Regional Parties have come to stay. And their existence cannot be wished away. In our present coalition, we have I think Regional Party from West Bengal – Mamtaji’s Party, we have the DMK, we have the National Conference - so I think Regional Parties have to be taken on board. I think our polity has entered a stage where the old-fashioneded system of large majorities being available to single-party formation, probably that is not likely to be, for as long as I can see.
So, therefore, I think we have to find new ways and means of coming to terms with the growing importance of the Regional political formations.
Q No .9 It is true, as you are quoted in the press last year as saying, that you derive great satisfaction from the fact that this Prime Minister’s Office has never been accused of corruption and unlike in the past against almost every PMO here have been allegations. It is a great achievement and it remains a great achievement of this office.
But nevertheless, the perception outside is that the levels of corruption in governance in general have increased. Very high level people from business say that we have the most honest Prime Minister presiding over the most corrupt government. You have just said that whenever cases come to you, you will take action. I think it will be useful if such action is made public even if it hurts some of Ministers because the perception needs to be countered.
If I get to know such cases I will take action. Whenever situations have arisen I have asked Minister's for their explanation.
There is much talk of 2GG- 22G, the allocation of spectrum issue. I did take adequate precaution. It is true that the public perception in some circle is at least that I didn’t succeed. But I am quite clear in my mind that I did take account of what was appearing in the media, where the conduct of a particular Minister was being questioned. Now the matter is still sub-judice. I would not like to comment on that.
Q.No 10 Sir, I would like to ask you about the Supreme Court order on distribution of free foodgrains to the poor. There seems to be strong resistance in the Government to the order of the Supreme Court.
Well, I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court I think should not go into realm of policy formulation. Those should remain the concern of policy-makers and the Government of the day. I respect the sentiments behind the Supreme Court decision that when foodgrains are rotting and people are suffering from deprivation, then some way should be found to ensure that the food needs of the people, particularly of the deprived sections, are met more effectively than is the case thus far. But quite honestly, I don’t know what is the final version of the Supreme Court, but newspapers say free food for the poor.
Now, it is not possible in this country to give free food to all the poor people. In a country where a great majority of the population – certainly estimates of people below the poverty line differ. But even the latest Tendulkar Committee report, if it is taken seriously, 37% of the population of this country is living below the poverty line. How are you going to give free food to such a large segment of our population??.
I do recognize that food should be available to people below the poverty line at concessional prices,, and as a result of this thinking we have not allowed any increase in the issue prices of foodgrains meant for people below the poverty line. Since 2004, there has been no change. There has also been no change in the issue prices for people above the poverty line. So I think that to the extent that it is possible we have taken adequate notice of the concern of the Supreme Court that foodgrains should be available to the poor at an affordable price, that is the concern of the Supreme Court, that we agree.
But to say that we can given foodgrains free, quite frankly if we do that on a large scale,, you would I think destroy the incentive of our farmers to produce more food and if there is no food available for distribution what will you distribute?
Q.No 11 On the economy, I think there is no doubt that you deserve credit. But the concerns are on the home front. More than drift, you seem to be on the defensive on big issues whether it is Kashmir, naxals, even agriculture, on foreign policy too. In this sense there is a feeling of drift. I would see it as an impression of marking time with the issue of succession in your party and Rahul Gandhi spreading his wings and it is only a matter of time and you may not complete your tenure.
I think one cannot really quarrel with people. I think politics is a competitive game and some people or politicians feel that they should not be in the opposition but they should be in place where I am sitting. I don’t think you can hold that against me.
Q.No 11A I was just saying it gives the impression that this Government was marking time for a succession and not about the opposition. Coming to my second question – the issue is that of foreign policy. Again for whatever reasons you are back on the defensive on dealings with Pakistan. In a couple of months we have lost advantage. Did we miscalculate regarding Pakistan, were we too complacent in Jammu & Kashmir, out of step in Afghanistan?
Well, let me say that I have always been of the view that regardless of the complexion of the setup in Islamabad, India has to engage with Pakistan. Engagement does not mean surrender. Engagement, I think is necessary in order to convey our concerns to Pakistan. Conveying our concerns through Media or harsh statements in public or statements in Parliament is not as effective as talking face to face with the regime that may be in power in Pakistan. But at the same time I am sensitive to Indian public opinion and concerns and after the 26/11 tragedy, I think there was a strong feeling in the country that this process of dialogue should come to a halt and that we must hold Pakistan accountable for this tragedy. That sentiment prevailed. Therefore, we had to suspend the composite dialogue.
Some time later, I became aware of the fact that this was not delivering the results which we had wanted. I think Pakistan had acquired a greater amount of leverage in dealing with the United States and members of the EC and the results were not as expected – we had hoped that the leverage can be used to coerce Pakistan to pay greater attention to our concerns. Unfortunately, I think that has not happened.
And, therefore, at Thimpu my effort was to find ways and means of getting the two countries once again back on the path to a dialogue. We did succeed but there are – in India-Pakistan relations there are always mishaps, always uncertainties - some things happen like what happened at the two Foreign Minister meeting. I think is well known. It is my sincere belief that we have to engage Pakistan regardless of the Government that may be in power. But that does not mean that Pakistan will change its thinking vis-à-vis India, that ititis would cease to regard India-centric policy as its number one priority. We have to be realistic enough to take account of all the uncertainties bedeviling our relations, that have been our bedeviling relations for nearly sixty years, but at the same time if we don’t want to go to war, then engagement and dialogue are the only way forward.
QNo 11 B How do you see it carried forward in the next couple of months.
We hope that the Foreign Minister Qureshi accepts the invitation of our Foreign Minister and visits us.
Q.No 12 I think corporate India is looking for a more concrete conreteconcrete reforms road map from the father of reforms. Industry remains a bit concerned about environmentalism and whether it would come in the way of growth.
Let me take up the second part of your question first. As I said earlier, environmental concerns have come to stay. Our industry, our trade must recognize that environment is something which cannot be wished away from public consciousness or public policy actions. At the same time as I said we cannot solve the problems of environment by perpetuating the poverty of our country. India has to industrialize. India must therefore move forward on a path which is environment friendly and at the same time enables us to generate more wealth. Now there are issues, for example environmental concerns, forest concerns, they have to be reconciled with the development concerns – one can lay down abstract pathways but my own feeling is that this is an issue which has to be resolved by sitting across the table and I propose to invite the Ministers of Environment and the Ministers of Roadways, Coal, Petroleum and other concerned infrastructure to sit together and to find new pathways in which we can respect legitimate concerns of environment and forest protection and at the same time we do not go back to the old Licence Permit Raj, which had in the past affected our country’s industrial development in a big way,, until we tried to make amends in 1991.
Q.No 12A: Sir about the road map. There seems to be a drift.
What would you like to see – judging by what? What would you like to see which is missing?
Interjection - Sir, financial reforms for instance.
Financial reforms? I think simply because somebody talks of finance, I think we have seen, for example the financial reform of the type followed by Wall Street, if we had followed the way the city of London managed its financial system, is that the road map that you want India to follow? I think we are following a more cautious road map. It has paid dividends. We must evolve a new pathway suited to our own genius and our own needs before we say that we should follow without any hesitation what financial system that prevails in America, in Wall Street or in City of London.
Q.No 13: I just read a statement by Rahul Gandhi – that there are two India’s – India and Bharat. It seems government sometimes is led by markets, that there are two Indias, and rather than by masses. Do you agree that all economic policies are framed in such a way that ultimately the market benefits?
Well, I think there is no doubt in my mind there are two Indias, that inequalities of income and wealth are a fact of life. That if you look at per capita income in agriculture and per capita income outside agriculture – there is a big gap and that this gap has to be gradually, but in a conscious manner, has to be bridged. So, whatever is necessary to develop our agriculture, to develop our rural economy, whatever is necessary to use the fiscal instruments to increase the income and the absorptive capacity of the rural sector, I think should be part of the development thinking of our country. So there is no doubt in my mind that disparities in income and wealth beyond a point can be very destabilizing and that the government must make a conscious effort to bridge bring bridge this gap, reduce this gap between rural India and the rest of India.
Q.No 14: You mentioned you have called a meeting on the Cabinet Committee on Security this week. Can you give us an idea of what is under consideration? And do you agree with the Chief Minister who has said that status-quo is not an option in Kashmir.
I said, I am proposing to call a meeting. And, well, I don’t want to enter into an argument in public with the Honourable Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir .
Interjection : Which means you disagree with him?
No, what I am saying is that whatever is necessary to be done will be done. I must first discuss these matters with my colleagues in the Cabinet Committee on Security and I will also be happy to discuss these matters with the Honourable Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir. So, I have been discussing the issues and I am not saying there is no scope for further dialogue between him and the Central Government.
Q No 15. Sir, Ms Mamta Bnaerjee has been complaining for some time that CPM is utilizing the presence of this joint force in Jungle Mahal in West Bengal to multiply the armed camps. Recently, the Home Minister has confirmed it in a way. And very recently 3-4 reporters have been mercilessly beaten up by the CPM cadres without any provocation. So what do you think?
Well, I have seen photographs of the Telegraph reporter with a bandaged arm. I think the Home Minister has already said what needs to be said on this subject. I don’t want to expand on that.
Q.15-A The Governor has also sent a report emphasizing the need to depoliticize this entire process.
Well, I agree. I think wherever such tendencies are observed they have to be curbed.
Q.No 16 There has been talk of a Cabinet reshuffle. Do you plan to do a reshuffle in the weeks ahead?
PM Well, we have completed now about 16 months. I think I would certainly look at what options are available to me before the next Session of Parliament.
Q.16-A So can we take it that no reshuffle is going to happen before the next Session of Parliament.
PM I am not saying that anything is going to happen. If anything happens, you would get to know about it.
Q No.17 There has been experience, Sir, over the last 18-19 months to access the capabilities of various colleagues of yours – the younger members of your Party. In the reshuffle is there any possibility of having a younger crop of leaders?
I would very much like to reduce the average age of my Cabinet, but I don’t think I would like to comment on this issue beyond that. That in this country more youthful leaders should come forward, that’s an aspiration with which I am wholly in sympathy with.
Interjection: It is said that it is the youngest democracy with the oldest leaders.
That’s certainly true.
Interjection: But the entire age of the Cabinet Sir is……
That’s certainly true,That’s certainly true, b Bbut I am not thinking of retiring.
Interjection: Sir, not you but the Cabinet.
Sir, the way you have framed the challenge of finding a balance between environmental protection and the developmental imperative, there is a certain discomfort or dissatisfaction with the way in which certain decisions have been taken of late. Am I reading too much into what you are saying because the Vedanta decision, to my reading, seems to be in consonance with existing rules. Do you feel existing rules do not give us an optimum balance and need to be changed?
I was not commenting on any individual project. But I think I was making a general proposition that environment issues are very important but at the same time I think if anybody believes that environment can be protected by perpetuating the poverty of this country, that’s a view I do not share. And that was not a comment on any individual project.
The idea of democracy in the Cabinet, Cabinet Ministers being allowed a voice and then forging a consensus. It is wonderful. I think that is great. One of the problems that arises is that these individual voices don’t just echo in your Cabinet sometimes, they echo out of the Cabinet and in the media, where Ministers express individual opinions which create certain problems and create this perception that may be you are not cracking the whip as hard as you should.
I don’t know, for example, cracking the whip how does…
Interjection: As far as they go out to the Media.
Well, I thought that would deprive you of stories – what will you write otherwise??.
In the past few months the Home Minister has been repeatedly saying that he has a very limited mandate from the CCS as far as the naxalite situation is concerned.
All of us have a very limited mandate.
Interjection: But I think there is a sense of frustration because he has been doing a good job on the internal security front but he seems to be feeling that he is the minority of one in the CCS. Is there anything being done to assuage his perception on this?
Once policy is made, all of us are duty-bound to follow the dictates of that policy. As far as the limited mandate is concerned, I think the Hon’ble Home Minister is right – the prime responsibility for law and order enforcement is that of the State Government, but I have said it and he has said it – we know that the State Governments by themselves cannot tackle, I think given the magnitude of the naxalite problem and, therefore, the Central Government must do all that it can to increase the capacity of the States to cope with this and ultimately to deliver solid results. So, that’s the limited mandate I believe the Hon’ble Home Minister was talking about. And he is doing an extremely good job. He has my full confidence and my full support and I compliment him for having managed the Home portfolio after very difficult times culminating in 26/11.
Q No 21 I was hoping someone would bring up Afghanistan. See, a lot of people who are friendly towards India in Afghanistan have repeatedly asked the question that what can we expect from India, once the ISAF forces withdraw. India has stated that we have our own strategic interests there. And there seem to be a complete confusion. I know everything cannot be explicitly stated but does India intend to actually try and retain a hold in Afghanistan after the ISAF forces go.
Well, I think retaining a hold – I don’t know what you mean by that. But if it means that whether we will continue to be deeply interested in the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan – if you mean by that whether we would be interested in Afghanistan living up to the goals of being a democracy – howsoever, imperfect it may be, if it is wanting to chart out a destiny which respects its independence of judgement, I think India will give full support to the Government and people of Afghanistan. And I have made that quite clear to the (Afghan) Foreign Minister – he asked me this question specifically when he was here a few days ago. Similarly, the (Afghan) National Security Advisor he was here – he asked me the same question and this is the answer that I gave him. India has vital civilizational, cultural interests in Afghanistan and that we will do all that we can within our resource limitations to support the aspirations of the people of Afghanistan for a life of dignity and self-respect, to see that Afghan democracy flourishes, to ensure that Afghanistan is able to chart out for itself an autonomous path, suiting the genius of its people.
Q No 22 I think that one of the questions is that we see a rise of crony capitalism and that’s because we believe that the one reform the country requires is the setting up and strengthening of Regulators. Now, SEBI is a good example, RBI is a good example – but many others have weakened their regulators. So that is a concern that today Ministers are becoming whimsical and some of them are using their Ministries as ATMs. And in some cases Ministers are doing it by withdrawing permissions given in the past or interfering with permissions given in the past – a very good example of this cronyism is the Oil Ministry which has a rule for every company and sometimes changing rules four times in a matter of 30 days and manages to run its policies through newspaper leaks – many of them in our papers which we don’t mind because leaks are good stories. Are you focused now on taking away some of the discretionary powers, because there is fear in industry now that nothing is closed. I am being honest with you. You can start building, creating something but halfway through you might get a letter.
One of the sectors where one hears all these types of allegations happens to be the Telecom sector and we have a Regulator there. So, I think the absence or the existence of a regulator ……….
Interjection : The Regulator has been sidelined.