HVK Archives: A favourite has not friend
A favourite has not friend - The Telegraph
Arvind N. Das
()
13 May 1997
Title : A favourite has not friend
Author : Arvind N. Das
Publication : The Telegraph
Date : May 13, 1997
India's 12th prime minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, is known for his sophistication,
tact and diplomatic finesse. In an era when boorishness is fast becoming the
characterizing feature of politics, it is indeed rare to have a politician who
speaks softly and does not carry a big stick. To that extent, the nation had good
reason to heave a sigh of relief when Gujral - and not someone who is involved in
one scandal or the other was selected to lead it.
It was also expected that as a man who has had a long innings in politics, Gujral
would have had enough skill to play the game with style. After all, unlike H.D.
Deve Gowda, he is no humble farmer strange to the national scene, nor, unlike G.K.
Moopanar, is he a mere Tammany Hall boss lacking familiarity with institutions of
governance. Unlike Mulayam Singh Yadav, Gujral is no provincial chieftain, and
neither does he pretend to be a blustering buffoon like Laloo Prasad Yadav. Unlike
Sitaram Kesri, Gujral is neither surrounded by sleaze nor does he give the
appearance of being an old man in a hurry, his much publicized long years in the
Congress parivar notwithstanding. And, unlike most members of the mercifully
shortlived Bharatiya Janata Party ministry, Gujral is not an administrative
greenhorn either.
What then explains the amazing ineptitude which Gujral has displayed in his first
few days in office? Hemmed in as he was by his promoters in the Janata Dal after
he was selected to lead the United Front, Gujral committed the political
equivalent of the original sin. He surrendered the prime minister's prerogative
to select his own ministers. Except for dropping the efficient Devendra Prasad
Yadav and inducting the voluble Jaipal Reddy, Gujral has not been able at all to
order his cabinet.
He has only appeased the rambunctious north Indian politicians on the one side and
succumbed to the sulking south Indians on the other.
In fact the prime minister has only two powers which distinguish him from other
citizens: the power to appoint (and dismiss) ministers and the power to dissolve
the Lok Sabha. The second has been surrendered by a succession of "hostage" prime
ministers who have neither had the numbers nor the courage to force members of
parliament to face the electorate.
Now Gujral has also surrendered the prerogative to select ministers.
And yet, even Gujral sought to exercise his right by trying to appoint his
longtime friend Bhabani Sengupta as secretary in the prime minister's office. The
problem was that Sengupta is known for his leaning towards the United States.
Besides, the good professor not only differs greatly from generally held Indian
positions on strategic and diplomatic matters but is also not one to hide his
light under a bushel: he was quick to claim fatherhood of what is known as the
Gujral doctrine. It appears the prime minister was merely a political crow
hatching the egg left in his nest by the academic cuckoo.
The result was a major hullabaloo. The appointment was criticized in Parliament
and elsewhere and Sengupta was forced to resign, terminating what must be the
shortest tenure in the service of the state at that high level. And, the curious
part was that the honourable Gujral chose not to stand by his friend. Sengupta was
allowed to go unsung and unwept. He also remains subject to government rules
regarding former functionaries of the state, even though his occupation of the
office of secretary was momentary. There are restrictions on what he can write
and express; nor can he be allowed to take up other employment in India or the US
since he is now subject to the same discipline that applies to other government
servants.
It is not relevant in this context to reflect on the nature of Gujral's
friendship: it is entirely up to him to come to terms with how he relates to his
boon companions. However, it is important to examine the nature of his judgment in
making such an important appointment.
Did Gujral know about Sengupta's background and knowingly appoint him to that
sensitive office? Or was he so naive as to not know what was common knowledge to
members of parliament, including two former prime ministers? If the former
conclusion is correct, then much more explanation is called for from the prime
minister: it is just not sufficient for him to befriend an old companion one day
and throw him to the wolves the next.
Gujral's claiming credit for allowing US planes to refuel during the Kuwait war
also requires more explanation. It is well known that the government of V.P.
Singh, in which Gujral was the external affairs minister, was voted out of office
well before the US and its allies launched their assault on Iraq.
It is also no state secret that V.C. Shukla was the foreign minister in the
Chandra Shekhar ministry which took the decision to allow refuelling. In fact,
Chandra Shekhar has not been shy about admitting that it was he who took that
decision. A report in The Hindustan Times that there was a quid pro quo behind
that move - a loan of two billion dollars for India "without strings attached" -
has neither been confirmed nor denied. But one thing is clear: Gujral was in no
position to take that decision.
Then why does he claim "credit" for it? The argument that by doing so he is
sending a friendly message to the US does not wash. However inept the US
intelligence system might be, it is not so disorganized as not to be able to check
who was in the Indian government which allowed the refuelling. The explanation
that the current prime minister was misquoted also does not hold.
The statement was made on television and, although notables like S.B. Chavan have
gone to the extent of denying statements they have made on camera, Gujral is not
likely to follow their example, for he is, after all, a honourable man. Therefore
the explanation has to be different and cannot be withheld from the nation for too
long.
It is these flatfooted and hamhanded moves made by Gujral that are
uncharacteristic. It is no longer surprising that a person from outside the Lok
Sabha is elected to the post of the prime minister. Both Deve Gowda and the
pre-Nandyal P.V. Narasimha Rao have set that precedent and Gujral can claim that
he too is therefore eligible.
It is almost routine now for politicians - even honourable men - to seek election
to the Rajya Sabha from states with which they do not have the remotest
connection.
Thus, if Manmohan Singh can represent Assam in the council of states, it causes no
surprise when Gujral gets elected from Bihar and claims that he had never visited
Patna once before he sought political sanctuary there through the agency of Laloo
Prasad Yadav. In the ungrateful world of Indian politics it is not, usual for
favours to be returned.
But Gujral is an honourable man and hence it is not surprising that he should seek
to repay Yadav.
Back
Top
|
