‘I’m morally revolted by market economics’

As gifted with the pen as with his tongue, Aiyar is a self-proclaimed “secular fundamentalist” and “Marxist” but takes great pride in being a Stephanian — his egalitarian ideals not quite transcending the old college tie. In a long and rambling interaction, Aiyar informed and entertained Express journalists with answers and anecdotes that traversed the personal and the political. Excerpts:

SHEKHAR GUPTA: This is our first Idea Exchange of the year and who could be a better guest than Mani Shankar Aiyar, one of the newspaper’s most-read columnists. There are many sides of Mani: the columnist, parliamentarian, foreign affairs expert and the speaker. But his real passion is Panchayati Raj. Isn’t it, Mani? And he has a complaint that the media and other parliamentarians do not understand Panchayati Raj.

Yes, it is. Once I took an Express journalist with me to Chhattisgarh to see Panchayati Raj in the works. She had earlier written what was the best exposition I had ever read on Panchayati Raj. But nothing of her Chhattisgarh writing came out in the paper! She said the sub-editor killed it. I called the person, but nothing was done about it. So I believe this is a truly important occasion to be here.

I believe in the “three Es” derived in some measure from Amartya Sen. Empowerment is the first — the capacity to get what you want out of the system. Most people most of the time merely wish to have their Entitlements. Empowerment is the key to opening the doors to getting this. If you combine Entitlement with Empowerment, that almost inevitably leads to Enrichment, which is what the middle-class miracle is in this country.

But if there is a huge gap between the ones who are getting enriched and those who are not, it’s because we need to work out a system whereby people do in fact get empowered. In India, having exercised the ballot once in five years, the voter becomes powerless for the rest of the years. Panchayati Raj gives the opportunity of local self-government to hundred of millions of Indians who have no alternative route to empowerment or entitlement, and thus enrichment. We are trying to see if we can engineer social revolution, which makes democracy meaningful in the five-year period between two elections.

ANURADHA NAGARAJ: Under the national rural employment guarantee (NREG) scheme like in Maharashatra, the panchayat is now empowered to run the programme in a much larger way than before, but is having a hard time coordinating with the bureaucracy.

The NREG is not a program of my ministry, but we succeeded in getting a major change made in the Act — that the panchayat will be the principal authority in planning and the implementation of the programme. One limitation of the NREG is that there is difficulty in finding jobs that require materials, as only 10 per cent expenditure is on materials and the rest on unskilled labour. So finding appropriate tasks has little connection with the panchayat being involved and much more with the correct ratio that you need to have.

PAMELA PHILIPOSE: Power of any kind creates two things: bureaucracy and sources of corruption. We broke the story last year about how panchayat seats were being hawked in Tamil Nadu. How does a system fight these ills? Is there self-reform?

The Constitution anticipated this as a critical problem and provided the gram sabha with Athenian Assembly-like powers — anyone above 18 ipso facto becomes a member. We need to get the gram sabha to provide a check and balance to the panchayat, which is the only executives people really elect.

ABHAY MISHRA: You have written a book on secularism and once said you are secular as you eat beef and have married a non-Hindu. Who do you think is a secular person?

I hotly deny that I said I am secular as I am married to a non-Hindu. In my book, Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist, I say how I am often taken to the temple my father built. I ask myself if I’m being hypocritical, when all I see is a stone. Then I explain the reason I do this. It’s not about respecting your own beliefs, but others’ as well. My secularism has nothing to do with beef or mutton. It is accepting the people who are diverse and not just tolerating it, but celebrating it. I go to the temple. My wife is the one who gets a special comfort when she goes there. I am spiritually impotent but I don’t expect others to be so.

SEEMA CHISHTI: You proudly call yourself a Marxist, but how does that sit with the Congress in 2007 and in the Cabinet?

I am a Marxist because I find the moral ethic of sounder economics, which is market economics, to not sit with my idea of what should be. Gandhi said nature has enough for every man’s needs but not for every man’s greed. This corresponds to the Karl Marx saying, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Marxism has a conscious desire to be of service to humanity, which is not there in market economics. For instance, I do think it’s funny that for the Commonwealth Games we should spend thousands of crores of rupees. I’m ready to go along with this, but when I am told that Rs 648 crore is too much for the poorest people to spend, I don’t know what to say.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: It’s called Bata pricing!

I am morally revolted by market economics. As an economist, I understand the import of efficiency and equilibrium, which are the key words of perfect economics. But is the most efficient solution most humane, too? The priority is 9 per cent growth and market forces think let national interest is anything, but don’t fall below the 9 per cent figure. That’s why I want to get out of sports as I find that it has nothing to do with the bulk of the people. Our priorities get skewed. Gandhi said when in doubt, think of the poorest person you know and worship daridranarayan.

SEEMA CHISHTI: But your party has drifted away from that goal?

The party may have, but I haven’t.

PAMELA PHILIPOSE: What is the difference between the party under Rajiv and now?

L K Jha wrote a most neglected but seminal book, Economic Strategies for the 80s, wherein he said: Implement Nehruvian socialism and build up economy to a point that the key gaps are filled by public sector investment and then it’s time to liberalise. Look at the growth rate between 1980 and 1990. The break from Hindu rate of growth took place in the ’80s and not 1991, when the average annual rate of growth went up to 5.6 per cent. And the only year when we grew by double-digit figures was 1988-89, at 10.8 per cent.

Also, it was the only decade when growth was made possible by turning to agriculture. Shiv Subramaniam has pointed out that growth from 1914 to 1947 was 0.7per cent. Under Nehruvian socialism, we jacked that up five times. So let’s not knock out what we did in the past. I want us to move but I don’t want us to be so bewitched that we forget that a bulk of our country is under darkness because it does not have good governance.

VARGHESE K. GEORGE: Do you regret your candidness?

I do, as I get slapped on the wrist by PM and editorials in The Indian Express! What I object to is something being wrenched out of context, especially a private matter.

SONU JAIN: I noticed in Utta-ranchal and other states that there is a problem of funding rural employment. Do you think the panch can generate their own funds?

Local self-governments can’t be successful if they are dependent on government. The Constitution provides for them to raise their own resources and the state finance commission is supposed to suggest ways so their funds are raised by themselves. At least one state, Goa, has raised more funds as a local authority than the state, but they are not allowed to spend it.

MANINI CHATERJEE: The Left Front in West Bengal says how cleverly it has used Panchayati Raj. Do you think it’s a good model? And do you think the Congress model has become moribund, as Panchayati Raj has not worked in north India?

The secret of the Bengal success with Panchayati Raj is the extent to which they have made the party coterminus with the government and this is also the reason for their failure. This is evident in the number of people who do not vote for the Left Front, which is 40 to 45 per cent. I don’t repeatedly take up the example of West Bengal. I prefer to talk about Kerela. The Congress party has not been as active with Panchayati Raj as one would have imagined, given the association of Rajiv with the enterprise. But we have been building up this from behind.

TEENA THACKER: You have a house in Sainik Farms. What do you have to say about the Delhi sealing drive?

I am merely a ghar-jamai! I didn’t build that house. The CM of Delhi doesn’t want Panchayati Raj in the rural areas. But as far as the Masterplan is concerned, the people have a right to be consulted, especially in India, where we have problems of rehabilitation.

SHEKHAR GUPTA: In India, how wealthy you are is determined by your land use. Once a village is defined as a village, your land value comes down. But if they get the right value, many problems will be solved, won’t they?

This was anticipated in the Constitution. For land use in metropolitan areas, there was a provision made that it would not be dealt with in the ways other parts are dealt with. A lot of people who live in Lal Dora want to continue living under Panchayati Raj and not as a municipality. What we need is the right value for the land. Now there is a different idea. People sell for urban purposes to make a killing. But as long as you have local governance and you consult the people for what they want to do with their land, it’s fine.