Q: You talked of the possibility of your having a say in what your party would project. Do you not expect to be one of the leaders of the campaign?
A: I am a member of the drafting committee. I campaigned for the Congress party last year and I think I have a better campaigning record than most other people. Nearly 65 per cent of the people for whom I campaigned won.
Q: This time, do you think you will be a much more significant member...?
Also Read
A: Whatever task is assigned to me by the Congress high command, the campaign committee. They will decide what to do with individuals.
Q: There is some talk of, and a lot of people in the Congress too feel that you would be the best person to lead another Congress government. What is your own reaction to that?
A: Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. I think the Congress has many more senior leaders at the helm of affairs. I am a newcomer to politics.
Q: Do you think Mrs Gandhis campaigning will be critical to the success of the party?
A: It will be an important plus point. Mrs Gandhi, and in fact the whole Nehru family, does arouse emotion. I think it will certainly help.
Q: Are you confident that it would not bring the Congress back to the sort of hoopla campaign, the sort of garibi hatao slogans that youve been arguing against? You wanted an honest campaign, telling the people what really needs to be done.
A: The two are not substitutes for each other. Individuals do matter. We must have a campaign that brings out the issues that are before our country. But at the same time, issues need to be translated into programmes, and programmes have to be implemented. And, in that sense, individuals do matter.
Q: Will you be contesting these elections?
A: I have not given my thought to this.
Q: Do you see that the next Lok Sabha will force another coalition government?
A: I hope not, because we have seen the present experience of 14 parties. Even though they are well-meaning, I think they are not able to bring the minimum degree of coherence that you need to realise Indias vast latent development potential.
And also I want to put on record that some of our political leadership in India is knowledge-proof that the world has changed. Look at China: the zeal, the commitment with which they have modernised. But our political leaderships vision of what constitutes good policies has not changed, even though the world has changed beyond recognition.
The danger is that next time India runs into a crisis, it will be very difficult to have a package or programme which finds international acceptance and is also acceptable to our leadership. Our leaders are still living in the world of the fifties and sixties the public sector commanding heights, the financial sector thriving on directed credit etc. I dont find any difference between the BJP and the Congress and all the top political leadership. (...They) pay very inadequate attention to economic problems.
When I was a student in Nuffield College, Lord Callaghan, who later on became the prime minister, was appointed as shadow chancellor of the exchequer. He spent one year in Nuffield College, taking tutorials about economics. But what our politicians learnt when they were 21 or 22, or what some busy journalist tells them in their drawing room, that constitutes their stock in trade intellectual equipment.
Q: So do you think the Congress failed over the first 45 years of Indian independence?
A: I dont think it is a question of failure. If you look at our performance in relation to the performance of the economy 50 years before independence, we have done much better. But if you look at it in terms of aspiration, or the targets, we have not done as well. The fact that even today about 6.6 crore children in the age of six to 14 are outside school, is a measure of the failure of Indian polity.
In 1960, if you had asked anybody which country would be on top of the league of the third world in 1996 or 1997, India was considered to be the frontrunner. But today, where are we? Countries far less well-endowed than India have marched far ahead of us at a much faster pace. Even after the recent crash, the Korean industrial production and per capita income are far ahead of us.
Q: Some people think the Congress has had its chance, and that it is now some other partys turn to lead?
A: Which party ?
Q: There is the United Front. There is the BJP.
A: The United Front cannot get its act together. I dont believe that 14 parties can manage the complexities of Indian development. The world is changing at such a fast pace. The world trading system has been transformed beyond recognition after the Uruguay round. Technology today is moving at a pace which was unthinkable two decades ago. So governments which are slow moving, governments which find it difficult to build a genuine consensus, would simply not be adequate to the task.
Q: And the BJP ?
A: What economic philosophy does the BJP have?
Q: Swadeshi, for one?
A: Swadeshi of the type they are talking about is a road to disaster. Swadeshi has been the creed of our freedom struggle. But Panditji recognised long ago that, in the changed situation, Swadeshi has to be given a new meaning. Swadeshi means capacity to stand on your own feet, to be self-reliant. Nobody can be self-sufficient in everything. The true meaning of self-reliance is our ability to earn our way in the harsh competitive world that we live in. Now what the BJP sometimes means is that they will shut their door to foreign investment...
Q: In certain sectors, they say.
A: Who will decide in certain sectors? Today I think the linkages between the various sectors are so great that this would bring back the licence permit raj.
Now the BJPs slogan is, potato chips, no, computer chips, yes: but computer chip is as much used today in food processing industry. Modern food processing industry is today a highly sophisticated industry. Now if you do not have a modern food processing industry, it will be very difficult for India to modernise our agriculture, to feed Indias urban population, and to improve the standard of living of our farmers. Even today, 30 to 40 per cent of agricultural produce rots, because we are not able to transport it in time, because we dont have efficient cold storage facilities, because we dont have efficient transport systems.
I think the test is not potato chips or computer chips, but what does an investment do to raise income and employment in our country.
The Chinese have been far more pragmatic. The Chinese have massive doses of foreign investment in consumer goods. You go anywhere shoes, shirts, even coat-hangers, are made in China. And in the process, China today exports $180 billion worth of goods. And these are not very sophisticated; these are all simple consumer goods.
Therefore, I think they have recognised that what really matters is, what an investment does to create more income, more exports and more employment.
Q: But China perhaps didnt have the sort of domestic industry that India has. And sections of Indian industry demand that they need protection in order to compete.
A: Firstly, I dont believe that the Chinese did not have such a strong industry. I think Chinese had more at stake, but they made wise decisions. I am not saying that Indian industry should not be given legitimate protection. I understand the Indian industrys demand for a level playing field.
For example, they say our financial system is very primitive. Therefore, I would say, let us strengthen the financial system through reforms. We need a more modern financial system with hedging and other facilities so that our corporate entities are able to cover their risks. Similarly, they say we dont have any infrastructure, which foreigners have. So that is an argument for reforms in infrastructure.
And in the transition, if we have to ensure that the pace of protection has to be calibrated in such a manner that our industry should not suffer. I have no quarrels with that. In fact, in the five years that I was there, I knew that reforms in India will never gain acceptability if more imports and more foreign investment became a substitute for domestic production or domestic investment.
So therefore, exchange rate adjustment and tariff adjustment was so calibrated that Indian industry could grow. Between 1993-94 and 1995-96, Indian industry boomed; capital goods industry boomed. Imports increased at a rapid rate, but that did not hurt Indian industry.
Q: Why do you think large sections of industry seem to have decided to keep the Congress at arms length and seem to be supporting the BJP much more strongly?
A: I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that.