 "NDA wants to use IT to close government: Jairam Ramesh")
"The NDA government is Orwellian in nature…. In our government, there was space for differences. In the present government, it is either my way or the highway," says Jairam Ramesh in an interview to Nitin Sethi. Edited excerpts:
Is this a book on Jairam Ramesh as a minister of environment or health of environment when you were minister?
It is a written record of my term as a minister. It's less about the state of environment and more about the actions and decisions of the minister for environment. It is less about the ministry and more about the minister. It's a not a Sanjay Baru Natwar Singh kind of book. It's not an oral history. And whatever was in the written domain, speaking orders, written orders, Parliamentary debates, and speeches is in it. I can always manufacture oral stuff but there is no value to that. The important thing was to produce something that can be backed by archives. All the material is backed by archives in the Nehru Memorial which any student scholar can access.
Is this why it leaves out why you were bumped up and out of the environment ministry?
There is no written record no. Neither did I have an oral conversation. The only oral conversation I had was with the Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) who said that I am being elevated to cabinet status. How important is that from a historical value. I believe that there is far too much reliance on oral conversations and not enough on the written evidence. We must develop, particularly in the government, a culture of written word. A lot of decisions and orders in the government get taken orally and that is part of the problem. That is why people get in to trouble. In my book I start by quoting Harish Salve when I called on him as amicus curiae. He said look one thing that will save you is just adopt what the judges do - go for a speaking order. That is why in 25 months there were 13 speaking orders. Even today they are being analysed, praised and criticised.
The practice of speaking orders doesn't take away from how legal those orders were. Did speaking orders provide cover for you to hold discretion?
See what the speaking order does it puts in the written domain all the factors that go in to minister's decisions. It's not the ministry's decisions. And all in the public domain. Some of these had annexures running in to hundreds of pages. For example, the Maheshwar order.
But somewhere you have said that the ministry's job and therefore any minister heading it is to abide by the laws rules and regulations. But some of your speaking orders have been challenged that they were discretionary in nature
Sure, the speaking order lays out the reason why I either support the recommendations of the ministry or where I disagree. That is what the essence of a speaking order is.
But a speaking order should be how you followed the laws when you passed certain directions?
I mean what is the reasons
It's not about whether you are against an expert of the ministry or not but how you are within the law in your decision?
What are the reasons? What is the reasoning? Take concrete examples
Say Posco versus Vedanta you took different routes
In some cases I went against the recommendations of the Forest Advisory Committee, in some cases I went against the environment panel. To that extent it is discretion. If you define discretion…
But whether the law permitted that discretion.
But you know what the minister is for? Is a minister a simple rubber stamp or is he a fait accompli minister? He has to exercise his mind. Then it goes in to the whole definition of what is the role of a minister. So if I am going to be there as minister and ultimately stand up in Parliament and defend the decisions or in the media...
Or in the courts…
Yes increasingly in the case of environment in the courts. Frankly speaking orders was an interesting governance innovation. Really they were in the issues that were in the public domain and that were controversial. Very strong views one way or the other. A lot of them didn't come out in the public domain but were in the files. All I can say is even a harsh critic like Pratap Bhanu Mehta who didn't have much good things to say about us for ten years said that all cabinet ministers should follow the speaking order practice. Which I thought was a good testimonial coming from a perennial critic.
You have criticised the current governments T S R Subramanian committee report on green laws. But some of the recommendations of the report are similar to yours like creating a new umbrella authority
Some of them. You can go a la carte. Like on GM crops they are more in tune with my views than others. T S R Subramanian is a very good friend, I have worked very closely with him when he was a cabinet secretary and I was an advisor in the finance ministry. Extraordinarily fine human being but he knows next to nothing on environment. On such a major transformation you give these guys two months and you extend it by a couple of days. What job did you want done. I do not deny that the government has every right at every point of time to review laws and policies. Fine they should be under review. But is this the way. Extensive consultations should have been done across the country. Meetings should have been held. It took me two years on the Land Acquisition Act. Here within two and a half months you produce a report which is going to provide the blueprint for a new architecture for environment regulation. I am disappointed. Frankly, the mind had been made up and you needed a committee - get a former cabinet secretary and get it done. There is a case for review but this is dismantling.
There is little written in your book on the controversies around Forest Rights Act during your tenure in the environment ministry and outside. How you followed it in some cases and didn't in others.
The guidelines that I cleared in August 2009 were very clear that projects that come up in forest areas must first settle rights.
But that was not pursued in many cases during your tenure and you argued against your own bureaucracy.
It was insisted on all cases. But we took the state government on its word. That may or may not have been a good idea.
Retrospectively do you think it was wrong to trust the states?
These were giant projects and if you really want to take the states seriously you have to get them to take notice of it. Say in Polavaram project the state submitted evidence that the Forest Rights have been settled and I went along with that. I was criticised for that.
But your own guidelines required otherwise
Well you know in some cases you have to…even in the case of Posco I trusted the state.
Yes you took a different view than in Vedanta (where you asked for proof of tribal rights)
By and large…the point is at the end of the day Congress chief ministers were equally upset with me as non-congress chief ministers. Raj Shekhar Reddy was upset with me, Rosiah was upset with me. Ashok Chawan and Prithviraj Chauhan was upset with me. Hooda was more than upset with me for a number of reasons including Sanjiv Chaturvedi. So this argument that I was favouring Congress ruled states over others is a bogus argument. Within a state on one issue the chief minister would support me and another he wouldn't. Say on BT Brinjal MP chief minister was my biggest supporter but on Maheshwar he sat on a fast against me.
Environment was used in the second tenure of UPA as a political tool.
No that is completely wrong. What is this? Navi Mumbai was our own government. Western Ghats again our own government in Maharashtra and Kerala. And Haryana where I was in confrontation with a Congress chief minister for an officer.
And environment was also a football between different thoughts and conflicting interests within Congress, say the Prime Minister's office and the NAC Chairperson Sonia Gandhi. You argued against the PM several times.
The PM spoke to me frequently as he should. He was my boss. Chairman NAC never spoke to me on any projects. Never. I never got any communications from them. I communicated often with the Prime Minister. Sometimes he supported me, sometimes he asked for questions.
Isn't that contradictory. Rahul Gandhi went to the Vedanta site. You were helping him out as a party man.
I did not go to Niyamgiri and take part in his demonstrations. It was between him and others.
You are saying you were unaware?
No I knew he was going because Bhakt Charan Das told me he was going. He went along with the local MP.
But later Rahul Gandhi did a U-turn and suggested environment had become an impediment. That was a U-turn
I don't know what went on between Mr Gandhi and my successor. I really don't know.
No, I am focusing on Mr Gandhi. He changed his tune and talked of environment being an impediment during the end of the UPA tenure.
I don't think so.
When he called environmental clearances a roadblock.
I don't think so. I don't know what went between the two of them. But as far as I am concerned I was never any direct or indirect pressure brought to bear on me to take one view or the other. I knew what his views were broadly. But he never called me up and asked what is happening or Vedanta or some other project.
People would go to them, he would refer them to me. People would go to the Prime Minister he would refer them to me.
You are saying Rahul Gandhi referred people raising issues on specific projects to you?
Sanad Mehta (Congress MP from Gujarat) went to meet him on that Nirma project. He said go and meet the environment minister. He came and met me. What's wrong? Lots of people went to meet Rajnath Singh because we had shut down paper plants that were polluting on the Ganga. So Rajnath Singh called me and I said send them to me. We are in public life. We have to meet people.
Thinking back, things you would not have done as the environment minister.
I never look back. I look ahead. Once I demitted office I said environment chapter is over.
But you would still write letters to the PM on environmental issue…
Yes sure, because they impacted my ministry's issues. Like Maoist areas.
But the fact that you are writing this book means you have not disengaged from the subject
Well I have to find useful things to do after the electoral defeat. I wanted to send a clear message that this is an issue which we should not ignore, which should be part of the political discourse. It is not a narrow activist issue or a technocratic issue and this is an issue on which we have rules laws and regulations.
You had to deal with civil society. What's the difference between how this government and yours dealt with it?
This government believes more in think tanks. They don't believe in social action movements. They don't believe in activists or civil society.
Or it has its own civil society like you did, say the RSS?
But one of the strongest supporters I had as an environment minister was Uma Bharti who would come to my office every other day for all sorts of issues though mainly on Ganga. Then Govindacharya is one of my biggest support on BT Brinjal. I had more support from the RSS than among some of my own party colleagues including the current agriculture minister. Take the classic CSE - it appreciated me for BT Brinjal but criticised me for Jaitapur. Same Medha Patkar appreciated me for Lavasa but went to town against me on Jaitapur.
It was not as if civil society was for or against me. On issues I would get bouquets and on others brickbats. I was very clear this is not a popularity contest. It is going to be a hugely unpopular job.
But for a politician any press is good press
I made new enemies of old friends. But that was the job. Environment ministers should always be seen as the bad guys. If you are seen as a good guy in the environment ministry you are not doing your job.
Isn't that wrong. The entire government and not just the environment minister to follow all the laws of the land, includes the environment laws.
No, I shall make a distinction. The job of the environment minister is to uphold environmental laws.
But that is the job of the entire government…
No, Not necessarily. Job of the entire government is to look at the bigger picture in which environment figures.
But still follow the laws of the land right?
Follow the laws but take a larger decision. The job of the environment minister is to ensure due diligence from an environment perspective. It is up to the Prime Minister to say...
..Don't follow the law in this case?
No …but say I have looked at it, yes you are right, but there are other factors.
In which case the way would be to amend the laws and rules rather than supersede them?
I don't think you should amend the laws. I think the law is a necessary deterrent. If it is enforced properly it forces a certain due diligence. Then why do you need the laws?
But how can there be political discretion at any level about superseding the law?
There is a collective entity called the cabinet which looks at totality of views. The environment minister cannot be worried about the totality of views. He can't think about what will happen to GDP. His remit is Forest Conservation Act, Forest Rights Act, Environment Protection Act and trade-offs have to be made. Let those trade-offs be made openly.
But isn't the remit of all cabinet to follow all the laws of the land?
You don't understand. You can follow the laws for the environment and have the courage of your conviction to say that this is the law about environment, this is the environment impact of A B C project however for the following reasons we believe this investment or project is necessary. It is perfectly legitimate thing to do. I don't think it is illegitimacy. The illegitimacy arises out of the manner in which the decision is taken. Trouble is no one has the courage. Everyone wants to pass the buck.
On Mahan I took the view…
On Mahan you passed the buck to the cabinet...
No I took the view that for the following reasons this project should not go ahead however because of the extenuating circumstances…
But the law does not provide exceptions for extenuating circumstances
Because the law does not provide, the extenuating circumstances have to come from elsewhere or some other body. The cabinet is a collective of the people representing different interest groups. The environment minister represents the environment interest groups. The petroleum minister represents the petroleum interests. I mean it in the good sense. Cabinet then decides these are the totality of factors and environment is one of them. The laws have been looked at and for the following reasons we are accepting it or not accepting it.
In your tenure you cleared over 95% of the projects. So is the case with the current NDA government. What's the difference between their tenure and yours?
It's too early to say.
You are saying you can't judge them right now?
It's too early to say. I don't want to pass any value judgement. But the manner of the decision making, not just of the environment ministry but the entire government has become entirely opaque. There is only one person that counts and one office that matters. There is no debate or discussions or argument between ministries. There is no interaction engagement. My problem right now is more with the manner of decision making.
Not with the results?
I don't know what the decisions are at the moment
So say the Land ordinance? Are you upset with the process or the resultant ordinance?
In that I have problem with both. I can debate the substance. There is honest room for difference. The arguments I have heard in the ordinance are the arguments I heard two years ago. But the process in which you take less than two hours to overturn a law that took two years to make and you go back on your own position two years ago that bothers me. Decision making needs to be much more consultative and participative and transparent. That has become the biggest casualty in this government.
Now am reading cabinet notes will be sent on kindle and you shall deposit the kindle. They shall use modern technology to close government. Normally you use IT to open government. This government wants IT to close government. This is Orwellian in nature. In our government there was space for differences. In the present government it is either my way or the high way.
Is this your last book or the first book on environment?
I have another one coming on land acquisition. Another one in pipeline on Maoist violence in central India.
Is this a book on Jairam Ramesh as a minister of environment or health of environment when you were minister?
It is a written record of my term as a minister. It's less about the state of environment and more about the actions and decisions of the minister for environment. It is less about the ministry and more about the minister. It's a not a Sanjay Baru Natwar Singh kind of book. It's not an oral history. And whatever was in the written domain, speaking orders, written orders, Parliamentary debates, and speeches is in it. I can always manufacture oral stuff but there is no value to that. The important thing was to produce something that can be backed by archives. All the material is backed by archives in the Nehru Memorial which any student scholar can access.
Is this why it leaves out why you were bumped up and out of the environment ministry?
There is no written record no. Neither did I have an oral conversation. The only oral conversation I had was with the Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh) who said that I am being elevated to cabinet status. How important is that from a historical value. I believe that there is far too much reliance on oral conversations and not enough on the written evidence. We must develop, particularly in the government, a culture of written word. A lot of decisions and orders in the government get taken orally and that is part of the problem. That is why people get in to trouble. In my book I start by quoting Harish Salve when I called on him as amicus curiae. He said look one thing that will save you is just adopt what the judges do - go for a speaking order. That is why in 25 months there were 13 speaking orders. Even today they are being analysed, praised and criticised.
ALSO READ: The making of an enviro-politician
The practice of speaking orders doesn't take away from how legal those orders were. Did speaking orders provide cover for you to hold discretion?
See what the speaking order does it puts in the written domain all the factors that go in to minister's decisions. It's not the ministry's decisions. And all in the public domain. Some of these had annexures running in to hundreds of pages. For example, the Maheshwar order.
But somewhere you have said that the ministry's job and therefore any minister heading it is to abide by the laws rules and regulations. But some of your speaking orders have been challenged that they were discretionary in nature
Sure, the speaking order lays out the reason why I either support the recommendations of the ministry or where I disagree. That is what the essence of a speaking order is.
But a speaking order should be how you followed the laws when you passed certain directions?
I mean what is the reasons
It's not about whether you are against an expert of the ministry or not but how you are within the law in your decision?
What are the reasons? What is the reasoning? Take concrete examples
Say Posco versus Vedanta you took different routes
In some cases I went against the recommendations of the Forest Advisory Committee, in some cases I went against the environment panel. To that extent it is discretion. If you define discretion…
But whether the law permitted that discretion.
But you know what the minister is for? Is a minister a simple rubber stamp or is he a fait accompli minister? He has to exercise his mind. Then it goes in to the whole definition of what is the role of a minister. So if I am going to be there as minister and ultimately stand up in Parliament and defend the decisions or in the media...
Or in the courts…
Yes increasingly in the case of environment in the courts. Frankly speaking orders was an interesting governance innovation. Really they were in the issues that were in the public domain and that were controversial. Very strong views one way or the other. A lot of them didn't come out in the public domain but were in the files. All I can say is even a harsh critic like Pratap Bhanu Mehta who didn't have much good things to say about us for ten years said that all cabinet ministers should follow the speaking order practice. Which I thought was a good testimonial coming from a perennial critic.
You have criticised the current governments T S R Subramanian committee report on green laws. But some of the recommendations of the report are similar to yours like creating a new umbrella authority
Some of them. You can go a la carte. Like on GM crops they are more in tune with my views than others. T S R Subramanian is a very good friend, I have worked very closely with him when he was a cabinet secretary and I was an advisor in the finance ministry. Extraordinarily fine human being but he knows next to nothing on environment. On such a major transformation you give these guys two months and you extend it by a couple of days. What job did you want done. I do not deny that the government has every right at every point of time to review laws and policies. Fine they should be under review. But is this the way. Extensive consultations should have been done across the country. Meetings should have been held. It took me two years on the Land Acquisition Act. Here within two and a half months you produce a report which is going to provide the blueprint for a new architecture for environment regulation. I am disappointed. Frankly, the mind had been made up and you needed a committee - get a former cabinet secretary and get it done. There is a case for review but this is dismantling.
There is little written in your book on the controversies around Forest Rights Act during your tenure in the environment ministry and outside. How you followed it in some cases and didn't in others.
The guidelines that I cleared in August 2009 were very clear that projects that come up in forest areas must first settle rights.
But that was not pursued in many cases during your tenure and you argued against your own bureaucracy.
It was insisted on all cases. But we took the state government on its word. That may or may not have been a good idea.
Retrospectively do you think it was wrong to trust the states?
These were giant projects and if you really want to take the states seriously you have to get them to take notice of it. Say in Polavaram project the state submitted evidence that the Forest Rights have been settled and I went along with that. I was criticised for that.
But your own guidelines required otherwise
Well you know in some cases you have to…even in the case of Posco I trusted the state.
Yes you took a different view than in Vedanta (where you asked for proof of tribal rights)
By and large…the point is at the end of the day Congress chief ministers were equally upset with me as non-congress chief ministers. Raj Shekhar Reddy was upset with me, Rosiah was upset with me. Ashok Chawan and Prithviraj Chauhan was upset with me. Hooda was more than upset with me for a number of reasons including Sanjiv Chaturvedi. So this argument that I was favouring Congress ruled states over others is a bogus argument. Within a state on one issue the chief minister would support me and another he wouldn't. Say on BT Brinjal MP chief minister was my biggest supporter but on Maheshwar he sat on a fast against me.
Environment was used in the second tenure of UPA as a political tool.
No that is completely wrong. What is this? Navi Mumbai was our own government. Western Ghats again our own government in Maharashtra and Kerala. And Haryana where I was in confrontation with a Congress chief minister for an officer.
And environment was also a football between different thoughts and conflicting interests within Congress, say the Prime Minister's office and the NAC Chairperson Sonia Gandhi. You argued against the PM several times.
The PM spoke to me frequently as he should. He was my boss. Chairman NAC never spoke to me on any projects. Never. I never got any communications from them. I communicated often with the Prime Minister. Sometimes he supported me, sometimes he asked for questions.
Isn't that contradictory. Rahul Gandhi went to the Vedanta site. You were helping him out as a party man.
I did not go to Niyamgiri and take part in his demonstrations. It was between him and others.
You are saying you were unaware?
No I knew he was going because Bhakt Charan Das told me he was going. He went along with the local MP.
But later Rahul Gandhi did a U-turn and suggested environment had become an impediment. That was a U-turn
I don't know what went on between Mr Gandhi and my successor. I really don't know.
No, I am focusing on Mr Gandhi. He changed his tune and talked of environment being an impediment during the end of the UPA tenure.
I don't think so.
When he called environmental clearances a roadblock.
I don't think so. I don't know what went between the two of them. But as far as I am concerned I was never any direct or indirect pressure brought to bear on me to take one view or the other. I knew what his views were broadly. But he never called me up and asked what is happening or Vedanta or some other project.
People would go to them, he would refer them to me. People would go to the Prime Minister he would refer them to me.
You are saying Rahul Gandhi referred people raising issues on specific projects to you?
Sanad Mehta (Congress MP from Gujarat) went to meet him on that Nirma project. He said go and meet the environment minister. He came and met me. What's wrong? Lots of people went to meet Rajnath Singh because we had shut down paper plants that were polluting on the Ganga. So Rajnath Singh called me and I said send them to me. We are in public life. We have to meet people.
Thinking back, things you would not have done as the environment minister.
I never look back. I look ahead. Once I demitted office I said environment chapter is over.
But you would still write letters to the PM on environmental issue…
Yes sure, because they impacted my ministry's issues. Like Maoist areas.
But the fact that you are writing this book means you have not disengaged from the subject
Well I have to find useful things to do after the electoral defeat. I wanted to send a clear message that this is an issue which we should not ignore, which should be part of the political discourse. It is not a narrow activist issue or a technocratic issue and this is an issue on which we have rules laws and regulations.
You had to deal with civil society. What's the difference between how this government and yours dealt with it?
This government believes more in think tanks. They don't believe in social action movements. They don't believe in activists or civil society.
Or it has its own civil society like you did, say the RSS?
But one of the strongest supporters I had as an environment minister was Uma Bharti who would come to my office every other day for all sorts of issues though mainly on Ganga. Then Govindacharya is one of my biggest support on BT Brinjal. I had more support from the RSS than among some of my own party colleagues including the current agriculture minister. Take the classic CSE - it appreciated me for BT Brinjal but criticised me for Jaitapur. Same Medha Patkar appreciated me for Lavasa but went to town against me on Jaitapur.
It was not as if civil society was for or against me. On issues I would get bouquets and on others brickbats. I was very clear this is not a popularity contest. It is going to be a hugely unpopular job.
But for a politician any press is good press
I made new enemies of old friends. But that was the job. Environment ministers should always be seen as the bad guys. If you are seen as a good guy in the environment ministry you are not doing your job.
Isn't that wrong. The entire government and not just the environment minister to follow all the laws of the land, includes the environment laws.
No, I shall make a distinction. The job of the environment minister is to uphold environmental laws.
But that is the job of the entire government…
No, Not necessarily. Job of the entire government is to look at the bigger picture in which environment figures.
But still follow the laws of the land right?
Follow the laws but take a larger decision. The job of the environment minister is to ensure due diligence from an environment perspective. It is up to the Prime Minister to say...
..Don't follow the law in this case?
No …but say I have looked at it, yes you are right, but there are other factors.
In which case the way would be to amend the laws and rules rather than supersede them?
I don't think you should amend the laws. I think the law is a necessary deterrent. If it is enforced properly it forces a certain due diligence. Then why do you need the laws?
But how can there be political discretion at any level about superseding the law?
There is a collective entity called the cabinet which looks at totality of views. The environment minister cannot be worried about the totality of views. He can't think about what will happen to GDP. His remit is Forest Conservation Act, Forest Rights Act, Environment Protection Act and trade-offs have to be made. Let those trade-offs be made openly.
But isn't the remit of all cabinet to follow all the laws of the land?
You don't understand. You can follow the laws for the environment and have the courage of your conviction to say that this is the law about environment, this is the environment impact of A B C project however for the following reasons we believe this investment or project is necessary. It is perfectly legitimate thing to do. I don't think it is illegitimacy. The illegitimacy arises out of the manner in which the decision is taken. Trouble is no one has the courage. Everyone wants to pass the buck.
On Mahan I took the view…
On Mahan you passed the buck to the cabinet...
No I took the view that for the following reasons this project should not go ahead however because of the extenuating circumstances…
But the law does not provide exceptions for extenuating circumstances
Because the law does not provide, the extenuating circumstances have to come from elsewhere or some other body. The cabinet is a collective of the people representing different interest groups. The environment minister represents the environment interest groups. The petroleum minister represents the petroleum interests. I mean it in the good sense. Cabinet then decides these are the totality of factors and environment is one of them. The laws have been looked at and for the following reasons we are accepting it or not accepting it.
In your tenure you cleared over 95% of the projects. So is the case with the current NDA government. What's the difference between their tenure and yours?
It's too early to say.
You are saying you can't judge them right now?
It's too early to say. I don't want to pass any value judgement. But the manner of the decision making, not just of the environment ministry but the entire government has become entirely opaque. There is only one person that counts and one office that matters. There is no debate or discussions or argument between ministries. There is no interaction engagement. My problem right now is more with the manner of decision making.
Not with the results?
I don't know what the decisions are at the moment
So say the Land ordinance? Are you upset with the process or the resultant ordinance?
In that I have problem with both. I can debate the substance. There is honest room for difference. The arguments I have heard in the ordinance are the arguments I heard two years ago. But the process in which you take less than two hours to overturn a law that took two years to make and you go back on your own position two years ago that bothers me. Decision making needs to be much more consultative and participative and transparent. That has become the biggest casualty in this government.
Now am reading cabinet notes will be sent on kindle and you shall deposit the kindle. They shall use modern technology to close government. Normally you use IT to open government. This government wants IT to close government. This is Orwellian in nature. In our government there was space for differences. In the present government it is either my way or the high way.
Is this your last book or the first book on environment?
I have another one coming on land acquisition. Another one in pipeline on Maoist violence in central India.