‘No one has accused me of taking sides’

You have been called a proactive vice president…
What’s proactive? Tell me what is the definition of proactive? (Calls for his secretary to get the dictionary. The Secretary returns with the Collins dictionary and reads out from it the meaning of word proactive. ‘‘Tending to initate change rather than reacting to events. Denoting a mental process that affects a subsequent process.’’) Ab bhi maen doshi hoon kya?

I suppose what they mean by it is that you are not just presiding over the Rajya Sabha in the Question Hour, or cutting ribbons or receiving dignitaries, but travelling around the country and meeting a lot of people which is unusual for a vice-president…
Look, the Vice President is a Constitutional position. As chairman of the Rajya Sabha, my rights and duties are specified in the rules. The Vice President’s role is not defined. I haven’t seen it defined. As vice president I can’t be in active politics, and I don’t interefere in the work of the Government or involve myself in party politics. I quit my party and was given a bidai by the BJP. Partywalle bhi roye, maain bhi roya (Partymen wept and I too wept)

But if I meet people who come to see me and bring me their problems, would you call that as being ‘proactive’? It is these people who have brought me to this office, how can I refuse to meet them and listen to their dukh dard sympathetically? You know, I get roughly 100 letters every day. Of these around 30 are about various charges which need a further probe. Should I just dump these letters in the wastepaper basket because if I send them onto the Government to look into them I shall be dubbed proactive?

I haven’t seen it written anywhere in the Constituton that the Vice President is supposed to keep maun(mum) about the country’s problems.

I am, for instance, the Chancellor of many universities. Suppose there is garhbarh taking place in these universities, am I to sit quiet and watch it take place? I am heading the Jayaprakash Narayan Centenary Committee. If I talk about JP, and try and ensure that his message is taken to the people, should I be called proactive?

You (the media) can stick any label to me, if you want. I have no objection.

This impression may have gained ground because of the meeting of the Task Force on famine that you called at your residence last year when several Union Ministers and Deputy PM LK Advani came to brief you?
I didn’t call that meeting. The Government called that meeting to brief me on what it was doing about famine. That they should do so is not ‘proactive’. I am not an achoot(untouchable).

I am the chairman for instance of the committee for selecting the awardees for the Indira Gandhi award. I also headed the committee which selected the NRIs who were honoured. If I have a view on the names being discussed, or feel someone under consideration is not appropriate, are you saying I should not speak up?

What you would then be advocating is that I should just keep listening, and not say anything. But if I become a part of the decision-making process of these committees that I head I will be called proactive. I am not supposed to be a dumb chairman, you know.

The other day, there was a heated exchange in the Rajya Sabha on the drought situation with the Opposition leaders making the charge that the relief was not reaching the poor. Intervening, I expressed my view that the PDS had collapsed. The Prime Minister who was present said he would himself talk to the Opposition leaders.

I am independent. No one has levelled the charge at me that I take sides. It is my duty as Chairman (of the Rajya Sabha) to be nishpaksh.

Now that you have been vice president for over nine months, what is your view about Parliamentary functioning?
There are four issues on which I feel substantive discussions should take place in Parliament. One, about poverty and why it continues to dog us. Two, population growth. Three, how to strike a balance between development and environment protection, without which we will be fighting nature. And four, corruption, and the reason why those indulging in it are not punished.

Are you saying that Parliament is not discussing these vital issues?
Not adequately. I have not heard a discussion on any of these four issues. On why is poverty continuing, why are natural calamities continuing? There has been a discussion, say, on tree felling but not a serious, substantive discussion on development and environment. In every session of Parliament, one of these issues should be taken up. This has to be taken up consciously. After that, let the Government decide what it should do.

You have been talking a lot about corruption, that hardly anyone gets punished…
Discussing corruption without anyone being punished will do more harm than good, for it increases people’s cynicism. Corruption is increasing. There have been so many cases since independence but hardly anyone has been punished. Obviously there is a lacunae in the law. Either the charges levelled were false, or the cases were not taken up properly or witnesses turned hostile. Witnesses turn hostile when time is given to the accused to work on them. Justice delayed is undoubtedly justice denied.

Good and intelligent advocates should apply themselves to this problem, and study why people are not punished in cases of corruption.

May be the Government can give this to the Law Commission to study?
So many Commissions have been set up but their reports are not implemented as quickly as they should be. The Constitution Review Committee, for instance, called the MPLADs scheme unconstitutional.

What are you going to do about that?
That is for the MPs to decide.