Modi master of meaningless slogans: Jairam Ramesh

He is completely transparent in his insincerity and hypocrisy, the former Union minister said

Parliament's Monsoon Session ended on an acrimonious note with the government and Opposition moving further apart. Both sides have hardened their stand while questions are being raised against the way the Parliament was conducted. Congress Chief Whip in Rajya Sabha Jairam Ramesh spoke to DH's Shemin Joy. Excerpts:

In his Independence Day speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi added 'sabka prayas' (everyone's effort) to his slogan 'sabka saath, sabka vikas, sabka vikas'. How do you respond to this?

Modi is a master of meaningless slogans. He is sloganeer-par-excellence. I don't take his slogans seriously. Because these are all momentary bursts of eloquence. It doesn't mean anything. He is completely transparent in his insincerity and hypocrisy. He is a Prime Minister who didn't even bother to come and vote for a Constitution (127th Amendment) Bill on restoring powers to states to identify Other Backward Classes (OBCs), which he claims is his great contribution to Indian politics and society.

The Prime Minister has announced that August 14 will be remembered as 'Partition Horror Remembrance Day'. Do you agree with this move?

This is an attempt to polarise and divide our society. A man who spreads poison, the man who spreads horrors in our society wants to mark August 14 as this. The partition is not just about Punjab, it is also about Bengal. (Jan Sangh's) Syama Prasad Mookerji was the greatest votary of the division of Bengal. Do you want to reopen all chapters of history? These are episodes in history. Partition was a cumulative result of what VD Savarkar started in 1922, the two-nation theory. The Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the Muslim League – this was an atmosphere that created partition inevitable. Of course, all Indians are diminished by the displacement of millions of people. People killed each other. You cannot erase facts from history. Any normal leader would look at attempts of reconciliation and use it to strengthen harmony.

Some people link it to the Assembly elections early next year. Do you subscribe to that view?

Of course, it is linked to the elections in Uttar Pradesh and other states. Modi wants to demean the entire legacy of the freedom movement. Of course, these are things which historians, scholars are working on. Nehru and Patel were ambivalent on partition. The entire Congress was ambivalent on partition. It was forced on them. The people responsible for partition was Savarkar, Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and Muslim League.

We witnessed a very stormy Monsoon Session. Has the relationship between the government and the Opposition broken down irreparably?

Absolutely. It is completely ruptured. The Chairman (Venkaiah Naidu) did not help in bringing together the government and the Opposition. I have seen Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Hamid Ansari trying to bring both sides together. This Chairman adds fuel to the fire. He is the third vertex in the triangle and sometimes, the government does not know what he is doing. The Opposition also does not know what he is doing? There is a complete rupture. We cannot trust the Leader of the House (Piyush Goyal). He says one thing and does something else. The Parliament Affairs Minister (Pralhad Joshi) is a completely insincere man. At least with (late Arun) Jaitley earlier, one could work with. If Jaitley said something, it would happen. But one positive thing for the Opposition is that every day at 10 AM, the floor leaders would meet in (Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha) Mallikarjun Kharge's room. I have never seen this happening in the last seven years. I have never seen (previous Leader of Opposition) Ghulam Nabi Azad taking this initiative. Kharge was reaching out to all Opposition parties in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Rahul Gandhi attended 3-4 meetings. Whatever was decided in these meetings was implemented in both Houses of Parliament. So I think in seven years, this is the first session in which the Opposition has been united, has been by and large cohesive and has worked to a plan. Kharge's stature and seniority as well as his aggression was a major contributory factor. He is standing up for the rights of the Opposition.

Do you mean to say that Azad was not that aggressive?

I don't want to say anything about him. All I can say is that Kharge is aggressive, he is upfront, he takes no nonsense from the government or the Chair. The fact that he was the Leader in Lok Sabha gives him an added stature. He is very senior, he is very articulate. He doesn't mince \words.

You have referred to Jaitley. Do you think there is a difference in its approach on dealing with the Opposition post-2019?

Yes, there is. I am sorry to say as Chief Whip (of the Congress) I tried my best to ensure the House run. My job is to cooperate to the extent possible. Many times, I would go to the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman (Harivansh) where the Ministers are present and suggest ways of moving forward so that our point of view is heard. On the last day (August 11) in which a large number of marshals, including the blue-suited 'dabangs', were called, I went to the Deputy Chairman and said the insurance bill has been passed in din and now withdraw the security personnel. The Deputy Chairman was willing but Pralhad Joshi said, we won't do it. The Deputy Chairman called the Rajya Sabha Secretariat. I am telling you this on record. The Secretary General was there. He said we can now withdraw the marshals but Joshi said no. These are people who you cannot do business with. They are insincere. They say one thing but do something else.

One the subject chosen as its focus was Pegasus snooping episode. Shouldn't it have been something else, such as farmers' issues or the economy?

There were three issues – Covid-19, farm laws and farmers' protest as well as the economy – which we told the Chairman (during a meeting ahead of the Session). The Pegasus issue came up later. So our three issues were there. We had a discussion on Covid-19 because the Opposition wanted it. We all said we will allow the discussion. I was part of the negotiation. Then this meaningless statement was made by the Information and Technology Minister (Ashwini Vaishnaw), who himself was a target of surveillance. What kind of a joke is this? We said no and demanded a full discussion on Pegasus. We told them that we want the Prime Minister or Home Minister (Amit Shah) to reply and they should announce a Supreme Court-monitored inquiry. Then we said keep the Supreme Court-monitored inquiry aside because that can be a demand that can be made during the discussion. The non-negotiable demand was to have a discussion on Pegasus first with the Home Minister replying. They didn't even want a discussion. Then (Defence Minister) Rajnath Singh spoke to Kharge twice. I also spoke to Rajnath Singh. There are only two people in the government who command credibility with the Opposition. One is Rajnath Singh and the other is Nitin Gadkari. Rajnath Singh is the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Affairs. I requested him to call all Opposition parties and listen to them. We will find a way out. In fact, I told him that process is as important as product in democracy. Go through the process. That meeting (of Opposition parties with Rajnath Singh) never took place. He told Kharge he will do something after he returns from an official visit. He should have called the meeting.

Do you approve of what happened on August 10 or 11 in Rajya Sabha when Opposition MPs climbed the reporters table and scuffled with marshals?

It was the sign of our anguish and frustration. I am not apologetic. The government was not listening to anything we were saying. We said you have been reading out obituaries every day and why don't you mention the farmers who died during the last one year? But that did not happen.

But the government demands an apology from the Opposition for the ruckus in the House. Will you?

There is no question of an apology. You have a partisan Chairman. Should I apologise for that? You have an insincere ruling party. Should I apologise for that? How did the Opposition agree for a discussion on Covid-19? Opposition agreed to pass the OBC Bill. First of all, you goofed up in 2018 and the Supreme Court takes advantage of the goof-up and passes an order that the state has no right to identify and list OBCs. First you make the mistake, then the Supreme Court compounds that mistake and then says it is the Opposition's compulsion. It was your (government's) compulsion with the Uttar Pradesh elections round the corner. I am deeply disappointed in how the Chairman conducted the House. I am very fond of the Chairman. I have a long association with him. I have a personal relationship with him. We get along exceedingly well. I am deeply disappointed. He should have risen above. Never has he called a meeting to break the logjam. Normally, Shekhawat or Ansari used to adjourn the House for 15 or 30 minutes, call the leaders and try to find a way out.

The Monsoon Session also saw Rahul Gandhi taking a proactive role. There are allegations that he is inconsistent in his approach. How do you respond to it?

He was very active. He came to three meetings of the Opposition leaders. He organised the breakfast meeting with Opposition MPs and the march to Vijay Chowk. This is a very good signal. I am sure he will take it forward from here. I don't think this is episodic.

Can we see the Congress leadership question settled soon?

The Congress Working Committee met on 22 January, 2021 and said the entire process of installing a regular president will be finished by June 30. We didn't expect the Covid-19 second wave. When people are fighting for oxygen cylinders, that is not the time to have a party election. We had to postpone the deadline. No new deadline has been set up. Sonia Gandhi, contrary to what people say, is a hands-on president. She herself has said that she is an interim president. But she is full-time, not part-time. What we are now looking for is not interim, somebody who is properly elected. This would have happened had the second wave not come.