‘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.
News Network
March 19,2020

New Delhi, Mar 19: Senior Congress leader Oscar Fernandes on Wednesday extolled the virtues of 'gaumutra' and shared an anecdote about a man claiming to have cured his cancer by drinking cow urine to drive his point home.

Participating in a debate in Rajya Sabha on two bills for setting up national commissions for homoeopathy and Indian systems of medicine, the former Union minister said, "My extreme friend Jairam Ramesh pulls my leg, when I talk of 'gaumutra'."

Sharing an anecdote, Fernandes said once during a visit to an ashram near Meerut he had met a person who claimed to have cured his cancer by drinking 'gaumutra'.

Many BJP leaders have earlier spoken about the healing power of 'gaumutra'. The Congress has reacted sharply to such remarks.

He also praised the virtues of the Indian systems of medicine. He said when he had severe pain in knee joint and doctors had suggested for replacement surgery. However, he refused and started doing 'Vajrasana'.

"I started Vajrasana, practising yoga, and today I am able to do wrestling without any difficulty," the septuagenarian leader said.

"When (former) prime minister (Atal Bihari) Vajypee ji had a knee surgery, I thought if I had known him earlier, I would have definitely gone to him and ask him to follow 'Vajrasan' and it could have been cured," he said.

He also claimed to have met a person in US aged around 104 years and moving swiftly as a young man.

"Yoga is our wealth. If you practise yoga, may be our budget cost of health can be reduced by 50 per cent. It's way of life," he said.

"Our own Indian systems of medicine will provide a lot of reliefs even before going to a doctor," he said.

Though Fernandes supported the bills but raised objection over the exclusion of yoga and naturopathy.

"I would urge the minister either to amend the bill or bring an assurance that it will bring a separate legislation to cover yoga and naturopathy," he said.

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
April 5,2020

Bengaluru, Apr 5: The COVID-19 related lockdown has substantially improved the air quality of Bengaluru, taking it from satisfactory level to good, a senior state pollution control board offcial said here on Sunday.

"During the course of the lockdown 19 problem, we reached good position from satisfactory.

It is between zero to 50 AQI (Air Quality Index) now. We have good quality air," the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board member secretary Basavaraj Patil told PTI.

He said the indicator for knowing the air quality in

"If the AQI is zero to 50 then it is good. If it is 50 to 100 then it is satisfactory. 101 to 150 is moderate and if it is 151 to 200, then it is poor, he explained.

Patil said as per available recrods, there has been a 60 to 65 per cent reduction in pollution during the lockdown.

The city railway station and Peenya industrial area, which used to be among the areas with highest AQI, has seen pollution levels come down significantly, he said.

Another major contributor of pollution was construction activities, which too had ground to a halt due to the lockdown, resulting in zero dust emission.

Patil opined that the improved air quality would boost the immune system of the people.

"It will improve the immune system of people, including those who have breathing problems like asthma," he said.

He asked the public to learn lessons from the lockdown and later switch to sustainable means of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling,.

"We can still reduce the pollution load even after the lockdown is over," Patil said.

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.
Ram Puniyani
February 22,2020

This January 2020, it is thirty years since the Kashmiri Pundits’ exodus from the Kashmir valley took place. They had suffered grave injustices, violence and humiliation prior to the migration away from the place of their social and cultural roots in Kashmir Valley. The phenomenon of this exodus had been due to the communalization of militancy in Kashmir in the decade of 1980s. While no ruling Government has applied itself enough to ‘solve’ this uprooting of pundits from their roots, there are communal elements who have been aggressively using ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’, every time liberal, human rights defenders talk about the plight of Muslim minority in India. This minority is now facing an overall erosion of their citizenship rights.

Time and over again in the aftermath of communal violence in particular, the human rights groups have been trying to put forward the demands for justice and rehabilitation of the victim minority. Instead of being listened to those particularly from Hindu nationalist combine, as a matter of routine shout back, where were you when Kashmiri Pundits were driven away from the Valley? In a way the tragedy being heaped on one minority is being justified in the name of suffering of Pundits and in the process violence is being normalized. This sounds as if two wrongs make a right, as if the suffering Muslim minority or those who are trying to talk in defense of minority rights have been responsible for the pain of Kashmiri Pundits.

During these three, many political formations have come to power, including BJP, Congress, third front and what have you. To begin with when the exodus took place Kashmir was under President’s rule and V. P. Singh Government was in power at the center. This Government had the external support of BJP at that time. Later BJP led NDA came to power for close to six years from 1998, under the leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Then from 2014 it is BJP, with Narerda Modi as PM, with BJP brute majority is in power. Other components of NDA are there to enjoy some spoils of power without any say in the policies being pursued by the Government. Modi is having absolute power with Amit Shah occasionally presenting Modi’s viewpoints.

Those blurting, ‘what about Kashmiri Pundits?’ are using it as a mere rhetoric to hide their communal color. The matters of Kashmir are very disturbing and cannot be attributed to be the making of Indian Muslims as it is being projected in an overt and subtle manner. Today, of course the steps taken by the Modi Government, that of abrogation of Article 370, abolition of clause 35 A, downgrading the status of Kashmir from a state to union territory have created a situation where the return of Kashmiri Pundits may have become more difficult, as the local atmosphere is more stifling and the leaders with democratic potential have been slapped with Public Safety Act, where they can be interned for long time without any answerability to the Courts. The internet had been suspended, communication being stifled in an atmosphere where democratic freedoms are curtailed which makes solution of any problem more difficult.

Kashmir has been a vexed issue where the suppression of the clause of autonomy, leading to alienation led to rise of militancy. This was duly supported by Pakistan. The entry of Al Qaeda elements, who having played their role against Russian army in 1980s entered into Kashmir and communalized the situation in Kashmir. The initial Kashmir militancy was on the grounds of Kashmiriyat. Kashmiriyat is not Islam, it is synthesis of teachings of Buddha, values of Vedant and preaching’s of Sufi Islam. The tormenting of Kashmiri Pundits begins with these elements entering Kashmir.

Also the pundits, who have been the integral part of Kashmir Valley, were urged upon by Goodwill mission to stay on, with local Muslims promising to counter the anti Pundit atmosphere. Jagmohan, the Governor, who later became a minister in NDA Government, instead of providing security to the Pundits thought, is fit to provide facilities for their mass migration. He could have intensified counter militancy and protected the vulnerable Pundit community. Why this was not done?

Today, ‘What about Kashmiri Pundits?’ needs to be given a serious thought away from the blame game or using it as a hammer to beat the ‘Muslims of India’ or human rights defenders? The previous NDA regime (2014) had thought of setting up enclosures of Pundits in the Valley. Is that a solution? Solution lies in giving justice to them. There is a need for judicial commission to identify the culprits and legal measures to reassure the Pundit community. Will they like to return if the high handed stifling atmosphere, with large number of military being present in the area? The cultural and religious spaces of Pundits need to be revived and Kashmiryat has to be made the base of any reconciliation process.

Surely, the Al Qaeda type elements do not represent the alienation of local Kashmiris, who need to be drawn into the process of dialogue for a peaceful Kashmir, which is the best guarantee for progress in this ex-state, now a Union territory. Communal amity, the hallmark of Kashmir cannot be brought in by changing the demographic composition by settling outsiders in the Valley. A true introspection is needed for this troubled area. Democracy is the only path for solving the emigration of Pundits and also of large numbers of Muslims, who also had to leave the valley due to the intimidating militancy and presence of armed forces in large numbers. One recalls Times of India report of 5th February 1992 which states that militants killed 1585 people from January 1990 to October 1992 out of which 982 were Muslims and 218 Hindus.

We have been taking a path where democratic norms are being stifled, and the promises of autonomy which were part of treaty of accession being ignored. Can it solve the problem of Pundits?

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.