Former finance minister P. Chidambaram on Saturday thanked Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the attention he has brought to the Congress manifesto. Earlier this week, another member of the Congress manifesto committee, Praveen Chakravarty, told The Telegraph that the document had become a talking point of the election, thanks to the repeated misrepresentation by Modi.

Excerpts from the interview.

Q: At the manifesto release function in Telangana, Rahul Gandhi said historic/revolutionary action will be taken after the Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC). What is being envisaged?

A: SECC is itself historic. We have said we will remove the cap on reservations. Beyond that, what are the solutions for the broader philosophy of proportional rewards? I don’t know why people want to confuse it or deliberately conflate it when we say proportional rewards. Don’t we say the same for gender? All of us seem to agree and accept that… What does that mean? Does that mean we are going to take some stuff from men and give it off to women? No…. It’s the same with OBCs, SCs, STs and others.

We have very clearly mentioned a whole bunch of ideas — the scope of public procurement policy will be expanded to award more public works contracts to contractors belonging to SC and ST communities; we will enhance institutional credit to SCs and STs; we will double the funds for scholarships for OBC, SC and ST students. What does all this mean? We are basically saying that we are going to ensure that we move towards more proportional allocation of the budget. It will take time. This is what Mr Gandhi means when he says revolutionary. Up until now, no one has looked at government budgets through this prism.

Redistribution does not mean I come into your home and take away your money and give it off to someone else. In some sense, all democratic governments do this. When the Modi government says we give 80 crore free food, doesn’t that mean they are taking taxpayers’ money and using it for that? Isn’t that redistribution?

Q: The manifesto talks about addressing growing wealth and income inequality through suitable policy changes. Could you cite a couple?

A: Trickle-down economics is now probably way past its expiry date. The way to address income inequality is to ensure we have jobful growth. Focus on jobs which will translate into incomes which will automatically bridge inequality. We will focus on mining for strategic purposes... This took a lot of thought. The thesis is very simple. There is an opportunity for India to become a big player for strategic and critical minerals. Mining is very labour-intensive. Mining takes jobs to people, not people to jobs. Mining happens locally and usually in areas where tribals, Dalits and backward castes live. It is unskilled, labour-intensive. We have said we will increase the share of mining — almost double — to five per cent. This will lead to 1.5 crore jobs for unskilled workers — primarily in OBC, Dalits and tribal areas. That is a way to reduce inequality.

This is bound to raise eyebrows because it was Dr Manmohan Singh’s government which took a strident position against mining, I have personally discussed the mining idea with Dr Singh and sought his concurrence. He agreed with the idea.

Q: The Congress has promised two cash transfer schemes of ₹1 lakh each a year. Where is the money for this and is there an estimate of the number of
beneficiaries?

A: We have done the analysis. There are more than 10 lakh firms that are GST registered, that have turnover more than ₹10 crore a year, that can and will participate in this apprenticeship programme. There is already an Apprenticeship Act which was modified in 2019…. Today, there are 40,000 firms that are participating in that programme. As per our analysis and after consultations with small and medium-sized businesses, 10 lakh firms is what we will expand this to, which means on average each firm — the big firms can easily take up to 50 — can take two or three which adds up to 30 lakh apprentices every year. There are about one crore people every year that graduate under the age of 25. Even if 30-40 per cent of them want it, we will be able to provide it. The amount paid to them will be shared between the employer and the government. The government expenditure on this, in my estimate, will be between ₹15 crore and ₹20,000 crore a year. Remember apprenticeship means people will have to go to the place of work. Apprenticeship opportunities may be available in Gurgaon and people will have to travel. This also smoothens migration. Today people just come without anything. That’s the part many people haven’t understood. I estimate peak demand to be around 30 lakhs because people will have to move — this is only for people who are not able to do anything else.

The Mahalakshmi scheme for women will target the bottom 10-15 per cent. Even if we assume it is 3 crore poor families; that’s ₹3 lakh crore. This scheme will be rolled out in stages and funded by the Centre and states.

Centre and state budgets put together are about ₹100 lakh crore. All we are talking about is ₹3 lakh crore.

Q: The manifesto says electoral bonds will be investigated. What will be the alternative?

A: We are absolutely against anonymity. What can be the other options, obviously, that we have not mentioned in the manifesto but it is very clear that there will be a committee that will be appointed with people from all parties to talk about cleaning political financing. That is very high up on the agenda... That is really the root of a lot of our evils today. It will be premature for just the Congress to say this is how we should do it because after all we are part of the larger INDIA alliance. When it comes to national issues such as political financing, why just INDIA alliance... We must include all political parties, including the BJP.

Q: Why is the manifesto silent on CAA?

A: We talked about this a lot. We could have listed all the laws but it was consciously decided that we will not list all. Our position on CAA is very clear and known.

Q: Given the crises in our immediate neighbourhood, does the Congress think there is a need to reconsider the Citizenship Act?

A: Is there a rationale for relooking the law? Yes. Should religion be a criteria? Absolutely not. That is against the very founding principle of this country.

Q: The manifesto appears to suggest that reviewing personal laws are best left to the communities. What makes you think this will happen when communities across the board have shown little intent to change?

A: In public life, everything is about negotiation. The fact that we also said that we encourage reform of personal laws tells you where our mind is on that. We do believe that in some personal laws, there is scope for reform. Should that be coerced? No. Should that be negotiated? Yes. If it is left entirely to the communities themselves, then they may not. I think the idea of a uniform civil code implies coercion. Why should everybody be uniform? I prefer to think of it as a common civil code where for a fair, just liberal society we all agree to adhere to a minimum set of common standards which include personal freedoms. If that involves reforming certain personal laws, we should do it with the communities.