'Both were the same'
A conversation with Dr Kalam :
by Kuldip Nayar
Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who has just concluded his term as Indian
President, did not find "any difference" between the previous government
run by Atal Behari Vajpayee and the present one headed by Dr Manmohan
Singh.
Kalam was elected President when the BJP had only two years of its
five-year tenure left. He left office when the Congress had completed
more than three years in power. Even my repeated assertion that the two
governments must have differed in some way or the other elicited a smile
and a cryptic remark: "Both were the same."
But his dislike for coalitions was unequivocal. "They impede
development," he said. The government had to cater to different parties.
There were pressures which required accommodation within the space
available. I was not surprised to hear his views, because he had
publicly stated that he was in favour of a two-party system. His
reasoning was that thus the democratic system would be better served.
I have met all Indian Presidents from 1950 when India became a
republic. Among all of them, Dr Rajendra Prasad, our first President,
and Dr Kalam endeared themselves to the masses most. Both had the
deportment and the temperament which appealed to the people. I have
always regretted not being able to interview Rajendra Prasad. However, I
was able to talk to Dr Kalam a few days before his term got over.
Kalam was forthright when it came to his duties as head of state. "I
have seen to it that the Constitution is respected both in letter and
spirit," he said. He gave two examples: One, of returning the Office of
Profit Bill to the Manmohan Singh government and, two, of seeking a
reply from the Vajpayee government to a memorandum of complaints that
some eminent citizens had submitted to him enlisting some government
steps that violated fundamental rights.
I asked about the report that has been circulating and which has been
nagging me for some time, that he had asked Mrs Sonia Gandhi about her
Italian citizenship when she met him after the 2004 general election.
Kalam vehemently denied doing so.
He said that he never expressed any reservation whatsoever on her
becoming Prime Minister. She met him twice, he said, once, when she
informed him that the UPA-Left combine had a majority in the Lok Sabha,
and the second time when she brought Dr Manmohan Singh with her to
convey to him that the latter would head the UPA government.
The President was keen to explain how he had converted Rashtrapati
Bhavan into a People's Bhavan. He had invited thousands and thousands of
ordinary civil servants, students and children to Rashtrapati Bhavan and
had specially laid out a garden for the handicapped.
He had demystified the awe-inspiring Rashtrapati Bhavan, once the
Viceroy House, and brought it to the level where the common man could
frequent it. But my effort was to divert the conversation to something
newsy, to something which he had not mentioned earlier.
News was that way different, more negative than positive. He realised
what I was doing and we battled for 45 minutes, with me wanting to
extract from him some secret and he trying to project the India of his
vision.
Did he expect the Indo-US nuclear deal to go through? He did not
reply in terms of "yes" or "no." Instead, he said that our real problem
was uranium which was rare in India. "We should be developing thorium,
which is available in plenty, as a fuel."
He diverted the conversation to the explosion of the bomb and
congratulated the then government for that. The bomb, he said, had given
an impetus to growth all over.
"Everything began developing, industrial and other fields after
that." Kalam was so transparent and so impressive that I wish the
political parties had agreed to give him a second term. He said he had
indicated that he was "available" if there was consensus. But his
"remark was misunderstood" in some quarters, he complained.
I recall how a couple of Union ministers and the Congress
spokesperson had criticised him, it was as if he had thrown his hat into
the ring. Their comments against a serving President were unfortunate,
to say the least.
Recalling his travels within the country and abroad, the President
said, "I have addressed seven Parliaments in foreign countries and 17
Assemblies within India to put across my vision that the country would
be a developed nation by 2020." He said that while addressing the
European Parliament he told them that the "world over, poverty,
illiteracy, unemployment and deprivation are driving forward the forces
of anger and violence.
These forces link themselves to some earlier real or perceived
historical enmities. Tyrannies, injustice, inequities, ethnic issues and
religious fundamentalism are flowing into an outburst of extremism
worldwide." In a way, he was commenting on the attacks by the
fundamentalists in Glasgow, Islamabad and elsewhere.
Why did he not visit neighbouring countries? "I had invitations from
Pakistan and Sri Lanka," was all he said. He did not want to elaborate
on the subject. The President's foreign trips must have the approval of
the government. Zail Singh's trip to Kenya was cancelled by the Rajiv
Gandhi government one day before the President's departure.
What were his thoughts about retirement? "I am going to pursue Vision
2020, that India should by then be a developed state in the world." The
country would overcome poverty and backwardness.
His criterion to assess development was: "A National Prosperity Index
(NPI), which is the summation of (a) annual growth rate of GDP; plus (b)
improvement in the quality of the life of the people, particularly
living below poverty line; plus (c) the adoption of a value system
derived from our civilisational heritage in every walk of life which is
unique to India.".
The President's passion for India was overflowing. He wanted everyone
to think of the country first and everything else later. In his view,
all was secondary to national interest.
Where did he place religion? I asked. "Religion comes later. The
country comes first." This was his reply to the fundamentalists who say
Ummah is above the country.
I think India will miss his presence at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. But
then he is going to live in New Delhi and pursue his vision. He plans to
travel four days a week. Sure, this will keep him busy, including the
chancellorship of Nalanda University which will specialise in Buddhist
studies.
What struck me as I shook hands with him to say goodbye were his
humility and childlike innocence.
As I left his study, I saw on the wall a photograph of Subramania
Bharati, a Tamil poet who too had faith in the greatness of India and
who too believed that India would some day revolutionise the world's
thought process.
The Asian Age,India
|