| "I DIDN'T GET ANY PAPERS ON CLEMENCY TO AFZAL GURU" Two days before he relinquished office as the President of India, Dr A.P. J. Abdul Kalam spoke to Managing Editor Raj Chengappa about his presidency years. Excerpts: | ||||||||||||||||
A. It is indeed good news. Q. According to some media polls, much of the nation seemed keen to re-elect you as President. Why did you turn down the request of the NDA to be their nominee? A. There were many requests in various forms from the public for my second term. Whichever political party or group met me, I told them consensus was essential for my taking part in the presidential election. I did not deviate from the principle of consensus. Q. Why? A. I didn't want any political process at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. In the absence of a consensus, there would have been political activity at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, which I wanted to avoid at all costs. Q. Why did you subsequently indicate to the UNPA leaders that you would reconsider if there was a certainty about you being re-elected? And then you announced that you would not accept a second term. A. I told them the same point about the need for a consensus. They said they would persuade others and so I said okay. Then when they came back to me and said they could not do it, I said okay (I will not stand). Q. When you took over as President, what did you want to achieve? And at the end of five years, do you feel you have been able to transform the presidency the way you wanted it to? A. I was propagating the programme of transforming India into a developed nation by 2020. When I became President, I definitely marketed it to Parliament and 14 state governments. I am satisfied that this movement has begun in the length and breadth of the nation, and particularly that the youth are inspired to make the nation great. Above all, Rashtrapati Bhavan itself became people's Bhavan. Over half a million to a million people visited Rashtrapati Bhavan every year. Q. When you were DRDO chief, you always lived only in one room though you were entitled to a secretary's bungalow. But when you became President, you occupied the best real estate the country has. Did that impact your thinking? A. Wherever I go, finally a man like me can live only in one room. I made all the other rooms in the Rashtrapati Bhavan operational and functional. For example, in one of them I set up a multimedia studio where I could communicate with anybody in India and abroad. Recently, I spoke to the California Institute of Technology and interacted with them from here. I also had a technology interface centre. So like this, all rooms were made functional. Q. Would you want a revision of the powers of the President? Do you think the President should play a greater role than what he or she is playing at present? A. The Constitution has withstood the test of time for over 50 years. As far as I am concerned, I didn't find any impediments in my way of working.
Q. Do you think the President can play a greater role? A. Yes, yes. What he thinks, he wants to do, he can do. If he thinks big, he can do it. The post doesn't restrict the person at all. If the President has vision, he can propagate it and nobody can prevent that. In fact, the nation will welcome it. I addressed the media, both print and television, so many times directly and the Government did not say anything. Q. Do you have any regrets? Would you consider the decision to dissolve the Bihar Assembly in 2005 as something that you would have acted differently on? A. I have no regrets. At that time, I was in Russia and I took the decision there. Wherever I go, I am electronically connected to my office, whether in India or abroad. I had detailed discussions with the prime minister on the issue and whatever other information I needed was electronically transmitted to me. Based on that I took a decision. If I was present in India, I would have sent back the file (for more details). In place of that I electronically got a lot of information. I asked certain questions and the prime minister discussed it with me twice. And then the relevant papers were transmitted to me electronically. Then only I took a decision. Q. You took a principled stand over the office-of-profit issue by sending the bill back. Were you disappointed by the Government's response? A. Regarding the Office of Profit Bill, I had to return it to Parliament for the first time. Naturally, they had to debate and discuss it in Parliament. It had created the necessary impact. Q. What impact did it have? A. They appointed a committee— that was the Government's assurance. Though it still has to submit the report. Q. You have worked with two prime ministers—Atal Bihari Vajpayee and now Manmohan Singh. What would you say are the differences between the two? How would you describe your relations with them? A. Each one had a unique core competence and also they had developed certain ways of decision-making. Both of them were concerned about accelerated national development. I had an excellent relationship with both the prime ministers and enjoyed working with them. Q. But in terms of style, how would you describe them? A. Both the prime ministers had a unique style and were the thinking type. They were men of few words but were action-oriented. Q. As President, there were many requests for clemency for death penalties pending with you, including that of the main accused in the Parliament attack, Afzal Guru. What are your views on the death penalty and why didn't you take a decision on some of these pleas? A. I found that most of the cases which came to me for clemency pertained to people from the lower strata of society. I had sought certain information from the ministry concerned and we are still discussing them. Regarding Afzal Guru, I have not received any papers from the ministry concerned so far. Q. Is that why you didn't take a decision in his case? A. If the papers had come to me, I would have processed them for their worth. Before the Government sends me papers of this nature, it has to go through several processes; it has to check with the Cabinet and also the state government concerned. It is going through that process. Q. So what are your views about the death penalty itself? A. As President, I have to have only one view. After 25th (the day he laid down office), I will have a different view. Q. India is at the final stage of signing a civilian nuclear deal with the US. Some political parties and experts have expressed concern that the deal may compromise the country's strategic capability. As someone who was one of the principal architects of our nuclear weapons programme, what would your advice be to the Government now? A. I believe that for India self-reliance is the only way for nuclear energy. We have to take the thorium route since we have large reserves of it available. A good amount of research is essential. Our scientists can lead to thorium-based nuclear reactor for energy production. I believe in them. Q. Do you think this deal would affect the self-reliance goal? A. No. The deal does not talk of self-reliance. Self-reliance is a national policy and programme. We have to work on that. Q. One of the major issues that came up during your presidency was the issue of reservation for OBCs in educational institutions and also for the Muslim community. How do you view the whole issue of reservation? A. It's an important point. I believe we have to make the whole reservation issue irrelevant by increasing the number of seats in our colleges—just like engineering colleges which have 20,000 to 30,000 seats. In other areas like bio-science, medicine, management and many specialised fields, we have to add more seats. Q. Are you concerned about the quality of political discourse in the country? Also, by the lack of focus on some critical issues? A. Yes, I am concerned, because development is not being talked about as it should be. It is not being given the highest priority in all political decisions. For instance, no political party has defined which year India would become economically developed. Nor have they discussed how competitive India should be compared to other countries. We are now ranked 43 in the competitive index; so when do we get to be among the top five? I have defined in Parliament that politics is equal to political politics plus development politics. Every political leader—legislators and parliamentarians—has to spend at least 70 per cent on developmental politics. But the reverse is taking place. I wish our electorate would choose leaders on the basis of their developmental track record. Q. Post-presidency, what are your plans? A. I will be teaching and doing research in five institutions. Q. If at some point there is need for a consensus candidate to be a prime minister, will you accept the post if it was offered to you? A. This is a juicy question for you. But it looks hypothetical to me. My plate is already full with the mission I just described to you. |
*Gandhi..SSSanjaiGandhi*
http://www.sanjaigandhi.blogspot.com
Its None of my Business What you Think of Me.
No comments:
Post a Comment