Opinion - Leader Page Articles   

Manmohan Singh's leadership call in 2007

Harish Khare

Only by clearly enunciating what is right, what is desirable, and what is morally preferable can the Prime Minister beat back the critics and the detractors.

THERE IS nothing particularly significant about a new year, especially in the life of a nation or in the career of a leader. However, the beginning of 2007 can be as good as any other time to consider the rest of Manmohan Singh's prime ministerial tenure. As the year opened, Dr. Singh has not only crossed the halfway mark but he also finds himself so favourably placed that it is fair to proceed on the assumption that he will complete — or, more correctly, will be allowed to complete — his five-year term. The Opposition is in no position to force a reconfiguration of equations in the present Lok Sabha in a manner so as to end Dr. Singh's tenancy of that nice house on Race Course Road. Nor are the internal dynamics of the Congress Party likely to be so totally transmogrified that he would be asked to make way for someone else; the party simply cannot afford the cost.

For better or worse, the Indian state's fortunes have come to be defined by a Prime Minister whose leadership never figured in the public imagination. Except H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral, all those who came to the office had in one way or the other earned their baptism through a long public life. However, this lack of popular engagement has not distracted from the kind of leadership that this or any other Prime Minister could provide under similar circumstances.

The question is: can Dr. Singh summon his inner resources to provide the transformative leadership required for the India of 2007 and beyond? It is obvious that the primary task of leadership at the present juncture is to dissolve the bitterness in our national life and to move us collectively to a higher, nobler, collective purpose of ensuring common, shared prosperity. Much of this bitterness is left over from the animosities incurred by dramatis personae of the past; but the political successors find themselves having to carry on these feudal vendettas, squandering away needlessly our collective energies and goodwill. Dr. Singh has an advantage insofar as he is not a part of the embittered past.

It is a sad story that most of our political leaders, national or regional, choose to remain locked in old ideological battles, lost or won, while India has moved on. These leaders simply do not have the moral courage or the political self assurance to move out of their clichéd past to re-engage with an India that is itching to take-off.

Singur has just seen a standoff between those locked in the past and those prepared to break out of comfortable and comforting propositions and to try new solutions and new ideas. On the other hand, at Lucknow last month the principal Opposition chose to revert to slogans that had relevance and resonance a decade ago. Both in Lucknow and Singur the clash was between a mofussil and a forward-looking mindset. The problem with most of our regional leaders is that since they operate on a narrow band of allegiance, they have no inclination to move beyond the local matrix of animosities and prejudices and provide leadership of an all-India kind. A Rajnath Singh or a Lalu Prasad or a Karunanidhi or a Mamata Banerjee is happy to instigate localised emotions and appeals, without having to have the responsibility of harmonising these with the larger national needs, endeavour, and purpose.

This situation inevitably calls for someone to define joyfully a pan-Indian vision in an intellectually invigorating and morally sustainable manner. That means extricating our polity from the failed slogans of the past and instead tapping the positive entrepreneurial instincts at large in society and channelling harmonious institutional energies in our polity. True, democracy puts a premium on contention and contestation, on dispute and disagreements. True, a newly liberated information regime and a newly energised media promote controversies and scandal-mongering. But, the modern executive is called upon to steer society away from these inevitable distractions towards a well-defined goal. The challenge before the modern leader, more so in India, is to use every pulpit to goad, cajole, enthuse, and, if necessary, drag a society to new ideas, purposes, and synergies.

Societies invariably tend to be resistant to change, unless prompted by great calamities like a war or a massive national disaster. Fortunately, Indian society finds itself itching to break out of its old mantras of defeatism. Dr. Singh's job is that much easier: to use the traditions and their resilience to help India re-engage with a demanding world. India has already overcome its fears of engagement with advanced sections of the world economy; the earlier apprehensions have given way to a new confidence that we are too huge to be overwhelmed and too strong to be bullied.

As Prime Minister, Dr. Singh's foremost task remains to enlarge areas of respect for authority, governmental and societal. He is ideally suited to undertake this task of restoring trust in government. This depleted respect for governmental authority is a by-product of the Indian political class' wilfulness and incompetence as well as of the natural irreverence that modern democracies breed in this information age. Ironically some of our constitutional institutions, too, discharge their brief in a manner so as to weaken respect and trust in other institutions. Prime ministerial leadership in such a situation means ensuring, by deeds and words, an overall sense of national equilibrium and poise.

That means regenerating trust in the fairness, competence, and commitment of public policies and in all those who plan and implement these decisions. This is possible only if the Prime Minister is prepared to use his personal credibility to convince the nation that he is responsible for all the policies, even if he cannot possibly endorse the behaviour of all his colleagues. Too much tends to be conceded and too many unwholesome compromises are made in the name of coalition politics. Leadership means creating such an exacting national mood that unreasonable allies would think twice before seeking to blackmail the government.

Ties with Pakistan

On the positive side, the greatest challenge before India remains how to sort out its complicated relationship towards Pakistan. Just as Dr. Singh has managed to help the country accept a re-defined relationship with the United States, he has to make an effort to help us move away from an intractable hostility with Pakistan. For this the Prime Minister will need to boldly mobilise the public for new initiatives. Without speaking out in public and without enlisting the support of his own party in favour of a movement forward with Pakistan, the Prime Minister will find himself having to concede a veto power to each and every organisational player, who may feel he or she has a stake in the status quo of stalemated violence.

Just as the nuclear scientists have claimed a disproportionate voice in the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal, the army brass has already positioned itself to question any breakthrough with Pakistan. However, democratically endorsed and democratically debated policies carry with them greater acceptability and can withstand motivated opposition.

Similarly, the Prime Minister has a duty to use the prestige of his office to help the country understand the moral necessity of an inclusive social order. As our economy grows at an impressive pace, society has to be made aware of the common obligation to care for those who remain on the margins of growth and development. Though we are a prejudiced nation, we are not comfortable with blatant unjustness. The whole controversy over extending the reservation regime to the Other Backward Classes could have been avoided if the Prime Minister had demonstrated a clarity of vision; even now it is not too late for him to speak up, because many of his Cabinet colleagues are bent upon playing petty political games. Only by clearly enunciating what is right, what is desirable, and what is morally preferable can the Prime Minister beat back the critics and the detractors.

We in India have managed to devise such a strange mix of national, state, and local elections that at any given time there is an electoral contest to be won or lost. Each such contest tends to become a verdict on national leaders and their policies. Wise leaders and prudent political managers can and should insulate national policies from these quarterly expressions of democratic preferences. Leadership means insulating good governance and sensible politics from transient moods. Leadership means sustained policy clarity and a commensurate moral vision. Dr. Singh has his task cut out.

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

Stories in this Section

When army men run riot
Uniting to protect workers' rights
Manmohan Singh's leadership call in 2007
Corrections and Clarifications
Reasons for optimism about world economy
The Noida killings
Unfortunate
"The judicial system depends on the faith of the common man"

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu