Did 'absolutely right thing' in 2002: Narendra Modi

July 12, 2013
modiNarendra Modi is a polarising figure, evoking visceral reactions across the political spectrum. Critics call him a dictator while supporters believe he could make India an Asian superpower.

Reuters spoke to Modi at his official Gandhinagar residence in a rare interview, the first since he was appointed head of the BJP’s election campaign in June.

Here are edited excerpts from the interview. The questions are paraphrased and some of Modi’s replies have been translated from Hindi.

Is it frustrating that many people still define you by 2002?

People have a right to be critical. We are a democratic country. Everyone has their own view. I would feel guilty if I did something wrong. Frustration comes when you think “I got caught. I was stealing and I got caught.” That’s not my case.

Do you regret what happened?

I’ll tell you. India’s Supreme Court is considered a good court today in the world. The Supreme Court created a special investigative team (SIT) and top-most, very bright officers who overlook the SIT. That report came. In that report, I was given a thoroughly clean chit, a thoroughly clean chit. Another thing, any person if we are driving a car, we are a driver, and someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is. If I’m a chief minister or not, I’m a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad.

Should your government have responded differently?

Up till now, we feel that we used our full strength to set out to do the right thing.

But do you think you did the right thing in 2002?

Absolutely. However much brainpower the Supreme Being has given us, however much experience I’ve got, and whatever I had available in that situation and this is what the SIT had investigated.

Do you believe India should have a secular leader?

We do believe that … But what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is, India first. I say, the philosophy of my party is ‘Justice to all. Appeasement to none.’ This is our secularism.

Critics say you are an authoritarian, supporters say you are a decisive leader. Who is the real Modi?

If you call yourself a leader, then you have to be decisive. If you’re decisive then you have the chance to be a leader. These are two sides to the same coin … People want him to make decisions. Only then they accept the person as a leader. That is a quality, it’s not a negative. The other thing is, if someone was an authoritarian then how would he be able to run a government for so many years? … Without a team effort how can you get success? And that’s why I say Gujarat’s success is not Modi’s success. This is the success of Team Gujarat.

What about the suggestion that you don’t take criticism?

I always say the strength of democracy lies in criticism. If there is no criticism that means there is no democracy. And if you want to grow, you must invite criticism. And I want to grow, I want to invite criticism. But I’m against allegations. There is a vast difference between criticism and allegations. For criticism, you have to research, you’ll have to compare things, you’ll have to come with data, factual information, then you can criticize. Now no one is ready to do the hard work. So the simple way is to make allegations. In a democracy, allegations will never improve situations. So, I’m against allegations but I always welcome criticism.

On his popularity in opinion polls

I can say that since 2003, in however many polls have been done, people have selected me as the best chief minister. And as best chief minister, it wasn’t just people from Gujarat who liked me, not like that. People outside of Gujarat have also voted like that for me. One time, I wrote a letter to the India Today Group’s Aroon Purie. I requested him – “Every time I’m a winner, so next time please drop Gujarat, so someone else gets a chance. Or else I’m just winning. Please keep me out of the competition. And besides me, give someone else a shot at it.”

Allies and people within the BJP say you are too polarizing a figure

If in America, if there’s no polarization between Democrats and Republicans, then how would democracy work? It’s bound (to happen). In a democracy there will be a polarization between Democrats and Republicans.

This is democracy’s basic nature. It’s the basic quality of democracy. If everyone moved in one direction, would you call that a democracy?

But allies and partners still find you controversial

Up till now, no one from my party or the people who are allied with us, I’ve never read nor heard any official statement (about this from them). It might have been written about in the media. They write in a democracy … and if you have any name that this person is there in the BJP who said this, then I can respond.

How will you persuade minorities including Muslims to vote for you?

First thing, to Hindustan’s citizens, to voters, Hindus and Muslims, I’m not in favour of dividing. I’m not in favour of dividing Hindus and Sikhs. I’m not in favour of dividing Hindus and Christians. All the citizens, all the voters, are my countrymen. So my basic philosophy is, I don’t address this issue like this. And that is a danger to democracy also. Religion should not be an instrument in your democratic process.

If you become PM, which leader would you emulate?

The first thing is, my life’s philosophy is and what I follow is: I never dream of becoming anything. I dream of doing something. So to be inspired by my role models, I don’t need to become anything. If I want to learn something from Vajpayee, then I can just implement that in Gujarat. For that, I don’t have to have dreams of (higher office in) Delhi. If I like something about Sardar Patel, then I can implement that in my state. If I like something about Gandhiji, then I can implement that. Without talking about the Prime Minister’s seat, we can still discuss, that yes, from each one we have to learn the good things.

On the goals the next government should achieve

Look, whichever new government comes to power, that government’s first goal will be to fix the confidence that is broken in people.

The government tries to push a policy. Will it continue that policy or not? In two months, if they face pressure, will they change it? Will they do something like — an event happens now and they’ll change a decision from 2000? If you change decisions from the past, you will bring the policy back-effects. Who in the world will come here?

So whichever government comes to power, it would need to give people confidence, it should build the trust in people, “yes, in policies there will be consistency”, if they promise people something, they will honor that promise, they will fulfil. Then you can position yourself globally.

People say economic development in Gujarat is hyped up

In a democracy, who is the final judge? The final judge is the voter. If this was just hype, if this was all noise, then the public would see it every day. “Modi said he would deliver water.” But then he would say “Modi is lying. The water hasn’t reached.” Then why would he like Modi? In India’s vibrant democracy system, and in the presence of vibrant political parties, if someone chooses him for the third time, and he gets close to a two-third majority then people feel what is being said is true. Yes, the road is being paved, yes, work is being done, children are being educated. There are new things coming for health. 108 (emergency number) service is available. They see it all. So that’s why someone might say hype or talk, but the public won’t believe them. The public will reject it. And the public has a lot of strength, a lot.

Should you be doing more for inclusive economic growth?

Gujarat is a state that people have a lot of expectations from. We’re doing a good job, that’s why the expectations are high. As they should be. Nothing is wrong.

On indicators like malnutrition, infant mortality

Infant mortality has improved tremendously in Gujarat, tremendously. Compared to every other state in Hindustan, we are a better performing state. Second thing, malnutrition, in Hindustan today, real-time data is not available. When you don’t have real time data, how are you going to analyse?

We do believe in inclusive growth, we do believe that the benefits of this development must reach to the last person and they must be the beneficiary. So this is what we’re doing.

People want to know who is the real Modi – Hindu nationalist leader or pro-business chief minister?

I’m nationalist. I’m patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I’m a born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So, I’m a Hindu nationalist so yes, you can say I’m a Hindu nationalist because I’m a born Hindu. I’m patriotic so nothing is wrong in it. As far as progressive, development-oriented, workaholic, whatever they say, this is what they are saying. So there’s no contradiction between the two. It’s one and the same image.

On Brand Modi and people behind the PR strategy

The western world and India – there’s a huge difference between them. Here, India is such a country that a PR agency will not be able to make a person into anything. Media can’t make anything of a person. If someone tries to project a false face in India, then my country reacts badly to it. Here, people’s thinking is different. People won’t tolerate hypocrisy for very long. If you project yourself the way you actually are, then people will accept even your shortcomings. Man’s weaknesses are accepted. And they’ll say, yes, okay, he’s genuine, he works hard. So our country’s thinking is different. As far as a PR agency is concerned, I have never looked at or listened to or met a PR agency. Modi does not have a PR agency. Never have I kept one.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: The government on Wednesday permitted NRIs to own up to 100 per cent stake in disinvestment-bound Air India.

The decision comes at a time when the government is looking to sell 100 per cent stake sale in the national carrier.

Union minister Prakash Javadekar said the Cabinet has approved allowing Non-Residents Indians (NRIs) to hold up to 100 per cent stake in Air India.

Allowing 100 per cent investment by Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the carrier would also not be in violation of SOEC norms. NRI investments would be treated as domestic investments.

Under the Substantial Ownership and Effective Control (SOEC) framework, which is followed in the airline industry globally, a carrier that flies overseas from a particular country should be substantially owned by that country's government or its nationals.

Currently, NRIs can acquire only 49 per cent in Air India. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the airline is also 49 per cent through the government approval route.

As per the existing norms, 100 per cent FDI is permitted in scheduled domestic carriers, subject to certain conditions, including that it would not be applicable for overseas airlines.

In the case of scheduled airlines, 49 per cent FDI is permitted through automatic approval route and any such investment beyond that level requires government nod.

On January 27, the government came out witha Preliminary Information Memorandum (PIM) for Air India disinvestment. It has proposed selling 100 per cent stake in Air India along with budget airline Air India Express and the national carrier's 50 per cent stake in AISATS, an equal joint venture with Singapore Airlines.

Under the latest disinvestment plan, the successful bidder would have to take over only debt worth Rs 23,286.5 crore while the liabilities would be decided depending on current assets at the time of closing of the transaction.

This is the second attempt by the government in as many years to divest Air India, which has been in the red for long.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 23,2020

New Delhi, May 23: The nationwide lockdown will no longer help India in its fight against COVID-19, and in its place community-driven containment, isolation and quarantine strategies have to be brought into play, leading virologist Shahid Jameel said.

The recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology also stressed that testing should be carried out vigorously to identify coronavirus hotspots and isolate those areas.

"Our current testing rate at 1,744 tests per million population is one of the lowest in the world. We should deploy both antibody tests and confirmatory PCR tests. This will tell us about pockets of ongoing infection and past (recovered) infection. This will provide data to open up gradually and let economic activity resume," Jameel told PTI in an interview.

He stressed that testing has to be dynamic to continuously monitor red, orange and green zones and change these based on that data.

About community transmission of COVID-19 in India, Jameel said the country reached that stage long ago.

"We reached community transmission a long time ago. It's just that the health authorities are not admitting it. Even ICMR's own study of SARI (severe acute respiratory illness) showed that about 40 per cent of those who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 did not have any history of overseas travel or contact to a known case. If this is not community transmission, then what is?" he posed.

Lockdown bought India time in its fight against coronavirus, but continuing it is unlikely to yield any further dividend, Jameel said.

"Instead, community-driven local lockdowns, isolations and quarantines have to come into play. Building trust is most important so that people follow rules. A public health problem cannot be dealt with as a law-and-order problem."

The nationwide lockdown, initially imposed from March 25 to April 14, has been extended thrice and will continue at least till May 31. The virus has claimed 3,720 lives and infected over 1.25 lakh people in the country so far.

Jameel has expertise in the fields of molecular biology, infectious diseases, and biotechnology. He is the CEO of Wellcome Trust/Department of Biotechnology's India Alliance and is best known for extensive research in Hepatitis E virus and HIV.

He said COVID-19 will eventually be controlled through herd immunity, which is acquired in two ways – when a sufficient fraction of the population gets infected and recovers, and with vaccination.

"It is estimated that for SARS-CoV-2 at least 60 per cent of the population would have to be infected and recovered, or vaccinated. This will happen over the course of the next few years," Jameel said.

Herd immunity is reached when the majority of a population becomes immune to an infectious disease, either because they have become infected and recovered, or through vaccination. When that happens, the disease is less likely to spread to people who aren't immune, because there just aren't enough infectious carriers.

"India has 1.38 billion people, a population density of about 400/sq km and a healthcare system ranked at 143 in the world. If we allow 60 per cent people to get infected quickly in the hopes of herd immunity, that would mean 830 million infections," Jameel said.

"If 15 per cent need hospitalization that means about 125 million isolation beds (we have 0.3 million). If five per cent need oxygen and ventilatory support, this amounts to about 42 million oxygen support and ICU beds; we have 0.1 million oxygen support beds and 34,000 ICU beds. This would overwhelm the healthcare system causing mayhem," he said.

Jameel said if the population level mortality is 0.5 per cent that would mean 40 lakh deaths. "Are we prepared to pay this price for herd immunity in the short term? Clearly not," he said.

He said it is unlikely that a vaccine would be available by the end of the year.

"Even then, we don't know yet how long it would give protection – weeks, months, one year, a few years? I don't think we will return to pre-coronavirus days for at least the next 3-5 years. This is also a chance to evaluate if we want to return to those unsustainable, environment-damaging ways. COVID-19 is a timely warning to reform our way of living," he said.

Jameel said it is hard to predict but plausible that COVID-19 would return in second or third wave.

"Later waves come when we don't understand the disease and become lax. A comparison to Spanish Flu is not entirely valid because in 1918 no one knew what caused it. No one had seen a virus till the mid-1930s as the electron microscope needed to view those was invented in 1931," he said.

"Today we know a lot more about the pathogen, its genetic makeup, how it transmits and how to prevent it. We need to be sensible and follow expert advice," he said.

If there is any scientific evidence linking deforestation, rapid urbanisation, climate change with pandemics like COVID-19, he said zoonotic viruses -- those that jump from animals to humans -- happen so when wild animal–human contacts increase.

"Deforestation destroys animal habitats bringing them closer to humans. When you cut forests, bats come to roost on trees closer to human habitations. Their viruses in secretions/stool get transmitted to domestic animals and on to humans. This happened clearly with Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia in 1997-98 from fruit bats to pigs to humans," he said.

"COVID-19 possibly arose in wet animal markets due to dietary habits that bring all kinds of live and dead wild animals in close contact with humans," Jameel added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 29,2020

Kochi, Feb 29: When Major Abdul Rahim, a soldier in the Afghan army, died in a bomb blast in Kabul on February 19, a tear was shed for him in far away Ernakulam district of Kerala.

The major had received a transplant of hands from Eloor native T G Joseph back in 2015, and the latter’s family had grown attached to the Afghan soldier.

Maj. Abdul Rahim, a bomb disposal expert, had lost his hands in an explosion in 2012. For three years thereafter, he struggled with his handicap. Then, when 54-year-old Joseph passed away in a road accident, it was decided to give his hands to the Afghan major.

The transplant procedure was successfully performed by a team of doctors led by Dr. Subrahmania Iyer at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences in Kochi.

After the transplant and an intensive spell of physiotherapy, Abdul Rahim could regain a considerable part of his hands’ functions. He rejoined the army and returned to defuse bombs in his war-torn country.

In gratitude, Major Abdul Rahim would visit Kochi every year to meet Joseph’s family. 

“We were shocked to hear of the demise of Major Abdul Rahim. Though Joseph left us, a part of him lived on. Abdul Rahim was a living memorial for us. Whenever he came to the Amrita institute for a consultation, we used to visit him,” Joseph’s wife was quoted as saying by Mathrubhoomi daily.

Major Abdul Rahim struck up a good friendship with his predecessor, in a way of speaking: the first person to have had a successful hand transplant at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences. T R Manu became a close friend of the Afghan solider and kept regularly in touch.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.