‘No (Cong, BJP are not talking sufficiently). I would think much more is needed’

• Somehow the transition has been less bumpy then we would have imagined — foreign policy, economy, the broad national policies — all this continuity despite this massive ideological differences. Did you expect that or does it surprise you pleasantly.

I would think that democracy is what has really given this country this kind of resilience. In fact, I recalled that when Independence came and the Constitution declared that parliamentary democracy would be the system we would adopt, there were cynics and sceptics in the West who said how can a country with such a large mass of illiterate and uneducated people succeed with democracy. And in fact, some people scoffed.

• And it is that democracy that’s now giving this continuity.

Yes.

• Did you expect this continuity or did you expect a roll-back?

No, I would think that broadly speaking we expected continuity… But we were shaken, considerably shocked and became somewhat sceptical during the brief period of ’75-’77, because that was totally unexpected.

• The Emergency.

Yes. Not only the Emergency, the Emergency by itself was bad, but what was worse was the attempt by the then ruling party to rationalise it, and to project that a country like India needs something like a one-party democracy some African countries have.

• Let me take you back to something that Sonia Gandhi said on Walk The Talk last year when she expressed regrets for the Emergency. Do you that was the kind of catharsis or that was the kind of break that the Congress made from that part, or do you think the break is not made here?

Why did the Emergency take place? What were the trigger points? The Allahabad judgement, secondly the Gujarat elections — these are the two principle things, and of course the Jayprakash Narayan movement and Navnirman movement. All of these seemed to threaten the Congress hegemony in political life. That hegemony won’t continue. After all, a State like Gujarat, which was supposed to be one of their strongest fortresses, has collapsed because the Opposition came together. The possibility of the Opposition coming together in ’76, many people in the country wanting Mrs Gandhi to resign… So, the responses were: amend the Constitution, amend the law, change the judiciary, shut down the media.

• But why so much about the Emergency now? Suddenly we have gone back 30 years.

Because as I said, if you somehow make yourself believe that the country’s interest lies in one party or one family controlling all the States, controlling the central government, if this is the basic mindset, it leads to this. And I would say if we succeeded during the six years to run a multi-party coalition, it was because we recognised that the Akalis had built up a domain of their own in Punjab; over a period of a decade or so, the TDP had created an area for itself in Andhra. Of course the two Tamil Nadu parties have been there since ’67, they are the oldest among the regional parties apart from the Akalis. Similarly, every regional party has built up a domain. Now if we make an alliance with them and make them share power with us in the Centre, we must also not try to utilise their alliance with us to encroach into their domain.

• The BJP and the Congress are now two pillars of our national politics. Between the two parties, which are reasonably centric, there is a central gravity in our politics. At a time when coalitions are building, regional leaders are getting stronger, are you worried that both parties are weakening? I believe that unless the two parties together have 350 seats in Parliament, India is in trouble.

I am worried that the Congress party’s attitude to the BJP is not healthy — they are evil, that’s the approach.

• Congress thinks BJP is evil?

The Congress thinks the BJP is evil. And yet, it is the Opposition and they have to tolerate it. My own view is not that. It is true that since 1950, since the Constitution was adopted, most political analysts, most political thinkers have longed to see India develop into a two-party system, as America has, as Britain has, as some of the other democracies have…

In the last three decades we have come up very sharply and converted India’s polity into a bipolar polity — if not a two-party system, it’s a bipolar polity with two stable poles.

• But these kinds of coalition — small groups with eight seats, 10 seats — they can almost hijack the agenda. Does it worry you?

No, it doesn’t worry me. It’s a process of change from a dominant single-party set-up to a bipolar polity. It has been a progress.

• And what is the direction of the progress? Do you think the direction is towards bipolarity or towards this crazy multipolarity?

No, it’s not crazy. It’s multi-polarity. I see multi-polarity remaining, except that some kind of changes in the electoral laws, in the other laws which contribute to the party system stability etc need to be made. For example, I have been of the view that in so far as the Legislature is concerned, Parliament is concerned, we have emulated the UK system, whereas most democracies in Europe have fixed-term Legislatures. In fact, I spoke to the present defence minister a month or two back, I said now it would be to your advantage, do it…

And we have tried to see that the malady of defection is somehow controlled. Earlier the law provided against …

• I wonder how the law got passed, and also the law limiting the number of Cabinet berths.

The law now is better then the earlier law.

• It is a very good law.

Yes, and therefore people have to resign, they can’t defect.

• Talking about bipolarity and talking about the responsibility that the Congress and the BJP have as the two most serious largest parties, do you think the two parties are talking or are cooperating enough?

No, as I said if you think that my political adversary is an evil…

• You don’t see the Congress as an evil?

No, I don’t. As I said perhaps a few years back, that before 1947 there used to be several ideological streets at the Congress. The Congress was only a platform, it was only a banner under which various ideological groups struggled for India’s independence. And there were people like Gandhiji, Rajaji, Patel, without whose views on Indian affairs I would not have been here.

• But today you wouldn’t see the Congress as an evil?

I don’t.

• You wouldn’t see the Gandhi family as an evil.

I don’t think the Gandhi family is an evil. But this conception that a Gandhi is alone fit to rule the country is basically undemocratic. It is totally unacceptable to any democrat, I am surprised the Congress has readily accepted it. In fact, the manner in which the change of Congress presidentship took place would shock any decent person. How can you physically change a party president? That’s what happened.

• That’s the way Congress is?

Why?

• I think parties have their own culture. The question of Sonia’s foreign origin, has there been any evolution of thought on that?

No, it is an approach which I don’t see anything wrong about. And it strikes a chord in the mind of the common man. In a country of so many crores, how can you have a person of foreign origin as your leader only because the person is married in a certain family.

• So that remains an issue?

It’s an issue.

• In politics or also in your mind and heart?

In politics, in my mind and heart. Also, I would say that if there is any political party which split up on that issue it is the Congress. After all, the NCP is there, though compulsions of power politics may make them compromise. Therefore, I respect a person like Sangma.

• One remarkable feature of your government was how you and the Congress — I don’t want to use the word colluded but sort of got together on so many issues like Pakistan — we were close to war three times — the US policy on Pakistan, on economic policies you passed legislations together. Why has that vanished now? Why’s that not happening?

That’s for the Congress party to think over. After all, we were a small party when Narasimha Rao became the prime minister. And we were the principle Opposition, no doubt. From a paltry strength of two we had come to 86 in ’89 and then we grew. But at the same time it’s our honest conviction that in a country like India, unless you have a broad measure of consensus, the country cannot move forward.

• So why is this consensus not there? Aren’t you talking sufficiently — you and Congress, you and this government, the UPA?

Not sufficiently. I would think much more is needed. These days they have been talking to us about VAT. I frankly told one of their ministers that there was a tendency in our party to see that all our States agreed with their proposal. But I can tell you the day that Goa happened, there was a hue and cry in our party ki kya kar rahe ho, tum kyun kar rahe ho inke saath maamlo mein cooperation, aur hum narazgi bhi maurley byapariyon ki, kahe ki liye?… If you want cooperation even in matters of economic policies where we basically agree — we have been the most opposed to this license permit quota raj for years, woh aaj ki baat nahin…

• So you would say even in today’s sort of bitter politics, the BJP and the NDA will be willing to help Congress pass some crucial legislations, as the Congress did in the past with you?

If it is in the country’s interest, I don’t see why the BJP and the NDA shouldn’t cooperate.

• But legislations like banking reforms, insurance?

Every issue will be considered on merit. Simply because we are in the Opposition we have to oppose everything the government does is not a right approach. Though in order to see that this thinking of ours gets full support from the whole party, you have to behave in a manner which doesn’t annoy the party.

• Is the Congress talking to you sufficiently, is it reaching out to you sufficiently?

No.

• Before we conclude, I have to ask you one question which I have always wanted to ask and tell me the truth. What happened that day in Agra?

In Agra.

• The last day of the summit. You know there have been many theories, many claims. Musharraf has said you scuttled it, somebody says somebody else scuttled it, somebody says it happened by itself. Now we’ve put several years behind us, what happened?

Good question really. And particularly because I think that Indo-Pak relations, the path we have taken must be pursued further. And with General Musharraf in office there, there is a possibility we move forward. And therefore I would say that when Agra took place the issue super most in the minds of both the governments, and me particularly because I was home minister dealing with it, was the problem of terrorism — cross-border terrorism. And all the drafts prepared, they were not willing to concede that there is any such thing like terrorism. So when we sat together, from the very beginning I said that unless there is some acceptance that cross-border terrorism has to be curbed, how can there be an agreement? And then all the ministers…

• But there were people in the Cabinet, in the negotiating table, who still wanted to sign the declaration.

I wouldn’t say that. After this was pointed out, this glaring omission was pointed out, there was no difference at all.

• Mr Jaswant Singh?

Yes, no difference.

• And was the breakfast, the famous Musharraf breakfast with his wagging finger, was that the turning point?

No.

• Because that’s the popular view, that tipped the scale.

No, I don’t think so. My own view was very clear in this, so was the view of the whole government as such. Except that when the drafts are discussed and prepared, alright achha isko dekhte hai, yeh aapne kiya hain, yahan par thoda aapne maan liya hain… Maine kaha baaki sab maan lena lekin unless cross-border terrorism is categorically accepted, and will be curbed… If that’s not there, nothing else will satisfy.

• So we had not come close to signing the declaration, but for the breakfast?

I don’t recall the breakfast you are referring to.

• The breakfast with us, editors, which was televised.

I don’t think so. No. Not at all

• Did you see a change in Musharraf’s attitude later?

Yes. I would say that if what was agreed in the joint statement at Islamabad with Vajpayeeji had been agreed at Agra, Agra would have a big success. And I said this to Kasuri when he came to invite me to come to Pakistan.

• Is it true that when Musharraf came at Agra, his attitude, his body language, his style was as if he was coming to a defeated country? Then that change…

I think it would be wrong to make such… but at the same time he came with a kind of confidence which made him feel that even though he would assert that Jammu and Kashmir is a freedom struggle and there is no terrorism, India will be willing to sign a treaty, sign something.

• As if India was suing for peace.

Maybe. Because it is true that for us to have invited him despite Kargil was not a small step. I would claim that I did it. I advised Vajpayeeji that it doesn’t matter if Lahore has failed.

• And that confidence became realism in Musharraf’s case.

Yes.

• And what brought that change you think?

I think in the meanwhile so many things happened, even in Pakistan. Apart from 9/11, things that developed in Pakistan made him realise terrorism is an evil which will afflict every country.

• And in that combination of his internal problem and international crisis…

And I think General Musharraf can deliver.

• Are you optimistic of the peace process going forward?

Yes, I am optimistic.