Modi a one-man show, unable to trust his own shadow: Congress's Jairam Ramesh

Jairam Ramesh's new book, To The Brink and Back: India's 1991 Story, is an insider's account of how former prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao pulled India back from the brink in 1991, and of the highs and lows of the man pitchforked into the hot seat from wilderness. Among many things, it contains lessons for Prime Minister Narendra Modi on how to manage reform. Jairam says there are many things Rao's handling of the acute economic crisis could teach Modi:

1. Superb outreach in those early months: "Look at the debates in Parliament those days. He and Manmohan Singh were attacked viciously but they didn't run away. They heard patiently and gave back in good measure. Rao also got the support of eminent economists-P.N. Dhar, I.G. Patel, M. Narasimhan and R.N. Malhotra for the reforms."

2. Effective communication: "Rao listened. He knew he was intellectually superior but he never let on and was never in your face like Modi."

3. Great team: "Manmohan Singh and Principal Secretary Amar Nath Verma provided day-to-day leadership. Modi is a one-man show, unable to trust even his own shadow."

From the magazine: Inside the complex mind of India's forgotten PM

Jairam also reveals many aspects of Rao's personality, his strengths, such as picking the right people for the right jobs, as well as his weaknesses, such as his strange fascination for self styled godman Chandraswami.

In an exclusive interview to India Today Editor at Large Kaveree Bamzai, he explains more:

Q. What are the five lessons Modi could learn from Narasimha Rao?

I think Narasimha Rao's outreach was superb in those early months. He listened. He knew he was intellectually superior but he never let on and was never in your face like Modi. Look at the debates in Parliament those days. He and Manmohan Singh were attacked viciously but they didn't run away. They heard patiently and gave back in good measure. Of course, there was a team functioning with Manmohan Singh and Amar Nath Verma providing day-to-day leadership. Modi is a one man show unable to trust even his own shadow.

Q. You say Rao was much misunderstood because he did much to be misunderstood. But was that the only reason he was discarded by the Congress? Wasn't there a personal animosity with Sonia Gandhi?

I don't think so at all. I saw the tremendous respect that Mrs. Gandhi showed to Narasimha Rao at the Congress plenary in Bengaluru in March 2001. Of course, the events of December 6th, 1992 created huge problems for Narasimha Rao within the Congress party. The manner in which he handled the Jain hawala case accentuated these problems. Why should there be personal animosity when by all accounts it was Mrs. Gandhi herself who had agreed to Narasimha Rao becoming Congress president after the tragic assassination of Rajiv Gandhi on May 21st 1991?

Q. What do you think of Yashwant Sinha's claim to be the first reformer?

I have dealt with this claim in my book. He was the first to speak of the fiscal deficit. He was the first to propose a bold disinvestment in public sector companies. But he was against the industrial policy reforms of July 24th 1991. He voiced these criticisms in the Rajya Sabha on the 7th of August 1991. And he and Subramanian Swamy couldn't push through trade policy reforms like Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh did on July 4th, 1991.

Q. Manmohan Singh was so decisive in the Rao years. Do you think he was equally decisive in UPA 1 and UPA 2?

UPA-1 and UPA-2 were coalitions. Political circumstances were totally different. but look at the courage and vision he demonstrated on the nuclear agreement with the United States of America or for that matter on the issue of FDI in multi-brand retail. Don't forget under Dr. Manmohan Singh's tenure as prime minister, GDP growth averaged around 7.5 per cent per year over a decade, a phenomenal achievement by any standard.

Q. Why were you dropped from the PMO?

I have written about this in the book. it remains a mystery to me as it was to A. N. Verma as well. There are different theories and Narasimha Rao himself gave me some gobbledygook explanation to make me feel good.

Q. Why was Narasimha Rao so decisive on the reforms and so seemingly indecisive on Ayodhya?

The two cannot be equated. They are entirely different issues. I have no personal knowledge of his actions on Ayodhya other than that what I have read. Naresh Chandra perhaps is the best person to comment on this question since he was cabinet secretary when the reforms were launched and was Rao's advisor on Ayodhya thereafter.

Q. How different is 2015 from 1991? We may not have a devaluation crisis but don't we have a make or break situation? What does India need now? Or let me put it another way, what would Rao do now?

Today's situation is entirely different. There is no 1991-type default looming large. Our foreign exchange reserves are plentiful and our external debt situation manageable. We are in the plus 7% growth zone as well. The fundamentals of the economy are sound and strong because of the Rao-Singh reforms of 1991 and the infrastructure created in different areas in earlier periods. I would argue that it is this infrastructure created during the 50s and thereafter that enabled the economy to rebound quickly within two years of an unprecedented crisis in 1991 and move ahead subsequently. we tend to overlook the pre-1991 roots of the post-1991 success.

Q. Can Rao not be placed in the pantheon of Congress leaders, where he deserves to be?

Of course he is very much there. Look at our manifesto for instance. He is very much there along with other Congress prime ministers. read his speeches---they are full of respect and admiration for the Congress traditions and the Congress legacy.

Q. What are your plans now? What is the next book?

I am working on three books now--on Andhra reorganisation, on rights-based legislation during 2004-14 and on the Maoist challenge.

Q. There seems to be a resurgence of interest in Rao. Why?

A fine young scholar from Princeton, Vinay Sitapati, is writing a comprehensive biography and this should be out next year. His five years as prime minister saw profound changes in economic policy, in foreign policy and in troubled areas like J&K, Punjab and Nagaland. So it is good he is evoking interest. We need more such works on other political leaders as well.