Sunday Interview - ‘Is securing residence for a fugitive abroad in national interest?’

Former Union minister and Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee president Sachin Pilot tells Sanjay Bohra there’s nothing wrong in demanding the resignation of chief minister Vasundhara Raje following revelations that she helped IPL commissioner Lalit Modi travel to the UK.

Ever since the controversy erupted, the Bharatiya Janata Party has blunted all demands for Vasundhara Raje’s resignation, questioning the veracity of the documents. But now, after Ms Raje has accepted that the signature on the affidavit favouring Lalit Modi’s immigration application was hers, what are the grounds for the BJP to defend Ms Raje and her continuation as Rajasthan’s chief minister?

She will have to go. The entire defence has fallen flat and there is no space to hide or manoeuvre. It has been proven beyond doubt that she had signed the affidavit. There is now clinching evidence that establish her guilt. In fact, she had never denied it. She never said that the documents were false. No one in the BJP has denied it. She should either resign or be asked to quit immediately.

Apart from the resignation, do you think a case should be filed against Ms Raje for helping an accused?

Obviously, an investigation is must as Ms Raje has violated the Indian law by helping an accused. Mumbai Police commissioner Rakesh Maria was asked for an explanation on the basis of a photograph with Mr Lalit Modi. What would have been the government agencies’ reaction if a common man had done the same thing? But, firstly, she should resign. Only then can a thorough investigation take place.

Why do you think that the BJP is still defending Ms Raje and not asking her to resign?

It is now clear that Mr Lalit Modi’s friends in the BJP, who are now ministers, were in cahoots with their fugitive friend. This means she had the backing of the BJP when she signed the affidavit to help him secure residence in the UK.

What do you have to say about the Prime Minister’s silence on this issue so far?

I would like to remind the Prime Minister about his recent tweet in which he said that the time has come to take tough decisions in the interest of the nation. Whatever decision is taken will be solely guided by national interest. Is securing residence for an Indian fugitive in a foreign country in national interest? Is this not false patriotism and pseudo-nationalism? What happened to the promises made to the people about clean and transparent government? All that high talk has come to a naught.

The Congress’ demand for external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj and Ms Raje’s resignations is a standard reaction.

The Congress is not doing a witch-hunt against any BJP leader. Mr Lalit Modi has brought these facts into the public domain. It’s incumbent upon the principal Opposition party to become the voice of the people and ensure that those who have sworn to abide by the Indian law are made accountable. I don’t think the idea was to ask for resignation pointedly, but we believe that as long as these people occupy their current positions, one can’t have a thorough investigation. How can Ms Raje continue to be the chief minister and expect an unbiased and transparent inquiry to take place?

The BJP alleges that the Congress has latched on to this issue because it was unable to find anything concrete to critcise the Modi government which, as per its promise, has provided clean and transparent governance.

Mr Lalit Modi is charged with violating the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema) and there are match-fixing allegations against him. It is also alleged that he hoarded black money. People in the highest echelons of the BJP are protecting and helping a fugitive of Indian law. This government came to power promising that it will bring back black money, but here it is protecting those who are generating it. It cannot get more contrarian than this. If the Congress is asking questions, why is the BJP uncomfortable? The BJP and its facade of transparent governance stand exposed. Dialogues like the BJP being a “party with a difference” and Mr Narendra Modi’s “na khaoonga na khane doonga” are vivid in my memory. This is the reason why we will ensure that this issue is taken up aggressively.

There is a consensus that allegations against Ms Raje are more serious in nature than those against Ms Swaraj. Do you agree with this distinction?

If anybody, especially those occupying constitutional post under oath, are helping a fugitive, then the law is the same for everyone. There is gross impropriety in what Ms Swaraj has done. She has not gone through official channel. She didn’t take the bureaucracy on board. Now, I am not sure whether it was with the consent of the Prime Minister that she made that informal phone call to help Mr Lalit Modi. Occupying a position brings responsibility, so the Congress has asked her to step down. In Ms Raje’s case, there is criminal culpability. A few sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure can be attracted in her case.

But senior ministers like Nitin Gadkari and Arun Jaitley have given a clean chit to Ms Raje and her son Dushyant Singh, who is accused of dubious financial transactions with Mr Lalit Modi. Was it an appropriate thing to do while the probe is on?

They can keep giving each other clean chits, but I don’t think that they can replace the court of law or investigating agencies. Before any conclusive inquiry is conducted, how can anybody give a clean chit?

Similar charges have been levelled against former Congress chief minister Ashok Gehlot’s children. How are they different from the charges against Dushyant Singh?

Once you are put in a tight spot, you start throwing muck at others. You start doing dramatics to draw attention away from yourself when you have no answers for your actions. You start pointing fingers at others. Mr Gehlot is ready to have an inquiry by a sitting judge of the high court.

Isn’t it ironic for the Congress to rake up an issue dubbed as “BJP’s Vadra moment” by equating Mr Dushyant Singh’s deals with Robert Vadra?

Everybody in the BJP uses Mr Vadra’s name to criticise and score brownie points against the Congress when he is not even a member of the party. But here are people occupying top position in the Rajasthan government and the Union Cabinet and still no action is being taken. One can’t have different yardsticks for different people.

The Haryana government has already constituted a committee to look into the issues allegedly raised against Mr Vadra. So now when there is a BJP government in Rajasthan as well as at the Centre, what stops the BJP from taking action and fielding inquiries?

After Mr Lalit Modi’s tweet that he met Priyanka Gandhi and Robert Vadra in a restaurant in London, the BJP is alleging that he had relations with the Gandhi family too. Don’t you think this puts the Congress on the defensive?

Why should Congress be on defensive? This is Mr Lalit Modi’s attempt to help his friends in the BJP who are now in trouble because of him. As the heat is on them, he is trying to divert attention from the issue by taking names of different people whom he may or may not know. But, in my view, meeting someone is not a crime. Also, Ms Priyanka and Mr Vadra are not members of the Congress nor do they occupy any constitutional position. They are private citizens. They can meet anyone. The question is, was there transgression of law? Did they go out of their way to give an affidavit in favour of Mr Lalit Modi like Vasundharaji did? This is completely different from what Ms Raje and Ms Swaraj have done.

As I said earlier, you may be associated with people or know of people who may have done something wrong, even that there is no problem. But if you willingly go out of your way to help that person and take law in your hands by helping and abetting that person, that is a problem and that is where the issue of legality and propriety comes in. Meeting someone is inconsequential, cricket rivalry is inconsequential, BJP’s infighting is inconsequential, but breaking the law is extremely consequential.

Mr Lalit Modi has claimed that he is a victim of the vindictiveness of the Congress and has accused some senior former ministers of launching a witch-hunt against him. Now, BJP spokesperson G.V.L. Narsimha Rao has made similar allegations.

These are outlandish statements. Finger-pointing and throwing mud on others when you are in a tight spot will not help the BJP. As for Mr Lalit Modi, I could think of many things one could call him, but “victim” is certainly not one of them.

What about your party dragging the PM into this issue? Isn’t it a bit stretched for Digvijay Singh trying to establish a connection between the Prime Minister and Mr Lalit Modi?

Mr Lalit Modi’s fortune changed when Mr Narendra Modi became Prime Minister. After fleeing to London, he couldn’t step out of the UK for four years. At that time the UPA was in power. Only when the NDA government was formed, he got his travel documents. In fact, in May 2014, when the BJP came to power, he expressed his happiness and excitement via social media. He was hoping that he will get a reprieve and perhaps the cases against him will be withdrawn. He did get adequate help but, perhaps, not to the extent he wanted.

Also, there is a collective responsibility of the government. The Union Council of Ministers is a set of people who work under the leadership of the Prime Minister. It’s not been made clear to us whether the help that Mr Lalit Modi received was an instance of one minister acting on her own initiative or with the consent of the Prime Minister. There is a deafening silence from the Prime Minister’s Office.

Why didn’t the UPA bring Mr Lalit Modi back or revoke his passport? The Interpol chief has said that he never received any notice from the Indian government against him.

Former finance minister P. Chidambaram has questioned why the current government doesn’t disclose all documents that we have exchanged with the UK government. There is proper documentation by the Government of India which is in a file. Let the NDA disclose all letters that Mr Chidambaram wrote to the UK government.