A Question of Answers: 'I believe in human beings'

Though he went to university in India and the United States through the conservative Eighties, Sandeep Pandey thinks and speaks like a person from the Sixties or Seventies.

While doing his doctoral research at Berkeley University from 1988 to 1992, he discovered that his work was connected to the use of missiles.

The thought was so repelling for Pandey that when he came back to take up a teaching assignment at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kanpur, his research focus turned to biogas.

Pandey, 37, winner of this year's prestigious Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership, was hesitant at first to accept the award because he felt that he had not yet achieved anything noteworthy.

It was after his colleagues in Asha – the non-governmental organisation he runs – told him that this would give greater impetus to the work being done for socio-economic change and basic education there, that he decided to accept the award.

Pandey is not just an NGO leader. He is also an anti-nuclear peace activist, who is not afraid to speak out his unpopular views. He believes that Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam has been made President of India by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) because of his contribution to nuclear weapons.

Right now he is in the middle of a growing controversy because he said that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was more inclined towards peace than Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

As a consequence, Hari Dikshit, secretary of the right-wing extremist group, Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Kanpur, has demanded that Pandey be held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

In an exclusive interview with Gulf News, Pandey talks about his work and his personal belief system.

Excerpts from the interview:

Parsa: How did this controversy about your statement on Pakistan President Musharraf arise?
Sandeep Pandey: Some time ago, I had talked at a Meet-the-Press programme in Jaipur. It went off well. I love Jaipur because I was there in 1999 when we held a peace march from Pokhran to Sarnath after the nuclear tests. So, I told my friends to arrange a similar programme in Kanpur.

The press at Kanpur was quite hostile, and asked why I spoke against Hindu zealots, but not against Muslims. I told them that I was opposed to all religious fundamentalists.

What angered them was my remark that if Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was blamed for trouble in India, it is also true that India's Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was engaged in destabilising Pakistan. I told them that my observation was based on a reliable diplomatic source, who had served as India's representative in China, Pakistan and the United States.

I could not, of course, reveal his name. I met him when I was doing my doctoral research at Berkeley University from 1988 to 1992. He, too, was there on a research project in international relations. We were staying at the International House, and we became friends. During the course of conversation, he told me this. Earlier, I too believed that Pakistan was the only troublemaker.

I do feel that India, being a strong country, is arrogant about peace talks, which is not the case with President Musharraf. During the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit in Agra in July, 2000, I was at Princeton.

I, along with my friends, M.V. Ramana, Cecil Chaudhury and Abdul Nayyar (both from Pakistan) had drafted a peace treaty. There were both idealistic and practical elements in it. It was Musharraf who had agreed to meet Cecil Chaudhury. There was no response from Vajpayee.

Do you think there is growing intolerance?
Certainly. It is especially so under the present government.

When did you decide to abandon the scientific career and take up social work?
I decided that when I was in my first year of B.Tech at the Benaras Hindu University. It was after reading Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography. Initially, I thought that social work could be done effectively if I was in electoral politics. So, I contested for the BHU student's council, and served as a member for a year.

I was disillusioned with electoral politics then. I decided to pursue social work in the non-electoral arena.

I had to go through my university education because my parents were opposed to my idea of doing social work. It was after taking up a teaching post in IIT, Kanpur, that I could put my plan into action. Even then, my parents were unhappy. We remained estranged until I got married and our first child was born.

Does your wife support you ?
Arundhati, my wife, is a senior social activist. She was with the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and she was the person who had organised the tribal protests in Madhya Pradesh. While at IIT, Kanpur, I would go to meet the Narmada Bachao Andolan activists.

In 1994, Medha Patkar was not there, and Arundhati was leading the protest of the tribals. I stayed there for three weeks. When the protesters were arrested – I was one of them - we were together in prison. It was my first imprisonment, and it was the 40th time she was in prison. It was then that we had decided to marry.

What is the basic idea that Asha, the NGO you run, is based on?
In the beginning the focus was on basic education. Then we changed it to include social change and empowerment of the people. The idea is based on the social philosophy expounded by A. Nagaraj, and it is called 'sahaastitivavaad' or 'jeevanvidya'.

It is not a God-centred philosophy, which is religious and mystical. Neither is it a matter–centred philosophy, with its scientific uncertainties. Nagaraj's philosophy is human-centred.

Where and when did you meet Nagaraj?
I met him at Amarkantak, the source of the Narmada River He has been living there since 1950. He belongs to a traditional Vedanta - one of the Indian schools of philosophy -family, and he had evolved his philosophy over the years. He is not a monk. He is married and makes his living through agriculture.

Are you a religious person? Do you believe in God?
No, I am not. I believe in human beings.