Sunday Interview: ‘Politics has become too bitter... it will have effect on economics’

At a time when the National Democratic Alliance government seems to have clearly taken a lead in promoting some prominent icons of the Congress, like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Madan Mohan Malviya, a book by Jairam Ramesh, To the Brink and Back, focusing on former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, a Congress stalwart in his own right but with whom the party has firmly remained aloof, is attracting a lot of curiosity as well as praise.

Mr Ramesh, Congress leader and former environment and rural development minister, tells Animesh Singh that his motive was not to rehabilitate Rao within the Congress’ thought process. Rather, he says, the book is a “balanced appraisal” of Rao and focuses on the crucial first three months of his tenure as Prime Minister, when he along with his finance minister, Manmohan Singh, took some difficult decisions to bail the country out of an economic crisis. Excerpts from the interview:

The timing of the book eulogising P.V. Narasimha Rao seems quite intriguing. Why did you think of writing a book that focuses on him now?

There were primarily three reasons behind writing this book. The first was that we are approaching the 25th anniversary of the economic reforms of 1991, which is an occasion to look back, as it was a landmark event. Second, the full and inside story (of how the economic reforms process unravelled) had not been told. Whatever had been written was based on external accounts, newspaper reports and interviews. There was no insider account.

Third, after our 2014 Lok Sabha defeat, I had lot of time on hands to be intellectually busy. I had a lot of the primary material collected over a period of time and so I could write it easily. There is nothing oral in this book, everything in this book is based on written evidence, so that’s the distinctiveness of this book.
But if you want to imply that it was written to rehabilitate Rao in the political history of the Congress Party, what I write or not is not going to influence what Congressmen think of him.

But I wanted to set the record straight that the man deserved criticism for the manner in which he handled Ayodhya (and other controversial issues during his tenure), but he deserves unstinted praise for the manner in which he handled the financial crisis in 1991. So it is a balanced appraisal of the man; it is not a comprehensive biography of him, as I have not focused on many other contentious issues related to his reign as Prime Minister. It is an account of the critical period of the first three months of his prime ministership... everything that happened between June 1 and July 24, 1991. In 33 days, the face of India got changed... there is no hidden agenda behind the book.

At a time when the BJP seems to be usurping the legacy of Rao, do you think this book could be used as an opportunity by the Congress to salvage its association with him?

I am a Congressman, but I won’t speak on behalf of the Congress unless I am authorised to do so. The Congress Party did not authorise me to write this book, so I am not reflecting the party’s views. But to be straight, it portrays him in new light and unearths hidden aspects of his personality... the manner in which he ran the government during those crucial days was the real agenda behind this book.

Do you think the Congress will reaffirm its association with Rao?

Interestingly, the more frequent reaction I am getting on this book is quite similar to what you have asked, that what actually is the agenda behind this book.
Look, I have no reason to be a great champion of Rao but I remain an admirer of him, for the manner in which he handled the economic crisis. Will it help the Congress? I can’t say because I am not reflecting the views of the party.

The Congress’s deep ambivalence on Rao in relation to Babri Masjid still remains, irrespective of the book... But a lot of Congressmen have called me and said that they have seen him in new light after reading it. A lot of younger Congressmen told me that they did not know all this about Rao and the 1991 episode. So to that extent it has served as a very valuable purpose in reconnecting Rao to the new generation of Congressmen.

I think to that extent, the book re-establishes his pre-eminence in India’s political and economic history. I have tried to simplify and demystify what happened in 1991. So many Prime Ministers have changed since then, but the basic direction of the economic policy has remained the same as it was in 1991.

Dr Manmohan Singh’s skills as an economist are known but the book has also elaborated on Rao’s craftiness as a politician. Please elaborate.

What is very clear from the book is that Rao without Dr Singh would have been lame. Similarly, Dr Singh without Rao would have been incomplete. The two worked as a combination... a jugalbandi. What Rao did was that he provided the political support and political marketing to the economic package which Dr Singh had designed.

The political flak also he allowed Dr Singh to take up to a point, but after that Rao started owning up to the economic reforms. See, he came to economic reforms out of compulsions, whereas Dr Singh came to them out of conviction — so compulsion plus conviction provided the driving force for economic reforms. Therefore, the key role of Rao was the political backing, without which in a democratic set up nothing would have happened.

With prominence having been given in the Congress only to three Prime Ministers, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, will your book bring Rao back into the Congress mainstream?

It is a difficult question. I think the book might help rehabilitate Rao — unfortunately, he is also known for several controversies which occurred during his tenure, like the Chandraswami episode, Jain hawala, Harshad Mehta, Babri Masjid and several others. But people forget that the revolutionary changes in the economic space, took place during his prime ministership. So whether my book will help the Congress hang on to him, I don't know about that.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has tried to hijack Vivekananda, Sardar Patel, Subhash Chandra Bose, B.R. Ambedkar and now Rao. I’ve said in the last chapter that we should not use yesterday’s political figures to fight today’s political battles. That is what’s happening in Rao’s case. Let’s have an objective assessment of Rao. Unfortunately, as a society and a country we are not very objective about our political heroes. Our heroes are either heroes or zeroes, black or white. We have not been objective about our Prime Ministers.

Will you agree that the Congress has been quite uncommunicative about its achievements, whether it was the economic reform of 1991 or the work done by it in the social sector in the 10 years when the United Progressive Alliance was in power?

We have to communicate. Our leadership, at all levels, has to be more communicative. I am doing whatever I can (as part of party’s think tank) — communication, talking, yatras and conventions. Let’s see what happens. The Congress has been somewhat defensive and ambivalent about the economic reforms of 1991, as immediately after (the reforms were rolled out), we lost Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and the Karnataka Assembly polls, and then finally the 1996 Lok Sabha elections. So the party thought that it had to pay a heavy price for the economic reforms. Also, the Congress is inherently a left of Centre party, and these reforms were seen to be in favour of the rightist sentiments. Although privatisation was not part of the agenda, liberalisation was.

Why has the Congress failed to portray its victory on the land acquisition issue?

On this issue, certainly we scored a great political victory. Mr Modi saw the writing on the wall. Let us see what happens. We had suffered a traumatic defeat in 2014 Lok Sabha polls, and in the subsequent Assembly polls in many states including Delhi. It will take some time for the Congress Party to bounce back. One should not become too arrogant in a victory (on land acquisition), which is one lesson we’ve learnt from Mr Modi.

How do you assess the performance of the NDA government in terms of handling the economy?

We don’t have an economic crisis of the kind of 1991. We have an economy which is growing at 7 per cent. In fact, in the last 10 years the average economic growth has been 7.5 per cent annually. We have $360 billion of forex reserves, so we have a resilient economy. The real issue today, however, is not economics, but has more to do with politics, especially the manner in which the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) is conducting himself, it is completely different from how Rao did in 1991.

The political engagement and outreach is missing, the political compromise is missing. I think the sooner the Prime Minister decides to become less confrontationist, become less adversarial, and become comfortable with political dialogue, it will be better for everybody. Otherwise the politics has become too bitter and I think it will have some effect on economics, as politics and economics are not insulated from each other.

The responsibility of creating an environment more conducive for cooperation is of the government and Mr Modi will have to take the lead in it. The style of campaigning which he has shown in Bihar, his complete absence in Parliament and silence on major national issues does not reflect this. Mr Modi made extravagant promises which he has not been able to fulfil. So the reality has begun to dawn upon him.