A man of conviction, he was let down badly

I entered Parliament first in 1962 and Kant came in 1966. By then we were concentrating on two issues — bank nationalisation and privy purses. In 1966, the AICC held in Sapru House had passed a resolution on the abolition of privy purses and we were fighting to have it enforced. At that time our group was called ‘ABCD’; it was only later that we were christened Young Turks by the media. A for Arjun Arora, B for M B Bhargava, C for Chandra Shekhar and D for Mohan Dharia. Then Kant entered the Rajya Sabha and became very active with us. He would ask the questions that needed to be raised.

Over a period we came very close. His mother was one of the reasons for this closeness.

My thoughts have been turning to her so much in the past two days. She was extremely affectionate towards me and would say, ‘I have two sons.’ Whenever I visited their home, she would never let me go without eating mithai. Kant and I were comrades though we differed on a host of subjects. But in those days you could strike a heartfelt friendship even with those with whom you differed in Parliament. We built enduring relationships. Today, relationships are dictated by commerce of a third-grade variety.

Kant was a Gandhian. He felt India could prosper on its own natural resources and its own manpower. He believed in swadeshi and self-reliance, human dignity and dignity of labour. He never did any galat kaam. For instance, if there was money to be raised for running a newspaper or for political activity, he would tell me, ‘I can’t do it, you do it,’ and I never felt bad. We brought out a paper, Young Indian, and I was its editor and he was the publisher till the Emergency. We used this as a vehicle to convey our ideas and provoke debates.

In recent months, when I met him, he was speaking the same language and was in the same kind of mood as in the late sixties. We had talked on the phone not long ago about working together again in the light of the crisis facing the country. But what is the point of talking about it now? I spoke on Gujarat but it was a cry in the wilderness. Those who could speak are disappearing. But I am not so disheartened for this is a strange country and sometimes unprecedented things that are least expected happen.

They (the BJP) may want a Hindu raj in Delhi, and they are camouflaging their real intentions by bringing Alexander’s name one day and Kalam’s the next, trying to fool their allies. Now the Sangh is talking of trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir and openly saying that if it is not possible to solve the problem of Kashmir, how long can we carry its burden. The BJP forgets that India is not Pakistan.

I was saddened that Kant did not become President but I am more sad that they preferred APJ Abdul Kalam over him. What’s the comparison between Kant and Kalam as candidates for President?

My understanding after talking to some people in the Government was that they had decided on Kant for President. The Prime Minister had conveyed to Natwar Singh that Kant’s name had been cleared and Singh conveyed this to Kant. All of a sudden, Vajpayee changed his mind.

They wanted a pliable President. I don’t know whether Kalam would be a pliable President. Kant had certain convictions, and for all his accommodating nature and humility, he would not have gone against the issues which were dear to him, being from a freedom fighter’s family and having been involved with those issues all his public life. This went against his being an appropriate candidate for President in these times.

You know people die and we are all growing older. But Kant’s death has led to gloom also for the reason that a large number of people across the country feel that he was let down badly.