Disruption is Indian Parliamentary innovation: Hamid Ansari

Ruling party leaders should have patience to listen to criticism, said Former vice-president Hamid Ansari

M Hamid Ansari was the vice-president of the country for two successive terms, the only person to be in that post twice after S Radhakrishnan. The 83-year-old Ansari, who was also the Rajya Sabha Chairman, has come out with a memoir titled By Many a Happy Accident: Recollection of a Life.

His autobiography is an account of a life of "unplanned happenings" that took him from academia to diplomacy and then to public life. Incidentally, the Congress leadership had toyed with the idea of elevating Ansari in 2012 to the post of President but Pranab Mukherjee made the cut instead. Ansari spoke to DH's Shemin Joy about the book, his career and his relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Parliament.

You had a very hectic life as a diplomat before you became the Vice President of the country. What prompted you to write a memoir?

When I was finishing my term as Vice President, I was asked if I intended to write a memoir. My answer was an emphatic no. But then, my children prevailed on me. Their argument was - how would we know what you did? So, I said yes. I never kept any notes. No diaries. No notes. Because of that, I had to rely on recall. At times, my wife helped me with her recollection of events. But this is a recall exercise. No more than that.

You recall the telephone call from top CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury in 2007 asking whether you would be amenable to the idea of becoming Vice President. Five years later, your name came up for the post of the Presidentship but Pranab Mukherjee was chosen. Do you think you missed being the President?

I neither volunteered for the first nor for the second. This was nowhere near my scheme of things. Both came as a surprise to me. I had nothing to contribute to the process. So I took it as it came.

You refer to a 2012 episode when your name was dragged into the Presidential race without consulting you. You were upset that your name was unnecessarily dragged into it. Could you elaborate it a little more?

Every time it (Presidential election) happens, media speculation starts. All kinds of names, plausible, not so plausible names float. Late President APJ Abdul Kalam's name was mentioned. He quickly quashed the rumours. As the numbers were with the UPA, the decision has to be with the UPA. If you look at the history of Indian Vice Presidents, there have been about 13 Vice Presidents up to my time. Out of that, half or so went on to become Presidents and half for a variety of reasons did not. They didn't ask me if they wanted to consider my name. These things happen. It is all right.

The last three years of your Vice Presidency was when the Narendra Modi government was in power. You call your book By Many a Happy Accident but there are mentions about certain incidents that appear to show that there was tension between you and the government or the Prime Minister. What is your comment?

No. My personal relations with the leader of the NDA government are very cordial before and after he became the Prime Minister. As Vice President, I visited Gujarat on a number of occasions.

You have mentioned incidents like Modi coming to your office and asking you about not allowing the passing of Bills amid a din in the Rajya Sabha. How do you see that?

Every government tries to rush things through. Then, you will have to tell them that this is the way. That's all. If you recall the newspapers of those days, there were always these reports about the government being not happy about Bills (getting not passed). It is true. But it is for them to work on the numbers. It is not for me to deliver the numbers. The view was very clear and it was said publicly that if there is general agreement that there is no need for lengthy discussion and voting and that it can be done without it, I did not have a problem. But these things were indicated to me in all-party meetings that were held outside the formal chamber.

On your last day, certain remarks were made by Prime Minister Modi in the Rajya Sabha about your work as a diplomat as in - your assignments in Islamic countries were commented upon as a departure from accepted practice. What's your take?

Nothing.

You made a mention about this in your book also.

I also made a speech there and recited an Urdu couplet – So much have I been accused of/that proving my innocence has deserted me. It is all right but the Prime Minister made two speeches that day – one in the Rajya Sabha and the other at the farewell function at Balayogi Auditorium in Parliament House. Modiji made a speech at the second function also. Very generous and said that nothing adverse has come to his notice...that's on record. Media did not pick up that speech. Why?

But these remarks were made in the House.

I won't comment on this. It is his view. I had a career before I came to Parliament. For a long time, I was an Ambassador of India in difficult places. I was Ambassador in Kabul during times of trouble. I was an Ambassador in Iran, Saudi Arabia. Apart from that, I was Ambassador in Australia, UAE and all that. But the crowning piece was Ambassador to the United Nations at a time when we were under pressure. This is the 1993-1995 period.

Pakistan was gung-ho. They were trying their best to have a resolution passed in a certain committee against India. We fought. We were successful. I didn't fight alone as I had very competent officials.

The political establishment under late P V Narasimha Rao was there. There was the late Dinesh Singh, then last but not the least, Pranab Mukherjee. It was a team effort. It was a successful team effort. The best evidence was the United States' assessment, which was not meant to be made public.

I am talking about WikiLeaks. I had a full career. Why did he not mention it or mention it in a tangential way? He mentioned that you spent your time in countries who by religion are Muslim. It is not my fault. The government sent me there. The government also sent me to Australia. Australia was not Muslim. These are part of the normal duties of a diplomat. When you join the Indian Foreign Service, you commit to serve anywhere the government sends you.

You have worked with several Prime Ministers. What are your recollections about them?

I have good, pleasant recollections. I have seen Indira Gandhi in her different phases. From the point of view of a senior official, she was hands-on, very sharp, observed everything and if you deviate, you are in trouble. Then Rajiv Gandhi came to Australia, Iran etc. when I was in the field. Then Narasimha Rao, with whom I worked for a long time as he was also External Affairs Minister. I had a very close relationship with him. Similarly, other Prime Ministers also like I K Gujral. I didn't know Chandrashekhar. AB Vajpayee was impeccable. I had no problems with anyone.

As Vice President, you worked with Manmohan Singh and Modi. How do you see these two periods?

They are two different personalities and have different agendas also. The agendas did not concern me. Personalities, one had to interact. Very pleasant. I knew Manmohan Singh before he became Prime Minister. I met Modiji only when I became Vice President. We had very cordial conversations.

As Rajya Sabha Chairman, you have taken a position that Bills will not be taken up for passage in the din. There is an argument that the Opposition will have an upper hand in such a scenario. Will this end up with the Opposition stalling anything and everything?

It does not work that way in actual practice. When Parliament was in session, there used to be a meeting of leaders of parties with me at around 10 a.m. After some time, I made an assessment that what was committed to me in those meetings was sometimes not honoured in the House. So, I started calling it my tea club. But it was there. It was helpful because the leaders could talk there. Compromises were made.

The whole game is of trying to accommodate the other person. Sometimes you accommodate, sometimes you don't accommodate. It was a platform, in my presence, that they could seek accommodation and I would urge accommodation. There were other things also. When you enter the House, there will be something uppermost in your mind. It may be an incident in your state or something like that. You would want the earliest opportunity to draw attention to it. And that earliest opportunity under the operative rules then was the Question Hour. So Question Hour often became the victim of individual concerns.

My argument was twofold. One, Question Hour is an instrument of accountability. Whose accountability? The Executive's accountability. And having been an official in the government, I know the efforts that were put in to prepare answers. I remember when I was a junior officer, there was an occasion when Swaran Singh gave a dressing down to senior officials. He told them, 'I will forgive all your sins but never a sin in relation to Parliament'.

Then the seniormost official formally apologised to which he added, 'It is not that I cannot answer, it is a matter of discipline you should be there'. Question Hour was a very serious matter. The ministers always took the questions very seriously.

So did the questioners. That is something on which you can take on the government. So when Question Hour was being disturbed again and again, I told a meeting of leaders one day that we have to look at something.

The usual argument was - this is the tradition and we cannot change it. I said yes but what is lost? With a lot of persuasion, they agreed that the Question Hour be moved from 11 a.m. to 12 noon. The Question Hour was saved.

Some reforms work. But it requires a great deal of persuasion. Obviously, things big and small will come to your notice that will need correctives. I did that, nothing dramatic about it. And I had excellent relations with every member of the House.

Arun Jaitley used to say that the second Zero Hour used to be held in your chamber.

Yes, yes. One day, so much noise was being made. I said, 'You are behaving like a federation of anarchists'. Jaitleyji was a well-read man. He got up and said that by definition, anarchists could not have an association.

Next day, I said to him that there were instances when anarchists do have federations in some European countries. It ended there. There was one occasion when he pointed out something I had said. I said, 'Take it off the record'. He accepted that also as a unique case when a chairman had expunged his own record. So, it was a cosy relationship. I have no bitterness at all.

We see a disruption in Parliament. You were upset about these disruptions. It is said that disruption is also a legitimate Parliament tactic. You were the presiding officer of a House. Is disruption a legitimate Parliamentary tactic?

It is an Indian Parliamentary innovation. You watch the debates in the British Parliament. Very good debates, very contentious debates. But disruption is not part of it. I have been High Commissioner in Australia and I have watched their Parliament.

There also, the debates were very contentious but no disruptions. If you look at the Indian Parliamentary history, it was not so in the 1950s, less so in the 1960s at least in the first part. Part of it is because the ruling party leaders have to have the patience to listen to criticism. Now, you go back to the earlier records.

Ram Manohar Lohia taking Jawaharlal Nehru to bits. And Nehru was sitting there. It is not that he wasn't there. These are things that I think are to do with individual personalities. Take the criticism, take it on the chest. Don't turn your back to it.

Pranab Mukherjee also wrote about this in the fourth volume of his autobiography.

He has written about it. He said the same thing. He was immensely knowledgeable about it.