Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that he has consciously avoided choosing a ‘populist course’ and had instead opted for the ‘more difficult path’ of correcting the defective government machinery. ‘If I had chosen the populist course, it would have been a breach of the trust placed in me by the people,’ Mr Modi says. This is the transcript of the Prime Minister’s interview to PTI
Sir, you have completed one year as Prime Minister. Can you please sum up your experience?
A: When I took office, the civil service was totally demoralised and afraid of taking decisions. The Cabinet system also was in disrepair due to the operation of extra constitutional authorities from outside and groups of ministers from inside. There was a gulf between the states and the Centre and high degree of mistrust. Changing that atmosphere of gloom was a challenging task and I faced many difficulties in rectifying the situation and bringing back confidence and hope.
Soon after becoming the Prime Minister, you had said that you are trying to understand Delhi since you were new here. Have you understood Delhi?
When I referred to Delhi, I meant the Central government. My experience is that Delhi behaves the way the leadership defines. Our team has worked to bring in changes in the work culture of Delhi for making the government more pro-active and professional. When I assumed office, I found that the corridors of power in Delhi were littered with lobbies of various kinds. The task of cleaning the corridors of power was important so that the government machinery itself is improved. This process of correction and cleaning took quite some time but it will provide long-term benefits in the form of clean and fair governance.
And what have you understood?
One thing I fail to understand in Delhi is how the same parties which as state governments seek amendments to the land acquisition law, suddenly become opponents of the amendments when they are sitting in Delhi.
Looking back at this one year, do you think there is something which you could or should have done differently than you did?
I had two options. One option was to do things methodically to mobilise the government machinery, correct the many defects and ills which had crept into the system. The other option was to use the mandate to announce new populist schemes and bombard the media with announcements to keep the people fooled. The latter course is easier and people are used to it. However, I did not choose this and instead chose the more difficult path of correcting the defective government machinery. If I had chosen the populist course, it would have been a breach of the trust placed in me by the people.
During the first year, you initiated a number of programmes and schemes like Swachchh Bharat, toilets for schools, jandhan, insurance for poor, pension scheme. What are the plans for the future?
First, I should mention that Swachchh Bharat and school toilets are not merely for cleanliness. The provision of toilets is a minimum requirement for the dignity of our women. Our future focus will be on women, farmers, the urban poor and on employment. Whatever we have started, needs to be taken forward and into the villages and municipal areas. We have to address the issues which prevent clean cities, clean rivers, regular, uninterrupted supply of essentials like water and electricity. We have to carry out reforms which help us in making 50 million houses for the house-less. We have to see that all regions of the country, particularly the east and west, are brought on par in development parameters. We have to build the capacity of our institutions, employees and workers. Our regulatory environment has not been encouraging to research, innovation and enterprise. Our boys and girls are doing so well in other countries, but we are not able to use them effectively at home. We have made a beginning by setting up the Atal Innovation Mission and Self-Employment and Talent Utilisation.
You wanted to push economic reforms at fast pace. But some key reform bills like Land Acquisition and GST have faced problems. Do you think obstacles posed to such reform measures is hurting the country? What will be your message to those opposing these measures?
Both the GST and the proposed Land Acquisition Bill are beneficial for the country. The core essence of these Bills should be appreciated by all the parties keeping aside political motives. Long-term interest of the nation should be foremost. The fact that the states have agreed to the GST design, shows the maturity of our federal system and the GST Bill has already been passed by the Lok Sabha. It is a matter of time before these laws are passed.
If the reform measures are not pushed fast, what kind of a message will it send to foreign investors?
One of the peculiarities of Delhi is that the term “reform” is associated only with passing of laws in Parliament. In fact, the most important reforms are those needed, without new laws, at various levels of government, in work practices and procedures. We have initiated a number of major reforms. These include decontrol of diesel prices, direct transfer of cooking gas subsidy, enhancement of FDI limits, revamping of railways and many others. The truth is that reform has actually been pushed very fast and in fact as a result FDI has already witnessed an increase of 39% in the period April 2014 to February 2015 compared to the previous year.
What further reform measures are you planning in the future?
Our focus will be on P2G2, i.e. proactive, pro-people good governance reforms. Another aspect we will emphasise and strengthen is that the state and the Centre are one team which has to work together for reforms to be effective.
You have already opened up a number of sectors for FDI. What are the other areas that you may consider opening up for FDI in the future?
The measures already taken have increased the attractiveness of India as an investment destination and confidence has improved. Wherever there is high employment potential and wherever we have strong local talent, for example, in research and development: those will be the areas of focus for FDI. We have created the National Infrastructure Investment Fund. This is a major step which will increase the flow of foreign investments into all infrastructure sectors, without needing separate sector-by-sector approaches.
With regard to economic policy, is RBI on the same page as the finance ministry? I am asking this question because there are sometimes remarks by RBI governor which indicate a disconnect with the finance ministry.
I am surprised that an important and credible media agency like PTI is drawing an incorrect inference based on remarks made in different contexts. RBI has its functional autonomy which the government and the finance ministry always respect and preserve.
What growth figure are you targeting this financial year?
The experience of the last year and the enthusiasm and encouragement of 1.25 billion Indians give me the confidence that all economic indicators will exceed the targets. I do not want to undermine the potential and the efforts by giving any figure which may turn out to be too low.
On Land Bill, the Opposition is saying you want to benefit the corporates. You have been denying this and saying that the legislation is for the benefit of the poor farmers and villagers. Still the Opposition is unrelenting. Do you think the resistance by the Opposition is justified?
I don’t want to get into political mudslinging. However, I do want to ask whether those who allotted coal mines and forest land, rich with mineral resources, to their favourite corporates have the moral right to question this government which is working ceaselessly for the welfare of all sections of society. I am astonished that even after running a government for 60 years, the ones asking these questions have such poor knowledge of administration and governance. The whole country knows that the subject of land is not with the Central government and the Centre does not require lands. All rights relating to land are with the states. The 120-year-old Land Acquisition Act was amended by the previous government without even 120 minutes of discussion in Parliament. Thinking the Bill was good for farmers, we also supported it at that time.
Later many complaints came from the states. We cannot disrespect the wishes of states. One should not be so arrogant as to avoid correcting mistakes, so we brought the bill to rectify the errors, that too in response to the demand of the states. Anyone who looks at our proposed amendments without politically-tinted glasses will give us full marks.
Since there is a deadlock on the Land Bill, what is the way out?
Gaon, garib, kisan: if the suggestions are favourable to these downtrodden groups and are in the interests of the nation, we will accept those suggestions.
During this year, your government as well as the Sangh Parivar have been repeatedly targeted whenever any person from minority community or minority institutions have been attacked. Even you personally have been targeted. What do you have to say on this?
Any criminal act against any individual or institution in the country is to be condemned. The attackers must be strongly punished as per law. I have said this before and I say it again: any discrimination or violence against any community will not be tolerated. My position on this is very clear: Sab ka saath, sab ka vikas. We stand for every one of the 1.25 billion Indians regardless or caste or creed and we will work for the progress of every one of them.
You have travelled to a number of countries over the last one year. The Opposition has attacked you, saying that you hardly stay in the country. What is your response to this criticism?
We live in an inter-dependent world. An isolated India is not in our interest. Seventeen years without a visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Nepal was not a good situation. Just because we are a large country, we cannot be arrogant and think that we can ignore others. We live in a different era. Terrorism is global and can come from even remote countries. International summits and organisations like WTO take decisions which will bind us and if we are not present in such summits, we may be hurt by the decisions taken.
In a democracy, everyone has the right to criticise the government. Normally, the Opposition gets more media space and even the people find it interesting to listen to voices against the government of the day. Ever since I took office, my friends in the Opposition have been levelling baseless allegations about my foreign trips. Had these trips been a failure or had we made any mistakes, then they would have based their comments on specific issues.
In the absence of any specific issue, they are only discussing the number of days and the number of countries. Look at the maturity of the people: all recent surveys show that the highest approval rating is for our foreign policy. When opponents keep harping on one point, it is a sure sign of success.
While you have been accused by the Opposition of being pro-corporates, some in the industry like Deepak Parekh say nothing is happening on the ground for the industry. What do you say?
The answer is to be found in your question itself. If opponents are accusing us of being pro-corporate but the corporates are saying we are not helping them, then I take it that our decisions and initiatives are pro-people and in the long-term interests of the nation.
Rahul Gandhi has recently got active and raised issues of farmers as well as the Land Bill. He has also called your government “suit-boot ki sarkar”. What is your comment on this?
The Congress has suffered a crushing defeat and ended with less than 50 seats. Even after a year, they are not able to digest this. The people have punished them for their sins of omission and commission. We thought they would learn from this, but it looks as though they are proving right the earlier saying that if con is the opposite of pro, then Congress is the opposite of progress.
Recently, CAG has raised questions over the country’s defence preparedness. It has said that the Army has ammunition which can last only 10-20 days if there is a war. Its report was based on 2013 figures. What would you say on this?
National security is a serious matter and I do not think it is in proper to discuss such details in a public forum. However, I can assure our countrymen that the country is safe in the hands of the brave warriors of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.
One of the campaign promises was that the new government would take stringent action against black money. Has there been any progress in this?
The very first decision of this government after taking office was to constitute the Special Investigation Team to pursue black money. This step had been pending for years with no action and we executed it in our very first Cabinet meeting. Subsequently, we have also brought a new Bill which will combat black money held abroad and it prescribes stiff penalties. Thanks to our efforts, an agreement was reached at the G-20 summit to curb tax evasion and in particular to exchange information between countries. This will help us to trace black money.
What efforts have you taken to change the way the government works?
We have tried to remind government servants that they are servants of the public and have restored discipline in Central government offices. I have done a small thing, one that appears small from outside. I regularly interact with officers over tea; it is part of my working style. Philosophically, I feel that the country will progress only if we work as teams. The Prime Minister and the chief ministers are one team. The Cabinet ministers and the state ministers are another team. The civil servants at the Centre and the states are yet another team. This is the only way we can successfully develop the country. We have taken a number of steps for this and the abolition of the Planning Commission and its replacement with Niti Aayog in which states are full partners is a major step in this direction.
There is criticism that all powers are concentrated in the PMO. Is there any merit in such a view?
Your question is loaded. It would have been better if this question had been asked when an unconstitutional authority was sitting above the constitutional authority and exercising power over the Prime Minister’s Office. The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office are very much part of the constitutional scheme, not outside it. We have made major increases in the delegated powers of individual ministries so that many decisions that earlier needed to come to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet can now be taken by ministries themselves. The financial delegation for ministries has been trebled.
Devolution to the states has been increased and states have become full partners in governance through the Niti Aayog. All successful and transformational administrations need close coordination across different ministries and there is nothing unique in it.
One year on, there are murmurs that you have not exactly delivered achchhe din. Are people being impatient?
The 21st century should be India’s century but from 2004 to 2014 bad ideas and bad actions have affected the country adversely. Every day was a new bad day and there were new scandals. People were furious. Today, after a year, even our opponents have not accused us of bad actions. You tell me, if there is not a single scandal, is this is not achchhe din?
The country is facing an agrarian crisis.
Suicides by farmers has been a serious concern for several years. Political point-scoring through comparing how many suicides occurred under which government will not solve the problem. For a government of any party, and for every one of us, even one suicide is worrisome. I had said in Parliament with great sadness that mudslinging between the ruling and Opposition parties would be unproductive and, respecting the sanctity of Parliament, we need to collectively find an answer to this issue. We need to find where we have gone wrong and why we are not able to solve this over so many years. I have asked all parties for their suggestions to bring contentment and security to our farmers.
The Congress seems to have founds its voice of late, with both Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi attacking the government. Mrs Gandhi said that yours is a government by “one person”. What is your response?
Perhaps, she is referring to the fact that earlier, extra-constitutional authorities were the ones really wielding power whereas now power is wielded only by constitutional means. If the charge is that we are working through constitutional channels and not listening to any extra-constitutional authorities, then I plead guilty to that charge.
Your government has come in for criticism for its “clampdown” on NGOs.
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act was passed by the UPA government in 2010, not by this government. The steps taken are only to enforce the law as passed by the previous government. There has been no action taken contrary to law. No patriotic citizen can object to this.
