Vilas Dadoji Deshmukh may no longer be chief minister of Maharashtra, a post he had aspired to for the better part of two decades, but you can't simply walk into his office at Worli in central Bombay at the appointed hour and expect to meet the man. No sir!

The tiny but tastefully done up office, which earlier belonged to his architect-turned-actor son Ritesh, is crammed with visitors waiting for as many as two hours for five minutes of the Congressman's grace. Among them is a group of obviously political types accompanied by a journalist-cum-fixer (more the latter, we suspect) and some harried-looking executives, who don't quite see why they must wait so long to meet an out-of-power politician.

The reason is revealed almost an hour later when an influential south Maharashtra newspaper baron emerges from Deshmukh's cabin.

You begin to get some idea of what the term 'loyalist' means when you finally meet Deshmukh. A little over five weeks ago, he was booted out of his position as chief minister of Maharashtra by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, following yet another public show of dissatisfaction by some sections of the party. Yet, after the initial resistance, he appears to have reconciled to her decision and remains a strong supporter of Gandhi. In fact, he even declares openly that without the Nationalist Congress Party making its stand on Gandhi's foreign origin clear, there can be no alliance with it in the next election, though that may mean certain defeat for the two biggest constituents of the ruling Democratic Front.

In an exclusive interview with Deputy Managing Editor Rajeev D Pai and News Editor Pankaj Upadhyaya, the Latur politician, who went from sarpanch of his native Babhalgaon (1974) to chief minister of India's most industrialized state "in exactly 25 years," also defends himself against the charge of non-performance in his stint of just over three years.

How easy, or difficult, has it been adjusting to life out of power?

I'm used to this kind of situation. This is not the first time that I am out of power. In '95, I lost my election, we lost our government, for four and a half years I was not even an MLA. Still, I survived. We know that everything is temporary. You have to be very realistic.

In a recent interview you said you don't know why you lost your job. Are you angry, upset?

No, I am not upset, because, you see, when I was made chief minister, at that time also there were so many aspirants, but still I was selected by the high command. Once I accept that decision, then I must also accept this decision, in the same spirit.

But the thing is, if you are being sacked, you must be given a reason, you must be told that okay, you did this wrong...

No, maybe it's because in our party there are many people who are aspiring for this position. And Sushilkumar Shinde, he was one of those aspirants for a long time. We were together in the same Cabinet for so many years. And we were campaigning together for this post. I got the opportunity before him even though he is senior to me. Now he has been appointed the chief minister, so I am happy, I am happy.

I had read the two of you had struck a deal saying that if one becomes CM, the other will not try to bring him down...

No, but that's the point. He never tried to bring me down.

Yeah, but how did you strike this deal? It's very unusual.

See, he belongs to the scheduled castes, I belong to the biggest majority community. So we used to campaign together, saying if you want somebody from the scheduled castes, then please select Mr Shinde. If you want somebody from the majority community, then my name should be considered.

A package deal...

It was a package deal, given to the high command. I was selected earlier, I had my three-and-a-half-year tenure, and without any blot, without any scam, without any scandal, without any court strictures. There was nothing absolutely against me personally.

Your opponents say, without any performance also.

How? I can name the decisions taken. And my performance cannot be judged as an individual, because this was a collective responsibility, and I was heading a coalition government. It's not a single-party government. I cannot be compared with other chief ministers of the Congress-ruled states. They are having their own majority. They can do whatever they want. But here I have to consult all my colleagues. And we have to only consider this common minimum programme. So whatever was agreed as a common agenda, only that much I can implement.

You were running an eight-party coalition. But Mr Vajpayee is running a 23-party coalition and they are still able to take decisions and push through the divestment programme, which is very controversial. They are still able to do that.

The point is, whatever they had agreed in the common agenda, that much they could do. And there are differences. But the fact is that whatever decisions they have taken, it was agreed in their co-ordination committee meetings, that much agenda they could push. The disinvestment programme also was agreed to by the co-ordination committee. And they all came in support. It's not that the allied partners have criticized the decision.

But the Shiv Sena has criticized it, George Fernandes has criticized it.

But they are in a very small number. That is the point. They could not really challenge the decision, because they [the National Democratic Alliance] were not solely dependent on that small number of seats. They have their own majority, separately they have collected the people. But here that is not the position. A small faction, if they pull out, the government collapses. So Maharashtra's situation cannot be compared with the Government of India. Their situation is comfortable, our position is very marginal. Five, 10 people, if they cross over, government collapses. So their bargaining power is more.

But when the situation is so unstable, still everyone wants to be chief minister. Why?

Nobody would like to leave power.

But it's a crown of thorns. If you are not able to do anything...

You see, to become Maharashtra chief minister is something special.

No doubt the status is there...

Status is there. You are not chief minister of a small state. You are chief minister of Maharashtra. Mumbai is the commercial capital of this country, industrial capital, entertainment capital. So everybody would like to be chief minister.

But then there has to be some achievement.

That the people will judge, subsequently. The people will judge.

You said it wasn't a failure of performance and you took a lot of decisions. Then, is it possible that you were not able to communicate the things you did to the people at large?

That may not be completely true, but partially it is true. We were not in a position to communicate our decisions to the common man. And the decisions we took, they may not be liked by all. Generally what happens in the media also, which decisions are liked by them, which decisions the media approves of, you have infrastructure development, you have economic resolutions, you have flyovers and express highways, industrial policy, IT policy, you have BT policy, these are the issues which are generally discussed. But if I raise the pension of the Niradhar Yojana, from 100 rupees to 150 rupees, this decision may not be discussed here. They are more liked by the people in the rural areas.

So you mean to say that those decisions have had an impact on the rural population?

Definitely. Specially scholarships to the OBC students. It is a major decision. This will give help to 14 lakh students and we will have to spend about 125 crores. This is a very historic decision which we took. [But] it may not be discussed here in Mumbai.

Do you think there was a communication gap between Bombay and Delhi, about whatever decisions you took?

No, whatever decisions we took, we used to send the reports regularly. There was no problem on that score. But generally what people write, what people read, refers to the elite class, that is always being judged and discussed. But whatever decisions we have taken for the farmers, for the workers, even in Mumbai this textile policy, it was a very important decision which we took. And we are going to provide houses for the labourers, those workers in the factories. Yesterday, the union leaders came to me, just to see me, and they said it was a historic decision. I mean, you are constructing houses on the mill land, and giving to the workers, those who are no more connected with that mill now, because the mills are closed, this is a historic decision. Even issuing the photopasses to the [slum dwellers] and giving protection by enacting a law...

But this photopass thing has been going on for 10 years now.

No, but now we have enacted a special law for that. Those who are staying here prior to 1.1.95 they are protected by law. They will be issued photopass. That is your final proof. Nobody can touch your hutments, unless and until you provide them alternative accommodation. That is a historic decision. But that will be judged by people who are living in the slums, not those who are living in the high-rises. So how you look at that decision, and how you analyse that decision, that is very important.

But the major problem in the state has been the debt...

That is bound to be there! It was just the mismanagement which the earlier government did, and that legacy we are carrying forward. We have to also fall into that same debt trap.

How long can you blame the earlier government?

See, we have to repay that loan, we have to repay that interest, and for that we need more loans. From where we can bring the money?

But somewhere you have to break the cycle.

But that will take some time! When the Congress-ruled government was here, we never took these decisions. We knew these issues. We said we are not in a position, we must be in a position to repay that loan. In any infrastructure development, maybe an irrigation project, or an express highway, or a road project, the loan should be of long duration, it cannot be of short duration. They took the loan of short duration, and also high interest rate, of 17.5 per cent. And when we came to power, our first job was to repay that loan.

When you came to power, the first thing one would have expected you to do was go to town about this. That when Sharad Pawar demitted office there was a surplus of Rs 250 crore. Now, we are taking over, there is a debt of Rs 48,000 crore. But that didn't happen. Neither the party nor the government made a hue and cry.

No, no, we came out with a white paper. We placed it in the assembly. First thing that we did was, what was the position prior to 1995, and subsequently what has happened in the last four-and-a-half years. So we came out with the white paper, we presented it in the House, there was a discussion. Each and every detail was there. It's not that people were not taken into confidence. People said why you always talk about such loans, that you are on the verge of bankruptcy? When the government is saying it is on the verge of bankruptcy, who will come and give you the loans? That was a criticism made against us.

But what we did, that we must take the people into confidence, we must take the assembly into confidence, put the facts before the House, that this was the situation prior to 1995, subsequently this much loan was raised and this much interest we have to pay, this is the duration of the loans, everything was placed before the assembly. That white paper was discussed in the assembly.

But then we have to follow the same route unfortunately. Because people were saying you have to complete the incomplete works. So again we had to take loans. But what we did was we took this interest rate which was 17.5 and said no, this is too much, we must get 12 per cent, 11 per cent, 10 per cent, 9 per cent. That we did. And we even repaid the interest and the instalments worth 27,000 crores in the last three-and-a-half years. We even raised the revenue of our government by 9,000 crores. It's not that we have not done. We have even cut down the expenditure. Non-plan expenditure, plan expenditure. This was a very unpleasant decision which we took, not to pay the bonus to the employees.

Delinking of dearness allowance...

Delinking of dearness allowance! And in the process we saved about 1,300 crores in the last three years. Because each year if we had to pay the bonus it would have been 470 crores. That saving we made. But it was an unpleasant decision. No employee is happy with us. We have even rescheduled the payment of dearness allowance. We have merged some amount into their PF [provident fund] and others we have paid in cash. They have accepted, they have cooperated. I am very thankful to their unions that they have not come out on the roads. They agitated against the government, but they have cooperated. I must also compliment and thank them.

Part II: 'NCP has to clear its stand on Sonia'

Photographs: Jewella C Miranda; Image: Dominic Xavier