| There’s
no communication (with Cong). I don’t think (my breaking
the ice) would be rightly understood’ Part-II |
|
|
Monday, March 31, 2008
at 0149 hrs IST |
|
Looking back to the reaction in India, within your own
party (on your Jinnah statement) . . . maybe your own party
was not ready for change. You found no support. |
After all that we had
done with respect to Pakistan in Delhi (as a government) the
party did not react adversely.
|
|
Then this adverse reaction came from — ignorance
or prejudice? |
I said I didn’t
call him (Jinnah) an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity, Sarojini
Naidu did. And I did not say that Jinnah is secular. I said
this is what he said (in the Constituent Assembly speech).
|
|
You will say again what you said about Jinnah in Karachi.
|
I’ll always say
that. I’ve also mentioned in my book that much before
my Pakistan visit, there was a huge function here, where I released
a book on Pakistan.
|
|
How upset were you then? Was that one of the most disappointing
moments for you? |
Yes, I was upset. Yes,
in my political life (it was a disappointing moment). And for
two years after that I was, in a sense, not as active as I used
to be. Perhaps that’s one reason I’ve been able
to write this book.
|
|
Did you contemplate retirement from politics? |
I did. But at the same
time . . .
|
|
How close did you come to retiring? |
I though of retiring
not only at that stage, but, as I’ve said to a television
channel recently, the day my party announced my name as prime
ministerial candidate. That day again I thought of resigning.
I felt that now that the party and the Parivar have accepted
me, I have no more ambition in life.
|
|
You made this statement in Pakistan. I know that you don’t
say things unthinkingly. As I constructed it, as an analyst,
you were trying to reach out to a certain constituency of Indian
mainstream Muslims, and modern Muslims in Pakistan. Basically
to say that Partition is now accepted, and we’ll respect
your founding father Jinnah, just as we want you to respect
our founding father, and let’s move on with the hope that
this will not only improve Indo-Pak relations but also lighten
the tension between Hindus and Muslims in India. Because you
brought out that construct in the last election. And this (statement
in Pakistan) fell flat. At that moment, were you disappointed
with yourself, with your party? |
May I say that when I
referred to Jinnah’s speech, I did not have so much the
Indian Muslims in mind as Pakistanis.
|
|
But you made that statement in your last election campaign
that for Hindu-Muslim relations to improve, Indo-Pak relations
have to improve. |
Yes, and therefore I’m
saying that I had Pakistan in mind. For Pakistan, I felt that
here’s a large country, a Muslim country, which regards
my party, me, and my cause as not just being proud of Hinduism,
but as a party which is anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan, anti-Islam.
And in seven days, just because of that one reference to Jinnah’s
speech, and the fact that Pakistan itself had asked me to inaugurate
the Katasraj temple, these two facts gave me the idea that .
. . I had been able to reach out. And they admire me in Pakistan.
|
|
Let me make a statement and tell me if I’m right
or wrong. In the past four years, you have made two efforts
to do a course correction for his party, and both times, the
party has not accepted it or not understood it: one was the
statement on Jinnah, and the second was when you tried to nuance
your party’s approach to the nuclear deal. |
No. Don’t mix it
up. Because on the nuclear deal, I am still not convinced with
the government’s arguments that it doesn’t in any
way put constraints on our nuclear strategy. If they had adopted
what I suggested, namely, a course of action by amending the
Indian laws so that the Hyde Act would not apply to us. If they
had consulted the BJP on this issue at length . . .
|
|
Do you think the laws can be amended and protections
can be created? |
Yes. I simply say to
them: you have made so many promises in Parliament. Are these
promises met in the 123 Agreement? They said, ‘No, it’s
non-negotiable. It’s final.’ These are the prime
minister’s own words. And then, subsequently, when they
came face to face with the possibility of an early election
and the government falling (owing to the Left’s threat),
they formed a committee with the Leftists, not a Parliamentary
committee, in which we could contribute. And they kept saying
to the Left that unless you clear it, we will not go ahead.
What kind of a government is this? Is it an honest government
so far as nuclear treaty is concerned?
|
|
Since you are a nationalist and an Indian stateist, would
you now suggest, or not suggest, that if this government were
to now invite responses from the leaders of the opposition,
to be also able to review this at the same level as the Left
leaders are being allowed, will that be a positive step? |
. . . My party’s
stand is, under the present agreement: Mrs Indira Gandhi did
Pokhran I, Vajpayee did Pokhran II, and this agreement makes
us promise the Americans that there will be no Pokhran III.
We are opposed to this.
|
|
But nobody explained the deal to you in detail, technically?
|
From what was explained
to us, I understand that Hyde Act applies to us, even though
in Parliament, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said
it doesn’t apply to us. And immediately there was a contradiction
from America. Our opposition to the deal stands where it was.
|
|
If you come to power, how will you repair the deal? Because
it will be a mess on your hands. |
We’ll deal with
it. It has to be an agreement. The 123 agreement, we have no
objection. But it has to be an equal agreement. An agreement
between equals. Not the present kind of unequal agreement.
|
|
Will you reopen it (the nuclear deal)? |
I don’t know. People
say it’s not possible to reopen once a new government
comes. That’s alright. After all, we didn’t seek
US permission for Pokhran II. Indira Gandhi didn’t seek
permission for Pokhran I. She, in a way, upturned Nehru’s
policy on that, which was no nuclear weapons. Morarji’s
(Desai) policy was no nuclear weapons.
|
|
Can I say that it will be an endeavour to resurrect an
agreement between India and the US to take India out of the
nuclear apartheid? Do you agree to the broad objective of a
treaty like this, forget the details? |
Yes, the broad objectives
I agree with. There should be a strategic relationship and a
treaty with America that takes India out of nuclear apartheid
and simultaneously, it should be a treaty between equals, which
does not impose any curbs.
|
|
So what kind of legal, legislative changes are possible
to protect us against Hyde Act? |
As I said, let the Atomic
Energy Act be amended so as to ensure that domestic laws of
America, such as the Hyde Act, do not apply to us.
|
|
You think that’s a do-able thing? |
We can do it.
|
|
Would you rather engage in a discussion on it now, or
after the next election? |
I don’t think there’s
any point in engaging in a discussion that has gone on for nearly
six-eight months and in which we are not considered important
and the Leftists, who will not touch America with a barge pole,
are considered important.
|
|
One thing that has stood out in the political discourse
over the past year and a half, there have been differences between
the BJP and the Congress, but in your attacks on the prime minister,
you keep calling him the weakest prime minister. Is it too unkind?
|
My reference to his strength
and weakness has relevance to the strength and weakness of the
office of the prime minister, not to Manmohan Singh as a person.
And it is he alone who very often tells people, ‘After
so and so, so and so will be appointed Ambassador to America.’
Three days later, the whole thing goes. He says to people, ‘I’ll
make you this,’ and ten days later, he says, ‘I’m
sorry.’ . . . I’m concerned with the fact that 7
Race Course Road has lost its significance and 10 Janpath has
become the prime address in the country. It has never happened
before. This is why I call him a weak prime minister, who has
allowed devaluation of the office of prime minister.
|
|
You said your relation with Sonia Gandhi is bad. Which
is true in a way . . . |
I’ve not said anything,
I’ve not said it anywhere, but there has been practically
no communication between us.
|
|
Except when you meet at a banquet and greet each other.
But, for example, at your book release function, not a single
Congress person was present. Sad? |
Yes. I’d sent invitations
to all.
|
|
If there were an autobiography written by Mrs Sonia Gandhi,
and you were invited, would you go? |
Yes, definitely.
|
|
And anybody from the BJP could go. |
Why not?
|
|
Are you disappointed that nobody from the Congress turned
up? |
Yes. Not bitter or angry
. . . I sent an invitation to the prime minister and I sent
it to Soniaji also. I got a note only from one minister, Mr
A.K. Antony, that he’d not be able to come, but congratulations.
|
|
Looking back at six decades in public life, having known
Nehru, Mrs Indira Gandhi, who put you in jail . . . |
At no stage was there
no communication. In fact once Atalji and I went to visit her
(Indira Gandhi), and she was telling us, ‘You are going
to Punjab? Why?’ And it was out of concern for our security.
|
|
There was no bitterness that she put you in jail. |
Doesn’t matter.
|
|
You came out of jail, then won an election, bitterness
could have been there. |
No. In fact people who
commented on this book, my autobiography, said, ‘Ismey
masala nahin hai.’ And when I had come out with Prisoner’s
Scrapbook, they said, ‘Ismey bitterness nahin hai.’
|
Lekin irony hai . . . The bitterness of today, where
has that come from?
|
I can certainly say there’s
no bitterness. But there is no communication. And that’s
because of the Congress party itself. And when one sees that
their alliance with the Communists seems prompted only by anti-BJPism,
nothing else. Anti-Congressism has been a continuing stream
in the entire Opposition because of the hegemony of the Congress.
|
|
Would you say that the time has come for the restoration
of some sort of communication? What would you do to break the
ice? |
I don’t think it’s
my responsibility to break the ice. I know this much, that when
Rajiv Gandhi came to power, his initial meetings with me were
very, very cordial; he was in a way very deferential also.
|
|
Did that chance encounter with Rahul remind you of Rajiv?
|
The biggest difference
is that he did not say anything, he just listened to whatever
I had to say. It was a very brief conversation.
|
|
As elder statesman, would you take the initiative to
at least start communicating? |
I don’t think it
would be rightly understood. By the Congress, by my party.
|
|
Have your families interacted? Would you invite her home?
|
No, I don’t remember
any interaction. I have no problems about inviting her.
|
|
When I talk to Congress people about this lack of communication,
they say the big change between now and the past is Mr Modi.
That after the riots in Gujarat, it has become impossible to
accept the BJP. |
Is
it not a contradiction? How does the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation
praise Modi to the skies? It’s because of his performance.
And if the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation can do it, why can’t
the Congress do it. Even among Muslims of the country, the per
capita income is highest in Gujarat.
|
|
So you would say it’s an excuse. |
It’s an excuse
because for a long time Advani was seen as the villain of the
piece in the whole situation. Now Modi has become the principal
villain. And demonisation pays in politics, to some extent.
|
|
I’m going back to Vajpayee. I say you and Vajpayee
are like an old couple, who sometimes don’t talk to each
other, and then you go and touch one and the other comes back
at you. It’s an interesting relationship. What was the
one time when you had your strongest disagreement with Vajpayeeji?
|
One occasion, I can’t
say it created any kind of situation . . . because the excerpts
from the book (published in the media) identify the differences
over Brajesh Mishra as something on which we had big differences.
Yes, we had differences, but the book refers to differences
over recommendations from a group of ministers.
|
|
Which was the one moment when you said, ‘Look I
can’t agree with this?’ Did Mr Vajpayee acknowledge
that you were right (on keeping Modi, allowing him to continue)?
I know about that plane ride to Goa. |
I asked Modi to resign.
And he offered to resign. But there was hue and cry in the meeting
in Goa.
|
|
When you look back, do you think he shared some of he
guilt for what happened in Gujarat? |
No, he was completely
innocent.
|
|
Why do you say that? |
I don’t think he
could have checked the riots in any other way than using police
force, which he did. Which has not happened in any other riot
in the country.
|
|
Let me ask you about a name that comes up often: you
accuse this government of not hanging him and thereby showing
cowardice. Afzal. |
Let them forget the opposition,
the BJP, but they should not disregard the sentiments and feelings
of the families of those security men who were killed in the
attack on Parliament.
|
|
What will you do when you come to power? |
We’ll go by the
Supreme Court’s verdict. It should be honoured. Unless,
by then, this government gives him clemency.
|
Have you ever felt that in the exercise of power you
must be very ruthless sometimes? Have you faced that dilemma
when you were in power? Because this is a dilemma, hanging somebody.
|
That’s not a dilemma
relating to Afzal Guru, it’s a dilemma relating to capital
punishment, which has been deliberated and discussed in many
countries. By and large, most of the judges, experts in law,
have favoured continuation of capital punishment. And they have
pronounced that it should be in the rarest of rare cases.
|
