The Congress, which had historically been against forming coalitions unless it was absolutely necessary, warmed up to joining hands with other parties just before the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, largely inspired by the successful coalition led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, according to Pranab Mukherjee, who was a Cabinet Minister in both UPA 1 and 2, before being elected President of India in 2012. He talks about his experience with coalition politics, demonetisation, secularism and the third volume of his memoirs, The Coalition Years: 1996-2012 , that has been released this month. Excerpts:
In the beginning of the book itself you talk of the Congress, post-1996, having to deal with a post-Congress polity. What did you mean by that? Has there been a shrinking of the Congress’s space (not necessarily only electoral) since then?
In electoral terms, there is no doubt that the Congress has shrunk considerably. But it is not irretrievable. In electoral politics we see, not just in the case of the Congress but other political parties too, that for some time parties may lose their electoral battles, but if the party pursues with vigour the lessons from the verdict of the people, then they improve.
What lessons do you think the Congress can draw from its shrinkage 2014 onwards?
The very first thing is to understand why people support you. Secondly, what has happened in between that people have lost confidence and withdrawn their support from you. This is not the grammar of ABCD, it is about living persons, naturally you will have to respond to their aspirations. The Congress has that capacity, resilience to change, to adapt, to adjust and also to rejuvenate. It has happened in the past and may happen in future too.
You have detailed how Congress president Sonia Gandhi came to the conclusion that pursuing alliances was the way to go before the 2004 elections. Were you in agreement?
In electoral politics, particularly a person like me, who has participated, achieved success and failed in electoral battles, being in the thick of it for a very long time, we know that the party has to adapt and change to the situation. There are two reference points in response to your question, one is the Pachmarhi declaration, in 1998, where the Congress clearly stated that it would not like to have coalitions unless it is a compulsion. In Shimla, just before the 2004 Lok Sabha polls, however, the Congress changed its position. In the years in between, the Congress came to see the very successful governance through a coalition led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The party felt that maybe the people might be in the mood not to invest in a single party government, but for a coalition to be formed by a leading party. So there was a change in the stand.
It is also said that regional parties ate up the Congress’s space rather than the BJP, even in coalitions.
That is absolutely correct, because the Congress was an umbrella organisation and retained that position till 1977 when it was defeated by another umbrella grouping formed by JP (Jayaprakash Narayan) without the Congress. What was Janata Party? It was also a platform under the shadow and guidance of JP of socialists, the then Jan Sangh, Congress (O), Lok Dal with a common symbol — after all, these political parties gave up their symbol. So when that umbrella character of the Congress was reduced, the space was taken over by regional parties, because at that time even the Jan Sangh was a regional outfit.
The title of the book is The Coalition Years , and you played a huge role in forming and running the governments. In your opinion which coalition was easier to manage, UPA 1 or 2?
That type of evaluation is difficult to make at this time as the events are too near. Perhaps some time should be allowed to lapse. The alliance with the Left was never formal, it was informal. The alliance with Mamata Banerjee was formal, on the basis of seat-sharing. The Left supported us from the outside while Mamata was part of the government and we had a pre-poll alliance with her. Therefore, it isn’t possible to make that evaluation.
An incident in the book is related to your anger at the arrest of Kanchi Shankaracharya just before Diwali, and how it was insensitive to Hindu sentiments. There is a raging debate right now on whether the Congress should espouse “soft Hindutva” and relook at definitions of secularism thus far. What would be your opinion?
That was an event that happened just before Diwali, and at that point of time I said that we should not oversimplify secularism. Because this affects the sentiments of a large section of the people when celebrating Diwali, at that point of time an important religious leader was arrested, so it was thought that we should be a little careful about these issues. In the case of the debate, the Congress has been accused of vote-bank politics over a long period of time. Sometimes this accusation has been made in a focussed way. But the fact remains that secularism is inherent in the Indian system, in the Indian ethos and culture.
India cannot but be secular. It is also why this 5,000-year-old civilisation has survived, otherwise it would have collapsed. I am not talking about the Indian state, I’m talking of the civilisation. The Babylonian civilisation, the Assyrian civilisation, even the Egyptian civilisations collapsed because they could not assimilate the various elements that come within the broad social coalition that is India. Streams of persons came through the ages, from different parts of the world, and Indian society absorbed them. There is a difference between Indian society and the state. Indian society was secular over a long period of time, it synthesised.
But when there seems to be a majoritarian assertion happening, and a perception battle, how do you assert secularism as a positive value?
Secularism need not be defined, and what you say as majoritarianism or minorityism are temporary phases and will pass.
In the book though you have categorically stated that demonetisation has a limited efficacy in taking on black money. As a former Finance Minister, how would you tackle the issue?
It was a step taken to unearth black money, at that point of time I supported it as I was the President and it was my government. I cannot oppose any step taken by the Prime Minister and the government. I cannot give my opinion as a Finance Minister, but this much I can say that during my tenure as Finance Minister both in the 1980s and subsequently in 2009-2012, several times this question came, but I did not agree. But the situation is not static, and at some point somebody thought that it was the appropriate time to do it and they did it.
Your stint as Finance Minister in UPA 2 saw the retrospective tax on Vodafone, which despite criticism, you note has not been repudiated by successive Finance Ministers. Why is that so?
Every law has an intent and purpose. The law maker, in this case the government, expresses it in a particular format of language. Whether that intent is properly, adequately expressed in the correct language or not is being interpreted by the court. Therefore, retrospective amendment is to be viewed from that point of view. A particular section of the Income Tax Act was interpreted by the law makers through an amendment of the Finance Act, it was upheld by the Bombay High Court and was disapproved by the Supreme Court. That was the Vodafone case, and they didn’t have to pay the tax because the Supreme Court judgment is binding on everybody.
But nobody thought to change the amendment, because the Finance Ministry will have to do it to protect its revenue. The Supreme Court is not saying that you cannot impose tax. It interpreted that your intention is not adequately reflected in these languages. So what they intended to say was that the Finance Ministry needs to correct that language.
At the launch of your book, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that you had every right to be aggrieved when he was chosen for the post. Were you aggrieved and how did you two forge a working relationship?
I was not at all aggrieved. I always believed I have received much more from the country than I have given to it, and I am content with what I have received. We had an excellent working relationship from the day we came to know each other in our official capacity, and there was no question of any hierarchy getting in the way of that.
You have worked with both Mrs Gandhis in your long career in public life. In what way are they similar and different?
A.Each individual is different from the other, therefore simply because they hold the same position you cannot put the same jacket on both. Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister for 11 years without being Congress president, while Mrs Sonia Gandhi has held the position of Congress president without being Prime Minister.
As one of the Finance Ministers who pushed hard for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, how do you think it is panning out now? Is it too much of a disruption especially coming on the heels of demonetisation?
GST and demonetisation are two separate things. All new systems are disruptive. Technological changes are disruptive. The entire taxation system is being changed. In the course of time, while carefully implementing it, we will have to carefully note the areas of discomfort and find out how amicably we can sort it out.
A hot temper and a successful career in public are considered mutually inimical but that hasn’t come in the way of your success. Why would you say this is so?
I have lost my temper several times, in Parliament, in Cabinet, in the Congress Working Committee, but I have the capacity to reconcile the position and immediately rectify it.
UPA 2 was buffeted by the Lokpal agitation and protests organised by Baba Ramdev. Could it have been handled better?
You can tell from hindsight how you could have handled things. These are, however, two different agitations although at one point of time it seemed everything was against corruption. People asked me why I went to meet Baba Ramdev, and particularly because I took Kapil Sibal with me. I did that because I did not understand Hindi very well and it was my first interaction with Baba Ramdev. Later on I understood his nuances very well and he came to Rashtrapati Bhavan several times, but at that time I did not know him. I wanted to avoid another agitation and wanted to make sure that whatever I said was understood in the right language.
As far as India Against Corruption was concerned, I felt that a new phenomenon had to be recognised, which was that rather than law-making being the exclusive domain of law makers, MPs and MLAs, a civil society body came up with a draft of a law, saying, “here is the law that you have to approve”. It was a new situation and came from a civil society movement, and we had to handle that situation. I think we handled it well.
