Former VP Hamid Ansari: 'If you can have Victoria Memorial, what's wrong with Jinnah portrait?'

You write that on your last day as chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, the day when thanks were being given, the PM referred to you as a diplomat who had worked in Muslim lands and worked for minorities. Serious commentators said this was a "departure from established practice." Did you feel hurt at this, at the way sections of the establishment have viewed you primarily by your religious identity, as a Muslim?

Not hurt but there was certainly a concern because if this is the way perceptions are going to evolve then it would not be the India in which I grew up and the India in which I spent 40 years in the service of the Indian state.

You were severely criticised for attending a PFI function…

It was not a PFI function. I invited by a think tank in Delhi. The venue was Calicut. The state government followed the drill that they do with a former Vice President, I was welcomed. I did not know that this think tank in Delhi had an institutional arrangement with a body called PFI. I didn't know about, nor did the local officials, including the local police chief tell me anything about it. At the function I spoke about the problems of women and I made the point that as far as Islamic faith is concerned, it enjoins men and women equally with rights and duties. Arabic is a language in which gender differentiation is very evident. He /she are clearly mentioned and it clear they equal rights, no differentiation at all.

It is a social practice and tradition has introduced differentiations which are responsible for socio-economic and educational backwardness of women. This was the sum and substance of my speech. I came back to Delhi. The next day I saw in the papers that I had gone to some kind of body which was on the wrong side of the law. I knew nothing about it. I didn't know what the local politics of that organisation or the politics of Kerala was, nobody told me. You see, there is a practice. If there's an apprehension the state government itself tells you, the practice is that they tell you if they have reservations. In this case the state government didn't say anything. They accorded me with necessary honours.

Is this the way Muslim citizens are demonised, are Muslims fearful?

Muslims are concerned. There is a sense of unease among religious minorities and this is something that has to be addressed.

Who should address it, the PM?

I am nobody to tell the PM what he should say or what he should not say. But the situation in the land is in public domain. If people are tarnished for this reason or that, it is a matter of concern. As a citizen, irrespective of my name, my state of origin, my faith , my food habits, I have the same rights and same duties as anybody else. I can't be deprived of it. The law makes me an equal citizen of India. Muslim citizen of India is still a citizen of India. Indian Muslims are the second largest community of the religion in the world after Indonesia. On occasion Muslims are fearful and under siege. But it's not that everybody feels that way, that would be an exaggeration. But there have been incidents that have been commented on within and outside the country. You can't deny facts.

Do you agree with Amartya Sen that the 'Idea of India' is under threat?

Yes, absolutely. The 'Idea of India' is under stress. Because, the idea of India is its inclusiveness. The idea of India is a plural society. The plural society was not created by law. But the plural society was an existential fact, on the basis of which the legal and constitutional superstructure was erected. If you try to deny that or subtract from it we are eating at the very core of the idea of India. Why did we give ourselves the constitutional structure that we gave in year ending 1949? They were wise experienced people, they knew Indian society very well, if they created this kind of structure they meant it. And we practised it all this while. Occasional derogations was always there, people can have a quarrel but 2 people having a quarrel doesn't become a communal quarrel unless there is an organisation interested in making it a communal quarrel.

Obviously someone is interested in exploiting quarrels for an ulterior purpose. This is what is happening. There is what I call "Executive under-reach," which I have borrowed from Fali Nariman. The average police officer is not discharging his duties in certain situations because rightly or wrongly he looks over his shoulder.

At who? At someone giving him permission from the top?

If not permission, certainly some form of a nod is being given, call it encouragement, call it a yes-you-can–go-ahead I shall not look very hard at it is coming from the system. I don't know where the apex of the system is.

You talk of the present form of 'nationalism'.

What are the values we have given ourselves and what is the institutional structure we have created to implement those values? The question I ask in the title is, `Dare I question.' As a citizen I have a right to ask questions if I find that objectives are not being achieved. What does it mean to be Indian? Is it my height? The colour or texture of my face? My language ? How do you draw lines in this country? The linguistic survey gives you several languages, the constitutional lists 22 languages, diversity stares you in the face. You have to make the circle as big as possible. If you make the circle spacious, everybody gets into it. Decrease the circle some are in some are out. The the traditional Indian practice starting from every village community to national capital, is to make the circle big, as big as possible.

Nationalism is being made into obedience to government?

Its not just obedience. The philosophy of nationalism which is being purveyed goes against my basic understanding of what is India and Indian nationalism. Sometimes asking questions is becoming dangerous. I am a citizen, I have a constitutional structure. If that structure is not delivering as per the norms laid down, then I am entitled to ask why is it not delivering, just as you ask the municipality why streets are not being swept or electricity board why you are not getting electricity. Citizens must ask.

As a former VC of AMU what did you feel about the Jinnah portrait row?

Its an old tradition in the students union there to honour public personalities. The first person to be honoured was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Whoever is honoured, their portrait is put up. Prime Ministers, Morarji Desai, Mother Teresa, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, all have been honoured and those portraits are put up in a portrait gallery. Jinnah was honoured there and that's why his portrait was there. Jinnah went there long before he became a propounder of any ideology. He was there around 1938. What is wrong if the portrait is there? If Victoria Memorial is there, whats wrong with Jinnah's portrait? There are stone tablets on which British viceroys who have propounded the view of educational establishments, are you going to bring down buildings to take out stone tablets? We don't do that in this country. If Victoria Memorial exists it exists, very few people would know why Victoria Memorial was built, this is not our tradition . There are High Court buildings with portraits of British chief justices. Somebody told me there's a portrait of Jinnah inside Bombay high court. I said I don't know, I've never been inside Bombay high court. These are silly things. Somebody across the border said we have portraits of Gandhi and Nehru. These are puerile things.

What do make of Shashi Tharoor's comment that if the BJP wins in 2019, India will become a Hindu Pakistan?

I think what Shashi meant is that one of the iconic figures of the ruling party had propounded that if they come to power one of things they would do was dismantling the constitutional structure and create a different kind of structure . Now if that is so then we would certainly not be the India that has existed since 1947 until date.

On the law banning instant Triple talaq: do communities need to be more open to change?

Absolutely. Triple talaq is totally unislamic but it has become a social evil. It has crept into customs. The core of the problem is patriarchy, which we don't want to address it as frontally as we should. But these are social practices you cannot reform them by administrative edict, you cannot. It will not be operative. Triple talaq is an evil but very few know that Muslim law permits a lady to demand divorce. She can walk up to a judge and say I want a divorce and it becomes operative then and there, no waiting period nothing.

I don't know why (the triple talaq law) it has been put in that form-the wisdom of parliament is the wisdom of parliament I can't be criticising it, I was there there until the other day. But the point is if you send the chap to jail where does wife or ex wife get her daily bread? Whatever the motivation, edicts from top can't outlaw certain things because it is unimplementable. What is the point of making a law which can't be implemented in good measure?

Are you worried that the institutional integrity of Parliament is being undermined?

Yes its effectiveness is being undermined. For this there is almost an arithmetical explanation. Parliament in the past used to meet for 100-110 days earlier. Today it meets barely for 60 days which means the time available in the best case scenario (if no adjournments nothing )is halved. Thus, law making, the responsibility of Parliament to seek accountability from members of the government, discussions of public interest and concern gets compressed into 50 per cent of the time. The number of days that the British parliament or American congress sits is much more than our parliament. The British parliament sits for 125-130 days, American Congress for more. If you don't have time you cannot do the job. If you hurry then you become slip shod. I give the blame to all political parties. I told successive Prime Ministers that Parliament needs to become calendar No. 1 of country then nobody can come up and say oh I have to hold elections .

But in 2011, you were accused by the Opposition of being partisan, during the Lok Pal bill debate?

I was pilloried but the Leader of Opposition finally accepted my view. You see Parliament is convened by the President on the advice of the government. The power to extend parliament lies with the government exercised through the President. That particular day, Parliament had been extended until December 29, the Bill was on the agenda for that day. Parliament was extended into the night. But as far as the chair is concerned, that was the last day. The chair does not have the authority to extend Parliament. Because if the chair gets that authority, the chair can also abridge parliament and then the chair becomes the government. The chair is not the government, the chair is only a referee in a hockey or soccer match. The charges against me were wrong, I had no power to extend Parliament. The government was not willing to do it. The government said pass it now. The Opposition said take our 70-80 amendments on board. There was no way those amendments could be debated within the time available. When Parliament re-convened they accepted that I was right.

What should India do in the Iran-America standoff?

As far as India is concerned, Iran is not only a source of energy, Iran is a geopolitical reality in our neighbourhood. It is the land power on the other side of Pakistan. On the other side of Afghanistan. Its power is there in the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, in Central Asia. Our relationship with Iran has always been a mixture of considerations. You see there is no access to Afghanistan. That's why we need the port of Chabahar in Iran, so that from there we get road access to Afghanistan. Road has been made, port is being implemented. We would benefit in two ways, access to Afghanistan and access to Iranian rail network in central Asia. So our relationship with Iran is of critical importance in spite of American pressure. Indian PMs down the years have been conscious of this.

Has India's stature in the region dipped?

There are certain areas of concern yes, particularly in the neighbourhood. Our neighborhood policy (not policy towards wider world) is seeing a bit of an impasse. There is total impasse with Pakistan. What do you do with a neighbour? You can chose your friends, you can't choose your neighbours. Neighbour is a fact of life. How do you live with a neighbour? War might look at attractive for some, but not so attractive actually given the destructive technologies now available. So what do you do?

You see, the first lesson in every textbook of diplomacy is "never stop talking." This principle is as old as Cardinal Richelieu. Continue talking. The more difficult the situation, the greater is the need to talk. India must resume talks with Pakistan. There's no other way. What else will you do? The fact that the NSAs are talking shows that the judgement is we have to talk, we will talk. Talks are the only way. Look at how Americans are talking to North Korea. Diplomats have to talk at all times. You can't wish your neighbours away. You can use instrumentalities at your beck and call to convince the other person that course of action he is pursuing is not productive. You can cajole, persuade, pressurize. But talk we must.

You speak with a sense of anguish

We all have multiple identities. Which identity I will prioritise is my personal choice. If I go to watch a hockey match or a cricket match, or eat this food or that, it is my choice. Yes there are concerns. Am proud of being an Indian whose faith is Islamic. India's contribution to Islam started more than a thousand years back. Its been a rich process of mutual enrichment.

There is a famous exchange of letters between the Shah Of Iran and Akbar. At that time the Shah was seen as bigoted, and Akbar wrote to him saying the main duty of a ruler is not to decide whether a man's faith is right or wrong but to dispense justice. Justice is key. And comprehensive justice not selective justice. Justice equality and fraternity are very important. Fraternity is critically important. How else will a person from Bengal and a person from Tamil Nadu find a sense of togetherness? Without fraternity, how will they? Why was it put there in the Constitution after all? Fraternity is in the Preamble.