‘I have termed Mumbai polls UPA vs NDA’

They are quite important because almost 80 per cent of Maharashtra would be voting in these polls including the December municipal council polls. I term this Mumbai election a turning point in the state because of our decision to go for an alliance with the NCP. I was particularly insistent that we should not miss the opportunity we missed in 2007 and must go for an alliance against communal forces.

The Sena’s power comes from controlling the Mumbai corporation,a very large corporation financially larger than almost 17 or 18 states. If we get the Sena out of power from Mumbai,their expansion and continued presence in the rest of state becomes a question mark. I have termed this election a UPA vs NDA election. If the Sena goes out of power,there will be migration from the Sena to different formations. It will spell the decline of the Shiv Sena. This is primarily important for the Congress because we can weaken the communal forces in the country. Maharashtra being a large state,it is a good signal for the rest of the country.

More importantly,in 2014,the number of seats that BJP-Sena win in the Lok Sabha is likely to be reduced if not completely gone. And that is my objective in this election. I desperately want this alliance to succeed.

Y P Rajesh: This is a new role you are playing as leader of Maharashtra,the face of the party. You are campaigning,seeking votes.

Not as chief minister but as general secretary in charge of elections in various states ,I have more experience than many state leaders. But as the face of the party,as leader of the state,of course it is a new role. I am positioned fairly comfortably,at least as far as Mumbai is concerned. I was sent here in the aftermath of Adarsh. And I had promised the leadership that I will stabilise the situation and I have managed to do that.

I focused on some long-pending things that had been pushed under the carpet – the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link,MIHAN,Dharavi redevelopment,environmental clearance for Navi Mumbai International Airport.

Kavitha Iyer: Most long-pending projects have hit the hurdle of having to rehabilitate slumdwellers affected. Would you agree that Mumbai’s slum problem was created and aggravated by the Congress’s votebank politics?

The decision to give free housing to slums built before 1995 was taken a long time back. The transfer policy we announced will help speed up projects. What happens to structures that came up before 1995,are registered,but the ownership has changed? We are issuing orders that even if the tenement is transferred to somebody else,that person becomes eligible for free rehousing. For the airport ,eligibility for free rehousing was 35 per cent,and it has gone up to 70 per cent of affected slumdwellers.

Shalini Nair: You announced the transfer policy,but it might be struck down by the Supreme Court because the petition on extending the cutoff is pending. Isn’t it misleading voters?

This has been a longstanding demand of public representatives. You have a hutment built pre-1995,eligible for free rehousing,but now not occupied by the original owner. Does that hut continue there? What we’re saying is structure for structure. If there is a protected structure it should get a free house in the multi-storey rehabilitation apartments. Who should live there was the only question. We are not putting pressure on extra housing.

Shalini Nair: On the issue of free housing,how long can we sustain? Will you be scrapping the scheme?

I don’t think we can sustain any more… I cannot change a decision taken long ago. But yes,a lot of populist decisions got taken. And this is my larger point. The more fractured a polity you get,the greater the tendency to take populist decisions… A classic example is FDI in retail. A small group of MPs can veto it – the majority has no meaning. And that is the difference (with) Rajasekara Reddy’s Andhra Pradesh or Modi’s Gujarat or even Jayalalithaa,Mayawati,Mamata. They have an absolute majority and there is no dissenting voice. Then you can take decisions.

Y P Rajesh: You talked of the fractured polity. Mumbai has almost become an orphan city where one group of parties rules the BMC,another group runs the state government. Everybody is working at cross purposes. What big idea is the Congress-NCP bringing to the table through this election?

This is precisely what we want to end. I think on the 17th of February it will be over. The big idea: We want effective,efficient,transparent local body administration. Large projects need to be better coordinated with the state government. There is lack of trust between parties that are at loggerheads and issues that are cross-territorial in nature get stuck.

George Mathew: What about the plan to make Mumbai an international financial centre?

To do that,one requirement is great infrastructure here. That we’re working on,it’s a work in progress. What it also requires is for financial laws to be changed in Delhi. Unfortunately,the way polity has come up… The Communists in UPA-I did not allow us to go forward in… pension,insurance,banking,disinvestment. So long-term funds and other things got stuck. On Capital Account Convertibility too,we have not been able to make headway.

Kavitha Iyer: Mr Pawar’s latest jibe is that you’re not an elected leader and so you need not be taken seriously.

Whatever Mr Pawar says I completely accept and agree. It is a fact that I was appointed chief minister and am not directly elected. But I shall continue to say that some people form parties on language,religion,caste,separate statehood,etc,some for personal ambition. There’s nothing wrong in personal ambition. I never said we want to contest the 2014 election separately – that decision will not be taken at my level.

Y P Rajesh: Would you be open to talking to MNS if the need arises after the polls?

The answer is an emphatic no.

(Transcribed by Kavitha Iyer)