The Wife Dreams of RG

I woke up – or should I say was woken up – to find the wife typing away furiously on her laptop next to me. 

I looked at the clock – 03:42 AM.

“W-W-What are you doing?” I asked with one eye shut, to block off the harsh halo from the reading lamp behind the wife’s head.

“I just had the most amazing dream,” she said with a hint of manic glee in her voice. “I have to write it down before I forget it. You go to sleep.”

“What is it about?” I asked.

“I just dreamt that I was interviewing Rahul Gandhi. And, he said the most amazing things,” she said. “Now go back to sleep. Don’t distract me. You can read it in the morning.”

If we had been in the 19^th century, she would definitely have rubbed her hands in glee.

I woke up again. This time the halo was sunlit. The wife had stopped typing and was now re-reading what she had written.

She looked at me. “Good. Wake up and read this.”

“Can I just get myself some coffee first?” I asked.

“No. That can wait,” she said smiling. But, I knew the smile meant I had to read it right then.

And, this is how the imaginary interview went.

TW: Rahul Gandhi, thank you for agreeing to speak to us.

RG: The pleasure is mine.

TW: When one analyses your speeches and interviews, there is a very clear message – the Congress has its base among the poor, the BJP among corporates. These are your very words in your interview to Aaj Tak. Yet, your government’s image is exactly the opposite. It is seen as a government that promoted crony capitalism.

RG: Unfortunately, our government failed to implement the policies of the party, which were outlined by my mother Sonia Gandhi. I cannot deny that. But, the overall thrust of our policies has been pro-poor, whether it is RTI, MNREGA or food security.

TW: MNREGA happened in UPA-1 and since then there has been a steady decline in the amount of money allocated to it by the various Congress finance ministers. Food security was supposed to have been launched in 2010. People were calling it the killer app of UPA-2. It hasn’t been launched properly even now.

RG: I agree with you. Our government should have been more pro-active in implementing the party’s policies. In the first five years, my mother played an important role as a guiding force behind the policies of the government, but in our second stint, her health did not allow her to play that active a role. I think, the party made mistakes in the choice of ministers and we put many technocrats in positions of authority. They were people divorced from politics and from what is happening on the ground. Our economic policies were far too pro-market and pro-corporate – much more than what my mother or I wanted.

TW: But, it is not just ministers. Even the Prime Minister was working at loggerheads with what the party wanted. Do you think it was a mistake to let Dr Manmohan Singh continue as PM even when he was clearly ignoring what the political leadership wanted?

RG: I will not take any names. Dr Singh is a highly respected economist. He has his own views about the economy. People in the party do not always agree with them. For instance, you are right that the party wanted the food security act to be speeded up, and also wanted more money allocated to it. But, the PM set up a committee under Mr Rangarajan, which opposed it. In effect, the policy got delayed, people did not get the right to food when they should have. When the economy was slowing down and inflation was going up, cheap food would have been a very important social safety net for the poor. But, the government had other ideas. In principal, there’s nothing wrong in that. A PM has to be allowed to have autonomy.

TW: Isn’t it ironic, that the PM hardly ever listened to the party leadership, was taking all major decisions on his own, and yet he has successfully painted himself as a puppet? Look at Sanjay Baru’s book. It puts the blame of policy failures completely on your mother’s doorstep.

RG: Look, I don’t want to comment on any book. It is the author’s right to write whatever he wants. But, I will repeat what my sister said the other day. Dr Manmohan Singh was the Super PM, not my mother.  

TW: Do you think you should have changed the PM in 2009?

RG: Changing the PM is not the issue. I think the party should have asserted its role in policy making. The party fights elections, is in daily contact with people on the ground. It gets feedback from the voters who have put their faith and trust in us. We let corporates and vested interests dictate terms, instead of the party. I will give you one example. We had wanted a mining policy where local adivasis would be given a share in the revenues. Our senior minister was replaced by the government in a cabinet reshuffle, and the entire plan was shelved. Instead we saw big corporates getting preferential treatment and being given mines out of turn.

TW: These are very strong words. Cabinet reshuffles are technically done by the PM. Are you saying that the party did not play a role in deciding who gets which ministry and the PM did it on his own?

RG: I think, the party did play a significant role initially. But, the last few reshuffles had been done almost entirely by the Government, on its own.

TW: By Government, you clearly mean the PM?

RG: I don’t want to take any names.

TW: Fair enough. I will not press you on that point, any further. But, why do you think the party lost control over the Government since 2010?

RG: You see, for that, you have to understand several things. My mother was unwell. I was busy trying to rebuild the party organisation in states where we had disintegrated – mainly UP and Gujarat. We were also in the middle of a global economic crisis. There were two ways in which different countries reacted to this problem. Some decided that the corporate sector needs more sops, and government needs to tighten its belt and cut deficits. Others, mainly in Latin America, decided that the state had to intervene and spend more. Oddly, if you look at history, you will find that the US actually decided to increase government spending and public investment after World War II. It is what helped them come out of the crisis and become an economic super power. But, the overall consensus among economists has been that spending needs to be cut. Unfortunately, for us, our Government also took that line.

TW: What would you have done if you had been PM?

RG: Well, first of all, I would not have cared about the fiscal deficit. I would have increased Government spending on infrastructure and agriculture. I would have increased productive subsidies on fertilisers, seeds and fuel. I would have provided tariff protection to some key industries. I would have reduced tax rebates to big corporates. I would have provided financial subsidies to small and medium entrepreneurs. I would have declared tax holidays for key industries, which employ more people. I would have challenged the WTO consensus and faced the consequences.

TW: But, that would have made India a pariah country. Foreign capital would have left the country overnight. How would you have dealt with it?

RG: I don’t believe that at all. Foreign capital wants high returns on investments. History shows that every large country that has seen fast manufacturing driven growth has always done it on the back of heavy government spending. The US is no exception. A high growth economy is always attractive to foreign capital. Don’t forget that UPA-1 followed policies identified under a Common Minimum Programme, which was drafted with the support of Left parties. Yet, that was the same period when we had the fastest growth and maximum foreign investment.

TW: But, that was also in a period of global financial boom.

RG: I am not denying that. I am just saying that there are many reasons for foreign capital to leave a country.  I don’t believe that high fiscal deficits necessary causes foreign capital to run away.

TW: This is very interesting, since this is exactly the opposite of what the PM and senior ministers like Mr Chidambaram have been saying. Do you think they were wrong?

RG: I think the question is not whether they were wrong or right. I think it is an ideological battle. All I can say is that if I become PM, our policies will be very different from what the UPA-2 government had. The entire team running the Government would be different.

TW: So why didn’t you join the government in the past few years? You could have changed its course.

RG: No. One minister cannot do anything when the consensus is in the other direction.

TW: Why didn’t you replace the PM?

RG: Many people have asked us this question. It is a hypothetical question that is best left unanswered. History will judge whether we did the right thing or not. (Smiles mischievously).

TW: Coming to the party now. Have you sensed that there is hostility within the party to your line against big-corporates? The journalistic grapevine talks about your own party leaders planting stories in the press against you at the behest of their corporate bosses.

RG: (Laughs) I think that is a bit far-fetched. Yes, there are people who are identified with some corporate houses and they are a little nervous about what I am trying to achieve. No party is entirely unified. Look at the BJP. There is constant infighting there. That is the nature of the game. Some of it is ideological, some of it is personal and some of it is always going to be driven by the power of money and vested interests. My aim is to gradually clean up the party structure so that people who represent the poor and the marginalised acquire the strongest voices within the party.

TW: Do you think you can achieve this before the elections?

RG: No, I cannot. This is a long term project. It will take several years. We have to empower the local level leaders. We have to give them a voice, not only in the political process, but also in the process of drafting laws and formulating policies. We will not repeat the arrogance of UPA-2 again, where technocrats trained in mainstream economics decided what was good for the country.

TW: But, isn’t that a very populist line to take?

RG: Let me clarify. I am not saying that there will be no experts and no philosophy behind our policies. All I am saying is that those at the grassroots will be consulted before any policy is implemented, it will be explained to them and their voices and feedback heard. It is a crucial part of democratic governance. That’s the only way to keep track of how Government policies are affecting people on the ground.

TW: You are sounding like a Latin American socialist leader. Like a Chavez or a Lula.

RG: (Laughs). If that means that I am sounding pro-poor, then I am proud of it. But, in the end, I don’t want to sound like anyone else from any other country. India is unique, with its unique set of problems. I just want to be true to myself and my beliefs. I just want to sound like Rahul Gandhi.