Beyond the Lines: An Autobiography

by Kuldip Nayar

  I was overwhelmed by the response of the British as well as the Indian community which gave me a warm farewell. V.P. Singh and I.K. Gujral sent me congratulatory messages. However, Rajiv Gandhi’s comment, when Gujral told him about the House of Commons resolution, was: ‘Kuldip must have done something for the British.’ To this Gujral’s cryptic retort was: ‘Yes, we must ask the CBI to inquire.’

  V.P. Singh’s rule will be remembered because it was he who stopped the rath yatra led by L.K. Advani from Somnath temple to Ayodhya (25 September 1990). The BJP’s intention was clearly to polarize a pluralist society, and indeed the rath yatra did result in a deep gulf developing between Hindus and Muslims.

  Even after the yatra began, V.P. Singh, then prime minister, took no action because his government was sustained by the BJP. This was his most grievous error. He should have resigned on 25 September rather than a few months later when the BJP withdrew its support. Had V.P. Singh resigned then it would have strengthened the secular forces. It was clear that the yatra would pollute the atmosphere and provoke communal riots. Inevitably there were clashes between Hindus and Muslims leading to riots in several places. V.P. Singh still did not act because he wanted to cling on to his prime-ministership.

  I went to Ayodhya a month before the demolition. To my surprise I found that the people at Faizabad did not welcome outsiders. There was no tension between Hindus and Muslims and it did not look like a city which a few weeks later witnessed the destruction of the masjid. I went to Hanuman Mandir near the disputed mosque and had to approach a Muslim family which for generations had custody of the key to the temple lock.

  V.P. Singh was relegated into historical oblivion but kept his promise of creating a more equitable relationship between the lower castes and the agrarian peasantry. At the cabinet level, half the ministerial berths were filled by members of the backward communities. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was vested with statutory powers to enforce implementation of governmental programmes, and was headed by a prominent leader from those castes. Most striking was the action taken to redress the neglect since Independence of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar, the iconic dalit leader. Soon after V.P. Singh took office, a portrait of Ambedkar was installed in the Central Hall of parliament. His date of birth, 14 April, was declared a national holiday, and the posthumous award of the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian honour, was conferred on him. After V.P. Singh’s government fell he never returned to active politics, allowing himself the luxury to pursue his passion for painting till renal failure and blood cancer incapacitated him.

  My regret is that I never interviewed Dr B.R. Ambedkar. I listened to him from the press gallery piloting the constitution and admired the passion and the conviction with which he put across his point of view on sundry issues. He was personally opposed to reservations for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes but the general sense of the constituent assembly was in favour of reservations. He pleaded that he did not want ‘crutches’ for his community but eventually agreed to reservations for ten years on condition that the period would not be extended.

  Little did he imagine that leaders from his community would continue to insist on an indefinite extension of the period. This, however, suited the Congress which used the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as a vote bank for the party. Only in the 1970s did it lose their unquestioned allegiance.

  The credit for the latter goes to a devoted worker from Punjab, Kanshi Ram, who founded the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and built it up. He did not reap the fruits of his efforts but his close associate Mayawati’s emergence as a significant political leader in UP has proved that Kanshi Ram had assured the dalits a place in the sun.

  The blame lies not with the upper castes alone; the politics of votes has got ingrained amongst the dalits too. Their leaders, largely stemming from the ‘creamy layer’ of society have come to enjoy the spoils of office without adequately articulating the genuine interests of their community.

  While piloting the constitution, Dr Ambedkar, the most distinguished leader among the dalits, was able to incorporate in it the numerous safeguards for the Harijans and banning the concept of untouchability. This has not however resolved the problem of untouchability which lies deeply imbedded within the psyche of Hindu society.

  What really disturbs me is the stoicism of the dalits who have remained part of a Hindu society in spite of the repression and exploitation they have undergone for centuries. Dr Ambedkar aptly described the situation by borrowing a phrase from Shakespeare: ‘It may be your interest to be our masters but how can it be ours to be your slaves?’ The oppressive caste system remains more or less intact among Hindus and there has been no movement for decades to reform the society. Liberals lap up the segregation of dalits as much as leaders of the conservatives.

  It is true that we have adopted certain rules and conventions to help the scheduled castes and tribes to develop. They deserve such help but, even so I am against any form of reservation, more particularly in relation to jobs. I react strongly against anything that leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards. I want my country to be a first class in everything. When we encourage the second-rate, it handicaps us. Affirmative action, like that adopted in favour of the blacks in America, may be a possible solution. Reservations are making upper-caste youth bitter. Whether now or fifty years hence, India will have to reinterpret reservation and make economic status the criterion for eligibility.

  I resumed my syndicated weekly column, ‘Between the Lines’ after my return from the UK. Even within the brief period of a year when I was in London, Indian journalism had changed dramatically and become owner-driven. For instance, Anand Bazar Patrika reflected Aveek Sarkar’s views. His father, Asok Sarkar, was a friend of mine so I treated Aveek like a member of the family. He once told me that he was the second most important person in West Bengal after Jyoti Basu, who was then alive. Another editor, a proprietor in the Indian Express, was Shekhar Gupta, who was infatuated with himself. His personal views and other considerations shaped the Indian Express which was once India’s most anti-establishment newspaper.

  Much earlier the Rajasthan Patrika had stopped publishing my column. The owner, R.C. Kulish, was a personal friend but could not tolerate my criticism of the BJP position. ‘I am not against Muslims and I have one servant from the community but they have to be kept in their place,’ he told me once. Never did I suspect that he would go so far as to stop the publication of the column. I vainly tried to meet him in Jaipur. Once when in the city, I learnt he was critically ill, so I went to his house and waited to see him but he refused to meet me.

  In the case of Daily Bhaskar, I stopped my column because it refused to publish my piece on ‘paid news’. Although I did not name anyone the newspaper still refused to publish the column. I wrote a letter of protest to the owner and received no response.

  My experience with N. Ram, the editor of the Hindu was disappointing. I used to write an opinion piece for the newspaper twice a week and a human rights column once a month. He stopped them because I was a friend of Malini Parthasarthy who, along with N. Ravi, was pushed out of editorial control when they were reduced to a minority in the public limited company that the Hindu is. Ram joined G. Kasturi and few others to constitute a majority. Ravi, modest and unassuming, and Malini, a talented journalist, suffered the most but stoically bore the humiliation. When newspapers turn themselves into companies and the majority begins to prevail, the newspaper becomes a purely commercial proposition like any corporate house.

  When the V.P. Singh government fell, the Janata Dal still existed as a party although individual state leaders controlled its constituent parties. Chandra Shekhar, whose principal ambition in life was to become prime minister, was the first claimant. He could not have won a majority in the party without the support of Mulayam Singh Yadav, who eventually rallied to his aid.

  Mulayam Singh was on the defensive when he shared with me what induced him to support Chandr
a Shekhar. Initially he (Mulayam) did not take Chandra Shekhar’s call, but when he repeatedly called him, Mulayam Singh picked up the phone. Chandra Shekhar implored him for support in his quest to become prime minister. ‘I felt I must help a friend who was after all a socialist,’ said Mulayam Singh.

  Rajiv Gandhi had already offered outside support to Chandra Shekhar. The latter asked I.K. Gujral to join his cabinet as foreign minister but he declined, the portfolio eventually going to V.C. Shukla, the Goebbels of Emergency disfame. Chandra Shekhar, who had fought against the Emergency, had no compunction in including him in the cabinet for the couple of votes he had at his command. Greed makes curious bedfellows.

  I was especially invited to a dinner in honour of Chandra Shekhar and was informed that I was to share a table with Rajiv Gandhi. Suman Dubey, who was close to Rajiv Gandhi, was very insistent that I attend the dinner, but I do not know why Rajiv Gandhi, after shaking hands with me, did not after all share my table.

  Chandra Shekhar’s brief period of 40 days in power was the most corrupt in the history of India. I was sorry to see the sharp decline of an individual who had once been a ‘young Turk’ in the Congress and the president of the Janata Party. For Rajiv Gandhi he served the purpose of filling in a blank. Once the Congress felt that its election prospects had improved, it withdrew support from him on the trumped-up charge that Rajiv Gandhi was being shadowed by the CID.

  16

  Narasimha Rao’s Government

  Economic Reforms, Yasin Malik and the Kashmir Question, the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi Imbroglio, Of Communal Riots and Inquiry Commission Reports, and the Rise of Sonia Gandhi

  The election commission announced fresh elections in 1991 because no party was in a position to form a government. The Congress had the largest number of seats in the Lok Sabha, as many as 232 in a House of 545, but was short of a clear majority. Despite the fact that the Congress had gained from the sympathy wave, there was a very low voter turnout. The nation was halfway through the elections when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on 21 May 1991. Emotional Chief Election Commissioner T.N. Sheshan halted further polling for a few days. This helped the Congress party, which won more seats in the second phase than in the first. In a way, Rajiv’s assassination was responsible for the return of the Congress at the Centre.

  Political turmoil apart, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s government faced a financial crisis. Foreign reserves had dwindled to a level required to pay for the import of petroleum products for a fortnight. Thanks to the fiscal profligacy of the Chandra Shekhar government, the Rao government was even obliged to send 47 tons of gold to the Bank of England as collateral for a loan. It was also forced to take a loan of $1.4 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to restructure the Indian economy. It was humiliating for the nation but then the British wanted their pound of flesh.

  Rao inducted Dr Manmohan Singh, former governor of the Reserve Bank, into his cabinet as finance minister to deal with the acute financial crisis. It was comrade Harkishan Singh Surjeet who had suggested the name of Manmohan Singh. The latter succeeded in the extremely difficult task of moving the Indian economy towards an integrated programme for economic reforms. Rather than being defensive, he went on the offensive. He opened his budget speech more than twenty years ago (24 July 1991) by quoting Victor Hugo: ‘No power on Earth can stop an idea whose turn has come.’

  He dispensed with the license-quota raj and gave a free hand to the corporate sector. The rupee was devalued by 20 per cent. He opened the door wide to foreign investors, permitting investment in fields that India had jealously guarded and reserved for domestic entrepreneurs. Export subsidies were abolished, tariffs lowered, and the expansion of the public sector was put on hold.

  The effect of these measures was that the growth-rate grew substantially, a phenomenon not witnessed earlier. The prime minister, together with Manmohan Singh, thoroughly reviewed the economic liberalization programme, its overall results, and the benefits that could accrue to the people from it. They concluded that globalization was inevitable and Nehru’s vision for a socialistic pattern of society was pushed aside in favour of unadulterated capitalism.

  We (some anti-globalization elements) founded a group with Ramesh Chauhan, a big name in the mineral water business, to oppose the economic reforms. We would meet every week at Chauhan’s house where his charming wife, Zainab, fed us. The entire effort came to nought when Ramesh saw that he was safer with the corporate sector than us, Left-inclined individuals. He wound up the group overnight without consulting any of us.

  The Narasimha Rao government was, however, completely discredited by scandals implicating the prime minister in acceptance of bribes, and the unprecedented ‘hawala case’. There is sufficient evidence now to prove that Rao personally accepted a suitcase-full of currency notes. Records relating to his appointments and to the visitors’ reception at the enquiry office at his house were fudged to show that Lakhubhai Pathak, who had claimed to have given him a suitcase-full of currency notes, never met him or visited the PM’s official residence. Karnataka governor H.R. Bharadwaj admitted before me that altering register, etc was not a difficult task. ‘Nobody seeks my advice these days, otherwise the 2G or CWG scam could have been managed,’ Bharadwaj said.

  My contact with Narasimha Rao during his tenure as the prime minister was very limited. He however kept tabs on me. Once I complained to him that intelligence men were tailing me. After attending a dinner at the British counsellor’s house two persons in khaki came to my house to inquire about the purpose of my visit. The reply came from the cabinet secretary who said that they had made inquiries and had found no substance to my complaint.

  I used to frequently meet Narasimha Rao when he was chief minister of Andhra Pradesh (1971–73). At the time of his leaving the state for Delhi, I told him that he should bear in mind what had happened to Sanjiva Reddy who had faced a hard time at the hands of Indira Gandhi.

  Rao, however, ensured that during his tenure Sonia Gandhi made no approaches to the Congress which he indirectly controlled. She was undoubtedly hyphenating at the time but was also waiting for an opportunity to be offered the post of party president without even having to ask for it.

  To the disappointment of his pro-socialist followers, Rao pushed for the economic reforms that Rajiv Gandhi had initiated on a small scale. Rao wanted to go full speed ahead and Manmohan Singh, well-versed in this economic paradigm, had ceased to be idealistic and needed no convincing.

  Rao was not punctilious in his behaviour and was, as we have seen, even guilty of accepting money for making business transactions ‘easy’ for individuals and the corporate sector. He would often remark that he did not do anything against his conscience but convinced it to act as the situation demanded.

  Rao bribed four MPs from the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) to save his government and was the first Indian prime minister to be convicted in a criminal case. CBI Special Judge Ajit Bharihoke found him and former Home Minister Buta Singh guilty in 2001. However, in March 2002, the Delhi High Court acquitted both Rao and Buta Singh, much to the shock of the public.

  When Rao was in office, he approached me to persuade Yasin Malik, originally a militant in Kashmir, to break his fast unto death. The IB officials called me to the AIIMS where he was fasting. His demand was that the government should withdraw security forces from Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar.

  I felt that Malik’s demand for an inquiry was just and that it showed his lack of confidence in the government machinery. I asked him why he had no confidence in Indians. He said he had faith in me [aap ki zaat mein mujhe yakin hai]. I assured him that I would try to get the security forces to vacate the shrine. Rao told state minister for home affairs Rajesh Pilot to follow my advice. A few militants had holed up in Hazratbal shrine. The security forces had surrounded the site and the people of the entire Valley wanted the militants to be allowed safe passage out of the shrine. I was able to persuade the government to withdraw the security forces to so
me distance and an entire day was spent on the wording of the settlement. I frequently shuttled between Pilot’s house and the AIIMS to arrive at a concurrence between the government and Malik.

  For the first time I felt that the government’s right hand did not know what the left was doing. By the time I reached the AIIMS after obtaining the government’s approval on the draft settlement, the doctors were all set to force-feed Malik. He had been tied and one doctor was able to force a tablespoon down his throat. I told the doctors about the settlement. An IB man checked with his officers and only then did the ordeal end. The militants were allowed to escape during the night.

  My contact with Malik became intimate and I told him about the futility of using arms which killed but did not convince anyone about his stand on Kashmir. Somewhere I think I was able to touch a chord by what I told him. He gave up violence, became vegetarian, and also had Mahatma Gandhi’s photograph hung on the wall of his room. He even convinced the Hurriyat, a body of several organizations fighting for Kashmir’s azadi to stop confronting the security forces with violence. The violence currently being undertaken in the Valley is not by the Hurriyat but largely by militants from across the border. Rao once said that the ‘sky was the limit’ in Kashmir if it remained within India. This was a welcome statement but he did nothing to implement it, becoming too engrossed in the events in Ayodhya where Babri Masjid stood.

  Rao’s government will always be held responsible for the demolition of Babri Masjid. The curious thing was that he was conscious of such an eventuality but did virtually nothing to avert it. Once he invited senior journalists to acquaint them with the efforts his government was making to reach a settlement. I asked him which stage they had reached. ‘Somewhere,’ he said in reply, but there was no serious edge to his voice.

  Soon after I witnessed the gathering of the storm, with thousands of kar sevaks descending upon Ayodhya and the RSS and the BJP leaders converging on the city. Kalyan Singh was the state chief minister heading a BJP government. The statements he made indicated that he had no intention of protecting Babri Masjid, although the Supreme Court had ordered him to maintain the status quo and his government had given it an undertaking that it would do so.