Why did Kalam keep quite all these years: JD(U)
A.P.J. Abdul Kalam's disclosure that he was willing to allow Sonia Gandhi take over as Prime Minister after the 2004 elections has led to expected reactions from BJP and Congress while JD (U) wondered why the former President had remained quiet so far.
Noting that what Kalam said was nothing new, Congress spokerperson Manish Tewari said "there was certain right-wing conspiracy theories who believe in tilting the windmill and living in their own world of imagination. I hope this will disabuse their mind completely."
On the other hand, BJP's Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said "just because he has written this in his forthcoming book, Sonia Gandhi does not become an epitome of sacrifice. She is still the super-Prime Minister. She has a bigger secretariat (NAC) than the PM."
He claimed all big decisions of the government are taken by Gandhi and not Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
JD (U) President Sharad Yadav, who is also NDA convenor, said had Kalam spoken this in 2004, it would have carried a different level of ‘moral force.’
"The remarks do not carry that kind of moral force now as his revelation came eight years after the event had played out. The relevance it had at that time does not exist today," Yadav said.
Yadav said it would have been better for the country had Kalam spoken about these things at that time.
"Rumours flied thick and fast over the issue at that time even as the country has a tradition of treating the entire world as one family," he said in an obvious reference to the foreign origin issue of Gandhi raked up by BJP at that time.
Post new comment