As Maharashtra gears up for the Assembly polls scheduled for November this year, Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan tells Prasad Patil that the Congress has learnt its lesson from the Lok Sabha polls and that the party will fight Maharashtra elections through effective marketing campaign.
Refuting Sanjaya Baru’s criticism, Mr Chavan says that former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s credibility was the winning factor in 2009 and Rahul Gandhi did not step up to take responsibility. Excerpts from the interview:
The Congress and the Nationalist Congress were routed with huge margins everywhere in Maharashtra in the Lok Sabha elections three months ago. Maharashtra Assembly elections are around two months away. How are you planning to turn the tables?
The number of decisions that my government took is unprecedented. Regularisation of slums, returning the agricultural land to people, management of water etc. were all decisions that have benefited different sections of the people. The infrastructure projects implemented not just in Mumbai, but also in Nagpur, Pune, Nashik, Aurangabad and other cities are visible. The only thing is that we failed to do is communicate to the people our achievements. We thought the decisions our government took have benefited people and that was good enough; we did not realise that we also have to create a mass euphoria. This time, with slightly better marketing, we will tell people about the good work we have done. There will be testimonial advertisements in which real people will talk about how they benefited from the decisions taken by our government.
Can you say that what happened in general elections was the outcome of only a marketing campaign?
We are analysing what happened in the Lok Sabha elections — how an outsider came and won the election, somewhat like Barack Obama. He (Narendra Modi) projected himself well. Also, there was anger against the United Progressive Alliance because of corruption and inflation. There was a perception that high inflation was a result of corruption. And this man conducted an American type of presidential campaign. He told people that they needed change and that he was that change. Very systemically, he erased every past memory of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its previous leaders. Everything, including common civil code, Ram Mandir and other core BJP issues, were erased.
Why did the people believe him and not the Congress leaders?
Mr Modi’s campaign worked partly because of anti-incumbency after 10 years of UPA rule. The first five years of the UPA rule were very good, which is why people gave us a resounding mandate in 2009. The next five years was a bad phase. Dr Singh’s credibility was the winning factor in 2009, but even his credibility got tarnished. When he said I am not going to do it (referring to Dr Singh ruling himself out from the PM race), then the question was “who?” Rahul Gandhi did not step up to take the responsibility. On the other hand, Mr Modi conducted a very sleek campaign as if the BJP were selling an FMCG product. He introduced new things like the use of social media, micro and multiple levels of campaigning.
You worked closely with Dr Singh and Mrs Sonia Gandhi when you were in Delhi. What is your take on the claims made by Sanjaya Baru and K. Natwar Singh in their recently released books?
I have not read their books fully; I have read them in bits and snippets. Both Mr Baru and Mr Singh are entitled to have their own views. They had access to Dr Singh as I had. But they are peddling nonsense with some of the inferences they have drawn, such as files were sent to Mrs Gandhi etc. They met Dr Singh but they did not have that kind of access to the governance. In fact, Mr Baru was an outsider.
There is also a view even within the Congress that the party is being seen as a pro-Muslim party and that cost the party dearly.
It is not true that the Congress was tilted towards Muslims; it was the other way round. Minority communities were tilted towards the Congress because they were scared of Mr Modi. They decisively voted in favour of the Congress. It was a mistake on our part to take Muslim leaders to campaign in minority-dominated areas as if the Muslims were going to vote for us only because of them. This was unnecessary. We should have campaigned in minority-dominated areas in the same way we had campaigned in other areas.
Why should people not vote for the Shiv Sena-BJP combine?
Why should they? Once they were given opportunity in 1995-99, they misruled the state. We have given an inclusive government. The record of Shiv Sena-BJP alliance is not good. People also do not know who is going to lead the government. The Shiv Sena seems to have declared that Uddhav Thackeray will be their CM candidate. BJP is undecided over that also.
What is your take on Raj Thackeray?
The Maharashtra Navnirman Sena has shot itself in the foot. He (Raj Thackeray) had risen to a great height. They did well very well in Pune and went on to win the Nashik Municipal Corporation elections. But at the time of the Lok Sabha elections, he supported Mr Modi, campaigned against the Shiv Sena and fielded candidates against Shiv Sena as well as the BJP. This created confusion and the message that went out was that the decisions were not taken in a transparent manner.
Would you have been able to give better governance if it was not a coalition government?
Absolutely. And so would Dr Singh. That was the advantage with Mr Modi and for 15 years, he ran the Gujarat government like his fiefdom.
