HE was once considered a 'progressive'; his report on behalf of the South Commission was commended or criticised for its left-of-centre approach. But now, former finance minister Manmohan Singh derides even the word. Bitter about politicians who do not rise above "parochial, party and personal considerations", he spares neither his party, the Congress, nor the Opposition when he apportions blame for the catastrophe facing the country. He proposes to write a book telling all, especially on his five eventful years at North Block.
I find him disturbed and dejected during a long chat at his residence on what went on in the name of socialism. "Nehru's socialism was founded on American generosity," says he. "We were able to do better because of free foodgrains under the PL-480." He still finds the same slogans and detects the same manners of speech. Some politicians too tread the same path. "Atal Behari Vajpayee is a confused Nehruvite," he says.
He comes down particularly harshly on the policy of bolstering public sector undertakings and in favour of privatising practically every segment of industry or business. SAIL started making money when the Government raised steel prices. Crores and crores of rupees were sunk into Coal India. "What is the return of the investment of Rs 20,000 crore?" he asks. The new Government expects better results. How? Mere statements can't deliver the goods. "I know of one public sector fertiliser plant which has not produced even one ounce of fertiliser for the last 20 years," says he. "Yet, the workforce is getting full wages and increments."
"The entire system reeks of corruption. Both politicians and government servants are part of it. There is no dearth of people who have made money, but none have learnt any lesson." Duplicity is one characteristic he finds common in most of those at the helm of politics or government. What they say in public is quite different from what they say in private. "The communists agree with my policies. But they do not have the courage to own up to them openly." They wanted him to take all the blame, he believes.
Dr Singh does not specify any particular period when conditions began to deteriorate. "Things had been going bad for a long time." None had the courage or the ideas to stop them from worsening. Those who mattered were busy politicking, intriguing or making money. He gave instances of the methods he used to have his way. He mentions the name of a colleague who was hitting at him at that time because he wanted his job. And a leading industrialist, who he said was pressuring the government all the time for one favour or the other. The reference to former HRD minister Arjun Singh crops up in a different context. Dr Singh feels Arjun Singh should have been treated better in the Cabinet. He was not given the position or the attention his seniority and ability deserved.
What about foreign investment prospects? "There's a lot of sympathy for India," he says. Dr Singh is confident that foreign investors want to help the country. "I am sure foreign capital will come although it may not be $5 billion every year which the new Government envisages.
" But, he underlines, government controls should go. Permits or licences would only encourage corruption as they have done in the past. He favours new thinking. "There has to be less and less of government in everything we do. Only then will the vested interests in the fields of politics and bureaucracy go." A study he commissioned last year by a top bureaucrat-led team has suggested that the Government will run better if the bureaucracy is halved and if "better persons from outside" were inducted into the Government.
Assam is one state he mentions. "I kept it afloat. All its PSUs are losing money." Investors were shying away because there was no peace. What could one do when the extremists were part of the state government, he asks. This is also more or less true about other states in the North-east. Ministers gave shelter to anti-social elements. And money for development was not reaching the people.
Dr Singh reveals that he was strongly opposed to giving Rs 1 crore to every MP for 'development purposes'. This meant roughly Rs 800 crore annually. "The Cabinet passed the scheme when I was out of India. My suggestion was to set apart Rs 350-400 crore to finance elections so as to do away with the huge expense that political parties and their candidates undergo."
I remind him of his objections to the defence budget when he was the Planning Commission vice-chairman. "I cut the outlay drastically. During my tenure, the defence expenditure in real terms came down. I explained to the service chiefs and they were very cooperative." Referring to the Pakistan budget, he said: "Figures have been fudged. I believe the IMF has already discovered this and has questioned the Government on it."
Recalling the bank scam, he says he was the one who brought it before Parliament once he discovered the irregularities. "I submitted my resignation taking moral responsibility on myself. Again, when the report of the joint parliamentary committee found fault with my ministry, I submitted my resignation. Both times the prime minister did not allow me to quit."
Exasperated and worried as Manmohan Singh is, he has no second thoughts on reforms. He feels such steps should have been taken many years earlier. He realises he is controversial but he also knows that good or bad, he has left a stamp on India's economy. And he expects posterity to give a verdict in his favour.
