What is your definition of swadeshi?
In one word, I define it as patriotism. When one talks about swadeshi, what one means is: what is produced in this country, produced by our people. When I say "our people", I mainly have in mind Indian capital. Indian labour, and what one looks at relating to India’s own needs and produced by our people.

There are various definitions of what swadeshi is within your political formation. There’s the hard-line approach and more moderate ones. How will you reconcile that?
Well, there are different ways of looking at it. I don't see any problem so far as functioning of the government is concerned, the different definitions of swadeshi coming in the way of the smooth functioning of the government. Because government will function on the basis of the platform worked out jointly by the partners of the coalition. And that platform may not have any single definition, but it will certainly convey what the immediate needs of the country are, and how we will deal with them.

Your anti-MNC and pro-Indian industry statements now are essentially what you were talking about 20 years ago. There doesn’t seem to be any change.
There has been no shift in my conviction about the challenges that face us on the economic front and the responses that we should have. If there has been any change then that has come through in the Uruguay Round and subsequent treaties that emerged from the GATT negotiations and the creation of the World Trade Organisation. All of which, in my view, is loaded against India and therefore today, more than at any time in the past, one has to assert one’s identity and prepare to face the challenges.

The opposition doesn’t seem to be directly against multinational corporations but specifically against provisions of WTO.
It is essentially against any economic regime. Multinationals have been here for years, some over a hundred years. The new invasion began in 1991. Perhaps this was in anticipation of what was in store, or what was in the mind of the then finance minister Manmohan Singh. So it’s not just the WTO regime that is the target, but one has to look at the entire economy: where we are, what are our challenges, and what should be our responses?

How will you dispute WTO? It’s signed, sealed and delivered. Isn’t it better to now focus on how best India can cope with challenges? If you dispute WTO, you may face sanctions.
If there are sanctions at some point, we will have to be ready to face them. If the Multi-lateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), which is currently being drafted, is formalised by the OECD countries, and which will soon become a WTO document, will require India to open up its shores or frontiers to any foreign individual or corporation. To come into the country and invest where it wants, how it wants, in what it wants, be treated like an Indian company, manufacture what it wants, and then leave the country when it wants. 0I do not see how we can accept that. And if that challenge crops up in the next few months, I don't see how any self-respecting government in this country can accept it. If we say no to that, there will be sanctions against us? If there are going to be sanctions, we should be prepared for it right now. Why wait ?

Would you be against multinational investment or companies even if they added to the Indian economy, by providing jobs and raising productivity?
There are many foreign companies operating in India and one is not asking all of them to pack up and go. I have said that those companies which are operating in this country and have committed any breach of law--and I have reason to believe that quite a few of them have. For instance, take Pepsi. Pepsi came in and it announced a whole lot of schemes and money they were going to spend in every area including agriculture. In the end one discovered that from the number of jobs they were going to create to the kind of exports they were going to have, they were observed in the breach. In fact, Pepsi’s exports were not any Pepsi products, but our traditional exports like rice and cashew nuts, which used to be already exported by some export house and they had it channelled through their agency. That was plain, downright cheating. And at least one minister was made to pay with his job for wanting to discipline them and make them follow the law: (former) Minister for Food Processing Giridhar Gomango.

You are really looking at monitoring a MNC than preventing it. Are you saying that MNCs are welcome but they had better stick to what they have undertaken to do?
Absolutely. If you make an agreement then you have to honour that agreement. Otherwise, you have to face the music.

The BJP manifesto mentions inviting pension funds and long-term insurance funds. For that, you have to open insurance to the private sector, even invite foreign companies. What are your views on that?
Pension funds are one thing, I don't see how insurance figures in that. I remember when I was Minister of Industry (in 1977), I had some British union leaders coming to meet (me) and say we have some large pension funds and we would like to invest them in India. Nothing much happened on that because we realised we did not need that money at that point of time. If the BJP manifesto says that pension finds are welcome, we also have similar funds in mind. But I don't think that has anything to do with insurance.

What about disinvestment in PSUs? Even of you agree with the fairly moderate recommendation of the Disinvestment Commission, PSUs would need to be restructured, made more efficient, many workers given Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and so on.
There are various categories of PSUs--some sick, some not well managed and some excellent. I feel that nobody should touch the good ones. They need all the encouragement and autonomy that they need. For those not well managed, the right people are put in these jobs and the wrong people chucked out. And even with sick ones, we have to examine why these are sick. I have reason to believe that some of these undertakings have been made to fall sick. Whether some private sector companies have teamed up with public sector managers or whether banks have denied them credit or government itself have chosen to make them fall sick. Personally, I’m for the public sector. Where disinvestment is concerned, I feel that it would be ultimately passing on national assets into public hands, public assets into private hands. You will see that the assets are sold at a price which anyone who is wanting to create similar assets today would have to pay. I don't think public assets should be given away at throwaway prices to private domestic or foreign interest. Take Indian Airlines. To set up that fleet or assets will take god knows how many times more than went into it. The money that has gone into creating these public assets is taxpayers’ money. And if that asset has appreciated to some extent today, then that money should go to the taxpayer, who has contributed the original money. And that asset should be utilised to create new assets for the country, like infrastructure, or other capital assets.

Would you extend the same argument to subsidies? The BJP talks of removing many subsidies while other partners in government like the Haryana Lok Dal talks of adding to them. Where do you stand?
There are various types of subsidies. I think the fertiliser subsidy should go directly to the farmer. It should not go to the manufacturer. There are various ways of overcoming these contradictions.

There have been remarks that George Fernandes’ rabid anti-MNC stand has made the BJP jittery.
Firstly, I don't have a rabid anti-MNC stand. I’m not rabid on anything. I’m very rational. I have a point of view and I express my point of view forcefully. ‘Rabid’ doesn’t fit into what I am doing. Be that as it may, nobody in the BJP has spoken to me about any of my positions on any issue till date--nobody has questioned by utterances, beliefs or convictions. The only BJP person with whom I have interacted on these economic issues is Murli Manohar Joshi (currently Minister of Human Resource Development with additional charge of Science & Technology), and we see eye to eye on most matters relating to the management of the economy.

How are you going to regulate foreign investment? Are you going to regulate it unilaterally, or follow a Malaysian example which allows almost everything but stipulates in many cases that majority control stay with Malaysian companies? Or China, which allow free flow in some areas but not at all in others?
A large number of companies have fixed some sort of ceiling on foreign investment. Even (South) Korea has a fairly low level of foreign investment permissible in any given industry. In the US also there are some area where they either don't allow foreign investment or allow foreign investment to a certain level. Similarly, we should have levels in our country as well. For instance this 100 per cent equity business should not be allowed.

What about foreign ownership of 100 per cent Export Oriented Units?
The only thing they achieve there is more profits by using cheap labour in India rather than somewhere else. But that another category--of them are using our soil to undercut their own workforce, then that’s another category. We should put a ceiling on foreign investment. Let me make another point. What is the level of foreign investment that has come into India? About two per cent of total investment. So what are we exercised about? It’s not as if the heavens are going to fall if foreign investment doesn’t come. If two per cent doesn’t come, then I am sure we can stand with a beggar’s bowl and raise that money in India. If I go to Ram Lila ground or Shivaji Park and tell people the country is going down the tube because out of every Rs 100 we have only 98, then I’m sure we can raise not just Rs 2 but Rs 4. I don't know who is speaking for whom in this country, who is the spokesman for whom in this country, and why is this country being told that without foreign investment we are going to sink. Someone has to answer this question.