The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Neutrality as virtue

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 13, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Neutrality as virtue

By Vidya Subrahmaniam

Governance has to spring from political enlightenment. Neutrality cannot be a virtue.

ONE FAMOUS outburst and a confidently handled press conference later, the man whom Sonia Gandhi elevated to Prime Minister has gently but firmly wrested his rightful place in the official hierarchy. And in a manner that has delighted the media, the urban professional classes and all those who feared the worst from a government `propped up' by Sonia Gandhi and held in place by the Left, the Lalu Prasads and the Shibu Sorens. That Manmohan Singh threw a casual aside about `Left fundamentalism' could not have been missed by these sections.

Up until a fortnight ago, Dr. Singh unfailingly evoked certain stock phrases: genteel, self-effacing, shy, retiring and so on. Not after two bravura performances in a row — the first, a no-holds-barred showdown with an Opposition delegation, and the second, a carefully-mounted charm offensive to win over the media. If the first showed a glimpse of the steel in the Prime Minister's gentle persona, the interaction with the media was a statement of his arrival. More helpfully for those discomfited by the results of the general elections, it reinforced Dr. Singh's comforting neutrality in a dispensation that seemed almost anarchist in its orientation.

Before the first episode, the Prime Minister was cast in the role of underdog; a good, gentle soul pitted against a range of wily opponents, from the Bharatiya Janata Party-led Opposition, of course, but also from his own party and government. The perception underwent a dramatic change when, much in the fashion of a David taking on a Goliath, he lit into the Opposition (over the latter's demand that amendments be carried to the budget). The consequences in this case were unintended. Hardly anyone could have foreseen that Dr. Singh would have hosannas sung to him for an "insult" done to George Fernandes and Lal Krishna Advani.

The media meet, on the other hand, was an intended show of assertion, meant to dispel the impression that the Prime Minister was a puppet in a scheme of things ordered and controlled by a `Super Prime Minister' and her allies to the Left. It is inconceivable that Dr. Singh would not have known the enormous media curiosity around his relations with Ms. Gandhi, and to a lesser extent with the Left. If in spite of that he willingly chose to be a "pigeon among the media cats," then he did so by design. The strategy paid off, and the media, far from playing marauding cats to an entrapped pigeon, lapped up the presentation. There were no histrionics at the meet. No Vajpayee-like flashes of wit or smart one-liners but nonetheless the Prime Minister held his own, easily answering a range of questions — from the economy to his status vis-à-vis Ms. Gandhi to Pakistan to the place of ideology in politics. If the primary mission of the conference was to establish Dr. Singh's primus inter pares status, that seemed to have been achieved. It was reflected in the next day's "I'm my own man" newspaper headlines.

Perhaps more satisfyingly for the ever-reactive urban stock market-corporate sector, there were no unsettling extreme positions in Dr. Singh's answers. He wanted India to shine for all, the Scheduled castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes. But he also wanted economic reforms. He wanted corporate India seriously to think about affirmative action. But (unlike Ram Vilas Paswan and Lalu Prasad) he preferred a "constructive dialogue" to ramming it through legislation.

He was aware that saffron-tinted distortions had crept into history textbooks, but he did not want education to be shackled by ideology. To quote: "I do not favour fundamentalism of the Right or Left." It was the same neutral position on Savarkar. His Hindutva ideology was divisive but he was a patriot and nationalist. Besides, there was no point talking ill of the dead.

The inoffensive, calming tone was such as to take away much of urban-corporate India's discomfort with a government seemingly inclined to show a tilt towards the poorer, disadvantaged classes. This was the same section that had reacted viscerally to the prospect of Ms. Gandhi taking over as Prime Minister. Mercifully for them, the redeeming induction of Dr. Singh as Prime Minister had put paid to that scenario. The reformist team of Dr. Singh and P. Chidambaram ensured comfort levels that considerably lessened the anxieties about the new government's intentions.

However, in a context where the Prime Minister seemed unable to assert his authority — a situation made worse by the Opposition's ceaseless chant of `Super PM Sonia' — it was inevitable that some of the old worries would resurface. In the event, Dr. Singh's press conference served to allay fears that he had become a prisoner of his circumstances, that he had little leeway given his peculiar status as an `appointed Prime Minister' heading a coalition government supported by the Left.

That Dr. Singh needed to show he was in control is beyond dispute. No Prime Minister can afford to let things reach a stage where his position looks untenable in the public perception. And yet, if Dr. Singh has been hamstrung, it was hardly owing to any machinations by the "Super Prime Minister." The Manmohan Singh-Sonia Gandhi equation has so far shown none of the strains that marked Atal Bihari Vajpayee's relationships with Mr. Advani and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. To the contrary, in fact, considering the dignity and grace with which the Congress chief has conducted herself in relation to the Prime Minister. If anything, Ms. Gandhi is more a strength to Dr. Singh than a threat; as long as she remains on his side, he can come to no serious harm.

As for the Left, it is true that they have been quick to whip out their wish list. Nonetheless their demands have rarely exceeded the objectives outlined in the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP), a policy document drafted jointly by the constituents of the United Progressive Alliance. To the extent the NCMP was meant to reflect the change in popular mandate — from the aggressively urban-centric approach of the previous government to one that was more consciously egalitarian — a supporting party should be assumed to have the right to demand and ensure its proper implementation. The worst that can be said of the Left leaders is that they tend to rush to the press with their objections when they ought to make these at the coordination committee especially set up for the purpose. It is bound to be disconcerting for a Prime Minister to have to read a daily bulletin of complaints in the newspapers.

In any case, the Left's interventions can scarcely be held to be in the same category as the troubles caused on account of Dr. Singh's own Ministers — whether it was a Shibu Soren avoiding the law or a Lalu Prasad joyously pitting his "tainted Ministers" against the NDA's "tainted Ministers." Indeed, this has led to an almost comic divergence between what the Prime Minister declaims from public platforms — transparency in governance, probity and efficiency in public affairs, code of ethics for best practices in government etc. — and what his team of Ministers do in actual fact. Dr. Singh has himself often defended the "tainted" phenomenon, most recently at the press meet where he argued that the Ministers were all elected members of Parliament. The point about ethics is surely that it must not be bound hand and foot by legalese?

Finally to ideology. Dr. Singh's impatience with a state of affairs where he constantly comes up against ideology is understandable. The Prime Minister is a no-frills, no-nonsense man with a proven distaste for politicking. He is also acutely aware of the handicap he faces on account of not being elected to office. It stands to reason then that he should try and get around this obstacle by showing he can deliver and deliver fast.

This fast-track approach is an offshoot of the much-in-vogue Bijli-Paani-Sadak school of thought. In other words: "Get on with your job and ideology will sort itself out." But it will not. Governance has to spring from political enlightenment. To argue against speaking "ill of the dead" — as Dr. Singh has — is to strip events of their historical context. By this token Hitler and Mussolini must remain unanalysed. The UPAlliance Government is meant to represent a worldview that is both consciously egalitarian and avowedly pluralist. Savarkar stood for the very opposite of this belief system and so do his faithful in the BJP. Neutrality cannot be a virtue — not when Savarkar is held up as the highest ideal; not when education becomes a medium of propaganda. And certainly not in a situation where ideology becomes a tool in the hands of a Narendra Modi. And if neutrality has become a necessity in the context of the upcoming Maharashtra elections, then the lessons of Gujarat — where the `neutral' Congress was wiped out in the Assembly elections — have obviously not been learnt.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion