quot;Where is the single window for clearances?quot;

The reaction is very good. Non-resident Indians have an emotional attachment to their country. It was Mrs Gandhi who first tried to use this emotional attachment. But subsequent governments were small and derailed this policy. I am very happy with the steps taken by Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh.

What about dual-citizenship for NRIs?

There are no benefits as such. It recognises you as an Indian. Many countries have already done it. It should have been done much earlier. The government of India stands to gain. In fact, it has been spoken about for the last20 years. I will be happy if something finally happens.

Why is non-resident Chinese investment in their country much higher than what we have from NRIs here?

One of the reasons is that the non-resident Chinese are richer than NRIs. Secondly, China has treated it expatriates with decency and respect. Here, they tell you about single-window clearance, but you don8217;t know where that window is. Why make promises when you can8217;t keep them? Then, there are number of fixtures who contact you for a single clearance.

Is your group planning any fresh investments here?

We already have the Caparo-Maruti venture near Delhi. It is progressing. As and when opportunities arise, we will invest. I also believe in sticking to businesses you know. We have done the same in other countries. It is a bad strategy to dabble in many things. I am watching the scene more closely than before 8212; being in a position to influence business. I am hoping India comes out of its lethargy.

In which sectors does India needto liberalise further?

Liberalisation is a continuous process. According to me, you should liberalise everything. Only competition will bring benefits to the consumer. What is upsetting is that there is not one argument for the poor man. It is a pity. Things have become worse after liberalisation. Our priorities are focussed only on 3 million of the population.

How can a market economy co-exist with the principles of a welfare state?

There is no contradiction in this. It is absolutely logical. A welfare state works only when people are honest. The ultimate aim is to do good. We all know the idea of a welfare state has not worked. The Mecca of welfare states 8212; Russia 8212; has collapsed. A market economy only benefits the poor. It brings competition. And when there is competition, prices come down.

So how has liberalisation made things worse?

People have become money-minded. In a market economy, people need to be more responsible. A market society is bad. Not a market economy. Moneywill by itself not solve anything.

To what extent has NRI enterprise and innovation been fuelled by a free market economy?

There is free market economy and competitive economy. A free market and competitive economy will help the consumer. There is no point in running to the government for protection. What we really need is no government interference. The government is needed only for two things 8212; maintaining the law and order and providing basic education. Amartya Sen and I we are from different backgrounds, but our thinking is the same on this issue. The government needs to feels responsible towards educating its people. The government is giving lots of tax concessions to hospitals. Why not spend that money on proper sanitation and water supply so that people don8217;t need to go to hospitals at all?

In which areas does India need to be more cautious with liberalisation?

The earlier we move to a global economy the better. We have seen that control tends to breed more corruption, as in thecase of Far East and other countries. Though South Korea and Japan have suffered, we should remember that even after the collapse they are still better off than where they started. There is no in-between way 8212; you can have a controlled economy or a free market economy. Even Marx said you need good, honest men for a controlled economy. Since that has not happened let people fight it out in the market The sooner we globalise the better it is for the poor man.

An industry body recently asked the government to protect domestic companies from hostile takeovers by foreign companies. What are your views on this? Do you support modification to the takeover code?

Any regulation should take into consideration whether it is in the interest of the poor small shareholder 8212; not just the management. If it is in the interest of the poor shareholder then I am for it. Whether the shareholder holds 5 shares or 500 shares, the treatment should be the same. Be it the takeover code or subsidies 8212; it should benefitthe poor man, not the management. I am pro-industry not pro-industrialist.

Has the Swadeshi agenda influenced the business outlook for India?

I have still not been able to understand what the interpretation of Swadeshi is. Like I said before, if it means good competition and cost-effectiveness, I am all for it. But if it means protecting the inefficient, I am against it. I hope my definition of Swadeshi is right.

There should also be enough regulation to ensure private monopolies do not exploit the consumer. There is greater scope for this to happen because they private monopolies are not accountable.