In the second part of the interview with Rediff
You know that
There was a time when it was believed that population was a problem, but the way the world's economic environment has since changed,
But if these young people don't get jobs, it could lead to major social unrest.
I don't accept this theory. The youth have talent -- they don't want a job, they want work. They want to develop their skills.
I told the PM at a meeting, 'What are we doing? By itself my state is running 2,000 skill development projects and I want to increase this number by the hundreds, have public-private partnerships.'
Our youth need value-addition, they are capable of doing it and they are doing it. They should be given an opportunity.
Similarly, if an opportunity is given, will you lead the nation?
I believe that the chief ministers of even the smallest Indian states are major instruments of powering the nation. And I, as a chief minister, am part of running the nation.
Will you deny that you have no ambition whatsoever to become the prime minister?
I have a mission, not ambition. I was not born to become something, I was born to do something.
I did not have a desire to become somebody when I was a child, I don't have it now, nor will I have it in the future.
I have a dream, to do something. I want to do something for the nation. I am part of the mission, not ambition.
Ambition doesn't inspire me, mission does.
What are the other things that drive Narendra Modi?
Only devotion to Bharat Mata. That is enough for me.
What are the challenges that face
We have a 100 crore population, which presents us with an opportunity to make the 21st century ours, to unleash the energy in the common man and take the nation forward. This is a big opportunity, and we should grab it.
Who is your leadership model? Who are you inspired by?
From my childhood I have been influenced by Swami Vivekanandji's life. I have studied his life, and live by it. I don't cross the limit.
How much time do you spend on politics?
In a way, if I say it myself it will seem immodest, but the reality is I am an apolitical chief minister. I leave for office at 9 am, and am there till 11 pm. Only during the elections, for those 30, 40 days, I spend my time on party work, otherwise the rest of my time I spend as an apolitical chief minister. I am not interested in this type of political activity..
People say this time you got your way with the selection of candidates for the Lok Sabha polls.
We have a collective leadership, a democratic system. We heard the opinions of 10,000 party workers, the state team went to every district, and after listening to everyone we debated the findings from which we zoomed in on the plus points and minus points of various potential candidates.
The state's 17-member team met them and gave their opinion. Then the decision from the grass-roots was conveyed to
Isn't this the problem with Indian politics? Too much credit is given to age and experience while someone who is younger and more dynamic, more efficient is ignored...
Let me share my experience with you. Please don't take this in any other way, and don't give a political colour to it, it's of no use.
I am saying this as a student. We should compare any two prime ministers, and here I will take the names of two Congress prime ministers. Rajiv Gandhi and P V Narasimha Rao.
Rajiv Gandhi was young and dynamic, had foreign exposure, he had everything, was good-looking, charismatic. Narasimha Rao had retired completely from public life, but had to suddenly return to active politics. Healthwise, and looks-wise, he was different.
But who ran the government better for five years? Who provided
One simple reason:
If you look at
But Narasimha Rao's government was accused of corruption.
Look, it was less compared to the Bofors scandal. I am not calling him great. I am merely saying, in comparison, who was plus and who was minus, I am only saying that. I am not giving Narasimha Rao any certificate. Bofors was no less. I am saying, compare the two and see who comes off better.
Both had pluses and minuses.
But the ultimate plus, was more with him though I agree no one has only negative aspects. And that is because for years he was involved with the situation, with the problems, any issues in Nagaland he could sit here and discern if this was the case, then that would be the outcome. Because he had experience, vision. He wielded a lot of power in such a large country.