A coalition might insist on BJP leadership change at Centre: Sharad Pawar

'A one-time full loan waiver is the need of the hour', says Pawar

On his quest to revive his party, the NCP, in Maharashtra, Sharad Pawar is addressing rallies in all the seats where his party is contesting. He tells Abhishek Waghmare that he strongly believes that the ruling BJP will lose seats, and hints at a possibility that a compulsion to run a coalition government could result in a change of leadership at the Centre. Edited excerpts:

It has been five years that people rejected the Congress-NCP alliance in Maharashtra. Do you think the situation has changed now? 

If you remember, the UPA rode back to power with a better mandate in 2009 than in 2004. But in the run-up to 2014, our government faced a lot of allegations. This coincided with aggr­essive marketing of the Gujarat model by (Prime Minister) Narendra Mo­di, which probably led people to think that change should be given a chance. 

But the strength with which the BJP won in 2014 has reduced. The results would be different. Only five states, UP, Rajasthan, MP, Chhatt­isgarh and Tamil Nadu (DMK is a Congress alliance partner) can hamper BJP’s prospects by about 100 seats, benefitting our allies. Further, our seat tally in Maharashtra is bound to increase. 

But do you agree with the polls that the BJP would emerge as the single largest party? 

Even if that happens and it needs support from smaller parties, the latter might insist — it is possible — for a change in leadership. When Atal ji was the most popular leader in the country, and no one had clear majority, Manmohan Singh was chosen the leader, even though he did not lead an election campaign. Con­stituents would like to choose a lea­der who will take everyone together. 

Several experts have pointed out that the NCP is soft on the BJP, or alternatively, that you are relatively soft on Modi. 

This is not true. If most of our candidates are contesting against the Shiv Sena, it is natural that the tenor would be stronger against them. But in my efforts to consolidate my party in the state, the thrust of my attack is definitely on the BJP. 

But you had offered to support the BJP in the state government… 

That was a strategic move to destabilise the BJP-Sena alliance, which was prevented to some extent due to a stand taken by the central leadership of the two parties. 

But you don’t seem to criticise Modi in your speeches… 

I know that I have been under attack from him in his rallies. I do criticise him but on the policy front. I do not think that institutions should be tarnished, including that of the Prime Minister. Talking of institutions, the PM himself has neglected the importance of many. 

You have announced a blanket loan waiver in your rallies. But your alliance partner Congress has announced an income support scheme. 

A one-time full loan waiver is the need of the hour. But to make the produce of a small farmer more marketable, so­me financial support is needed, which is why I find the inc­ome support scheme very important. 

Now agriculture has changed a lot. How would you compare your tenure as the agriculture minister with the last five years?  

We improved the agriculture growth rate from about one per cent to five per cent. It has now dropped to a low of two per cent. This is not good, and the reasons are multiple. While we encouraged several productivity boo­sting measures such as hybrid varieties, sped up development of newer varieties using a 5,000 scientists-strong research force, the current government, sadly, believes more in the conventional ways of farming. 

The change from a scarcity situation to a surplus food regime is being debated. What is your take? 

This change is happening and needs intervention in the form of improvements in the public food distribution system. Then, exports should be incentivised, and imports, curbed. 

In the Osmanabad constituency, onion farmers have complained about prices falling due to imports… 

We cannot really disregard international trade agreements, but innovative and diplomatic ways to curb imports should be invoked. We introduced non-tariff barriers to curb milk imports from the US using the same. 

Maharashtra is known for its cooperative movement. Has it stopped giving dividends? Is privatisation becoming the norm?  

The direction of the cooperative movement needs to be changed. The government control on cooperatives should reduce for it to be able to compete in the market. Else, the cooperative movement would fail. 

How would you rate the private in­vestment climate in your home state? 

The services sector is certainly important. But investment in manufacturing is very important to give more jobs to the rural youth and increase overall purchasing power of consumers in the economy. 

A few years ago, Maharashtra chief minister had announced that the manufacturing giant Foxconn would set up a plant in the state. 

There is no choice, such investments must happen. However, they are falling short. The incentives a government of the time needs to give to investors are lacking. 

Some economists say that the rural youth need to move from agric­ul­tu­re to non-farm sectors. Do you agree? 

I think it needs to be looked at this way: If there are two brothers in a family, one should pursue farming, but the other should move out. The chances of default in this case reduce due to diverse sources of income. 

Talking about the farm sector, has drought become a permanent feature of agriculture in Maharashtra? 

I don’t think so. Innovative irrigation practices, such as drip irrigation need to be promoted. But the current government stressed too much on one programme, Jalyukt Shivar, which hasn’t produced the intended results. They marketed it too much. 

Then comes the issue of sugarcane, a crop which guzzles disproportionate amounts of water. As a policy, shou­l­dn’t sugarcane promotion be stopped? 

I do not agree. Using drip irrigation could be a permanent solution. We have research institutions to reduce water usage in sugarcane. Plus, sugarcane has a lot of byproducts. Disin­centivising sugarcane would go agai­nst the economic interests of the state. 

How would you compare today’s youth in politics with your time? 

We used to rise up in the organisation first, and then contest polls. But now things have changed. We have consc­iously fielded young and fresh candidates in several seats. We have rea­ched that stage that we need to cu­­­­l­t­ivate alternate leadership within, like the way Y B Chavan did 50 years ago.