HVK Archives: Stand up for India
Stand up for India - The Economic Times, Mumbai
Jaswant Singh
()
June 11 1996
Title : Stand up for India
Author : Jaswant Singh
Publication : The Economic Times, Mumbai
Date : 11 June 1996
The finance minister of the short-lived BJP government,
Jaswant Singh, has strong views on the United Front's
policy formulation in the Common Programme. He talks to
Abheek Barman about economics, Ayodhya and Enron. And
product patents, which India, as a signatory to the WTO,
is committed to gradually phase in,
Q : If the UF government tries to legislate product
patents, will the BJP support the step?
A : The government will be ill advised to precipitate the
issue of intellectual property rights (IPR) in this
fashion. Under the WTO, there are gaps available to
nations on IPR. IPR is ridden with controversy and
brackets.
Q : On pharmaceuticals, there is international pressure
on India to fall in line with IPR norms. Should we have
product patents?
A : I'm aware of the pressures. Our position is clear.
One, the country must not crack under pressure. Two,
particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, India has to
be very careful. Because India is a country of the poor
and we cannot have medicines out of their reach. Three,
even though we must respect valid international concerns
on IPR, we have to reconcile them with national
interests. I would caution this government against
rushing in where angels fear to tread.
Q : Taking hard line on IPR might close export markets
for Indian goods. What do you do then?
A : We have a tendency to underrate our strengths, and to
overrate international ability to intervene. We should
increase self-assertiveness, born of a sense of India and
economic sovereignty. Our size and potential cannot be
treated offhand if we are able to stand up for ourselves.
International trade is not charity, it is a cutthroat
game of national interest.
Q : Is India's bargaining position strong enough to play
hardball?
A : It doesn't matter. My bargaining position starts
principally from my mouth. It goes beyond only
thereafter. And moral strength is as important as
economic strength. Stand up for India. India is a nation
of 900 million people. No country in the world can ignore
this market. We overrate today's difficulties. What
appears difficult today, will appear simpler tomorrow.
Q : Are you saying that the rest of the world cannot
ignore us?
A : Yes. There have been treadeoffs that have been
disadvantageous to India, for example, in cotton
textiles. Why are the quotas not front loaded? Where we
have our strengths, we have nothing to lose. We will take
each case (regarding trade agreements), and go into
international concerns. But we will never compromise
national interests.
Q : At the negotiating table will you use market access
into India as your bargaining counter?
A : Access into India is a crying need for the West,
which needs reliable markets. The artificial honeymoon
between communist and capitalist marterialism (referring
to China and the West), is a shotgun wedding. It won't
work, due to fundamental differences in their
philosophies. But China and Japan too, preserve their
national interest while trading. Policies like (US laws)
301, Super 301 are laws to influence market access. Yes,
market access to India is a weapon in my armoury.
Q : The BJP has said that it would stand by all
international contractual obligation. Doesn't that
include IPR norms?
A : The commitment to WTO, which we inherited, is not a
synonym for abandoning national interests. Within WTO
norms, there is a great deal of freedom to operate.
Q : Suppose this government tries to implement something
like a presumptive tax, which Manmohan Singh first
brought in, will you oppose it, or back it?
A : Yes, we need to widen the tax base. Is presumptive
taxation the answer? Manmohan Singh tried it. It didn't
work. Why not? Separate legislation was not necessary,
for it becomes the Finance Act. It's not been repealed,
it's still there, it's simply dying out.
Q : You believe that it will be impossible to implement?
A : Yes, it is tough to implement, it will need a climate
of flexibility, imspiring confidence in citizens.
Q : All non-Congress parties including the BJP, today say
that the social sector has been neglected during the
reforms. Do you welcome the UF's proposals to provide a
50 per cent subsidy on issue price, to the poorest of the
poor and to cut the better-off out of the PDS? Is this
implementable?
A : We now have an inefficient PDS system. The BJP has
spoken of widening the availability of food to poor
people and of the need to eliminate the taxpayer from the
system.
Q : So, is that the same as in the UF's Common
Programme?
A : Here we have to make distinctions. `Poorest of the
poor', is an evocative phrase, but who's going to select
these people? The poorest of the poor do not have
purchasing power, so reducing the PDS price without
ensuring that will be absurd. The impracticality is mind-
boggling. The whole definition of poverty in terms of per
diem calorific consumption is insufficient. We define it
in terms of the quality of life -- housing, clothing,
access to education, jobs -- all of which reflect
purchasing power. By that count, the level of poverty is
unacceptable. I have said repeatedly, that the ultimate
aim of reform is not to benefit transnational
corporations or industrial houses in India, but the
individual citizen. If 80 per cent of India's citizens
find themselves outside the pale of so-called reforms,
then it's a failure. This (the UF's Common Programme)
talks of $200 billion for physical infrastructure
investment. But what about social infrastructure? That's
why we use the broad definition. Is there one city in
India which can provide potable, 24-hour, drinking water
supply?
Q : Your manifesto and the BJP drafted President's
speech, focus on socio-economic subjects, go softer on
contentious issue. Is that a dilution of Hindutva?
A : The core philosophy of political activism does not
have anything to do with ritual. It is an assertion of
cultural nationalism. There is a phrase, smriti, which
stands for the collective memory of India, seeped in a
certain cultural civilisation. What is that core? You can
call it Indianess, Bharatiyata or Hindutva. And if you
peel those onions, at the core Hindutva is not a
religion, but a cultural Indianess.
Q : This should apply to all Indians, right?
A : All Indians, irrespective of caste or religion.
Q : Does that explain why Muslims are so alienated from
the BJP?
A : No it doesn't. The alienation lies in creating fear
in the minds of Muslims, by our political adversaries.
They are more responsible for this fear than Muslims
themselves.
Q : Does the BJP today deny responsibility for what
happened in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992?
A : Of course not. We have accept our responsibility
directly. The chief minister of UP resigned, everyone
from Atal Behari Vajpayee to L K Advani to the
Sarsanghchalak, said that this was not the right thing to
happen...
Q : But they were a few meters from the site of the
demolition...
A : I agree, I agree with you...
Q : ...But it could not be stopped?
A : ...It could not have. Your suggestion that even if
they could have stopped it, they wouldn't have stopped
it, is incorrect. I was not there, but I have seen
videotapes, conducted by curiously enough, the then
defence minister Sharad Pawar. His team was recording the
whole event from early morning to five o'clock. We are
honest in saying, yes we are responsible, that it should
not have happened. But I also believe that you cannot
saddle either a party or a society or least of all a
nation, with a permanent sense of guilt. An ancient
country like ours cannot come to a standstill because one
mistake is made.
Q : Was the demolition a mistake?
A : Yes of course. It should not have happened. I mean,
in the sense that the BJP was one of the participants,
the BJP has direct responsibility. But what about all the
others? What about the responsibility of the Babri Majid
Action Committee, the Narasimha Rao government? The
central forces, the ministry of defence, who had direct
access to what was taking place on a minute by minute
basis? We accept our responsibility, the others create a
fear about us in the minds of the minority. Only to
garner their votes. This electoral expoitation of the
minority is what we call fraudulent secularism.
Q : Before the BJP took up power, it said that it would
get enough support to run government for five years. It
fell in 13 days. Why didn't even one MP extend support?
A : (Negotiations with) Parties which had earlier
expressed an absence of reservation (in joining the BJP
government) did not fructify. Second, many of those with
whom we talked, wanted to join in government on any other
terms but a common set of principles and agreed
Programme. And only three issues were core issues. One,
stable policy and governance, two, dynamic economic
growth with benefits spreading throughout India. Three, a
corruption-free administration. If you subscribe, you
work with us. There is no money to be exchanged and no
posts to be offered.
Q : What was the hurry in clearing the Enron project,
just before the vote of confidence?
A : First, the Constitution makes no difference between a
government that is to win a vote of confidence and one
which has obtained it. Second, the Cabinet Committee on
Fireign Investment (CCFI) had approved of the revised PPA
on 30 April, 1996. We were sworn to office on 16 May. I
was given charge of the finance portfolio on the 17th. By
the time I was seized of the impending issues, it was
about the 22nd or 23rd. But from the first of May, the
clock of delay costs, to be shared between the
Maharashtra state government and the Centre, started
ticking. If by May 1, all the formalities were not
cleared, delay would cost around $25,000 per day. One was
to curtail this avoidable loss. The other was the matter
of automatic arbitration, early in June, if settlement
had not been reached. All we had to do was to confirm the
decision of the CCFI of the previous government. We
decided to meet as a full Cabinet. We decided that
notwithstanding the enhanced production capacity, the
counterguarantee remains unalterably fixed. The
government's exposure is limited to this cap. The gains
would be lower delay cost, avoiding arbitrage and power
for India. We acted impeccably, and in trying to save
costs, we acted in the national interest.
Q : The SIM has come out strongly against this clearance.
Comments?
A : I've read what the SIM has said, but from the very
beginning, they have a certain consistent viewpoint about
Enron. I see no reason why this should create any
difficulty in our working relationship. I don't apprehend
any difficulty in future, either.
Back
Top
|
