L. K. Advani, Senior BJP Leader

Related Stories ‘U Me Aur Hum isn’t Mills & Boon. It’s about what happens after The End’‘GM food is a big opportunity...none of the questions raised about it are serious from a scientific point of view’'Too much focus on history can become a prison for nations'‘Within a year there’ll be peace in Sri Lanka... it may be with Prabhakaran or without him’‘Why not India (to mediate with LTTE)? I trust neighbours, if they are ready. I think they know LTTE’s mentality’

 •Welcome to Walk the Talk. And let me remind you of a coincidence: Walk the Talk started exactly five years ago to the date, on a Good Friday morning, and the guest that day was Mr L.K. Advani, the then deputy prime minister. Mr Advani is back on the programme today, this time as the Leader of the Opposition, basking in the glory of his autobiography (My Country, My Life). Mr Advani, do you remember a little conversation we had that time: you underlined the fact that it was Good Friday and linked it to the time the Janata Party broke up and you said, ‘This is the day of crucifixion, and two days later there’ll be a resurrection.’

I’ve repeated this analogy many times. I started it when I visited Kerala for the first time, after the formation of the BJP, and I could see that in the audience there were many Christians, who would understand it more precisely than the others. And I pointed out that it was on Good Friday that the formal resolution throwing us out of the Janata Party was passed, and that I regarded that as an attempt to crucify us, saying that we were communal and that so long as we were in the Janata Party, it would not grow. And we accepted that crucifixion, and when two days later, on Easter Sunday, the BJP was formally launched, I said, ‘This is the day of Resurrection.’

•So if we stretch the metaphor, did you feel you were being crucified, after the electoral defeat, then the Jinnah statement. And is now the time for Resurrection.

No, that was not in any way a crucifixion. I’ll certainly say that it caused me pain.

•It was an Inquisition, all right?

I would not put it that way. I did say that in my entire political life there have been occasions like the hawala (case) also, but those were false accusations made against me by the then government, adversaries. This caused me anguish because it was my own party and my own family, ideological family, which failed to understand what precisely I had said and why.

•Will you now explain this. I know it has come up many times, but we have time, so could you put it in perspective.

I would only say that, when I went to Pakistan, all that I had in mind was to carry forward the process started by Atal Bihari Vajpayee when he was prime minister. . . that we are neighbours, so why can’t we have normal relations. But even at that time, he went to Lahore, met Nawaz Sharif who was prime minister, it was a bus ride, and it became historic. But what happened was that, about the same time, his general, without his (Sharif’s) knowledge, managed Kargil. And that, naturally, hurt Vajpayeeji badly. And as Sharif later on told Vajpayeeji, he himself was taken aback (at Kargil).

•In fact he said this in a Walk the Talk with me. He put his hand on his heart, and said, ‘I want to tell Mr Vajpayee that I didn’t betray him.

I’m aware of it. But this is also true: those days, the Pakistan High Commissioner in Delhi had been meeting me quite often.

•Mr Riyaz Khokhar, who is otherwise known to be a difficult guy, a hawk.

I don’t know. He used to meet me, and I asked him, ‘What kind of a person is this general?’ He said, ‘I’m a foreign service man, I don’t know.’ Then I discussed it with Vajpayeeji, and said, ‘He (the general) is not a political person. He’s an army man, and who knows what his response would be to an invitation from you? It may be different from that of normal leaders.’ It was a gamble (inviting Gen Pervez Musharraf). It wasn’t a decision taken in the Ministry of External Affairs or in the PMO. It was a decision taken between the two of us. And the National Security Adviser at that time said later in an interview that it was not a decision taken at the government level, it was a decision taken by the two leaders.

•And there also, you were the prime mover.

I was.

•Do you have any regrets.

No, not at all.

•Do you think it was a mistake.

The fact that there was desire on my part that there should be normal relations is only underlined by the fact that I did it. Because many people said, ‘You have always been against Pakistan. You have always been against Muslims. You have always been this way and that way.’ I said, ‘Well, I cannot compromise with the nation’s security and so, it was clear in my view, that if there is to be an agreement in Agra, it can be only if Gen Musharraf denounces cross-border terrorism. And if he fails to do that . . .’

•You show disappointment with Gen Musharraf (on Agra) in your book. So, were you prepared, that he’s a general, he’s an unknown quantity, so let’s see what happens?

No, my first meeting with him indicated to me that he’s a difficult person so far as issues related to Indian interests are concerned. That was a conversation focused on doubt. You may recall that I had returned from Turkey and I opened my conversation with him, after the usual St Patrick’s High School and all that, with, ‘I have just come back from Turkey, and I understand that you spent your childhood in Turkey, and you can speak Turkish very fluently.’ He said, ‘Yes, that’s true, my father was posted there.’ And I said, ‘I’d like to tell you that I’d been to Turkey to sign an extradition treaty. Now, when I meet you, I start thinking what need have we for an extradition treaty with Turkey? But if an extradition treaty is needed, it is with you, with Pakistan.’ Then I added, ‘Tomorrow, of course, you’ll be discussing many things with the prime minister in Agra, but I, as a home minister, would suggest, why can’t we have an Indo-Pak extradition treaty?’ And his reply was, ‘Why not?’ He said that unguardedly, but the next sentence that I said, ‘That will mean that criminals hiding in the other country will have to be restored to the country they belong to. But I’ve also seen that countries that are friendly, those who do not want crimes to occur, even without extradition treaties, readily shift criminals to the other country.’ And I said, ‘I’d be very happy if you could hand over Dawood (Ibrahim Kaskar), who is responsible for the killing of so many in India.’ He was totally taken aback. And his first reaction was, in a way, an offensive remark. He said, ‘Mr Advani, this is small tactics.’ These are the words he used.