(This story originally appeared in on Jun 27, 2016)

Gurumurthy, a chartered accountant by profession, has been variously described as an RSS ideologue (although he holds no formal role in the organisation), an investigative journalist (although he is no hack) and a powerful

adviser (although he is no professional deal-maker).

The man, who chose to steer clear of the muck of electoral politics on the advice of his spiritual guru, continues to be one of the most influential voices in Indian politics and business.

Many see a Gurumurthy stamp in the RSS’ positions on

and business and his political views carry considerable weight in the BJP-ruled Lutyens’ Delhi. He is also tipped to be the inspiration behind the recent demand by a section of the Sangh Parivar leaders for the exit of rock star RBI governor Raghuram

. His passion continues to be swadeshi (he is the co-convenor of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, or

).

In this exclusive interview to Praveen S Thampi, Gurumurthy argues that his fight is not against individuals. He says that Indian experts, whose steep learning curve has been abroad, should study and experience India for a period like Mahatma Gandhi did on advice of

. Excerpts from a rare interview:

Is the large-scale opening up of FDI in the national interest or will it increase India’s dependence on foreign arms suppliers and hand over large chunks of the Indian

, such as in civil aviation, to foreign players?

Do you think the economic reform agenda of the Narendra Modi government is in consonance with the ideology of ‘Indianness’ pursued by the BJP and the SJM?

Do you agree with Subramanian

’s attack on Raghuram Rajan that he was ‘mentally not fully Indian’? What were your primary reasons for discomfort with Rajan as RBI governor?

Who, in your view, would be the ideal candidate to replace Rajan? What are the qualities the next RBI governor should have?

In the 25 years since economic liberalisation began, do you see the glass half full or half empty as far as India’s economic status is concerned?

What is your view on the rise of homegrown babas-turned-entrepreneurs like

? Do you think he can give the HULs and P&Gs a run for their money?

Does your experience with companies and their finances suggest the robustness conveyed by GDP data?

How relevant is swadeshi in times of globalisation as well as at a time when a fresh wave of protectionism is sweeping the world, right from the US to the

?

It needs some discussion. Opening up of FDI is as much strategic as it is economic. In the early-mid 1990s, it was neither. Forced to open up helplessly just to get the desperately needed dollars, we had no strategic option. The Pokhran blast in 1998 first put India on the global strategic map. The sanctions invited engagements. Otherwise, the then all-powerful West would not have engaged India.The world too began changing since the dotcom crisis and the WTC attack. As the 2000s progressed, the US/West began losing space to Asia, which gradually started regaining its lost position. Dr Manmohan Singh’s nuclear treaty with the US scaled up India’s strategic relevance. Now Narendra Modi ’s extraordinary success in forging strategic relations with diverse powers — from US to Iran — and with Japan , which seeks its due place in the world like India, has moved India to the head table of the world. The result: India of 2016 is not the India of 1996. Now we can handle foreign players, however mighty.Therefore, the opening (of FDI) can be and is now both economic and strategic. The present opening of investment, which is in tune with the Make in India (both Make for India and Made in India) agenda, factors in the declining global trade since 2006. Considering trade and investment as alternatives, FDI is a better option than imports. FDI in automobiles has made India an export hub. Of the areas opened up, two are of concern. One, civil aviation, without deciding what to do with Air India; and two, food retail that could have been given more time to allow indigenous actors to strengthen. I think the new policies will strengthen India’s defence production and make it a player in global arms market.It needs some discussion. Opening up of FDI is as much strategic as it is economic. In the early-mid 1990s, it was neither. Forced to open up helplessly just to get the desperately needed dollars, we had no strategic option. The Pokhran blast in 1998 first put India on the global strategic map. The sanctions invited engagements. Otherwise, the then all-powerful West would not have engaged India.The world too began changing since the dotcom crisis and the WTC attack. As the 2000s progressed, the US/West began losing space to Asia, which gradually started regaining its lost position. Dr Manmohan Singh’s nuclear treaty with the US scaled up India’s strategic relevance. Now Narendra Modi’s extraordinary success in forging strategic relations with diverse powers — from US to Iran — and with Japan, which seeks its due place in the world like India, has moved India to the head table of the world. The result: India of 2016 is not the India of 1996. Now we can handle foreign players, however mighty.Therefore, the opening (of FDI) can be and is now both economic and strategic. The present opening of investment, which is in tune with the Make in India (both Make for India and Made in India) agenda, factors in the declining global trade since 2006. Considering trade and investment as alternatives, FDI is a better option than imports. FDI in automobiles has made India an export hub. Of the areas opened up, two are of concern. One, civil aviation, without deciding what to do with Air India; and two, food retail that could have been given more time to allow indigenous actors to strengthen. I think the new policies will strengthen India’s defence production and make it a player in global arms market.Indianness does not mean being insulated or autarkic. It means being balanced in favour of India. Actually, the term ‘reform’ is itself wrong. It presumes an external benchmark. I would prefer the word ‘change’. The unregulated financial model of the US in 1990 was once the benchmark for all, but not any more, with the US itself moving towards regulation . Change is a continuous process. If the economists understand this, many a misunderstanding could be removed.Culturally, Rajan is perhaps mentally more Indian than many of our liberals. My objections are about Rajan’s policies. But I do feel that Indian experts, whose steep learning curve has been abroad, should study and experience India for a period (like Gandhiji , who returned from South Africa , did on Gopal Krishna Gokhale ’s advice) before they make policies for India.Swamy has also demanded that chief economic adviser Arvind Subramanian should be sacked because years ago he had backed Washington against India in a row over intellectual property rights. Do you agree with Swamy that Arvind Subramanian should be sacked? I do not agree. I do not think Arvind Subramanian will hold the same view today. If he did that, he would not have joined the Modi government.Is ‘Indianness’ of key technocrats a relevant factor in discharging their job well? Indianness means an Indianised mind. It has two elements — love for India and experience of India. One without the other is truncated. We can engage foreign technocrats as one-time advisers, like Jawaharlal Nehru engaged Nicholas Kaldor — though the choice was wrong. Whether a foreign technocrat’s advice will suit us or not can be decided only by an Indianised mind. Deng Xiaoping mandated his government to examine all ideas but take only that would work in China. The Modi cabinet has told the NITI Aayog ‘to zero in on what will work in and for India’. Ideas are welcome from everywhere. But whether they will suit India can be decided only by those who have Indian experience.We don’t need a celebrity as governor who will not risk damage to his bio. We need someone like Dr YV Reddy who will become celebrated as governor — someone who knows or tries to know the deeper India, not limiting one’s ideas and interests to the financial world in and out of India and who keeps the head down and work.I have answered this already in response to your first question. We can’t look at economic status independent of India’s strategic position. Combining the two, which mutually strengthens each other, I think, India has grown in stature — both ways.The Ramdev business phenomenon shows the impulse and urge for things Indian, which also makes the post-modern Indian view of things Western evident. This is changing even the MNCs here. Didn’t you notice the Colgate ads talking about neem and slt” in toothpaste?The non-corporate sector, domestic consumption and savings drive India’s growth. The corporate sector never fully accounted for the Indian growth story. As a Credit Suisse study said, the overrated corporates are the tail of Indian economy, not its body. Yet it is its most visible part and its critical link with global economy. Corporates over-invested before 2008, foolishly continued doing so even after and got stuck.This called for practical solutions. On the contrary, the RBI adopted a sledgehammer approach to force the NPA norms not appropriate to India and destroyed corporate India’s confidence, shocking them into a shell. There are three good reasons why global norms could have been deferred. One, no capital side convertibility in India; two, its banks are government-owned; three, a third of bank deposits stand invested in government securities. These are natural hedges against any banking crisis of the kind in Japan in the 1990s and in the US in 2008. This is a topic by itself. The sooner the RBI reverses its high-handed approach, the better.Swadeshi is not protectionism. It is a philosophy that links culture and economics. It rules out the idea of ‘fit-all’ model for development and makes development culturally compatible. This actually is the future global idea.On October 15-16, 2005, Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the G20 countries dismissed the idea of ‘fit all’ economic model — read global model — and said, ‘Each country should be able to choose the development approaches and policies that suit its specific characteristics.’Later the World Bank conceded in May 2008: ‘In our work across the world, the World Bank has learned the hard way that there is no one model that fits all. Development means taking the best ideas, testing them in new situations, and throwing away what does not work.’ In 2015, United Nations officials highlighted the need to recognise the vital role of culture in poverty reduction and sustainable growth, and to ensure that it is integrated into the post-2015 development agenda. Is swadeshi now a global idea or local one?