Q: As an economist, how do you look at the parliamentary logjam? Have we once again returned to the phase of policy-paralysis? How do you look at its impact on Indian economy?
Bibek Debroy: The impact on Indian economy is, of course, terrible because parliament's job is to debate, to pass legislature. There are several key elements that have been held up because of parliamentary logjam. And, after all, country bears the burden of the cost of running the parliament. So yes, it's disastrous but I would also like to mention that quite a lot can be done through executive action, quite a lot is also function of what the state assemblies are doing because much of the legislative action has now moved to the states. Yes, it's extremely unfortunate that the parliament has got stuck in policy paralysis but that does not mean the end of the earth.
Rift with Gandhi Family
Q: Can you share you experience of working with Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies? How did you find the approach of Gandhi family?
Bibek Debroy: When I worked for the Rajiv Gandhi institute, my mandate was to generate resources from the institute because the argument was that Rajiv Gandhi Foundation would no longer subsidise the institute. I argued that I could build up the institute only if it became independent, only if it was distanced from the Congress Party. Over a period of time, Rajiv Gandhi institute actually became a platform for all kinds of people to come and voice their views. That is what any kind of think-tank is supposed to do. By the time I left, we were generating 50 percent of our resources.
Also, you should remember that as long as I worked at the Rajiv Gandhi institute, for the bulk of the time, Congress was in the opposition. The problem began to start when the Congress formed the government in 2004 because then, if you are critical of policies, you are critical of Congress policies. And most think-tanks are critical of existing government policies.
I had earlier frictions but that friction did not amount to any imposition on my independence as the Director of the institute. That first imposition happened in 2005 and the reason behind that was the famous Gujarat report after which I resigned.
So the long and the short of it was that for a large part of my existence there as director, there was no attempt to control or influence though there were little items of friction. The really big one was in 2005. But it would have come because as I said the government changed in 2004 and sooner or later it would have come.
Intolerance debate
Q: Coming to the ‘intolerance' debate, now that the Modi-led BJP has lost Bihar elections, the debate has suddenly come to an end. Do you feel it's a vindication of your stand that it was actually politically motivated?
Bibek Debroy: It's very clear that there was a political motive. My simple point was this – there is no factual evidence, and anecdotes are no evidence, to suggest that intolerance, however defined, has increased since May 2014. No one will be able to demonstrate that.
And so far as ‘intolerance' in academic circle is concerned, it has always existed except that it was being practiced by a certain left-wing kind of a circuit that traditionally thrived on the basis of state patronage, government patronage. Now that circuit is feeling unhappy because its monopoly on that patronage is being contested.
I can give you three instances of intolerance in academic circles.
For example, let's discuss book bans. In fact, no book has been banned since this government came into power in May 2014. Most book bans were actually Congress governments. And I mentioned one particular book which is the ‘Heart of India' by Alexander Campbell published in 1958. It had no pornography, no obscenity. The only reason it was banned because it was critical of Jawaharlal Nehru and his brand of socialism.
I mentioned Dr Shenoy who was part of a task-force set up by the former Planning Commission in the course of second Five-Year Plan. There were 22 economists in that and 21 of them endorsed the views that the government was pushing through in Five-Year Plan document. Dr Shenoy disagreed and he produced a minute of dissent. He was ostracised and he was never given a job anywhere in India so eventually he had to look for a job in Ceylon i.e. Sri Lanka.
The third instance that I mentioned was that of Dr Jagdish Bhagwati. His life was made very difficult when he was here at Delhi School of Economics. Jagdish Bhagwati, as well as Padma Desai, thereafter went off abroad.
The fact remains that Delhi School of Economics, at the time of Dr Jagdish Bhagwati, had many left-leaning economists who made life difficult for him.
There are a lot of Bengalis who are economists and there are a lot of economists who are Bengalis. And most of them, including me, will tell you stories about how it was impossible to find a job in Bengal under left-front government.
I could not get a job in Bengal because of a particular ideology. I was essentially told you wouldn't get a job here. I was forced to look outside for a job and eventually I had to move to Pune. A lot of people of that particular generation, not only economists, will tell you the story of massive human capital flight.
Q: How do you look at Mamata Banerjee government? Have things changed under her tenure?
Bibek Debroy: So far as ‘controlling educational institutions' and ‘tolerance for alternative ideology' are concerned, I don't think anything has changed. If I look at economic indicators, some of them are a little bit better.
