After an informal interaction with Sunil Dang and Think Tank Director Yogendra Bali, P. V. Narasimha Rao had suggested that a set of questions be asked in writing to help him think out his answers clearly and provide them in writing. A set of 20 questions were presented to him and he was kind enough to provide his answers. Because of the significance and high reader interest in his views, we present the interview with him in question-and-answer format.

DayAfter: As one of the significant makers of modern India, looking at the political, economic, social and governance scenario today, what do you think is the future of India?

P.V. Narasimha Rao: This is an omnibus question. So my omnibus answer is that India’s future is assured to be bright. It has never been otherwise, through the centuries and millennia.

DA: In your opinion, what are the dangers and major problems that stare the country in the face today? What solutions would you suggest?

PVN: Again, it is a general question. A country of this size and complexity normally is prone to several dangers—of unity, integrity, of economic difficulty, social cohesion, etc. Each of these dangers needs to be examined separately and the solutions sought with reference to the kind of danger that faces us. But I have no doubt that as in the past, India has overcome all the dangers. Nothing will be easy, yet nothing will be impossible either.

DA: There are many observers who feel that there has been a sharp decline in the quality of governance and public morality. In your opinion, what are the causes and how to correct the distortions?

PVN: When you do not compare today’s governance with the one in the past, this impression is bound to be created. But when was the governance of the country so elaborate and inclusive as today? When it was confined to revenue collection and law and order, the people did not think of the quality of governance, since they were basically not concerned with those two functions. But when today every department of their lives is intimately connected with and dependent on the performance of the government, its expanse, functions and duties soar to the skies. Besides, when the people took everything as their prarabdha, and blamed nobody and dare not blame God, you can imagine what the overall situation must have been. On the other hand, when the government takes over several aspects of people’s lives, its responsibilities expand greatly and it is put in the dock for everything, howsoever remote or irrelevant; government alone would get the entire blame. And the blame is mostly concerned with governance. This, of course, is not to absolve the government of its responsibility or to condone its endless shortcomings. What I wish to impress here is simply the enormous change in the frame of reference regarding government’s role, between then and now.

DA: You were among the most successful prime ministers this country has seen and have served the nation for more than 27 years in top ministerial positions. With that rich personal experience, what role have you assigned yourself for the days to come?

PVN: The most important quality in a mature politician, in my view, is to know when to relax on his political activity. Once this happens, he will be content in doing whatever he is called upon to do, to the extent he can, and to devote the rest of his time to other useful activities he happens to be interested in. In this situation, his thought processes tend more to address questions in the long term and less on the short term. And to be more inclusive.

DA: You have gone on record saying that you are a committed Congressman by choice and faithful to your party, therefore your commitment to party policies remains firm and final. Would you like to spell out the major priorities of your party that make its present relevant and future bright?

PVN: A party needs to retain its basics. But no party can stick to the same set of priorities always. The Congress was committed to the country’s freedom first. When freedom came, the priorities naturally changed. In the early decades after freedom, the priority was to lay the infrastructure for a modern independent state. In the same way, the priorities after 50 years of independence have also changed to a large extent. Each set of new priorities was formulated by the leadership of the party for the time being in position. Indiraji’s priorities were not exactly the same as Panditji’s. And so on. So today’s priorities, I am sure, are being formulated by today’s leadership.

DA: As one looks back at the past 55 years of Independence, one sees that people are forgetting the Nehru-Gandhi heritage of democracy, development and mass initiative and participation in the governance and progress of India. Why has that happened and how would you suggest that the Nehru-Gandhi ideology can be revived?

PVN: Any heritage is visible in its initial stages, but later tends to become latent. However, it never ceases. An undercurrent is also a current. Democracy is continuing with full vigour, development is taking place in full force and the Panchayat Raj system is strong and effective as never before. The above factors are very much part of the Nehru-Gandhi ideology and are in no way getting weaker. So what is the trouble and why is one not able to see what is evident on the face of it? The fact seems to be that what we imagine as a perfect ideal in our expectation turns out to be much less perfect and leads to disillusionment. And we tend to lose the perspective. It is also true that achievement does not match aspiration often because the aspiration itself is pitched too high, mostly on the basis of wishes The wishes have outgrown the capacities available, such as financial resources, etc. In the alternative, capacities have not kept pace with the needs. And I believe this is, in one way or another, the characteristic of a progressing society. Dissatisfaction spurs us to new effort and becomes the engine of progress—at least this should be so. First it manifests itself inanti-incumbency and leads to several parties being entrusted in quick succession with the responsibility of running the government. When the list is thus more or less exhausted, with no perceptibly dazzling improvement, people are bound to look for other reasons for their condition and perhaps stumble into a more realistic thinking.

DA: The legislature, the major and the highest field of action for the politicians, the executive, the workfield of the bureaucracy, the media, apparently the watchdog of democracy and the judiciary, the temple of justice and protector of the people’s rights, have been under severe attack one after another. With these main pillars of democracy getting destabilised and weakened, how shall we protect democracy?

PVN: Being under attack is not the same as de-stabilisation. Wherever there is apparent deterioration, one has to make an impartial appraisal and find out the truth. That needs patience and hard work. In comparison, omnibus opposition is easier and perhaps gathers more publicity. I have made an objective appraisal of the content of the successive legislatures since 1952. The change is amazing. Where several able lawyers, doctors and the elite adorned the legislatures in the ‘Fifties, hard-headed rural leaders and lower middle classes have come to occupy the legislatures today. The caste and class composition has also changed beyond recognition. These legislators, in my view, are able to ventilate the difficulties in their areas with a louder and more authentic voice and more vigorous follow-up. Not many of them are preoccupied with the finer technical aspects of legislation, as used to be the case in the early years, beyond stating clearly what their constituents want. It may be true that intellectual acumen and scholarship have been reduced, but one has to remember that the legislature cannot always be expected to function as a think-tank. A think-tank, of course, has its great utility, but as a different forum. I am not minimising the wild and unruly scenes that are being enacted today in our legislatures, but they are by no means a part of the legislative agenda. If all parties want a more decorous atmosphere, it is not impossible to ensure. But I am inclined to think sometimes that those who have no satisfactory answers to give and those who have no studied questions to ask have, together, substantially contributed to the culture of House hold-ups and to indecorous behaviour in the Houses.

DA: One of the major planks of the Gandhi-Nehru ideology of democratic development was people’s participation in governance and development; but it is seen that administration and political leadership in the country are drifting further and further away from the masses. Can this rot be checked? How?

PVN: I have already dealt with this factor in an earlier question. Where elected young women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, etc. and weaker sections are running the local bodies with at least as much success as the elected bodies at higher levels, how can anyone say that people’s participation in governance and development is absent? Besides, most of them are moderately (some highly) educated and quite efficient in discharging their duties, by and large. In fact, the masses are also coming into the village activities as never before. I therefore do not see anything that needs to be checked. In fit cases, it has to be guided; that’s all.

DA: While the religiously inclined and communal elements are showing a growing tendency to join into non-ideological and emotional permutations as ruling coalitions and belligerent pressure groups outside government, the secular elements are always in discord and disarray. How can this malady be checked and who should take the initiative?

PVN: If you want immediate fixes, please ask those who are currently in charge. I feel that emotion has always been an important element in our lives, including political lives. When I joined the Congress, like thousands of others, it was essentially as an emotional response to the urge for independence. Class-consciousness also has an emotional element in it. What is much more difficult to achieve is emotional integration, which Panditji spoke about time and again. That is how he conceded linguistic States, despite his own disinclination to the idea. But integration also presupposes moderation and harmonisation. Only then it becomes a positive force. There is little emotion involved in coalitions; it is pure desire to get and wield power. And on the whole, there is nothing wrong with it, under the circumstances. A coalition may not be an ideal government, but I am sure it is more democratic than no government. Its utility is essentially practical; there is no use denying this. That is why front burners and back burners turn up conveniently in coalitions, when there is no similarity in basic views.

DA: Do you think bellicose elements like the VHP and the Sangh Parivar really want problems like Ayodhya to be solved? If the problem is solved, then what will be the future of some of the leaders of the extra-constitutional religious pressure groups and lobbies whose mainstay is the continuance of this emotionally charged tensionist and divisionist stir?

PVN: When you start a problem, you can neither prolong it beyond a point, nor prevent it from taking its course and ending the way it ends, regardless of your wishes. It is only in the interregnum that some temporary gains accrue. If advantage is taken of this situation and a party returns to the real problems of the country and becomes capable of solving them, democracy will be the winner, whatever the interim means. And the real problems being predominantly secular, the country’s own agenda will come back. Emotion can be kindled once, twice; but when the people see through the game, the game is up. After all, nothing is as decisive as people’s experience.

DA: Several important economic and development policies and decisions were taken during your prime ministership of the country. Where have your successors failed to benefit from them and let the nation benefit from them? And why?

PVN: You are putting this question to the wrong person. Please re-direct it to the right quarters.

DA: Why has the problem of terrorism at home and from across the borders and in various parts of the country increased to distressing dimensions after your time? Do you think the kind of negotiations being carried out with Naga leaders like T. Muviah and Isak Swu, will lead to any peaceful solution? There are also disturbing reports of LTTE elements regrouping for fresh militant campaigns? What are your observations on this militancy and the proper way to tackle it?

PVN: Terrorism has been with us—and the world for a long time. No one can claim that his regime was free from terrorism. I too had more than a good measure of it. The Naga insurgency, fuelled by aspirations of a separate nation, is as old as Indian independence. Some time or the other the negotiations have to succeed. And this is as good a time as any. One of the initiatives was taken in my regime, and it has now been taken further. I wish it succeeds this time.

DA: With the distressing decline of governance in the States, Uttar Pradesh being a crass example, do you think there is scope for any initiative by political parties and people’s organisations to assert themselves to seek the establishment of transparency, accountability, the rule of law and people’s participation in the governance of the States?

PVN: I think there is always scope for reappraisals and new initiatives in matters of governance. It is so generally in all human affairs. This is an essential part of the state’s learning. People’s experience will apply the right correctives in its own time. That, of course, does not mean that new mistakes will not replace old ones.

DA: Would you like to comment on the political-economic scenario in your home State of Andhra Pradesh today?

PVN: No, since I am not aware of all the relevant facts.

DA: Do you feel there is need for reforming the Centre-State relations framework?

PVN: I do not see any insurmountable hurdle as of now, though minor hiccups will have to be anticipated and set right.

DA: And in the conduct of foreign affairs today?

PVN: I expect tough questions in this field, as we go along. However, it is going to be a new ball game and no one has all the answers.

DA: You are busy writing the sequel to your very popular autobiographical work, The Insider. How do you find the time for it and what is going to be the timescale and framework of this second volume?

PVN: It is going a bit slow, because of some other distractions. It will, I think, take about six months more.

DA: You have been one of the foremost champions of protecting the natural wealth of India and are deeply involved in the organisation of the international conference at Hyderabad about medicinal and aromatic herbs and plants of India. Would you like to spell out its significance for the country, particularly the herb farmers of India and the herb-rich States like Andhra, Kerala and Karnataka in the South and like Sikkim and Mizoram in the North East?