Days of tall leaders and tall majorities over, BJP leader says.
NEW DELHI: Arun Jaitley, leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, speaks to Rakhee Bakshee of Rajya Sabha TV. Excerpts from the interview:
How does it feel on getting the honor of outstanding Parliamentarian this year?
There is a stage in life where you feel happy but they come in your normal stride; you don’t get particularly excited about these things.
What are the virtues of being a good parliamentarian?
Well, I think Parliamentary debating or speaking is different from what you speak out of the house. You cannot be the rabble rouser in the Parliament. You cannot decide what you will say depending on how much applause you will get. You have to punch it with serious arguments with substance. Good parliamentary speaking should never be excessively partisan.
Do you feel worried about the decline of dignity and maturity being witnessed in the House now?
I don’t share the view that there is a decline in Parliament now. The only disturbing thing in the Parliament is that proceedings get disturbed too frequently. You can use parliamentarian disturbance or disruption in the rarest of the rare cases as a mode of parliamentary communication. You are not being allowed to raise an issue, voice is being gaged and government is not agreeing to something. So, to make your presence felt, you may temporarily obstruct. But as I said it has to be the rarest of the rare case; that can be the only exemption that cannot be ruled out. But for that one fact when debates do take place and they take place quiet frequently. I am one of those, I am not cynical. I think Indian Parliamentary debating is exciting.
We just celebrated 60 years of Parliament, so how would you look at this democratic journey of Parliament?
Well, I have seen two basic changes. First change is that in the initial years, the whole emphasis was on the national unity, sovereignty. First 20-30 years, everyone was concerned. Now, I think those concerns have been fairly and squarely settled. Now regional aspirations are on the rise. Coalition governments are there. Coalition politics are there. Coalition is the reality now. Now we have moved on from sovereignty to federalism as representing a national aspiration. Therefore, you will find Tamil Nadu parties one day very active and UP parties active on another day. So these kind of regional issues also have a very fair amount of play.
Second, I think we started as a poor nation. We are now on the growth trajectory and therefore there is a lot of economics as far as Parliament is concerned. How to grow, how to grow expeditiously, how to have expedited growth rate. Today, you just cannot talk politics only, you must have fair idea of national security issues, foreign affairs etc.
Now proceedings are getting telecast live, so a number of politicians vie for attention…
This can lead to two situations. One it can lead to people indulging in sensationalism, so that you catch the eye. Other one has a more positive effect. The quality of your performance must move up. The kind of arguments you address, the propriety in your behavior, you turn off phrases, your expressions, so the kind of industry and hard work you put into it, must get into it. For instance, some people when they prepare they bear in mind that the rest of the electronic media is not going to spend one hour on your speech, is it may pick up three sentences.
Do you see a change?
I think the media gaze on what’s happening in Parliament has a positive advantage. Today when serious debates take place, you have 20 channels suspending their normal programs and switching over and telecasting debate in parliament. That itself is a tribute to Indian Parliament.
Secondly, I think most people in Indian parliament speak extempore. They have points written and they develop the arguments with the flow. But if you go to other countries including in England, you will find a large number of speakers just come and read the speeches. So that is far monotonous. Thirdly, the media gaze also has an impact that the people try to improve their performances, expressions, turn of phrases.
But media is also focusing on rising disruptions which is a matter of concern also. Do you think that BJP as the principal opposition party should try and engage more in dialogue, discussion, debates?
I think it is not fair to identify with one party or other. For instance, in this session we are through mid-session break, and there has hardly been any disturbance which has been caused by any of the major party. It’s been the regional parties and their issues which have really caused the disturbances. I think as I said earlier you can use disturbances and obstructionism as a weapon but in the rarest of rare cases. If it is used too frequently, it hurts Parliamentary debate. I for instance am of very strong opinion that it should be avoided as far as possible and my reason for avoiding it is that these days when you disturb even over a particular issue, your issue may get a one or two paragraph coverage in print media or may be one sentence reference in electronic media but if you use the same time for highlighting the same issue in terms of a debate and it is an interesting debate, the extent of reach through the media to your own constituents is going to be much higher. It pays to debate in Parliament. It does not pay to disrupt the parliament.
Corruption has been there and is going on which is a major concern. What is your take on the corruption issue?
I think corruption has undergone a change. In 1991, when we delicensed, we thought this will be an end to corruption because you will have a free market and the best will excel. But the areas of corruption changed. Now instead of licensing as in the pre-91 regime, municipality, land related, mining related, municipality permissions, environment related permissions, governmental discretions, allotment of natural resources are the areas where corruption has really increased. And my one sentence take is the moment you have a government replaced by a government of rules, where there is no discretion, I think you could probably reduce a large part of corruption.
What would be your model of government?
My conception of an ideal government is instead of allowing any discretions, you have strict regulations where the rules will be determined as to how permissions are to be granted. For instance, in terms of natural resources, let auction determine the market rates. I am not a great one for keeping discretions with the government. Because whichever party is in power, you will always have the kind of people who will abuse the discretions.
Will the Lokpal Bill be the answer?
Lokpal Bill will create an important overseer mechanism. It will create an Ombudsman. It will probably put the fear of redressal in the minds of people and therefore reduce the corruption. Because the level of accountability will increase. Will it completely eliminate it? I am still keeping my fingers crossed.
On the Italian marine issue, you used a Bond film dialogue which was reported also. You said that this is an enemy action, the third level actually. You said that diplomatic niceties should be avoided but diplomacy actually is the key. We cannot forget that.
You see, I think behind diplomacy, there is a threat of coercive actions. You know what happened to Mr. Quattrocchi, he disappeared and landed up in Italy. What happened to the helicopter deal? You have evidence there but our chaps came back empty handed and that is when I used the dialogue and said that third time they again do it, you give an undertaking to Indian Supreme Court then you disappear. Is it merely the threat of the Supreme Court? Probably it is? Is it only that? No. Is it the threat that India is going to take very serious actions in terms of future defense orders? Is India going to take coercive actions against the gentleman who gave the undertaking? Probably yes. So it is a combination of several factors.
In terms of foreign policy, don’t you think that everybody should come together in a strong unanimous voice?
We all should come together for the right cause. We cannot come together for a wrong cause. For instance, the Prime Minister of India says that we must talk to Pakistan irrespective of Pakistan stopping terrorism or not, then we certainly must not come together. Then we must oppose the government of India. If the Prime Minister of India says yes, till such time the Pakistan resorts to terrorism instrument of state policy, we are going to draw the redlines very squarely. Fair enough we all must speak in one voice. If on Kashmir, the Prime Minister takes a firm position against terrorism, we all must speak in one voice. If on Bangladesh, we arrive at a composite deal with them, it is possible we speak in one voice. On Myanmar, we normally spoke in one voice. On Nepal, we cannot be seen hobnobbing with the ultras there. Almost during the UPA 1, the policy was outsourced.
You are one of the strategists for the BJP? What is your outlook on Karnataka, which is going to the polls?
We have a government in Karnataka. We have completed five years. It was the first BJP government in the South. We have certainly suffered slightly setbacks as a section of the party moved back for the wrong reasons because we wanted some strong actions against questionable conduct and therefore that is really a challenging situation for us. But we regrouped our party together and we hope to do reasonably well.
You referred to coalition politics? Do you think it is here to stay?
Well, that is a reality. The days of very tall leaders and very tall majorities where one party got 300-400 seats are over. Therefore, the optimum capacity of the two major national parties either of whom can anchor a coalition, their highest capacity is in the range of 200 seats. Therefore you will always need allies and federal structure of Indian politics is such that it is good to look for allies. The extent of glue that you have that more people can stick to you is better for you.
Are you looking for new combinations and allies? Recently, we saw Sushma Swaraj praising Mulayam Singh and Mulayam Singh praising Advani on some issue?
These all are parliamentary niceties. The question of BJP and Samajwadi party ever doing political business together just does not arise. I think, we are diametrically opposite. We are completely opposed to kind of politics Mulayam Singh Yadav and Samajwadi Party represent. Therefore, there is no question of ever doing politics jointly with them. Having said that in terms of NDA and expanding NDA in terms of other non-Congress allies, we would love to do that. Samajwadi party has consistently provided oxygen to a corrupt UPA govt. So where is the question of Samajwadi party having non-Congress credentials?
Do you think that there would be early polls?
Well, I think that this government has run out of stream. Trinamool Congress has gone, DMK has gone. I think that they are running out of allies and they are now literally on their last legs with outside support.
Bihar is a very crucial state and you have got the task of keeping both Nitish Kumar and JDU tagged, especially in terms of designating Mr. Modi as the next Prime Minister candidate from your party. Do you think it is a tough task?
Well, the BJP as a principal party will decide its own candidate. We will certainly consult our allies and JDU is an important ally and we will consult them. We will factor all views before we take a decision. Politics is not everything about comfort. We are not a dynastic party that somebody from a family takes over. We are a democratic party and therefore we will have to respect what the popular aspirations are, what our cadres want, what the people want?
Are you hinting that he (Narendra Modi) could be the one?…
No, I am not for a moment hinting down any name but due course after discussions we will come out with a name and I hope not only we survive the NDA but we will expand the NDA.
Again, coming back to the democracy question, how do you see the road ahead?
Well one thing I will tell you is that it is the greatest success of India in the last 60 years, when democracy stumbled everywhere in the world in 1950s and 60s. Despite poverty and frustration, we survived, strengthened and now we need to improve the quality of our institutions.
What is the dream Mr. Arun Jaitley has to get?
I have a dream for my party coming to power. I have no dream for myself. (Global India Newswire)