voting is drawing to a close in alabama to choose a representative for the us senate. the campaign has been dominated by allegations of sexual misconduct against the republican candidate, roy moore. he's denied the claims. if his rival, doug jones, wins, he'd be the first democrat in 25 years to take the seat. us secretary of state, rex tillerson, has said he's ready to talk to north korea without preconditions. his offer appears to be a change from previous demands that north korea must first disarm. and this story is trending on bbc.com. it's a0 years since the first star wars movie and now the latest instalment — the lastjedi — received royal approval in london at its european premiere. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

one of the world's biggest countries has a leader who polarises opinions, stokes nationalist sentiment, has a controversial past, and a predilection for twitter, i am thinking of course of india's prime minister narendra modi. but are there any parallels to be drawn with america's current president? my current guess is a member of the parliamentary chamber, swa pan dasgupta, does this conservative ally of india's prime minister see any dangers in narendra modi's populism? swa pan dasgupta, welcome to hardtalk. more than three years ago, when he came to power, mr modi was described widely around the world, and in india, ithink, as a conservative, hindu nationalist, and a populist politician, do you think he has lived up to those labels? i think the most important thing about when he came to power is that it was interpreted very differently by very different sections of the electorate. there were certainly some who saw him as a conservative, there were some who saw him as a free marketeer.

others saw him as a nationalist. some saw him as a poor boy made good. and some people saw him as a member of the backward castes. so it really depends, swapan dasgupta conveyed multiple images to people. —— mr modi conveyed. which one is the real mr modi? i think he is all of them in some ways. i'm very taken in your writing, and you are an ally of mr modi, and the bjp has put you the upper house of the indian parliament, but you're also a writer. i am struck by some things you have written. for example, you said, for "for too long in the conservatism has been at the end of condescension and caricature, and the modi government has substantially negated the importance of entitlement". as you see modi as an anti—elitist. i think in the united states you call it outside the beltway. i think beltway is really the term. in india we call it the mob. that is really a set of people,

perhaps privileged, perhaps english speaking like me... i must say, in parentheses, you are part of this establishment. yes. i would say i am one of the orphans. people who exactly saw themselves as very entitled. and people whose aspirations centred on the congress and the gandhi family, to a very large extent, and they epitomised that equal system. mr modi was an unknown entity. mr modi was not a delhi politician, he came from the provinces. he was provincial chief minister. he was in fact ostracised and hounded for a lot of his views. he was treated as a complete outsider, outlander, infact. the more you talk the more i am hearing the echoes and resonances of the trump phenomena in america. mr trump came after mr modi. let's not argue about

the chronologies, in terms of the spirit of a man, let's remember donald trump's phrase, he was going to go to washington and drain the swamp. you are suggesting that for you that is what the last three years have been about. that is only one part of it. a change of the elites. not really a dispossession, but a relative marginalisation of some of those who had hitherto occupied preeminent positions. but that is only one aspect of it. i think what is really important about mr modi is that after 25 years, india got a government with a full majority. that meant a prime minister did not have to look over his shoulder when taking decisions. and mr modi came with a track record of being decisive, of being firm, of having a clear mind of what he wants to do. he is controversial. i would say he is polarising. and that's not necessarily a pejorative term. well, we'll get to the polarising when it comes to some

of the sectarian and communal issues in india injust a moment, but i want to begin by taking on board what you have just said about him coming to power attracting the outsiders in india. and suggesting to you that those who are most outside are the poorest in india. and when one looks at the delivery, in terms of poverty alleviation and eradication in india in the last three years, frankly, it seems to me that mr modi has been found wanting. he has achieved a lot in economic terms, but he hasn't fundamentally shifted that block of indians, some 250 million, who are living on or below the poverty line. i think mr modi has done a tremendous amount to actually, i think what is important is the impulses which were reflected during the election, were that people wanted opportunities. they were exasperated with having to live a shoddy, plodding life and they wanted to get ahead. and the most important thing

which mr modi has done in three three years, and i was there be number one issue, is a frontal assault on corruption. one of those things which was really holding india back. the image of india, plus the sheer venality, the inefficiencies which got into the system. i think mr modi has done a tremendous amount. i am going to ask you about corruption, but i want to stick with the poor and what modi—ism, if there is such a thing, is doing for them. i would say to the poor, the most important thing he has done for the poor is that previously government welfare payments were siphoned off at a very large way. today, using technology, using a certain determination to get ahead, you have managed to have direct payments. you've opened to the banking system to the poor, you have opened quite a lot of...

but look at the record, look at the record, mr dasgupta, in gujarat, when he was chief minister, and today as prime minister of the nation, his record is of cutting benefits, cutting welfare, doing a lot for the rich in terms of favourable tax policy, doing a lot for corporate india, but actually doing very little for the poor, particularly in the rural areas. and i am so struck that a former bjp, his own party, a former bjp finance minister, yashwant sinha, is currently on a protest with poor farmers in maharashtra state, saying quote "private investment is shrinking, industrial production has all but collapsed, agriculture is in deep distress, the construction industry is in the doldrums," he says "our economy is in crisis". if our economy was in that much of a crisis we would not have registered growth rates that we have had. if our economy was in crisis... i am not saying corporate

india is in crisis. i'm not saying that the middle and upper middle class are not doing very well. i am saying that if our economy was indeed in that sort of dire condition, as you make it out to be sometimes, or mr yashwant sinha makes it out to be, you would not have had repeated electoral successes for the bjp, you would not have had an entire revolution which has resulted in women's empowerment to a very significant extent, you would not have had electrification of villages, which has taken place in a tremendous sort of way, which has changed and altered the lives of the quality people's lives. just like mrtrump in the united states, those who are most keen on the economic reforms delivered by mr modi are the corporates and the rich. that is just a fact in india today. they are benefiting and they are doing very well. i think some of the corporates are resentful of the fact that the cronyism which marked some of the earlier business practices have been done away with,

that corporate lending has been streamlined, that people, that corporates who have not pay back money are being punished. i think it is also there that the discretionary powers, which some corporates believed was their route to success, has been done away with. there is far greater rule—based system, which is good for some people. it is good for corporates who don't have connections. it may not be necessarily good for the corporates who have hitherto used political access. i am tempted to rely on the people who make a specialism out of studying corruption in developing economies, transparency international are one such group. their most recent report, march this year, india still has the highest bribery rate amongst the 16 asia—pacific countries that they surveyed. and nearly seven in ten indians who had access public services said that they had had to pay a bribe. that is this year.

yes. i think that is quite true. that there is bribery, it is still rampant. but what is important are two things. one, that at the top layers of government corruption has more or less completely ceased. the powers of discretion which are really at the heart of corruption, that has come down. number two, tax compliance, which was really one of those dodgy areas of india, people just did not pay taxes, a very small number of people. can you imagine that in two years we have had something like an additional 7.8 million people now paying taxes? it is not because there has been a sudden windfall and they have won the lottery or something like that. it is a greater sense of compliance. a lot of the resistance that has been coming in is because you are putting in more people to the tax... for a writer who has converted himself into a politician, you are doing a very good job of putting a positive spin on everything modi's doing. but there are other spins

to be had and some come from inside his own party. this is a former bjp minister, arun shourie, talking about the so—called de—monetisation policy, where overnight mr modi declared that the high high denomination banknotes would be taken out of circulation. he said it was to get rid of all the black money, all of that corrupt money that was swilling around under people's beds and elsewhere in india. but actually, the effect has been to legitimise a lot of black money that has simply been moved into the banking system and is now regarded as perfectly legitimate. mr shourie describes it as "the world's largest money—laundering scheme". well, mr shourie has a way with words and both the people, critics of mr modi you have quoted were people who... he has a real point. no, he does not have a point. mr chidambaram, i interviewed him not so long ago. he says it is the biggest scam of 2016. mr chidambaram may have it. what has happened is that you had 90% of the de—monetised money coming back into the banks, number one...

now regarded as legitimate. it is not legitimate any more. because that money now has an address. next step is for them to account for that money. it's the second step which has been very conveniently left out. just because money is deposited into the banks doesn't make it legitimate. had that been the case, we would not have had money—laundering operations. done through normal banking operations. i think what is very important is that the critics of mr modi were struck by one thing, the sheer audacity of this. something which takes into account 86% of the cash which was in circulation in india was de—monetised. it affected every single indian. rich, poor, everyone was affected by this decision. why was it endorsed? everyone suffered personal inconvenience in some way or another, some more, some less. but there was a certain determination on the part of people that, look, the cancer has gone too

far, perhaps you needed a dose of very drastic surgery. i think de—monetisation, it hasn't ended corruption... for sure it hasn't. it hasn't. i would say that. but it is a very major step in that direction. now take that, read it along with other legislation that has come along, and i think the first what india has done is that the wheels of corruption, which was rolling, and now you have managed to roll back the tide of the first time. interesting. that to my mind is very important. interesting that you couch it in terms of the audacity and decisiveness of mr modi. why hasn't he been equally decisive and firm when it comes to smacking down hard on what we see, from the outside, as the dangerous rise of communal sectarian hate and violence in the india of narendra modi? i think mr modi has been

quite clear in his mind, his personal interventions, that he sees these issues as a complete distraction from the main task to built the economy. when people are being killed is because of their beliefs, because, for example, a muslim man happens to own a cow and some people down the street believe that he has slaughtered a cow, he is murdered for that. there have been hate crimes in india, and i would say that, that constitutes a hate crime. that is not what mr modi has ever said. he called for a ten—year moratorium... mr modi has seemed to follow people who peddle hate, and who celebrate when a muslim young man is murdered because he is falsely accused of slaughtering a cow. we all follow lots of people on twitter, just to get

a diversity of opinion. it is irresponsible. i mean, he follows me. i suspect you do not declare a celebration when a muslim man is killed. no, certainly not. look, in india, we have all shades of opinion. some of them are ugly, and i think i would be the first to admit that there are certain people who believe that mr modi's victory also symbolised their liberation from what they see as the scourge of secularism, and avenging history. now, hang on a minute. there are these people... avenging history — but you surely know more than anybody else that mr modi is seen by muslims in india, and many outside, as a man who still has a cloud hanging over him because of what happened in gujarat in 2002. you know that there are still serious allegations about his role as chief minister in riots which killed many, many

hundreds of muslims. given that past, surely your advice to him, and you do speak to him, is to be as tough as he can possibly be on what you call hate crimes. but that is a phrase that he does not use. no, he does not use it. do you think you should? i think what mr modi has to do is to make sure that the political agenda moves decisively away from these sectarian issues, that the political agenda is focused principally on the question of development, and that identity politics of such a narrow variety. how do you do it is a question. forgive me for interrupting, it is rude, but ijust want to air the figures. there is a phrase which has developed in india in the last two years of cow vigilantism. it is seen as a problem. i have looked at the figures, i've looked at the past seven years. 97% of the incidents of this cow vigilantism,

which has resulted in violence, sometimes the deaths of people seen to have slaughtered these animals, 97% of the cases are reported under modi's government, and most of them in bjp areas. so the party has a problem, mr modi has a problem, and it doesn't seem to be being addressed. i think what is really important is that vigilantism is really unacceptable. it has been declared so, party functionaries have said so. whenever individuals take the laws into their own hands, they must be dealt with. however, i would also emphasise one thing — that beef is one of the most emotive issues in india. it has to be handled with kid gloves. there are a lot of sensitivities which are involved there, and i think you have to play that issue very delicately. let's unpack that a little bit. are you saying that you defend the right of indian states to categorically ban the slaughter of cattle?

notjust for hindus, or notjust to make it a voluntary, faith—based requirement, but to say to every citizen of the state, you cannot kill and therefore eat beef? such legislation exists. i know — are you saying... most of that legislation was not passed by the bjp. it was passed by the previous government. that is part of the constitution, which also says it is part of the duty of the government to protect the cow. now, you might find this antediluvian, you might find it contrary to certain customs. but in india, as i said... well, nobody cares what i think, but in india... beef is a very sensitive issue in india. and i think personal taste sometimes — just like prohibition, temperance. why are so many states against alcohol consumption? we have actually enacted a law against it. but there are the sort of taboos,

there are these social restrictions, which are there in india, and they have to be handled with a great deal of sensitivity. with mr modi and his background, let me quote the words of gandhi himself, from 1947. the hindu religion, he said, prohibited the slaughter of cows for religion, not for the world. the religious prohibition came from within. any imposition from without meant compulsion, and such compulsion was repugnant to religion. mr gandhi certainly was one of the greatest advocates of anti—cow slaughter. but his point was, we must not... he wanted to make it voluntary. there are states which allow cow slaughters to take place. i think also there has to be a greater degree of realisation and accommodation on the part of people, to say, look,

this is what i do, which is not necessarily what you do. and i'm saying that this is a social issue. it goes far beyond politics. but, at the same time, i think it's very, very important to emphasise that this is a very sensitive issue. well, you have made that point. it's a part of indian culture. let's leave beef to one side for the moment, and end with this thought — about whether you are concerned that under mr modi there is something happening with hindu extremism. i'm now thinking of the recent murder of a journalist, gauri lankesh, who spent a lot of time researching and talking about the dangers of hindu extremism. she was brutally murdered in september 2017. are you worried that there is something happening in india today, which mr modi and his team are not capable, or indeed willing, to combat? i knew gauri very well.

she was a colleague at various points. i don't think there is anything as yet to link her murder with that of hindu extremists. i think it's one of those really criminal tragedies that happen, the attack and murder of gauri lankesh. you see no link? i said there could be. however, i think the important thing is to realise — to isolate these hindu extremists as much as possible. most of them, incidentally, operate outside the boundaries of the bjp. they find the bjp too moderate an organisation. they believe in a very extreme, radical, exclusivist view of society, which goes against the beliefs and the sensitivities of most other people. but why is your party, the party you are loyal to, so keen to offer sops to these people? for example, in the education system, one can look at states like maharashtra, where efforts are being made to completely change the textbooks that your school children are seeing and reading,

to write out a whole swathes of mughal, muslim history. why is that happening? history in india is a very contested issue. i think it's important to also realise that history has been written in one particular way. it was written earlier by the colonial masters. subsequently, at various times, there's been an influence of the left on history. and i think areas need... one indian critic of what is happening says we may soon have the situation, absurd situation where students in maharashtra will not be allowed to know who built the taj mahal. that is silly. i think that is silly, that is a caricature, that is not what's happening. they have been certain extreme cases of certain people saying the taj mahal shouldn't be,

but i think they will be laughed out of court. what is important is to recognise that india has a certain contested history. now, how we find a method of actually accommodating these various conflicts is really the challenge. it's an intellectual challenge, it's a challenge for historians. but to say that we should go by the earlier version of what constituted history, i think, is wrong. there is no question that mr modi is very popular. i mean, he has won regional state elections in the last few months by resounding margins. his opinion poll ratings are very high. do you also, as a man who is a writer and an explorer of india's social affairs, do you also have worries about what modiism is doing to india? if you think that modi's success, his popularity, is due to a certain vision of india which is ugly, which is monstrous, which is exclusivist, i think you're wrong. there have been certain very, very fundamental changes in india. there have been a lot of actual government, which is seen to work

at the grassroots. that's what really caps it. the rhetoric, his personal charm, his eloquence, et cetera, those are just the garnishing. the real substance comes from the fact that, after a long time, we've got a government which is perceived to be honest, which is committed, which delivers. we have to end there, but swa pan dasgupta, thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you very much. well, the weather story is getting a bit messy now during the middle of the week and though we will see cold air through the middle

of the country, there is the risk over the next few days of some snow and also further ice and we are starting wednesday morning off the risk of ice across scotland and england due to overnight rain moving through, falling on freezing surfaces, then skies will clear for a time during wednesday morning before the next bout of rain moves in, so this is where we will see the ice risk ahead of this next rain band and it will be quite showery pushing into much of scotland and north—west england and northern ireland, a lot of standing water around with the snow melt as those temperatures will be a little less cold than we have had over the last few mornings. snow will be falling over the mountains of scotland and maybe a bit of sleet over the higher ground of wales. generally speaking, mostly rain here combined with the snow melt elsewhere. a lot of snow in the last few days. a lot of standing water around. dry across the east, but we have that ice risk. the rain across western areas

will be spreading to the east during the course of the day. some heavy bursts on this as it spreads south—east though the skies brighten. some sunshine for england and wales. slightly colder air moves into scotland and northern ireland. showers here increasingly wintry. across the south, 9—11 celsius. slightly milder than of late. as we head through wednesday night, the next rash of showers and rain producing a bit of snow on the higher ground maybe down to lower levels in the heaviest bursts. by thursday morning, the risk of a bit of light snow and ice as temperatures fall away. a bit of travel disruption. into thursday day, quite a messy picture. quite windy once again, plenty of showers moving into northern and western areas. wintry over the higher ground of the north. we could even see some substantial snow across central parts of scotland through the day causing disruption and those temperatures are a bit

lower than wednesday. as that area of low pressure moves away on friday, we open the floodgates again to the arctic north and it looks like it will be very cold to end the week because the blue colour is extending right across the british isles as far ever as far south as france and northern spain. it does mean that friday is going to be cold. ice to watch out for it in places. a few wintry showers across coastal areas but that said, plenty of sunshine too. to wrap up, it's going to be cold. this is newsday on the bbc. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the top stories... polls close in the alabama senate race. could the democrats take a republican stronghold ? a change of tune on north korea. the united states says it's ready to open talks without preconditions. let's just meet, and we can talk about the weather if you want. we can talk about whether it's going to be a square table or a round table, if that's

what you're excited about. i'm babita sharma in london. also in the programme: "the world is losing its fight against global warming" — france's president macron gives other world leaders a blunt warning. and on a red carpet not so far, far away.