JR: Mrs Gandhi had a two-year-long
invitation from the Asia Society. That apart, for a while now, Natwar
Singh and others have been trying to build a blueprint for relations
between the Congress and the Indian Community abroad. So, the visit
was mainly to get better acquainted with the increasingly influential
overseas Indians. Obviously, the Congress could not ignore this large
segment of opinion.

Another major objective was to counter the propaganda that the Congress
was anti-reform. That canard had to be buried. All our 11 chief ministers
are committed to reforms. In all her speeches in the US, Mrs Gandhi
talked about globalisation and liberalisation, though stressing that
this had to be in the context of a mixed economy. Our objective has
remained the same – abolition of poverty and faster social development.
The precise phraseology used was “the Congress is wedded not to a doctrine
but to a vision”.

VS:
Was Manmohan Singh included to send out the pre-reform
signal?

JR: You must remember that Manmohan
Singh was equally important during the pre-1991 phase. To that extent
he represents continuity with change. Somehow, there’s an impression
that Dr Singh’s reforms were a break with the past. There have been
changes – foreign investments, dis-investment etc. But there’s been
as much continuity. Besides, it was a composite team that went. If Manmohan
Singh lent economic gravitas to the team, Natwar Singh, the original
dove on China and Pakistan, added foreign policy gravitas.

But, food price inflation has been higher in the ’90s than in the ’80s,
thanks to the indiscriminate use of procurement price instrument: Foodgrain
prices rose at 10 percent/year in the ’90s compared to 6 per cent in
the ’80s. That is why the poverty ratio has not fallen at the rate we
would have liked it to. Broad-based agricultural growth, too, has been
lower.

VS:
The timing suggests that the Congress doesn’t
want to be left behind in the race for gaining America’s friendship.

JR: The whole idea that America
was discovered by Vajpayee has to be debunked. After all, there was
the Indira-Reagan summit in 1982, followed by the Rajiv-Reagan summit
in 1985.

VS:
But the perception is that Indira Gandhi was anti-America,
till the BJP came along.

JR: Indira Gandhi always said she
was pro-India. If you really look at it, Indo-US collaboration in science
and technology got a kickstart in 1982 when Indira Gandhi went to America.
Of course, her vision was clouded by how India was treated in the ’60s,
how Nixon and Kissinger authored the famous tilt against India. This
had to be with America’s own less than understanding image of India.


VS:
The sub-text of your mission is said to have been
to ensure that America would support Sonia Gandhi in the event this
government goes.

JS: It would be tempting to accept
this argument. But that is not true at all. Nor for the matter the suggestion
that we were on a fund-raising mission. The simple truth is that under
the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, 1996, political parties cannot
accept money from overseas Indians.

This was an intellectual exercise, a feel-good trip. Besides, whether
we like it or not, America is the dominant economic and political power
in the world. And with the Indian disapora in the US emerging as a 1.7
million-strong force, it stands to reason that India should have a great
interest in economic ties with the US.

VS:
Surely the trip was also reaction to the BJP’s
enormous support among the NRIs? Where is the Congress in this?

JS: It is true that the BJP has
stolen a march over us in befriending the Indian dispora and the American
intellectual establishment. However, it would be incorrect to assume
that the entire NRI community is saffron. Large sections are liberal,
tolerant and subscribe to India’s pluralist heritage. They are not heard
because the saffron diaspora is very well organised.

Ironically, the disapora are the product of the same Nehruvian system
which they are so critical of. They are products of the IIT’s and the
research labs. It is said that in many ways Nehru’s children are disowning
Nehru.

VS:
Who among the top leadership did Sonia meet?

JR: She met the vice-president,
the national security adviser and the deputy secretary of state. She
made five major speeches. Two to overseas Indians, one to a community
of scholars, thinktanks and businessmen, one to a congressional caucus
and one to the foreign policy establishment in New York

VS:
How did the Congress react to the national missile
defence (NMD)?

JR: First of all, we don’t know
the full details of the NMD. It would be premature to express and opinion
in the absence of technical details. We don’t want the NMD if it means
an arms race. But if NMD is to lead to a reduction in warheads, it is
welcome. Frankly, there are deep differences around the world over NMD.
Forget China and Russia, but even within Europe. So our view on the
NMD is more nuanced than the government of India’s.

VS:
So what else did Sonia or the Congress say in
America that was different from what the BJP has been saying?

JR: The biggest difference is in
our approach to India. Mrs Gandhi kept stressing the message of India’s
diversity, its pluralism. Another difference was the strong message
we sent out about bi-partisanship. Mrs Gandhi addressed the United Nations
on behalf of India. She unreservedly welcomed the Vajpayee-Musharaff
summit. She reiterated the importance of Indo-US co-operation. At no
point on her trip did she strike a partisan note, unlike the BJP ministers.
Arun Jaitley went to Washington and said that the Congress is opposed
to the BJP’s policies. At no point did she even mention the BJP.

There’s been too much tu tu, main main, between Indian parties. Every
once in a while political leaders need to raise their sights higher
and hold out a new vision.

VS:
Did the question of her prime ministership come
up?

JR: She was asked if India would
accept a foreigner as a prime minister. To this her reply was that there
is no shortage of people capable enough for this position. That brought
the house down. She said it’s the people who’ll ultimately decide.

VS:
Was there an attempt to project her as a future
prime minister?

JR: In
one or two meetings, she was introduced as the prime minister-in-waiting.
We didn’t consciously do it. But that kind of projection goes with the
job of the leader of the opposition. In the parliamentary form of democracy,
she would be the shadow prime minister. Besides, the Congress today
occupies the largest political space in India. It has 11 chief ministers
– half of India’s population is under the Congress – as against four
chief ministers from the BJP. There can be no denying our party’s importance.

(This
interview kindly made available courtesy of Vidya Subrahmaniam)
Copyright
� 2001-2002 Times of India. All rights reserved