The Opposition nominee Gopalkrishna Gandhi tells The Hindu that freedom to criticise the government is crucial, but courtesy in doing so is also important.
What is your assessment of the Modi government after three years of its coming to power?
The Modi government should not be seen as all anti-democratic and anti-freedom. For, elections have been held; opportunities have been given for people to express their political preference against the Modi government. The media is free to write as it chooses. And yet there is in every situation something called the dominant spirit. And the dominant spirit in the last three years is of extreme intolerance to criticism. It has not been laid down as policy but it has been very unmistakably conveyed that intolerance of the government amounts to insult to the country.
The equating of an elected government which can be elected out of office with the nation itself is something which is completely new and is completely undemocratic. And the conveying of the idea that if you are not supporting the government you are betraying the nation is dangerous and has created an atmosphere of fear which is completely out of order in a democracy. I want the Prime Minister to say -- 'do not be afraid of making criticism. Criticise me. Go ahead, persuade me. If I am wrong, I will correct myself. If you are right, I will acknowledge it. Be unafraid'. I have not heard that. Perhaps it will come, and if it comes I will welcome it. I must also say that because there is fear, those who want to break out of the pall of fear tend to go overboard.
Courtesy in political criticism is as important as freedom. Nobody speaking on the side of freedom and democracy should give up basic courtesies. The attacking of people as individuals is inconsistent with democracy as it should be.
What are your views on frequent disruptions of Parliament in the last few years?
Disruptions in Parliament and also state assemblies have been best described by our former Speaker of the Lok Sabha Shri Somnath Chatterjee, who said that he was ashamed of what is happening. These disruptions are completely out of tune with the concept of Parliamentary democracy and legislative debate. Even under the utmost provocation, disruption and any kind of insult to the Chair are just not done.
Since it has been much discussed recently, what do you think nationalism should mean in our times?
In the decolonised world, nationalism and patriotism have historical roots and they are great phenomena of which we should be proud. But hyper-nationalism and cultural nationalism tend to be weapons in the hands of the dominant community. In the last two years, even in the last 15 years or so, hyper-nationalism has been advanced as a great virtue, and has either co-opted or persuaded simple people, who are not jingoists, to forget the appeal of democracy and the appeal of harmony to become super-nationalists.
In the context of alleged slogans in JNU and a Kashmir petition in the university where you teach, to what extent do you think freedom of expression should be upheld?
It is impossible to prescribe limits. In any case, who is to prescribe limits? There has to be an internal line that anybody draws on what she or he expresses. I think we have reached a situation when the right to express oneself is being challenged. And if that is the case, everybody who cares for that freedom guaranteed by our Constitution has to stand and protest and say — “Sorry, this is my prerogative and you cannot take it away from me.” The question of limits is also very important since when a person wants the freedom of thought and expression, that person must regard that freedom as a priceless possession which if misused and squandered is going to lose its credibility.
So those who want to use their freedom of thought and speech to be protected must ensure that they don't use it in a way that it becomes vulnerable to attack. I should feel free to say what I think but should say what I think with due care and in the right form. If I lose my balance I am not going to be able to stand up and speak.
So, do you mean that freedoms in JNU, Jadavpur University and Ashoka are best decided internally among students?
This freedom is uniquely an individual right. It is for the individual to decide where the limit is drawn. Nobody outside or in a group can decide it.
Do you feel, like some do, that the rights of Paranjoy Guha Thakurta as Editor of the EPW were curtailed, leading to his resignation?
I should not say much on the EPW matter as I do not know most of the details. But this I would say that editors of journals are not just employees. The editor of a journal is a supremely important figure whose personality and word has to be seen as an expression of free thought; an expression of fearlessness. And I do not want to see any editor as anything but a tribune and herald for freedom.
How concerned are you about cow vigilantism?
I am as concerned as anybody can be for the reason that cow vigilantism has nothing to do with the cow and has everything to do with hatred for communities, majority of them being Hindus, particularly Hindus of what are called the lower castes who are dependent on cattle trade. The contempt in which upper caste India holds those who are dependent on cattle trade and whose culinary customs are different from theirs -- that contempt we see in cow vigilantism. It has nothing to do with the cow and everything to do with domination and intimidation. Today, we have cow vigilantism. The national rage against vigilantism is also there and is keeping vigilantism under check.
JDU and BJD have supported you but did not support Meira Kumar. What do you have to say about that?
These two parties have decided to nuance their vote, one way for the President and another way for the Vice-President, showing that flexibility in voting is not only permissible but also expected. I would have of course wanted all parties, including the BJP, to think of a non-political candidature as a welcome thing, but that obviously has not happened. JDU and BJD saying that we will vote for the non-political, independent opposition candidate is a reflection of our democracy’s resilience and virility. I welcome it wholeheartedly not because I am the beneficiary but because an important principle, namely, independent, autonomous voting, has been effected.
But Mr. Venkaiah Naidu is a political figure…..
Political leader becoming President and Vice-President is known in India and I would expect any political person who has become President or Vice-President to move out of political background and into completely objective, fair and neutral Vice-Presidential or Presidential role. So, it is possible for a person to have a BJP heart and once becoming Vice-President or President to not function like a person with a BJP heart. As a constitutional entity there is nothing wrong with a political person contesting these two offices and there is everything wrong if such a political person brings his politics in play if elected. And I should not expect Mr. Venkaiah Naidu, if elected, to be anything but an objective Vice-President.
You also have the support of the Left parties. You were critical of Singur and Nandigram as West Bengal governor. What are your memories of working with the Left government there?
The Left government in Bengal had been in power for an unbelievably long term. Their work for land reforms in the state was pioneering and life-forming for the beneficiaries. But a stage was reached when the use of land for industry was becoming imperative and land had to be found. But there are ways and ways of going about it. And certain things happened at that time which led to a public response that then ended in all that we know happened. I must say the political leaders in the left that time were broadly speaking aware of why I said what I said and they understood my reasons because they knew that I had no motivation other than the welfare of the state. There were some political leaders of the left who were very critical of what I said. But I must concede that there was all the time great civility towards me on the part of the left. And it is important that my role in Singur came much after Nandigram and the left government's participation in the discussions on Singur took place well after Nandigram, only showing that they had the fullest trust in the role of the governor and my role as that governor.
People questioned your role in the Yakub Memon incident, saying you tried to save him.
As for the question of death penalty, most countries in the world have moved away from it and India is also in the process of moving away from it. The Law Commission of India under Justice A.P. Shah has itself made major recommendations on it.
How has being named the Opposition's Vice-Presidential candidate changed your daily schedule?
I would not say it has changed my daily schedule but it has certainly impacted on it in terms of shrinkage of all leisure time. I am able to spend far less time than I would like to with my grandchildren, which is the most cherished part of my life. I have to take time off from the preparations of my teaching but I continue to work for my classes and continue to teach.
How much time a day do you spend at Ashoka University?
When I am in the university, which is not every week or every day, I take two classes of two hours each. I have not taken leave. My class schedule is also rather considerate as I am not on the regular, everyday teaching activity. My classes are twice a week in the week when I am teaching. There is a department of politics and history which runs a course on Indian civilization. I teach that.
