeb won the Kailash Mansarovar from the Chinese to gift it to the Hindus

I have never heard of this. The last 27 years of his life Aurangzeb's spent in the Deccan because he was fighting the Bahmani kingdoms and interestingly, they were all Muslim kingdoms. I think he should have left around 1680 or so and died in Aurangabad in 1707. So, going to Kailash Mansarovar is rather far-fetched.

Historians have deliberately kept Hindu rulers out of history textbooks or historical texts.

You know, people are not reading history. Who has kept anyone out? If you are a student of history, you should see that there are great periods from third century BC when we come to the Gautam Buddha, the great Maurya Empire, the great Guptas, the Kushan Empire, and then we go south to Rashtra Kuta to the Chalukyas. 

So, it's completely nonsensical to say that you kept anyone out of history. It's there. And those are facts. What is unfortunate is that you want to blank out a particular phase of history, and that is tragic to my mind.

Rulers like Akbar and Aurangzeb find mention in today's political discourse, but they're remembered differently now. Akbar is not 'the great' for a lot of people now. A lot of people are being jailed or slapped with cases for glorifying Aurangzeb. Do you think there is an attempt to distort history and paint certain figures differently than before?

There is no doubt that there is a definite attempt to denigrate the entire period from 1000 AD to maybe 1857. And that, I think, is a very naive attempt because this is a phase, it can't last. History will remain history. So, there can be a challenge to Aurangzeb, of course, and there can be debate on his bigotry. That is a debatable question, but to denigrate the entire period is quite naive.

And also, if you think that you put Aurangzeb on your profile and you can go to jail. That's very silly. So, I am convinced and of course, it's a great criticism that, you know, leftist history was wrong. I don't subscribe to that view.

I think a lot of great historians do have a leftist stance, but that doesn't mean that they are not fair. And all the great historians that we had in the last 30 or 40 years – whether it is Romila Thapar, Bipan Chandra, whether it is Professor Habib, Irfan's father you know, they would really scoff at what you saying.

Like history, there is also a lot of communal agenda propagating into films that we see. We have seen what happens with films like 'The Kerala Story'. There were organisations, right-wing Hindu organisations who were running campaigns so that more and more Hindu girls should watch a film like 'The Kerala Story', a film whose facts have severely been contested including inside the Supreme Court of India. We also see the film makers given to that fear. Do you think there is an attempt to get into this space of art and history in order to further a particular agenda?

Let me answer this in a different way. India is an amalgam of various communities and religions. I believe each community, each religion is like a river that flows into this vast ocean that is Mother India. If you try to remove any from this collage, you are hitting Mother India. And that I think is very tragic. 

On the film side, we have seen that history of Indian films has always been extremely secular. We have had pictures which were great hits by Muslim socialists like 'Chaudhvin Ka Chand', 'Mere Mehboob' and a film like Mughal-E-Azam where the language was so difficult. But despite being difficult Urdu, it became the most successful movie of the period.

These last few years, it is to my mind, very tragic when film actors, when directors would produce and direct films which are meant to convey a particular agenda. That is not really the business of cinema. If you want to entertain, fair enough. 

But if you want to entertain at the cost of society, at the cost of harmony, then we will harm India.

Let me quote to you a couplet. That couplet, by the way, is on a Vaishnav Temple in Kashmir put by Jahangir.

The couplet says: "heresy to the heretic religion to the Orthodox, but the dust of the rose petal belongs to the heart of the perfume seller." That is the juice and the essence of Indian ethos.

So, if you think that you can distort it in 15-20 years by being jingoistic or being muscular-nationalistic, then you are not going to achieve it. It's not going to last.

Many of these movements, which we see - the VHP, the Bajrang Dal are active participants in them. All these are affiliated with the RSS. You have been in talks with the RSS and Mr Mohan Bhagwat for reconciliatory efforts and Hindu-Muslim unity in the country. Where do the talks stand today and who initiated the effort? 

I will restrict my comments on this because it's an understanding between us and Mr Bhagwat that for the moment we will we will not disclose them to the public. All I can say is that yes, we've been speaking to them and not from now, but from 2019. And of course, your next question will be about what you see on the ground. So, let me say, yes, I don't see much of a change on the ground. 

But the question is that dialogue must happen, dialogue must continue. I must understand you and you must understand where I am coming from. So, our effort is to is to remove misunderstandings which a lot of Hindus have vis-a-vis Muslims and vice versa. The there is no doubt that misunderstandings exist between these communities. This is historical baggage that many people carry. Many people are not like you and me who are who can rise above petty differences and think intellectually. 

I think that a lot of us do carry that baggage and only dialog can help. So, about my talks with the with Mr Bhagwat and his and his senior people, let me just put it that we intend to continue this dialog but we don't want to disclose its contents at the moment. 

Do you think there is a particular political effort to further a particular kind of majoritarian agenda vis-a-vis one religion? 

I think people believe that that by polarisation you can attract a lot of people. So, it works both ways. I mean, if there is a Muslim party, they think that polarisation can help them get Muslim votes and it works the opposite with the other people. 

So, of course, polarisation is being done but I think it is being done at the cost of harmony, I think is being done at the cost of the country's welfare. And I believe that a true nationalistic belief would be to take everyone together rather than segregate them. 

Do you think dialog will be able to achieve these things? Because, for example, in a state like Maharashtra, we have been seeing in the past one year a spate of rallies by right wing groups claiming 'land-jihad', 'love-jihad'. There are certain rallies that we see BJP leaders taking active participation. Most of these rallies have children in participation, which kind of goes on to tell you how the future is going to be shaped.

Yes, it is very painful. It is extremely short-sighted. It gains you nothing. It may gain you one election but the costs that you will pay eventually will be very heavy. But please understand, countries also very quickly get out of this nationalistic, muscular-nationalistic mode when they see those disadvantages, when they see what's happening. I mean, ten years down the line, who knows? I don't think that a majority in this country would like disharmony. Eshwar, India remains secular because 80% of India is Hindu. Please let us all understand that 15, 20, 30% people do not make India. Therefore, to make India into a communal cauldron is impossible.

You will have riots, you will have disagreements, you will have hate speeches - this is all a phase. There are declines,  troughs, and rises in in communal politics. We may be seeing a rise today but it shall decline.

You have been a part of administrative services and governance for a while now. Do you think we are at a point where religion and politics have had the maximum overlap in the in the history of independent India?

I think efforts are being made to bring in religion into politics and that, I think, is unfortunate. I truly believe that religion has to be kept within homes. I study all religions as you can see there. I am reading the Granth Sahab (holy book of Sikhs) these days and you can see a copy of the Bible there. We must understand the ethos of others. Let me quote to you something which Baba Bulleh Shah had said sometime. He talked of Holi and he said: 'Khelun Holi, Keh Bismillah.' This is marvellous - 'Khelun Holi, Keh Bismillah.' This is Bulleh Shah. And that is the ethos of India. That is our ethos. You can't break it. You can try as much as you want. You will have disturbances, I believe that these are momentary.'

But what about attempts that are being made from various fronts? Like in the previous days, we did not have as much of active campaigning of these issues. For example, a lot of pages propagating hate speech on social media, a lot of YouTube channels, WhatsApp videos, etc...How does one counter that from the ground?

The interesting thing is because you mentioned YouTube - there are equal number of YouTube channels that are extremely secular. I can name to you half a dozen straight away, which are more popular today than these so-called right-wing channels.

So, YouTube is a first-class indication of the thinking in this country. Yes, attempts are being made. Senior politicians are making those attempts when you make expressions like '80-20' and all that we heard in the Uttar Pradesh election - that's very naive, very silly. I don't understand why you would like to break a country for an election. It's just beyond me.

You spoke about senior politicians, We had an MP from Delhi Mr Ramesh Bidhuri. He used some very objectionable words for another Muslim MP in the Parliament, in the new building. How did that video make you feel?

It's a shame, isn't it? That's all we can say. Indian democracy will hang its head in shame. You and I will hang our heads in shame. How do we show our face abroad? What do we say? So, the less we speak of Mr Bidhuri's speech, the better it is for all of us. I mean, it is truly sickening.

Do you think there should have been a little more action from the party on this front?

Of course there should have been an action. I really admire Mr Rajnath Singh. I worked with him. I have great admiration for him. He is a very straightforward man. And he understood that what Mr Bhaduri is saying is wrong. But it's tragic that the party should not react more strongly.

Speaking about Delhi, you have been the lieutenant governor. The performance of the Aam Aadmi Party government, how has it fared, according to you in terms of governance in all these years? 

I should not be commenting. It's not fair for me as a former Lieutenant Governor to be commenting on how Mr Kejriwal is performing currently. He has an agenda, obviously, he is a very clever man. He's politically very agile. But what you see in Delhi is what both you and I see and it's hardly worth commenting.

The NCT ordinance issue, did it bother you the way the government brought in the ordinance despite the Supreme Court order?

Look, this is a very interesting question because most people don't understand why the government brought it in. Anybody will say that it is only fair that an elected government should control its civil servants and so on. But the constitution is very, very clear. Article 234 is very clear that Delhi is a Union territory and the Lieutenant Governor is the repository of the president's power, that's number one. Now, traditionally, chief ministers, and  I'm only talking of postings and transfers because that seems to have become the bane of all this - postings and transfers were done by Lieutenant Governors but the chief minister would send the recommendations and the Lieutenant Governor would sit with the chief minister and approve 90/% of them. I mean, maybe 10% would be left.

When Mr Kejriwal became the chief minister, he was under the impression that he will control the bureaucracy. My fundamental question is - why this great desire to control the bureaucracy? Why? I mean, the bureaucrats are expected to do the work as per the Constitution and the law, you are supposed to execute order, issue orders as per the Constitution or the law. So, why the desire for control? In the ultimate analysis, the old system was first class, which is that the chief minister gives a proposal, the governor has a look and agrees to 90-95%. It is only a lack of maturity, I would say, if the two parties disagree to the extent that an ordinance or an act has to be brought in.

Did you ever want to join active politics?

I don't have the stamina. It requires tremendous stamina. It requires money. It requires family time. And I have far too many other commitments at the moment, always had other commitments to give time for politics. 

What do you wish for India in 2024?

My wish is the same as anybody else's that India should emerge as a strong country. We are on the threshold, we are taking off into being a major power. We are respected internationally. So, I wish the economy would grow. I wish the government would be strong. But my fervent hope would be that it would be an inclusive government that would take all of us along.