New Delhi: On this day—17 March—6 years ago, Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar passed away while still in office after a prolonged battle with pancreatic cancer.
One of the most influential leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Parrikar—born on 13 December 1955—rose through the ranks of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to become four-time chief minister of Goa, and defence minister under the Narendra Modi-led government from 2014 to 2017.
On 22 June 2013, ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta interviewed Parrikar on NDTV’s Walk The Talk. They discussed the administrative failure of Modi’s government during the 2002 riots in Gujarat, how Parrikar played a key role in Modi becoming the face of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the allegations of indecisiveness and corruption against the United Progressive Alliance II government.
Shekhar Gupta: Hello and welcome to walk the talk, I am Shekhar Gupta and my guest today is — here in very ancient and historic setting — one of India’s youngest and brightest Chief Minister, of one of India’s smallest but not the least important state. Manohar Parrikar, welcome to walk the talk. We planned it for a while and it took all this time to do it.
Manohar Parrikar: We are doing it in a place where [there is] sea entry to Goa and exit to Goa both.
SG: But more importantly — I know the setting is brilliant, it’s nice to see your hand on a sizeable canon, very old canon — but timing is perfect because you have always been an important figure in Indian politics but you have never been in the center stage as you have been over the past couple of weeks. So, tell us how have things changed in the last couple of weeks?
MP: No, I don’t think that I am in the center stage, except that probably the interview given by me triggered some reactions. In which I was acting just as a catalyst, I don’t think that the reactions were set by me. Reactions were there to see, the catalysis point was there in Goa, and the issue came to the fore, and I felt that the decision was [a] very important aspect, which is the biggest missing factor in the country today.
SG: Does it apply only to Congress-UPA or, to the BJP as well?
MP: No, in general, it applies to all political scenarios because we happen to listen to about maybe 15-20-30 channels and, in each channel, the anchor would have a different view. The particular channel will have a different orientation towards the programme. Now, the Hindi channel may not have the same type of orientation as the English channel. So, the regional channel has a different [orientation], again based on which place you are in.
SG: So, if I read between the lines, you are saying that too many politicians are not strong enough to discount this noise?
MP: They don’t have a developed system to filter the noise and take the right thing.
SG: And how do you deal with it?
MP: I don’t see the TV too much. I see it only at night. The one time news and if there is something breaking news of importance. Now, every place, they have broken the news in order to do the breaking news. So, if there is anything important, I immediately get the feedback from there.
SG: So, unlike most other politicians, civil servants, and editors now, you don’t have a TV running on mute in your office and in your home all day?
MP: Not at all. The provision is there, but I have shut it off. I see it only once at night to get the information. Sometimes, early in the morning. But I am too busy also, so sometimes I don’t.
SG: You can afford to do this in Goa, if you were running the more complicated state, you could not afford to do it.
MP: No, I think they should do it more. Because the inputs are available in the news next day also and, except emergencies, nothing is…
SG: So you don’t have to respond immediately?
MP: You can respond immediately, depending on the requirement. I have responded within 5 miniutes on situations which required the 5-minute response. But most of the times, when policy decisions are taken, 5 minutes are not the criteria. A day is not a criteria, or a month. Sometimes, it is weeks. So, why do you react so immediately and talk…
SG: So, politicians on both sides think that they are not responding to immediate pressure at the moment.
MP: At this moment, they tend to avoid decision making because they have two minds. They have developed two minds because they hear too many things. If I do this, this will be the output. And if I do that, that will be output. Which is better? How people from other side will see me? These kinds of confusion starts in their mind. The ability to listen to everyone, then shut off everything, take a decision and [let it] come to the fore is lacking, and there is the question that I raised in the executive. That is the only question. Two lines I raised when we are talking about Manmohan Singh not being decisive. What about…
SG: Manmohan Singh not being decisive and… what were the two lines, tell that.
MP: I said we are accusing the government political manifesto, that they don’t take decision, it’s [an] indecisive government, it doesn’t do anything, it doesn’t move.
SG: So, Manmohan Singh doesn’t decide…
MP: Virtually, no one decides in the government…
SG: But Mrs. Gandhi does, apparently.
MP: No, I strongly doubt that. Whenever there is a criticality, I found the very important people from there, with due respect to them, this is not, don’t take it as a disrespect, but with due respect, because I don’t like to degrade the person, I don’t think that decision-making has been the hallmark of Mrs. Gandhi. Neither with Rahul. Most of the time, they disappear whenever there is a crisis.
SG: And Dr. Singh doesn’t decide either. So, you said we will go to election today, and our first charge will be, this government is indecisive.
MP: I said don’t go to the election, go to the press, saying this government doesn’t decide. And if the next question they ask you, what is your decision, what will be your answer? That’s the question mark that I left for everyone to answer.
SG: Because then you said, we will decide later. Then, how are you any different?
MP: Because we are… see, today, the people of India, even the agitation we started with Anna Hazare was basically the middle-class threatened with the indecisive India. Middle-class that sees its own position getting threatened because of the lack of decision-making, whether it’s 2G spectrum, or mining issue. I am not going into all those issues. But, besides corruption, like for example in 2G, there was corruption, you take action, courts take action, but cancellation of 2G-isation is the biggest technical error made by the government. Court was right in its own framework because it thought but how can you generalise, you can not generalise.
SG: You think government should have stood its ground and said look, we will catch the corrupt, but we can’t cancel 2G-isation…
MP: We can, we will catch the corrupt, recover the money, but the license cannot be reversed because it has an impact no national and international…
SG: It has devastated India’s telecom sector…
MP: Not only telecom sector, it has devastated India’s image as a business partner across the world.
SG: So, the government should have stood up to Supreme Court and said look we will catch the corrupt but…
MP: Government has a power to do it, they can make a law, they can go to the Parliament, they can go…
SG: Who will go to the Parliament to make the law, your party won’t let it happen only…
MP: No, see these are the issues for which, for example, when you use decisive techniques or use a sort of political strategy to block the Opposition. These two ministers resigned. You wanted food security bill through. They could have resigned two days earlier. It was inevitable that they resigned. You could have told the Opposition, like you have to, if you are taking the Opposition into confidence, it has to be whole-heartedly…. If Opposition don’t retract, people see that also. It’s not that people don’t realise that.
SG: I don’t see today, how people are happy with the BJP-stalled Parliament session. One more Parliament session stalled, and the tide will begin to turn, I mean that is my view as an analyst.
MP: I personally believe that, Parliament or assembly, [and] this is no comment on whatever decision has been taken in the Center because I unnecessarily don’t want to draw the parallel, but, except when making a very strong token protest [as] sometimes it is required, the stalling of the legislature is not the right answer to issues. You can attack or virtually convert any comment to an attack on a government, you get more success because people watch, let them make a decision, you don’t need to make the decision for them. This is my personal opinion. I have never stalled Goa assembly as the leader of opposition.
SG: And people don’t like the stalling.
MP: People don’t like the stalling. I will tell you a very funny thing. The moment I started using Goa assembly to attack the government, the government withdrew in a shell and reduced the number of days the assembly was happening, which became negative to them. So, in Parliament, if you attack government and corner them on every issue, they slowly try to reduce the session, which is [then] clearly reflected on public sentiment. That is what I feel.
SG: When the Opposition stalls the Parliament, it looks like you are frustrated.
MP: Yes, sometimes, that is the signal. What they say, they have logic in that also. This is my personal opinion. I am not in that…
SG: Your personal opinion matters a great deal more than…
MP: No, every personal opinion of any political party is needed to be taken into consideration before a final decision.
SG: Because you have led, now a generational shift in BJP, just by speaking out something that lot of people wanted to say.
MP: I took a decision, that decision was on a right point. If we delay anymore, it will be too late. I didn’t do it earlier because I thought there are times for the party to decide but if they went from this executive without any decision, it will be another 3 months for the party to decide, and they will be in the election campaign only.
SG: The decision was to put Mr. Modi in the front…
MP: No, that is not my decision, that is the party decision. But I expressed that this is the feeling of common people, and this is the feeling of the party. Common people, I must have spoken to 1,000 people on this issue on various forums, internet forums, to friends, across globe, across India, in educated sector, mixed up with sweeper people. I was in the restaurant for a function, the hotel staff included from sweeper to everyone. They wanted photograph with me, and I gave to them.
SG: This small state and society, everyone knows everyone. First name, if not the nickname, everybody has a nickname in Goa.
MP: Almost, almost. Also, they mix up very easily because of the number. I do that everywhere.
SG: So, you were getting the sense from them that they wanted Narendra Modi.
MP: Obviously, because the country is headed by the person, individual, however, the person personally good maybe.
SG: Dr. Singh?
MP: Personally, I don’t see any reason why he is not good, and personal criticism is not there. But, on the political front, PM needs to be quick and take decisions at the right moment, within a reasonable time, and that every issue requires, and when there are no decisions coming, when people see that, I don’t know if decisions are coming from Sonia Gandhi.
SG: So coming back to the point of decisions, you said people will ask what is the decision. So, take a decision in Goa before you go.
MP: I told that take the decision or, if you cant take the decision, set the timetable for taking the decision.
SG: And the decision, in your view, because of the feedback you were getting, had to be Narendra Modi.
MP: I will tell you. When Rajnath ji declared it in the executive, the full executive were clapping for like 5 minutes. It had to be stopped from clapping.
SG: So, the story is that, at least two senior leaders asked to wait, Mr. Advani is not there…
MP: That is the decision. He has to take a call on it. I can’t take a call on it.
But two of them did. We have Sushma Swaraj and Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi.
MP: I am not aware of it, I think everyone has a right to…
SG: That’s true, I am not agreeing or disagreeing on it. The thing is they have spoken, they are being a good democrats…So, I am just checking the facts, that it is true that two senior leaders said that maybe we should take more time.
MP: No, they didn’t say so openly in the executive. I don’t know what they said to Rajnath ji. As some media tried and said Sushma ji came late, it was not possible to reach before 4.30, because I had been telling them you don’t schedule your meeting before 3 o’clock because it won’t take place before that. The leaders will take time to travel from airport.
SG: So, tell us your views on Narendra Modi. And why Narendra Modi now?
MP: See, I feel, according to people, there are various issues in any elections — right from communal or secular angle, price rise to corruption. But I feel people today put mal-administration and lack of governance as primary issues. They feel the corruption, price rise and non-decisive nature is all because of this non-governance. So, obviously the solution for people is to have a person who is capable of giving.
SG: Non-governance, you think, is a bigger headache for people than equity?
MP: Absolutely. So, I am not saying that equity does not form a part, but equity also is a small part of non-governance. And in Gujarat, in the last ten years, there is no question mark on this.
May be, Godhra had a, that is, a blot. Human lives are very important and I am a very strong advocate that violence cannot solve, killing cannot solve. I will not defend it.
But not defending it does not mean you put the blame on a particular person or a particular thing. The administration collapsed. That was the truth of it.
Everyone got polarised, including the administration. You don’t have to blame only the leader. And Modi, probably at that time, had just taken over the administration.
He may not have had that kind of grip on the administration as he does now.
SG: Could it also be because he also was angry?
Let him pay for it.
MP: No, no. I will not say that. I will not say that because that is too much of a statement. So far, no one has been able to even indicate it, in spite of Supreme Court’s intervention.
SG: No, no. Angry in the sense of taking his eye off the ball. What can I do? People are angry.
MP: Sometimes that happens, but I don’t think there was a cause that time. And the main cause, probably according to me, was mainly he was very fresh. Today’s Narendra Modi would not have even allowed it to happen. Because any politician worth his salt knows… And, you don’t allow violence.
SG: So, Manohar ji, if I may interrupt you. This is the closest any BJP leader has ever come to saying something went wrong in 2002 in Gujarat.
MP: It went wrong. Vajpayee ji said so.
SG: After Mr. Vajpayee, I should have qualified.
MP: No, everyone has said that it is wrong, but I am not putting the blame on anyone.
SG: No, you are saying that it could be Narendra Modi’s inexperience.
MP: How can you say that killing of 2,000 people can be a good example of governance? But obviously, add to that, one major point.
With that one, brought on the administration, there is not a single event which Modi has allowed to happen.
Are you saying that Modi learnt his governance lessons?
MP: Obviously, every experience counts.
SG: These are not my words. I am trying to paraphrase what you are saying.
MP: It was four months, Modi in the government. What happened was definitely bad.
Probably being new, he did not know how to get a grip on the administration. Unluckily, with all this emotionally super-charged atmosphere, which was created also out of showing those pictures, which no western media will ever show, I think the atmosphere became super-charged and went out of control of any person there, including the police. The police, down the line — the chief minister does not direct the police constable — down the line, got polarised. It is not good.
SG: But for the chief minister to knock heads together.
MP: He did it, but it took him time to do it. But with that one experience, I think he has not allowed it to happen that again ever for the last 13 years. And I go by basic logic that a person who learns from some experience he has…
SG: From a mistake?
MP: I am not saying a mistake.
Or a failure?
MP: I will put it as administrative failure — what he learnt [from]. He has not allowed such kind of damage to take place at all.
SG: Administrative failure and chief minister is the head of the administration.
MP: See, logically, everything, ultimately, the ball stops at me. If anything goes wrong in Goa, including some ferry capsising, someone will say that chief minister is responsible. And as a matter of principle, he is the final authority.
Therefore, the buck stops there. That I don’t deny. But I think you have to take the positive part of it.
If that person understood what went wrong at that time, he corrected it to a level where it never went wrong again.
SG: Right. So, this is your Panjim city at the other end.
MP: This is Panjim. That’s Miramar. This is river, and that’s sea.
SG: So, have you had, since you are from about the same generation, and you are a Modi acolyte, have you and Narendra Modi exchanged notes on 2002? As friends as well as chief minister.
MP: No, because in 2002, the national executive took place.
No, at a personal level.
MP: We had not much connection. Even today, it’s not that much connection.
But, in 2002, that turmoil period was also election period for us. So, we were right in the elections, and I was not able to contribute or whatever I could do did not factor at all. I had declared election just half an hour before Gujarat.
SG: The reason I am asking you this is because if your party has to expand its footprint, it lost out a lot, it went back to a narrower footprint after Mr. Vajpayee declined. Because Mr. Vajpayee was an inclusive politician and you didn’t find another one to replace him. As an inclusive politician, India is a diverse country, would you recommend to your party largely and to Narendra Modi, what some of us call the Parrikar model or the Manohar model because it’s also more alliterative, that is, you went and embraced your Catholics. You know, Hindus and Catholics coming together in Goa. And that too under BJP’s flag. I’ll put it in one line.
MP: A government cannot be complete unless every citizen is included in your government.
That doesn’t mean you have to give benefit or everything to every citizen. Your government is for people who cannot walk by themselves. Who cannot sustain by themselves.
Government has to be more sensitive towards them. Those who can do things by themselves, government only provides administrative support. So, every person has to be included.
And, for a government, I’ll complete, for a government, I don’t bother what is your caste, what is your religion, what is your sex, what is your age. Need is the most important factor.
And therefore a government does not have religion. In that way, it is secular. But I am a very strong Hindu.
But, my Hindu feelings do not reflect when I am taking a decision as a chief minister. When a list comes to me for a Catholic to be supported, I go with the same enthusiasm. These two images of an individual and a government decision-maker is very difficult to separate.
A lot of people can’t separate. And I believe that Modi has managed to work on this.
SG: Last year, we saw Narendra Modi not giving ticket to a single Muslim in Gujarat.
MP: Giving ticking and not giving ticket depends upon if you have a credible face. So, you have to create that. It’s the perception that counts. There was perception, but I think its slowly changing. The younger generation, among the minorities also, they appreciate Modi and they don’t go by the whole propaganda model.
I call it a propaganda model because every time you will find a lady going to the television, making some statements, and trying to create confusion. Top officials don’t do communication directly. CBI made such a humbug investigation.
It’s such a humbug investigation in that Ishrat Jahan case, where they are trying to cook up the evidence. You don’t give telephone call to officials for an encounter. If you do it, you do it in private.
I don’t give any instruction, but that is logical. If anyone thinks of it, it’s very logical. He won’t talk on telephone because everyone knows that telephone record remains and all that.
People are not that [much of a] fool. But what I am trying to point out is ultimately this is perception. I was able to create a proper atmosphere much before the elections.
SG: And so has the Akali Dal in Punjab.
MP: He will also probably be able to do something at least before the elections.
SG: Do you see Narendra Modi reaching out to the Muslims?
MP: He is. He is. I had a talk with Bohri community. They are very happy with him.
Bohri community are a little bit more pragmatic. They are business oriented.
MP: I know. But I had talked. I travelled in a rickshaw in Ahmedabad, incognito. I do that sometimes. The rickshaw man was a Muslim. This happened actually, when I was leader of opposition, not now. And he was very positive about it.
SG: I walked in Juhapura and I was not incognito. I did not hear this. I heard that ‘we are being excluded’. So, I think Narendra Bhai has to make a change in his mind. But do you think he is capable of making that change? Or, is he too bitter to make that change?
MP: Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. He is capable, and he is already moving in that direction. He is. Absolutely.
SG: So do you think, do you anticipate him saying something like you said just now, explaining at least what happened in 2002, instead of hiding away from it?
MP: See, 2002 will be a very…I don’t think he will ever speak on it. Because there are too many Supreme Court cases and too many ATS and too many other things. For me to speak from outside is a different story. A person inside who is being pressurised by hook or crook, many of those investigations, if you realise, are leading nowhere except getting some popular news. CBI trying to frame IB, IB trying to frame CBI.
SG: We have a strong editorial view on that. You don’t mess with the IB unless you have very grave provocation and, if at all you do it, it has to be cleared by the Prime Minister.
MP: Are you aware what is happening? The internal differences between intelligence agencies is rising to a level where they will not give inputs.
Yes, yes. You are going back to 1962.
MP: This is Roman Empire before Caesar. Everyone trying to stab each other.
SG: Don’t go that far back. Go back to 1962. Similar things were happening. And these things are disastrous. But having said that, I know what you are trying to say is that if Narendra Modi starts explaining 2002, anything he says may be misused against him in a legal case. But how does he make amends politically? Forget legally.
MP: I think we should wait for the next one or two months.
SG: He will take a leaf out of your book. Because you have become a dada now in this generational shift of BJP.
MP: No, no. I don’t consider myself having a central role. But ideologically, and in thinking process, if I can contribute, there is no problem.
SG: No, that’s because you speak your mind. You say things that everybody wants to say but doesn’t say.
MP: I will tell you one thing. I am not attached to the post I am holding.
I treat it like a shirt. I can just unbutton it in two minutes, however, nice it may be. The post is also nice.
I can remove it and send it to laundry. I don’t treat power as a part of my skin. Most of the politicians treat it as a part of their skin.
So when it peels off, it bleeds. The shirt does not. I know also even a good shirt creates an attachment.
You don’t like to throw away or give away the good looking or fit shirt you love, for whatever reason it may be.
SG: I would sometimes buy two of the same.
MP: But, even conceptually, when I treat power or a post as a shirt, you have an attachment to it.
What will be your attachment to your own skin? When you treat power as a part of the skin, you will be in pain from bleeding when it is peeling.
SG: So that’s why you speak your mind. You orchestrated this generational shift in the BJP. What future do you now chart out for people above 65?
MP: First of all, I only gave away. We have these arachnids and coconut plantations where water flows. Sometimes, because of some mud or some debris, the water gets blocked.
A farmer just takes a small stick and removes the debris. Water flows. So I didn’t do anything other than just remove the bottle neck.
65-plus — the way it has been projected by media is not what I said. First of all, it’s a general comment. It has nothing to do with any individual, making that clear.
My 65 comment is very simple. Today’s politics has become a politics of demand. People expect a lot from you.
So, I said, at 65, every politician should take a call, review on his health and mental conditions, whether he can take that pressure based on his health and take his own decision whether he should be in electoral politics. This was related to electoral politics. That’s because if you are not good in health and 65 is a stage where you can definitely may be or may not be, then you should not go for electoral politics because then you don’t serve the people and don’t reach their expectations.
They get frustrated.
SG: Tell me something. You talked about metallurgy. You are a metallurgist. Mining is devastated in your state. What’s the impact?
MP: At this moment, it is stopped by a Supreme Court order. It’s very funny that an interim order is valid after nine months, also without hearing the state government’s [side].
I want only a proper hearing by the Supreme Court. We have to tell them only two facts. Number one, I stopped mining before the Supreme Court stopped it because I was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and I knew what was happening.
I say today also that there were illegal things happening. But there was also a legal aspect. And, let us not mix up irregularity and illegality. There are irregularities in many issues. I agree.
Like, if the government doesn’t decide, for example. You have to give a lease, the government has to take a decision. The government doesn’t take a decision, may be because it considers it as a cash cow.
So, stop the illegality. I had stopped the mining. The petitioner does not mention that fact.
I had stopped transportation. An interim order is still valid while mining has an impact on 25% of the population, and the revenue of the state.
SG: And current account deficit.
MP: Obviously. Where is money going to come? Rs 1,500 crore.
SG: From $9 billion of exports from India, India is now a net iron ore importer.
MP: It’s a $15 billion hit. I think a day will come when we won’t have much money left to pay the judges also.
SG: That’s a strong statement.
MP: No, no. In Goa, when the other Gadgil report came, I made it very clear to Dr. Kasturirangan, who had come here, if that report is implemented per se, I won’t have money to pay salaries because there will be no economic activity in the state. You know the wildlife buffer is an… I know I’m opening a can of worms, but the basic logic is any wildlife declaration is with a core wildlife area and a buffer zone.
So, wildlife itself includes buffer zone. Additional eco-sensitive buffer zone, I don’t understand the logic of it because there’s no end to it. Why it is 100 metre? Why it is 1 kilometre? Why it is not 10 kilometre? Why it is not 20 kilometre? Logic is very… No one can give me any reason why it should be 1 kilometre only and why it should not be 2 kilometre and why it should not be 5 kilometre.
So, you have already created a buffer zone in wildlife. Abroad, everywhere, national parks and wildlife, there are barricades, eco-friendly and wildlife-friendly barricades put around the wildlife, so their wildlife remains there. Here, wildlife comes in the villages also, eat away the crop, injure people, and creates a problem.
But anyway, eco-sensitive zone. 1995 Godavaram case, the first instance when the issue went to Supreme Court. And, till today, 18 years on, no decision has come. Only 496 or 476 hearings have taken place. This is not justice.
According to me, justice should be quick. Unless it is quick, it has no meaning.
SG: You seem to be cross with the Supreme Court on this.
MP: No, not at all. Yes, obviously, yes. I feel that they should have decided the interim stay, whichever way they wanted within at the most two or three months, not beyond that.
When there are 1,50,000 people who are clamouring here. These people don’t have a representation in Supreme Court, neither a lawyer nor a person on their behalf. The judge there may not know what is the ground reality here. So, hearing is a natural. What does natural justice say? Your decision and justice not only should be given but should also appear to be given.
I think this is not the way of judicial functioning on a major issue, which was delivering 5 billion dollars in export. When our trade balance is going negative, dollar is increasing [in value] and a lot of people are exporting, you are importing more.
SG: Iron and steel is a 17-18 billion dollar hit.
MP: Straight. That forms 10% of the trade deficit.
SG: It is a bigger self-destruction of our economy than telecom.
MP: Yes, because telecom was only internal. And in this…
SG: I think, issues of environment and illegality have got mixed up.
MP: I will put it, there are many players.
In iron and ore export, the moment Goa went out, it was a hit of about 55 million tonnes. Total Indian export was around 86 to 110 million. Goa was almost 60% of it.
There are other companies who have benefitted. There are other nations who have benefitted. We have lost permanent business.
Long term, Goa is a totally different story than Karnataka. We have had iron ore for 60 years. No one shouted up to 2005.
Only when the boom came, and there was a cascading money flow..
SG: Because too many people got too rich.
MP: And because of that only, too many people got into illegality.
I will put it in one line. You cannot throw a child in the bathroom. That is exactly what we are doing.
You cannot stop legal mining because of few illegalities. Punish those very seriously. You have a judicial system.
I will tell you a story. In 1996, I raised the issue. I caught illegality in power sector — manipulation.
Till today, the matter is lingering in the courts. As of now, it is in the Supreme Court for last five years, pending decision. What we are talking about is judicial punishments.
No punishment can take place. I fought. I spent Rs 10 lakh on my own on one issue to get justice for the people of the state.
I gained by partial recovery. We got Rs 62 crore. We gained out of it.
The state government gained out of it. I spent Rs 10 lakh from my side. It is not easy to fight corruption in India.
Not because we have too many bribes being taken. Because the guilty is not punished. So actually, if Supreme Court really wants reforms, it should see to it that their own courts should finish with criminal justice in a given period.
Not everyone, but the higher courts should interfere at every stage.
SG: That is a generational difference. People of the older generation would be a hundred times circumspect saying any of this. There is ‘subjudice’ but request for an early decision. You are speaking from your heart.
MP: I feel you really want corruption to be removed. What happened to Raja Ghese? Where is it now? I will tell you. Everyone will be dead before Ghese is decided. These are exceptional cases.
You have to basically make a quick decision.
SG: In fact, look at the Sanjay Dutt case. First, it was stretched for so long. Then, there was a demand for mercy because the case had taken so long.
MP: I will tell you. Would that treatment come to someone else? Moment decision came, you go to jail.
Right. Why should there be differentiation between Sanjay Dutt and… If 2G economic impact has not bothered Supreme Court, then why it has to bother about economic impact on movies?
SG: By giving Sanjay Dutt more time to finish the film.
MP: You have a different set of laws and rules and regulations for different people.
SG: I noticed yours is an international family. Some of them are also law breakers.
MP: Not law breakers. They were freedom fighters.
SG: Law breakers in colonial times.
MP: That’s why I tell you, you have to be on the right side. Then only you can gain the right perspective. Because your uncle was a freedom fighter. Both uncles were freedom fighters. For Portuguese, both of them were law breakers.
SG: And one of them was locked up in solitary confinement in this fort.
MP: Yes, for some time.
I don’t have a record, but that’s what my mother told me. That he was for some time kept here because he was from that Azad Kranti Dal, that means the more offensive and the violent ones.
SG: In fact, that’s the cell which says solitary confinement cell.
MP: And what happened to him after that? He was deported to Angola. He insisted that he be brought back by the Portuguese because his solitary confinement had been over for some time. But there are other parts also. I am not aware, let me be frank. I am not aware where he was locked up. I recollect from my mother’s expression that he was sent to Angola when Goa became free.
SG: And then he settled down in Angola after that.
No, he refused to come [to India] by spending his own money or relatives’ money.
SG: He got married there.
MP: He got married with a Portuguese lady, and we have cousins in Angola who have settled there.
SG: Who are half Portuguese.
MP: No, why half Portuguese? One or two of them are, I think, Portuguese passport holders. Angolans, they can have both the passports.
SG: And you are international also from your wife’s side.
MP: My wife comes from a very distinguished family. Dr. Courtney’s family, yes. My father-in-law is a second cousin to Dr. Courtney’s.
So, she comes from that family.
SG: So you have Chinese cousins from that side, cousins-in-law.
MP: But I don’t have much communication there. This side I have got communication.
SG: But right now your focus and attention is on another bhai there, another bhai. Not cousins and uncles.
MP: My job is done, let me be clear. I thought the party is, see this is my feeling, the party, sometimes, it happens, you get into a lock-jam because of some reason. Someone else is required to break that ice. I helped in breaking that ice. My role is over. Beyond that, I don’t think any bigger role is there for me at this stage.
SG: And where do you see India’s politics three months from now? Right now it looks like everybody is running away from BJP. And third front, fourth front, fifth front, sixth front.
MP: These are, I don’t know whether you are a student of science.
SG: I was.
MP: How did the life form? There was chemical chaos in the ocean. Various chemicals coming together, going away, coming together. Finally a set of chemicals came together which could multiply itself, replicate itself. I think we are in the process of formation of life for Indian politics.
So, let them do that combination dance. Ultimately…
SG: Something will emerge from this chaos?
MP: It’s not a chaos actually. It’s not much of a chaos. It’s a churning. Churning. Janata Dal is to decide on whether to play with BJP or not.
In the long run, yes. Press is predicting things which I think you should leave to them. There may be some science also. I’m not saying that press is predicting totally in a thin air or something like that. But whatever they decide, ultimately there has to be government after elections. And the target of every group is to maximise that number.
Because that is how you have a bargain. That is how Sharad Pawar is trying to see that he goes above 10, maybe 12, 13. So, he has his bargain.
That is how Mulayam thinks, that ‘if I have to be staying out of jail through CBI, then I have to get at least 36 in UP. Otherwise the ruling party does not allow’… Now, ruling parties are virtually manipulating CBI to get its support. Unless you have some strength, you don’t escape that fate.
SG: So when everybody is making its move, the BJP has made its move, and you are the man who at least catalysed it, you will admit to that. You broke the ice, as you said. So Manohar Parrikar…
MP: I helped to break the ice.
You helped to break the ice. You already are a bigger player in national politics than anybody from your state has ever been or perhaps can seem to be.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)