NDTV: Hello and welcome to our special series, The Townhall, the programme on which we bring the biggest news makers face-to-face with a live audience of young voters. Our guest today on the TownHall is somebody who is known for his articulation and for his scholarship. He has been also the former Home and Finance Minister of the UPA Government and has recently acquired a new, or rather renewed role as columnist in the Indian Express, where he writes a regular column, Across the Aisle, critiquing the performance of the Modi government. As the Modi government completes one year in office, we are joined today, as I said by one of the senior most faces of the Congress party. He is a man of parts, a lawyer, a politician, a finance whiz. Let's please join our hands to welcome P Chidambaram on the Townhall. Welcome to the programme. We understand that the Opposition's job is to criticise. But do you believe that your party, in particular, has been a little less than generous in crediting the Narendra Modi government for its one-year performance? How would you, completely dispassionately and not wearing the hat of a Congress leader evaluate how it's performed thus far?
P Chidambaram: Well, good on intentions, short in delivery, very high and rhetoric. But I can't point to one new programme, a new policy, which they have announced, fleshed it out and implemented in the last 12 months. If anyone of you can...
NDTV: The
Swachh Bharat Campaign.
P Chidambaram: Well that's not a new programme. It's the old
Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan.
NDTV: Which never got the kind of play we have seen under Prime Minister Modi, it's got the public attention. You know, you have eminent people taking to the streets with a
jhaadu to clean up. Why was the Manmohan Singh government not able to create that out of your programme, as you say?
P Chidambaram: It was not. I didn't say it was our programme. It was an old programme. And that programme has been dressed up, propagated, publicized. But do you seriously believe that our streets are cleaner? Did you know what happened on August 15 last year, when he announced the programme? Did you see the cameras pan the ground, after the audience heard him with rapt attention on
Swachh Bharat vacated the grounds of Red Fort? The whole place was littered. You go to Nehru Park, you go to Lodi Gardens; the places are littered on Sundays. So I don't think these demonstrative, taking the broom once in six months cleaning the streets is the way to clean India. Say, for example, the 'Toilet Programme'. Now, I don't know how many of you have reflected on this building toilets programme. It's not easy to build toilets. I built, through CSR, toilets in about a dozen schools in my constituency. It took me a year and a half to plan and execute it. You know why? You have to find the land, then you have to build the toilet, you have to teach people how to use the toilet and keep it dry and clean, you have to hire people to clean the toilet periodically, especially if they are school children or college children, every 15 minutes or half an hour, just to be cleaned you must have an uninterrupted water supply. This was possible in a school. When I tried to do it in a village, it's simply not possible.
NDTV: But let me put it this way...
P Chidambaram: It was simple to say that we are going to build toilets, individual toilets at home is one thing. But to say we're going to build toilets, most of the public toilets built in villages in Tamil Nadu under the previous governments, all have all been converted to cattle sheds now. Reason one, there is no uninterrupted supply of water. Number two, who will clean the toilets in a village? Just reflect. I'm not going to spell it out. Just reflect within yourself.
NDTV: So does that mean that toilets should not be built?
P Chidambaram: No, it should be built but, it can't be done simply by announcing that we're going to build toilets; I have got a group of people in a software company, who are working on end-to-end solution about building up a community toilet in a village.
NDTV: But you know, when you say that none of the ideas are new, political success is also measured by the capacity of a government to see an idea till the very end. And let's take the Land Boundary Agreement with Bangladesh. You, on Twitter, actually credited Manmohan Singh and Modi on the Land boundary Agreement. That is the only moment I can think of where you gave some credit. The question was different. The question is that the Modi government was able to deliver on things that your government wanted to do and couldn't. And that is the measure of political success. You were not able to get Mamata Banerjee, for example, on board. Despite their differences, Mamata Banerjee was standing there with the Prime Minister in Bangladesh. That is political success.
P Chidambaram: That's why I complimented the Prime Minister in my tweet. I said it is a tribute to the statesmanship of Dr Manmohan Singh, Mr Narendra Modi and Sheikh Hasina. What else do you expect me to say? It is a tribute to the statesmanship of all three.
NDTV: What would you consider the Modi government's biggest achievement thus far? That you would give them credit for, even just in terms of what they often say, changing the mood? There is no big-ticket corruption. Even somebody like Swaminathan Aiyar, a well-respected columnist said, "The death of crony capitalism is the biggest achievement of the Modi government compared to your years in government.
P Chidambaram: Well, I think you're too quick to pronounce the death of crony capitalism.
NDTV: The burial of crony capitalism?
P Chidambaram: I don't know because there was no charge of corruption in 2004-2005, or 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 in the first three years of UPA government either.
NDTV: You're saying all governments become corrupt after three years?
P Chidambaram: No, I didn't say that either. All I'm saying is that let's not come to conclusions. I'm happy that there has been no major eruption of a corruption charge. But I can't say that there won't be any in the future.
NDTV: So what do you see as their biggest achievement so far?
P Chidambaram: Well, their biggest achievement is, they have taken up certain unfinished tasks. Some of them are unfinished because of their obstructionism, they have changed their minds and seen it through. For example, the Insurance Bill, it was obstructed by the BJP. They have seen it through and I credit them with that. Likewise the LBA, in fact, the BJP of Assam and the BJP of Bengal opposed the LBA. They may not have had a national position on it. Mr Modi himself, as Chief Minister, may not have taken a position on that at that time. And that's perfectly understandable. We could not see the LBA through to signature because Ms Banerjee changed her mind after she promised me and the then Home Minister of Bangladesh, in a meeting, that she would accompany the Prime Minister of India the next week.
NDTV: So how do you think Mr Modi got her to accompany him? It's not like she is a fan of Mr Modi otherwise as a politician.
P Chidambaram: He has some cards in his hands, which we did not have.
NDTV: Like?
P Chidambaram: Firstly, he has 282 in the Lok Sabha. We did not have that. I think that's a major card. Number two Ms Banerjee has now completed four years of government. At that time, she had completed only one year of government. I think all that makes a difference.
NDTV: Okay, let's take the first question. Vashita, where are you? While we get Vashita the mike, I would ask you, what would you say is the biggest under-achievement or failing? We've spoken about the biggest achievements of the Modi government, what disappoints you the most?
P Chidambaram: Oh with 282, you should have made deep, bold, structural changes. Many more Bills could have been pushed through. I am not sure whether any government will have 282. This is the first government in 30 years. I sincerely hope that the next majority government will not be after 30 years. You have a majority today. Use the majority and do bold, structural reforms.
NDTV: Okay let's take the first question. Just stand and ask your question.
Vashita: The
'suitt boot ki sarkaar' comment has gained a lot of public acceptance. But when replied to with
'suit case ki sarkaar toh nahi hai', it gained a lot more wider appreciation and acceptance by the public. So what exactly is your comment on that?
P Chidambaram: Well, these are not matters of great movement that one has to comment on it.
'Suit-Boot ki Sarkaar', as I understand, is shorthand for saying, that you are pro-rich, pro-corporate. You're not showing enough empathy for the poor.
NDTV: To which he says, "At least it's not a suit case sarkaar."
P Chidambaram: Clever repartee. But does it take the debate far? I don't think you and I are enlightened when we hear that kind of repartee. What does it convey except that it's a clever repartee? That's all.
NDTV: No, it conveys...
P Chidambaram: We are treating all our audiences as dumb audiences.
NDTV: But just like the
'suit boot ki sarkaar' slogan was a clever slogan and tried to say that this government is sensitive only to the rich, obviously referring to Prime Minister's monogram 'suit'. I assume that's where it's origin started. But when he says,
'At least it's not a suit case sarkaar', he is saying well, at least we're not corrupt. Even in his one-year speech in Mathura. He underlined again and again that at least you can't pin corruption, crony capitalism, favours being handed out to business houses. You can't pin that on us.
P Chidambaram: Well, they have only completed one year. And if there is no case of corruption so far, I am happy. Why should I not be happy that in my country, in the first year of a new government, there is no case of corruption? I am not despondent or disappointed by that. I am happy about it.
NDTV: Okay, let's take the next question. While we get the mike, you say you're happy about the fact that there is no corruption. Do you acknowledge....
P Chidambaram: I said there is no case of corruption, which has hit the headlines
NDTV: In year one, do you believe that?
P Chidambaram: One borderline case of nepotism where Prime Minister kept the Chairman of a public sector bank and said she will give 5000 crores to this businessman.
NDTV: Gautam Adani
P Chidambaram: Well, I am not taking names
NDTV: What's the point of not taking names if you believe that this is a case of nepotism?
P Chidambaram: That was clearly exceeding the Prime Minister's authority and clearly bordering on nepotism
NDTV: But is nepotism preferable to entrenched corruption, to handing out telecom licences to favored business houses?
P Chidambaram: Shall we discuss the telecom licences?
NDTV: We will come to it. As far as I know, the State Bank of India is not going with that, by the way
P Chidambaram: They could not because there was a furore, there was an uproar.
NDTV: Ok. Let's hear Kshitij's question.
Kshitij: Hello Sir. With respect to retrospective tax, you have said that the current government has a right to repeal it because of the majority they have in the Parliament. So I was wondering, having said this, do you think it was the worst decision of the UPA ever?
P Chidambaram: Well, in terms of taxation, it was not a very wise decision.
NDTV: Why was it taken?
P Chidambaram: Well, I don't know. I didn't take that decision. But I take collective responsibility because in the Cabinet, everybody has to take collective responsibility for the decision.
NDTV: But isn't it true that you were opposed to it and you tried to raise that with the Prime Minister as well? And the Prime Minister is an economist. How did he allow this retrospective tax legislature to go through?
P Chidambaram: What we say in an internal meeting has to remain internal. But I have to take collective responsibility for that decision. But I did not take that decision. But I take collective responsibility. And I have said it was not a very wise decision. I tried to undo it. I did my best. I went back to Cabinet, got a Cabinet mandate to negotiate with Vodafone, to appoint two conciliators. We moved quite a distance. We were on the verge of appointing conciliators, when Vodafone backed out and brought in another dispute, for which I had no mandate and that dispute is pending before the Bombay High Court. I said my mandate is only to settle this dispute. You can't bring in another dispute, which is before the Bombay High Court. And you'll probably win there; take your luck there. And Vodafone backed out. If I had succeeded in appointing conciliators, I am sure the conciliators would have come up with a formula and I would have gone back to Parliament and said, "This is the formula that the conciliators have brought about. Let's change the law." But with 282, you don't need that very circuitous route. You simply go back and repeal that section. I would have done it with 282. I told Mr Jaitley, please do it. You have 282.
NDTV: But if they do repeal it, will the Congress support the...
P Chidambaram: Of course
NDTV: The Congress will support the scrapping or a new law to scrap the retrospective legislature?
P Chidambaram: See, it is not a law to be scraped. It is only one section, which has to be amended. The Income Tax Act will remain. And I believe that the Congress will support it.
NDTV: Were you disappointed that an economist Prime Minister allowed it on his watch?
P Chidambaram: I can't comment on my Prime Minister in public. He took a decision or a decision was taken.
NDTV: Did you oppose the decision?
P Chidambaram: Well, as I said, what I said then will have to remain internal. You seem to be privy to it. You have disclosed it publicly.
NDTV: But when you say you take collective responsibility, what does that mean? You admit that it was not a good decision, not a smart decision.
P Chidambaram: I said so. It was not a very wise decision.
NDTV: Okay, let's take the next question. Antara? While we get the mike, the Justice Shah Committee is going to look at whether the retrospective legislation should be amended. So do you believe that that's the move in the right direction by the government?
P Chidambaram: I support it. I would strongly support an amendment to the amendment made earlier. You see, prospectively, that section can operate. I don't think anyone complains, because everyone is told this is the meaning of the law. Where it applies retrospectively, to invalidate the Supreme Court's decision, that creates problems.
Antara Ray Chowdhary: My question is two-fold. Firstly, why did the Congress block the GST Bill from being passed in the Rajya Sabha, when it has previously criticised the BJP for doing the same thing? And secondly, now that the Bill has been referred to a Select Committee, what do you see its future to be?
P Chidambaram: Well firstly, we have not blocked the GST Bill. There was a GST Constitution Amendment bill introduced in 2011. It was called the 115th Constitutional Amendment Bill. Who blocked it? The BJP blocked it. BJP state governments blocked it. In particular, the Gujarat government blocked it. And some others joined the bandwagon. It lapsed after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
NDTV: When you say, in particular Gujarat blocked it, there were other states also, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu...
P Chidambaram: I said so. Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and then Tamil Nadu joined the bandwagon. Others had some minor reservations. And mind you, for most of this period, the Chairman of the Committee of Finance Ministers was Mr Sushil Modi and he worked with me very closely.
NDTV: Sushil Modi of the BJP.
P Chidambaram: He tried his very best but didn't succeed.
NDTV: But if you see, you're not blocking it then how is it ending up in a Committee?
P Chidambaram: Wait. Let me finish my answer. Now, they have introduced the 122nd Amendment. It is not the same as 115th Amendment. There are significant differences. One of them is Section 18. I don't believe any one of you has seen the Bill. One of them is Section 18, which allows every state government, through which the goods pass, for example, if goods are passing from, say, Gujarat to Tamil Nadu, it'll pass through four states. Each state government can add an additional one per cent to the GST rate.
NDTV: Though it's optional for the states to add or not to add?
P Chidambaram: No, it's, please read Section 18. Shall. Shall. You shall. For two years it's "shall". A state may exempt it, but you can. But I think because of the pressure brought by the some state governments, the Central government yielded to the pressure. This is a completely retrograde position. This goes against the fundamental character of GST. It is a destination-based tax and a non-cascading tax. If you allow each state to add one per cent, it ceases to be a destination-based tax. It becomes a cascading tax. Now, forget my criticism. Dr Arvind Subramanian, the Chief Economic Advisor, publicly criticised this provision. Now if the Congress did not point it out. And Congress did not oblige the government to refer it to a Select Committee. We had simply kept mute. Like they pushed it to the Lok Sabha, they will push it to the Rajya Sabha. Because what we did was the right thing to do. We said this is a new Constitution Amendment Bill. Mind you, we are not making a simple law. We're amending the Constitution of India. It's perhaps the most important, structural, taxation reform in indirect taxes in independent India. It's going to subsume almost a dozen taxes. So what is the harm if the Parliament, or one house of Parliament, wants 8 weeks, mark my words, to study the Bill and come back to Parliament?
NDTV: After 8 weeks, what happens?
P Chidambaram: It comes back to Parliament with a report.
NDTV: So if this particular amendment was to, let's say, go?
P Chidambaram: This is the most retrograde provision. There are some other things on which I don't know what the MP's are agreed
NDTV: So, you won't hold it up beyond 8 weeks?
P Chidambaram: Of course not. We have said we support the GST. The GST was our idea. In fact, if any of you remember, I was the first Finance Minister to announce GST in Parliament. It's taken almost ten years. If its taken 10 years, can we not wait for another 8 weeks for a Parliament Committee to study? We're not asking for a party committee to study it.
NDTV: Okay. But one of the other things, the present Finance Minister Mr Jaitley described as a legacy issue, is MAT, Minimum Alternative Tax on FII's. He initially defended it. He said it's a tribunal order. "The 40,000 crores", he told me, "will help me change the face of infrastructure." Then, after a backlash, this has been referred to the Justice Shah Committee. Now the point is, isn't this a legacy issue? Isn't this something he inherited from you? Wasn't this MAT your baby?
P Chidambaram: It is not a legacy issue. MAT was imposed many, many years ago. The question is, will MAT apply to FII's? That is not a legacy issue. It was before the advance ruling authority, there are more than one ruling. It's for the CBDT and the government of the day to take a call whether a ruling applied and whether a notice is to be issued. This government, under this CBDT, took the call that the ruling applied and notices should be issued.
NDTV: What would you have done were you Finance Minister?
P Chidambaram: Well, I would have studied the matter firstly, as a lawyer.
NDTV: Which Arun Jaitley is, just by the way.
P Chidambaram: Which he is. That's why I think he should do the same thing. I said I would have studied it as a lawyer and if I was convinced that this ruling was not applicable, or this ruling was wrong, if I was convinced that this ruling was not applicable, I would have asked the CBDT to issue an application, that this ruling is not applicable and notices should not issue. If I were convinced that the ruling was wrong, I would have amended the law. I have 282. The point this government forgets is that it has an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha, which is the only House that counts for a Finance Bill.
NDTV: So what would be your Across the Aisle advice to Mr Jaitley on MAT and FII's, given the tribunal order?
P Chidambaram: See, I need to get all the papers. I didn't have all of them. I would sit down with the CBDT, study all the rulings, and come to a conclusion whether the ruling applied or not. If the ruling did not apply, matter's over. Simply issue a direction that this ruling does not apply, MAT cannot be imposed upon FII's. If we were convinced that the ruling applied, or the ruling was wrong, amend the law.
NDTV: So what do you expect them to do now?
P Chidambaram: I don't know.
NDTV: It's with Justice Shah. It's again with the Justice Shah panel.
P Chidambaram: I don't know. I don't think this needs to go to Justice Shah. This is entirely within the power of the ruling establishment, ruling party, with a majority in the Lok Sabha, to amend the law.
NDTV: That's what you would have done?
P Chidambaram: I would have certainly done that if I felt that the ruling was wrong.
NDTV: Okay, next question. Sanyam, let's get you the mike.
Sanyam: Sir, in the beginning of this talk, you talked about how the NDA government has been lackadaisical about implementing certain schemes, right? Sir, but let's talk about the telecom auctions and the coal mine auctions. Sir, wouldn't you consider that as a successful and a correct way of moving forward from how the UPA times were and how the scams rocked the country, which were very well recognised? Sir, would you at least give them credit for being transparent this time around?
P Chidambaram: I'm glad you asked that question. Please sit down. The spectrum allotment of 2008 was struck down by the Supreme Court and they said, "these must be auctioned." Who auctioned spectrum first? All of you have got short memories. The first spectrum auction took place in the UPA government. So the credit for moving from allocation to auction, in the case of spectrum, goes to the UPA government. The next auction took place in the NDA government. Therefore, I don't think you can deny us credit for moving to auction.
NDTV: And what about 2G?
P Chidambaram: I am coming to that. The allocations were made in 1993 under the first-cum-serve principle. All the previous allocations were not questioned. The 2008 February allocations were questioned they were struck down by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court directed you must auction spectrum; the first auction, after the Supreme Court judgment was done by the UPA government.
NDTV: But on the Supreme Court's orders.
P Chidambaram: So is coal on the Supreme Court's order. All these auctions are after the Supreme Court's order. The fact is he was saying spectrum auction took place in NDA. I'm correcting him to say that the first spectrum auction took place in UPA.
NDTV: No, he was talking about auctions now under the Modi government.
P Chidambaram: I don't think you understood his question.
NDTV: I think that's what he meant, the more transparent way of allocation of natural resources.
P Chidambaram: No, the spectrum auction, I repeat, the first spectrum auction was done under the UPA government. Not in the NDA.
NDTV: My question is, your own notes, which are now out in the media, out in the public domain, were in favor of auction.
P Chidambaram: No, no, you're not understanding us
NDTV: What is your question?
Sanyam: Sir, regardless of whether the UPA auctioned it off first or not, the fact is that NDA managed to do it in a way, which profited and benefited the country.
P Chidambaram: The same amount of money was raised by the UPA auctions also, the auctions took place in 2013, I collected the revenue. I have credited it in the Budget. It is reflected in the Budget of 2013-14. Now come to coal. The coal judgment came in the year 2012-13. After that, the first coal auctions took place under NDA. That is also after the Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, as far as spectrum auctions are concerned, I will claim credit for moving from allocation to auction. As far as coal auctions are concerned, I will give them credit for moving from allocation to auction.
NDTV: But, but you know it's not just a debate about policy. You could, no, no, no, now I have a question, a separate question. The point was not first come first served versus auctions. The point was that the Telecom Minister was charged with subverting the first come first served policy to favour cronies. That is the problem. That is where the corruption is. We can keep arguing auctions versus first come first served. Would you concede that that specter of spectrum, as it were, or the coal scam was one of the main things or charges that attached themselves to your government?
P Chidambaram: Evidently the result of the election shows that. It does not require me to approve or not approve what you said. The fact is that allocations made in 2008 gave rise to this major controversy. Whether that was illegal or not it is sub-judicious, I cannot speak of it publicly, each one of us may have a view. But clearly in the perception of the people that issue became a huge issue and I think it affected voters and it affected voter behaviour. That much I am willing to concede.
NDTV: You have also questioned how much money is going to be accrued from the coal auction. In your column in the Indian Express you have said, who is going to pay for this and eventually you argued it would be the consumer. When I put this to Union Minister Piyush Goyal and he said, these are his words, "I am amazed at the ignorance of the Finance Minister. We've done reverse bidding, of course the consumer is going to benefit." Why are you questioning the value that has been added to the exchequer? It may be over thirty years, it may be over thirty years of the life of the mine, but it is still better than losses. Which is what Vinod Rai argued had happened because of the coal mine allocations.
P Chidambaram: See, the CAG's report has been criticised by many, many completely impartial non-political people. See what do you get out of coal auction? You get two streams of income, one is royalty; one is premium. The royalty would have come irrespective of the manner in which you allocate the coalmine. Whether you allocated the coal mine by nomination or preference or auction or even by tossing a coin, whoever mined the coal would have to pay royalty, that's a given, that cannot be taken as an additional revenue by a change of policy, royalty would have come. I hope that is elementary and everyone understands that. It is the premium that is going to come over the period of thirty years. If you really look at the additional premium that will accrue per year it is about 3,000 crore Rupees. Now if you did not put it on auction you would not get the premium. So I'm willing to concede that these auctions, moving on to the auction system rather than the allocation system, brings to the state and central governments together 3000 crore Rupees. But that's a far cry from what Mr Vinod Rai was painting in his report. Be that as it may. Now why would that increase the price of electricity? You'll find that will happen, I'll tell you why. The cost of coal is a pass through. Coal is not free. What they have done here is negative bidding, which means that they are saying that for every tonne of coal that I mine, instead of pricing it positively, I am willing to price it negatively. I will give you money. How can anyone produce electricity, using coal that is negatively priced? Ultimately it will either get reflected in the fixed costs. There are two components of electricity price, one is variable cost, which includes the cost of coal; the other is fixed costs. Now I am willing to concede that compared to Mr Goyal I am an ignoramus, that I am willing to concede, that's not the point. Now suddenly they wake up that people who bid negatively will try to shift some of these costs to fixed costs. So suddenly the Ministry of Coal and the Ministry of Power decided to impose a cap on the fixed costs. Now that is again challenged in court, it is sub-judice. Therefore if you bid for a factor like coal, an input, negatively, it will reflect in some other factor cost and it will get reflected in the electricity bill. It may not happen in the first three months or it may not happen in the first six months, but please mark my words. It must, it has to. It's simply voodoo economics to say that if you bid negatively on a factor it won't get reflected in the electricity bill.
NDTV: Next question, Geetu, where are you Geetu? While we get the mik to Geetu why don't we also, you haven't mentioned that your Law Minister actually had to resign because he was accused of vetting a CBI report on these coal allocations. Today your former Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, finds himself dragged into this because he held the Coal portfolio. Haven't the political consequences of this been grave for the Congress? Today you can argue on the technicality of who will bear the costs of these auctions will our electricity cost more, but in terms of corruption, of bending this system, that charge still sticks to the Congress.
P Chidambaram: No, what are we, are we doing a post-mortem now? The results of the election clearly show that the people disfavoured the Congress. Now they disfavoured the congress for a variety of reasons.
NDTV: Was corruption the top most?
P Chidambaram: Obviously corruption was an issue. I can't say that it was the topmost. In Tamil Nadu there is a well-known party that buys votes in every election. Now that doesn't seem to affect the fortunes of that party. Therefore I don't know if corruption was topmost, but clearly, as among our young friends here it was a big issue, and if anyone of them had voted it must have been an issue.
NDTV: Was it an issue? As first time voters raise your hands if you thought corruption was an issue? And that's almost every hand in the room.
P Chidambaram: Well that's more than half and I'm not surprised. Because others may have; you see we are asking a wrong question. Corruption everyone think is an issue, topmost maybe different. People think other issues are more important
NDTV: Okay. Fair enough. Geetu
Geetu: When it comes to the Land Bill, the Congress has taken a very strict anti-industry stand by stalling the Bill and delaying the development process. Sir what is your take on how this is being perceived to the public and what other version of the bill would you deem fit?
P Chidambaram: The Bill was passed in 2013, November. Near unanimously. With the BJP supporting it. Not reluctantly, they supported it. Today they might pretend like they supported it reluctantly but that is not the truth. Just take a look at the debates. They come to office in May 2014 and one of the first items on their agenda is to amend the Bill, without giving that Bill a fair trial. That Bill is a product of years of work that overturned an 1894 colonial law. 21st Century is a time of transparency, ruling of consent, not depriving the poor of their livelihoods; not treating the poor as though they are dirt. The average holding in this country is 1 hectare, less than 2 acres. And over 60% of the land is rain-fed land. An average farmer has perhaps an acre and a half of rain-fed land. Therefore this bill is a product of years of debate by civil society, by sociologists, by columnists, by economists, by Agriculturists, by people who work with these people. You don't give that Bill a fair trial. You go ahead and amend the Bill. Three times you've passed the Ordinance. Let me ask you, the law today is the amended law because Ordinance has amended it. Now how many acres of land have you acquired under the amended law? If your law is such a great law why did you not acquire land under the new law? I think what they've done is completely anti-farmer, anti-poor; taking away the social impact assessment is anti-green, anti-environment. So we take a very strong stand on this Bill. And you know the kind of resonance for this debate? Let me tell you in April-May 2014 when the election campaign was on, when I spoke about this Bill, which we had brought,, there was no resonance at all. They said what, some bill, some land acquisition bill. We said four times compensation. Your consent has to be taken, social impact assessment. You didn't have any resonance. Now after the Ordinance, may we go back to the same people and tell them that BJP has brought about an Ordinance, which takes away the consent clause; which takes away the social impact assessment? There's tremendous resonance.
NDTV: But isn't it true that many Congress Chief Ministers were opposed to the Bill? Anand Sharma's letters are now in the public domain, questioning the Bill and most importantly, I remember interviewing you after the results and I asked you if the BJP were to bring changes in the Land Acquisition Act, would you be open to it? And you said, 'we'll see what the changes are'
P Chidambaram: No, I've written about it.
NDTV: "We're not close to changes", which means that you were not fully comfortable with your own Bill.
P Chidambaram: I've written about it, I've written about it and I said that two changes that they've brought about are acceptable, but the changes that they're bringing about to the consent clause and the social assessment clause are not acceptable. This is the heart of the Bill, this is the soul of the Bill. And if you take away these two clauses you're destroying the soul of the Bill.
NDTV: So some changes are acceptable?
P Chidambaram: I've written about it and that's in the public domain, you can see there are two changes that I've said are acceptable to me.
NDTV: Okay, Kanishk, where is Kanishk? While we get him the mike, you have responded to the Congress Chief Ministers who also have reservations about this Bill.
P Chidambaram: See, like any Minister, any Chief Minister, one is swayed by the advice one gets from bureaucrats, from people who meet you, represent you etc, etc. Congress Chief Ministers are meeting tomorrow. Let's see what the Congress Chief Ministers have to say tomorrow about this Bill. It's not what an individual Minister or a Chief Minister, its the party's position that matters. Individuals can have slight...
NDTV: Isn't it true as Finance Minister you were less than happy with your own Bill?
P Chidambaram: With the original draft. Don't mix up this Bill, this Bill was passed unanimously by the Cabinet with our full support. This Bill was a product of a GOM. The original Bill was an even more drastic Bill and some of us had reservations about many clauses. Then we toned it down, we made amendments. The Bill that was passed in the Cabinet and ultimately passed in the Parliament had our fullest support.
NDTV: Okay, Kanishk, your question please.
Kanishk: Good evening Sir, my question is in regard to the One Rank One Pension scheme. Now the Congress has been in the past few months pressing the government of betraying the servicemen. Sir, the UPA had 10years to pass that scheme. Don't you think that the Defence Minister is justified when he says that there are certain administrative and complex issues that need to be solved so that effective implementation can be made?
P Chidambaram: Well, I don't think so and I'll tell you why. OROP was not a one step reform. OROP has gone through 3 or 4 steps. Between 2004 and 2014 we had moved OROP quite a bit, after the last Pay Commission and the one before that, we had made OROP more or less applicable. But I think we had brought it to a point when we had accepted about 70 percent or so of their demands, it was not 100 percent. The final announcement that I made of OROP was the final step to make it 100 percent of their demands...
NDTV: That was 500 crores...
P Chidamabaram: Wait a minute. I'm coming to that. So it was not as though OROP was a one step reform, we are already taken three steps; we are to take the final step. In fact if you read my speech I say now we take the final step to implement OROP. Then I call the Defence Ministry, Defence accounts people and say that, listen, tell me how much money you want? They did some calculations. Obviously the time was very limited because I had given them only a few days to make the calculation. They said it is sufficient if you give us 500 crore this year, I said this looks too small to me, alright, but make sure that the numbers are right. They said,no, we have done our numbers, 500 crore appears adequate. So I said all right we will give you 500 crore but I will add, that next year also give you more money if it becomes necessary. Do, if you read the speech, we took the final step to OROP, we gave 500 crore but we added that we will give whatever money is required for fulfilling the OROP promise.
NDTV: But the figure now being spoken of is over 8000 crores..
P Chidambaram: Wait a minute, so what?
NDTV: How can there be such a wide gap between what you sanctioned and what the servicemen are asking for now?
P Chidambaram: These are calculations made by the Defence Ministry, I'm sure many of the officers still remain in the Defence Ministry, many of them are there. Now, question is why does it take one year to do the calculations? That's the question to which there is no answer. In fact they said within a year of our government coming into office we will implement OROP, you've had one year...
NDTV: But you had ten
P Chidambaram: No, we did not have 10, you've not been listening to what I've been saying for the past 5 minutes.
NDTV: No, I am listening
P Chidambaram: We have done OROP in 3 steps. The final step was taken in 2013-14. If you listen to me you will not say you had 10. In 10 years, in the first 9 years we had taken steps up to the final step, it's the final step that we had to take or they have to take. We took the final step, we announced the decision, we allocated 500 crore and we left it to the Defence Ministry to come up with a final calculation. Now why does it take one year for the government to do the final calculations? Which is why I question their commitment to OROP
NDTV: How much time would you be willing to give them to deliver OROP?
P Chidambaram: If I was doing the calculations today with the officers, and I work around the clock, I will do it in two weeks. I'll give them therefore four weeks.
NDTV: You're a hard taskmaster. Okay, next question, Vaibhav where are you? Let's get Vaibhav the mike quickly
Vaibhav: Despite taking a dig at the Mamta-Modi bonhomie, Rahul Gandhi's words inspire much confidence. Is it about time that Congress gave the reins to a non-Gandhi?
P Chidambaram: That is for the AICC to decide, there is nothing in the Party Constitution that says that anyone can't aspire to become Congress President. In fact in the history of the Congress there have been many, many, many people who have been Congress Presidents. Recently we've had Mr Narasimha Rao, Mr Sitaram Kesari. The point is today if you ask me if the AICC meet, say in September, and you allow the AICC to vote on a new President, overwhelmingly, that's a reality, overwhelmingly they'll vote for Mr Rahul Gandhi
NDTV: But you know senior leaders of the Congress, like Kamal Nath went on record to say that many leaders feel the falling between the two stools, the Sonia Gandhi decision making group and the Rahul Gandhi decision making group, and he said we have to have one leader. Now I remember the last time you were on this show you said Sonia Gandhi is the numero-uno leader, has that changed? Are more people now saying that Mrs Gandhi should take a mentorship role or a guiding role and Rahul has to take hold of the, take the active reins of the party?
P Chidambaram: No, I haven't heard that.
NDTV: What do you think?
P Chidambaram: I think she is still numero-uno. And I think she will remain numero-uno as long as she is in active politics. Even if Mr Rahul Gandhi takes over as President I think he will defer to Mrs Gandhi's advice
NDTV: But how is that for a party? Isn't it like two bosses?
P Chidambaram: No, that's not so. We've had Mr Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister; we've had several people as Congress Presidents. UN Dhebar, there were several people. We had Mrs Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister; we had Kamaraj and several others as Congress Presidents.
NDTV: But these are two leaders within the same party...
P Chidambaram: We're talking about two leaders in the same party, Jawaharlal Nehru and Dhebar were in the same party...
NDTV: But who gets to have the final say on a decision?
P Chidambaram: The Congress President say Mr Dhebar did defer to Mr Jawaharlal Nehru and for quite some time, until they fell out, Mr Kamaraj did defer to Mrs Indira Gandhi. So I think Mr Rahul Gandhi if he is ready to take the Presidentship and if that is the wish of the AICC, should take over the Presidentship but I do not think that you mean that he will not defer to the words and advice of Mrs Sonia Gandhi.
NDTV: But wouldn't that in a sense tie his hands? I mean even if she is his mother, to have a boss above a boss is kind of an awkward arrangement.
P Chidambaram: No, it's not having a boss, it's having a counsel, having a mentor, it's having a advisor. Political party is not a joint stock company. It's not a hierarchical kind of thing. You tend to work collectively.
NDTV: But do you believe that the dependence, see, one of the criticisms that Rahul Gandhi has made against the Prime Minister is this is an over centralized, one man band as The Economist called it
P Chidambaram: Do you agree or not?
NDTV: No, I'm here to ask the questions, not answer them
P Chidambaram: But do you agree or not? I agree with it.
NDTV: The counter question is that even if that criticism were to be seen as true, the criticism against the Congress Party would be an over-dependence on one family. On the one hand you have one man, on the other you have one family. Do you believe that creates a dissonance with today's India, which is all about self-made people, that there is a great charm about being self-made? The inheritance of political power is something that young India doesn't like
P Chidambaram: You see, why did members of one family acquire such a special place in the Congress is a variety of, is a number of historical reasons. I don't think we sat together and plotted it that way. It's historical.
NDTV: Should it change?
P Chidambaram: It may change; it may not change, depending upon who is available to lead the party at any given time. Today Mrs Gandhi is available to lead the party. Mr Rahul Gandhi to lead the party, the AICC will decide. Therefore I don't think, you make it sound so conspiratorial, I don't think it's conspiratorial. These are facts of history. This is how the party has evolved over the past 30 years. But in between, even in these last 30 years, there was a period when Mr Narasimha Rao was both Prime Minister and Congress President. You forget that
NDTV: Okay. We have just a few minutes left, so Nikunj, where are you? Let's get the mike to Nikunj
Nikunj: Sir, when the BJP came to power in Haryana, one of the first things they did was initiate an investigation against a gentleman, who you said is a private citizen and when you were Finance Minister or the Home Minister, you never took any action against him and...
P Chidambaram: How can anyone take action against a private citizen, unless one receives a written complaint, which falls within my jurisdiction?
NDTV: What's your question?
Nikunj: The question being...
P Chidambaram: No no, you made it sound as though, you sounded critical about it. That's why I want to ask you if you were Home Minister, would you take action against Barkha?
Nikunj: Sir, I'm saying that forget Home Minister
NDTV: Let him ask his question.
P Chidambaram: You must receive a complaint isn't it?
NDTV: No, one second. Let him complete his question
Nikunj: You said he is a private citizen and then you went on to protect him as a private citizen, but what you are doing right now...
P Chidambaram: No, you are exaggerating, I said he is a private citizen, unless there is a complaint there is nothing I can do.
NDTV: Mr Jaitely said to me in an interview that the income tax notice that was sent to Mr Vadra was actually something, the process of which began in the UPA tenure
P Chidambaram: That shows that if there is a cause, if there is a case the law will apply.
NDTV: Was it done with your knowledge, the inquiry into his income tax?
P Chidambaram: Well, I was aware of it but I don't ask an income tax officer to issue notices
NDTV: Would you concede that politically....
P Chidambaram: Lest you'd think that the notices that you've got are at my instance.
NDTV: Would you concede that Mr Vadra, whom the Congress, whom the Congress calls a private citizen, that many leaders of the party also come out and defend, is a kind of undermining of the 'Suit Boot Ki Sarkaar' slogan because you know had Harsimrat Badal saying that Rahul must be talking about Robert
P Chidambaram: Listen, I think all these are issues on which I don't have to comment. The fact is Mr Vadra is a private citizen, there are allegations, there are statements and he himself has said let there be a fair inquiry and I will show that I've...
NDTV: Have the controversies around him hurt the Congress politically?
P Chidambaram: It may have in Haryana, I don't know, I don't come from that state. But I think in many parts of India, at least in the rural parts of India, it's perhaps an issue that will not sway the people one way or another. It's perhaps somewhere in the back of their mind, they may have heard about it now and then. Some of these issues are made into big issues, maybe they are big, may be they are small. I don't think every Indian citizen is obsessed with these issues and is swayed by these issues. So I think there are more serious issues, which are on the minds of the people. Prices, security, communal harmony, job opportunities, quality of education and even more basic things, quality of drinking water, sanitation. I think these are the issues which weigh upon peoples mind when they react, when they vote and when they don't vote.
NDTV: Okay, one of the things that Mr Gandhi has raised in his speeches recently is this, kind of crackdown on NGO's and even now we've seen a Greenpeace activist denied entry into Bangalore, this has just happened in the past few hours. We have Priya Pillai being denied an exit. Then we saw pictures of her actually being among civil society people who met with Rahul Gandhi. My question is a little different, the IB report interestingly on Greenpeace funding was actually prepared during the UPA, it was actioned under the NDA but prepared under the UPA. Also, I remember PRS Legislative actually not getting Home Ministry clearances on foreign funding at the time when the UPA was in power. So could it be said that in government you were also wary of foreign funded NGOs?
P Chidambaram: No, see, just because there is an IB report, that doesn't mean you have to accept it as gospel truth. That's an input. IB gathers intelligence, in fact IB never owns up to any report because its based on intelligence, you don't have to act upon it as gospel truth. If you take an IB report and ban Priya Pillai from boarding a flight, I think that is the height of intolerance. You have to apply your mind before you take action under law. IB report is not law. An IB report cannot trigger the law. This is an input.
NDTV: But PRS Legislative was denied clearances for foreign funding because it worked with Parliament and this happened when the UPA was....
P Chidambaram: I don't know, I mean I don't know about that case, I think...
NDTV: Ford Foundation funding I think became an issue because they worked with Parliament.
P Chidambaram: I think, if I remember right, it is because that funding was used to pay for the assistants or the research assistants appointed to Parliamentarians. So I think the objection that was taken was, you cannot appoint your research assistant using foreign funds, I think that was the objection and I think there's merit in it.
NDTV: What are your views on Greenpeace?
P Chidambaram: I think Priya Pillai should have been allowed to go and make her speech, so what?
NDTV: How many of you agree with that, that she should have been allowed to go and make her speech?
P Chidambaram: No, tell me how many of you, who have not raised your hands, think that her making a speech would have destabilised India? Now why are you not raising your hands for the first question?
NDTV: So let me ask it again, do you believe an individual, even if the government of the day completely disagrees with an individual's agenda, they have the right to express it? Now that's everybody.
P Chidambaram: Please remember, Priya Pillai is not an anarchist, she's not a terrorist, she's not carrying an AK-47 in her hand, she's not going around shooting people, she's going to make a speech, speech is free. Please remember that, speech is free.
NDTV: Last question, after that we have to end, Aishani? Let's quickly get her the mike please.
Aishani: Sir, in the past you have said that the AFSPA is an obnoxious act that has no place in the modern civilised country, but in the light of the attack that just happened in Manipur on the Army convoy, where 18-20 soldiers were actually killed, so what are the alternatives that can be used to counter such insurgencies?
P Chidambaram: Did AFSPA stop this killing? The fact the AFSPA has been there for many, many years, was it able to stop this killing? AFSPA has nothing to do with killing or no killing. What does AFSPA do? Please sit down. AFSPA gives immunity to the jawan, to the Armed Forces. Have seen the language of AFSPA? I hope you've read my article on that, you can use force even to the causing of death, mark those words. Reflect on it when you go back. Even to the causing of death. Can you show me any Parliament anywhere in the world which passes a law authorizing somebody to use force to stop a crime, use force to disable a man, use force to apprehend him, but to use force even to the causing of death? At that time you've already pronounced him a terrorist? He's a suspect. He's not a terrorist at that point of time when you're shooting. Therefore I said that this is an obnoxious law that has no place in a civilised society and I tried my best to amend it. We drafted the amendments, it passed muster up to a point, but then the government of the day did not find the political will to pass that law. I still believe that AFSPA must go.
NDTV: Despite what happened in Manipur?
P Chidambaram: Of course,Manipur has happened today. Are you saying that another Manipur won't happen two years from today or it won't happen in Nagaland or it won't happen in Kashmir again?
NDTV: Doesn't the Army need greater autonomy to function when it is fighting terrorism like it is in Manipur or Jammu and Kashmir?
P Chidambaram: Nobody says that the Army should not have autonomy. All that we are saying is the law should say that the Army can use reasonable force to order, to put down crime, put down terrorist activity, but no law can say that you can use force even to the causing of death.
NDTV: And so it remains your regret that you couldn't repeal it as Home Minister?
P Chidambaram: It's one matter in which I have the deepest regret, there are many others.
NDTV: What are the others?
P Chidambaram: Oh,you'll have to call another Townhall for that. One of them is that I could not amend the law to make it a humane law. See, my personal view is AFSPA should be repealed, but I'm willing to accept that there are many reasonable people who take a different view, therefore I was willing to compromise. See two reasonable people can disagree without forfeiting the right to be called reasonable, therefore I said we don't have to repeal the law. Let's amend three sections of the law and those amendments were drafted, they are there and I think any government, which believes in humane laws, which believes in civilised laws must amend AFSPA.
NDTV: We'll have to leave it there. One thing we have to appreciate is your willingness to come here and take a range of questions from very young voters, because this is the generation, I think the Congress now...
P Chidambaram: Well, I'm hoping to persuade them to vote differently next election.
NDTV: Well at least you have taken all their questions. Let's have a big round of applause for Mr P Chidambaram for joining us on the Townhall.
P Chidambaram: Thank you.
NDTV: Thank you.