‘N-deal doesn’t make us a nuclear weapons state. We will sit outside the n-club meeting on a stool’

But one thing that has taken me by surprise is that for the past 20-30 years America never made a reactor on its own. I have read their statement that the nuclear deal would create jobs for tens of thousands of their scientists and business would prosper. But our scientists, who could have benefited, are left out in the cold. If the reactors were made in India, then our industry, science, research and scientific manpower could have progressed.

I am of the personal view that no American executive can overrule the Hyde Act; nor can any president bypass it. It is obligatory for them. Even if President George W. Bush strives to pull the deal, there’s no guarantee what the next president will do.

Hence, my outlook is that America intends to pit us against China. But it is not important to fight against China, that too at the behest of America.On the one hand we are striving to maintain good terms with China, but on the other hand the US is positioning us in such a way that tomorrow, for foreign policy collaboration, there will be many loopholes which can be exploited and will jeopardise our position.

PAMELA PHILIPOSE: But don’t we need to recognise that post-Pokharan we were left with no standing in the world: we had to face sanctions. When you talk of India being independent in its pursuit of nuclear power, I think you’re not looking at the big picture in terms of the very real problems we had to face post-Pokharan.

Sanctions were imposed on this country. And we didn’t mind the sanctions. As a Minister of Science, I stated in Parliament that the threat of America — “We’ll throw out all the scientists of India!” — wouldn’t affect us. Not a single scientist was thrown out, expect those whose tenure was over. We share a symbiotic relationship with US. We need US and US needs us. Why should we behave in a subjugated manner?

American scientists brief the Senators, while our scientists do not know anything. In the talks, (Shyam) Saran, (M.K.) Narayanan, (Shivshankar) Menon were there, but Kakodkar was not involved. They have brilliant geopolitical ideas, but this matter is highly scientific and relevant to the future of the country. Why were our scientists ignored? In our time, we never did this. I think it has to do with the mindset that whatever the US says has to be in the interest of the country. This outlook of toeing the American line isn’t good. The deal does not make India a nuclear weapons state. We will be sitting outside the nuclear club board meeting on a stool. America has admitted it has no intention of making India a nuclear weapons state.

GAUTAM CHIKERMANE: Joshiji, during your political tenure, history was discussed extensively, talks were initiated to bring about a change in the syllabus. Every time a new party comes to power, will history change? Can we put a full stop somewhere to define our history?

The issue was that instead of understanding the problem, the Left created a furore that history was being changed. The matter was contested in Parliament but our opponents always staged a walkout. During Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, education policies were drafted and approved by Parliament. One of the guidelines was that the curriculum shsould be updated every five years. I saw it hadn’t been updated for seven years, and imbalances had to be corrected, some new things included — information on bio-tech, religious tolerance, sex education and the like.

GAUTAM CHIKERMANE: Let me rephrase the question. Will politicians frame the history of India or professional historians? Is history going to become current affairs or will there be an element of permanence?

History has permanence, but it is a question of perspective. History was written by politicians and for that I give credit to Nurul Hasanji, who was from our university (Allahabad University). It happened when Mrs Indira Gandhi took help from the CPI and all things were handed over to them. For example, if you write that the most important period in India was the Mughal period . . . If you want to stop political influence on history, you have to first eradicate the political influence that history had fallen prey to earlier. If you teach that Marx was of the view that India had no history whatsoever and if there was any history, it was of endless conquest . . . now this approach is incorrect. Historians have to come together and tell us how to rectify this situation. Whatever has been done has been done with due recommendation from historians.

You keep saying this is an attempt to saffronise Indian history. But, for example, many artifacts are being recovered from under the sea. If I present this, am I saffronising? If a German lab determines an artifact is 9,000 years old, can I keep saying that, ‘No, India cannot be older than 7,000 years!’? If remote-sensing satellite images show there’s a subterranean water pathway from this place to that and if ancient records say this tallies with the path of the Saraswati, what should I say?

VANDITA MISHRA: In Uttar Pradesh, you were earlier keen on an alliance with Mayawati. What now? Mayawati has actually weaned away a large section of your core support. My second question is about the leadership struggle within the BJP. You have said that after L.K. Advani stepped down, you were not really a candidate, you were not in the race. What I want to ask you is whether the race has actually stopped with Rajnath Singh becoming the party president? So where are you in this ongoing race?

You second question is answered immediately. I am where I always was. Jahaan thaa, wahin hoon. As for the first, when the first Mayawati government was formed it was a coalition between Mayawati and Mulayam Singh. People within my party and outside it were completely dissatisfied with that government. Some important leaders of Uttar Pradesh, including Kalyan Singh, sought me out. I said the only solution is to explore which section of this government will come out so that this government goes.

Mayawati, and especially Kanshi Ram, were feeling the same, so they sent some messages. I asked them through a common friend what’s on their mind. They said they wanted to get rid of Mulayam Singh and had no objection in joining the BJP provided Mayawati was made chief minister. Myself, Advaniji, and Atal Bihariji agreed to the new experiment. My intention was to change the impression that the BJP is an upper caste party having no relations with Dalits. But in politics, interests start colliding, sometimes earlier than expected. Ultimately, Mayawati decided to part ways.

The second time, it wasn’t because of me but because of the situation in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, where election after election, nothing came out. I don’t think Mayawati’s party becoming the sole majority party has anything to do with our previous experiment.

UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: Is there a deliberate attempt to sidestep ideology? Don’t you think your party has had to compromise on ideology? What about the Jinnah comment by Advani? And now in the vice-presidential elections. You always talk about pseudo-secularism, but you’ve also played the same game. UNPA came up with a Muslim candidate, UPA came up with a Muslim candidate, and you too came with a Muslim candidate.

Well, let me say very frankly that the party has never endorsed all these things, specially the Jinnah statement. We said we don’t believe in the two-nation theory, we don’t believe that Jinnah was secular. That’s on record and the point is very clear. People in the party, and sometimes, important persons, have their own views and they are free to express it. But when a party comes to particular decision, its own policy resolutions, it has to stick to it.

Even on Hindutva, if you see Rajnath Singh’s statements or policy resolutions, your perceptions about a drift . . . (will be dispelled). There are bound to be differences on certain issues in every party, but when we come to a conclusion, it becomes the accepted view of the party.

On the Muslim candidate, can you vote for Congress? No. Can you vote for the UNPA’s candidate? No. That’s why we must have a candidate. And Ms Najma Heptullah has been conducting the House for the last 17 years. She is the most qualified person as far as running the House. Therefore, she should not be considered a Muslim counter to the other Muslim candidates.

UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: You are perceived to be a Hindutva hardliner in the party.

I’ll correct you. A Hindutva follower can never be a hardliner.

UNNI RAJEN SHANKER: Okay then, a staunch Hindutva follower. Do you believe that in order to sustain a coalition the party has to compromise on ideology?

Every party has a vision before the elections, and when the coalition is formed, you have to find elements from each party’s manifesto on what’s acceptable to running a government. If you look at certain European countries, sometimes diametrically opposed parties come and join together but continue with their own agenda.

VIRENDER KUMAR: Why are your allies drifting away from you?

Alliances depend on the political extent of each group. They are not part and parcel of a particular party; they are members of a particular alliance. Every party or every group thinks in terms of its political benefits. So, if they think that their political benefit lies on that side, then it’s okay.

D.K. SINGH: Whenever we talk about BJP’s prime ministerial candidate in 2009, your party does not seem to look beyond Vajpayeeji or Advaniji. When will your party get out of that cult? Have you ruled yourself out of the prime ministerial race?

I have stated that I am where I am. That’s my position. The party takes care of all such issues at the appropriate time.

D.K. SINGH: So you aren’t in the race?

There is nobody in the race in our party.

PAMELA PHILIPOSE: You shared with the present HRD Minister the same attitude of controlling institutions like IIM?

No, I didn’t control them. Show me any vice-chancellor or head of IIMs, IITs etc who says I interfered in their administration, teachings, admissions. I can bring at least two dozen people who will say they were very happy. How do you account for all the directors appointed by eminent committees — with people like A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Kasturirangan, M.G.K. Menon, C.N.R. Rao, S.K. Joshi and G.K. Chaddha on them — being happy? What I did in IIMs whas to see to it they addressed the needs of the country. The government bore their expenditure, and I said that in these conditions you have no right to charge high fees.

PRADEEP KAUSHAL: There’s a view that RSS involvement in micro-management of the BJP is neither in the interest of the RSS nor the BJP. How do you see it? You think it is time for redefining the relationship?

No, the relationship doesn’t need to be redefined. What is to be taken care of is that the relationship should be very transparent and there should be no impression that somebody is trying to interfere in the affairs of BJP.

(The transcript was prepared by Richa Bhatia. This is an abridged version. For the full text)