Related Stories ‘There’s no compromise on Sonia as PM. I have no problem with any other person, Priyanka or Rahul’‘India will never have a revolution. China will need one every two-three centuries, their society is hierarchical, has one core centre. India is diverse’‘I want govt to declare Chandigarh a hockey city and put five astroturfs there. Automatically the players will come’‘If you give computers to young children, they start to believe that you don’t have to think, all you have to do is search’‘Millions and millions have come into cricket... We have to get over the feeling that making money is a crime’

 •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.