‘Modi has to go’: After witnessing Gujarat genocide, Vajpayee wanted then CM to step down

coastaldigest.com web desk
August 16, 2018

A biography of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who passed away on August 16, 2018, looks at the hardline roots behind his liberal image. Ullekh NP’s The Untold Vajpayee: Politician and Paradox, (published by Penguin Books India) which was released on December 25, 2016 to mark Vajpayee’s 92nd birthday, looks at his relationship with leaders of his party and his love–hate association with the RSS and its feeder organisations. 

The following paragraphs are the extracts from the same biography. 

***

On 27 February 2002, a group of people from a Muslim populated area of Godhra had set fire to a few bogies of a train — the Sabarmati Express — which carried pilgrims from Ayodhya, a town considered holy by the Hindus. Massive riots broke out, mostly targeting Muslims, for nearly a week.

All the killing and pillaging in Gujarat had given Vajpayee a bad name, the more so because Gujarat had a BJP government in place, with a chief minister who had reportedly not risen enough to the occasion to rein in the violence. Vajpayee was blamed for his failure as PM to get rid of Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who reportedly shouted back at a Muslim leader on the phone for seeking help after a mob had gathered outside his house. Some hours later, the Muslim leader was lynched, and Modi is alleged to have asked the police forces to let the violence continue. At that moment, Modi seemed to be the villain who brought a lot of shame to the central government.

Modi had also dared to publicly snub Vajpayee at a press conference where he was seated alongside the prime minister. The reporter wanted to know Vajpayee’s message for the chief minister in the wake of the riots. In controlled displeasure, Vajpayee stated that Modi should ‘follow his Rajdharma’. He explained that Rajdharma was a meaningful term, and for somebody in a position of power, it meant not discriminating among the higher and lower classes of society or people of any religion. In a bid to stop Vajpayee from saying something scathing about him, Modi turned towards Vajpayee, tried to catch his eye and said with a strong note of threatening defiance, ‘Hum bhi wahi kar rahe hain, sahib (That is what we are also doing, sir).’ Vajpayee immediately changed tack and said, ‘I am sure Narendrabhai is also doing the same.’

Three days before his foreign tour in April, when Vajpayee visited the Shah Alam camp in Ahmedabad, which housed 9,000 Muslims displaced by the riots, he was deeply touched when a woman told him that he alone could save them from the hell that their lives had become. Now, on the flight to Singapore, Vajpayee was worried he would expose himself to more humiliation while outside the country. His grouse was: why am I being paraded abroad at such a time?

Shourie suggested that the PM speak to Advani, who had by now become the deputy prime minister, about the possibilities of salvaging the situation — it could even mean replacing Modi. But even after the ‘pep talk’ with Shourie, Vajpayee appeared cheerless. He told Shourie that he would speak to Advani about it.

They reached Singapore; there were no meetings scheduled for the first day. The next day there were several engagements, including ceremonial visits to dignitaries, which included the former ruler Lee Kuan Yew. The Gujarat issue came up in an interview on the third and final day of their stay in Singapore. The journalist who interviewed Vajpayee first stated that Singaporeans were wary of communal disturbances, clearly indicating that he was referring to the recent riots in Gujarat, under the BJP rule. Then he shot off his question:

‘And in India such disturbances have happened not once, but several times. In this regard what can Singapore learn from India’s experience and what can you share?’

Vajpayee paused and rubbed his forehead... before answering, betraying a level of discomfiture in answering questions related to the Gujarat riots. Then, weighing his words, he said, ‘Whatever happened in India was very unfortunate. The riots have been brought under control. If at the Godhra station, the passengers of the Sabarmati Express had not been burnt alive, then perhaps the Gujarat tragedy could have been averted. It is clear there was some conspiracy behind this incident. It is also a matter of concern that there was no prior intelligence available on this conspiracy. Alertness is essential in a democracy. We have been cautious. And if one does not ignore even small incidents like one used to in the past, then one will certainly be successful in fighting terrorism.’ Clearly, he was on the defensive, and the issue worried him no end.

*

Before the delegation left for Cambodia that day, Shourie asked Vajpayee whether he had a chat with Advani. The prime minister looked distraught, but answered that he had not yet had a word on the matter with Advani, Modi’s mentor.

On the same day, 9 April, Vajpayee met the Cambodian prime minister, Hun Sen, and other officials. He also made ceremonial speeches at Phnom Penh. Over the next two days, the prime minister signed various pacts with his Cambodian counterpart, and announced that India would offer 10,000 tonnes of rice for distribution among the people of Cambodia, especially among the flood-hit. He also visited the famous Angkor Wat temple, where Shourie again found Vajpayee to be distracted and lost in thought. He asked Vajpayee again if he had spoken with Advani, and he answered in the negative. The Indian delegation led by Vajpayee returned on 11 April. The next day, senior BJP leaders were to attend a national executive meet in Goa.

Shourie went home and took a shower. He was reading a book when he got a call from Brajesh Mishra asking if he had booked tickets to Goa. Shourie said he had. ‘Please cancel them. You are going with the PM and the deputy PM in the PM’s aircraft,’ Mishra said, emphasising that if he didn’t go, both Vajpayee and Advani would not talk if they were left alone in a plane.

When Shourie boarded the plane, Vajpayee was already there, seated next to the window, and facing him, across a table, on a window seat was Advani. The external affairs minister, Jaswant Singh, was also there.

The plane took off and after a few minutes, Vajpayee took a newspaper from the table in front of him and opened it so widely that he didn’t have to face Advani at all. A little while later, Advani also picked up a newspaper and began to read. Shourie and Singh looked at each other and sighed.

Then Shourie surprised himself. He pulled the newspaper out of Vajpayee’s hands and interjected, ‘Vajpayeeji, newspapers can be read later also. Why don’t you tell Advaniji what you wanted to tell him?’ Vajpayee kept the newspapers away, and muttered in his usual style about what had to be done. First, Venkaiah Naidu would replace Jana Krishnamurthi as BJP president. Then he said, ‘Modi has to go.’ By the time they landed in Goa, the decision was taken: Modi would go.

*

Eight months earlier, in late September 2001, amid massive political infighting, it was decided that Modi would replace Keshubhai Patel as chief minister of Gujarat.

On 1 October, Vajpayee asked Modi to meet him in Delhi, where Modi had lived for the previous three years. Modi had put on weight from the last time they had met. Vajpayee joked about too much ‘Punjabi food’ and then got to business. Modi had to go to Gujarat as CM to prepare the state for the next elections due in 2002, Vajpayee said. Modi’s immediate answer was a ‘no’.

Vajpayee insisted, because the Keshubhai Patel administration had incurred public wrath over not doing enough for the people of the state after the 2001 earthquake. Some members of the government were in cahoots with unscrupulous builders indulging in shoddy construction. Some of them enjoyed Patel’s patronage.

Modi told Vajpayee that since he had been away in Delhi as the general secretary in charge of several states, he had been out of touch with local politics. Even so, he agreed to spend ten days a month in the state. However, a short while later, Modi agreed to accept the CM’s position after being convinced by his mentor Advani to do so. Advani knew about Modi’s lack of administrative experience, but was very fond of him. Finally, Modi was sworn in as chief minister of Gujarati on 7 October 2001.

*

At Panjim in April 2002, the national executive meet began, and a short while later, Modi took to the dais and said he would like to step down as chief minister over the riots. Immediately, people from several sides got up and said there was no need to do so. Whether it was orchestrated or not, Shourie wasn’t sure. But, according to him, Vajpayee felt that it was a coup.

Sensing that things were not going as planned, Shourie got up and described what had gone on between Advani and Vajpayee on the plane and the agreement they had reached thereafter. But shouts kept emerging from the delegates: ‘It cannot be done! Modi cannot be allowed to go!’ Vajpayee immediately understood the situation, and said, ‘Let’s decide on it later.’ ‘It can’t be decided later, it has to be decided now,’ somebody shouted. And as if on cue, it became a slogan.

Shourie observed that Advani hadn’t said anything though he knew very well that Vajpayee wanted Modi out. Seeing things take a different turn, Vajpayee kept mum, opting against a confrontational stance. Perhaps, for all his bravery, he was worried about younger leaders publicly questioning his authority. He would never forget that humiliation.

Comments

Being Pragmati…
 - 
Friday, 17 Aug 2018

And rest is history!!! Advaniji was silent in that meeting & is also now. But the two silences has a world of difference!!

 

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
February 29,2020

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 23,2020

Udupi, Feb 23: Tanushree Pithrody, a 10-year-old girl from Udyavar and class 6 student of St Cecily’s School, here and a Guinness World Record holder, erased the old record by covering the 100 metres 'Chakrasana race' in one minute 14 seconds to write her name in the Golden Book of World Records.

This was announced by Manish Bishnoi, Head, Golden Book of World Records, who handed over the Certificate to Ms Tanushree, who was accompanied by her father Uday Kumar and mother Sandhya here on Saturday.

The previous record-holder in this category was Samiksha Dogra [11 years and 1 month] from Rampur Bhushar, Himachal Pradesh, who had set a time of 6 minutes and 2 seconds on June14,2018.

Later speaking to scribes here, Ms Tanushree said that she was delighted that she was able to break the record. “When I was practicing, I used to finish it in around 2 minutes. This is my fifth record. I dedicate my success to my parents and my Yoga guru,”she added.

Ms Tanushree has also created a record for the ‘most forward rolls with Dhanurasana Yoga pose in 1 minute’ by performing 62 rolls and she also created the ‘fastest 100 forward rolls with Dhanurasana Yoga pose’ in 1 minute and 40 seconds on February 23, 2019 and entered the Golden Book of World Records.

In 2018, she set the Guinness World Record for ‘most full-body revolutions maintaining a chest stand position’ with 42 full-body revolutions in one minute, and on 21 March, 2019 she broke that record with 44.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 8,2020

Tumakuru, Jan 8: RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat stoked controversy on Wednesday by stating that 'Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is full of traitors'.

He was addressing the media after taking part in a pro-CAA rally organised by National Citizens Forum near the office of the deputy commissioner of the district here.

Bhat said, “JNU is full of traitors. Congress and communist parties have been generating anti-nationals there. But there is no need to close the university down. Modi government will handle it.”

“Nationalism should be infused among the students there through love and trust. They should be made to realize what the truth is,” he said.

Comments

Ahmed Ali Kulai
 - 
Thursday, 9 Jan 2020

What about in your school ????

 

You are preaching what?????

 

 

Fairman
 - 
Wednesday, 8 Jan 2020

Unfortunate, still he has poor followers to believe him.

He is safe at home and sacrifiers are poor boys who blindly believe and obey him.

 

This guy is sick and irriversible.

God will reward him so that his followers believe his exploiting orders.

 

 

 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.