Former Congress leader Natwar Singh has said the fact that Sonia Gandhi has reacted to his book shows that it's touched a raw nerve. Calling Sonia a prima donna, Mr Singh who had to resign from UPA-1 after allegations of corruption said no Indian would have treated him this way.He speaks to NDTV's Nidhi Razdan. Here's the full transcript:He was the ultimate insider, confidant, adviser and a senior minister in the Congress government, Natwar Singh, now 83 years old, has created a sensation with his autobiography particularly what he has said about the Gandhi family and Sonia Gandhi in particular, Mr Singh joins us today on NDTV. Mr Singh, I'm sure you are quite pleased that even before the book's formal release which is taking place today, the book has created so many headlines.Well, I'm surprised at the response.Why were you surprised, because there's a lot of interest particularly in what you have got to say about the Gandhi family.No I want to say this book is not Sonia Gandhi centric or even the Gandhi family although they are a prominent part of my life. As you go on I'll tell you what all I owe to this family.But you know some would see your book as hitting back or as revenge for the way that you were treated by Sonia Gandhi and when you were forced to resign from the Cabinet. How do you respond to that criticism, that this is your way of getting back at them?No you see bitterness and revenge are not part of my character. Life's too short to spend time on bitterness and revenge. I'm very deeply hurt, but the idea I'll take revenge or I'm bitter doesn't occur to me. I mean what happened is unfortunate and we passed through a very difficult time seven or eight years ago, but bitterness, revenge, meanness are out of my character.But you have used some very strong words about Sonia Gandhi, many of them unflattering. You've described her particularly at the time of Volcker Report as vicious and venomous, you have described her as obsessively suspicious, a prima donna, who over the years evolved from being a diffident, shy woman to ambitious, authoritarian, stern leader. You say under her, dissent is smothered. You also say no Indian could have behaved with me in this way which is obviously against her Italian origin. You do sound very angry and bitter if you don't mind my saying this.First and foremost, Sonia Gandhi is a historic figure, a place in history assured, what history's verdict will be we have to wait. But public figures of this eminence must accept that there will be a very close scrutiny of their lives and their activities and their work and so it was imperative for me to put across what I have said in the book. It is true, Rajiv Gandhi would not have done to me what she has done.Because he is Indian.Indiraji wouldn't do it, Jawaharlal wouldn't do it, we have a tradition that people who are older than you, you show them regard and look at the totality of their lives and the loyalty for over forty years, now this anybody born Indian would not do.That's a pretty strong comment you make about her Italian originI'm not taking the word Italian at all, I'm just saying...But that is the obvious referenceThat's your conclusion, not mine.But you know what you say about her character, about her authoritarian character as you put it, the fact that she is a stern leader, is that something you discovered only during the Volcker crisis, you've been in the Congress for so long, you've worked with her so closely, you didn't see that side of her when things were happy.No, no, I did see but I didn't... you see what hurt me was that I have had come from Moscow after talks with Putin and my opposite number, the Foreign Minister, and I had to spend the night in Frankfurt. Then early morning I'm woken up by our ambassador in New York saying that Volcker Report has come out and it names you, Congress party and corporate houses as non-contextual beneficiaries. I was stunned. First I thought I'll go back to New York and meet Volcker. I mean what for? There's nothing in it. I'll go to Delhi and explain. In the meanwhile on email came the Congress spokesperson that the Congress is clean, Natwar Singh can look after himself. Now this statement couldn't have been made without Sonia Gandhi's approval, as simple as that.You are saying that you never got a fair hearing, did you get any hearing at all? Did you get any hearing at all from her or the Prime Minister, your version?When I came back, I didn't go to see her because I was very, very hurt. Because I expected her to say, of course Natwar Singh could never do a thing like this, as well as the Congress party. But she didn't send for me to ask me what happened. At least you could have given me a hearing so I could have put my point across. And from then it started in the newspapers, this and that. I mean India Today conclave, Vir Sanghvi asked her - the subject of the Conclave was not Natwar Singh, Sonia Gandhi - what do you think about Natwar Singh and Volcker, and she said I'm very angry and I have a work relationship with him.But then what explains the turnaround, because you were her closest confidant?You know she said so.So what explains, why the sudden volteface by her vis a vis you?Nobody in the Congress party has ever defied her, the expectation was that I'll prostate and say 'maaf kar dijiye'. Now this is just not on, when my integrity is involved, question of bowing my head to anybody doesn't arise. Dr Manmohan Singh asked me to go and see her, so I said I'm not seeing her, I said Manmohan Singh ji, in my veins the blood of my ancestors flows, I don't know whose blood flows in yours. We fought the Mughals, we fought the British, I'm now fighting you. I will not bow down.But why not give you that hearing, I don't understand that? Having been so close to her what do you think motivated her to do this turnaround on you?This is what appalled me, even say the people around her, I mean they were resentful that I was so close to her, I could see her any day, you sit down and talk and there's a non-political side which is very attractive. I mean she relaxes, she jokes and talks about things, she's interested in music, she reads a great deal. I mean I first heard of Marquez's book, 'Hundred Years of Solitude' from her. She listens to music, she knows a lot about art, because when I went with her to Hermitage, St Petersburg, so she pointed out to me this was this, about furniture, about decoration, she was very, very up-to-date on this. That side people don't know. That's a very attractive side of her.So you are saying you don't understand why, you don't understand, is it a mystery for you?Two things as I told you. One the people around her told her that Natwar Singh is so close to you that everybody will say you got the money, and Pathak said in that report that I was clean. So this was one. Second was why didn't he come to see me?I come back to this question, as you said you actually said she was always like this in terms of her, as you said, her authoritarian behaviour and so on, but you never spoke about that befor. I mean you've only spoken about it after your exit from the government and the party.I've said that only in my autobiography, which I started writing in 2011. People say why didn't you come out earlier?But were you okay with the way she was when you were the insider, the confidant? Were you okay with that style of functioning, that lack of dissent and...There were many, many occasions when, for example, she would refuse to see Arjun Singh, would not meet thecGovernor, Chief Minister. So Arjun Singh came to see me, Natwarji I don't know why Soniaji doesn't see me. So I went to Soniaji, I said you know he's very upset, he's very sorry and really down in the mouth, 'bula lijiye'. No, I'll take a few days. So she called him, straight from there, she came to my house, Natwar Singhji at this level in politics nobody speaks about anybody. I'm most grateful to you and will be always my whole life.But my point is that Sir, you didn't seem to have a problem with that style of functioning that you are accusing Sonia Gandhi of having when you were in the party, that problem really seems to emerge when you've left, which is why we come back to the charge that is this an angry Natwar Singh getting back at her?You can ask anybody, I don't get angry, it's not that I'm a soft chap, but I just don't get angry, because there are certain things I don't do, because I will go down in my own esteem. Ultimately I'm answerable to her. When this was happening I didn't know her as much as I came to know her gradually. From '91 to '96 I only saw her in the capacity as Vice Chairman of the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust and she was the Chairperson and she was Chairperson of Nehru Memorial as Secretary. So when Narsimha Rao incident took place, I told him I don't talk to Sonia Gandhi.But you do sound pretty angry when you call her a prima donna.Prima donna, it's not an offensive phrase, it's not abuse, because she's been treated from the day she entered...like royaltyYou are married to a wonderful human being, handsome, generous, largehearted, witty, the most important political family. You come from an Italian home, you are 19-years old, the cultural shock, then fifteen years, mother-in-law as Prime Minister, then your husband is Prime Minister, then when he passes away you are a deity in the Congress party. It takes a hell of a lot not to think you are an heir.But she has of course now reacted yesterday to your book and whatever has come out until now, and said she will write a book of her own, and that will have the truth in it. So she's basically hinting your version of events is not the truth, how would you react to her?This is the first time she has reacted, she never does. she didn't react to Baru's book, never, I'm pleasantly surprised. And I look forward to her book and I hope she writes it sooner than later. I think she's entitled to her views and I look forward to reading her book. It doesn't bother me one bit, I'm glad that she said so and she should write, I mean I tried very many times, I think it's in the book. I said I'm going to write your biography, she said no, Priyanka is doing it, I said, no, I'll join Priyanka.You think it's significant she reacted, the very fact that she reacted?It absolutely is.Why, because it touched a raw nerve?Obviously that something has upset her so much that she came out. If I was advising her I would have said, don't say anything.You have mentioned in the book that on the May 7th this year she actually came to see you, along with her daughter Priyanka Gandhi, and Priyanka even asked you if you were going to write about events leading up to the swearing of the UPA government? If you can reveal a little more about that meeting. Why do you think Sonia Gandhi came to see you? I mean what was she really worried about? Was that just that bit about on what Rahul had said to her before, on the issue of the PM's post, what was she worried about in particular?On the 20th of April, Suman Dubey, who is a wonderful human being, spoke to me about the autobiography. So I said you know I'm not going to write anything cheap or which is not true, but nobody can edit my autobiography. Then on the 20th of April my interview in the Economic Times appeared, quite a long interview, in which I think Mr Manoj was interviewing me, and he asked, will you be writing about the incidents in which all these things happened, are you bitter about it? I said I'm not bitter, not part of my character, but I will write the truth. So that very morning Suman Dubey rang me up, please go and see Mrs Gandhi at 5 and 6, I said, I can't. And Priyanka rang me up, I said I'm very sorry, I'm busy for a week, I'll see you.? So on the 6th of May she telephoned could she come and see me? I said, please do come. She came and we chatted a lot about children, about growing up. I said, how are things in UP? She said in Rai Bareli, in Amethi it's fine, but the rest of it is not so easy. Then she said we'll not gain any seat in Delhi. Then she came to the point, my mother has asked me to see you, are you going to refer to certain events that happened in May 2004? I said nobody will edit my book and neither am I going to do hitting anybody below the belt, facts are not sacred, but truth is. And then I told her what has been done to me in last eight years, the whole thing I had gone through, which is given in the book, bank accounts, house, bugged, people sent all over to see if I have any property in London, I mean bizarre things.Then Sonia Gandhi also showed up?Then she was very friendly, very effusive, overwhelmingly so.Your first meeting in more than eight years?I'm a life member of the Nehru Memorial Fund, so when the meetings take place she's there, but we don't interact. Once I did, she asked me to say something, but nothing was talked about after thatSo this was your first real interaction? So it was about events leading up to the swearing-in and what Rahul told her?I told her I have given Priyanka all the details, what really happened. Then she said, I didn't know. So I said you know nobody is going to buy that.Priyanka said she didn't know.No, no Soniaji said, I said nobody is going to buy that you didn't know, because nothing happens in Congress without your knowledge or approval. Nothing happens in the government without your knowledge, not even a leaf turns in the Congress party. And then I said Manmohan or any other minister wouldn't have touched me if they didn't have your approval.But you are saying she did that more to protect herself, rather than anything else. You were forced to resign, was her direction to the Prime Minister, because she was advised that this would hurt her personally, that is the motivation you are seeing?Yes.Of course the most sensational claim in your book is that it wasn't her innermost voice, her son Rahul who prevailed on her not to accept the Prime Minister's post. Now one question is, even if that was what Rahul did, because he was worried she may be killed when she became Prime Minister, like his father and grandmother, it was still quite a big thing for her to give up, what do you say?I give Rahul full marks for doing what he did as a son for his mother. My father has been killed, my grandmother killed, you will be killed if you become. As a son I can't let you do that, and I think it was very noble of him to do. And she accepted what he said. You know it was an agonising decision, on thecother side, as I told you, as a son Rahul did something really remarkable.You understand where he was coming from?No I understand that he genuinely, as a son, said, no, you will be killed in six months and I agree with him. If she had become Prime Minister, she would have been killed.But you actually go on to say that Rahul Gandhi was going to take any step to stop, that it was no ordinary threat. My question is what kind of a threat did he make? You said that he also gave her a 24-hour ultimatum.No, he said I won't let you do it.What was the threat, what was the ultimatum?The threat was, that if you do this, I will take some action which I don't want to take, I will implore you, you can't do it and I will not retreat on this.He didn't specify what that action would be?He wasn't there at the meeting when Priyanka was there and when Manmohan was.But you didn't know what that threat was?I don't know, but obviously it was so serious. The difficulty was after this she had called a meeting, in which she was sitting at the head table, and Pranab Mukherjee sahab, Dr Manmohan Singh, Arjun Singhji, Shivraj Patil, I think Ahmed Patel, Ghulam Nabi Azad sahab and myself and one or two others, she said I have requested Dr Manmohan Singh to accept Prime Ministership. And so Manmohan said, no, I don't have the mandate. So I spoke and said, you know the person who has the mandate has given it to you, no business to say no to her, we all will help you. The difficulty was how to convince the UPA partners.But on the point of Rahul, again you say to you it wasn't an ordinary threat, it wasn't in Rahul's nature to give ultimatums, but you don't know what that ultimatum was? Do you think that then Sonia Gandhi should not have told that it was her inner voice that told her not to accept this post? Or do you understand why she did that publicly or do you feel that she was dishonest?I'm not sure, when did she say this?Apparently at a meeting of Congress MPs when she told them she's not going to take up that position and she's been widely quoted from thereBut I don't remember she said about her inner voice, I don't remember. Even if she did, what is wrong with it?You don't see that as a point of criticism?No, I mean she was under stress, it was a major decision she had to take, as I told you the problem was with UPA partners.But can I ask you Sir, on Rahul Gandhi then, the fact that he had this fear, as you say, of his mother being possibly killed, the fact that his father and grandmother had been through these very violent death. Do you think that is something which has stopped him from taking up a leadership role, because he is seen as a very reluctant leader in the Congress party? So do you think this is the reason why he is not willing to take up more responsibility?This hasn't occurred till you asked me because, you know he's a very strong-willed person, he's not a push-over. He may not be a brilliant politician, but as a human being he is very tough and I don't think he would care about his own life.Then why do you think he's such a reluctant leader?Politics is not a part time job, it's a full-time job. Two, for politics you should have fire in your belly, I don't think he had a fire. Now when he became Vice President of the Congress expectations were very high that he will take the Congress to victory, but the consequences were reverse. The Congress party came down to 44. Now the Congress culture is that you can't criticise Rahul or his mother, but the fact is they were leaders of the campaign and the campaign resulted in 44 seats to you. After the Emergency Indira Gandhi got 158 in Lok Sabha, so if there was free debate in the Working Committee then they should have said; they did offer to resign and the CWC said no. What else could it say, that you please resign? If they do that then Congress will have only two members. She has held the Congress together for 15 years.But then you feel Rahul lacks that fire in the belly, as you put it?Yes he does.And therefore is there any alternative the Congress has?No.they still have to stick to the Gandhis?After 67 years, the Congress party has ruled for 50, BJP is not a national party. They have only ruled for 6 years. This thing is wrong, that this is a dynastic thing, but this is an elected dynasty, Jawaharlal was elected, Indira was elected, Rajiv was elected, Sonia elected, Sanjay elected and Rahul elected.So you don't think dynasty is a problem?No it's not. But people don't understand, but they have all been elected, nobody has imposed them on the Congress party. They are elected.So you believe that for Congress to survive, the key still lies with the Gandhis?Absolutely they can't think of anybody else.Why the Congress has a lot of young leaders who are bright?Natwar Singh: No you please tell me, who?Do they get the kind of opportunities that Rahul does? Well you have Jyotiraditya Scindia, you have Sachin Pilot, you have other leaders as well, Jitin Prasada, young people who were ministers as well?You please ask them, Rahul is not going to be, reaction of these will be, are you out of your mind? Who's going to vote for you?So you believe they are still the vote catchers, for whatever worth it is?As I told you if Rahul and Sonia said, we are retiring, first of all the Congress would be divided into five factions without them, there will be five leaders, they will not agree on one person, nobody will.As you know Manmohan Singh rarely speaks, but yesterday he spoke on your book. He said that your claims are a marketing gimmick, he also denied that any files of the government were sent to Sonia Gandhi and said that private conversations should not be made public for capital gains. Pretty strong wordsThree things, would he have said yes, I sent files to Sonia?So is he lying?No let me, I'll come to that, Sanjaya Baru has said so in his book, did Mr Manmohan Singh contradict him?He's contradicted you.I'm telling you, his secretary Pulok Chatterjee, you think had gone to have tea with Sonia Gandhi when he went everyday or every other day. No, no she had invited him for dinner. What is all this and I'll tell you. I think sometime in early 2005 she said you are not dabbling in defence deals, I said what do you mean? She said there's a file with you which is about a deal with an African delegate who's here.Yes, you write about a mole being there in your ministryI said listen, is my signature on the file and how do you know? Yes I have written, I said how do you know? She said you talked to Pranab? I said yes I did talk to him, this delegation has come and I'm sending them to you.But are you saying Pulok Chatterjee was taking official files to Sonia Gandhi and showing them to her?I didn't work in the PMO but Sanjaya Baru did for six years, he says it and Manmohan Singh didn'tBut you have a former PM saying on record that no official files were ever sent to her, so who do we believe?That's up to you but the facts are that Sanjaya Baru has said what I'm saying, many other people are saying it. Do you know how many Congressmen have telephoned me to say, good for you, you brought this out? More than fifty.More than fifty Congressmen have called you to say you did the right thing?Yes and they are from various parts of India.What about Manmohan Singh's statement that private conversation should not be made public for private gain?I'm not short of money.You are selling a book? This is all part of your book for which you'll gainPublic figures have no private lives. You read about Kennedy's life, what is not written about it, you read the books about, at one time his NSA, JN Dixit, every conversation on Sri Lanka has been reported, his book 'Assignment Colombo' is full of private conversations which he had with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, they are all there in the book. Read Kissinger's book, you are a public figure, you are a historic figure, you have no private life. Your private life comes under great scrutiny, and for Manmohan Singh to say that there are no conversations, he may remain reticent, that's what has harmed him. He hasn't got the guts to come out and say what the facts of life are.You've called him spineless in your book.What would you call him?It's not for me to say, you tell me.No, I'm asking you.Well perhaps he didn't stand up to a lot of things that were happening in his Cabinet.Exactly the same thing I have said in other words.Finally Mr Singh your critics will also say that your political leanings have also changed over the last few years, your son is now a BJP MLA, you yourself are full of praise for Mr Modi's leadership and his foreign policy, and the accusation is that that has motivated you as well to speak out against the Gandhis nowI saw Mr Modi in Ahmedabad on the 4th of February, this is three months before the elections, and I told him I have not come to ask you for anything. I have noticed that in the last five months you have not spoken a word about foreign policy, the Prime Minister is also ultimately Foreign Minister, you should begin with the neighbours because we have neglected our neighbours. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has not been to Pakistan, he has not been to Nepal, not been to Bhutan, Sri Lanka, I remember, Bangladesh, if you are not getting along well with your neighbours how do we, this particular thing, this is what I told him. Secondly I told him I'm 30 years older than you, you obviously don't know who I am, he said no I know you, I also know your son is elected, I have been Nehruvian all my life and said so in my book. I'm not blind to his faults, he was a great man, no two ways about it, he was not a great Foreign Minister, that's another thing. So I also told him that foreign policy is very complicated. Foreign Policy is what you do, diplomacy is how you do it, they have to get together to make it effective.But it does sound like your political leanings have changed now, your son is now in the BJP.But I'm not responsible for my son.You do have praise for Mr Modi's leadrship... the criticism is that Natwar Singh is now wearing a different cap.But why? I'm not a member of BJP, I haven't made a statement about Mr Modi that he is great guns. I haven't said a word, written about it, why should I say anything? I had gone to tell him that yes, you should talk about foreign policy. Why don't you, if you are going to be the Prime Minister of India? I didn't go to ask him for a job. I have written that I met him. When Sonia came I told her that I had seen Mr Modi.But I will ask you again sir before I wrap this up, do you think you should have spoken about Sonia Gandhi's faults and her style of functioning and the lack of democracy in Congress, as you put it, much earlier, much before Volcker happened, when you were the insider and perhaps could have effected a change?But it didn't happen at that time, there were people...But you said she was always like that as a leader.Listen none of us is a one-dimensional person. She has a multiplicity of identities. I'm a good Rajasthani, I'm a good Hindustani, my, my, mydon't conflict, they are part of me, we are all split personalities. And this is a great discovery of Freud, before that we did not know. He reduced the individual into different sets of our lives and this is what happens.So you are saying you saw her real face only after what happened with you?

Because that reaction of hers I did not expect. I mean it was horrendous. As I told you I was full of praise for the family, Rajiv Gandhi didn't name me a minister because he liked my face. He thought there's something he can contribute. Rajiv didn't ask me to come to join his Secretariat for five years because I was a duffer. He thought I had something to offer and I did.