A day after Finance Minister Arun Jaitley termed Prime Minister Narendra Modi the worst victim of ideological intolerance, former union minister Arun Shourie on Monday said that PM Modi must speak out on intolerance.

"Designating Modi as a victim of intolerance is the most dangerous thing to do because it will give him grounds to be vengeful," cautioned Shourie.

In an exclusive interview to India Today Television's Karan Thapar, Shourie quoted his friend and said that the prime minister's behaviour has lowered him to the level of RJD chief Lalu Prasad and made Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar a statesman.

(Jab elections shuru huye, toh hamare 2 provincial politicians the, Lalu Yadav aur Nitish Kumar aur waha yugpurush the, world famous leader Narendra Modi. Ab jo election campaign hua hai usse Narendra Modi sahab apne aap ko Lalu ke star par le aye hain. Aur Nitish Kumar ji statesman lagte hain.)



Fringe groups getting encouraged

Shourie said that the prime minister's silence was deliberate and it encouraged the fringe groups. A ruler is known by the character of the persons surrounding him.

"If you go back to the election speeches by Modi. He talked of pink revolution. Beef business can be linked to it. They were encouraged by people around Modi who used provocative language and did not break his silence on the Dadri lynching," he said.

Wrong to call writers, scientists rabid

The former minister from Vajpayee-led government supported the writers' protest of returning their awards against intolerance in the society.

"It is the Gandhian thing to do. In August 1921, Congress appealed to the people those who have titles should return them. He condemned senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley's comment that these elements were rabid as inexcusable because it applies to noted scientist C N R Rao, RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, eminent micro-biologist PM Bhargava and ex-Navy chief Adm Ramdas," he said.

On rising intolerance

Rejecting BJP leaders' repeated statements that the Prime Minister cannot be expected to speak on each and every issue, Shourie said, "Prime Minister is not a section officer of the homoeopathy department. He is not head of a department. He is the Prime Minister. He has to show the country the moral path. He has to set moral standards."

The former NDA minister said that Modi tweets inconsequentially, but is silent after the Dadri lynching incident.

Modi turning India into Pakistan

Tum se pehle woh jo ek shakhs yahan takht-nasheen tha uss ko bhi apne khuda hone pe itna hi yaqeen tha- Arun Shourie quotes Habib Jalib (Even before you there was a ruler who also believed that he was God.)



Narendra Modi has failed to fulfil his moral responsibility and in breach of oath of office, he is turning India into Pakistan because winning Bihar matters more than India's future. Recent campaigns by Modi have diminished his image. The language that Modi uses during his rallies in Bihar does not suit a befitting prime minister.

Full transcript of India Today's exclusive interview

Karan Thapar: Today speaking for the first time is one of India's great public thinkers. A former editor, a former author and a former minister in Atal Bihari Vajpayee's government - Arun Shourie. In the wake of the meat and beef bans, the Dadri lynching, the murder of rationalists and Dalit children, the treatment of Sudheendra Kulkarni, Ghulam Ali, many people believe that a mood of intolerance is spreading in the country. Do you agree with the interpretation or do you think it's an exaggeration?

Arun Shourie: It's certainly the fact. These things are occurring one after the other pervasively across the country. As these people rightly apprehend, there's no response from the government. So, it is right to be worried.

Q: How do you explain this tide of intolerance? What do you think is causing it?

A: First, there is encouragement. The basic reason is weakening of the Indian state in general. Not the state government, but the Indian state. Any posse of bullies anywhere can get at anybody at any time and do anything to him, and no perpetrator is ever brought to book. Therefore, they feel more and more encouraged. This happening in such an atmosphere - every little social service organisation and political parties start gathering strong armed men to their own cadre, so that they can deploy them whenever they like. Not just in elections.

Q: Many people believe that because Narendra Modi in May 2014 won 282 seats giving the BJP a majority for the first time in history, extremists and fringe elements associated with the party are becoming emboldened. They are now asserting themselves with impunity. Is that one of the explanations?

A: That's a very important inference that Mr Modi should look at. Because a ruler is get known by his own character, shows up with the characters of the people he surrounds himself with, and by the characters of the persons who feel encouraged because he is sitting on top. There's no doubt that many of these people draw inspiration from what was said during the election campaign. This beef business - in the election speeches of Modi himself, there's all the talk about Pink Revolution. So, they feel encouraged. Then an atmosphere is created. Not just by fringe elements, but MPs, his own ministers, so called 'bhaktas' on social media. He invited those very bhaktas to his house and held a reception for them. Two of my journalist friends told me that when they saw a man who used the vilest of abuse on social media - now, why will they not feel encouraged?

Q: You are saying the pre-election speeches led to Dadri lynching?

A: No, that's stretching too far. In the beef business, I was saying that as an example that it could be linked to what they heard in the speeches.

Q: And they were encouraged by it and also by the fact that the people around Mr Modi say provocative things and he says nothing to stop them?

A: Absolutely, and it almost comes out as if it is by design. An incident occurs or is created, then it kept alive by statements every second day. Three, four weeks. People say why is Mr Modi not speaking. In the end he says something delphic - Motherhood is good.

Q: So there's a real connect between the intolerance we see today, and the speeches we heard during the campaign, the silence of the prime minister, and the people surrounding the prime minister, and all that say - and all that is connected to what's leading up to it?

A: Not only that. If you see Mahesh Sharma is the minister for culture. What he says, even about Kalam. Then you give that very man Dr Kalam's house. The house in which Dr Kalam stayed. Don't you think others will not feel encouraged that that is the way to be rewarded? It's like spitting in the face of the people. There's a phrase - me ne frego - I don't give a damn. That was Mussolini's motto for his black shirts. I am not saying Modi's attitude is similar, but it's an inference that it is an attitude that will lead to the same consequences as. Please don't think I am comparing Modi to Mussolini, not at all. This Mahesh Sharma thing is really symbolic.

Q: Do you think that now more than 400 writers, actors, filmmakers have returned their awards or statements of protests against intolerance - was the right thing to?

A: Of course. It is the Gandhian thing to do. I will put your 400 figure into perspective. In 1921, in the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Congress led by Gandhiji appealed to the people - Those who hold titles should return them. I looked up the figures. In August 1921, 5,186 persons who had titles. Do you think how many returned them? 24. Here there's no Gandhi, and yet, as you say 400 people have felt compelled to state their protest and warning in public.

Q: The BJP on the other hand, has at least on four different levels not just criticised these protestors, but condemned them. To begin with, Arun Jaitley said that these protests are manipulated, more importantly, he said these are rabid anti-BJP elements. How do you respond to that critique?

A: Rabid? Rabid means not just expressing yourself in an extreme language. These people have spoken softly. It means you suffer from rabies. Prof CNR Rao, one of the most distinguished scientists of India, Bharat Ratna awardee, he's rabid? Narayan Murthy is rabid? Dr Balram, who's the head of Indian Institute of Science for 8 years, who speaks so softly that you have to strain to hear him. He's rabid? Dr Bhargava is rabid? These chaps who make these statements don't know the scientists. They've not read a book in 20 years.

Q: In fact, the list purportedly includes Admiral Ramdas, Raghuram Rajan?

A: Yes, he has spoken at the Delhi IIT convocation. He's rabid?

Q: A second critique by BJP - they didn't protest against the Emergency, 1984 Sikh killings, scams under Dr Manmohan Singh - they are hypocrites and have not right to protest today?

A: My friend you certainly can't say that about me, on all those three-four points? But second, the point is, that was factually wrong. It turned out that in Nayantara Sahgal's case. I knew her during the Emergency, when JP set up the citizens for democracy and the people's union for civil liberties, she was the most important pillars there. But you except that. Do you know that Gandhiji never spoke up against the holocaust of the Jews. In fact he ended up into an embarrassing correspondence with Martin Buber and other Jewish philosophers...saying that they were not entering the gas chambers with smiles on their face, and they are not having goodwill towards Hitler in their hearts. I'll reproduce all this correspondence. But, the point to be noted, is that all his protests are not to be taken note of? What is this argument?

Q: In other words, people have the right protest on issues that matter, that personally arouse them, they have to not protest on everything to make one protest valid?

A: Of Course. I would have naturally liked everybody to protest against Emergency. It's the issue that we should think of, and what they are saying at that time. Don't paste motives and go into his grandfather's history at that time.

Q: Third reason BJP gives is that these people enjoyed leverage when Congress was in power. But now they are frustrated and disgruntled?

A: This is such nonsense. In fact, these chaps are troubled by the intellectuals for the opposite reason. A true writer, a scientist true to his calling, he wants nothing from them. They cannot bribe him, most of them they cannot frighten, that is why these intellectuals are not in the control of these fellows. That is what really troubles them. They never find these motives till these intellectuals have spoken against them. Then suddenly... [they delve on his past]. Why didn't you discover his character before he spoke?

Those fellows [protestors] have not lost leverage. They are the conscience of the country. Such fine sensibilities that walking down the road, they notice things that you and I don't notice. That is the reason in our culture were revere the writers, we are grateful to scientists. The scientists on that list are responsible for our space program, our mathematics. And you say they are rabid?

Q: Fourth BJP reason, for instance, the state government is responsible for Dadri?

A: Of course, it is also responsible... Then by the same logic, argument in a discourse conducted - In Delhi, the Delhi Police is under the central government? Rape after rape takes place. Should we then hold the central government responsible alone?... Citizens are losing out on this mutual blame game.

Q: On Prime Minister Modi's response.

A: The prime minister is not a section officer in the department for homeopathy. He's not the head of a department of government. He is the prime minister. He has to show the country the moral path. He has to set the moral standard. As for this business of he can't speak on any and every matter, these are any and every matters? But the fact of the matter is that he does speak on any and every matter. I request you and your viewers to look at his tweets. They are about David Cameron's birthday, Modi kurta, stampede in Mecca, loss of lives from an explosion in Ankara, on those very days. On September 28 Dadri happened, on September 29th he sends out a tweet saying 'Best wishes to Mahesh Sharmaji for his birthday'. On 30th, similar something, to the governor of Nagaland...

Q: You are saying two very important things. First you are saying, that, side by side with PM's deafening silence on Dadri lynching case, which truly shook the country as nothing else in the last 70 years, the PM could not say a word about Dadri, but he found time to tweet on an inconsequential subject. What does that suggest?

A: Well the obvious. PM decides to speak on certain things and not to speak on certain things.

Q: Does it also suggest that he simply did not understand the importance of what had happened in Dadri, or was he ignoring it?

A: No, I think it is much more deliberate than just ignoring. The issue is kept alive by other persons. Don't forget he is silent, but other persons are speaking.

Q: He wanted others to keep it alive?

A: But how can it not be the case? You mean to say, he can't discipline MPs of his Parliament? You can't have it both ways. On one side, oh he is a very strong leader, oh he knows everything, he knows what clothes his ministers are wearing and he makes them change their clothes. He gets them back from restaurants. He knows everything but he does not know what is going on statements. He is a very strong leader but he cannot discipline his ministers.

Q: Why do you think he deliberately chose to keep silent? Was it because he thought that Dadri would work in his party's political interest and he wanted that to happen, or, was it because somehow he is under pressure from forces that won't let him speak out. What was it?

A: No, there is no pressure on him. It is his own choice.

Q: A political decision?

A: I think so.

Q: A political decision and a belief that it would benefit to keep quiet?

A: The problem is he does not realise the consequences of silence or of such incidents. You know how delicate the situation is in Kashmir and what happened is the result. Some truck driver is killed, some MLA is beaten up and you suddenly give credence to the voice of secessionists.

Q: Mr Shourie, what you are suggesting to me is that PM is deliberately playing with fire without realising fire can burn him.

A: Not only him my friend, the country.

Q: So he is running a huge risk?

A: And only for an election in one state. It is a very big problem.

Q: You said the Prime Minister is not just a section officer of the homoeopathy department. He is the Prime Minister. He is the moral leader of the country. Do you believe that when something like Dadri shakes the country, he has a duty to enunciate a position around which the nation can rally and he failed to fulfil that duty.

A: Of course, that is what prime ministers are for. Not for running departments.

Q: So he has actually failed to fulfil responsibility of a prime minister?

A: Of that one very important foundational responsibility of setting the moral standard and of showing the moral path.

Q: Is that because he did not realise that it was his duty or because he consciously chose to ignore it, because of Bihar and political reasons, it did not suit him?

A: I can't go into his mind but I certainly would, just from the inference of what has happened, I would think it is the latter.

Q: While talking about the PM, this is not about direct subject of intolerance but it is connected and I wanted to bring it up. The PM made a speech first in Buxar, then he repeated it almost 24 hours later in Bettiah, where he publicly repeatedly accused Nitish Kumar and Lalu Yadav of stealing 5 per cent voters from OBCs, Dalits, Maha Dalits to give to an unnamed religious community. He never named the community, but we all knew it was Muslim. Is there a real danger here, that he was pitching community vs community?

A: Of course, that was the purpose. There can be no doubt. The important point to see here is not just that speech, but it is combined with the speech of Amit Shah about Pakistani crackers. It is very important to see the fact that these gentlemen feel that they should do anything and everything to win mere elections in respect to its long term consequence. That is a very big problem.

Q: Victory for the BJP has become more important than safety, unity and integrity of India, that is what you are suggesting?

A: Well yes, the consequences that it will have for safety , unity and integrity of the country.

Q: On May 26, when he took his oath of office, he promised to do right by all manner of men. When he pitched a community against community, is there a danger that he is breaching that solemn commitment?

A: But of course, no doubt on that.

Q: He is breaching his commitment of office?

A: Yes, not just because there are words in the oath but because these are solemn things. There is a solemn compact with people of the country.

Q: He has broken that compact?

A: Unless he mends.

Q: Let us come to an overall situation that emerges today. Two months of this has gone on non-stop. It was just 18 months ago that Mr Modi was elected with enormous euphoria. There was great belief that India was going to change. A new future was stretching out ahead of us. How much damage has been done to that image of BJP or is it only an urban English middle class liberal concern?

A: This latter phrase is an absolutely bunk. I have heard it since Indira Gandhi's time. During Emergency they said, oh these protests, your uncle Ramesh Thapar and everybody, we used to be together. And they were accosted on this. When we started raising corruption issue, they said this is concern of only middle class. Then elections were lost. So also in this case how can we presume that the unity of the country is just an urban English middle class liberal concern.

Q: But these issues of intolerance matter as much to rural India as they do to you and me.

A: Their life is intertwined. In urban areas it not that intertwined.

Q: So impact is greater in rural India?

A: When fire starts there, it is much difficult to put it out.

Q: So when you say the fabric of India could be torn, it will first be torn in rural areas?

A: India will survive these people. But when it does, hundreds of persons die. That should be a matter of great concern.

Q: Now, the PM spends a lot of time and effort, and he has done it successfully so far, in travelling the world and inviting them to come and invest in Make In India. But recently, major papers like New York times have written adverse articles about growing mood of intolerance. Moody's analytics publicly warned PM that this could have a serious impact on growth and development and investment. Has India's international economic standing been impacted?

A: Certainly, the investors are very concerned. I get to meet them every fortnight. Certainly this is an added factor. Specially because it comes on top of waywardness in our tax administration. It comes on top of confrontations with one institution after another, the latest being judiciary. It comes after 3 great blunders like the ordinances on Land Acquisition Act. So when it comes on top of all that, then people say, arre yar may be development is a mask. The talk of development is a cover. They start worrying. They don't want to get caught, not just in their investments, they do not want to get caught in legitimizing something that is so fundamentally wrong.

Q: So today when the western world looks at the intolerance, the killings, the bans and then they look at the silence of PM and outrageous comments being made by his ministers. You are saying they might say to themselves, is this the country i really want to put my money in. Will they start having second and third thoughts?

A: Yes, India is a great market, but yes, that would certainly be a matter of concern to them. It does not mean that they won't come in at all.

Q: Do u think Mr Modi realises that he is actually developing a situation that runs counter to his entire development plans for India?

A: May be there is a conceptual difference. His concept of development seems to be of few large projects. And he may feel that inspite of all this, I can execute a few large projects.

Q: The development of poor will not happen?

A: Yes, it may not happen.

Q: So how does today his image stand in your eyes?

A: I certainly did support him, I expected very different things from his tenure. I guess those were wrong. In connection to Bihar elections, I asked my friend what is the current situation, and my friend said Jab elections shuru huye, toh hamare 2 provincial politicians the, Lalu Yadav aur Nitish Kumar aur waha yugpurush the, world famous leader Narendra Modi. Ab jo election campaign hua hai usse Narendra Modi sahab apne aap ko Lalu ke star par le aye hain. Aur Nitish Kumar ji statesman lagte hain.

Q: So the campaign has diminished Mr. Modi?

A: I think so. The words are not befitting of a prime minister. And Amit Shah saying crackers will burst in Pakistan is wrong. In Pakistan, they are already celebrating.. why, you would have seen Ayaz Amir's article the other day. He is a very good thinker, what did he say, he said that Narendra Modi is the best thing that has ever happened to Pakistan. Because while Pakistan is getting out of fundamentalist ditch, he is pushing India into the same ditch.

Q: In other words, Modi and Amit Shah are reducing India to a situation akin to Pakistan, while Pakistan is getting out of that.

A: That is what Ayaz Amir has said.

Q: What does Mr Modi's handling of this situation reveal of him?

A: I don't know. I don't want to believe that those fellows reflect his own beliefs.

Q: Are you disturbed by the way Mr Modi is presenting himself?

A: Yes, I was disappointed on small things like economy but on intolerance matter, I am disturbed.

Q: Arun Jaitley in his blog said PM is greatest victim of intolerance. Do you accept that?

A: This is the most dangerous statements of all the ones that have been made because when a ruler believes or when he is made to believe that he is a victim, then in his mind he gets full justification for vengeance. That is terrible.

Q: In other words, Jaitley without realising it, is giving Mr Modi the ground of being revengeful.

A: Of course.

Q: Is there a personal motivation behind your criticism?

A: The best answer to this is that you assume the worst motives for me. But what about the facts.

Q: Are you today disillusioned with the BJP?

A: I am a graduate of Ramnath Goenka School. When a guest is coming, don't leave any knives and forks on the table which he may use to stab you. So what could they do to an ordinary member, maximum they can expel him.



Q: The inference is clear, you deliberately chose not to renew your membership, so that they could not expel you.

A: I am not saying that, I am just giving you a proposition of Ramnath ji.

Q: Do you have a couplet today that sums up this discomforting atmosphere?

A: It applies to all rulers, not just to Modi. It is not a doha, but it is a couplet. It is not in Hindi, it is in Urdu. It is not by an Indian poet, but by a Pakistani poet. It is by Habib Jalib-

Tujhse se pehle woh jo ek shakhs yahan takht-nasheen tha uss ko bhi apne khuda hone pe itna hi yaqeen tha (Even before you there was a ruler who also believed that he was God.)



Watch the entire show here