Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome
to Devil's Advocate. How
impressive was Rahul Gandhi's
speech to the Confederation of
Indian Industry? That's the key
question I should raise today with
one of India's most highly
regarded, modern historian
Ramachandra Guha. Ramachandra
Guha, in January you described
Rahul Gandhi as a well intentioned
debutant. In December, you said
he was completely mediocre with
no original ideas and you
suggested that he should find
another profession. After his
speech on Thursday, have you
changed your mind or reconfirmed
your opinion?
Ramachandra Guha: Well I really
haven't changed my mind. But I
would now only stress on the well
intentioned. He scales across in his
speech as a charming likeable
young man, more so in the Q&A.
Because a speech, as you know
Karan, is prepared by his advisor,
not by him. So, he came across as
a likeable sincere chap, but
confused. I was impressed by how
well intentioned he is. I still don't
think he is capable of running this
country. I don't think he is
particularly a hard working or
focused politician. But he certainly
came across likeable in a way that
certainly few politicians do.
Karan Thapar:Would you say that
he is still mediocre and he still
should look for another profession ?
Ramachandra Guha: He is still
mediocre. On the other profession,
after I wrote the piece you quoted
Karan, a friend pointed out that at
44 you can't really find a new
profession.
Karan Thapar:So, he is stuck ?
Ramachandra Guha:So, he is stuck
and we are stuck. So, I withdraw
that advice because you can't
really find a new profession at 44.
Karan Thapar: Because of his age
he can't find another profession
but if his age wasn't problem, you
would have advised that he
should?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, I would
have certainly advised that the
Congress get a better leader.
Karan Thapar: As you heard that
speech on Thursday, did you see a
clear vision of India unique to
Rahul Gandhi or did you see a
confusion of different bits and
pieces comprising anecdotes and
parables, stories about pradhans or
migrants?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, a much
of the latter. But a mix of
confusion, and a halting and a
clumsy presentation. There were
two clear ideas which are not his,
one is his, may be his, the other is
the Congress party. I think there
was a message of pluralism and
diversity.
Karan Thapar: And the second?
Ramachandra Guha: And the
second, when he kept on saying we
must listen. This could have been
a barbed remark on Narendra Modi
who only talks industrialist.
Karan Thapar: I want to pick up on
that because I thought the only
diagnosis in his speech was this
belief that a billion people need to
be given a voice, heard and
empowered. But when he says
that, wasn't he clearly suggesting
that the Indian political system is
problem and an obstacle?
Ramachandra Guha: Yes, but I
interpret it differently. I take the
issue of diversity; you know when
he talks about, as you know Indian
democrats have always talked
about, Indian pluralism, the
diversity of language, the religion,
of caste and the community. So
when you say a voice, it means
don't impose the view of your
religion, your caste, your class on
somebody else. You know his ideas
on the panchayat system are
confused, his arguments on the
political system is clogged and
begs the question as to what his
party has done in past nine years
is unclog it. But certainly the
underlined argument, that we are
a plural society and hence tolerant
and dialogue is important, must be
easy.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. There is
no doubt that he put a lot of
stress on tolerance, a lot of stress
on hearing people. But he kept on
and on about the need to give
voice to a billion, who he said were
not been heard, who were not
been empowered. And when he
was saying that, I got the
impression he was positioning
himself as an outsider criticising
the establishment and yet I said to
myself he is very much epicenter of
this establishment. So, was that
confusion or schizophrenia or was
he just deliberately trying to be
rebel?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, we don't
know what's inside his mind. Part
of it may be deliberate. You know
the idea that Sonia Gandhi
positioned herself partly out of the
system, as the renouncer, so she
has a moral authority. So, maybe
he thought similarly he will
position himself the same way. But
partly it's the lack of experience,
he has never worked within the
system, he has only been a MP. So,
he doesn't understand the
problem of representation,
authority, policy formulation, taking
decisions. So, concrete examples of
how to negotiate between the
states and the Centre, for example,
he ducked the question as to what
should be the Centre-state
relations.
Karan Thapar: In fact, he didn't
answer his role.
Ramachandra Guha: At all, which
was a very important question,
which should have been answered.
Karan Thapar: So, this impression
that he gave the people of
sounding like an outsider, rallying
against the establishment may well
be inexperience rather than a
deliberant attempt?
Ramachandra Guha: We don't
know. It could be either.
Karan Thapar: The other
impression he left with me is that
when he complained about how
the system hadn't given voice to a
billion people. He is actually
talking about the system that his
mother has presided over for nine
years, which his father,
grandmother and grandfather
created and is considered to be
the best they could give the
country. Did he intent to be
critical of his family or did he not
realise the consequences of what
he was saying and how he was
sounding?
Ramachandra Guha: I think the
latter. I don't think he understood
the consequences. One of the
interesting parts of the speech
Karan was that remark about how
only the Left parties or the
Dravidian parties have to some
extent empower the panchayat.
Karan Thapar: Another hit by the
way at his own party.
Ramachandra Guha: Exactly, but it
was also an acknowledgement of
the truth. So, in that sense he is
well intentioned, he is well
meaning, despite his parties
political allusions, despite the fact
that he comes from a family that
has presided over India's
destinies. He just acknowledges
that in some important issue, such
as decentralisation of the power,
the Left and the Dravidian parties
may have done better.
Karan Thapar: We are coming to an
interesting image of Rahul Gandhi,
his speech portrays him as a man
we know who is at the very much
core of the establishment. He
sound at times like a rebel, but we
are not sure whether he intends to
or whether that is accidental. His
speech presents him as a man who
implies serious criticism of his
family but we are not sure whether
he means it or whether he even
realises that's how he sounds. So
it's not just confusion, sometimes
one gets the impression he is not
totally sure of what he is saying
and whether he means that all he
is implying.
Ramachandra Guha: I mean, I
think he gets many people in his
situation, he gets many confused
signals. I think his mother and his
father made up their mind about
what they will listen to people and
they made up their mind.
Karan Thapar: He is in the process
of making up his mind ?
Ramachandra Guha: He has been
in the process of making up his
mind for the nine years that he
has been in politics.
Karan Thapar: Now when it came
to solutions, after all that is what
people want from politicians, Rahul
Gandhi has none to offer, except
for a plea for compassion which he
says he was listening to everyone,
including your worst enemy. But is
it really as simple as that?
Ramachandra Guha: I wish he had
spoken about concrete issues. For
example, when it came to
panchayats Karan, I wish he had
spoken about giving teeth to the
73rd and 74th amendment. Why is
it that financial devaluation has
not taken place in many states?
What are the powers, rights over
minerals or water policy or forest
policy that can be transferred? I
wish he had talked about
substantive issues like that. When
he talked about infrastructure, I
wish he had given a vision as to
how you can develop infrastructure
while having a proper, just land
acquisition policy. So, concrete
issues, at least one or two concrete
issues, particularly in the forum of
entrepreneurs who are interested
in concrete policy direction, would
have been helpful.
Karan Thapar: In fact one area
where the absence of concrete
issues or absence of solutions was
most stark is when he repeatedly
called on industry for a
partnership with the government
to create jobs, and yet he said
nothing about the essential
reforms that are needed to open
up the system to encourage
entrepreneurship, without which
those jobs would never happen.
What would you make of that
omission that he didn't talk about
the one thing that would deliver
the partnership he wants?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, I don't
think he has thought seriously
about any policy issues. It shows
in his record in Parliament that he
hasn't made any speeches, it
shows in his diffidence to take a
line job like running a ministry. So,
you know when it comes to hard-
nosed policy decisions,
adjudicating between different
competing interests, and then
reconciling them in some kind of
forward-looking way, this is not
something he has ever faced.
Karan Thapar: So, what we are
saying is that he is a sincere man,
but not a serious thinker?
Ramachandra Guha: And also
someone unwilling to shoulder
responsibility, administrative
responsibility.
Karan Thapar: Now, one of the
things he did do was to deride the
belief that a man or a white horse
imported, it could change things.
But as you know in history, often
the individual does end up
changing the world. Whether it's
Napoleon or Churchill, Mahatma
Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, or even
in our time, Margaret Thatcher and
Ronald Reagan. Does Rahul Gandhi
not want to recognise that, or is he
unaware of it?
Ramachandra Guha: Well I think
there is some truth to what he
says. I think the argument that,
you know we had trifles with
authoritarian rule before. I mean
you and I have lived through
Indira Gandhi's emergency. So, I
think we should be wary about one
person claiming to clean up the
system. Margaret Thatcher did not
operate in a country as complex as
India. So I think, but if he had
spoken while belittling the idea
that one great emancipator will
save India, if he had spoken about
concrete institutional reforms, if he
had given some ideas about
economic growth, about
environmental sustainability, about
fiscal revolution, it would have
been helpful.
Karan Thapar: Now he did come up
with an interesting metaphor to
characterise India. He described it
as a beehive, where as you know, a
beehive has a queen bee at the
Centre and when she dies, the
beehive actually falls into disuse.
So, is it an apt metaphor for
India?
Ramachandra Guha: Well I...
Karan Thapar: And particularly for
his family?
Ramachandra Guha: I think these
folksy metaphors are probably
supplied to him and he doesn't
work out the consequences but
you put it quite beautifully,
because he didn't quite realise
that, you know, when his mother
gives up political power, the whole
hive may collapse.
Karan Thapar: And that in a sense
is what he has suggested without
meaning to?
Ramachandra Guha: As with much
of what he said.
Karan Thapar: So, when you look
back and sum up on his speech,
did this sound to you like the
speech of a man who could be
Prime Minister of India one day?
Or did it sound more like a young
student still coming to terms with
his own thoughts and ideas?
Ramachandra Guha: Yes that was,
as I said, the endearing part of it.
Because if you hear Narendra Modi
for example, who is the unspoken
person in this speech, there is no
element of self-doubt, there is
complete certitude arrogance,
authority bordering
authoritarianism. So, a politician
who is reflective, who admits to
mistakes, is just endearing. That's
one part of him that I think I liked
and that's why I say that he is
charming and sincere. But on the
other hand, a politician who is
unwilling to take responsibility,
who should have really taken a
cabinet job in 2009 at least, who if
he wants to fight an election in a
state, should go repeatedly to that
state. For example in Uttar
Pradesh, he should have said I am
here to become chief minister of
that state. And in Gujarat, simply
to go for a day, rather than
campaign hard, here is a person
who ducks hard work.
Karan Thapar: So, what you are
suggesting is that his self-doubt
may be endearing, but it is not
leadership quality? And in
addition, he doesn't have
perseverance.
Ramachandra Guha: Absolutely. In
whatever he has done, in any
issues taken up, he hasn't followed
it through in any serious or
systematic way.
Karan Thapar: Now undoubtedly
the speech he gave at CII will be
compared to Narendra Modi's
speech at the Shri Ram College of
Commerce or at the India Today
Conclave. How do the two speeches
compare?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, as I said,
Narendra Modi's speech
particularly at the India Today
Conclave where he took questions
was arrogant, bullying. You know
when someone asked him about
2002, he said 'pachaas baar aise
sawaal sun chuka hoon' (I have
already heard this question for
some 50 times), you know that kind
of contemptuous arrogance is not
comfortable in any kind of
politician in a society as complex
as India. So, I have reservations as
a democrat about Narendra Modi. I
have reservations as a citizen
about Rahul Gandhi because here
is a person, who unlike Narendra
Modi or Nitish Kumar or Salman
Khurshid or P Chidambaram, is
unwilling to take a line job and
execute his ideas in practicality.
Karan Thapar: So, would you say
that the comparison between Modi
on the one hand and Rahul Gandhi
on the other is that Rahul comes
across as endearing but weak and
not a leader, Modi comes across as
arrogant but clearly behind that
arrogance there is leadership
quality?
Ramachandra Guha: Well, I am not
sure. I think because you can run
a state in a dictatorial waym you
can't run a country as complex as
India in that kind of way. So in
that sense, what Rahul Gandhi said
about a voice and listening to
somebody else, Narendra Modi is
incapable of listening to someone
else. One very important part of
leadership by the way Karan is
nurturing a team. In Narendra
Modi's Gujarat, no other minister
is talked about.
Karan Thapar: Has Rahul nurtured
a team?
Ramachandra Guha: Well he hasn't
been in a job of responsibility. He
hasn't commanded a ministry. So
we don't know. But say for example
even when a Nehru was prime
minister, a towering figure like
Nehru, you knew about TT
Krishnamachari, C Subramaniam,
YB Chavan, Govind Wallabh Pant.
You knew about top-class
ministers. Narendra Modi has to
learn to nurture a team. And that's
also needed. Leadership is also
needed.
Karan Thapar: A quick question
and I know that it's a bit of a trick
question. If you had to choose
between the two of them as a
future Prime Minister of India,
given the weaknesses, given the
analysis, if you had to choose
between the two, which would you
choose?
Ramachandra Guha: Well
fortunately I don't have to choose
between them. And I refuse to
believe and I refuse to go along
with the media reduction of the
choice of Prime Minister to these
two people.
Karan Thapar: In other words,
India deserves better than either?
Ramachandra Guha: And indeed
within the Congress party and
within the BJP, there are better
qualified candidates.
Karan Thapar: Lets no longer talk
about the Rahul Gandhi's speech
to the CII, but ask you instead to
analyse in a sense his nine years
as MP. What sort of MP has he
been and what does that tell us
about him? Let's talk about how
you assess Rahul Gandhi's
performance as a MP over the last
nine years. In an article you wrote
for The Telegraph in January, you
said that out of every 10 days of
Parliament sitting, Rahul Gandhi
had only been present for four.
During that time, he had only
asked four or five questions and
made four or five brief speeches.
So what's your verdict on him as
an MP?
Ramachandra Guha: Extremely
disappointing and lazy.
Karan Thapar: And just that? No
more?
Ramachandra Guha: As a
Parliamentarian, the duties of an
MP are much wider. So what he
does in his constituency is one
part of it. What he does in
generating public debate is
another part of it. But as a
Parliamentarian, lazy and
disappointing.
Karan Thapar: What about the way
in which his campaign didn't bring
results for Congress and let's in
particular talk about the three
states - Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and
Gujarat. What impression have you
formed of his as a campaigner?
Ramachandra Guha: Not sustained,
not rigorous, not hard-working. In
UP in particular, he should have
done what Akhilesh did. UP is 200
million people Karan. He should
have said I will come here and rule
the state. I will live in Lucknow for
a month, a year and a half, I'll
campaign and if I win, I will be
chief minister. And I think his
episodic visit from Delhi didn't
solve the question. In Gujarat, he
had to go because otherwise
Narendra Modi would have said he
is too scared to come. But he just
goes for one day.
Karan Thapar: So, does he duck the
big challenge when he only goes to
Gujarat for one day?
Ramachandra Guha: Absolutely.
And he also ducks the big
challenge in UP where he doesn't
squarely tell the electorate that I
have come here to serve you as
chief minister.
Karan Thapar: Is that because he
is scared of failing?
Ramachandra Guha: It may be
because there is a myth in the
family that they parachute to the
top and they only start as prime
ministers. I don't know.
Karan Thapar: So, there is a sense
in which he remains a victim of the
family myth?
Ramachandra Guha: Absolutely.
Karan Thapar: He hasn't broken
free of that?
Ramachandra Guha: Or he hasn't
shown enough initiative in
breaking free.
Karan Thapar: Now of the things
that he has done for which at
times the press and different
people of the civil society gave him
credit for were his so-called noble
initiatives when he visited the
Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa or Bhatta
Parsaul in UP. He has lived and
slept in Dalit homes or he has
taken industrialists to Srinagar.
Now were those initiatives
something that led to results or
were they just one-offs that ended
up still-born?
Ramachandra Guha: They were
really symbolic gestures rather
than initiatives, because he never
followed them up. Karan I will just
take two examples. There is a
massive debate about whether
excessive mining has led to the
growth of Naxalism by
dispossessing tribals. After he
went to Niyamgiri, he should have
pushed hard for a mining law
which particularly in schedule 5
areas under the Constitution
permits tribals, if the law is
enacted properly, to get a share of
the proceeds. He didn't do that.
The other thing is Kashmir. A very
important way of reconciling
Kashmir with the rest of India is to
provide dignified employment to
the many thousands of educated
young men who do not have an
outlet for their skills and their
ambitions. So simply to take Ratan
Tata once is not enough. It is to
persist and harass Ratan Tata till
he starts a unit of Tata
Consultancy Services in Srinagar
which will be a beacon for other
industrialists to follow.
Karan Thapar: Once again you are
saying that the hard-work that is
the follow on is missing?
Ramachandra Guha: It is
completely missing.
Karan Thapar: Now I noticed that
earlier this year in January, when
freedom of expression and freedom
of speech became controversial
subjects because of Ashish Nandy,
because of Salman Rushdie, and
because of 'Vishwaroopam', Rahul
Gandhi's voice was absent and
silent. Do you think that a young
man in his forties should have
actually used that occasion to
stand up for freedoms or does he
not identify with liberal rights?
Ramachandra Guha: You know
Karan there are so many issues in
India. I don't expect him to speak
on any. But the issues that he
does speak on, for example tribal
rights, for example education and
employment in Kashmir, let him at
least follow them up. So I don't
expect him to be an oracle or a
prophet or a moral conscience for
every issue in society and if he
doesn't want to speak on the
freedom of expression, or
intellectuals, that's fine by the
way. But the issues that he does
take up, which are important,
which are the dispossession of
tribals, which is the alienation of
the Kashmiris, these are things
that he should follow up. Another
example is the Northeast. Why is it
that only his mother campaigns in
the Northeast and he never goes
there?
Karan Thapar: You know all of this
you are attributing to lack of follow
up, to laziness, to lack of
perseverance, but another aspect
of this is his persistent refusal to
accept ministerial responsibility.
Do you look upon that as laudable
lack of ambition or inexplicable
diffidence?
Ramachandra Guha: The latter. It
may be linked to what I said
earlier Karan, the myth that
Jawaharlal Nehru started office as
Prime Minister. Rajiv Gandhi
started his political career as Prime
Minister. Indira Gandhi had a brief
stint as Information Minister but
essentially started as Prime
Minister. And that's the divine
right of the family that they arrive
at the top, that they indeed are
riding that white horse as a
charger to reclaim the durbar in
Delhi.
Karan Thapar: So, he is trying very
hard to show to the world that he
is earning his laurels, not grabbing
them by family inheritance?
Ramachandra Guha: Well we don't
know. I just think I wish he had
become Minister, for example I do
know, I never met the young man
but I know from common friends,
that he was strongly urged because
of his interest, profuse interest in
the rural poor and the land
question. He was strongly urged to
become the Minister of Rural
Development in 2009, which would
have been the way in which he
would have learnt the system,
brought about administrative
change, enacted his beloved
policies and proved himself worthy
of being Prime Minister. But he is
has lost all those chances.
Karan Thapar: And in your eyes,
this was a mistake?
Ramachandra Guha: Completely.
Karan Thapar: I want to end this
interview by quoting to you what
you wrote about Rahul Gandhi in
The Telegraph in January. You said:
"From what we know of him as a
thinker and actor, as politician and
social reformer, it seems quite
clear that if the Congress were in a
position to form the government
after the next general elections,
and if the party then nominates
Mr Gandhi as Prime Minister, the
nation shall not be in safe hands."
Do you really mean that?
Ramachandra Guha: I absolutely
mean that. And I will just add a
footnote to that that if Narendra
Modi was to become Prime
Minister, the nation will not be in
safe hands either.
Karan Thapar: But just sticking to
Rahul Gandhi, when you say that
the nation would not be in safe
hands if he became Prime Minister,
you are not just saying that he is
unsuited for the job, you are
actually saying to make him Prime
Minister would be dangerous?
Ramachandra Guha: Yes, because
he hasn't shown the
determination, the will, the
intelligence, the courage, the hard
work , the political canniness that
being Prime Minister of this
country requires. He should have
at least started as a minister. You
know Nitish Kumar has won a
state. You know Narendra Modi has
won a state. You know P
Chidambaram has won several
ministries. But Rahul Gandhi, all
you have is some well-meaning
words and fortitude in the
occasional overnight visit to a Dalit
village. That's all.
Karan Thapar: And that's clearly
not enough.
Ramachandra Guha: Absolutely
not.
Karan Thapar: Ramachandra Guha,
pleasure speaking to you.
Courtesy - CNN IBN
