Author: Swaminathan S Anklesaria
Aiyar
Publication: The Times of India
Date: November 28, 2004
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/938533.cms
How do we sum up Manmohan Singh's
first six months as Prime Minister? Lots of words and little concrete action.
His one clear strategy seems to be a single-minded focus on surviving for
a full five-year term, and if this means waffle and timidity, so be it.
Optimists will call this prudence. Pessimists will call it funk.
I think pessimists have the stronger
case. Many of us had cheered Manmohan Singh's appointment. We knew his
scope for radical reform would be limited by his dependence on Sonia Gandhi
on the one hand, and the Left Front on the other.
Yet, even if he went slow on economic
reform, we thought he would surely improve the quality of politics, substituting
principle for expediency. That has not happened.
His main strategy can be summed
up as: do not displease Madam, and do not displease the Left. Do not test
the limits of your power, just concentrate on survival. This is not what
I had expected.
The quality of politics cannot be
raised without drastic steps to reduce its criminalisation. Yet Manmohan
Singh inducted into his cabinet a long list of people with criminal records.
Obviously he had to offer a top ministry to Laloo Yadav, despite that worthy's
involvement in the Bihar fodder scam. But he could have refused to appoint
others with criminal records. Alas, he not only ushered in the criminals
but strongly defended them, saying they must be considered innocent till
proven guilty beyond all appeals. This would be an unexceptionable sentiment
in a country where criminals were routinely brought to book. But it is
scandalous in India, where nobody is convicted beyond all appeals. Harshad
Mehta and Lakhubhai Pathak died of old age before their cases were concluded,
and it will be the same with Manmohan's rogues' gallery.
One of them, Mohammed Taslimuddin,
entered the cabinet of Prime Minister Deve Gowda in 1996, but was dropped
when his unsavoury history came to light. At that time, the prime minister
was capable of being embarrassed. Not any more, it seems.
Naturally, the BJP made much of
Manmohan Singh's 'tainted' ministers. The Congress responded by reviving
an ancient, forgotten case in Karnataka against Uma Bharati, the BJP chief
minister of Madhya Pradesh. The tactic worked: the BJP asked Uma Bharati
to step down. The lady arrived in a fury in Karnataka, determined to gain
prominence through martyrdom. But suddenly the case against her was withdrawn
by the Congress state government. Why? To prevent the BJP getting any mileage
out of her martyrdom in the coming Maharashtra election. This was brazen
abandonment of principle on basic issues like what constitutes a crime,
who should be arrested or prosecuted, and why. Instead of observing the
rule of law, we observed the most cynical political manipulation of the
law. It was enough to infuriate even Laloo Yadav. For once, I shared his
fury.
Next came the row over Mani Shankar
Aiyar removing a plaque on Veer Savarkar, the inventor of Hindutva, from
the Cellular Jail in the Andamans. This was not so different from Congress'
earlier objection to Savarkar's portrait being put in the Central Hall
of Parliament. But at this juncture the Maharashtra election was imminent,
so Manmohan Singh soft-pedalled on Savarkar. He went along with the soft
Hindutva that has become the Congress strategy since the Gujarat riots
of 2002. He said we should not speak ill of the dead. Really? Should we
all stop speaking ill of Hitler and Stalin?
Manmohan Singh has frequently talked
of the need to improve governance, to reform the dysfunctional administration,
police system and judicial system. Yet we see no sign of action, only suggestions
to set up a new committee on administrative reforms. This is waffle. Umpteen
committees have given umpteen recommendations on reforming the administrative
and judicial system. We need action, not more committees.
In this column, I have deliberately
not discussed his economic policies. Many of us hailed his appointment
not because he was a good economist but because he was a good man. Six
months later, we have to acknowledge that our hero has done little if anything
to change the quality of politics or governance.
