New Delhi, Aug 23 (PTI) The Opposition's candidate for the vice presidential election, B Sudershan Reddy said it was not a contest between two individuals but two ideologies, asserting that while his opponent is a quintessential RSS man, he is "far, far away" from it.

"I am essentially a liberal constitutional democrat. This is the area, or rather the arena, for the contest where the fight goes on," he said.

Honoured to be fielded as the joint candidate of a rainbow of opposition parties, he said his candidature was a unanimous choice that signalled diversity and represented more than 63-64 per cent of the country's population in terms of voting strength.

He also said that it was the Congress that initially proposed his name for the vice president's poll, but later the INDIA bloc parties and other opposition parties extended their support to his candidature, which was an honour for him.

Starting his campaign on Friday with a meeting with AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal, Reddy said he would be travelling to Chennai on Sunday and then to other parties of the country to meet all the MPs of different parties to seek their vote in his support for the September 9 vice presidential election.

Excerpts from the PTI Exclusive interview: Q. You are the first former judge of the Supreme Court to contest the vice-presidential election. How did your candidature come about and which opposition parties made the offer? A. The first move in this regard came from the INDIA alliance. But since you are asking the party's name - which party first proposed or contacted you in this regard - it was the Congress party.

Q. Was it an easy decision to make or did you have any doubts given the numbers in the electoral college are heavily stacked against the Opposition? A. No, how I thought about the whole issue is this. When the proposal came from the Congress party, I said it may be difficult for me to become a candidate of the Congress party as such. If the INDIA alliance considers it appropriate to accept my candidature, then only I will be a candidate on behalf of the INDIA alliance.

So what was the motivation? There is nothing like motivation (for me to contest the VP polls).

My journey began in 1971 when I was enrolled as a member of the Bar Council. Ever since, I have been associated with the functioning of the Constitution, its values, and its conventions. Right from the day I started practice -- and it continues till today -- I consider my journey to be the same; ultimately culminating in, if given an opportunity, to protect and defend the Constitution.

Hitherto, I was upholding the Constitution and that is the oath administered to a judge. And there are only three offices in this country that prescribe both mandates, that they have to protect and defend the Constitution – the highest office of the Republic of India, the president of India; vice president of India; and the governors at the state level. So this journey is nothing new to me.

Q. It has been argued that top constitutional posts should be filled by consensus to reflect national unity. So what are your views on this? A. I wish there could have been a consensus. But you know the polity as it stands is a fractured one. In such circumstances, perhaps it was inevitable, leading to this contest.

Q. How would you describe the current state of democracy and the government-Opposition ties? You know, currently we see a lot of strain.

A. Earlier, we used to talk about a deficit economy. There is a deficit in democracy. I do not say that India is no more a democratic country. I don't subscribe to that. We still continue to be a constitutional democracy, but under strain.

Q. And about the government-opposition ties? A. I wish it could have been better. Instead of reducing the discourse to the level we see today, it could have been better. Earlier, opposition parties and the party in power used to coordinate on many national issues. Unfortunately, we don't find that today.

Q. You have said that this election is not about one individual, but about the idea of India. Can you elaborate on this? A. Yes. Certainly not about a contest between me and Shri Radhakrishnan ji (NDA's VP candidate). It is a contest representing two different ideologies.

One, which the other side themselves are propagating, that here is a quintessential RSS man. Therefore, the country should elect him as the vice president. So far as I am concerned, I do not subscribe to that ideology and I am far, far, far, far away from it. I am essentially a liberal constitutional democrat. This is the area or rather the arena, for the contest where the fight goes on.

Q. The vice president is also the chairman of the Rajya Sabha and you have talked about your commitment to decorum and dialogue. What do you have to say on the politics of disruptions that is emerging as a regular feature now in Parliament? A. You see, the difficulty is this. Somebody, an eminent journalist, asked my friend Shri Arun Jaitley when they were frequently disturbing the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed by (Jaitley) the departed soul who is not amongst us today were that -- disruption also is a legitimate political activity and a parliamentary practice. Whether a particular disruption at a particular point in time was correct or not is a different matter. But disruptions do take place.

Disruption is nothing but one form of dissent. If you are not allowed to speak or express your views, this is one form of speaking. That's how I look at the disruption. Not that I wish that disruption should become an essential and integral part of the democratic process.

Q. Opposition parties have unanimously chosen you as their joint candidate for the second-highest constitutional position in the country. So, what factors weighed in your favour that make you stand out? A. I feel greatly honoured when I look at the rainbow of the political parties unanimously agreeing on my name and sponsoring my candidature. But, there was nothing surprising as such. All of them knew my work. All of them have watched me for quite some time. They must have used their discretion and thought it fit that I should be their candidate. And I feel greatly honoured for more than one reason.

First, it represents diversity. Secondly, the unanimous choice. Thirdly, in terms of voting strength, if you make an analysis, they represent more than 63-64 per cent of the population. What else could be an honour? Q. So now that you are in the contest, you are also coming under attack. Just yesterday, Home Minister Amit Shah accused you of "supporting" Naxalism. He has also cited your judgment on Salwa Juddam, saying that had it not been there, left-wing extremism would have ended by 2020.

A. I do not wish to join an issue directly with the honourable home minister of India, whose constitutional duty and obligation is to protect the life, liberty and property of every citizen, irrespective of ideological differences. Secondly, I have authored the judgment. The judgment is not mine, the judgment is of the Supreme Court.

There was another judge sitting with me. And repeated attempts were made to get it overruled. But it didn't happen. On the merits of the judgement, I would not speak because I am trained by my peers that one should not speak about the greatness of one's own judgement. It is for the people to judge. It is not my personal document.

I wish the honourable home minister could have himself read the whole judgement instead of getting briefed by, I do not know, hopefully he would not have that much time to read the judgement, which runs into about 40 pages. If he would have read the judgment, perhaps he would not have made that comment. That's all I say and leave it there.

Q. So you don't want to disturb the decorum of the debate? A. No. There must be decency in the debate.

Q. What do you have to say about your opponent who has been a governor and a politician in the past, unlike you? A. Perhaps he was discharging his constitutional duties and obligations to the best of his ability, about which I have no comment to make.

Q. The vice president's election you are contesting was necessitated due to the sudden resignation of Mr Jagdeep Dhankar. So what do you feel about the circumstances in which he put in his papers? A. Jagdeep Dhankar ji himself is a senior lawyer and a veteran of many battles. It may be appropriate for him to disclose the reasons why he has to leave the office all of a sudden. I do not wish to indulge in any guesswork.

Q. You always held the Constitution close to yourself. What do you feel about the tirade launched by the opposition against the government on the Constitution? Is it under serious threat? A. You can't just read the Articles of the Constitution and say that no Article is under threat. The Constitution is an integral one. Constitution means constitutional conventions, Constitution means constitutional morality. There are various steps taken by the government in power, making one feel legitimately that it is coming under challenge.

Therefore, the debate that is going on in the country about whether the Constitution is under attack is a welcome debate, where everyone should participate and express their opinion.

Q. Your take on the recent controversy about the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble. The RSS and some leaders of the BJP have questioned the formulations introduced under late Indira Gandhi.

A. Those "somebody" -- I would not say anything -- are not quiet even today. Even after the decision by the Supreme Court of India. According to me, the 'socialist' and 'secular' expressions used in the Preamble of the Constitution have made things explicit, which is otherwise in-built in the provisions of the Constitution.

You talk about equality - Article 14. If it is not secular, then what is equality? You talk about fraternity, one of the most important values, according to me. What would be the fraternity without secularism? And, without the expression socialism, what is the equality we are talking about? Both the words, which make explicit the ideas contained in the Constitution, are welcome. It is true that the amendment came, i.e. the 42nd Amendment, when the Emergency was invoked. But, one must remember, the next government that came into power, that is the Janata government consisting of various political parties, including the present BJP, which was the Jana Sangh at that time, had unanimously approved it.

Therefore, one fails to understand with what intention the debate is being triggered.

Q. You headed a panel to assess the merits of the caste survey in Telangana. Why is there a need for a caste survey? Many also argue that a caste census will further fragment our already fractured society and deepen fault lines.

A. The people who advance that argument which you are now advancing before me have fallen in line and realised the importance of the caste survey. Please tell me, how do you identify the backward classes? Because the Constitution doesn't speak about caste. If you have to classify a group, together with some people, as the backward classes, you have to find out their caste, their socio-economic conditions, their way of living, their access to power and the way they are recognised by society. A caste survey has to be done.

Now, the Government of India, which intends to conduct the Census have announced that yes, in this Census, caste surveys also will be there. We have to find out, isn't it, how many Scheduled Castes people are there? How do we fix the reservations? I won't reveal the data which we have analysed in the expert group headed by me.

But, one thing I can share with you about my own state, Telangana, 84.6 per cent people belong to the weaker sections of the society.

So, how do you propose to frame your social and economic policies? How do you empower them? How do you make them feel that they are equal citizens of this country? Not that by giving some dole or some temporary succour would meet the impending challenge which many people don't realise. Their empowerment is mandated by the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, you have to find out their strengths and frame your socio-economic policies accordingly.

Q. This contest for the vice president's post has emerged as a South vs South battle. You know, with both you and your opponent hailing from Telangana and Tamil Nadu, the politics of southern states are at play. Both sides have played up the regional identities.

A. At least in this area, I would borrow the idea from the other side. I don't say my opponents are from the other side. That India is one. India is one nation. There is only one citizenship. No citizenship for South India and no citizenship for North India and another for the Northeast.

Therefore, this dialogue, it (the contest) is between South and North, I don't think we should entertain that debate at all. The other candidate, Shri Radhakrishnan ji, is an eminent citizen of this country. I am also a citizen, and I do not know whether I am eminent or not. But I am also a citizen of this country. Both of them are competing for an office. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Q. Would you also be seeking the support of some independent parties who have not yet supported your candidature? A. I will definitely be seeking it. Not only the parties, I will be seeking the support of every parliamentarian, whether they belong to NDA, whether they belong to India, whether they have their own regional outfits, because ultimately the electoral college consists of the Parliamentarians, honourable members of the Parliament, not the political parties. I intend to appeal in writing to every member of the Parliament to exercise their discretion and accordingly exercise their franchise.

Q. You have given several landmark judgments, including the one criticising the former Union government for showing slackness in probing black money cases. And you also set up an SIT to bring back black money stashed abroad. But nothing has happened yet. So, how important is it to bring that black money back? A. The work is still in progress... It is important. A substantial section of the nation's wealth moved out of the country through various means and mechanisms. That has to be brought back. It is our money, your money, my money and the nation's wealth.

Unless somebody tells us, you and me, that there is no black economy, there is no black money, nothing moved from the country. It is the other side who are holding that judgment in their hands in the election campaign to implement the judgment. None other than the veteran great warrior LK Advani ji - he was holding it in his hand. He underwent a country-wide yatra also on this, with the judgment in his hand.

And after my retirement, there was an occasion to interact with him. He never raised and asked me any question about Salwa Judum. But said - "I appreciate the effort made by the Supreme Court, not by me, to unearth black money".

Q. Recent years have also seen Mahatma Gandhi versus Ambedkar, Ambedkar versus Nehru narratives. Your comments on it.

A. My comment is, if you read superficially Gandhi and Ambedkar and Nehru, some misconceptions and misunderstanding come to mind, as if they were at loggerheads and they differed radically in their views. No.

All three of them were great democrats, republicans and believed in the ethics and morals of the Constitution. I do not think it would be in the interest of the nation to divide them into three segments. And one supporting and the other opposing and creating a false narrative is not in the nation's interest.

Q. Since you are contesting the election and the campaign is an important part of elections, what would be your message to the electorate and to the country in this election? A. Well, all through my life, I said I was upholding the Constitution. If you give me an opportunity to serve this country, I will try to defend and protect the Constitution of India, which undoubtedly is coming under challenge.

The message is, there is still the possibility of a reasonably good and healthy debate amongst ourselves in this country. We talk to so many foreign countries, we discuss with them. Sometimes we declare a particular country to be an enemy country, we still have diplomatic relations. We still exchange notes. So what is the problem? Why you and I cannot talk daily, every day? Democracy is nothing but interaction, a clash of ideas, not individuals. That would be my message. PTI SKC SKY SKY