'Disruption of Parliament occurs when ruling party is unwilling to listen'

M Hamid Ansari was Vice President of India for two successive terms, the only other VP to hold the post twice being S Radhakrishnan. At 83, Ansari has finally written his memoir By Many a Happy Accident: Recollection of a Life. Ansari spoke to DH's Shemin Joy. Excerpts

Q. What prompted you to write the memoir?

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

Q. You recall about the telephone call from Sitaram Yechury in 2007 asking whether you would be amenable to the idea of becoming Vice President. Your name came up for President also in 2012. Did you miss being President?

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

Q. Could you elaborate a little more?

A. Every time it (presidential election) happens, the media speculation starts. All kinds of names, plausible and not so plausible, float. As the numbers were with the UPA, the decision had to be with the UPA. If you look at the history of Vice Presidents, there had been, I think, 13 up to my time. Of them, about half went on to become President 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 alright.

Q. The last three years of your Vice Presidency was when the Modi government was in power. There are certain incidents that appear to show that there was tension between you and the Prime Minister. Was that the case?

A. No. My personal relations with the leader of the NDA government were very cordial before and after he became the Prime Minister.

Q. You have mentioned incidents like Modi once coming to your office and asking you about not allowing the passing of bills amid a din in the Rajya Sabha.

A. Every government tries to rush things through. Then you will have to tell them, this is the way. 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 a lengthy discussion and voting, I did not have a problem.

Q. Certain remarks made by the Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha on your last day as its Chairman about your work as a diplomat in Islamic countries were commented upon as a departure from accepted practice. What is your take?

A. Nothing.

Q. You made a mention about this in your book also.

A. I also made a speech there and I recited an Urdu couplet – So much have I been accused of/That proving my innocence has deserted me. It is alright, but the Prime Minister made two speeches that day – one in 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 (he) said nothing adverse had come to notice. The media did not pick up that speech. Why?

Q. But some remarks were made in the House.

A. 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, Australia, UAE, etc. But the crowning piece was Ambassador to the United Nations at a time when we were under pressure. Pakistan was gung-ho and was trying its best to have a resolution passed against India. We fought. We were successful. I had a full career. Why did he not mention it or mentioned it in a tangential way? He mentioned that I had spent time in Muslim countries. That’s not my fault. The government sent me there. The government also sent me to Australia.

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

A. They are two different personalities and have different agendas also. The agendas did not concern me. I knew Manmohan Singh before he became Prime Minister. I met Modiji only when I became Vice President.

Q. It is said that disruption is a legitimate parliamentary tactic. Is it?

A. It is an Indian parliamentary innovation. You watch the debates in British Parliament. Very good, very contentious debates. But disruption is not part of it. I have been High Commissioner in Australia. There also, debates are very contentious, but (there are) 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 (disruptions) is because the ruling party leaders have to have the patience to listen to criticism. These are things which I think are to do with individual personalities. Take the criticism, take it on the chest. Don't turn your back to it.