KOCHI, Feb 2: One of the leading lights of the Janata Dal and presently the State unit chief of the party, he joined the Deve Gowda Ministry in February 1997 as minister of state for Finance. Later he was given independent charge of the Ministry of Urban Development and then the Labour Ministry.Hailing from Kalpetta in Wayanad, M P Veerendrakumar, a management expert with an MBA from an American University, has served as chairman of the Press Trust of India, and chairman and managing director of the Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company. An author of many books, Veerendrakumar is the latest winner of the Odakuzhal Award for his work Ramante Dukkham, a collection of essays on secularism.
N P Chekkutty met this scholarly politician for his views on the political scene.
Excerpts:
Q: You have been in the UF Govt holding three different portfolios for about one year. How do you assess its performance?
A: It was a good government under both Deve Gowda and Gujral. There was not one corruptioncharge, and despite being a front of 14 different parties we were able to present ourselves as a cohesive team with a Common Minimum Programme all the 18 months.
Q: Was it a conglomeration of regional and factional interests?
A: This is not a correct perception. There were 14 parties in the Front, and true, many of them were regional parties. But they were all able to look beyond their state's interests in the larger interest of the nation. A case in point is the DMK, a regional party of Tamil Nadu. A minister of that party held the industries portfolio and successfully brought new industries and development to all parts of the country. Regional concerns and compulsions are important in a pluralistic society such as ours.
Q: Since the government had to depend on the Congress for every move, did it not look like a lame-duck government?
A: We were never attacked by the Congress on any policy matter or any issue of national concern. There were no differences over the CMP. Not even one bill was opposed bythe Congress. There were no such contentious issues, then why did they pull down the government? That is something the people should ask now.
Q: You were in the crucial Labour Ministry. In matters like the World Trade Organisation and the Intellectual Property Rights, there is criticism that the Government toed the former Congress line.
A: Take Labour for instance. The US Senate had linked the issue of child labour with international trade and banned import of Indian carpets to that country. But we fought it tooth and nail at every international forum and our consistency was appreciated by even these big countries. At the International Labour Conference at Hong Kong, which I chaired as the Indian Labour Minister, we took the position that child labour is a global societal issue which must be tackled as such and cannot be linked to trade. In the final document which the conference adopted, our views were clearly spelt out, a great achievement for us. You must remember that in all the global forums like theInternational Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the US had been taking the line of linking child labour with trade. We could forcefully present our views which received wide acceptance. It was a major breakthrough. Now the US has resumed the import of our carpets.
Q: On the brink of the elections, different parties in the UF now appear to be fighting against each other over seats.
A: These differences and disputes were there in 1996 also when we first came together. They will be sorted out. There are political compulsions for every party and there is nothing much to worry about. The UF itself is a new pattern and it will take time to evolve a commonly accepted system.
Q: You were much vocal about TADA and Babri Masjid while campaigning last time. After being in the Government what have you to say on your record on these issues?
A: TADA is no longer an issue. It has not been re-promulgated. As for the TADA detainees, very few people remain in jails. Most of them have been released by our government. Asfor the Babri Masjid, we were of the view that the Masjid must be rebuilt where it was demolished, but the case is now in the Supreme Court.
Q: The feeling among the minorities is that the UF made electoral use of the Babri issue and then dumped its promises ditching the minorities?
A: Who says so? The people who allowed the Mosque to fall or those people who demolished it? It was my party's government which decided to quit on the issue of protection of the Babri Masjid when the then PM V P Singh stopped BJP leader L K Advani's Rath Yatra to Ayodhya. No one can accuse us of ditching the minorities or question our secular credentials.
Q: The Congress has now apologised for the Ayodhya happenings. Do you think it will help them win minority votes again?
A: Why is the Congress apologising now? For the past 18 months, no one could go near the Mosque. Kalyan Singh is ruling in Uttar Pradesh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and others want a Ram temple built there. But he is not making any move. Why? Becausehe knows our govt is at the Centre. We will not allow anyone to move that way. But we will have to wait till the case is settled at the SC and we are expediting matters. Eighteen months is a short time. Don't expect solutions to all our problems in such a short time.
Copyright © 1998 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
