Swapan Dasgupta - Upper House, Indian Parliament HARDtalk

to do so.

Now on BBC News, it's HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk,

I'm Stephen Sackur.

One of the world's biggest countries

has a leader who polarises opinions,

Stokes nationalist sentiment, has a

controversial past, and they

predilection for Twitter, I am

thinking of course of India's Prime

Minister Narendra Modi. But are

there any parallels to be drawn with

America's current president? My

current guess is a matter of the

Parliamentary chamber, Swapan

Dasgupta, does this conservative

ally of India's Prime Minister see

any dangers in Narendra Modi's

populism?

Swapan Dasgupta, welcome to

HARDtalk. More than three years ago,

when he came to power, Mr Modi was

described widely around the world,

and in India, I think, as a

conservative, Hindu nationalists,

and their populist politician, do

you think he has lived up to those

labels? I Mr Modi think the most

important thing about when he came

to power is that it was interpreted

very differently by very different

sections of the electorate. There

were certainly some who saw him as a

conservative, there were some who

saw him as a free marketeer.

Others

saw him as a nationalist. Some saw

him as a poor boy made good. And

some people saw him as a member of

the backward castes. So it really

depends, Swapan Dasgupta conveyed

multiple images to people. Which one

is the real Mr Modi? I think I is

all of them in some ways.

A very

taken in your writing, and you are

an ally of Mr Modi, and the BJP has

between the upper house of the

Indian parliament, but you're also a

writer. I am struck by some things

you have written. You said for "For

too long in the conservatism has

been at the end of condescension and

caricature, and the Mr Modi

government has essentially negated

the importance of entitlement". As

you see Modi as an anti- elitist.

I

think in the United States you call

it outside the beltway. In India we

call it the mob. That is really a

set of people, perhaps privileged,

perhaps Indian speaking like me...

You are part of this establishment.

I would say I am one of the orphans.

People who exactly saw themselves as

entitled. And people whose

aspirations centred on the Congress

and the Gundy family, to a very

large extent, Modi was an unknown

entity. Modi was not a Delhi

politician, he came from the

provinces. He was provincial Chief

Minister. He was ostracised and

hounded for a loss of his views. He

was treated as a complete outsider,

outlander, in fact.

The more you

talk to Moray Hebe echoes and

residences of the trump phenomena in

America.

Mr Trump came after Mr

Modi.

That not argue about the

chronologies, in terms of the spirit

of a man, let us remember Donald

Trump's phrase, he was going to go

to Washington and dreamy swamp. You

are suggesting that for you that is

what the last three years have been

about.

That is only one part of it.

Not really a dispossession, but a

relative marginalisation of some of

those who had occupied preeminent

positions. After 25 years, India got

a government with a full majority.

That meant a Prime Minister did not

have to look over his shoulder when

making decisions. And Mr Modi came

with a track record of being a

decisive, of being firm, of having a

clear mind of what he wants to do.

He is controversial. I was a year is

polarising.

We will get to be

polarising when it comes to some of

the sectarian and communal issues in

India in just a moment will stop I

want to begin by taking on board

what you have just said about him

coming to power attracting the

outsiders in India. And suggesting

to you that those who are most

outside are the poorest in India.

And when one looks at the delivery,

in terms of poverty alleviation and

eradication in India in the last

three years, frankly, it seems to me

that Mr Modi has been found wanting.

He has achieved a lot in economic

terms, but he hasn't fundamentally

shifted that block of Indians, some

250 million, who are living or nor

below the poverty line.

I think Mr

Modi has done a tremendous amount to

actually, most important, try to

make India a modern economy. What is

important is the impulses which were

reflected during the election, that

people wanted opportunities. They

were exasperated with living a

shoddy, plodding life and they

wanted to get ahead. In the most

important thing which Mr Modi has

done any three years, and I was

there be number one issue, is a

frontal assault on corruption. One

of those things which was really

holding India back. The image of

India, plus the sheer banality

comedy --, inefficiencies in the

system.

I want to stick with the

poor and was Modi is doing for them.

I would say to the poor, the most

important thing he has done for the

poor is that previously government

welfare payments were siphoned off

at a very large way. Today, using

technology, using a certain

determination to get ahead, you have

managed to have direct payments. You

open to the banking system to the

poor, you have opened quite a loss

of...

Look at the record, look at

the record, when he was chief

minister and today as Prime Minister

of the nation, his record is of

cutting benefits, cutting welfare,

doing a loss for the rich in terms

of favourable tax policy, doing a

lot for corporate India, but

actually doing very little for the

poor, particularly in the rural

areas. And I am so struck that a

former BJP, his own party, a former

BJP Finance Minister is currently on

a protest with poor farmers in

Maharashtra state, saying quote

"Private investor dish Rinkin,

agriculture is in deep distress, the

construction industry is in the

doldrums our economy is in crisis".

If our economy was in that much of a

crisis we would not have registered

growth rates that we have had.

I am

not saying corporate India is in

crisis. I'm not saying that the

upper middle class are not doing

very well.

I am saying that if our

economy was in that sort of dire

condition, as you make it out to be

sometimes, or he makes to be, you

would not have had repeated

electoral successes for the BJP, you

would not have had an entire

revolution which has resulted in

women's empowerment to a significant

extent, you would not have had

electrification of villages, which

has taken place in a tremendous sort

of way, which is changed and altered

the lives of the quality people's

lives.

Just like Mr Trump in the

United States, those who are most

keen on the economic reforms

delivered by Mr Modi are the

corporate and the rich. That is just

a fact in India today. They are

benefiting a day doing very well.

I

think some of the corporate are

resentful of the fact that the

cronyism that marked some of the

earlier business practices have been

done away with, that corporate

lending has been streamlined, that

people, that corporate to have not

pay back money are being punished. I

think it is also dead that the

discretionary powers, which some

corporate is believed was their

route to success, has been done

away. There is far greater

rule-based system, which is good for

some people. It is good for

corporate is who don't have

connections. It may not be

necessarily good for the corporate

is who have used political access.

I

am tempted to rely on the people who

make a specialism out of studying

corruption in developing economies,

transparency International are one

such group. Their most recent

report, March this year, India still

has the highest bribery rate amongst

the 16 Asia-Pacific countries that

they surveyed. And nearly seven in

ten Indians who had access public

services said that they had had to

pay a bribe.

That is this year. Yes.

I think that is quite true. That

there is bribery, it is still

rampant. But what is important at

two things. That at the top layers

of government corruption has more or

less completely ceased. The powers

of discretion which are really at

the heart of corruption, that has

come down. Another two, tax

compliance, which was really one of

those dodgy areas of India, people

just did not pay taxes, a very small

number of people. Can you imagine

that in two years we have had

something like an additional 7.8

million people now paying taxes. It

is not because there has been a

sudden windfall and they have won

the lottery AU summit like that. It

is a greater sense of compliance. A

lot of the resistance that has been

coming in is because you are putting

in more people to the tax...

For a

writer who has converted himself

into a politician, you are doing a

very good job of putting a positive

spin on everything Modi Mr Bing. But

there are other spins to be had and

some come from inside his own party

-- says. This is talking about the

so-called de- monetisation policy,

where overnight Mr Modi declared

that the high day nomination

banknotes would be taken out of

circulation. -- high denomination.

He said it was to get rid of all the

black money that was fooling around

under people's beds and elsewhere in

India. But the effect has been to

legitimise a loss of black money

that has been moved into the banking

system and is now regarded as

perfectly legitimate. He describes

it as "The well's largest

money-laundering scheme"

it as "The well's largest

money-laundering scheme". Critics of

Mr Modi have quoted... He has a real

point. I interviewed him not so long

ago. He says it is the biggest scam

of 2016.

What has happened is that

you had 90% of the de- monetised

money coming back into the banks,

number one...

Now regarded as

legitimate.

It is not legitimate any

more. That money now has an address.

Next step is for them to account for

that money. It is the second step

which has been very conveniently

left out. Just because money is

deposited into the banks doesn't

make it legitimate. Had that been

the case, we would not have had

money-laundering operations. Done

through normal banking operations. I

think what is very important is that

the critics of Mr Modi was struck by

one thing, the sheer audacity of

this will stop something which takes

into account 86% of the cash which

was in circulation in India was de-

monetised. It affected every single

Indian. Rich, poor, everyone was

affected by this decision. Why was

it endorsed? Everyone suffered

personal inconvenience in some way

or another, some more, some less.

But there was a certain

determination on the part of people

that the has gone too far, perhaps

you need it a dose of very drastic

surgery. I think de- monetisation,

it hasn't ended corruption...

For

sure it hasn't.

I would say that.

But it is a very major step in that

direction. I will take that, along

with other legislation that has come

along, and I think the first what

India has done is that the wheels of

corruption, which was rolling, and

now you have managed to roll back

the tide of the first time.

Interesting.

That to my mind is very

important.

Interesting that you

couch it in terms of the audacity

and decisiveness of Mr Modi. Why

hasn't he been equally decisive and

firm when it comes to smacking down

hard on what we see, from the

outside, as the dangerous rise of

communal sectarian hate and violence

in the India of Narendra Modi?

I

think Mr Modi has been quite clear

in his mind, his personal

interventions, that he sees these as

a complete destruction --

distraction from the main task to

bilby economy.

People are being

killed is because of their beliefs,

because, for example, a Muslim man

happens to own a cow and some people

down the street believe that he has

slaughtered a cow, he is murdered

for that.

There have been hate crimes in

India, and I would say that, that

constitutes a hate crime.

That is

not what Mr Modi would ever said.

He

called for a ten year moratorium...

Mr Modi has seemed to follow people

who peddle hate and who celebrate

when a Muslim young man is murdered

because he is falsely accused of

slaughtering a cow.

We all follow

lots of people on Twitter, just to

get a diversity of opinion.

It is

irresponsible.

I mean, he follows

me.

I suspect you do not declare a

celebration when was the man is

killed.

No, certainly not. Look, in

India we have all shades of opinion.

Some of them are ugly and I think I

would be the first to admit that

there are certain people who believe

that Mr Modi's victory also

symbolised their liberation from

what they see as the scourge of

secularism. And avenge history.

Now,

hang on a minute.

There are these

people...

Events in history, but you

surely know more than anybody else

that Mr Modi is seen by Muslims in

India and many outside as a man who

still has a cloud hanging over him

because of what happened in Gujarat

in 2002. You know that there are

still serious allegations about his

role as Chief Minister in riots

which killed many, many hundreds of

Muslims. Given that passed, surely

your advice to him, and you do speak

to him, is to be as tough as he can

possibly be on what you call hate

crimes. But that is a phrase that he

does not use.

No, he does not use

it.

Do you think you should?

I think

what Mr Modi has to do is to make

sure that the political agenda moves

decisively away from these sectarian

issues. That the political agenda is

focused principally on the question

of development, and that identity

politics of such a narrative your

Mac -- narrow variety... How do you

do it is a question.

Forgive me it

is for interrupting, it is rude. But

I just want to air the figures.

There is a phrase which has

developed in India in the last two

years of cow vigilantism.

It is seen

as a problem.

I have looked at the

figures, I've looked at the past

seven years, 97% of the incidence of

this cow vigilantism, which has

resulted in violence, sometimes the

deaths of people seem to have

slaughtered these animals, 97% of

the cases reported under Modi's

government, and most of them in BJP

areas. So the party has a problem,

Mr Modi has a problem, and it

doesn't seem to be being addressed.

I think what is really important is

that vigilantism is really

unacceptable. It has been declared

so, party functionaries have said

so. Whether individuals take the

laws into their own hands, there

must be dealt with. However, I would

also emphasise one thing. That beef

is one of the most emotive issues in

India, it has to be handled with kid

gloves. There are a lot of

sensitivities which are involved

there, and I think you have to play

that issue very delicately.

Let's

unpack that little bit. Are you

saying that you defend the right of

Indian State to categorically banned

the slaughter of cattle, not just

for him does, or not just to make it

a voluntary, faith based

requirement, but to say to every

citizen of the state, you cannot

kill and therefore it with?

Such

legislation exists.

I know, are you

saying...

Most of that legislation

was not passed by the BJP, it was

passed by the previous government.

That is part of the Constitution

which also says it is part of the

duty of the government to protect

the cow. Now, you might find this

antediluvian, you might find it

contrary to certain customs, but in

India, as I said...

Well, nobody

cares what I think, but in India...

We visit very sensitive issue in

India. And I think personal taste

sometimes, just like Coalition,

temperance, why are so many state

against alcohol consumption we have

actually enacted law against it. --

Coalition. But there are the sort of

taboos, there are these social

restrictions which are there in

India, and they have to be handled

with a great deal of sensitivity.

With Mr Modi and his background, let

me quote the words of Gandhi

himself, from 1947. The Hindu

religion, he said, prohibited the

slaughter of cows for religion, not

for the world. Any imposition from

without meant compulsion, and such

compulsion was repugnant to

religion.

Mr Gandhi certainly was

one of the greatest advocates of

anti- cow slaughter.

At his point

was, we must not...

He wanted to

make it voluntary. There are states

which allow cow slaughter is to take

place. I think also there has to be

a greater degree of realisation and

accommodation on the part of people

to say, look, this is what I do,

which is not necessarily what you

do. And I am saying that this is a

social issue. It goes far beyond

politics. But, at the same time, I

think it is very, very important to

emphasise that these is a very

sensitive issue.

Well, you have made

that point.

Is a part of Indian

culture.

Let's leave beef to one

side for the moment and end with

this thought, about whether you are

concerned that under Mr Modi there

is something happening with Hindu

extremism, I am now thinking of the

recent murder of a journalist who

spent a lot of time researching and

talking about the dangers of Hindu

extremism, she was brutally murdered

in September 2017. Are you worried

that there is something happening in

India today which Mr Modi and his

team are not capable or indeed

willing to combat I knew Gauri very

well, she was a colleague at various

points.

I don't think there is

anything as yet to link her murder

with that of Hindu extremists. I

think it is one of those really

criminal tragedies that happen, the

attack on murder of Gauri Lankesh.

You see no link?

I said there could

be. However, I think the important

thing is to realise, to isolate

these Hindu extremist as much as

possible. Most of them,

incidentally, operate outside the

boundaries of the BJP. They find the

BJP to moderate and organisation.

They believe in a very extreme,

radical, exclusivist view of

society, which goes against the

beliefs and the sensitivities of

most other people.

At why it is your

party, the party you are loyal to,

so keen to offer sops to these

people? For example, in the

education system, one can look at

states like Maharashtra, where

efforts are being made to completely

change the text books at your school

children are seeing and reading, to

write out a whole swathes of Mughal,

Muslim history. Why is that

happening?

History in India is a

very contested issue. I think it is

important to also realise that

history has been written in one

particular way. It was written

earlier by the colonial masters.

Subsequent Lee, at various times,

there has been an influence of the

left on history. And I think areas

need...

One Indian critic of what is

happening says we may soon have the

situation, absurd situation where

students in Maharashtra will not be

allowed to know who built the Taj

Mahal.

That is silly. I think that

is silly, that is a caricature, that

is not what is happening. They have

been certain extreme cases of

certain people saying the Taj Mahal

shouldn't be... But I think there

will be laughed out of court. What

is important is to recognise that

India had a certain contested

history. Now, how we find a method

of actually accommodating these

various conflicts is really the

challenge. It is an intellectual

challenge, it is a challenge for

historians. But to say that we

should go by the earlier version of

what constituted history I think is

wrong.

There is no question that Mr

Modi is very popular. I mean, he has

won regional state elections in the

last few months by resounding

margins. His opinion poll ratings

are very high. Do you also, as a man

who is a writer and an explorer of

India's social affairs, do you also

have worries about what Modiism is

doing to India?

If you think that

Modi's success, his popularity, is

due to a certain vision of India

which is ably, which is monstrous,

which is exclusivist, I think you

are wrong. There have been certain

very, very fundamental changes in

India. There have been a lot of

actual government which is seen to

work at the grassroots. That is what

really caps it. The rhetoric, his

personal charm, his eloquence, et

cetera, those are just the

garnishing. The real substance comes

from the fact that, after a long

time, we have got a government which

is perceived to be honest, which is

committed, which delivers.

We have

to end their, but Swapan Dasgupta,

thank you for being on HARDtalk.

Thank you very much.