Thirty Minutes With…; Indira Gandhi

I'm attacking a gorgeous kind of Thirty minutes with Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, and Elizabeth Drew.

Madam Prime Minister, I'd first like to ask you about your recent enormous election victory in what must have been the largest election ever held in the world. What happened? How did you do it? It wasn't unexpected. We had looked at the situation. I think I had what cliché as a pulse on the... I had a finger on the pulse on the people. And I knew the people were with me. What we were worried about was whether they would come out in vote, because quite often they feel well lots of people are voting, why should I go? But this time large numbers of people, all sections, all communities, but especially the younger people, they made it their very own campaign. And in fact, they worked far more than some of the regular campaign workers and party workers. Because we don't have paid campaign workers, you know, it's all parliamentary.

Now the people not only gave you an enormous victory, but they gave you a mandate, a larger mandate than you've ever had. What do you plan to do with it now? Our programs and our election manifesto make it quite clear what we should do. I think the people have realized that you can't change poverty overnight or solve the problems of unemployment and so on. What they would like to be assured of is we're going in the right direction and that we are doing all we can and going as fast as we can in that direction, which is to try and lessen the disparities between the different sections and different areas. Could you tell us a little bit more about your thinking about how you might try to do that? Well, for instance, with regard to industry, we are trying to disperse it so that we don't touch the existing industry, but for any new clients that come up,

we would like them to come up in areas where there hasn't been industry so far. And we would like to interest other people in them. That is not the existing big business houses, but more middle people, younger people, so that the industry becomes more broad-based. Now, similarly with agriculture, so far, you know, we had this terrible drought and food shortage. And we had to go all out to help farmers with pesticides and fertilizers and so on. And our food production has gone up by 105 million tons this last year, which is more than we've ever had before. And we're practically self-sufficient. But now we are going all out to help the dry areas and poorer peasants. Yes, I gathered that the green revolution has been enormously successful here, but it hasn't reached all of the small farmers or all of the areas. So you will be working on spreading that.

That's right. And also extending it to other crops, so far, it was mainly with regard to wheat and partly with rice. But now we want to take in the cash crops and other food items. Now, you have a system of planning here, and you'll be adopting a new plan, and you've recently named a new planning minister. Yet India is very large, and it's decentralized. The states have a lot of power, and it's a democracy. So how do you get your plans adopted under this system? Isn't that a problem for you? Well, it is a problem, but it's not that complicated. While the planning commission is at the centre, we have what is called the National Development Council. And the members of this are all the chief ministers of the state, regardless of what party they belong to. Before this council meets, the officials from each state come, and they discuss the state plans with the planning commission. So by the time the plan is ready, it does incorporate views of all these different people.

Of course, I must confess that nobody's ever satisfied. And all the states, including our central ministry, feel that they haven't got enough for their plans have been cut down. But that is inevitable where there are such limited resources. Now, your program is called one of socialism. But socialism is a very general term, and it means a lot of different things to different people. Could you please explain to us what socialism means in the context of India? Well, basically, of course, it's a question of not leaving things to develop merely because of the market to have some control. Not to have a control because government wants a finger in every pie, but, as I said earlier, to see that people are not only profit-motivated, and obviously they will be, but therefore we urge them that they should put industry, whether it isn't industry, even though it may be a little more costly to do so.

And they may not have all the facilities, which they would near a big city for instance. Now, we have kept certain parts of industry, and so on, under what we call the public sector, because under the state. But there's a very large field open to private enterprise, and we want to encourage that too. So, our socialism really means the lessening of disparities between people, so that there can be a more egalitarian society without, you know, causing things. I mean, it's a kind of middle way. I wanted to ask you, do you plan to put more industries or projects in the public sector? We have already decided that what should be in the public sector, and what should be in the private sector. 85% of our industry is in the private sector now, but we believe that the commanding heights of the economy, I mean, the public sector should have commanding heights. And I think this would work out fine, because there's the two are not conflicting interests, but complementary to each other.

And aren't there certain large industries that just, you feel, just have to be started in the public sector because of their size? That's right, not only because of their size, but because private people are reluctant to take them up. That means putting into much money, and then we have very different ideas on how industries should expand, and we believe that it cannot be left merely to market forces. You have to take into consideration the needs of the people, and in a poor country like this, the backward areas must be developed. What are the particular needs right now in terms of industrial expansion? Well, we need practically everything, even though we had hardly any industry at the time of independence, and now we're making, from aeroplanes, downwards to the smallest thing, but nothing is enough for the population. We would like to be self-sufficient with many consumer goods and other items, and we'd like also to increase our exports.

So there's a tremendous field open. Some years ago, just a few years ago, you nationalized the banks. Do you plan any other nationalizations? Well, we don't believe in nationalization for the sake of nationalization. We have to see whether it's going to serve any social purpose. Now the nationalization of banks have served the purpose. Additionally, the banks were in the hands of just a few of the larger industrialists, and so they gave credit to loans only to other large business and so on. Now with nationalization, the small of basins and other people in the cities are able to take loans, and it's already made a difference. Madam Prime Minister, you've said often that India must move faster to meet its economic goals. What would be the consequences if it didn't do so? Pretty grim, I think, because the choices of moving faster, all going backwards.

I don't think in the contemporary world, anybody can stay static. And we already have this overwhelming problem of an age-old power to economic backwardness, made more complicated by superstition and the remains of a feudalistic system. But all the other countries were busy industrializing themselves. You see, we were under foreign rule, and therefore we stayed where we are, where we were other. And now we have to make up for last time. Well, to oversimplify it, what way do you think India might go? What is your specific worry if it doesn't move fast enough? What might happen here? It's very difficult to prophesy something, but if people feel the general public that their problems cannot be solved peacefully and democratically, then they take to violence. Either they become very apathetic, which they were earlier long in the British times. Now they're not apathetic because they know the changes can come.

So the danger is that they will take to some form of extremism. I gather that one of your largest problems is the educated unemployed, the young people who have educations and can't get jobs, and some of them are very festive and turning to extremism. What do you hope to do about that? Well, very again, it's not something that can be solved overnight. The plan itself is employment oriented to a certain extent, and it is only through development and productive programs that we can have more opportunities for all our people. But we have started several new schemes specifically to increase employment in rural areas, especially. Perhaps they're not big enough yet, but it's beginning. And we are spending about, I think, 50 million rupees now to provide employment for a thousand people in each district, 353 districts.

We hear a lot about the disparity between the rich nations and the poor nations of the world. Do you believe that the rich nations are risking trouble for themselves if they do not give more help to the poor nations? Well, if I can put it in a positive way, I think they would contribute to greater peace and stability in the world if they did give him. The United States has been, as you know, cutting back on its foreign aid everywhere, not just to India. Do you think it ought to be giving more aid, and of what sort would you particularly like? Well, we do need aid. You know, in spite of the aid that we've been getting, it's a very small part of the burden which we bear, and the larger part is borne by the Indian people themselves. But aid gives us just that little extra which helps you to do things which normally you would say, well, you can't do with your own technical development, scientific runs, and so on.

But do we think that if these nations helped us more with trade, that would help us to stand on our own feet, and be less in need of aid? Do you mean to lower their trade restrictions, to change some of them? Yeah, very important restrictions. Or to arrange in such a way that the developing countries are not at a disadvantage. But what sort of American aid has been or would be most helpful as opposed to that which isn't so helpful? Well, the problem with aid is that a lot of it goes in paying back what you took earlier. So that now we get hardly anything which can be used for any new projects. I see. I'd like to move to more this area of the world and the developments in East Pakistan. Do you see any chance that there will be a United Pakistan after all this is over?

It's really difficult to say. But as you know, and as you must have realized into here, that this whole situation has posed a very, very heavy burden on us. And no matter what happens there, I think we're in for very, very difficult. We already have over a million refugees across the border. And it's upset the economy of the area, the political life. That's upset things completely. And we don't want to be saddled with these people for good. I mean, it's all right. We are willing to help out to keep them while their lives and their homes are in danger. But we think they should go back after it's all over. Well, what would they go back to there? What if Pakistan were still... If West Pakistan were still occupying or being difficult to East Pakistan? And it has to be worked out somehow.

Because we certainly can't afford to add to our population. Now, one small town, the population of which is 7,000. Four days ago, they had 60,000 refugees. So you can understand all schools, hospitals, shops, everything was occupied. I mean, they just didn't know where they were. Do you think that these events make long-term peaceful arrangements between India and Pakistan more difficult than they were before? Bangladesh happened. Well, this certainly is the fighting there in the manner in which the government of Pakistan has handled this whole situation in Sydney while jeopardizing peace in this area. Mr. Choi online said that he would come to the aid of West Pakistan if what he called, quote, Indian expansionist, that was his term, involve themselves. Does this make relations with China more difficult? Were you hoping that until now, things between your two countries might have been improving? Well, the human being always hopes.

But there hasn't been very much response to our hope. As you know, the United States is moving towards some sort of change in its relationships with China. You've dealt with it a lot longer than we have. Do you have any advice? No, I think we've had to solve their problems themselves. Well, how do you feel about this move towards more relations between the United States and China? Well, it makes the United States policy more realistic because no matter what the policy of a country, you can't ignore their existence when it's such a large chunk of humanity. But the United States, as you know, gives considerable military assistance to Pakistan. I know a lot of your people wish that the United States had spoken out at least on this issue. Your problem has spoken out. Do you feel that we should have at least said something more about it or used our presence? There are military assistance to take more of a role.

We will be deeply concerned about military assistance to Pakistan because we've always felt. And I think we've proved correct that it can only be used against us. Now, of course, it's used also against their own people. And that was our major concern. We have China also in our border, but Pakistan's whole antagonism has been directed against us. I'd like to ask you a little bit more about relationships between the United States and India for the last few years, well, really since independence. As you know, they've gone through a lot of phases, some friendly and some not so good. How would you describe them now? Wonderful, finally. The main problem is that you tend to look, view your government and the people, tend to look at India from your position. Now, we must consider what we do from our geographical position, which we can't change.

And also from our own history, I mean, the things that have shaped the people and the country. So the two won't always coincide. India has believed in having friendship with as many countries as possible. And in trying to increase friendship to make it closer where it does exist. And where there's no friendship to try and create friendship. And where there's hostility to try and blunt the hostility. But we've had very good relations with the American people and on different levels, you know, the cultural level and the exchanges of students and professors and so on. Now, why is it that in the events in Salon, the Indian government, Pakistani government, the United States government, I really want to ask you that India did involve themselves with aid to that government? Well, the legitimately elected government was in trouble.

And when they asked for help, I thought that we should help them. Just a few more questions on world affairs. You have spoken out about the war in Vietnam. Do you feel that it is coming to a conclusion now in a satisfactory manner, or would you like it to be ended sooner? Well, we certainly would like to see it ended sooner. And in a manner which will bring lasting peace. Madam Prime Minister, you said that you would like the Vietnam War to end in a way that there is lasting peace. That's what our government says, too, but they interpret that as I understand it to mean the survival of a non-communist government there. How important do you think that is? I don't think it's possible. And I don't think it matters whether the government is communist or not, but how they function. Now, earlier you yourself said that the U.S. is being more friendly with China.

Now, there as communists can be. Whereas we saw in Europe that there was communism in Yugoslavia, but it was a much more moderate kind than some of the other countries. And I think if North Vietnam had been helped in a particular way, they could have been that sort of a country because they were very strongly nationalistic. I mean, it could have been an independent communist. Do you think that the war and the pressures that have been brought there and in Wales and Cambodia have made it more dependent on China than would have been the case? Well, I do think that it will interfere with the nationalism, the nationalism, the spirit, but there may be a little more dependent. How would you recommend getting this war over with? That's very difficult. I think you took a very bold step when you decided to have negotiations. Now, something like that to decide that we will go up and find a way out.

Something that our government and not just the current one has been saying is that the outcome that is having a non-communist government there is important to the people of this area in particular. Do you think that's the case? Well, I believe in democracy and I would naturally prefer all other countries to be democratic and to have elected governments. But why can we do about it in other countries? They have to choose their own rule. One other world affairs question and then we'll come back to your own rule in India. And that is the Middle East. What do you see as necessary now for some sort of settlement there? It's the same sort of problem. You get caught in a sort of vicious circle and then become impossible to get out. I don't see any ends to that either. Unless we come again to say that this would be solved by negotiations.

India has stood for the resolution of the security council. And we believe that is the only base on which our settlement could be reached. You mean withdrawal to the 1967 borders? Yes. Virtual total withdrawal. I'd like to ask you a little bit more about yourself and your role as Prime Minister. You've traveled, I don't know, how many miles did you travel during the campaign? About 36,000 miles. And how many hours a day were you campaigning? Well I didn't really look at my watch so I don't know but it seemed to be around the clock. I gather that at the end of the day there's always that black box with the government dispatches and the mail to be answered. That's right when I'm traveling. And I do a lot of work in planes, helicopters and so on.

I count in the car because they're people on the road and I have it to stand up. But I still don't know how you do it. Are you very relaxed about it or do you? Is it long training that you got through your family? I think it's both. I'm a relaxed person. I think you have to be. I think it's a sense of survival. You have to find what's going to help you the most. And then I enjoy doing what I'm doing. I think I'm doing something that's worthwhile. And it's for my country and my people. And for myself in this way that it's only if we can build a better life in India. I mean I myself or my children or my grandchildren will have a better life. Your family has a fascinating tradition and has been involved and identified with India since the beginning your grandfather in the independence movement. Your father of course, I gather your mother served time and prison during the independence movement.

What sorts of traditions do you think that they passed on to you that are affecting you or helping you do your job? My family was involved far more than just one way, both my grandwathers were also in prison and for many uncles, aunts, cousins. I think I doubt if any other family had such an involvement in so many numbers and for such a long stretch of time. I think the tradition was one of selfless to people but not in the narrow sense of duty but as I said it's something that one enjoys doing. One does it because it's something that has to be done and also because it's worthwhile. And I think you can find satisfaction only when you're involved in something that is much bigger than yourself. This is I think a secret of being relaxed also.

And did you receive training through them too in India and politics and service? Well no conscious training. I mean nobody said that you must do this or this is a good thing. I think from watching their exams, although we saw very little of one another because of people being in different prisons. But we had a very good family relationship, more of comradeship than parents and child. Yes I gather, certainly I've read and know from friends and of yours that you're not only your father's daughter but his comrade and advisor. And he was perhaps one of the most important people of his time and certainly one of the most important people in the history of India. But I haven't read anywhere in your own assessment of his role. How do you think he will go down and Indian history of the world even? I think he is well the maker of modern India because he laid the base for democratic functioning and scientific advance.

And he helped a great deal to bring in more rational thinking amongst the people. He used to give very long speeches and sometimes especially people abroad would feel why does he spend so much time giving his long speeches and so on. But actually he was educating the people even in a privileged audience he would explain the problems of the country whether in science or even foreign policy. And this I think is this is what the strength and the base of democracy here. What was it particularly he was trying to teach the people who you talked before about superstition and trying to deal with that? There are two kinds of traditions. There is a tradition which is concerned with basic values and eternal truths and other things which keep people united and strong and give them strength at a time of difficulty. But lots of things collect dust, if you don't clean a building you collect all kinds of things which are superstitious and which may have had relevance at the time when they came into being but they are quite irrelevant to contemporary life.

But if you stick to those ways then they do hamper you are going ahead. I mean nobody would say that because our forefathers went on horseback we will also go on horseback and not use the car or the plane or the railway train. And it's the same in other areas of life that you have to see that what is eternal and useful and keep that. And sweep away what is just now pointless. And how are you trying to continue that education? Well it's difficult to put it in words. It's in the way that the government functions or we try to either parts of national life function. But I think we need to change our education system once. That's very difficult, isn't it? It's very difficult by dissension.

We have the same problem trying to change our education system. Madam Prime Minister I'm afraid we're out of time. Thank you very much. It was a most interesting conversation. 30 minutes with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India and Elizabeth Groove, writer and Washington editor for the Atlantic Monthly. This is PBS the Public Broadcasting Service. Thank you very much.