‘What Mr Advani is talking in Pakistan makes all of us happy and we feel encouraged’

• You are also a unique minister, in the sense that you head so many GoMs, groups of ministers. This is such an innovation.

It is in one way better. Large groups of ministers, five, six, maximum 10 ministers are involved. They can study the subject in depth. And from various aspects, issues are analysed, X-rayed and thereafter they make recommendations. It becomes easier for the Cabinet. So this device, to my mind, is quite encouraging and fruitful. Just to give you an example, five-six very important—but at the same time, I would not say controversial— legislation on amendment of the Patents Act 1970, Special Economic Zones or on WMD. When we had discussions, either within the Group of Ministers or consultations with supporting parties outside the cabinet, it facilitated the process to iron out the differences.

• Also, you haven’t mentioned the restructuring and modernisation of the airports. That was a tough one.

That was also very important. Because we are modelling on Mumbai and Delhi, but with a little difference—an empowered group of ministers, so that they can take a decision. If a group is discussing a particular issue, when that issue is over, then you just wind it up.

• This is the largest number of GoMs ever, I think.

Yes, I think I’m heading around 16 to 18 GoMs.

• And this innovation wasn’t there the last time you were in power.

No, this is the first time. It is Dr Manmohan Singh’s contribution.

• In the previous Third Front government, the CPI was there. In fact, they had key portfolios, so why not now?

No, that is for them to decide, but somehow or other…

• The sense we got outside was that the CPI was willing but the CPM wasn’t.

I do not know that. Of the Left, CPI has 10 and RSP, Forward Bloc, CPM taken together is 50. So, their total strength is 60. Maybe they decided on the Left Front, as such, instead of just going for…

• But it is a difficult situation because Mr (L K) Advani always says that the problem with this coalition is that many of the coalition partners are adversaries of Congress. Whereas in the last coalition, there were no adversaries.

Exactly. That is another advantage they had. If you look at political history, how political parties have behaved—I’m not talking about since Independence, even since ’70s, ’80s, ’90s—the major role of most of the political parties was to oppose the Congress. Therefore, anti-Congressism became a major bond among them, whether it was the issue of Emergency or whether it an issue of misgovernance, all these issues brought them together. Therefore, there was a natural coalition among them over the years.

• And when they become Congress’ coalition partners, in some way, they are unnatural partners. So, how do you manage them?

That’s why I’m saying that. I’m again going back to the Patents Act, because to my mind as a student of Political Science, it’s quite interesting, as far as the Patents Amendment Act is concerned. The Left parties had a consistent stand. From 1994 when I signed the declaration for establishing WTO, from that day they were opposed to it, especially to Intellectual Property Rights. So, when I brought in the amendment in Indian Patents Act 1970 in Rajya Sabha, they opposed it in the Lok Sabha. When I brought it to the Rajya Sabha, along with BJP, they did not allow it to be passed. With the BJP coming to power, they changed their view and when they lost the cases in international court, twice they had to amend it with the support of the Congress. This time, the same way in which they drafted it was the way it was done by Congress. So, when I went on talking to the Left leaders, in the House, outside the House, I found out that they also understood the situation and the international scenario.

• So, do you find the Left now more realistic?

Of course, they are more realistic. And that is why it’s more easy. But the point that I’m trying to drive at is that even among the adversaries, if you have patience and if you can carry on detailed discussions, then you’ll understand that it is possible to reach a convergence.

• Would you not have preferred if you would have been able to talk with the BJP as well, especially on a bill like this?

No. I’ll tell you very frankly. I assumed that BJP support was with us because we were in the Opposition and the ruling coalition did not have the majority. So I told the (then) Union Commerce Minister, maybe (Murasoli) Maran or (Arun) Jaitley, that simply because of the change of seats there will not be any change of policy. This was our proposition.

• That was also because you and the BJP were talking. Now, it looks like the communication has broken down.

That is unfortunate. And we do not want it. At the time of the Patent Bill discussion, I’m told that Kamal Nath had discussions with them. I did not have discussions with them.

• Their complaint was that they made certain commitments to Kamal Nath and he went back and had a deal with the Left and did not even bother to call back.

No, but that is not the real picture. I will tell you as I was involved with this legislation from the very beginning. Kamal was advised to talk to all the political parties. I was asked to talk to the Left parties. It was decided from the very beginning when it was sent to the Group of Ministers. Then, on the one hand, I headed the Group of Ministers, Mr Chidambaram was there, Mr Sharad Pawar was there. We had several rounds of talks, we made several changes, then Kamal was asked to talk to other parties. And I spoke to the Left.

• So, basically you divided this work?

Yes, we divided this work.

• So, what led to the BJP getting so angry? They got so angry that you had to even delay the Pension Bill.

Yeah. You have to look at the question of looking at the management of the floor and convey a message, you have to see that for one piece of legislation, you cannot take the support of one party and for another piece of legislation that of the other party. BJP was our opposition, Left parties were our coalition. So we had to carry them with us.

• Do you think you would be able to carry them with you on Pension Bill, ultimately?

It’s difficult. Unless I further work on it, it’s difficult. Right now, I cannot say.

• But can you set up the PFRDA without…

That is what has to be sorted out. And Chidambaram himself is a good lawyer. He will look into it.

• Well, if you vowed to take major decisions without legislation, you’ll need many good lawyers in the Cabinet.

What I want is that, let this be examined and X-rayed from different angles and then we’ll provide the legislative backing after examining it from all angles.

• In this era of coalition, when major parties have become so limited in their reach, isn’t it unfortunate that there is such confrontation in our politics? You have been in politics for more than three decades, have you seen this kind of confrontation except for the Emergency?

No, this type of confrontation is unfortunate but I am always hopeful that it will be possible for all of us to find a way out to resolve it. Even in the midst of darkness there is light. What Mr Advani is talking in Pakistan, it makes all of us happy and we feel encouraged.

• So will you congratulate him on the way he has conducted himself?

The reports that are coming in are quite encouraging.

• When Mr Advani goes to Pakistan and says that we are fully with the UPA government for their initiatives in Pakistan?

Yeah we also appreciate the initiative they took, we are also carrying it on. Shimla, Agra, Lahore and then Muzaffarabad, there is linkage.

• No matter what happens in Delhi?

Yeah, so I do feel that on foreign policy, important ingredients of security policy and issues of national security, there is convergencce of views despite an apparent atmosphere of confrontation. If you ask for my opinion, I feel that if we can dissolve the crisis in Parliament, then the temperature of the confrontation will be drastically reduced and we are exactly trying to do that.

• So are you going to take the lead in doing that?

As a leader of the House, I am always asking them, requesting them.

• When I speak to them, they tell me that only Pranab Mukherjee can settle it.

I am trying to settle it, in fact, during this Budget session, the first leg went off well, the second leg also went well. Of course, there are differences and sometimes disruptions. But I am sharing a piece of information that there was some sort of communication gap. Even when it happened the very first day, I talked to the Prime Minister because I was told by some journalist friends that Sushmaji (Swaraj) was saying that it appears if the Prime Minister intervenes the issue will be resolved. So I told him that if he could talk to the two of them—Jaswant Singh and Advaniji. He said he would and it appeared that the Prime Minister found that the approach was lukewarm. That hurt him, because it was not his initiative, it was my initiative and I was inspired to take this initiative when I got this piece of information from a journalist friend.

Sometimes they are also interested in diffusing the crisis. So once it happened, then perhaps it struck the Prime Minister’s mind that (why) will I go on repeating and getting refused. This is one side of the picture. The second side of the picture is that if they would have stopped or lowered what they have been asking for. You know if you have to run a coalition you cannot drop Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav who is having 24 members.

• And about 24 cases.

We knew fully well that it was not possible for the Prime Minister to drop George Fernandes. We reduced our demand—when he used to speak, sometimes in Lok Sabha we used to walk out. In the Rajya Sabha, we remained silent, we did not ask him any questions but we did not go for disruption. We thought of understanding the demand that Laloo Prasad must be dropped, so when Vajpayeeji came, it became really difficult from the floor management point of view.

• When Vajpayeeji got involved…

Question Hour disruptions were there, periodical suspensions… and he spoke for about seven-eight minutes and said that you cannot have peace if Laloo Prasad is in the government.

• Dropping Laloo Prasad would have meant dismantling the government?

Dismantling the government, because he is supporting the government.

• So you are suggesting that it is one thing for the Opposition to embarrass the government?

No government would agree to take it to the point of dissolution of the government.

• So experienced politicians should know how to thrust and parry, to carry a blow and withdraw?

It should not go beyond a point. What point, you have to decide. As I gave you the example, even in the Rajya Sabha, in the case of George Fernandes, we kept our protest confined to not asking him any questions.

• Is that a hint to your Opposition?

You’ll recollect what they did after last year. The beginning was very bad and started with a note of discord. Perhaps it was not good on their part to prevent the Prime Minister from introducing the ministry because it is the primary responsibility of Parliament to know who are the ministers the Prime Minister has appointed because they are responsible and accountable too. When the Prime Minister got up they could have confined it to a limited number of ministers over whom they have objection. Or they could have allowed him to introduce (them) and thereafter they could have said we have serious objection. But if you look at the proceedings, the entire session appeared to be disruptive, immediately after the elections. Later on they corrected, the winter session went on peacefully and the first phase of this session also went off well, so I am hopeful.

• The deadlock in our politics is because of two reasons—because both the Congress and the BJP have misread last year’s verdict whereas the BJP has not accepted it is out and the Congress has somehow read that it is a massive mandate against the BJP and for them. So both have got it wrong.

We are using the phrase that it is a limited mandate.

• That you do, but the general view is that, because UPA is an unnatural coalition.

We have to keep in view that it is an unnatural but at the same time an extraordinary coalition because the leader of the coalition party enjoyed uninterrupted absolute power for more than four and a half decades and that party is leading the coalition. Just see the contrast. Mr Rajiv Gandhi refused to form the government when he was invited by Mr (R) Venkataraman, when his strength in the Lok Sabha was 195 with a two-third majority in Rajya Sabha. He allowed Mr V P Singh, the leader of the next largest party, who had a strength of 143 members, to form the government.

• But even then, bitterness levels were not like this. Although the campaign was run on Bofors, it was a bitter campaign but there was still a lot of communication between the two. In fact, I spoke to V P Singh and he told me how he and Rajiv Gandhi had dinner after that.

But the fact of the matter is that it was a massive shock to the Congress, from 415 to 195. And the responsible behaviour of Rajiv Gandhi as Leader of Opposition was superb.

• But have you in this period despaired sometimes… an experienced politician like you, what will happen?

We shall have to carry people. Sometimes frustration comes in. I will not use the word despair. But frustration comes when things do not move with the speed we want them to. But at the same time, we’ll have to remember that this is the hard fact of life.

• So do you think Mr. Advani’s statements in Pakistan, the way he has conducted himself, that could now provide an opening?

That is expected of a senior leader of a political party.

• So when he comes back from Pakistan, will you pick up the phone and congratulate him?

Of course.

• And hopefully the PM as well?

Yeah, the PM is very courteous. I have no hesitation in congratulating him. Giving an example, when there were news items saying that because the Air Force could not give ample cover to the Army, there were more casualties (in Kargil). I had just taken over. I gave a suo motu statement that facts prove it is otherwise. When the Air Force gave the cover, there were more casualties. At that time Mr Advani rose from his seat to congratulate me. That is the type of thinking we have. On a personal level, our communication has always been good

• So are you hoping that will now return to Parliament? Because their complaint is why should leaders of your party be standing outside Parliament, saying that the Opposition must apologise before they come back

I know, sometimes the vocabulary and political terminologies are too strong. We cannot afford to have it. Those who do not hold any office or do not discharge any responsibilities in that sense, in regard to the management of the House can use strong words.

• Talking about your latest concern, the Pakistani revelation, Gohar Ayub, is it worrying you?

To be very frank, it is not worrying me. But is has made me a little angry on two counts. Why should I take what Field Marshal Ayub Khan says about India or his son. Because even if I assume that he is quoting from his father’s diary, it is highly improbable that a General will divulge all secret details to his son who does not belong to the military. Secondly, what is the point of bringing up these news items right now when 40 years have passed.

• Do you think it is motivated?

To some extent there might be some design to vitiate the atmosphere.

• But you are looking into this?

Normally we shall have to. I have asked the military headquarters to look into it.

• So you are not dismissing it?

No I am not dismissing it but I am highly doubtful that an Indian Brigadier will sell the interest of the country for just Rs 20,000.