Related Stories "Govt has a rule that only a fixed percentage can join Army from a state. This quota must go""Failure to qualify for the Olympics is the catalyst for the change that needs to occur"‘Long-term big subsidies in energy prices are well worth getting rid of’‘The wealthy in India need to do much more for the country’‘I would put Shah Rukh Khan in a situation in which he was the underdog...vulnerable’

 •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.

(Concluded. The transcript was prepared by S.B. Easwaran.)

editor@expressindia.com