For a long time now I have believed that Indian history will some time give a pride of place to the late Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. He was one of the most erudite and scholarly PMs and politicians we had. But that is not the reason. If Dr. Manmohan Singh is credited with being the poster boy of reforms, then a large share of the credit has to go to P V Narasimha Rao. Mr. Rao was no more a believer of reforms than say Indira Gandhi. Dr. Manmohan Singh did not write any documents and scholarly papers on economic reforms in the 70s and 80s. Economic reality of the day meant that one either acted to bring this country back from the brink of disaster or push it further into an age of darkness started by the late Smt Indira Gandhi.
P V Narasimha Rao made the right choice and he brought in an economist-bureaucrat to do what was prescribed to be done. If today India is acknowledged for its economic potential and lauded for achievements of the last decade and a half, due credit has to go to P V Narasimha Rao. Of course, a party steeped in sycophancy which cannot see behind the name Gandhi will never acknowledge the same. They even did not give a decent burial place (Narasimha Rao's final humiliation) in the capital to the late departed PM since the party believes that only the Nehru-Gandhi name can adorn each and every monument, structure and social schemes in this country.
Why should Dr. Singh share the credit for reforms with Mr. Rao? Simply because Mr. Rao was heading a coalition government then, similar to what Dr. Singh is doing now. Dr. Singh was not a seasoned politician then and even now he remains a reluctant and an uncomfortable one. Mr. Rao not only gave a free hand to his FM and his team but also ensured that they were shielded from the politics of the day. His diplomacy and political legerdemain ensured that Dr. Singh was left free to do his job. Mr. Rao took along with him the BJP, the Left Front and sundry other political groups. Sure reforms did slow down during the last two years, but it did not come to a standstill or take a step back as is happening now.
The parallels between now and then is similar. Once again the Congress is heading a coalition government. But the politics of the day has been so badly handled that both the BJP and the Left Front are opposing the economic policies of the government. Within Congress, their leaders are opposing government's policy decisions. To a not so keen observer, it will be difficult to say who is in the government and who is outside. And the poor Doctor is a man besieged. One had expected that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi would have managed the political side with Dr. Singh and his team getting on with the job. She and her band of merry advisors have instead created a royal mess. They have proven that the Congress cannot run a coalition government and has no respect or tolerance for its allies.
You dear reader may be wondering what started this diatribe? It was a report in the Indian Express, titled 'Gandhis wouldn't have let Babri fall'. This is what Rahul baba reportedly told reporters during his campaign in Uttar Pradesh. No prizes for guessing what constituency he was trying to address and who he was trying to appease in the golden traditions of the Congress. His take was that he was giving facts and if any member of the Gandhi family had been in active politics, the Babri Masjid would have been still standing in all its glory. He also said, in his father's forgettable "naani yaad dila doonga" style, that had Rajiv Gandhi been alive, "he would stand in front of Babri Masjid if it will do any good. They would have to kill him first." This is a dialogue worthy of Kader Khan. Rahul Gandhi has indeed learnt a few things from his father. Difficult to believe that the late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi had such sentiments. He is the one who took the retrograde step of turning back the Supreme Court judgment on the Shah Bano case and he is the person under whose regime the Babri Masjid locks were opened for worship.
And who was Rahul Gandhi blaming? Of course, P V Narasimha Rao but without naming him. How easy for Rahul to say this. If only it was possible to fool all the people all the time, Rahul would have been able to revive the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. I am hoping that Congress continues its slide in Uttar Pradesh during the forthcoming assembly polls. Rahul also blamed Congress's alliance with Baujan Samaj Party (BSP) in 1996 for Congress's declines. If the migrant taxi drivers in Mumbai are correct then Rahul may have to eat humble pie very soon. Because according to the taxi drivers, BSP is slated to make a come back in the forthcoming polls and then Congress may want to get hitched to her coattails only to keep BJP out of power even if it means it will cut its own nose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Dear Mishti, interesting points raised by you!!! Well, no questions on Mr Rao’s credibilities and credentials, he deserves a rightful place in the hearts of Indians and not on the dusts of Rajghat. Dr Manmohan Singh is great in his own way and PV Narasimha Rao’s wisdom, wits and being a silent contributor to the national interests are also unquestionable. But Dr Singh made more global impacts and Mr Rao was more localized in the political terms. Mr. Rao’s contribution to the nation has been neutralized by his last few years of disrespect, sabotage and perhaps illness. To get into the blame-game is not so important but learning to sneak through the clutches of corruption is supreme. Mr Rao unfortunately could not do justice to his deeds. The country which is ruled by quantity and not by quality, charisma is more important; being a literary figure comes later. The charisma created by the Nehru /Gandhi legacy has been deep-rooted in the millions of those countrymen who actually decide the future of the country. That’s why we have witnessed the stop-gap popularity of Mayawatis, Lalus and Mulayams, although not comparable with Gandhis and Nehrus. They can at-most be the fillers!! Believe me, Manmohan will also be forgotten as quickly as Rao but the charisma of Nehrus and Gandhis will still haunt us. Rahul Gandhi’s publicity stunts may not help his cause at the moment but he has still a long way to go. The verdict is to be seen.
Mishti,
Found your blog on Ananth's email referral.
Good post. I think its well past the time we stop creding Manmohan Singh as the "architect of the 1991 reforms" and give the credit to Rao, where it is due. Manmohan was perhaps the draftsman.
Debz, Thanks for your comments. Sure the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has "charisma" and that is why they have been able to mislead this country for so long and now we, as a country, are willing to let Sonia Gandhi run this country. But did Nehru have more charisma than Gandhi especially when we look at the pre-independence period? Then why did none of the Gandhi scions try to make it big untill it was too late? Charisma will always win votes.
Nitin, Thanks for your comments. Hope to see you back soon :-)
Misti, Sorry to note those words about the so-called "charisma" for the nehru-gandhi family. At times I feel ashamed to note that a population of 1 Billion people can't find a leader among themselves and that at one time, the same folks were falling head over heels at the feet of the Italian female to take up the top job of the nation.
This "charisma" is also short-lived and i hope and sincerely wish that sooner or later, some good sense will prevail on this populace !!!
We need to do some serious soul searching to find solutions to these inherent issues....
Jayez, I completely agree with your views. The charisma of Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul is their fair skin and nothing else. They are not good orators in the tradition of politicians like Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Atal Behari Vajpayee, NTR, Pramod Mahajan, Narendra Modi et. al. They do not have the charisma of an Amitabh Bachchan or a Shah Rukh Khan. And that is why in my reply to Debz I used the word charisma within quotes.
I find it repungnant that we are willing to let this country be ruled by Sonia Gandhi. But I do not if sense will prevail. An incident which is very strongly etched in my memory was a comment by my dad after he sighted Rajiv Gandhi in Kolkata some time after Sanjay Gandhi's death. He said, "He looks like a prince, born to rule." A large part of the country, especially the ones who exercise their franchise, unfortunately think the same way.
A few questions
1. Who was the PM of India during the Babri Masjid demolition and who was the politican named by Harshad Mehta in the 1992 stock scam
2. Why is Dr. Manmohan Singh a reluctant and uncomfortable PM and why has he remained unseasoned.
3. Style and Kader Khan apart, is Rahul Gandhi the first person in Indian politics to say (about Rajiv Gandhi) that "he would stand in front of Babri Masjid if it will do any good. They would have to kill him first." Or has someone else said it before and Rahul "baba" is merely repeating these words ?
4. In your comments above, you have stated that you find it repungnant (?) that "we are willing to let this country be ruled by Sonia Gandhi" - who is this "we" ? further, are we doing this against our will ? further, is "sense" (which you doubt will prevail) defined by the removal of Sonia Gandhi, if yes, then who should replace her ?
5. Do you think good orators also make good politicians ? Would you say that having fair skin is a good substitute for bad oratory (and political?) skills, and this is why Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul are so charismatic ?
6. Its clear that you hate the Congress for your own set of reasons, some of which you've outlined above. May I ask - are you in favor of the BJP and its policies ? Do you think they would make a better Government than the Congress ? If yes, why ? If no, which political party would you favor ?
My questions are only because I need to know your political standing. Your earlier posts were excellent and I guess this one is too. Indeed it has been praised - and linked - by the eminent Mr. Pai. I think its a good time for me to appreciate your political stance.
Hi, Anon: Thanks for your comments, questions and compliments. As I try to answer the questions you have asked, there hopefully would be some amount of soul searching on my part. Here I go:
1. PV Narasimha Rao. Apart from Arun Shourie and Dr. Manmohan Singh, it will be difficult to find too many politicians without any allegation of corruption against them in today's India. The Gandhi family's association with Quattrachio is fairly well documented. The book by B.M. Oza, India's ambassador to Sweden between 1984 and 1988 when the Bofors controversy erupted, is fairly indicting (more proof from a credible source than Harshad Mehta could ever offer). Of course, if my memory serves me right, Mr. Oza joined the BJP and there always can be a conspiracy theory. But why did Congress not pursue Oza legally as they did recently when a website alluded that Rahul Gandhi did not graduate out of whichever university he claims to be from? Is the silence saying something?
2. Why has Manmohan Singh remained unseasoned I do not know. But it is clear that the gentleman bureaucrat has not been able to transition into a seasoned politician like Yashwant Sinha, Mani Shanker Iyer, Kanshi Ram or Ajit Jogi have been able to do. May be he is too decent a guy (note the stereotyping of the Indian politican by an educated Indian of middle class upbringing)to succeed in this "cesspool of Indian politics" (to quote my fav film star).
3. I am not aware of anyone else who has said this. And anyway how does saying it matter? He was given to hyperbole like "naani yadd dila doonga" and frankly he has been the biggest disappointment for a generation of Indians, I believe, since so much hope was riding on the young man. What a historic mandate he had and he started off well, but alas....
4. There you have caught me :-). We are the educated, reasonably well to do, most likely urban Indians. No, I am not speaking off the masses at all. The people of Rai Bareilly, the people of Bellary have given their verdict.
Well, replacements are always found. This TINA factor is really nonsense. Narasimha Rao did manage a coalition government for the full term. As did Vajpayee. May be it would have been good for the Congress to splinter and somehting useful would have emeregd out of it. Who knows? I for one do not. But what I know is that I would any day have Sharad Pawar as the PM than Sonia Gandhi.
5. The profession requires good oratory so that the mases can rise and be galvanised. It needs catchy slogans. It needs charismatic leaders. Rahul and Sonia are yet to show their mettle and I do not find anything appealing about them (OK, Rahul is good looking. Priyanka has better looks and would be equally appealing to the masses). The Gandhi name has certain allure for the masses. Yes, in this country there are still people who believe that Indira Gandhi is alive and they are voting for her. I am not so sure they have charisma. I would never say that fair skin is a fair subsitute for bad oratory.
6. This needs more introspection from me and probably some day a longer post. But here are my quick thoughts - I am not a Congress hater, although my writing must indicate that. If I hated any party, it till recently, used to be the BJP (due to its association with VHP, RSS etc.)and its brand of communalism. But over the last five years, what gets my goat is the appeasement policies of Congress. That has done as much harm to this country, if not more, than BJPs brand of communalism. In the name of vote bank politics, anything is being promised - from directed bank loans, to what not. So much so that the religion now coems before the nation - I know I may be stirring a hornet's nest out here. I have some Muslim friends and I am perfectly aware that an entire community cannot be painted with the same brush. But when we revile Praveen Togadia, why don't we arrest the Samajwadi Party MP/ MLA who issues a fatwa against Danish cartoonists? Why are huge processions taken out in the streets of Mumbai against Bush's visit by Muslims - where are our national intersts aligned today? With Iran and Iraq or the rest of the world? Congress's brand of secularism has turned me away from Congress and I know a few more like me (brids of the same feather?). Minorites have the first right to our resources? hold on why? For not sending their children to proper schools. For putting their religion ahead of the country? Why don't Christians or Parsis not have the same problem? And forget communalism. Congress has again and again flirted with fundamentalists and separatists and in the long run caused huge probelms ofr the country. Remember Bhindranwale?
BJP meanwhile has gained my admiration when in government for a few things. As an Indian, they made me feel proud of this country, instead of the hystercal bashing of USA that is resorted to by other political parties. It was more balanced in its foreign policies. Here we have a government which has gone and admitted that Pakistan and India are co-sufferes of global terrorism.
There was a sense of nation building within the core group which Vajpayee was leading. The roaads projects undertaken will do far more for India's poor and rich than all the NREG Schemes put together.
And BJP did not go about renaming all schemes, roads, airports after its leaders and their forefathers. I admire them for that as well.
Even the roads project has been stalled under this government. On hindsight I think 5 more years of BJP would have been very good for this country.
For 50 years we have pursued policies that have not delivered. In the name of poor, people like us enjoy benefits of concessional LPGs and many such freebies. Try soemhting different. No, what we get from Madame Gandhi is NREG. A good way to fill the party coffers!
I do not favour any particular party. I wish India could have had a national goverment with a 15 year agenda.
Thank you for a detailed reply. There is much that I would like to say in reply, but we'd be stretching things. I shall just wait to see how your introspection continues in your later posts.
On 3, to get facts straight, a simple google search gives the answer.
For your benefit, here it is - this rediff article of 1998 (almost 10 years before Rahul Gandhi said it) says that this line was said by Rajiv Gandhi himself as quoted by his wife.
Thanks, Anon. Will try and write a more coherent post later on why I started disliking Congress's brand of politics. You wouldn't believe this but when I was writing my responses earlier, I had asked "Did Sonia say this?" and then finally edited it out. As the link you provided shows it was indeed Sonia. Of course, Sonia and Rahul are naturally the most likely people privy to such conversations; but I am a bit cynical whether this was indeed said or is the statement being conveniently attributed to Rajiv and conveniently used during politcial campaigns. So in every election, the mother-son duo bring it out when they go to Deoband or Aligarh. The following is from the link you provided and the author seems equally skeptical about Rajiv's love for Babri masjid:
"* her creativity on the Babri problem: "Just about a month before he was assassinated, my husband had said to me that if ever an attempt was made to touch the masjid he would stand in front of it, and they would have to kill him first." Now picture the blue- jeaned, Ray-Banned pilot standing Christ-like at the masjid's gates... It's all the more piquant as, on the eve of the 1989 election, Rajiv draped himself in pale saffron while addressing a rally at Jagdishpur -- after having authorised the shilanyas... "
why did rahul go to deoband of all places? to insult muslims?
Anon: Obviously he went their to garner Muslim votes. Is there any other reason? In the process, if he insulted the intellgence and sentiments of his audience, he couldn't care less, or so I think. Read the article in Outlook (whose Editor is such a Gandhi family fan) on how Rahul was mobbed in Deoband and if only Rahul had started campaigning earlier, then Congress would have been revived in UP.
Post a Comment