Click to play videoKaran Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. The Prime Minister’s comments to the National Development Council (NDC) have created a storm of controversy. Did he make a mistake, or was he misunderstood? That’s the key issue that I shall raise today in an exclusive interview with Panchayati Raj Minister and a champion of secularism, Mani Shankar Aiyar.
Minister, let me start with a simple question. When at the NDC the PM said, “They must have first claim on resources,” who was the ‘they’ he was referring to?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: It’s obvious from the context that he was referring to the disadvantaged groups in our society.
Karan Thapar: Well, you say ‘it’s obvious’. What’s absolutely clear is that the word ‘they’ refers to an entity he would have mentioned earlier on. Would it be the entity mentioned in the preceding sentence, in the sentence before that or two sentences earlier on?
Aiyar says the uproar over PM's comment at NDC was a "contrived storm".
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Those who are motivated of raising a storm of words have decided to concentrate on the previous sentence. And those who are not interested in raising a storm but dealing with a social problem take whole of the context. Perhaps the PM should have found the kind of speechwriter that Rajiv Gandhi had. I don’t think - I really honestly don’t think - that there is any cause for this storm of controversy. It’s a contrived storm.
Karan Thapar: Let me pursue and tell you why it is not a contrived storm. Because if the PM was really referring not to the preceding sentence, but a sentence occurred two sentences earlier, then surely, to clarify matters, he should have said ‘all of the above’, or he should have spelt out what he was talking about. Not to do so, but instead use the word ‘they’, is misleading.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: But, on the other hand, only those who wish to bake a kind of political capital out of misprojecting what was said would need to be told this.
Karan Thapar: It’s not true. And the reason it’s not true is because, every single English newspaper and practically every single Hindi paper next day interrupted the PM to be talking about minorities and, specifically, the Muslim minorities. And given that every paper did that, clearly they won’t be doing it because they are being mischievous. They won’t be doing it because they were, in other words, having a conspiracy. They were misled.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, they were doing it because there was a time context in addition to the word context. The Sachar Committee Report had just come out and it revealed a very disturbing truth about our society.
Karan Thapar: All the more reason for the PM to have spoken with more care, to have used this word with great particularness.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Well, as I have already mentioned that I am not responsible for speech writing.
Karan Thapar: So, are you accepting that this is, therefore, a poorly-written speech?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, no. The speech was an outstanding one and those who do not have a arrière-pensée in their minds could see the reference, even if it was to Muslims, points to an issue that I think we need to address.
Karan Thapar: It is not just every single newspaper that was misled by the PM, but your own Cabinet colleagues interpreted the PM exactly as the papers did. They took him to the conclusion that he was talking specifically about minorities. Let me read to you what A R Antulay said - “I agree with him completely, because the Sachar Committee with its report has held a mirror to India.”
Mani Shankar Aiyar:Please add my name to that.
Karan Thapar: You did too?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No. I didn’t say it then, but now I agree with him completely because of the Sachar Committee Report.
Karan Thapar: Except for the problem that you and Antulay are agreed with something that the PM doesn’t agree with. See this is why I am raising this issue. Because 24 hours after Antulay said he agree with the PM, you say it today and Kapil Sibal said the same thing too.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, no. I am sorry. I said, I agree with Mr Antulay.
Karan Thapar: Okay. But Mr Antulay was agreeing with the PM or he thought what the PM had said. 24 hours later, the PMO issued a public statement, released to all the papers and TV, where it said, “This was a deliberate and mischievous misinterpretation,” which clearly suggests that Antulay and Kapil Sibal were part of the mischievous interpretation.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Now, if you wish to make a storm over whether these words were right or wrong…
Karan Thapar: But now the PMO and its clarification are making the storm.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Also, you can’t have a programme without a storm. I want to make it completely clear that the PM intended to include all the disadvantaged groups and it was appropriate that special attention should be given to one of these disadvantaged groups, whose extent of disadvantage had just been brought into the public realm by an extraordinarily important report presented by Justice Sachar.
Karan Thapar: You see, when you said at that length, I didn’t deliberately interpret you, the meaning becomes crystal clear. But when you think it’s actually expressed, by the misleading use of this single pro-ante, it leads exactly to the confusion. Given that confusion arose, shouldn’t the PMO, instead of calling it a deliberate mischief, have actually issued a statement to say, “This was poor language, this was an inadvertent error. This is what the PM meant” and left it to that. Accept the mistake and get over with it.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I am not the speech-writer. I am also not the writer of clarificatory statements.
Karan Thapar: So you disown twice?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Yes…
Karan Thapar: You also accepted that the clarification along the line that I pointed out would have been advisable?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I really think the more important, more relevant issue is whether when the storm of controversy was raised, it was right to use the kind of language that LK Advani and his cohorts used. Can we get to that?
Karan Thapar: Within a moment’s time. But first let me persist with this. If a PM’s speech is to be understood, it needs to be subjected to textual or syntactical exegeses. Then you must admit that it’s not the sort of speech any politician, leave aside the PM, is proud of making. PM needs to be crystal clear. You don’t need to go through the context to discover what in the earth the man wants to say.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: But I was there, and it never occurred to me that it would have been interpreted in this manner. So, while there may be scope for improving the grammar and the language, let’s get to the substance to the issue.
Karan Thapar: You concede that the language and the grammar were not as good and clear as they could have been?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Well, yes.
Karan Thapar: You concede that? Because the PMO’s clarification didn’t. You concede it?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I am not the speech-writer, I am not the preparer of the clarificatory statement. I am here to answer you on the storm of controversy raised later.
Karan Thapar: Let me raise one other issue with you. If, in fact, the PMO’s explanation is correct that the PM was referring to SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, women and children, it then follows that the only category that was excluded were Indian men. Now, tell me is it fair and fitting that the Indian men should not have the first claim on the resources in the country?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, it does not exclude Indian men…
Karan Thapar: Quite right. OBC, SC/ST men are included by their minority status and similarly Muslim, Christian, Jain, Sikh, Buddhists are included because they are legit. Who are really excluded, and I was coming to that, are upper caste Hindu men, because they are the only category that doesn’t fit into the PM’s broad description. Now is that fitting and fair?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: It’s completely fitting and fair when you are thinking in terms of social categories. Do not look at individuals within a social category, but the general status of that category. First and foremost in economic terms, also in terms of social, educational and cultural empowerment. Now the fact of the matter is that in our society, an overwhelming proportion of those who have done well, belong to the category, which has traditionally been higher in the social hierarchy.
Karan Thapar: Permit me an interruption to prove that you are overlooking 10 per cent of upper caste men, who fall below the poverty line according to NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation) 61st round 2004 and 2005 figures. And I am talking about 20 million. Those 20 millions are now doubly disadvantaged - first by economic status and secondly because they are not in PM’s priority.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: The paragraph refers to a priority claim on resources.
Karan Thapar: Right. And the upper caste men don’t have that priority claim, though they are below the poverty line?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: The priority claim does not constitute an exclusive claim.
Karan Thapar: Well, it constitutes a first claim and you are saying that the 20 million upper caste men, who are below the poverty line?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: They don’t have a first claim as per social category. If you read not only the rest of the speech… You must in the Devil’s Advocate give an opportunity for the divine representatives to say a word. I think it is extremely unfair that you conduct this in such a manner as to show the audience that you are the clever one. Please give us an opportunity.
Karan Thapar: Mr Aiyar, just because I have boxed you into a corner, you are turning the table.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, you have not boxed me into a corner. Just allow me to finish what I am saying.
Karan Thapar: Okay. Go ahead.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I am saying, when we are dealing with social categories, they are recognisable in the Indian society and they are the disadvantageous sections. When we are dealing with economic categories, such as who are below poverty line and who are above, all of the rest of the speech, most of the approach is designed to include those who are excluded from the growth process, irrespective of their individual social category status.
Karan Thapar: Let me tell you that the message, therefore, for upper caste males who are excluded is the following: “That you are not in the social category, you are in the economic category, so they must say themselves, ‘oh dear, I don’t fit into two, I only fit into one, I perfectly understand where I am included, despite the fact that I am below the poverty line, despite the fact I need a system, despite the fact I am an Indian citizen.” I don’t think your words will be of any comfort to them. You provided to their eyes a rather pseudo-sophistical justification for the fact that the PM forgot them. I am saying it is so much easy to turn around and say that there was a mistake in that speech.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I don’t agree to you at all.
Karan Thapar: How could you?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Because I am sitting in this chair instead of that chair. That’s all. Now please take this seriously. There is a speech that consists of several paragraphs, dealing with a paper that runs to several pages. In all of those, it is made completely clear that the poverty alleviation leading to poverty eradication is the objective of the exercise. In the course of presenting that, he also says something that is well-known to most Indians, if not necessarily to yourself, that there are large numbers of social categories which together might even add up to a majority. Which are historically and sociologically disadvantaged in the country. Among those traditional categories, which have been repeatedly mentioned without any controversy has been the Muslims. And the storm of controversy has been brought about by a political party and a political leader, who are communal, communal-minded and have a communal…
Karan Thapar: So. BJP is to blame for the fact that upper caste males feel left out?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I don’t think upper caste males feel left out.
Karan Thapar: Those below the poverty line, 20 million of them are going to feel left out.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Oh yeah? I don’t. I am an upper caste.
Karan Thapar: But not below the poverty line.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Yes. But even if I were…
Karan Thapar: If you were, then your views would be different.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No. Because the storm of controversy has been kicked up exclusively and entirely by the Hindutva forces…
Karan Thapar: All these newspapers that I have shown you are Hindutva?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: They have not kicked up a frenzy. The storm of controversy, which we are talking about, is a storm kicked up in Parliament by the Hindutva forces led by the BJP and Advani.
Karan Thapar: Mr Minister, let’s come to the substance behind PM’s comments. Does the government believe that India’s minorities, and particularly within that the Muslims, have a first claim on the resources?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: They are among several social categories, who ought to have a priority claim on resources by virtue of the fact that the Sachar Committee was set up to ascertain what their economic and social status was and what their representation was in government services. And the report throws up two very interesting facets. On the one hand, they really are a deprived community on several different indices and secondly, that there has been some successes in pulling a substantial number of Muslims above the poverty line but still leaving them extremely poor.
Karan Thapar: Let me point out the only problem the people have. No one could contest that Muslims need special attention and special care, but when you say ‘a section of India’, be it Muslims, be it minorities, be it a larger commodity, when you say a section of India has a first claim, ipso facto everyone else become second-class citizens.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, not at all. If you say the poor have a claim on our resources, does that make the rich second-class citizen?
Karan Thapar: That’s different to saying a first claim.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: The first claim or priority claim must necessarily in language have a second claim and a less priority claim.
Karan Thapar: That’s the problem. Everyone becomes the second claimant. You are making my problem from me.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, I am not. You are trying to extinguish the claim.
Karan Thapar: I am not extinguishing it. I am saying everyone should have equal claim. Why can’t they have equal claim? Why can’t you say the government will ensure it’s equal - it hasn’t been equal up till now, we will make it equal?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: I am so glad that they have not made you the PM. Would you have an equal claim for poor and rich? Between the disadvantaged and the advantaged? Between those, who have a better opportunity and those who have a less opportunity? What kind of a mental attitude does this Devil’s Advocate have? Are you the Devil’s Advocate or are you the devil?
Karan Thapar: Possibly the devil and as well as the Devil’s Advocate, if that would please you. But let me answer your question. You see it’s not the distinction between the poor and rich for the simple reason that the government isn’t targeting people in terms of their poverty and economic status. You are targeting them, instead, in terms of their social status. And there are many in that social status who are not poor and yet would benefit. Which is why you have the opposite situation, which I have talked about - upper caste males who are poor, below the poverty line and being ignored. Were you to target the people in terms of poverty, no one would complain.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Now, let me please tell you: do you know that 95 per cent of the approach paper and more than 95 per cent of the PM’s speech was in terms of economic category? In this one paragraph, which gives you the opportunity for conducting this interview, there is a reference to a whole series of social categories, whose relevance to planning has been well-recognised. The new category introduced is Muslims and it has been done on the basis of a scientific study.
Karan Thapar: Forgive me. You referred to a whole category of people - these include women, not all women are by any means poor, it includes children, not all children are poor, it in fact includes minorities, not all minorities are poor. Some minorities, arguably the Parsis, are substantially rich. So, clearly, it is not in terms of poverty.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: Why don’t you continue? It includes OBCs, some of whom are rich. It includes SCs, some of which are rich. It includes STs, some of which are rich…
Karan Thapar: But it excludes poor upper castes, who are below poverty lines, males, who need attention.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: It does not exclude them as an economic category, it excludes them as a social category. And Karan, if you are going to be fair, which is not of course your vocation, you will have to accept…
Karan Thapar: Do you realise that every time you speak in that manner, you are indicating to the audience that rather than answering the question, you are becoming personal to the interviewer? Is it because you feel you don’t have a proper defence? Because it is your prerogative to be rude. But is that the reason you are being so?
Mani Shankar Aiyar: No, I think if you can be rude, I can be rude. I want to draw attention, whether I succeed or not let the audience decide, to the fact that the approach paper, that much of the PM’s speech does deal with economic categories. But where he refers to social categories, all these are well-recognised, well-established social categories, except perhaps for the introduction of the word minorities, which is based upon a specific, scientific and objective study, whose validity even you cannot deny.
Karan Thapar: I end by saying that the defence that the PMO and perhaps in the sense the defence you are putting up today yourself, echo to my mind Humpty Dumpty in the Allice in Wonderland, who said, “I use words to mean what I want them to mean.” Which is perfect, except that it makes conversation very difficult and it leads to misunderstanding. Surely that’s the problem in it.
Mani Shankar Aiyar: It’s a great pleasure to meet ‘Humpty Dumpty’ Karan Thapar.
Karan Thapar: Mani Shankar Aiyar, it is a great pleasure talking to you.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.