‘From day one, our intention was to not allow the fast to take place’

Tourism minister Subodh Kant Sahay was one of the key negotiators with Baba Ramdev. In this Idea Exchange moderated by Vandita Mishra of The Indian Express, Sahay talks about negotiating with Ramdev and the crackdown on him and his supporters

Vandita Mishra: Why were you involved in the negotiations with Baba Ramdev? Also, tell us how they proceeded.

I am not a follower of Baba Ramdev, but we had met on a plane once and he told me he was working on ayurvedic products. I was minister for the food processing industry. I told him about food parks being created in every state. The Uttarakhand food park was given to Baba Ramdev and so we know each other.

As for the negotiations, this was in two parts. The issues raised by him were to be complied by the ministry of finance. When Ramdev came to Delhi for his yatra, I had spoken to him and he was very happy. He didn?t expect the government to respond to his questions so seriously. I told him that since he was so happy, he could call off his fast. I discussed this with him on May 19 or May 20. I said the government is responding seriously. The prime minister had written to him, Pranab Mukherjee had written to him, so there was nothing left to discuss. He said a few questions were still left unanswered.

The government was very clear that we would not allow him to fast because we were complying with all his demands. To clarify matters, Pranab Mukherjee went to discuss the issues with him. In the meantime, the prime minister had already appealed to him not to go on a fast. Later on, we had a feeling that this whole thing was going to be an agenda to accuse the government. But we were very sincere about the issue because the issues raised by him were already on the government?s agenda, there was nothing new in it. On June 1, we explained everything to him and that day he said his fast would be for only three days. Then on June 3, we prepared a document, a stronger version of the earlier one. He wanted a time-bound ordinance and something to show commitment on the declaration of national assets. We gave a six months timeline by which we would do it. All the questions raised by him were in the document. After everything was over, we asked him to inform the media. He said how could he tell the media because many of his people were still on their way to Delhi. We said he must announce it. Then it was suggested that Acharya Balakrishna give it in writing. We informed the prime minister, P Chidambaram and Pranab Mukherjee.

We were clear that if Baba Ramdev did not agree even then, we would have to take action. On June 4, we spoke to him several times and he raised new issues; he spoke to Kapil Sibal on issues of agriculture and the land act. He was told that a new negotiation was not possible at that stage. This went on until 6 pm on June 4 and then we were told that we should ask him one last time if he would end his fast or not. We told Acharya that we wanted to talk to him as we were heading for a press conference. We also told him that we would show the letter written by him. From the stage at Ramlila Grounds, Baba Ramdev announced that he had won, but he did not announce the end of his fast. We did not want this to go on into Sunday. The atmosphere was charged on June 4 in parts of the country. He had accepted that the government addressed all his issues. They said that the breaking point was our showing the letter written by Acharya. Then Baba Ramdev changed his stance and said he would continue agitating until we bring in the ordinance. So we had to disperse the gathering.

Vandita Mishra: Was the presence of Sadhvi Ritambhara one reason for hardening your stand?

The feedback was that RSS wanted to join them and statements from BJP leaders had begun coming in. The government was worried that such a huge gathering at Ramlila Maidan was near a minority area. If any untoward situation cropped up who would be responsible? According to feedback received by the government, Ramdev could have been attacked.

Swaraj Thapa: I take you back to the first day of formal negotiations at the minister level. One day before that, there was a CCPA (cabinet committee on political affairs) meeting and the CCPA had decided that Kapil Sibal and Pawan Bansal would go to Ujjain before Baba Ramdev came to Delhi and try to persuade him not to come here. A day later, four ministers went to the airport.

I was in the US and the government called me back. My job was to persuade Baba Ramdev to give up the fast. Our effort was to avoid a confrontation otherwise why would we have agreed to his demands until the very last minute? But after a while, we got the impression that he was fooling us. We told him you don?t know the mass psyche. Once you sit on a fast, the people won?t let you budge, but he maintained that these were his people.

Ritu Sarin: There were reports that Baba Ramdev was shown a dossier on his income and enterprises by finance ministry officials during negotiations. Is this true?

Never. Had that been the case, Pranabda wouldn?t have gone to meet him.

Coomi Kapoor: People are a little confused because the government sent out mixed signals: four ministers, one cabinet secretary, breaking all established protocol, went to the airport to receive Baba Ramdev. Then, it throws him out with his followers in the middle of the night. The government swung between extremes.

It might look like that but from the first day our intention was to not allow this drama to take place. That is why we broke all protocol and went to speak to him. We tried to show our intentions and we complied with all his demands. It was also to tell the country that these are the issues the government is already addressing and that we are sincere about it. But Baba Ramdev had become a part of the political agenda of other parties.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Some ministers now say they had advised against the ministers going to meet him. Was there such opposition?

The cabinet committee on political affairs decided this. The members of the committee had no differences amongst themselves. Our intentions were good, but our strategy was bad. It had been decided much earlier that if he did not move from Ramlila Grounds, he would be removed. It is really this man?s foolishness?Baba Ramdev could have been victorious. When we had agreed to everything, what was his problem in announcing the end of his fast? Between two civil society groups, he wanted to show himself as the bigger one.

Amitabh Sinha: Was there some soul-searching within the government after the midnight operation? When Kapil Sibal spoke later about Anna Hazare?s fast, the stance seemed to have hardened. Is it the official line now to adopt a tough line in dealing with these people?

Tough or not, we did what we had to do with Baba Ramdev. The prime minister made things clear when he categorically stated that there was no other way out. We had to stop them from doing any drama, else the BJP and other parties would have used the space as a political platform. BJP?s event at Raj Ghat was more celebratory than anything else. What were they celebrating? Members of their party who were giving lectures comprised people accused in the Babri Masjid demolition, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. This face of Ramdev?s movement was exposed after the crackdown. Ramdev, too, must have had the idea that if he was arrested, he would become a hero.

Amrita Bharti: Why is it that only when a social activist raises crucial issues like black money does the government wake up and take note?

There are two distinct ways of working?the government way and the activist way. The activist always raises the issues, the government gives them priority, but the government never goes into campaign mode. It?s high time we go in campaign mode so that people know what we are doing. We have failed in this regard.

Archna Shukla: Last week?s drama centered around two central characters?the government and Baba Ramdev. But the people who had gathered at Ramlila Grounds remained faceless. They were woken up in the middle of the night, beaten and removed from the premises. There has been no apology from the government. When similar action took place at Bhatta-Parsaul, Rahul Gandhi went there and Sonia Gandhi spoke against it strongly.

I think the prime minister has made things very clear. He spoke about the entire incident, and he said it was very unfortunate, but that there was no other way out.

You can?t deal with a big crowd in the day time. If Baba Ramdev was really a satyagrahi, he should have surrendered. What happened at Ramlila Grounds was a guerrilla war. He changed his clothes and tried to run away?what for? Our intention from day one was to airlift him to Haridwar. We wanted to separate him from the crowds. But at that point, there was no option but to use force to clear the Grounds. In the morning, when more people would have gathered such an operation would not have been possible.

Vandita Mishra: Why did the government take so long to put forth its point of view on Sunday?

Frankly, the process of communicating what the government does to the people is poor. This has led to a lot of confusion and has also prevented a lot of good work that we have done from being communicated to the people. I think we should have told the people right from the start our intentions. We made a mistake in not doing that. We could not show the people our intention or communicate why we did what we did.

Sandeep Soni: Do you think the current situation in India will have an impact on foreign tourists, since we know tourism plays a vital role in the Indian economy?

As a tourism destination, India is quite safe. We are such a big country, every day small incidents may happen somewhere or the other but they have no impact.

Coomi Kapoor: Your political career started with the JP movement. Then you were in the Janata Party. Do you feel a misfit in the Congress?

When I began my career, parties were socialist. Unfortunately, the socialist leaders we have today are in a very bad shape. When we started in the JP movement, we were not part of any party, we were fresh student leaders. I was in jail for two and a half years. Our commitment was issue-based. Today, the issues that Sonia Gandhiji has espoused, which the government is implementing are essentially the same as those we used to raise. We raised the same slogans?Kaam do ya jail do, roti kapda aur makan, yahan sabki shiksha ho samaan. The Right to Education is essentially the same concept.

Vandita Mishra: The anti-corruption movement we are seeing today is being compared to the JP movement. But what is the difference between the two?

The quantum of money involved in the new economic order is a new thing. Earlier, we evaluated corruption in lakhs, now it has gone up by several digits. Today, corruption is not an agenda of the Opposition, it?s the agenda of the government. We are sending so many people to jail, we are conducting so many inquiries. We have cut off our own limbs and handed over matters to the Supreme Court. Would any government have done this? I think that is the difference between today and earlier times. In which country would a chief minister have been thrown out because of a flat (Maharashtra)? Today, we in the Congress are balanced on the blade of the sword, we know the slightest mistake on our part and we will lose our place in the ministers? council, our posts. Which other party is doing that? See how the BJP is defending the Karnataka government. In Jharkhand, where I come from, they are protecting a corrupt and non-performing government. Look at Narendra Modi: would Sonia Gandhiji have allowed any person accused of such grave communal issues to be the chief minister?

Vandita Mishra: If the Congress government is doing all this, why isn?t it reaping the benefits?

That is because we are not campaigning. We must go to the people. At the party level and at the level of individual ministers, people are completely unaware of what we are doing. When corruption has become such a big issue, we should tell the people what we have done about it.

Sukalp Sharma: Why was Digvijaya Singh the first person to speak to the media after the midnight action at the Ramlila Grounds?

He has a mind of his own. Ever since the agenda based on casteism and communalism became strong in the nineties, Digvijay has been speaking candidly against them.

Transcribed by Sweta Dutta and Pritha Chatterjee Amrita Bharti is preparing for CAT and Sandeep Soni for bank PO exams