Interview / S Gurumurthy

'We have won political freedom, not economic freedom'

Perhaps, this is a victory of sorts for S Gurumurthy. He airs his views on the 'hazards of liberalisation' in a tête-à-tête
with Shobha Warrier.

Recently, Swadeshi Jagaran Manch called for a 'second freedom struggle'. This time against the economic policies of the NDA government. Why do you call it a freedom struggle? What do you think is wrong with the economic policies of the NDA government?

In fact, it is not that the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch spoke of a second freedom struggle only after the NDA government came into being. Actually, this call was given when the Narasimha Rao government was in power. We call it the second freedom struggle, for though political freedom has been won, we have not won economic and cultural freedom as yet.

Why do you feel so?

Because we have a strange mindset: dependent on everything foreign. There is no original Indian thinking.

What is 'original Indian thinking'?

For example, we look abroad for everything; it could be institutions, ideas, policies, whatever. Approval from abroad is necessary for us. Even our computer scientists are recognised here because they have been approved abroad. This, we think, is not the sign of an independent nation. So, it is more acutely felt in the economic field.

You mean the attitude of the Indians, the way Indians look up to and act 'servile' to those who are industrially and economically advanced?

See, Cuba is right in the stomach of America, but it doesn't feel so. Vietnam is a poorer country than India, but it doesn't feel so. In 1978, China was occupying a position far lower than India, not only in economics, but in technology too. Still, it never felt so. So, economic conditions have nothing to do with the attitude. It is the mindset; the colonial mindset, which continued even after India won independence from the British.

Freedom is a state of mind. That is what we call Swadeshi Jagaran. We want to create the awareness that we are not free and we have to become free.

Why is SJM against globalisation? Is it not happening all over the world?

Who said so? Globalisation is being reviewed the world over. The entire 'Washington concept' is being reviewed. The 'Washington concept', which was equated to globalisation, spoke of three things: liberalisation of trade; liberalisation of foreign investment; and liberalisation of short-term capital flow.

As far as short-term capital flow is concerned, it is almost accepted today -- including by those who proposed it, namely the IMF -- that it is an evil.

As for trade liberalisation, whether it leads to growth or not is a debatable issue. The millennium negotiations, which were to take place have virtually been suspended because the opposition to it has come not only from the Group of 79 countries, but also from the group of IT, G-8 and G-7 nations. So, even in trade liberalisation, negotiations have hit a roadblock.

Where freedom to invest in other countries is concerned, the ambitious multilateral investment which was being proposed has almost stopped. So, globalisation, which started with such a bang, is being reviewed now. It is only in India that globalisation is spoken of highly because there is no Indian thinking.

What about a communist country like China? It is also opening up.

It is opening up on its own terms. It is not opening up on the terms of any other country. What we are against is not global trade. We are against globalisation. We believe that no country can do without global trade.

What is globalisation? The rules and regulations of a country are subordinated to a larger body, which is dominated by western countries. But global trade is trade between manufacturers, producers, commission agents, etc. Why do we convert government into traders? Why do we need governments to promote trade? Why do we need governments to dominate trade? Politics steps in then. Net set of rules comes in. Dominance follows. As does imperialism. This is wrong, in our opinion.

Swadeshi Jagaran Manch is supposed to be a friend of the BJP. But SJM and even RSS act like opposition parties -- perhaps, like the Left parties -- so far as the economic policies of the NDA government are concerned. Why?

Unfortunately, in India, the government is only one part of the whole bargain. The government will have to listen to the entire opinion-making section in India, which is completely colonial-minded. How many bureaucrats can stand up and talk to a white man on an equal footing in this country? How many of them can negotiate with them on one-to-one basis?

So you don't blame the government or the politicians?

I blame the entire English-educated segment of India, which has put India in this condition over the last 50 years. They never had any faith in India.

Does that mean your opposition is not for the government, but for the bureaucrats?

No. I oppose a wide establishment of India. It includes media, academics, professionals, the government and the elite. That is because the Government in India cannot function independent of all these people. So, to create awareness, we need all these segments.

Is SJM not embarrassing the government by being so openly critical of its policies?

We are not interested in politics. The opposition wants to embarrass the government because it wants to get into power. SJM has no plans of grabbing power. The RSS also does not want to grab power. In the interest of the country, we have to say certain things, and if those things embarrass the government, we can't help it. But the idea is not to embarrass the government.

But the government doesn't listen to you. It is going ahead with its policies.

You have to understand one thing. The government has its own compulsions. We understand the compulsions of the government too. It needs foreign exchange to pay for the imports. No government in India is strong enough to tell the people about the difficulties. But we can tell the people that times are hard, you have to sacrifice, you can't have an easy time. You can't have free consumerism. We can say these things, but no political party or leader can say it because they are all constrained by the limitations of power in a democracy.

The BJP president Bangaru Laxman said that the mandate was for reforms.

Whether the mandate is for reforms or not is a matter open for interpretation. If Bangaru Laxman interprets it that way, we can interpret it in a different way. It is a matter of difference of opinion on what these words mean. If the word 'calibrated globalisation' means reforms, yes, it is correct. If it is 'expedited liberalisation', then, the interpretation is not correct. The word used in the NDA manifesto is, globalisation will be done in a calibrated, graduated manner.

RSS president Sudarshan said that land and money in India could be saved by gobar (cow dung) and go-mutra (cow's urine).

Do you know something? He is speaking of ten years from now. If anybody had spoken of herbal cure and ayurveda twenty years ago, he would have been laughed at.

Twenty years ago, if somebody had spoken of meditation and yoga as cure for managerial stress or reversing heart diseases, he would have been scoffed. If twenty years ago, if somebody had said, antibiotics wreaked havoc on the body, he would have been laughed at.

So, when Sudarshan spoke, he spoke of what could be obtained twenty years from now. Only nation-builders will think in that way. Petty people will laugh anyway. Mahatma Gandhi drank goat's milk. He recommended goat's milk. People laughed at him. Great people have their own method of understanding a situation. Petty people can only scoff.

Those who are expressing opinion about Sudarshan have no idea of what kind of enquiries Sudarshan must have made before he said this. Has anybody gone and asked him, "Sir, what is the basis of your argument?" Nobody. But you start criticising him. How many people know about herbs to criticise herbal cure?

The Swadeshi Jagaran Manch is against MNCs coming to India. But haven't auto giants like Ford, Hyundai created a lot of job opportunities for Indians?

Who said we are against MNCs?

Are you not?

We are against MNCs in several areas. We are cautioning against the mindless involvement of MNCs in national economy. MNCs carry with them the power of cheap capital, which India doesn't have. Indian industry lacks that.

Take for instance Kerala. In Kerala, Coca-Cola sells 1.5 to 2 million cases per year. Each case consists of 24 bottles which means they are selling about 40 million bottles. The price of coconut has come down to Rs 2. Why? Because of Coca-Cola.

Coconut is not a crop which you can raise in one or two or three years. It takes several years to raise the coconut tree. If coconut prices fall like this, nobody is going to plant new trees in Kerala. What will happen to the coconut economy of Kerala after a few years? There is a direct competition between coconut and Coca-Cola.

But does not the consumer have the right to choose what he wants to drink?

Unfortunately, there is no consumer who is not an employee. Everyone's employment depends on someone else's consumption. There is a pure consumer and he doesn't produce anything. If I am employed in a swadeshi (domestic) company and I purchase videshi (foreign) goods, if somebody else is employed in another swadeshi company and he purchases videshi goods instead of each other's goods, we destroy each other's employment. This is exactly what Ravi Batra said.

Batra predicted the collapse of the global stock markets twice and he said that global trade must be at a minimum. Global investment may be promoted. He says that the entire social security cost in the West is because of free trade. So, he recommends very high rate of customs duty, protected national economy within-the-country competition with foreign capital.

Let the foreigners come and set up industries here, set up industries in America, in Germany, in China. Let the goods produced within the country by the local people and foreigners compete, not goods produced in one country competing with those made in another nation. He says that will spell disaster.

This is a very important economic viewpoint and this is being understood by many for the last few years. But everyone thinks he is right and the English-educated Indian thinks he can never be wrong.

You also are an 'English-educated Indian'…

But I am not recognised as an English-educated intellectual. I am supposed to be working with the illiterates!

Money

Interviews

Tell us what you think of this interview