Congress leader and former External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid speaks to The Sunday Guardian.
New Delhi: “You are asking me a difficult question,” concedes Salman Khurshid, senior Congress leader and External Affairs Minister in the UPA-II government, when asked about Rahul Gandhi’s resignation from the post of the party president. “I am really, really saddened by the fact that Rahul Gandhi has decided to step down… We tried very hard but he didn’t relent and we respect his decision.” He, however, agrees that the entire “exercise” could have been handled well, but “when a tragedy hits you, when times are bad, sometimes the aesthetics and the management techniques aren’t quite the best… It’s like asking if one could have done a better job at a funeral”.
With the Congress finding itself in the political wilderness, Khurshid is getting enough time to write books these days, the latest being Visible Muslim, Invisible Citizen (Rupa, Rs 495)—his third in the past one year. Ask him about this, and the former minister says, “I thought this book might not see the light of the day. We thought we would come back to power in 2019, but that didn’t happen. And since it didn’t happen, this book remains relevant and topical.” With the BJP coming back to power, he argues, the “anxieties” of Muslims are back in circulation. “The rising tide of antipathy and hostility towards a particular section of society encouraged me to put the record straight.”
In an interaction with The Sunday Guardian, Khurshid not just talks about his controversial stand on triple talaq and the Aligarh Muslim University’s minority character, but also the current crisis engulfing the Congress and why the Opposition failed to stop the Narendra Modi juggernaut. Following are the edited excerpts of the interview with the former External Affairs Minister:
Q: You say that the idea of writing this book came from Shashi Tharoor’s ‘Why I am a Hindu’. But you also say that it was a difficult book to write. Why?
A: This book was difficult in the sense that theologically, it’s possible to say in Hinduism why I am a Hindu, but in Islam there is no such scope. In Islam, you have to have faith in God, who doesn’t share his beneficence with anybody, Prophet Mohammed, and the Quran. It may be different for a person who converts to become a Muslim, but those who are born into it, we are either faithful or we are not.
Q: Your stand on triple talaq is controversial and often seen as anti-women. What made you take this stand?
A: The question is: Are you against talaq, or for it? Is it good to part ways if you can’t live together, or to suffer for years by living together? We must understand that talaq is not a monopoly of the man. A man has right to give talaq only three times, twice to be able to take back, and third time not to be able to take back. This is a restriction on a man to stop him from behaving irresponsibly. But whether he gives talaq or triple talaq—triple talaq is now outlawed in India by the Supreme Court—there’s no instantaneous talaq; you still have to go through the period of iddat and you have to provide financial support to the woman.
I also have my reservations for the Triple Talaq Bill, especially the case of criminalising a civil issue. This comes at a time when the world is moving away from criminalising the personal law, whether it’s about Article 377 or the issue of adultery.
Q: Why there’s so much controversy on AMU’s minority character?
A: Article 30 of the Constitution provides for the minority character of an institution. So, the AMU is not asking for anything unreasonable if the requirements under the Constitution are satisfied and fulfilled. Article 30 says that it should be an institution set up and managed by the minority.
Q: One question that often haunts the community is whether they are Indian Muslims or Muslim Indians. How do you explain this?
A: I have touched upon the subject in the book tangentially. I didn’t think my mind was clear then. But for practical reasons I am confident that no matter what you call them, they are essentially Indians. They are different from Muslims anywhere in the world.
Q: With the BJP coming back to power with an even bigger mandate, the issues of the Universal Civil Code and Article 35A have once again come to the limelight. How do you see this?
A: The BJP should do what it thinks is right, but it must definitely ponder over its outcome, effect and repercussions. The Universal Civil Code exists in this country even today. A couple can decide not to get married according to their religions and go for the Special Marriages Act. But if you want to expand this, you can do it but you must give people a choice. Some person can prefer this system, some can go for the other. It’s wrong to assume that the Universal Civil Code is the panacea for all our ills. I think we need to debate more on this issue.
Q: Many liberals were at unease with not just the manner in which the Congress ran its election campaign but also statements like Rahul Gandhi was a “Janeudhari Brahmin”. How do you see that?
A: I personally don’t subscribe to statements such as “Janeudhari Brahmin” for Rahul Gandhi. But the projection doesn’t make him a Hindu, just as his attending an iftar doesn’t make him a Muslim. As a political person, he is everyone’s. Somewhere he will wear a Jewish cap, somewhere a Muslim cap, and at some places he will don a Hindu attire. These are outreach symbolism, which should not control your ideology. I find no reasons for us to believe that our leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have ever succumbed to anything but the ideology which is Gandhian and Nehruvian.
Q: Why did the Opposition fail to exploit the rumbling among the people regarding jobs and economy?
A: Democracy is difficult to explain. Why people choose a particular option is sometimes very obvious, sometimes very complicated. People have chosen the way they have chosen for a variety of reasons. But I don’t see that as a surrender to unwholesome religious sentiments. I am confident that the majority of the people in the country are secular, irrespective of the fact that they voted for the BJP. You watch, this country will bounce back.
Q: Do you think the Congress failed to sell its ideas well?
A: I believe we had a brilliant manifesto. We worked hard, but failed. The best batsman gets bowled on the first ball sometimes, despite doing everything right on the nets. Sometimes it happens. What do you do then? You go back to the nets again and work even harder. You may be luckier next time.
Q: Since you introduced a cricket analogy, is it right for the best batsman to resign and not fight back, as Rahul is seen doing today?
A: You are asking me a difficult question (smiles). My unselfconscious position on this is that I am really, really saddened by the fact that Rahul Gandhi has decided to step down from the post of the party president. But I respect his decision. We tried very hard but he didn’t relent and we respect his decision. But I am comforted by the fact that he is not going away. He will remain the tallest among all Congress leaders. No doubt, some restructuring will happen, but he will continue to guide the party along with the new president. I believe a new working arrangement will soon be in place that will have the president and the leader (Rahul) work closely together.
Q: Do you think the resignation issue could have been handled better?
A: It’s like asking if one could have done a better job at a funeral. If a tragedy hits you, when times are bad, sometimes the aesthetics and the management techniques aren’t quite the best. But the sooner we get over this and get back to work, the better it will be.
Q: How do you think the Opposition can stop the Modi juggernaut?
A: If I knew, I would have already done it (laughs). Let the new president take over and Rahul Gandhi be a little more relaxed. After this traumatic period is over, we will go back to the drawing board. I think we have a brilliant manifesto. We just have to take it to the masses, especially in the few states we have our governments in place.