In an interview that will create considerable controversy and perhaps provoke the wrath of Bharatiya Janata Party supporters, the author of a recent study of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani has claimed that in 1998, when he was 33 and a young MLA, now Union home minister Amit Shah had been critical of the nuclear tests.
Vinay Sitapati, the author of Jugalbandi, an account of the Vajpayee-Advani relationship, and who teaches at Ashoka University, claims that in 1998 Amit Shah wrote to prime minister Vajpayee sharply criticising the nuclear tests.
In his alleged letter he wrote: “Respected Vajpayee Ji, because of your greed for publicity you have forever lost Pakistan Occupied Kashmir”. Sitapati adds that when Vajpayee summoned him to Delhi for an explanation Shah told him that Morarji Desai had told him: “If we both (India and Pakistan) become nuclear powers, we can never win back PoK through war”.
In a lengthy interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Vinay Sitapati was repeatedly and toughly challenged on his claim about Amit Shah. He said that he was relying on three different sources but would not reveal their names. In his book, however, he explains in a footnote that the story was told to him by “a senior journalist who wishes to remain unnamed”. Under tough questioning in the interview Sitapati said that he would be happy to reveal “off-line” the name of one of the three sources.
Sitapati admitted to The Wire that he had neither seen nor read the letter Amit Shah allegedly wrote Vajpayee but added it’s content had been communicated to him by the three sources. Two of them, he said, had read the letter. When questioned on what basis he has included alleged quotations from the letter in quotation marks, when he admits he hasn’t seen or read it, Sitapati said he had done so on the basis of trust in his three sources. He also said he was asking the readers of his book to trust that his account is accurate and correct and refused to accept his story is based on mere hearsay.
When asked how he would respond to the likelihood that his story about Amit Shah will become a test of his own credibility and the BJP is likely to say its untrue and that he has made it up, Sitapati replied by saying that no one has challenged the story so far. He also repeatedly asserted that he stands by it.
However, Sitapati insisted that Shah’s criticism of the nuclear tests should be seen in context. First, he said, it was proof there was internal democracy in the BJP. Second, Shah’s criticism reflects the idea of Akhand Bharat which is deeply embedded in BJP thinking. This makes him “a critic from the right”.
In the interview Sitapati also claims, this time relying on an interview with journalist Sheela Bhatt, that on February 28, 2002, hours after the killings in Gujarat began, Narendra Modi was “a person totally shaken up…Modi was struggling to get a grip on the situation…he was really frightened”.
Sitapati says that he accepted the veracity of Sheel Bhatt’s description of Modi’s behaviour both because she met Modi on the 28th morning and because it ties up with Modi’s behaviour on subsequent days. He said Modi was “scared and terrified his Hindu constituency was leaving him”.
However, Sitapati admitted that for this account of Modi’s behaviour he’s relying only on Sheela Bhatt and does not have any other source.
Perhaps even more importantly, Sitapati revealed that also on February 28, 2002, George Fernandes, who was then defence minister, visited a police kiosk in Ahmedabad where he heard on the police wireless “voices of some BJP MLAs directing the violence, telling the police not to do anything”.
Sitapati told The Wire that he had found this out from an unimpeachable source but there was absolutely no way that he can reveal the person’s name. He added he had no doubt this was the truth.
Speaking about the Vajpayee-Advani relationship, which is the core story of his book, Sitapati said that for most of his life Advani was in awe of Vajpayee.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani. Photo: PTI/Files
Even when he was home minister and deputy prime minister, Advani was not as important and powerful as some people have assumed. There is no way that the Vajpayee-Advani relationship, during the government of 1998-2004, can be compared to the Nehru-Patel relationship of 1947-50. “Vajpayee was boss,” said Sitapati. “He wanted Advani to handle the party. He didn’t think Minister Advani amounted to much”.
Speaking about Advani’s personality, Sitapati says “Advani acted more bigoted than he really was.” When questioned he agreed Advani’s hardline image was a mask. He also says, “Advani was more a man of principle than Vajpayee”. Adding he was “less altered by make-up”.
Sitapati said that Advani’s truthfulness and lack of guile was a disadvantage. He did not know how to dissimulate nor how to act well. “What you saw is what you got”. Advani was incapable of dissemblance and presenting different sides or different faces to different people.
Of Vajpayee, Sitapati said that there are several instances when he failed to stand up for his principles. Two telling examples are his attitude over the demolition of the Babri Masjid and his insistence that Narendra Modi should resign as chief minister in 2002. Sitapati said whenever Vajpayee realised he was in danger of annoying or offending his party he would do a somersault.
As he put it: “Vajpayee’s first ‘liberal’ reaction would be followed by the realisation that he risked being cast aside by his party. He would then leap to his party’s defence, a leap not of faith but of moral acrobatics”.
Finally, comparing the Vajpayee-Advani combination with the Modi-Shah one, Sitapati said: “Modi and Shah are more ruthless to political opponents than Vajpayee and Advani ever were”. He also said Modi has “an almost mystical connect with the voter” which, he added, makes him a much more formidable opponent and more difficult to combat than Vajpayee.
Watch the full interview here.