Rahul Gandhi appears to have brought off a tactical masterstroke by engaging globally renowned economist Raghuram Rajan in a conversation about the struggling economy and post-pandemic politics, signalling subtly that Prime Minister Narendra Modi could have done more to tackle the Covid-19 crisis.

Both because of its content and symbolism, the exercise is likely to bolster Rahul’s political standing at a time the space for oppositional politics has shrunk unimaginably in the country.

It’s also being seen as an indication of Rahul’s impending return to the helm in the party.

The meeting with Rajan, who quit as RBI governor shortly before the 2016 demonetisation and has since questioned autocratic and centralised styles of government functioning, was recorded on Wednesday.

While broadcasting the half-hour conversation on social media on Thursday, the Congress spared no effort to build it up with the suggestive hashtag of RahulShowsTheWay.

The event is as much an exercise in Rahul’s political branding as an effort to trigger a debate on what sort of constructive steps the government could have taken instead of indulging in gimmicks like clanging plates and burning candles.

The Congress will be hoping Rahul’s conversation with Rajan outshines not just the Prime Minister’s regular videoconferences with chief ministers, which have been devoid of vision or inspiration, but also the optics of Modi’s engagement with sports personalities and media house owners.

Rahul not only extracted from Rajan prescriptions for an economic revival but also drew him out on divisive politics and authoritarianism, subjects he rarely talks about.

During the conversation, Rahul underlined his own political philosophy by dwelling on social justice, communal harmony and decentralisation of power and insisting that inequality was India’s biggest curse.

Lockdown & economy

When Rahul asked how much money was needed to help the poor, hit the hardest by the lockdown, Rajan replied: “Around Rs 65,000 crore. Not much, our GDP is 200 lakh crore. We can do it. For saving the lives of the poor, we must do it.”

Rajan said the lockdown could not continue for too long and suggested ways of resuming economic activities while taking precautions.

Rahul asked: “If you get into a cyclical lockdown, if you open up and are forced to shut down again, that is devastating for economic activity because it would completely destroy trust. Would you agree with that?”

Rajan responded: “I think that is right. Take even a second lockdown, which means you haven’t been completely successful in reopening — though 100 per cent success is unachievable. That raises questions that if you reopen, will you go into a third lockdown? So, it does diminish credibility.”

Centralisation

Rahul moved on to what he described as “a crisis of centralisation” and “lack of conversation”.

Rajan said: “I do believe that decentralisation is important both for bringing more local information to work (and for) giving empowerment to the people. What you see across the world is a great sense of disempowerment. I have a vote but that elects somebody in a far-off place. My local panchayat, state government has less power. They (voters) don’t feel they can have a voice in anything. So they become prey to different sets of forces.”

Rajan added: “I would ask you the same question. Panchayati raj, which Rajiv Gandhi brought back — what effect has that had and has it been beneficial?”

Rahul responded: “It had a huge effect, but I’m sorry to say it is in retreat. So, a lot of the forward movement that had taken place on Panchayati raj, we are sort of moving back to this bureaucratic, DM-bureaucrat based structure.”

Rajan said: “The closer the decisions are taken to people, the more ability they have to keep a check. I think it is an experiment worth doing.”

Asked what was causing centralisation at a global level, Rajan said: “I do think there is a cause and I think it is the global markets. There is a sense that if markets globalise, the market participants, that is firms, want to see the same rules everywhere. They want to see the same coordinating structure everywhere, the same government everywhere. Because that then gives them confidence. That attempt at uniformity takes away power from the local or national governments. In addition, there is the bureaucratic temptation to centralise. If I can grab the power, why not?”

Authoritarianism

That prompted Rahul to remark: “There is a new model out, which is the authoritarian model, which is questioning the liberal model. It is a different way of doing work and it seems to be rising in more and more places. Do you think it is going to be pushed back?”

Rajan replied: “I don’t know. The central authoritarian model, the strong figure, in a world where you are powerless, is sometimes appealing. Especially if you can develop a personal rapport with that figure.”

He explained: “The problem with that is that the authoritarian figure can develop their own sense of ‘I am the power of the people and therefore whatever I say goes. My rules apply and not the checks and balances, not the institutions, not the decentralised structure. Everything should go through me.’ Historically what has happened is that it has put too much weight on that centre and eventually that collapses.”

Global economy

Rahul drew Rajan out further, saying: “But clearly something has gone wrong with the global economic system. That is very clear. It is not working. Would that be a fair statement?”

Rajan said: “I think it is a fair statement that it is not working for a lot of people. The growing inequality of wealth and income in developed countries is certainly a source of concern. The precariousness of jobs, the so-called precariat is another source of concern. You have these gig jobs without knowing if you’ll have any income tomorrow….

“We can’t dispense with markets; we do need growth. We also have a problem of stuck or inadequate distribution. People aren’t getting the fruits of that growth in the same way. Many people are being left out. So we need to think about both sides.”

Divisive politics

Rahul then guided the conversation towards a discussion of divisive politics.

“It’s interesting that you said that infrastructure connects people and that gives opportunity. But if there is division and hatred, that disconnects people. That is also infrastructure. There is an infrastructure of division and an infrastructure of hatred and that causes as big a problem,” he said.

Rajan agreed. “Absolutely. Social harmony is a public good. Having everyone believe that they are a part of this system, an equal part of the system, is essential,” he said.

“We cannot afford to be a house divided. Especially in these times when our challenges are so big. So I would prefer to put…. Our founding fathers, the people who wrote our Constitution, and the early administrations, those people realised that there were some issues that you were to put on a shelf and not touch. Because if we got into those issues, we would spend a lot of time fighting each other.”

Governing India

Rajan then asked Rahul about the differences between governing India and governing the US or Europe.

Rahul replied: “The scale of the problem and at its heart the financial scale of the problem; the inequality and the nature of the inequality; things like caste — the way Indian society is structured is completely different than American society, as you know.

“Some of the ideas that hold India back are deeply embedded and often hidden. So you have to, I think, there is a lot of, sort of, social change that is required in India and a lot of these problems are different in different states. One blanket solution for the whole of India just will not work, can’t work.”

Inequality

Rahul added: “The idea of governance in India is always about trying to control and I think that is one of the challenges that we are facing now. One of the things that sort of annoy me is the level of inequality. What I always look at is how to reduce this inequality because I think once a system reaches a very high point, high level of inequality, then it simply stops to work.

“You know, I like Gandhiji’s words, just go to the back of the line and see what’s going on at the back of the line. This is a very powerful thing for a politician. It’s underrated, but I think that’s where a lot of the insights come in.

“How would you think about going forward, dealing with this inequality? You know it is visible in Covid also. The way India is treating its poor people versus the way the elite is being treated — two completely different ideas, two completely different Indias.”