Ram Madhav at Idea Exchange: ‘Any economic ideology benefitting the last man is priority. That's why India could do away with absolute poverty'

Indian Express

9 hours ago

Senior BJP leader Ram Madhav on the need for revision of voter rolls, the new BJP president, the narrative on Operation Sindoor and why economic growth should be India's focus over the next two decades. The session was moderated by Deputy Associate Editor Vikas Pathak
Vikas Pathak: These days, there is a controversy regarding the intensive revision of voter rolls in Bihar. The Opposition is claiming that this could end up disenfranchising many voters. What do you think about the exercise?
The exercise per se is very legitimate. It's not just about Bihar. A large number of people in the country have more than one voting card because of migration within the country. At some point, we had to rationalise voters' lists. The Election Commission thought that it would probably do that exercise in Bihar but now that the matter is before the Supreme Court, which has asked some very pertinent questions about Aadhaar card and other proof, we should wait for its views on this matter.
Vikas Pathak: Bihar is believed to be around 89 per cent rural and sends blue collar migrants across the country. Do you think it would be a major inconvenience for them to update their names?
The Election Commission has relaxed the conditionalities for the so-called registration. In any case, once the matter is sub-judice, everything depends on what view the Supreme Court takes. However, I don't think the Election Commission's effort was to disenfranchise legitimate voters. In any case, what we call as universal adult franchise, a fundamental right, had been accepted by us in 1929. It wasn't something that our Constitution gave us for the first time. Of course, in the Constitution we made it clear that it would be an adult franchise. So every adult, irrespective of any other status, should have the right to be a legitimate voter. Unfortunately, in our country elections don't take place at the same time. If we have one nation, one election, that problem can probably be addressed even if somebody has multiple ID cards. But in the current scenario, where every six months there is an election somewhere, it's probably not a bad idea to rationalise the process once and for all.
Vikas Pathak: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a general perception that capitalism would become a hegemonic world ideology. How do you see capitalism under US President Donald Trump? Given this level of protectionism, the trade and tariff war can go anywhere…
Capitalism as an economic ideology has undergone many transformations in the last 70 years. If anybody was familiar with the capitalism debate during the 1940s, they would have heard the name of a very important scholar called Karl Polanyi. He wrote that regional and national capitalism was also a form of capitalism at a time when we were building the first multilateral economic institutions like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank. It's another matter that those who built those institutions did not agree with him and they thought they would create a global level capitalist idea-driven financial institution. But by the 1960s, the US agreed that capitalism should also have a welfare component. That's when welfare capitalism came into existence.
Welfarism is essentially a very liberal idea; you can say a communist idea. But it had to be incorporated for capitalism to survive. So capitalism has passed through many phases. Today, what Polanyi said is probably returning. National capitalism, regional capitalism will come back.
On electoral roll revision | There is a problem of multiple voter cards. Unfortunately, in our country elections don't take place at the same time. If we have one nation, one election, that problem can probably be addressed
Last year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Geneva came out with a very interesting paper titled 'Stakeholder capitalism.' What it means is that the priority of an economic entity will not just be to get maximum profit for its shareholders but for those people and groups who are influenced and affected by its stakeholders. What does it mean? Mahatma Gandhi said long, long ago that our economic model should be based on Dharma Kartrutva or trusteeship, meaning that your economic activity should benefit the larger society, not just you, your family or your shareholders. But then, we had discarded it as a very obscurantist idea. The WEF is saying the same thing. Remember, today's challenges require multiple solutions and some of the solutions can come from India.
Generally, countries are turning inward. And let me caution that in the coming years and decades, there will be a lot of restrictions and embargoes. That's because capitalism and national interest are both getting mixed with each other. So if somebody is selling you a military aircraft, they will insist that you buy all the weapons that you can use with it. You can't fix any other weapon to that military aircraft. We have to be prepared for that kind of nationalism mixed with capitalism.
Liz Mathew: Since you mentioned India's challenges in the new world order, what are the challenges India is facing in its diplomatic outreach in the neighbourhood after Sindoor ?
Operation Sindoor teaches us many, many lessons, one of which is the nature of this changed world. We went to many countries in the world and tried to expose the terror underbelly of Pakistan, which is actively supported by the State and the military establishment there. But Pakistan was elected as a chair from the Asian region with the support of the UN Security Council's non-permanent members, securing 182 votes out of 193. People may be very sympathetic to us and they know that terrorism emanating from our neighbourhood is causing so much havoc in India. But when it comes to deciding about a global issue, the priorities are different. We are entering a world driven by national interests. So, one important message is to adhere to our national interest. I am mentioning this because there are enough people still saying that India is useless unless it sides with America.
Yes, there is an argument that India should take sides. But number one, in the last 75 years, we have never taken sides in any conflict. We have never joined any bloc. Second, you can't hold up the tail of a tiger, knowing that once you leave it, it will swallow you. So you want India to catch the tiger so that you can escape. The whole idea is to drag India into these kinds of conflicts. India should strictly go by its national interest. That's why we follow the strategic autonomy formula which our Prime Minister repeatedly highlights.
It's also partly because we are active in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) group. We are still standing on our own feet when it comes to the QUAD alliance, where we are the only country saying that it is not just about free and open Indo-Pacific, but free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific (FOIIP). Now, India has to stand on its own ground and pursue this policy of strategic autonomy very vigorously. That is the important message from Operation Sindoor or any other conflict.
Liz Mathew: Could you throw some light on the current relationship between the RSS and the BJP? What role does the RSS play when it comes to crucial decisions like electing a party president?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself is RSS. So are Amit Shah and JP Nadda. There is no other influence of RSS in the BJP. On a more serious note, the process of choosing the BJP's national president is on. The party leadership has discussed a few names. Hopefully, the new president will be elected and he or she will take charge soon. Although I'm not an RSS functionary today, I can say with authority that RSS is not a pressurising force or an organisation that causes any stalemate. It plays the role of a facilitator if necessary.
RSS is not just an organisation; it's like a family. Each understands the other, so there is no separate criteria that RSS stipulates for president. The criteria are well-known: The person has to be a good organiser, somebody who can take everybody along and present a new face of the party before the people for the 2029 election. Whoever gets chosen will be a very competent leader. And the BJP doesn't have any shortage of such competent leaders by the way; that's why it is taking so long.
Manoj CG: Speaking about senior RSS leader Moropant Pingale, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat recently recounted a moment from a meeting where Pingale had turned 75 and had remarked that his felicitation marked that his 'time was up.' The remark was interpreted differently. Was there a subtle message in that remark?
The RSS is a very reticent organisation. If it was supposed to be a 'subtle' message, it would never be said in a public programme. Any message to be conveyed would be conveyed through appropriate forums. What he said at Nagpur was in the context of reminiscing about Pingale. I also worked with him for some time, a wonderful leader. Bhagwatji was only remembering those jovial moments from the event. As for leaders stepping down, they are mature and will take an appropriate decision. But there is no such age limit or any clause as far as my knowledge goes.
Jatin Anand: There was a meeting between the sarsanghchalak and the PM that happened after Operation Sindoor. Could you tell us anything about what was discussed?
Until 2021, they used to meet regularly, once a year at least. But between 2021 and 2024, the meetings did not happen. Before that they were together on the dais at the inauguration of the Ram temple.
On new BJP president | The process of choosing the BJP's national president is on. The leadership has discussed a few names. Hopefully, the new president will be elected and he or she will take charge soon
What actually transpired only those two people can tell. But I know this much that there was definitely some discussion about the Pahalgam incident and how India was planning to respond to it. The sarsanghchalak would have also briefed the Prime Minister about plans for the RSS centenary in October.
Deeptiman Tiwary: One argument being given for a protectionist version of capitalism is the colossal failure of capitalism to take care of the bottom of the pyramid. At a time when the government is calling for India to become a developed nation by 2047, is there going to be an economic model that will take care of the poor?
Classical capitalism by Adam Smith and others is long dead. We have modified versions of capitalism in so-called capitalist countries, like Sweden or Denmark, where the state's welfare component in public expenditure is 60 per cent. You might as well call it socialism or communism. Talking specifically about India, at least this government is very clear that Antyodaya, our economic ideology, which benefits the last man, should be the priority for any economic model or programme that we develop. That's the reason why India has been able to completely do away with absolute poverty. The World Bank says that India no longer has any population living in extreme poverty. A few days ago, I saw a report — maybe one can have views on these reports — which said that India is the fourth most equitable country in the world. So we are doing well in that aspect, in any case that's our commitment.
I give one more example, call it my assumption. India's massive youth population today is facing an important challenge of finding jobs. But, there are no street riots, the reason being, there is sufficient economic activity. That is the reason why, despite the status of employment, there is no great poverty, stress or suffering at the grassroots. This government is conscious of its responsibility of ensuring that citizens at the grassroots level have a better life than what they were used to. Absolute equality is not possible in any society. But the gap should be minimised, and that is the commitment of this government.
P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Post-Operation Sindoor, Pakistan seems to have had an edge in the narrative and made an impression on several people outside India. How do you look at this? Could we have managed the post-conflict information dissemination better?
We have handled both – Operation Sindoor on the ground as well as the post-operation narrative – quite effectively. Maybe because no country openly came out (except two countries) and said Pakistan is the culprit, we are saying we have not succeeded in the war of narratives. That is because we have that expectation that dozens of countries would stand up and say that Pakistan is the villain, Pakistan is the culprit.
But to say that Pakistan has gained in popularity is far from reality. I travelled after Operation Sindoor to at least eight countries. Everybody – foreign ministers, ministers – knows the potential of the Pakistan administration for creating trouble or promoting terror. Their stock has not gone up.
Another lesson that we should learn is that in the new world, wars are going to be very different. In this era, you can't finally decide who is the victor and who is the vanquished. That's exactly what Pakistan tried to do. In spite of being badly beaten by India, badly suffering, it also claimed that it stood up to India. Nobody really believes that in the outside world.
On new capitalism | Welfarism is essentially a very liberal idea; you can say a communist idea. But it had to be incorporated for capitalism to survive. National capitalism, regional capitalism will come back
Pakistan-exported terrorism is not new in India. We have had worst instances like the Parliament and Mumbai attacks. How many countries really stood up and said Pakistan should be blamed? They blamed terror organisations, they blamed those individuals. There is a way countries respond because of various geopolitical or geo-strategic situations in which they operate. But that doesn't mean they are not standing with us. Every country stood by us on terrorism and India being the victim time and again. And they all believed that it was happening from across the border.
That's the reason why the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) went after Pakistan for years. Pakistan manages to escape sanctions, thanks to its friends, but that doesn't mean people are giving it a clean chit. In that sense, our outreach efforts have definitely helped us.
Vikas Pathak: In your book, you have talked about the need for India to focus only on economic growth in the next 20 years. At the same time, we have identity politics playing out everywhere. Do you think any economic development agenda is tenable in this scenario?
I actually compare India with what happened in China in the 1980s and 90s under its leader Deng Xiaoping and his successors. Those 20 years were very pragmatic for China. In fact, Deng went to the extent of telling his Communist Party that 'I don't care about the colour of the cat as long as it is catching the mice.' They asked him about contracts to Western companies, he said his focus was not on communist ideology, just economic growth.
Issues will keep cropping up in India because we are a diverse society but leadership has to now seriously focus on the economy for at least the next 10 to 15 years. Unless India becomes a 10 trillion dollar economy, there is no way we can play any big role in the world. Even with $10 trillion, our per capita will be around $6,500, which is half of that of China today. By the time we reach $10,000, they will go somewhere else. The leadership's focus has to be on economic growth. I'm sure that is what the government is doing.