More articles by

Soni Mishra
Soni Mishra

INTERVIEW

Demonetisation will be beneficial; GST teething troubles inevitable

22-Mukherjee The power trio: Mukherjee, then finance minister, with prime minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi in 2012 | AP

Interview/ Pranab Mukherjee, former president

Pranab Mukherjee has every confidence in the leadership of Rahul Gandhi, who is set to take over as Congress president. In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK at his 10 Rajaji Marg residence in Delhi, Mukherjee described Rahul as a dynamic leader. “He has prospect,” he said. “He is a hardworking, bright man.”

The former president of India insisted that he had no regrets about not having become prime minister, as he was aware of his shortcomings, mainly his lack of fluency in Hindi. According to him, Manmohan Singh was the right choice as prime minister in 2004, given the difficult economic situation then.

Mukherjee held key portfolios such as defence and finance in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, and was its main firefighter. He denied that Manmohan failed to effectively run the coalition, and blamed coalition compulsions for the government’s problems.

Mukherjee, who retired as president in July this year, has come out with The Coalition Years, the third and perhaps the penultimate book in his series of memoirs. He said he had good rapport with Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he was president, but refused to be drawn into a critical appraisal of the government’s functioning.

Mukherjee also made it clear that he would not return to active politics, saying there was no precedent of a president doing so. He, however, did admit that he missed the hectic activity of politics. Excerpts from the interview.

20-Pranab-Mukherjee Pranab Mukherjee | Arvind Jain

You have written about having had the impression that Congress president Sonia Gandhi, in 2012, may have wanted Manmohan Singh to become president. Was there a discussion in the party about replacing him as prime minister?

That was a vague impression I had. Various names were discussed. Dr Manmohan Singh’s name also came up. I had the hunch, not based on any fact but, that Sonia Gandhi gave a surprise while choosing the prime minister in 2004; perhaps in 2012, too, she can give a surprise. No discussion was happening [on replacing Manmohan as PM].

So did you come close to becoming PM at that time?

No, no. Not at all.

In 2004, were you expecting to be considered for the post of prime minister, given your experience and seniority?

I have my shortcomings. I am not fluent in Hindi. And, to be the prime minister, a leader must be fluent [in Hindi] to communicate with the people. Hindi is spoken by the largest number of people in this country.

Secondly, it is not necessary that someone with a good amount of experience and one who is senior would be prime minister. A leader who has the confidence of the people becomes the prime minister.

Were you surprised when Manmohan was nominated?

There was no question of surprise. We were discussing names. At that time, I said—and thereafter, too, I have mentioned—that he was a very good choice. The economy was in a difficult situation. Dr Manmohan Singh had a very good reputation as an honest man, a man of integrity, and there was no one better to formulate economic policies. So he was the right choice at that point of time. And, by that time, he had developed adequate political experience.

Do you feel that you deserved to be PM?

I have no regret, nor have I any feeling of not getting something. I am quite happy with what I got.

Manmohan, especially in UPA-2, was said to be helpless in managing the coalition. It was also said that Sonia Gandhi was the ‘super prime minister’.

There was no super prime minister. Sonia Gandhi did not interfere in the activities of the government. She used to give suggestions as chairperson of the National Advisory Council—pro-people, pro-poor measures which the government should consider, and if possible, implement. But it is not that she imposed her decisions.

There were internal problems because it was a coalition government. Coalition partners are mainly based in the states. Some of them thought that the states’ interests were more important than national interests. So, if that was the belief, decisions were to be delayed. These are the inherent deficiencies in a coalition.

So coalition compulsions were to blame?

You had to take everyone into confidence. Otherwise, 15 or 20 members could pull the rug. In 1998, [AIADMK leader] J. Jayalalithaa’s decision [to withdraw support] compelled Vajpayeeji to resign [as PM].

In UPA-2, we had problems. [Trinamool Congress president] Mamata Banerjee finally quit the government in 2012.

What was the biggest failure of UPA-2, which resulted in the defeat of 2014?

We had to face the agitation of Anna Hazare. Baba Ramdev joined in. There was a perception of all-pervasive corruption. And people demanded extraordinary measures—such as all the black money stored in foreign countries should be brought back within a specific period of time. An atmosphere was created.

Anna Hazare demanded that Parliament accept a particular draft [of the Lokpal Bill]. We had to deal with all these problems. We sorted out most of them. Some of them, we could not.

Was the anti-corruption agitation the undoing of UPA-2?

These agitations took place. But corruption was there then, there is corruption now, and corruption will be there in the future. It is essentially a social evil. And no society can say that it is totally corruption-free.

It was difficult for you to fight the perception of corruption.

Exactly. Because certain things happened. The 2G problems with the telecommunication ministers. Now also, many court cases are going on. And I have not seen the court convicting somebody. But allegations were made.

How was your relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi?

I cannot comment on the government, because it was my government till the other day. It is the president’s government.

But how was your rapport with him?

After a general election, the president has to appoint a prime minister. If there is a clear majority, the president has no option. He has to invite the leader of the party with the majority. Exactly this happened in 2014. When the BJP elected Mr Narendra Modi, I asked him to form the government. So it was easy for me.

And the president and the prime minister, even if they have differences, nobody has any access to it.

24-Rahul-Gandhi Guiding hand: Mukherjee with Rahul Gandhi at a party conference in 2011 | PTI

Did he seek your counsel on crucial issues?

No doubt, I had a good relationship with him. And I think every prime minister will have a good relationship with the president. I had a good relationship with Dr Manmohan Singh. I had two prime ministers. And I had no problem with either one of them.

So you had a good working relationship with Modi.

Presidents should have that kind of relationships. Because the president has to exercise his duties and responsibilities on the advice of the council of ministers.

Were there any differences? You did flag the issue of growing intolerance.

That [differences] nobody will ever come to know. I spoke about certain events that were taking place. It had nothing to do with the government.

The Congress has termed demonetisation as a disastrous move.

It is a measure the government decided upon. And, at that point of time, I welcomed it. Subsequently, I also commented that it could have some impact on growth in the immediate term, but that later on it would be beneficial.

The Goods and Services Tax was conceived by the UPA. How do you view its implementation by the Modi regime?

When a new legislation is implemented, there are teething problems, and everybody has to face these problems. As and when a situation develops or problems arise, you have to solve it.

The Congress seems to be in deep crisis. Can it revive itself?

I remember two general elections where predictions of various people, including those in the media, had no [basis in] reality. It is very difficult to say what such a vast number of voters will do, and what will be the deciding factor that influences their decision. It is very difficult in a country of India’s size and characteristics. So I do not want to make any comment on the future of any political party.

This much I will say, that every political party stands on its ideology, works in its own way. Sometimes it succeeds, and sometimes it does not. One should not forget that, in 1984, the BJP got only two Lok Sabha seats. And, after 14 years, it got 181 seats and formed the government.

So how can you say that the Congress has got 44 [seats] and hence it is going to be eliminated? A political party has its problems and its strengths. Parties have the capacity to rejuvenate themselves.

Rahul Gandhi will soon take over as Congress president. Should it have happened earlier?

It is not for me to comment. It is for the Congress to decide at what point of time what decisions it will take. They think this is the appropriate time. Every political party has its way of functioning. The Congress has its own way of functioning.

How would you describe Rahul Gandhi’s leadership?

He is a young, dynamic leader. The mettle of leadership is tested by circumstances. So it is very difficult to predict that he will be a great leader, [or that] he will not be a great leader.

Who could imagine that Indira Gandhi, who was described as a very silent person, would become such a powerful leader? Mrs Sonia Gandhi was absolutely a private person. In 1991, when she was offered Congress presidentship after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination, she refused. And today, you have, in a special feature in THE WEEK, said: ‘The hand that rocked Indian politics’.

(THE WEEK’s cover story in its October 22 issue, ‘The hand that rocked Indian politics’, was on Sonia’s impending retirement as Congress chief.)

How is Rahul different from Sonia?

Every leader is different from the other. It is wrong to compare one in the context of the other. An individual will have to be assessed in the context of his personality, his way of functioning. He need not be a replica of somebody else.

Do you see the run-up to the 2019 elections becoming a ‘Modi vs Rahul’ battle?

The contest will be between the two parties, not between individuals, because it is not a presidential election. We have a parliamentary form of government.

Doubts have been expressed about Rahul’s consistency as a leader.

Rahul is just embarking [on the presidentship of the Congress]. You are yet to watch him. But he has prospect. He is a hardworking, bright man.

Do you think he can revive the Congress?

I hope so.

What does he need to do to set things right in the Congress?

It is for a leader to decide how to revive [the party]. It is not necessary to give any advice to him or her.

Would you want to return to active politics; take up a role in the Congress?

No, no. A president after retirement has never done it. I have absolutely made it very clear that I have no such intention. Rajendra Prasad was a much bigger Congressman than me. Shankar Dayal Sharma was Congress president. After their retirement [as president of India], they never returned to politics, or never joined any political party. C. Rajagopalachari did, but he was a governor general. It was a different system; a different age.

Do you miss the hectic activity of politics?

I miss it, no doubt. But I chose to be president. Nobody forced me. When I chose to be president, I knew what would be the consequences, what would be my obligations. It was a conscious decision on my part to be the president.

This browser settings will not support to add bookmarks programmatically. Please press Ctrl+D or change settings to bookmark this page.
The Week

Related Reading