Indians are not racist: Pawar

How does Union Agriculture Minister and BCCI chief Sharad Pawar respond to Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray saying that he is prime ministerial material and criticism of the way he handled the Harbhajan Singh controversy? These are the issues I will raise with him today.

Karan Thapar: There is increasing criticism that the BCCI and perhaps you personally as president have not handled the issue as effectively as you should have. On reflection, do you think you could have handled it better?

Sharad Pawar: No, in fact the whole country is saying that we handled it in a better way. We protected the interest of the country, (we) protected the prestige of the players. The main thing was we can accept anything, but it is very difficult to digest that Indian player - if anybody calls him a racist.

(India is) the country, which has always fought against racism. Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the Nation, started his movement in South Africa against racism and from there the rest of India took inspiration. So this (racism allegation) is not just acceptable.

Karan Thapar: Let us examine the criticism. To begin with was it fitting that you, as President of BCCI, should have said that if the verdict in the appeal that you yourself lodged didn't go in your favour you would call back the team from Australia?

Sharad Pawar: I have not said that exactly but I did say that it would be difficult for our players to play with the charge that they are racist.

Karan Thapar: This is what you said. The Indian Express quoted you on January 29: "The Indian board has taken a decision that if the charges are not dropped then the team would come back to India." And (BCCI official) Lalit Modi said the same thing as well.

Sharad Pawar: Lalit might have said but the BCCI never decided that. The BCCI board has authorised me to take appropriate action. I don't know what exactly appeared in the media.

Karan Thapar: The media was wrong, was it?

Sharad Pawar: No, I don't say that. I did say it would be difficult for us to digest a charge of (being) racist and play on the ground.

Karan Thapar: Many people concluded that when the board took this decision what you were doing was throwing your financial weight around. Some people even felt that the Indian cricket board was attempting to blackmail the ICC and Cricket Australia.

Sharad Pawar: Where does the question of blackmailing come up? We are not blackmailing anybody. How will we be able to blackmail anybody - where is the question of finances? I can't understand why again and again this issue of finances is raised.

It is very funny in our country. When the entire episode - the controversy - started the media was attacking BCCI left and right, saying they are not taking (the team's) side. Now when the entire issue has been resolved amicably and we got a real good decision from the judge, so immediately certain sections in the media started saying 'BCCI bulldozed', this and that.

Karan Thapar: You are absolutely right. Let me quote to you the Business Standard: "This is no way in which India's cricketing establishment should conducting itself." And even Justice (John) Hansen, in the judgment that went in your favour, commented that the decision that you would withdraw your team if the judgment had gone against you was a great disservice to the game.

Sharad Pawar: But who says that this decision was taken? I don't know on what basis the gentleman is making that type of statement. We never took a decision like this. There was no specific decision that we had to do this, this, this.

Karan Thapar: So the press has misrepresented you?

Sharad Pawar: The board authorised me to take an appropriate decision.

Karan Thapar: So there was no threat of withdrawing if the verdict went against you?

Sharad Pawar: There was no decision to withdraw the team, but definitely there was uneasiness in the players. If suppose the situation comes to play with the charge of racism, that uneasiness was there - I don't deny.

Karan Thapar: You are suggesting there was no formal decision to withdraw the team but you held it out as a possible threat.

Sharad Pawar: No, it was not a threat. Neither had we taken any decision but we cannot just bypass the felling of the players.

Karan Thapar: A second criticism arose out of your announcement that any new evidence against Harbhajan Singh would not be acceptable to you. If Jagdish Tytler can be retried on the basis of evidence that has come 23 years later, why should new evidence in the case of Harbhajan Singh not be acceptable?

Sharad Pawar: There is a vast difference between the Jagdish Tytler case and here. In normal, all legal systems collection of evidence and testing of evidence are always done at a lower court.

When the issue goes to higher or appealing court then the entire material proceedings goes to appeal court and then judge has to assess. If supposing the Supreme Court starts collecting evidence in cases which happened somewhere in the states, that it not correct (and) that is not accepted.

Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that if you had new evidence which proved that Harbhajan Singh was guilty of what he was accused of then to deny its admissibility will only exonerate Harbhajan technically. Morally and comprehensively people would say he is guilty.

Sharad Pawar: No, no. We are absolutely confident that he has not uttered this type of word. That is why we consulted the players like Sachin Tendulkar, who was himself on the crease. I have been told that is not at all correct - not an iota of truth, this particular word was never used.

Yes, there was some gaali - galauch (swearing), some heated discussion, which was not proper and which we don't like. We communicated to players that enough is enough and we should not get these types of complaints. But the word, which comes under the definition of racism, was not uttered, that was the information given to us.

Karan Thapar: A third area of criticism was your comment made on the evening of Monday, January 28, to the press when you said an Indian cannot be racist. Now you know Indians can be racist. Why did you say that?

Sharad Pawar: Because it is very difficult for me to accept what you say - that Indians are racist. No!

Karan Thapar: Mr Pawar, not only Indians are capable of being racist but Africans often say that Indians are among the most racist people in the world.

Sharad Pawar: I don't know. I don't treat my own people like this and I am not ready to accept that charge against the people of this country.

Karan Thapar: You don't believe that Indians are ever racist?

Sharad Pawar: I don't think that Indians are born, brought up with that type of thinking and that type of liking. No.

Karan Thapar: Harbhajan Singh has accepted that he used an unacceptable Punjabi swearword. Why didn't he admit to this in the beginning and not let the situation build up?

Sharad Pawar: No, no. He admitted in the beginning. 'Yes I have said this, this, this'. He said that, he admitted to that. And that was part of the evidence.

Karan Thapar: Then why didn't the BCCI at the very outset, four weeks ago, say look, you misunderstood. He never said monkey, he used a Punjabi phrase maa ki. They sound the same but in fact they are not. If that had been clarified the problem wouldn't have built up.

Sharad Pawar: You see when the matter is sub judice, why make public statements?

Karan Thapar: But you could have nipped the problem in the bud, instead it became a huge controversy.

Sharad Pawar: The controversy is not from our side; controversy has been started from the other side. The (Australian) players come together and make allegation that such a thing has happened. Not a single umpire has heard; there were three people on the ground (but) nobody has heard - other side not a single player has heard. There were 24 TV cameras (and) not a single camera is saying that this type of word has been used.

Karan Thapar: So was there then an attempt by the Australians to trap Harbhajan Singh and deliberately misinterpret it?

Sharad Pawar: I don't know. I don't want to challenge anybody's motive. Now the issue is closed. Our equation with the Australian board is extremely good and I don't want to continue that controversy again.

Karan Thapar: Is it fitting that Indian players, who in a sense are ambassadors for the country, should use such language?

Sharad Pawar: No. Certainly, we have been communicating to each and every player that you are representing this country; your role is like an ambassador's. Of course we accept that you have not used a racist word but even some sort of gaali - galauch and this type of improper word doesn't suit and doesn't show to any Indian player. They should stop this and board will take a very serious if this type of thing happens against anybody.

Karan Thapar: The board will take a very serious view if this happens again.

Sharad Pawar: Yes, that has been communicated.

Karan Thapar: Now Harbhajan Singh has violated the code of conduct five times. Do you think he has a problem?

Sharad Pawar: No, these type of small things happen on the ground many times. It is not only Harbhajan, other players also have been fined. It is not only the Indian team - that has happened in Pakistan that has happened in England, that has happened in South Africa and it has happened in Australia. Sometimes it does happen but at least generally Indian players should try to avoid all this.

Now take the case of a player like Rahul Dravid, take the case of player like Anil Kumble, take the case of player like Sachin Tendulkar - we never heard anything adverse about these players.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying let Sachin, Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid be your role model.

Sharad Pawar: Exactly, they should be role models and other players should follow them in how they behave.

Karan Thapar: Mr Pawar, recently Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray said you were prime ministerial material. Do you welcome that comment or are you bit embarrassed by it?

Sharad Pawar: Definitely I am embarrassed because Balasaheb and I have known each other for over 40-45 years and share a love-hate relationship. I have never known anyone who has attacked me personally so much and criticised me than Balasaheb Thackeray - probably similar action also from my side against him. He is a very interesting person. Sometimes what he felt correct he said that.

But I am fully aware that anybody can say he is the prime ministerial material or he is the person who can lead the country tomorrow. I know these are irrational comments.

I do not have enough support, I do not have that kind of numbers in Parliament and that is why one should not unnecessarily expect that type of position.

Karan Thapar: You may not have the strength and numbers in Parliament today but many people who know you believe you would be a very good Prime Minister. Let me ask you bluntly, would you like to be Prime Minister?

Sharad Pawar: It is not a question of like or not. You see it is just not possible. It (the NCP) is a small party with 14 MPs in both Houses of Parliament. So one should not live in a fool's paradise.

Karan Thapar: If H D Deve Gowda could become Prime Minister when nobody even thought it was imaginable, Sharad Pawar is in the realms of possibility.

Sharad Pawar: If you don't enjoy that type of support in Parliament no person can be effective prime minister. Ultimately the person, who will be effective prime minister, is one who can deliver the goods and whom the people of this country will respect has to have substantial support.

Karan Thapar: Side by side this development it is also reported in the papers that the Maharashtra government has decided that the Srikrishna Commission cases against the Shiv Sena and against Bal Thackeray in particular will not be pursued. Do you agree with that decision?

Sharad Pawar: I don't know. I have not gone in detail. I read the news in some local newspapers but I definitely will ask my colleagues there what exactly is the decision. I saw the statement in one of the vernacular newspapers that the Home Minister has said that if we get sufficient evidence we will definitely continue with these cases but without evidence we don't want to get a slap from the court.

Karan Thapar: Let us talk about the UPA. Are you satisfied with the way the UPA government is functioning?

Sharad Pawar: Yeah, by and large. You see in a coalition government the way Dr Manmohan Singh is trying his level best to run this country I think he is doing very well. He is trying his level best.

Karan Thapar: You are being very loyal when you say that he is doing his level best. Critics say his level best is not good enough.

Sharad Pawar: I am not ready to accept that. One has to see what is the result. One has to see what is the overall performance of the economy. One has to see what the global community is saying about India. One has to see whether other countries are restricting India or not. And in all fields our observation is definitely there are plus points.

Karan Thapar: You mentioned the economy. Many people thought that the UPA, because it is headed by Manmohan Singh and because P Chidambaram is Finance Minister, would push through badly needed economic reforms. They are disappointed that on the economic reform front not enough has happened. Do you share that disappointment?

Sharad Pawar: No. One has to see the ground situation. Firstly, we have to accept that growth rate has crossed 8.5 per cent and reached nine per cent. That itself is an achievement and in every sector there is by and large good performance. Now about these economic reforms, one should not forget that this government is not a government of one party or two parties, which are ideologically totally pro reforms.

It has to take the support of others and some of the Left parties have a different thinking. Unless and until their support comes to this government we are not in a position to deliver the goods. And of we are not in a position to deliver the goods because we don't have the numbers, I don't think one should blame Manmohan Singh or Chidambaram.

Karan Thapar: If you are not in a position to deliver the goods, tell me what are the economic reforms you would have liked to see which have not been done?

Sharad Pawar: There are many things. Like the pension fund, how to use the resources in different ways.

Karan Thapar: Labour Law reforms also?

Sharad Pawar: Partly yes. Not fully.

Karan Thapar: Disinvestments? Would you like to see some disinvestments?

Sharad Pawar: Certainly in disinvestments also. Ultimately if it is possible to raise some resources and invest those resources in the basic infrastructure, which is the need of the hour, and some decisions about these things are required. It is also true that we could not convince some of our colleagues and because this government is running with their support, so we cannot take the extreme side.

Karan Thapar: Was this a failure not being able to convince your colleagues, not being able to convince the Left in particular?

Sharad Pawar: No, no it is not a question of failure. They are honest in their own thinking. I may not subscribe to that. I am honest in my thinking; they are honest in their thinking. They have got the numbers. I am not in a position to manage without their numbers and that is why ultimately I had to take a rational approach and I had to listen to them.

Karan Thapar: Without the economic reforms that you have very candidly said you would like to have seen, can the nine per cent growth rate be maintained for very long. Won't the momentum begin to slow down because the reforms haven't happened?

Sharad Pawar: I don't think so. If you see last four - five years programme and performance then every year we are growing. I saw in the newspapers a statement by the Finance Minister that we have crossed the nine per cent growth rate.

Karan Thapar: My last question. What should the government do if you end up with a satisfactory outcome from the IAEA but the Left won't let you take the nuclear deal further? What should the government then do?

Sharad Pawar: If there is alternative source for generation of energy, which is the need of the hour and which is environmentally friendly one should follow that. But again the same question arises that if we are not able to convince our other colleagues and if we are not getting the total support of Parliament, a majority support in Parliament, then we have to take a rational approach.

Karan Thapar: And what is a rational approach?

Sharad Pawar: The rational approach is that we should try our best to convince but we should not thrust on anybody if we are not able to manage without their support.

Karan Thapar: So secure the government first, the deal comes second.

Sharad Pawar: No, no. The country requires stability also. The country wants development. If we get nuclear power with this type of agreement then that will add to the strength of this country.

Karan Thapar: But not at the cost of stability?

Sharad Pawar: Not at the cost of stability and not at the cost of the economy.

Karan Thapar:Mr Pawar let's end the interview here.

(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)

#devils advocate #Sharad Pawar #CNN-IBN Interviews