New Delhi:
Noted economist Amartya Sen, in an interview to NDTV on Thursday, defended himself over his remarks against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, saying that he did not think the Bharatiya Janata Party strongman would make a good Prime Minister. Mr Sen also said he was "disappointed" by BJP leader Chandan Mitra's remark that he should be stripped of his Bharat Ratna, awarded to him in 1999, when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime Minister.
Below is the full transcript of the interview:
NDTV: Are you surprised at the reaction you got to your statement that you would not endorse Narendra Modi as Prime Minister? Chandan Mitra of the BJP says your Bharat Ratna should be stripped from you.
Amartya Sen: Well certainly I was surprised and disappointed I probably was. I don't know what I could say on that subject. Just as I have a right to say that as an Indian citizen, the kind of Prime Minister I have, I would NOT like to see someone who would generate concern on part of large sections of the community, the minorities. I think Chandan Mitra has the right to say that the Bharat Ratna awarded to me should be rightly stripped. Whether he can do it or not is not quite clear. Because for one thing, it was the BJP government in office with Vajpayee, who, who gave it to me. But he can express his view. I don't have any difficulty thinking that had it been feasible, whether or not this was the right thing to do. I might not surprise you by saying that I would be disappointed with that judgment. I think I don't doubt his right to make such a judgment if he wants to make that.
NDTV: In retrospect do you think you should perhaps have been more diplomatic about what you said on Narendra Modi, because the BJP has interpreted this as actually being a part of a political endorsement? They say you do it with your economic views, they say you've endorsed a failed government like the UPA and this shows your bias. Do you think in retrospect you should have been more diplomatic?
Amartya Sen: No, I don't think so. I haven't endorsed the UPA. I did read in a newspaper today that I have, but of course I'm getting so used to learning a new thing about myself every time I open a newspaper, so that bit of news came to me as no surprise either. But I hadn't endorsed the UPA government and certainly that statement had nothing to do with that. I wasn't even saying that all BJP leaders fall in the same category as far as the remark on Modi is concerned. As I said I have no difficulty taking it and thanking Vajpayee. But the time I got the Nobel and got the Bharat Ratna, I personally had opportunity of talking with Advani, Jaswant Singh, Yashwant Sinha and so on and how I benefitted from these discussions, quite often. Is there anything contradictory in that, because you know I don't agree with them in any respect, not at all. And indeed I even said that there are things to learn from Modi. But I do think he would not be a good Prime Minister and I don't know how else I could have put it, because I was representing a point of view which many of us have learnt from early days to do, namely in a majoritarian democracy it is the duty of the majority to look after the concerns and worries of the minority. And given the fact that I do know that Modi, because of what happened in 2002 and I'm not going into the question here as to whether it's a just assessment or not, one could debate that, I've a view of that but that's not the central issue here. The central issue is that does that worry minority Muslims in particular but also other minorities? The answer is yes, and if that's the case, do I believe that a majority member of the majority community would have a particular responsibility to express their point of view in support of something that would worry minorities? There is a big thing written on that by John Stuart Mill, on liberty, that ultimately the protection of liberty of individuals and liberty is very important for me. Protection of liberty for individuals depends on the rest of the society coming in defence of an individual whose liberty is being alienated. So I don't regret what I have said but I did not say that. If that's the way Chandan Mitra interprets it that's a mistaken interpretation. It's not an ethical mistake it's an epistemological mistake.
NDTV: So your issue you're saying is specifically with the individual. You're saying your issue is with the individual Narendra Modi not with the BJP as a party?
Amartya Sen: I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for the BJP, I mean being a Bengali, most of us don't vote for the BJP. That's a different issue. That particular remark that I made was concern only with Narendraa Modi. There could be a debate about whether you could apply that to one or some of the other colleagues of Narendra Modi too. But I didn't make this statement. I don't see it as a sufficiently strong basis for making that statement in the case of anyone other than Narendra Modi in that case. The statement was only what it said, if the statement was on Narendra Modi, I don't regret it, because it doesn't endorse the UPA. I have often been attributed with the fathership of food security, which is not one of my programmes. Indeed. I've complained about a paternity suit coming my way, which is not justified, but it has nothing to do with that. I just made a statement that a leader who worries minority would have a particular problem of which we should be aware. And as a majority community member it's not only my I think it's my right to say it, I think it's my duty to say it, because I could have a easier statement than a minority member, who could be seen as being an interested party.
NDTV: Professor Sen why it also throws it open or there have been accusations of bias, because this is not just the BJP, but many other political observers, that why didn't you make the similar argument after the 1984 Sikh riots, why was the same argument not made against the Congress, against Rajiv Gandhi when he was alive? Are there double standards when you apply this logic to Narendra Modi and not to the Congress party, given the fact that victims of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots are still waiting for justice, in a sense, the justice process in Gujarat and what happened there has been much faster?
Amartya Sen: It's absolutely right, as indeed I have written about the 1984 thing. I think it's a crying shame that those who were guilty for it have not been brought to trial. But we were discussing at that time, the Prime Minister who was slain at that time was of course Indira Gandhi, and for a little while there was no one else in office, so there isn't a corresponding figure to Modi at that time. Is Congress to be blamed for that? Absolutely. And has that blame been cleaned up by the passage of time, not at all. Have I written extensively on it, yes, many times, and if you want to refer to this as sometimes my students do, I'll be very happy to send you an email on that indicating which pages to look at.
NDTV: You're talking specifically about Narendra Modi's record as when he was Chief Minister during 2002. But there has been some disquiet about the debate that has arisen between the 2 main political parties, including the BJP and the Congress wooing vote banks. So whether it's Narendra Modi saying he's a Hindu nationalist or saying he would feel bad even if a kutte ke bachhe came under the wheels of a car, and whether it's the Congress as well, wooing minority vote banks, pseudo-secularism as the BJP calls it, are you worried by the discourse which has arisen in the selection campaign? And you have more specific worries about the Hindu nationalism or more specific issues about also what the Congress does?
Amartya Sen: Well, I'm concerned about both. But the real issue here is not the fact that people carry out policies, which appeal to one section or the other and facilitate your winning an election. That is indeed quite pervasive in democracies across the world. It would apply the same way to the United States, Britain, France, South Africa and Brazil, but I think the issue is that if you do things which is targeting a particular community, which is defined by their birth, and if not, one that you could justify on grounds of supporting them because they are chronically under employed or they're chronically poor but they happen to be born Muslim. It weighs as a question about whether that kind of a vote bank is the right thing to do. Now if a point were made that quite often the Congress party has also aimed policies looking at Muslim support, in this case not getting Hindu support by terrorising Muslims, but getting Muslim support you know in order to win an election, and if you looked at some of my writings including Identity and Violence, I did think there were a number of decisions that were taken were not fair, did not bring in what Bangladesh made very easily, namely bring Muslims into a modern world, in which ideas of global justice that is community neutral, I mean that went to apply to them, and when that is accepted, there's a mistake made. And you know if there's any particular reason for my having said this at this time, is you know the whole Gujarat issue hasn't gone away from legal point of view and there were a lot of lives lost. Not quite the case as relying on a Muslim votebank, which may be bad and I have said is bad and is not the right way of playing democracy. Does it have the same degree of concern raised, as the question of a progrom against Muslims, if that is indeed the case there of which there is evidence prima facie. But on the other hand it may turn out to be legally not quite. So it shows that Modi would be absolved of that and Muslims should be sure that Modi is not anti-Muslim at all. That hasn't happened yet. And under the circumstances are there concerns that I have? Yes, indeed I have. That is what I was saying. You know, whether or not the Bharat Ratna is stripped from me or not, I'm very proud of being an Indian. We have a tradition of secularism. You know we pay a certain amount of price. Since I'm only Indian, not a US citizen or UK, either of which I could have become, I'll stand in long queues entering any country. I'm very persuaded that any country that I'm trying to enter is very worried that I'm trying to settle down there. I don't mind standing in the same queue that my fellow countrymen stand. And that may be a position of disadvantage, but also a position of pride. It doesn't have to be a Ratna, it could be a Bharat Shila, or anything. I wouldn't be worried about that. But that identification is quite important for me. But just that identification is important, it also gives me right to consider and speak for those things I believe India has stood for, which includes a tolerant community. I mean it could be a historical dispute whether we always have been as tolerant, but I would like to defend that we have a culture of tolerance and that too a strong one. We are democratic, we are tolerant of minorities and indeed more than that we encourage minorities to flourish and that's really quite important for me. And even if my Bharat Ratna is going to be stripped, that does not mean go away, but I do think that I have an absolute duty to do it since I'm also proud of being an Indian.
NDTV: The pride in being Indian, the interpretation also the remark and I know there have been different interpretations of this, but the interpretation has been that this is part again of a set political bias, that by saying this against Narendra Modi would mean that you would support Rahul Gandhi as the Prime Minister. Would you support Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister?
Amartya Sen: I have been asked that question earlier. First of all I have not expressed a view on that. Have I decided who do I want to be my Prime Minister? I have not. Do I think as a voter; you know we don't have absentee ballots, so if I happen to get here on time would I be voting for a Prime Minister? No. We don't, we vote for a constituency candidate. My MP used to be member of the Communist Party until he was expelled from it, namely the former speaker Somnath Chatterjee, that's the level at which we face the choice. If Rahul Gandhi was in my constituency would I vote for him? That is not the same question as Prime Minister. Do I know Rahul Gandhi? Yes I do. Do I like him? Yes I do. Do I think he is a good product of my college, Trinity College, Cambridge? I happen to be a Master there. I have not been prevented from being there due to my Indian nationality. When I talk with him I enjoy it. When I chatted with him, I asked him if he was interested in politics? He said he wasn't. So, we didn't discuss politics. We discussed his career, what he might pursue, his interest in economic development that he had that time, which he probably still has. So that is a completely different question. You can't suddenly pick up some name and ask me that. The fact that the newspapers think this is a pro Rahul statement, if Rahul and Modi are the only alternatives, in that case by attacking Narendra Modi you must be pursuing the cause of Rahul, I can see that, but it seems to be such limited vision. As a believer in democracy and as a proud citizen of a democratic nation of India, I don't think we think of it that way. There are lots of alternatives in front of us. Rahul may well be a good alternative or may well be an excellent alternative, but I haven't made a view on that yet. I don't have to decide on that and if I decide on it, it'll be on the basis of much more discussion, to use a phrase by John Stuart Mill's idea, namely, 'democracy is government by discussion'. There is a lot of discussion to take place and I like having these discussions, as a citizen it is my duty to listen to these discussions.
NDTV: Professor Sen your book also released this week, talking about India and its contradictions. Interestingly the Planning Commission just released new figures, which re-illustrate, according to their claims, according to government's claims, a dramatic drop in poverty. They are saying it is down to 22%, a record drop, the highest ever. But there has been a huge controversy over what this drop actually means because of the poverty line. What is your stand on it? You have discussed in your book how 'poverty line' is actually a misnomer. Would you call this an achievement of the UPA or a conspiracy as the Opposition sees it?
Amartya Sen: It is neither. It is certainly an achievement. Is it a fantastic achievement? No, because the poverty line is low. But that's not the only reason. The main reason is, if you read and I know you have read the book because we talked about it, in the book we argue that poverty is not judged by that, if poverty number is not only 22 but falls to 12. But we still have one-third of the women illiterate, a quarter of the men illiterate. Large proportion of Indians not knowing where to get their medical care, not having a decent facility for medical treatment, India having largest proportion of under-nourishment in the world. If that happens then no matter what the poverty line in terms of the income is, I would not say it has been achievement enough. But is it an achievement? Yes. Had it gone up instead of going down, would I have said there is a little more concern there? Yes. So I think it a question of, you know economics is a difficult subject. We get empirical information from different sources. Employment is one of them. Longevity. I took part in the devising of the human development index concerned with longevity, health, concerned with education. Of the three parts one of the parts is of human development index income, and that part is well observed, except that it is compromised by the fact that the poverty line is low. But still even with low line that it has gone down is good news. It would have been bigger news if it had been a more comprehensive reduction of the underprivileged, even in terms of income. It would have been further good news if other things went down too. Indian literacy rate has gone up, that's a big achievement. And so each of these you have to look at. But even after literacy rate going up, even after longevity going up, even after poverty line, base poverty numbers going down, is the picture abysmally bad? Yes. Bangladesh, which had 3 years less life expectancy than we had 20 years ago now has 4 years more longer expectancy figures than we have, even though instead of being 50 % richer in terms of GDP as compared to Bangladesh, we are twice as rich. So I think we have to see poverty and this I have been writing for 30-40 years. Poverty is a multi-dimensional feature, it is all the various ways in which the humans lives are deprived come into the calculation of our poverty. So as they, sometimes they say, three cheers, I would say one cheer but there are lots of other elements in the non-cheering Do I think it's a conspiracy? I don't know. If there is evidence given, I might believe it but I have not seen any evidence so far in the newspapers to indicate that it is a conspiracy.
NDTV: Finally Professor Sen after the release of your book again and your interviews, there have been a flurry of reactions on the economic policy or the development model that you're proposing as well, some have said. Professor Bhagwati's raised this article that says that you pose a serious danger to economic policy in India, because there is a danger that the UPA, and he says specifically the Congress President, Sonia Gandhi, is following your line as opposed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who he says is much closer to the Bhagwati line. BJP MPs have also said that your policies or recommendations are lending intellectual legitimacy to the UPA's disastrous policy, that by virtue of being a Nobel Laureate, a Bharat Ratna, whatever you say actually lends weight, or you're taking political sides and the UPA's falling policies, which are disastrous for India?
Amartya Sen: No, as far as the second thing is concerned, BJP and UPA have already said that, I haven't made a statement on that. But what Professor Bhagwati says is concerned with the nature of the model and I'm ready to address the argument. I'm not going to comment on Professor Bhagwati I never have, excepting I have to correct a mis-description of my work in the Economist, saying that I don't know about growth and have paid lip service to growth only recently. Since I have written a thesis on that subject and I wrote a collection called Growth Economics in 1970 and have written repeatedly on that including in '89, my first book between Jean Dreze and myself, Hunger and Public Action, we talked about growth mediated security. So that was no doubt inadvertent, a mis-description of the nature of our work and I thought I would like to correct that and I'm sure Professor Bhagwati would be, if persuaded that that is an appropriate correction, he would be happy that I made that. I'm not going to talk about Professor Bhagwati. I never do that. Forgive me. Our styles differ. But on the subject of the question that you're asking, is a serious question. Am I misleading people about this? I used to be called that, that I've heard, to the familiar, nostalgic territory, when 30-40 years ago when I was praising Kerala's focus on education and healthcare. I'm speaking about Kerala model, and Kerala will never be a model, never was a model, and the extent of red tape from which I personally even suffered when I visited Kovalam and the Kerala coast is very large. But I did think that by getting the big story right, education and healthcare, Kerala was not only in a great position to improve human well-being but in the long run that will improve the economic growth performance too. I was told this is ridiculous and some of the same people at that time are going to, and I'm not talking. Every time I say that, 'oh, you're referring to Professor Bhagwati'. I'm talking about whoever spoke. You have to look at the literature done and it's a little whodunnit, for all who are criticising me and there were quite a few I can assure you, not as massive as the business press is right now. But there were a few saying that Amartya Sen is misleading because Kerala model is not sustainable because they're so poor. I did point out at that time when Japan did it, when they were very poor, Korea did it at that time and they got rich that way. Now that Kerala has become one of the richest Indian states, I would like same people at least to tell me that I was mistaken indeed, Kerala's model was viable. Now instead they say, it might have been viable in Kerala and maybe what you suggested may have done well in Himachal Pradesh and maybe Tamil Nadu has also become richer with that, but as a general rule, it's bad for India.
NDTV: You never mention any BJP states Sir. You never mention any BJP states, which have done well though. Your opponents are saying why don't you ever mention any BJP states that have done well?
Amartya Sen: Well because they haven't. Because it is not a question of the BJP states having not done well in these respects. BJP had still done very well with the physical infrastructure and I've given so many interviews. I'm not so sure Sonia whether I gave it to you or another one that or another channel that BJP states of Gujarat have done well in physical infrastructure. We actually do say in the book that Chhattisgarh had done rather well on food care, not so much on the subject of Human Rights. But yes, I don't say look, I've praised 2 Congress states now I'm going to praise 2 Communist and now 1 Congress state and 1 BJP state. I look at economics as an empirical survey. On the basis of what stage happened in Kerala, it is by the way not a Congress achievement. They alternated it between Congress and Communist Party and both parties have great deal of credit in pursuing that policy, and Himachal Pradesh wasn't Congress either when they went in that direction. So when you say that it is only Congress states that I'm praising that is just not true. If it had come out that way would I have hesitated to say it? No, because it is not based on balancing parties. I'm not doing reservation of different parties in each state or number of times listed them in a discussion. It is about what the ground record is. And the Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu examples are important because there is a lot for India to learn from that, because the critique that was made 40 or 30 years ago about my defending that model, the fact that now it has been vindicated very strongly, I would have thought that people would say some empirical ability to predict and to analyse policy. In that context if that doesn't come, instead of saying that you are not praising any BJP state, which is not true as I said, we do talk about some achievements in Chhattisgarh, in Gujarat. It's a question of what they want me to do as an economist, looking at the different policies and the result. Do I present the result or do I say that this is not a balanced basket? I have to balance the Congress and the BJP and Samajwadi and other parties, is that what you would like me to do as an economist?
NDTV: Professor Sen, thank you so much for joining us
Amartya Sen: That was a question for you.
NDTV: No Sir I don't think I'd like you to balance it, I think you have to stick to the economics. But of course politics is being read into your economics, the interpretation at least. But Sir, just to ask you finally, will you be coming back to vote in 2014 given the controversy about where your vote will go, will you actually come and vote in 2014?
Amartya Sen: Well my vote will be in Bolpur, that's where I'm based in Shantiniketan, and it depends on what the position, you know. First of all there is a complicated registration. I have to see if my name is still on it, it used to be. I have to see. We don't have an absentee ballot. Do I believe in absentee ballot?,Yes. But given the Indian rule I'll have to come back. I happen to have responsibility of teaching at the University in Harvard. If circumstances allow me to come back and vote I would like to vote. Would I drop my classes? I think probably not, I think that won't be the right thing to do. But you know that has got nothing to do with my being proud of and taking my Indian citizenship extremely seriously
NDTV: Prof Sen thank you once again for joining twice an interview, twice in the same week. Thanks very much for speaking to NDTV. Thanks very much. Thank you sir.