‘The Food Act is a massive burden…If so much is spent on subsidies,what is left for development?’

Sharad Pawar: The five years preceding UPA-II saw an increase of public faith in the government. There are two types of leaders: those with political strength and those with an intellectual clarity on important issues. There can be two opinions on Manmohan Singh’s political strength but his integrity,his commitment,his knowledge of issues and standing with experts inside the country and outside have helped the UPA. In the elections held two years ago,Congress and the UPA allies were able to improve their position largely due to his good image.

But UPA-II started with controversies surrounding decisions taken earlier. The situation changed after the CAG report (on the 2G scam) came out. It cited a possible quantum of loss. What was the basis for that? The 3G rates were used to arrive at that inference. The estimate was that the exchequer lost Rs 1.72 lakh crore (in the 2G case). When the figure was made public,it created a link in the public’s minds between A Raja and Rs 1.72 lakh crore. According to me,it started a process where the faith of the people was breached. It had a negative impact.

When these things came to the forefront,people wondered why the Prime Minister was not intervening. The Prime Minister could not arrive at a conclusion that corruption has taken place based on the money we could have received. He has to take a rational stand. But the people felt that something had happened and despite that,the PM was not acting. Then the courts intervened and some people were sent to jail. All these things together helped create the impression that the government did not use its administrative rights in a firm manner.

Manmohan Singh and I have worked together in the Cabinet for many years. He was Finance Minister and I was Defence Minister (in the Narasimha Rao government). When I was chief minister of Maharashtra,he was RBI Governor and we used to meet frequently. I have seen him from close quarters. He is an independent person; he doesn’t take steps for political benefits.

However,there is an impression that the present central government is weak. When such an impression is created,then other forces,such as the judiciary at present,come to the fore. I have experienced this before. When I was in Narasimha Rao’s Cabinet,there was a controversy over the Jain diaries. It had allegations against many politicians,even on how someone allegedly visited Narasimha Rao with a suitcase (of money). Rao’s contribution in taking the economy in the correct direction needed to be recorded but it was not done because his image had been affected by the Jain diary controversy. Thus,in the last two years of his tenure,the government was not effective; then too other forces had behaved in a more assertive manner. Today,I think,this is happening again.

In any country or democratic set-up,the system which represents the people must be strong. If people think the system is not strong and other forces fill this space,it is a matter of concern for parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately,this condition exists now. This is the important difference between the first and second tenure of the UPA.

GIRISH KUBER: The impression is that corrective steps are not being taken by the government. Do you agree?

Sharad Pawar: I feel that too many steps are being taken. We need to consider the impact on the overall economy and system. It is accepted that decentralisation of powers must be created but care must be taken to ensure that they are not misused. For example,there’s a controversy now about the Prime Minister’s remarks on RTI. There is no doubt that this fundamental right must be preserved,and this government made the policy to give this right. But is it being misused and when it is misused,then it does have an impact on the administration.

GIRISH KUBER: Do the roots of the problem lie in the Prime Minister not having political power but only administrative control?

Sharad Pawar: We did not feel the impact of his not having political power during UPA-I and there is no reason to feel so now. I do not feel that his authority in running the government has declined.

PRASHANT DIXIT: Many complex decisions seem wrong only in hindsight. Is it that the bureaucracy and the current political leadership were not adequately aware of the complexities in the 2G spectrum allocation?

Sharad Pawar: The spectrum distribution process began in 2000. The decisions taken since then are in tune with that decision. There is nothing new in it. I spoke to Pramod Mahajan (telecom minister) at that time. He said they had discussed the issue at the highest level and though he did not take names,I took that to mean the Prime Minister. The thinking at the highest level then was that the common man should have access to all means of communication. If we had taken the auction route and if we had received high bids,then the one who pays a high auction rate will surely want his investment to be recovered. Then the means of communication would have been restricted to a particular class. Earlier,getting a telephone was the monopoly of a particular class. Today everyone has a mobile phone. Hence the auction route was not taken. At that time,there was no controversy,no discussion. Today,if CAG’s report did not have the figure of Rs 1.72 lakh crore,perhaps it would not have been discussed.

SANTOSH PRADHAN: What is the status of the Food Security Bill?

Sharad Pawar: The Food Security Act is being prepared. The BPL debate is underway and the final decision will be taken by the Planning Commission. According to me,the government is taking on a massive burden. My estimate after handling the ministry for seven years is that the food subsidy will be around Rs 1.15-1.20 lakh crore and this will affect the overall economy. I am worried that the subsidy will almost be the same for fuel,around Rs 80,000 crore for fertilisers,and NREGA is another Rs 40,000 crore. If so much is spent on subsidies,what is left for development?

SUHAS GANGAL: The sense of drift in the government has left investors feeling insecure. As a constituent of UPA-II,what damage control would you suggest?

Sharad Pawar: The government’s tenure is not over,only two years have elapsed. The Prime Minister’s insistence is that we must take corrective measures and take them soon. All these things will help to bring things back on track.

DINESH GUNE: But the anti-corruption movement has also left the government vulnerable for attacks.

Sharad Pawar: This is a democracy and there is no reason to be angry at someone taking a stand on any issue and creating public awareness. But while it is being done,care should be taken that there is no adverse impact on the overall economy. If all this leads to a situation where the process is stopped,then the common man has to pay the price. The government must take corrective measures where due. If someone has committed a mistake,they must pay the price but that is not the only thing we must concentrate on.

GIRISH KUBER: Do senior leaders like you advise the Prime Minister on the course of action to be taken?

Sharad Pawar: Discussions take place often. Just as they say there are compulsions of coalitions,similarly the coalition partners also have their compulsions. The numbers with the coalition partners are limited and they are involved in the process of decision-making only up to a point. I feel that the PM is keenly aware of the need to take corrective measures. We,as coalition partners,have no differences with him over it. The only question is,the clarity of authority in the ruling party seems hazy.

GIRISH KUBER: Is it that the Prime Minister is able but the Party does not allow him to work?

Sharad Pawar: It does not seem that the party stops him but it is difficult to understand what exactly the party tells him.

PRASHANT DIXIT: The public does not see the next rung of political leadership clearly. Do you think a new,young leadership is coming up,leaders who can understand complex issues?

Sharad Pawar: In Parliament,I see the younger generation. They think about many issues collectively; they put aside party affiliations and sit together and discuss issues,come up with a stand and even collectively meet the Prime Minister,etc.,on these matters. But in a democratic set-up like ours,a strong political organisation is needed behind this and I do not see this today. Tomorrow,we may be defeated at the polls,it happens in a democracy. The point is,after the defeat,do you see a strong arrangement to provide an effective government for the next five years? As of now,I do not see it.

TUSHAR VAITY: When you have so many political responsibilities,how did you handle the pressures of being ICC president?

Sharad Pawar: There is not much work in ICC. The ICC office is in Dubai. It is a two-hour flight. Fortunately,Saturdays and Sundays are working days there. So,if I take the Friday evening flight,I can return by the Sunday evening flight after completing the work. Secondly,I have to go only once every three months; the rest is done on the Internet. ICC is not a small organisation— apart from 10 Test playing nations,112 countries play cricket. We are only the policy-makers and take care of deciding the time-table,changing the rules,taking the final decision in cases of indiscipline,etc.

GIRISH KUBER: Leaders like Anna Hazare take a stand and his demands,his words reflect the harsh side of our social fabric,an intolerance and a stubbornness.

Sharad Pawar: All these things are being pushed from within the society and especially the media. Hence,an intelligent man should not express his opinions. After he spoke about me,I refused to comment. This intolerance that is on the rise among the so-called educated class is worrying. But my experience is that it does not sustain itself for long. I can sense a difference in the daily newspapers and TV news channels over the last month—the viewpoint of the other side is being put forth for the first time.

DINESH GUNE: What do you think of the Lavasa project?

Sharad Pawar: I feel the project is useful for Maharashtra and the country. In that area,Khadakwasla (dam) was built by the British,later the Panshet dam was built,and then the Varasgaon dam. Besides,there is another large dam called Temghar,which I had got built for Pune’s water supply. We shifted the entire population of 6,000 people to Daund and Baramati where there was water. In the Lavasa area,there were 200 people. There were no adivasis there and the people cut down trees.

We went ahead with a policy to develop the area. The Cabinet cleared the concept of a lake city,a hill station. I had another thing in mind—no Indian has ever built a hill station in this country; all of them have been developed by the British.

But who was to implement the policy? Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) started work on the project,it was eco-friendly,many more lakh trees than the ones cut down were planted. Today,in a month,1-1.25 lakh people go there on Saturdays and Sundays. There are four,five-star hotels,an Apollo hospital,a good school—Oxford University has a second campus there and 12,000 people work there. Environmentalists raised some questions about it,some of our friends in Delhi raised questions,many of these people are those who have never been there even once in their life,but they sit here and pass orders based on what has been written in the newspapers. The government passed an order,the matter is in court and hence it is better not to talk on something that is sub-judice.

PRASHANT DIXIT: There are two much-talked-about leaders,Narendra Modi and Nitish Kumar. What is your opinion of them?

Sharad Pawar: In Bihar,the most important thing that Nitish Kumar did was to do away with the lack of confidence in the minds of the people about the law and order situation. This is a positive. I don’t know about the status of development there. But you cannot think about development by keeping modern technology,modern science at bay. Cottage industry cannot solve the problems of the entire country. One of the various experiments we are undertaking in my ministry to increase productivity is this one controversial decision—genetically modified food. I will take precautions to ensure that it does not affect the environment,human beings and animals,soil,water and organisms. But if its utility is proved,then it must be accepted as the issue of food security is important for us. We are holding trials in various states. Some companies undertook trials on land owned by the central government and private farmers but the local government in Bihar asked for it to be uprooted and issued orders that this is not be brought into the state again. If you take a stand that new technology is not to be brought in,I do not know how useful it is for the country. (BT) cotton was similarly opposed,but today 92 per cent of the area under cotton cultivation in India is BT cotton. While a new thing is opposed in Bihar,that is not done by Modi. Modi always asks for things to be explained,to be evaluated for its benefits for society,for Gujarat,the country. So,I think his model is about going forward with eyes open. I am only speaking about development here.

KEDAR DAMLE: How has the media changed in the last 30 years,especially after the advent of electronic channels?

Sharad Pawar: The electronic media always asks me why I do not meet them. I do not feel like talking to them because the sound bite concept is not acceptable to us. The electronic media is not ready to treat issues with any depth.

NISHANT SARVANKAR: Is your ambition of becoming Prime Minister still alive?

Sharad Pawar: Let me spell out my stand clearly: I have said many times that I do not have the necessary majority and hence I will not even get into that business. Secondly,I decided to contest these polls at the insistence of the party. I have no inclination to fight elections henceforth. I will work for the party,I will sit in the Upper House,but I do not want to fight elections.

Transcribed and translated by Dhaval Kulkarni & Neerad Pandharipande