‘My toughest decision as president was returning the Office of Profit Bill to Parliament’

 

• As happy to be a citizen as a president, and as happy to be in this modest place in Delhi Cantonment?

Yes, this is a beautiful place.

 

• After the Rashtrapati Bhavan?

They have made it very liveable. The environment’s excellent.

 

• And there are as many birds (as in Rashtrapati Bhavan).

It’s as though all the peacocks (of Rashtrapati Bhavan) have come here.

 

• I think they follow your wishes and directions. So tell me, Sir, your first thoughts after five years in the very onerous, privileged position of President of India.

My first thoughts . . . you know, before reaching the Rashtrapati Bhavan, I was teaching. So almost it’s a re-entry phenomenon.

 

• Like a missile’s re-entry?

Like the re-entry phenomenon. I immediately went, met students, took a class on nano sites, nano technology, faced a lot of questions. It was a beautiful experience. Then I went to a rural university, the Gandhigram University. It’s a beautiful thing, seeing people and how they live there. The university builds earning capacity in students. I talked to students. They were unique students, because for them it was education with a purpose. I was away for five days and then I came back to Delhi, and Delhi is a very busy place for me. Yesterday, I saw people from a freedom society in Pune —   young people, college and high-school students, nearly 30 people. You know why they came?

 

• Why?

They wanted me to come and settle down in Pune. They sent me 10,000 cards. Very creative people. I have never seen such a creative group of people. So each one, two or three of them joined together and organised a programme. Some were interested in how to educate those who cannot read or write. Some were interested in how to clean up riverbeds, some in how to remove people’s pain. Very constructive work they were doing.

 

• All they have to arrange now is a bunch of peacocks and Dr Kalam will get to Pune as well.

Of course I have to go there as well. This was a new way in which they came to invite me, and I had a beautiful interaction with them yesterday. Today, of course, I went through my favourite task —   researching on mentally challenged children.

 

• But you were never confined to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. You were never confined by any ceremony as well. You always managed to reach out.

Yes.

 

• In fact, if I remember, the first trip you made after taking over as the Rashtrapati was to Gujarat (after the 2002 riots).

You remember that.

 

• You called the killings very gruesome. For a new president, this was a very significant decision. Tell us something more about the thought process (behind that decision). Tell us what happened.

I was thinking where they came from, the differences between people. One reason is economic weakness, which is why I’m always advocating economic prosperity. As economic prosperity comes in, you find that differences in society, value systems, differences in ways of thinking, differences in action will all converge on the positive side. This is the impression I got. You cannot have a society that has one side that’s prosperous and another that’s below the poverty line. The vision was: how do we lift up the 220 million people who are below the poverty line.

 

• But your decision to go to Gujarat as a president was unusual. What made you think of doing it?

Because that was the current problem. When I went there, there was a great debate going on, and great suffering was present everywhere. But anyway the wound is healing now. Let us not get more into the problem. But I definitely realised that our billion-strong democracy, multi-religious, multi-lingual, and multi-cultural, is a very rare society. Nowhere in the world will you see a billion democratic people together. So it’s a unique system we have.

 

• So when you did that, did you face a dilemma: as a president, should I do this? There was a lot of politics around Gujarat at that time.

Normally, I consult my own thinking capacity and I also have good friends around. So we had a brainstorming session. Then we felt that at that time visiting Gujarat was a very important decision. And I did that and I didn’t repent for that because I was in a position to see people, see the leadership. And finally I was also able to see that the repair process was progressing.

 

• What was the reaction from Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee (who was then the prime minister) and his government? For they were on the defensive on Gujarat.

One good thing is that, whether it was Vajpayee and his regime or Manmohan (Dr Manmohan Singh, the current prime minister) and his regime, I was at home with both of them. Periodically, he (Vajpayee) would come and brief me. And during his time, a lot of things happened. I worked closely with him and also with Manmohan Singhji. Each of them has a unique core competence. I was in a position to work with both of them.

 

• And they would never see you as a political being anyway.

I don’t know, but I felt they looked on me as a fellow with knowledge. ‘This guy thinks differently’ —   that’s how they thought of me.

 

• So sometimes not being a politician can be useful.

Well, as president, my experience in these five years is that it’s not a question of whether you are a politician or a non-politician. You should be a good human being, with logic, with knowledge.

 

• But you need to be politically aware.

Well, that took me only six months. After all, the Constitution of India is a good book that I could read. I was aware of the Constitution, so it didn’t take me much time.

 

• And you must have come to know all the political figures as they came trooping into the Rashtrapati Bhavan?

It’s a continuous process, and after some time, I felt I didn’t have any disadvantage (in not coming from a political background).

 

• But five years of that experience . . .  has it also made you a bit of a politician ?

Well, I will say that when I entered the Rashtrapati Bhavan, I had a plan of action, a roadmap that India should become an economically developed nation. When after five years I return to my original mission, I feel that India has to become an economically developed nation and its people should have a value system. So you will have seen that, in the last few years, I was promoting a value system.

 

• The reason I asked you this was, when it came to your succession, a new debate came in: that a president should be a politician and a vice-president needn’t be a political figure. Do you think these criteria are valid?

These are all old, outdated ideas. You see, my feeling is that you have to see if the president has the capacity to contribute to the nation’s vision, the nation’s core, the nation’s aim. That’s what should be the criterion. And from that, all aspects have to converge.

 

• So it doesn’t matter if the president is a politician or not.

No, I don’t think it (being or not being a politician) is a very important criterion. I have studied all the previous presidents and their lives. Before me there were ten presidents. In the first few months (in office), I studied what each one of them has done. Each one of them has contributed uniquely. They have brought core competencies. Someone brought political competence, someone brought judicial competence, someone brought educational competence, and someone who started off from the labour force brought core competence from there. We are all standing on the shoulders of some very experienced people. That’s how I looked at it.

 

• So what core competence do you think will Pratibha Patil bring to the Rashtrapati Bhavan?

Well, that she will know better. The new president will know what she can contribute. Definitely, as a lady, she may have many things to contribute, for 50 per cent of the people are women. She can uniquely contribute something for women, women’s rights, women’s development, or the whole nation’s development.

 

• We have met many times, but one memory that sticks in my mind is when I was meeting Mr Gujral (former prime minister I.K. Gujral) and you were standing outside 7 Race Course Road holding a bunch of files, waiting to meet the prime minister. When I returned half an hour later, you were still waiting with those files. I was apologetic and I asked you why you were waiting. And you said, ‘These files are on important decisions. I will find one moment with the prime minister.’ I asked if some new missiles were going up. And you said, ‘Some of my scientists’ promotions have been held up.’ You’ve dealt with the political system at that level. And suddenly you came and sat on top of the political-constitutional system. What were your biggest surprises in the Rashtrapati Bhavan?

Surprise for me? You know it’s a beautiful place. The whole place is beautiful, everything was smiling . . . the flowers were smiling, the trees were smiling, the birds were smiling. There are 11 gardens. Five years for me was a beautiful experience.

 

• And in the job, what did you discover about the political and constitutional system that you did not see as a scientist?

I know that finally almost all bills have to come to Rashtrapati Bhavan for approval. Many appointments, very important appointments, are made by the Rashtrapati Bhavan. I realised after some time — in a few months —   that you can make a change, after all, if you are friendly with the government, the cabinet, the prime minister, the Parliament. And I had full freedom to put forth my views in Parliament.

 

• You can push the envelope if they respect you.

I don’t follow you.

 

• You can push at the boundaries of the president’s conventional powers if they respect you.

Yes. If you know each other, they will hear you. And definitely, I discussed many points with the prime minister. Sometimes I put forth in Parliament some vehemently new ideas, new thoughts.

 

• You made the statement about the need to go in for a two-party system and it did ruffle some feathers. Tell us a bit about that.

Well, it’s a well-known system. The fewer the number of parties, the faster the decision-making process. This was a very obvious thing that I was promoting. And it’s very important to promote development in politics.

 

• So you don’t regret having said that.

No, no, I don’t.  Because I believe in the development of politics. You know what that is? Development politics means . . .

 

• I know the 70%-30% theory.

No, no, that’s politics equals political politics plus development politics. So for a nation to go for development, 70 per cent of the time the political leadership should be working on that. But the two-party system is vital.

 

• So when you were criticised for having said that, what was your reaction?

This is a democracy and there will be criticism. The only thing you have to see is whether or not there’s logic in the criticism. And if there’s logic in it, sometimes you have to learn from it. But I didn’t find it.

 

• You didn’t find logic in that criticism? This is a time of coalition governments and small parties have become very powerful.

But it cannot remain like that. For a democratic India, I visualise that eventually, a two-party, at most a three-party, system will evolve. It has to come. It’s a natural process.

 

• Did you anticipate this reaction (the criticism), particularly from the Left?

Yes. When I said two parties, it’s obvious that when there are so many parties . . . how will they take it? Naturally there will be criticism. There’s nothing wrong with criticism. When you look for criticism, you will get the truth out of it (the process).

 

• So you made this statement about a two-party system consciously.

Yes. When I make a statement, I think and verify it before putting it forth.

 

• And it was from the heart.

But it’s going to be there (the two-party system is going to happen). In India , we are going through the process. One shouldn’t be scared of losing certain parties in the interest of the nation. The nation is bigger than any individual or party system.

 

• Or any ideology?

Even ideology. Everyone has to work for the nation. The nation is the important component; you can’t subjugate the nation. The day you subjugate the nation, the party will collapse and the individual will collapse.

 

• That’s why you were the president who never let somebody else write your script all the time.

Of course. But I consulted a number of people. I have a virtual system through which I’m electronically connected (to lots of people).

 

• I know that.

For example, the Bihar issue. You will ask me that question.

 

• Yes, I was just getting to that.

You know, on the Bihar issue, when I was in Russia , in Moscow . . . so far I have gone to 16 countries but I’m always electronically connected. These are not the days when you have to make phone calls, materials have to be transported. Now files are transferred electronically. I discuss through conferences if there are any requirements. So when I am to take a decision —   wherever I am —  I have arrived at the correct way of thinking before taking a decision.

 

• So you were convinced about the decision.

Yes, I am convinced. Because I had some doubts, I asked the prime minister. I called him twice and then (took the decision).

 

• But Sir, what was your reaction when the Supreme Court judgment on the matter had some unflattering remarks?

Well, you see, when even the Supreme Court gives a judgment, you know, there are two views. When the Supreme Court gave a judgment, it said that certain things should have been done. But my feeling is, for whatever it’s worth, I felt that once I’ve taken a decision, it’s a decision.

 

• And you don’t regret it now.

No, not at all. Definitely not, because I have given proper thought to the matter.

 

• This isn’t like . . . you know there was cartoon by Abu Abraham in The Indian Express, of President Fakruddin Ali Ahmed in the bathtub, saying, ‘If there are any more ordinances, they can wait.’ Not like that.

No. All the information flows electronically and you can get it and this is what happened.

 

• Tell me, in five years as the president, what was the toughest moment, the toughest decision?

The toughest decision . . . yes, it was the Office of Profit Bill. When I saw it had come to me for approval, I felt I had to return it to Parliament. This was the first time I had to do that. Previously, an ordinance on the People’s Representation Act came to me during Vajpayee’s time. I returned it to the cabinet. That’s a normal process. I returned it with minor corrections, and the second time, I signed it. But this one, the Office of Profit Bill, came to me directly from Parliament and I sent it back to Parliament. I knew I was doing something for the first time. But I had to do that. That was the toughest decision.

 

• Did it give you sleepless nights?

 Normally I go to bed very late, so there was no problem.

 

• So did anything else give you a sleepless night?

Well, I have this habit of weighing the pros and cons and going into details before I take a decision. But once I take a decision, the chapter is closed. There’s no point in repenting. If you have not analysed something and given time and thought to it, it’s a different matter. But if you have given it proper thought   before deciding, I think it means that the issue is closed.

 

• And you should leave it at that?

Yes.

 

• So at the end of the day were you able to close the chapter?

There was a lot of discussion in the media. People were aware of what was happening.

 

• But Sir, could it have also cost you a second term?

Well, I don’t care about it. That’s not the issue. What I am concerned about are the people. The people were after me (for a second term). People said there was so much information —   directly, indirectly, in the electronic media, the print media, there were so many polls etc. So I had to consider that (a second term).

 

• Do you regret that the word went out that President Kalam says if there’s consensus, he will contest.

No. Consensus. I stick to that.

 

• In fact the way the word came out was that you were saying, ‘If there’s surety of winning, I will contest.’

No, no. If there’s no consensus, then the Rashtrapati Bhavan will become a political centre. That I didn’t want at any cost.

 

• But if there was consensus, would you have contested?

Of course. I said that. But the issue was that there was tremendous demand.

 

• How do you define consensus? Would you say the UPA, the NDA and the Left, all together?

No, consensus means that political parties have to come to an understanding. Otherwise, the Rashtrapati Bhavan will become a political centre, which is not good.

 

• So you don’t think that, in a way, you paid a price for rejecting the Office of Profit Bill?

For me, entry and re-entry are happy events.

 

• So you have not thought about it even for a moment.

No, the day after I left the Rashtrapati Bhavan, I started working on what I loved.

 

• You also did a couple of more significant things. You also returned the files of some important judicial appointments.

I have done many things like that.

 

• But on those judicial decisions, what were the kind of doubts you had, and how difficult was it for you to return those files?

There are many processes involved before the appointment of a judge. There are collegiums, the papers have to go to the Supreme Court, the prime minister, and then they come to me. Sometimes, I directly consult the concerned authorities. Sometimes, I have felt the need to seek more details. Normally, I ask for more details, that’s all.

 

• But Sir, when these files came back to you and you had to sign them, did you feel arm-twisted? You know, (the feeling that) ‘I’m not convinced but I have no choice.’

 

You see, after all, I have to follow some constitutional requirements. After all, you have to see that certain things move. According to the Constitution, I cannot put up obstacles. But I can give my view and there’s a provision for that. I can return a bill to Parliament, I can return a bill to the cabinet. The idea is to give your advice.

 

• In one appointment, the collegium was changed a bit. You know, other people’s opinion was sought.

Sometimes they listen. Sometime I directly discuss the matter with the concerned authorities. Many good changes, too, took place. So I passed them (the papers).

 

• Did it not bother you that the appointments finally happened (despite your sending back the papers)?

The good aspect is that you have made a point. Now, it’s for the system to see what the impact is. As president, I indicated certain issues. Now, it’s for them to give their view.

 

• But Sir, you had objections and still the appointments happened. At that point, did you wish the Constitution gave the president a little more power?

The Constitution, you know, was created in 1950. The Constitution has withstood the test of time —   57 years in a democratic nation. So I felt we have to allow what it says. Also, in between, there was a constitutional review as well. I believe the Constitution has withstood the test of time.

 

• So even if the president sometimes feels a little helpless, there’s no need to give the president more powers.

Most of the times, if the president reads the Constitution (he can understand the situation). And there’s a provision to allow him to talk directly to the concerned agencies. You can invite them, discuss with them, share your thoughts, you ideas. And then they will tell you the problems. So you take a decision after that.

 

• Which constitutional expert did you lean on the most?

Oh, I will not tell you, because I consulted a number of them. If it was a scientific matter, I consulted a scientist. If it was a judicial matter, I consulted judges. I went through a continuous process of consultations.

 

• Name a couple of them (the constitutional experts). Their price will go up tomorrow. They are all rich lawyers.

No, I have consulted so many of them. It’s not just one or two.

 

• Again, regarding the political system, Sir. I keep coming back to it because I am a student of the political system, just as you are a student of the entire universe.

A man dealing with the political system! Since you mentioned it, how long have you been in it?

 

• No, I am a journalist.

For how long have you been one?

 

• Nearly two and half decades.

According to you, as a media expert, what are the dynamics of the political system in the last two and a half decades?

 

• I think the biggest change is that, two and a half decades back, one party used to get re-elected all the time. Now almost every party gets defeated all the time. That’s the biggest change in the dynamics of politics. The politician’s mindset has changed accordingly.

That is, can we say they are learning that people decide on the basis of performance? Are you convinced this is happening?

 

• I am convinced this is happening.

That means it’s a good thing. People are able to decide if governments have performed or not.

 

• So what was your biggest surprise when you learnt to deal with the political system? A good surprise and a bad one.

See, one thing I found was that, generally, people rate the political system as very bad. But it’s not true. One surprise I had was that in the political system, too, you had good human beings, their intentions were very good. I worked in two sets of political systems, and in both of them, I found that there are very good human beings with good intentions. They may have constraints in carrying out the task, but, definitely, there was purity.

 

• If I may use your language, does our system have a critical mass of good people?

We are still touching the critical mass. The youth, particularly, are coming up in a big way. In Parliament, I have found that suddenly a lot of young people have come in. Also qualified people. They can make a change in the political system. That is why, when I gave my farewell address, and also my national address, I said that, for the nation, its vision is very important and that you have to execute the vision and maintain the value system. Confidence, too, is very important. An individual’s confidence means the nation’s confidence. These words were purely addressed to young politicians.

 

• What was the negative discovery?

The negative was: Parliament has to function. There may be a lot of differences, but Parliament has to function. When the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha are in session, people watch, particularly young people. Those in Parliament have to be role models for them.

 

• Adjournments and breakdowns —  that’s not a good impression.

No, that’s obviously not. Those in Parliament have to show the nation that it is a great institution. After all, an individual can give a nation a vision, but finally, it is Parliament that has to act on it. So those in Parliament have a great responsibility.

 

• So the negative side you saw was the parliamentary logjam?

Parliament has to function smoothly and perform on national development.

 

• And the media?

The media is a great partner. The other day at a media conference, I had said that the media is for a billion people.

 

• But did the media also surprise you?  Even the Rashtrapati Bhavan became a target of speculation? Political reporting, as we call it. Does it surprise you or worry you or make you angry?

My only view about the media, print and electronic, is that it has not graduated as a media for a billion people. More than 7,000 million people live in 6 lakh villages. But most of the time, what you see in the media is all about the urban political system. Now you have to graduate to representing a billion people. Some regional newspapers are doing well.

 

• Another issue on which you will be asked questions many times is the Afzal Guru issue, which we will come to. But there’s the larger issue of the death penalty. You said that as a president, you can have only one view. After July 25 (when your term ended), you said, you could have another.

No, I didn’t set a target (date) like that. I want to tell you that in the Afzal Guru case, the government has to process the papers. It involves a lot of processes.

 

• So it’s not as if it came to you and you kept sitting on it.

It’s under process and had to come to me. But many cases (of reviews of capital punishment) have come to me.   When I studied them, I found that there are two issues. One is that the people involved all come from the lower strata. I was astonished to see that.

 

• They are mostly poor people.

Then, I have asked for some details, how things have turned out the way they did for them. I also remember that of the 220 cases of capital punishment that were processed recently, nearly 70 per cent were not eligible for capital punishment across the Atlantic Ocean.

 

• So you also studied this internationally?

What I felt is that we need a national debate. After all, we are in a knowledge society. India is graduating into a developed, knowledge society. In such a situation, we should see if India should have capital punishment or not. We have to decide. A detailed debate is essential, both nationally, and in Parliament.

 

• And on which side of the debate does Citizen Kalam belong?

I will tell you as soon as the debate starts.

 

• The debate can start now, and I can guess that you are on the compassionate side.

After all, in these things, when the president signs (an order) and a life is taken away, it’s a painful process. When you do it, you have to do it correctly. Your conscience should say, ‘Yes.’ In one case, I did (sign papers for a death sentence to be carried out).

 

• That’s the Kolkata rape-and-murder case.

Yes, but my feeling is that the death penalty is a fit issue for a national debate.

 

• And would you say that until the national debate takes place . . .

No, that’s for the president to decide. But what I say is that we must independently go through the debate process. Nationally, as well as in Parliament.

 

• Sir, as a citizen, do you think that it’s better more executions are not cleared until the debate is settled.

No, I feel that both are independent processes. There’s a decision-making authority (in Rashtrapati Bhavan) now.

 

• So the new president can take her own decisions, but at the same time a debate is required.

Yes.

 

• Should the debate be only on the question of the morality of the death sentence, or   should it be undertaken because it’s mostly the poor who get it?

We have the ambition to become an economically developed nation. We are entering a knowledge society. How should a knowledge society, a developed society, view capital punishment? That’s a big question.

 

• On the one hand there are European countries which abhor capital punishment, and on the other, there is a growing knowledge society like China, which just executed its equivalent of the FDA chief.

No, I am looking at democratic nations. In Europe they have already done away with capital punishment. In the U.S., some states have capital punishment, some don’t. That’s why I said the time has come for a debate.

 

• You are right. Here, we only have a debate when a well-to-do person gets involved. For instance, the Sanjay Dutt case. So many poorer people have been punished in the Mumbai blasts case and there has been no talk. There’s a debate only when a celebrity is involved.

There is a judicial process. We cannot question that here.

 

• But is it painful for the president to take away someone’s life?

Yes, in fact it’s really a painful process. Because finally, with his signature, a man’s life is gone. I feel that the time has now come to look at this.

 

• For five years you talked about entry and re-entry, about India becoming a superpower. When you took office, we had tested a nuclear bomb for the second time in Pokhran, missiles were going up. Isn’t it wonderful that your re-entry into citizenry has coincided with India’s achievement of nuclear legitimacy?

I don’t know what you mean by nuclear legitimacy. I will say (we have become) a nuclear weapons state. India graduated in May 1998 as a nuclear weapons state. Whether some people agree or not doesn’t matter.

 

• What has happened now? What does the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal do? Where does it take India ‘s status from what we were in 1998?

 I have a definite view on that. The whole agreement is focused on uranium shortage and also the fact that we want to open up our programmes internationally so that we will get co-operation. This is one issue. But I have a feeling. I have told atomic scientists they should immediately launch a thorium reactor process, for we have thorium in abundance. Our scientists have already begun work. It’s a tough area for research because thorium is not fissile material; you have to convert it into fissile material. That means you need fast- breeder reactors; we need a number of them. I believe that in five to seven years India will have thorium-based nuclear reactors for power generation.

 

• And do we see Prof Kalam getting involved with that research?

No. There are many nuclear scientists and they are doing fantastic work. So all my best wishes to them. Whenever they call me, I will go to them.

 

• But this deal, the 123 agreement, is it good for India ? What is your view?

My feeling is that, given the shortage of uranium, and the fact that we have a number of nuclear reactors based on uranium, it looks to me that there’s a logical conclusion. But that does not prevent us from seeking self-reliance in thorium-based nuclear reactors. This is what I’ll say to young scientists: ‘Let’s pull all our might and come out with a thorium-based reactor.’

 

• Sir, if I may persist with this, do you see the deal as a deal about energy or about strategic interests?

I feel it’s about energy. After all, our nuclear scientists have a vision. Every year, they want to add about 1,000 MW. So in that continuation, by 2020, they want to have 20,000 MW. They want to graduate to India having 20,000 MW by adding 1,000 MW every year. So the whole vision is about how to get 1,000 MW every year.

 

• In the long run, do you see the two streams —   uranium and thorium —    competing?

No, finally, it should be our own material, for we are rich in thorium. I am confident our nuclear scientists will succeed in this. Once we succeed, uranium-based reactors may co-exist (with thorium-based ones) but the new reactors will all be thorium-based ones.

 

• And those don’t even have to be safeguarded.

No, not at all. For it’s your own development.

 

• If I may persist with this . . . I apologise to you, but there’s a view, which is also my view, that this (the deal) finally takes India away from the grip of nuclear apartheid.

No, there was such a club. And definitely, the deal has paved the way, after scientist-to-scientist, technology-to-technology interaction. We are doing well. In nuclear reactors, the efficiency of power production is very good.

 

• So it (the deal) has paved the way to joining the club.

No, I will say that, as a result of this agreement, we definitely have options. Many options are open to us. It will remove constraints. But the most important requirement for me is self-reliance.

 

• Sir, on the eve of Pokhran II did you ever imagine this would happen? We expected sanctions and international reactions. Did you imagine that in less than 10 years, this (deal) would happen and that India would become a member of the nuclear club?

You see, I said it nearly 10 years back, and even yesterday, I propagated that strength respects strength. In this present world, strength is very important.   So if you have strength in a particular technical area, then other people will come around. In any area.

 

• But it is also about stature and strength of the economy. Otherwise, why do we get so may exceptions made when the Pakistanis don’t?

There are two events that you can reflect on. One is the action. You are not talking; you took action in May 1998. The second is the major 1991 decision that we took to open up the economy. Both processes made the nation stronger.

 

• And that has now put us in a privileged position. This is a debate in which, for the first time in our country, the scientific community got involved. Technocrats got involved. (Till now) technocrats never used to get involved in any scientific or political debate. What was your view on that? Did you ever feel that you are on that side? Did the scientist in you ever overpower the president in you even for a moment?

I had prepared two roadmaps for the nation. One is India 2020, which is that India should be economically developed before the year 2020. The second one was to provide urban facilities in rural areas —   7,000 PURAs across the country. This, too, is a technology-based solution. One is for connectivity, another is for development. I can put forth this to the nation both as a president and as a technologist.

 

• No Sir, when all the nuclear scientists were opposing the nuclear deal, where did Prof Kalam’s heart belong?

I was always with them — the nuclear scientists and me (were always together), during the Pokhran days or even before the Pokhran days. Definitely, the actual, basic requirement is self-reliance.

 

• You were partners in crime.

No, it was not a crime. This was in the national interest. Because you have changed your whole (national) profile today. Your head is strong and you acting like that. Strength respects strength, my dear friend.

 

• And Condoleezza Rice and President George W. Bush say India is different.

Yes, but we don’t need that certificate. We are always different. What is different about India ? India has a multi-cultural democracy of a billion. Nowhere else do we have such a thing on Planet Earth. That’s the uniqueness of India .

 

• And with a president like you. That’s also a uniqueness of India .

There are a billion democratic people —  there will be problems (between them) but they are all democratic. And there are nations that can’t handle two languages or two religions!

 

• But were there moments in those days when you thought the scientists were going too far, or you thought the government should listen to the scientists a little more?

Fortunately, in our democratic set-up, scientists can always approach the highest level. This is our uniqueness, irrespective of any government position.

 

• Even with files about fellow scientists’ promotion.

They can always put forth ideas. I was principal scientific adviser to the prime minister, and (in that capacity, too) we were in a position to debate and discuss the same vision. This is an opportunity only scientists can have, and we had it.

 

• So you didn’t feel at any moment that our scientists were being ignored, their voice was being ignored.

I didn’t feel like that at all.

 

• And you never thought at any moment that they were overdoing the opposition to the deal. That scientists were coming out and opposing the government policy.

You see, after all, scientists have their own views. There are many types of scientists —  some experienced, some not so much. Both will have their own views.

 

• And what was your view? I know that the prime minister consulted you many times.

Whatever has happened is good.

 

• And you support it.

Yes, with the condition that we should become self-reliant .  .   . (by building) thorium-based reactors.

 

• Can we compliment Dr Manmohan Singh for having achieved this?

It’s unique, what he has done.

 

• Unqualified or qualified?

When we met recently, before finishing my assignment (as president), I told the prime minister that thorium reactors are very important.

 

• So that’s the qualification we must keep focusing on — thorium.

He, too, said we must progress there (on that front).

 

• If I may get a little personal . . . you’re not the youngest public figure in the country, but you are very youthful at heart. To what do you ascribe your incredible popularity among youth and children? Not since Jawaharlal Nehru has a public figure become so popular among the young.

People love me. I love them. It is not generated like that. It is a natural thing that is taking place. The only reason they probably like me is that I have interacted with the youth and with the experienced —   both. Both felt that for this man, the nation is bigger than anything else. Probably this is the one factor that creates a bridge between people and me.

 

• Did you have to consciously build that image?

No, I just went and met people.

 

• Like they say, ‘Yeh public hai, yeh sab jaanti hai!’

Of course, I made efforts, too. I met nearly 1.5 million youths of the country, I visited 28 states and most of the Union Territories. I touched even rural areas. In Nagaland, for example, I came across the unique system of tribal counsel.

 

• There are gaon koras; the village headman decides.

Tribal counsel. They are empowered, unlike our village panchayats. The economy, too, is there, and they have done a fantastic job. Their only problem is connectivity.

 

• Fali S. Nariman wrote an article in The Indian Express while you were leaving Rashtrapati Bhavan and he narrated an incident. Fifty-three of your family members came to Rashtrapati Bhavan and you told your staff to keep an account of what was spent on them. Three and a half lakhs.

No, it was less, but I paid everything.

 

• But you did not want anyone to know about it. It was only Fali Nariman who spilled the beans.

The staff  know what happened, so the word gets out.

 

• But does it mean that the president’s family can draw no benefit from the president?

Well, staying at Rashtrapati Bhavan itself is a benefit. That doesn’t mean Rashtrapati Bhavan has to foot all the expenditure.

 

• This way you are making life tougher for your successors.

See, I cannot enforce certain rules and regulations. Your conscience is finally your leader. That is how I like to work.

 

• Sir, can I ask you a trick question now? What’s the reason or excuse for your bachelorhood?

I’m a brahmachari. A bachelor is different from a brahmachari. You see, I come from a big joint family. There are many children and grandchildren. I was the last fellow, my father’s last son. So one fellow not getting married is not such a big issue.

 

• Well, but there must be a reason.

I was lost in my endeavours, my thoughts, my mission, and that gave me happiness. So I was happy.

 

• So was it bachelorhood or brahmacharya?

I told you there’s a difference between bachelorhood and brahmacharya. I am a brahmachari.

 

• Sir, there’s one question I’ve asked you many times but you have never answered me before. Did you have a view on Sonia Gandhi (Congress president) being sworn in prime minister?

I have an answer, because a debate was on. Both of them came to me —  Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi —   and when the debate was on in the media, I also released a news item. When they came with majority numbers, I selected the prime minister.

 

• You selected one of the two?

No, I selected the prime minister based on the party’s recommendation.

 

• But now that you are an independent citizen, do you have a view on a foreign born citizen becoming the Indian prime minister?

Legally, this has been answered. The highest body has answered it. It (the issue) is not relevant to me at this stage.

 

• It’s not like you said no to her swearing-in?

No, I immediately issued a release as a president on what is correct and you have published it.

 

• So we will leave that question for some other day. You have said that when you entered the Rashtrapati Bhavan, you came in with two suitcases and that when you re-enter the world, you will again come out (of Rashtrapati Bhavan) with two suitcases? What’s inside them?

Well, I can carry both suitcases myself. One suitcase is capable of meeting my two days’ requirements. Suppose I want to go somewhere for two days, there’ll be a newly published book inside, my computer, my tape-recorder, and two days’ dress. Suppose I want to go somewhere for seven days, it’ll be the other suitcase, with similar material. Maybe instead of one book it will contain two books. Nothing else. So, it’s no secret. One suitcase is for a two-day trip, one for a seven-day trip. A boy from Bihar sent me an email saying that I mustn’t go (and settle down) anywhere. I must keep travelling with my suitcases and that they would all host me, anywhere in the country. Did you follow?

 

• Absolutely, Sir.

What did you follow?

 

• I followed that for Citizen Kalam, Dr Kalam, the whole country is his home. Wherever you go, there’s somebody for you.

The boy said, ‘You may go anywhere, we’ll carry your suitcase. But you come and stay with me.’ There are millions like that. That’s a beautiful idea. I liked it.

 

• Well, I think that’s a wonderful note to conclude the show on. You will never be short of affection and hospitality. And you’ll never have a free moment. We will try and find more time with you.

So, all the best.

 

• Prof Kalam, Citizen Kalam, what should I say?

Well, you know, now I’m in my profession —  teaching. So you can call me Prof Kalam.

 

• So Prof Kalam, it was wonderful to have you on Walk the Talk. Stay young forever, and bachelorhood is your choice.

(Pointing) Ah . . .

 

• Yes, yes, brahmacharya is your choice.

God bless you. All the best.

 

• Thank you very much.