"It is not a pleasant sight to see on the television screen Parliament being disrupted. But actually, both sides are guilty,” said Mohammad Hamid Ansari, former Vice President of India, when asked about the complete breakdown of bonhomie between the government and the Opposition over the past few years.
Ansari’s criticism of the Houses, and the way parliamentary affairs are handled, came rather reluctantly.
“For many years since my retirement from the Rajya Sabha, I have generally refrained from commenting on the functioning of Parliament. But what you say is true. Things are not being done. The simple evidence is: how many days does Parliament sit? What once, upon a time, was 100 days is now 50 or 60. So where is the time for debate? Where is the time for discussion?” he said.
However, Ansari’s disappointment with the state of affairs inside Parliament is as strong as it is with events outside it. ‘Fraternity’ in India now comes at a cost, Ansari said.
“Read the Constitution. Is there any mention of the word ‘bulldozer’ there? Look, there is a legal system in the country. It’s well spelt out. If an offence is committed by somebody, it is produced before a court, and the court gives a punishment. Where does the bulldozer come into it? Is there, in our Penal Code, any particular chapter talking about how a bulldozer will be used?” he asked.
“If somebody is having a Christmas prayer in a church, you disrupt it. If some set of Muslims go and pray for Eid prayers or any other prayer, it’s disrupted. So this is the kind of thing that is happening increasingly in our country and was not part of the scheme of things,” he said.
In this episode of Badi Badi Baatein, Ansari talks about the communal discourse in politics, the politics of the ‘Mohammad Deepak’ case, the disruption of Parliament, and his decade-long tenure as Vice President and Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.
The cover of the book, you know, caught my attention right there because it says, 'Fragility of Secularism. Is secularism in india at its most fragile currently or has it had its phases over the past 75 years of Independence?
You see, it depends on what you and I mean by secularism. As a concept in political science, it's one thing, as a concept in daily life, it's another thing.
So, we set out with a set of basic principles for ourselves, and all of these are incorporated in the first page of the Constitution of India, that you will have justice, equality and fraternity. Now, therefore, you can make a judgement to what extent these have been attained or not been attained.
You have quoted one of the articles which said that India is witnessing the progressive normalisation of minority baiting. This comes up in India's politics time and again, what does this term mean to you from your experiences over the years in this country?
Very simple, you see. These are not very high sounding principles, these are principles of daily life. We are a country which has immense diversity - diversity in region, diversity in language, diversity in food habits, diversity in innumerable other things. Now, one is to allow it to happen. You and I live in adjacent houses in a village. I know your festivals, you know my festivals. We can accept them or not accept them. The normal Indian practise right through history has been to accept, whether it is Holi, Diwali or Christmas or Eid, you accept all of them, celebrate them in your own way. That is not happening anymore. Increasingly you are getting reports and these are authentic reports in newspapers and journals like yours, where these basic rights are being contested.
If somebody is having a Christmas prayer in a church, you disrupt it. If some set of Muslims go and pray for Eid prayer or any other prayer, it's disrupted. So this is the kind of thing which is happening increasingly in our country and was not part of the scheme of things.
That brings me to the recent incident that happened in Uttarakhand where a Muslim shopkeeper was being bullied by a certain outfit to change the name of his shop because the name of the shop was not from his religion. There was a man named Deepak who defended the Muslim shopkeeper and he is facing an FIR today. What does an episode like this tell us about the country that we live in today?
It's very simple. It reflects and sheds much light on what we should mean from the principle of fraternity. There is no fraternity. Mr. Deepak, whoever he is, he is free to do what he likes. Whether he wants to call his shop by that name or this name, how does it matter? Why should it worry everybody else? It's not an offensive name. His own name is not an offensive name. But surely each one of us must respect it. We are not doing that. And that is where the derailment has taken place over the years.
Does this not mean an administrative attack on the idea of fraternity as a whole? man.
It is an attack by everybody including the administrative apparatus. That the principle is not being observed.
So there is a cost to pay for fraternity in this country now?
I am not very optimistic although I am an old man. But we started with a principle and we have allowed it to be diluted.
You have also talked about a spokesperson of the ruling party had made very controversial remarks about the prophet.
It is because there is a sense of senseless hatred that has seeped into our body politic. That's all. Nothing more.
Did it hurt you personally that remark as a Muslim?
It's offensive. As a citizen it is offensive and individual of course it is offensive. We have come a long way from the time when we celebrated each other's festivals with gusto. Whether it is Holi or Diwali or Eid or Christmas. It was all the same to us, occasions for collective joy. That's being lost now.
One of the repercussions of an ideology or a thought process or a narrative that gets propagated in today's politics is the concept of bulldozer justice. How does it make the country's judiciary look?
Read the Constitution, is there any mention of the word bulldozer there? Look, there is a legal system in the country. It's well spelt out. That an offence is committed by somebody, it's produced before a court, the court gives a punishment. Where does the bulldozer come into it? Is there in our penal code, any particular chapter talking about how a bulldozer will be used? Yes, it will be used for making a big building. So, this is all an aberration, nothing else but aberration. And there is no justification for it. I think the Supreme Court has pronounced on it again and again but seems to have no impact on the powers that be.
Do you think the faith in the judiciary in general has weakened? Or the fear of law in general has weakened? Because if a mob of goons goes and attacks a Muslim shopkeeper or a Hindu named for his shop, those people hardly face any repercussions. But on the other side, there are certain people who are languishing in jails. Case in point being somebody like an Umar Khalid or a Sharjeel Imam. One group completely thinks they are above the law while the other continues to face the law in the most unjust way possible.
It is shedding the searchlight on the extent to which those principles are being observed in practise. If a person is guilty, by all means, take him to court, give him a punishment and let the punishment be carried out the way it is. But two things - you can't take ten years to simply take him to court. A man is guilty of an offence today, next week, next month, maybe next year. But not next decade. That's the difference.
You spoke about a very crucial point in one of your articles which is nurturing young Indians socially. In today's day and age, when we are living in an age of social media, in the age of AI now, technically, where books are being read on AI and it's just a summary of what the book wants to say. Then we have on the other side, at times deliberate attempts to distort history, at times deliberate attempts to remove certain chapters from academic curriculums from the past.
It's obvious. If textbooks are being rewritten, chapters being added or subtracted, then what does it take? You take the case of maybe a fortunate young man whose circumstances are such that after studying here, he can go to a foreign land to continue his studies, whether in England or America or anywhere else. If that is the history that he reads here, he will be a stranger there with that. History is history. It has happened. We can't undo it.
We can draw lessons from it. This is where the danger lies. We are poisoning in this process, perhaps unthinkingly, the young minds. They should know facts as they are, not facts as we would imagine them to be.
Do you think there is selective use of history as a political tool now very blatantly?
Well, it's always been some use or the other. When the British were rulers of India, they used history in their own particular way. When we became independent, we used it in our own way. But there was a basic adherence to the principle of it. You can't ignore principles.
One of the most important aspects is the media. The way we see the media function today, especially the television media, more and more masses have started finding their voices not being heard on that platform. On the other hand, digital newsrooms are strapped for money. Where does Indian media head from here, according to you?
Well, that is precisely the point, the last two sentences of what you have said. Digital media is strapped for money, agreed.
You can't do anything without money. And that money is being controlled by X or Y with a certain orientation. So, I will give you 100 rupees provided you agree with me. And you will deny me 100 rupees if you don't agree with me. As simple as that. The media has ceased to be fair. I don't expect the media to do exactly what I say. But at least it should say partially that I also said this.
How do you look at the current functioning of the Parliament? You have been the chairperson of the Rajya Sabha for a decade. There seems to be a complete paralysis of any bonhomie, complete breakdown of any order in the functioning of the Houses. Debates get railroaded by a brute majority. Bills get passed. Lesser and lesser bills are going to the select committees. Do you think the Parliament for both sides has become more about optics than about any actual productivity?
For many years since my retirement from Rajya Sabha, I have generally refrained from commenting on the functioning of Parliament. But what you say is true. Things are not being done. The simple evidence is how many days does the Parliament sit? What once upon a time was 100 days, now it is 50 or 60. So, where is the time for debate? Where is the time for discussion? And then, again a subject on which I don't want to talk - the way you conduct it. I said this on the first day I went to Rajya Sabha in 2007 that I am a referee in a hockey match. I have a whistle. I have a rule book. I watch the game very closely because I am there, but I am not participant. If somebody violates the rules, I blow the whistle. Better or worse, one side wins, one side loses.
I recall one incident with a gentleman from one of the innumerable Opposition parties. One day, waxing eloquent in a certain tone, which led me to tell him that, look, you are violating to rule X. I just said that. And he understood exactly what I meant. He picked up his papers and walked out. If he had not walked out, I would have been faced with the choice of having to ask him to leave. But it didn't happen because there was a certain rule of decorum.
Where do you see the politics of India today? Because one of the very common observations or grievances that people have begun voicing is that they don't think the Opposition is doing as much as it should, that it's not working hard enough to push back the brute majoritarianism that is being propagated into the political system.
Look, majoritarianism is a product of the manner in which we voted or did not vote in the elections, local or national elections. But having said that, there should be enough room to understand that the other side has a point of view. And as long as you understand and you give them the opportunity to express it, then the rules of the democratic game take precedence. That is what is being done less and less. It's not a pleasant sight to see on the television screen the Parliament being disrupted. But actually both sides are guilty. Give everybody a chance to speak, express his or her point of view.
How do you see India's current position globally? Because for the past one year or so, the United States President has been completely railroading India on certain terms. President of the United States, Mr. Trump, claimed that he stopped the so-called war. Again, when the India-US trade deal was signed, it was him announcing it first on his social media platform. The observation that Trump is guiding India's affairs - is it a fair observation or is it a simplistic viewpoint?
One can do precariously little about megalomania. If somebody wants to be a megalomaniac, it's for him or her to live with it. But these things don't happen in a vacuum. They don't happen suddenly and they are not one-sided exercises. Relations between countries are complex issues.
So you think India is walking a tightrope but still managing to be there?
Yes, we are walking a tightrope but we are managing to the best of our knowledge and ability, we are doing it.
When I told people around that I am interviewing you today, somebody just casually said he might just be the last Muslim in this country to hold such a high constitutional post. Do you see the country that way right now?
No, I do not. I do not. All this talk about 'the last Muslim' is off the mark. Situations are not uniform. They vary from individual to individual, region to region. For some it may be cosy, for others it may not be so cosy. Fraternity is critically important. Yes, lip service to fraternity is one thing but practising fraternity in daily life is another thing. We are too big, too diverse a country to ignore these principles. Just as we cannot ignore justice, liberty, fraternity, we cannot ignore fraternity.