There's no reason for him to seek my advice, because it is I who seeks his advice.

You are being very modest.

No, no, this is the reality of my life.

Considering your experience in running the state, your voice should be heard in Delhi...

Advaniji is more experienced than I am, he was in Morarjibhai's (Morarji Desai, the first non-Congress prime minister of India) government, he was in Atalji's government, he has been a deputy prime minister, Delhi Metropolitan Council chief executive… He has the maximum experience in administration.

Isn't this the problem with Indian politics? Too much credit is given to age and experience while someone who is younger and more dynamic, more efficient is ignored...

Let me share my experience with you. Please don't take this in any other way, and don't give a political colour to it, it's of no use.

I am saying this as a student. We should compare any two prime ministers, and here I will take the names of two Congress prime ministers. Rajiv Gandhi and P V Narasimha Rao.

Rajiv Gandhi was young and dynamic, had foreign exposure, he had everything, was good-looking, charismatic. Narasimha Rao had retired completely from public life, but had to suddenly return to active politics. Healthwise, and looks-wise, he was different.

But who ran the government better for five years? Who provided India a better leadership? If you think about it, Narasimha Rao's government was connected to the masses, and the nation benefited.

One simple reason: India is such a large nation, with so many languages, and only someone who has been around for a long time can solve its problems. So in this case, he was successful.

If you look at India's political history, too, only such people have succeeded.

But Narasimha Rao's government was accused of corruption.

Look, it was less compared to the Bofors scandal. I am not calling him great. I am merely saying, in comparison, who was plus and who was minus, I am only saying that. I am not giving Narasimha Rao any certificate. Bofors was no less. I am saying, compare the two and see who comes off better.

Both had pluses and minuses.

But the ultimate plus, was more with him though I agree no one has only negative aspects. And that is because for years he was involved with the situation, with the problems, any issues in Nagaland he could sit here and discern if this was the case, then that would be the outcome. Because he had experience, vision. He wielded a lot of power in such a large country.

Image: P V Narasimha Rao, who became the accidental prime minister after Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in the midst of the 1991 election campaign.

Also read: 'In five years, Indians stashed away Rs 688,000 crores illegally'| India Votes 2009

Back

|

Next