Opposition has a role in democracy, but they must do so responsibly: Najma Heptulla

You have written that as presiding officer of the Rajya Sabha, you ensured the opposition had its say in the House. Do you agree with the perception that in recent years, the voice of the opposition is getting stifled in Parliament?

I don’t know exactly what the issues are (in Parliament). But I read the Vice President’s statement. I fully agree with him that we have to keep the dignity of the House, the country, and our democracy. In a healthy democracy, the opposition plays a major role because if there is no opposition, the government goes whichever way it wants. Like it happened in Rajiv Gandhi’s time. He got such a massive majority in the Lok Sabha—there was no opposition.

I remember, in the Lok Sabha, Shivraj [Patil] ji suspended opposition members once. I jokingly told him: Are you presiding over the Congress session now because there is no opposition? They are all suspended. Sheila Dikshit and H.K.L. Bhagat, who were Parliamentary Affairs Ministers, came to me and said you should also suspend the opposition. I said: Why should I do it? They said they make noise. I said it is my responsibility to keep them quiet. But I cannot throw them out until they have committed something against the parliamentary rules. They said Rajiv ji wants it. I said I’ll talk to Rajiv ji and explain to him. I went to Rajiv ji and said, “Sir, why do you want them to be suspended?” He said they make noise. I said if they make noise in Parliament, I can hear them and stop them, but if they go on the street and make noise, I would have no chance to do it. He said, “They (Congress MPs) want me to throw you out.” I said: “Okay throw me out.” He said, “No, no, I’ll tell them Najma has put on too much weight, and I can’t throw her out.” So we had this exchange of jokes, and things settled down.

The opposition has a role to play in a democracy, but they should do so responsibly. Whatever discussions are there, they should participate. There was a situation when the Bofors issue came in, followed by Fairfax and Harshad Mehta. The House used to be very turbulent in those days. But you can manage it if you use a little diplomacy. You must have the confidence of the members—they should feel you are non-partisan.

How do you view the no-confidence motion initiated by the opposition against the Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar? The opposition alleges he is partisan.

There were always allegations against me also. They used to say I’m getting things done (for the government). The first responsibility of any presiding officer is to get the government business conducted. That’s what the House is for: getting Bills passed. That doesn’t mean he or she is partisan.

It has never happened that the opposition brought a no-confidence motion. It is wrong to make such a demand because, after all, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha is also the Vice President of the country. It is his responsibility to get the government business conducted. The opposition can talk about issues on the floor of the House, and there is always the Business Advisory Committee [BAC]. They can complain, say whatever they like about their issues in the BAC, or talk to him (Chairman) in his chamber. But to show disrespect to the Chair, I’m not happy with it.

There is a huge gap between the treasury and the opposition. Should the government not reach out to the opposition?

Yes. There should be a dialogue between the opposition and the government. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju must be doing that. I was not the Chairman of the House, only Deputy Chairman. But I brought the government and the opposition together in my chamber and asked them to talk. The Parliamentary Affairs Minister can talk to the opposition in the Chairman’s chamber. I don’t think the opposition will not agree to participate. After all, they are elected to participate in discussions, in the legislations and issues that concern them in their constituencies, in their State. So this impasse will have to be somehow resolved.

But I feel one should respect the presiding officer. When K.K. Tiwari criticised [Vice President] Shankar Dayal Sharma, he was reprimanded. Though it was a mild reprimand, Rajiv ji sent him before the bar of the House. Rajiv ji respected the Chair very much.

You have written in the book that “the fact that Sonia Gandhi became the longest-serving president of the Congress party is not a matter of pride in a democracy but rather a cause for lament”. Could you elaborate on this really strong view?

No, no. It is not only Sonia Gandhi but anybody who continues to be the president. The party should have a healthy democracy within. Other people should also get a chance. This was the Congress tradition. My grandfather, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, was the Congress president in 1922 and then in 1939-40. Nehruji was also the president. The president changed every few years. There was a term. If you look into the history of the Congress, there were regular elections, and the president was elected.

My grandfather spent 12 years of his life in jail. He fought for the freedom of the country. He opposed the Partition. That is my background. I don’t think they [the Congress] are following the party constitution.

You recall in your book that you dialled Sonia Gandhi after your election as president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union but were kept on hold and could not speak to her. You write about a communication gap and mistrust. Was this why you left the Congress?

It was a long time ago; I’ve forgotten what happened. But one thing, not for me but for anybody: if your seniors lose confidence in you, would you be happy and like to continue? Everybody wants to work with the confidence of their leader. If there is none, it not only hurts, but there is no point in it because you are not taken into consideration. It’s better to move on, and I did. She’s Indira Gandhi’s daughter-in-law. Rajiv ji and I had a wonderful relationship. She’s his wife, so I wish her well.

You had a close association with the Nehru-Gandhi family, starting with Jawaharlal Nehru.

He always visited our house (in Bhopal) whenever he came to meet my grandmother (Maulana Azad’s sister). Whenever I travelled (to Delhi) before I became an MP, I would stay at Teen Murti House. When Indira ji was out of power, she used to come and stay in my house in Bombay. Sonia ji knows about it. She knows I used to come to meet Mrs Gandhi when she was out of power. I worked to reduce the distance between the Congress and Muslim leaders like the Shahi Imam. I arranged dinners with the Ambassador of Saudi Arabia and others so that the Muslims came back to the Congress. She is a witness to it.

The next generation of the Gandhi family is at the helm now. How do you view Rahul Gandhi’s leadership?

They are communicating with the people. They are like Indira Gandhi because hers was an open house. Anybody could come and talk to her, whether politicians or ordinary people. So she knew what was happening at the grassroots. She made a mistake when she brought the Emergency—she was cut off from the people. During that period, I used to tell her a few things. I mentioned standing in the queue to buy milk for my daughter, so she knew milk was not available. I used to indirectly write; I never did directly talk to her about Emergency. I wrote the farmers were very unhappy because they were being treated badly by the local authorities, so she immediately changed the foodgrains takeover policy.

Priyanka Gandhi is also in Parliament now. Comparisons have been made between her and Indira Gandhi.

She looks very much like Indira Gandhi. Even my daughter looks very much like Indira Gandhi. I showed a photograph of my daughter to Rajiv ji once; she was about eight. I said, “Sir, who is this?” He said, “Of course, my mother.” I said, “No Sir, it’s my daughter.” He laughed.

Did you reach out to Sonia Gandhi after you left the Congress?

There was no opportunity because, as a minister, I was busy working for the development of not just Muslims but also Parsis, Buddhists, Christians, and Jains because these small communities have their issues. Regarding Muslims, though everybody talks about secularism, secularism doesn’t fill your stomach. One needs to think about their education and job creation. At that time, I focussed on [Prime Minister Narendra] Modi ji’s programme: “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” [development for all]. I must say Modi ji never interfered in my ministry. He never made me stop anything and appreciated what I was doing. So I was focussed on my work, and then I went to Manipur.

Your critics say you made an ideological compromise by joining the BJP.

The BJP is a political party. It’s not a religious party. Like any political party, say the communists, they have a different ideology. There are Muslims and Christians in it. We don’t go to a political party to protect our religion. We are there for its programmes. I was very close to RSS leaders when I was in Congress. I used to meet them and discuss issues with them. And they were open to me. I met them in Nagpur. In a democracy, you can’t shun people. You have to have a dialogue.

The religious leaders, whichever religion they belong to, should fulfil their responsibility of telling their people the true teaching of religion. In Islam, it is “my faith is with me, your faith is with you”. It has nothing to do with politics. And the Hindu concept is “the whole world is one family”. So let’s live like one country and think about the people who don’t even get two square meals.

As Minority Affairs Minister, you undertook a project to identify and oversee the development of waqf properties. How do you view the Waqf Amendment Bill?

I haven’t seen the details of the Waqf Bill. Waqf means trust, so they make trusts for the people to take decisions depending on their needs. But I noticed that in certain cases, families were chairing the Waqf Board and were misusing it. Some of them, not all. Waqf property was illegally occupied and even sold and turned into some other business by them. So there was a need to correct it.

You have written about the initiatives you took as the Governor of Manipur to improve the situation in the State. Where do you think the Centre and the State government are going wrong when it comes to dealing with the situation in Manipur?

Again, I will use the word dialogue. When I went there, it was in a terrible situation. There were blockades and bandhs—nothing was available in the market. I used to take meat and vegetables from Delhi by air. I called the leaders of the three major tribes—the Nagas, the Meiteis, and the Kukis. I said: Why are you fighting? Because no development is taking place, there is no tourism, you people are going hungry. You are hurting your own people; the government is not hurt. If you do not want to sit in the government building, sit in the Raj Bhawan. I will not interfere. You sit across the table and talk. And they did so, and things settled down. It became so peaceful that the President and the Vice President came for a conference, and the Prime Minister came for the Science Congress. Tourism started. I got a direct flight from Delhi to Imphal.

I opened the Raj Bhawan. I said nobody is going to kill me. I used to go out on the road and walk with the people. Now, they write to me, asking me to come back. They say they miss me. There are a lot of Manipuri people in Chicago with whom I have very close contacts. So it is how you handle it—dialogue, communication, talk, that matters.

Rahul Gandhi has visited Manipur twice, and he and his party ask why Prime Minister Modi has not visited Manipur so far.

 I don’t know. There is no Governor there. The Governor is always nonpartisan, not part of the government, not associated with any political party or side or tribe.