Reported By:
| Edited By: Nikhil M Ghanekar |Source: DNA |Updated: Apr 11, 2016, 11:48 AM IST
Q: The book seems largely like a chronicle of your time as the environment minister. What made you write this book and what was the idea behind this?
A: The main ideas was that it was a period of 25 months in which many important decisions got taken and I wanted to bring together not just the decisions that were taken but the manner in which the decisions were taken. So, it was important to leave behind for scholars, for people interested in issues of environment and development the thinking that dictated my approach to the minsitry for those 25 months. A lot of it was available in the public domain when I was a minister, but to bring it all together and to make it part of a coherent whole, that was the objective of the book. Plus, I had time on my hands. This is not a kiss and tell book, purda utha diya book. Not a Sanjaya Baru or Natwar Singh type book. I could have done that also, but I resisted that temptation.
Q: In what ways? (Did you resist the temptation)
A: I could have talked about personalities, conflicts. This book is a chronicle of the written record, not of oral conversations. That is an important distinction what I want to make. Every word in this book is documented, in some memo, some note, some file. Nothing oral.
Q: The book gives an impression that it tries to set the record straight regarding the controversies surrounding your tenure.
A: At the end of my tenure, the environmentalists were unhappy that I did not do much while the corporate guys were unhappy that I did too much. Some sections of the media were happy, for example the regional media was very happy but the pink press was unhappy. This was not meant to be a defence, I don’t want to get into that. It is not a response to the most absurd and ill-informed Yashwant Sinha allegation that I was responsible for reducing India’s GDP growth by 2.5%. It is not taking on the critics. It is a written record of contemporary times. It (book) provides a written record of what I wrote as a minister.
Q: You call yourself someone who turned from an “environment-agnost” to an “environment-believer”, can you elaborate?
A: I was not an environmental activist. I had never served in the ministry before, I only knew few environmentalists. I like trees, mountains, rivers and nature. But liking them and believing in them was two different things. The belief came after my ministerial time. I was a believer of growth at all costs, I played a role in the 1991 reforms. As you grow older you become wiser, but in the ministry when you see the range of opinions and when you listen to everyone. You can either be like Narendra Modi, “my way or the highway” or you can listen to everyone and give them a chance. Democracy also means being sensitive to the voices of minority.
Q: When you took over and in those 25 months, did you face a conflict between your past as a “growth at all costs” versus environment. You mention that projects that you rejected would be passed by the GoM’s
A: There were compromises. But the compromises came after a lot of deliberations. Take Navi Mumbai airport, a classic example. Initially, I put my foot down and Ashok Chavan dug in his heels, Praful Patel too dug his heels. But then we started a conversation, I moved, they moved and ultimately mangroves got protected. Environmental integrity was preserved and the airport clearance was given. We found a solution. My job was also to provide solutions without allegations, that the ministry was an ATM ministry.
Q: The ministry has often been accused of not following up on the safeguards and conditions put forth while giving clearances how do you see that? Even the TSR Subramanian committee report points it out
A: Yes, the follow ups are weak and during my time I had proposed the National Environment Monitoring Authority for compliance. Our standards are tough and laws are progressive, although Mr.TSR Subramanian who knows nothing on environment is recommending a complete overhaul of environmental laws. He is a good friend of mine, I have worked very closely with him when I was advisor in the finance ministry and he was the cabinet secretary. I am extraordinarily fond of him, but he knows next to nothing about environment.
Q: What do you make of the Subramanian committee report?
A: It’s a complete recipe for disaster. Within two months, to come out with such a report…I can’t think of any other word but match fixing, for the corporates. It was a dishonest exercise. They were told to produce a report and produced it. It’s a report that could have been written in FICCI or CII or any of the builder lobby’s. It betrays no sensistivity to the nuances, to the awareness of trade-off between environment and development. No concern for environmental issues. It forgets history completely, about the acts. The environment protection act came up after the Bhopal tragedy.
Q: Could you touch upon a few specifics to elaborate why this report is a recipe for disaster?
A: Their whole approach was wrong, it is a command performance. Internationally, we are saying we are concerned about climate change but domestically we are doing everything to weaken all our laws and regulations.
Q: In the current regime, the ministry has been accused of diluting environmental laws, forest rights act being one example, what is your take?
A: I don’t want to say anything on the current minister. He is a good friend of mine and we share notes. I have nothing but fondness for him. But during my tenure the tribal ministry and environment ministry were on the same wavelength. I went out of my way to accommodate the concerns of the tribals even though the forest bureaucracy was unhappy.
Q: Recently, your successor Jayanthi Natarajan made some serious revelations regarding the functioning of the ministry and the “inputs” that Rahul Gandhi sent to her on specific big ticket projects.
A: I have gone on record and I will repeat it. During my 25 months, neither Mrs.Gandhi nor Mr.Gandhi told me directly or indirectly to ‘to do this, or ‘do that’.
Q: The book gives a sense that when some key projects were rejected on the grounds of valid environmental grounds, you were overruled by cabinet. Does that make it redundant to take a hard line stance in the ministry?
A: The ministry of environment is one part of the government. It has to its due diligence and it should not be asked to only clear. Once the due diligence is carried out, it is up to the cabinet to decide. That was the way forward I had suggested. In contentious cases, I said; do not ask the environment ministry to go against its conscience. You must have the courage to say that we have considered environmental concerns before giving a nod to the projects. Being in the environment ministry is not a popularity contest.
Q: In conclusion, what is your take on the functioning of the ministry under the current dispensation?
A: It’s an environmental free for all. In the last nine months, the signals that have come, overall, they have been of environmental laxity. I am all for transparency and time bound clearances. But this does not mean due diligence is given a go-by. If one Indian company can go to Australia, and get environmental clearance subject to 36 conditions, quietly…and when the same conditions get imposed in India, you call it tax and impediment to decision making. These are double standards.
