Retributions  

So is P.V Narsimha Rao justifiably “hated” by the Congress party?

There is an attempt at cult formation around P.V Narsimha Rao, suggests Vir Sanghvi in his latest counterpoint column. It is particularly manifest among the Internet generation who may have little idea about who Rao was and why exactly his reputation is “mud” in the Congress party. Sanghvi follows this with a litany of “truths” about the real Rao: inefficient, a failed administrator, corrupt, and a crony of tantrik gurus like Chandraswami.

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s accept all of Sanghvi’s criticism. After all, it is undeniable that bad things happened during Rao’s reign; what may be disputed are only the details.

However, it does not follow that Rao is hated in the Congress merely because he was a bad prime minister. For that it needs to be established that his record was markedly worse than Congress’ other leaders who are venerated by the party’s leadership. Considering Rao ruled the country for five years, and Rajiv Gandhi was his immediate full-term predecessor, it would be apt to compare  Rao’s term with Gandhi’s. For fairness sake, let’s compare them only within the parameters used by Sanghvi to criticize Rao.

Sanghvi begins by pointing out Rao’s role during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi,

His moment of great shame came during the 84 Sikh riots when as home minister he failed to protect the Sikhs. Rajiv Gandhi included him in his Cabinet nevertheless.

Shameful indeed. But then why would Rajiv Gandhi give such a man a prominent place in his cabinet? Perhaps, because during the riots, he was busy making comments virtually justifying the riots! Perhaps, because during his entire reign, no steps were taken against rioters many of whom were prominent congressman. Indeed, it is indisputable that the Delhi riots of 1984 could never have happened without the tacit support of the Congress party establishment of whom Rajiv Gandhi was the leading light. Indeed, so moved was the RSS by Rajiv Gandhi’s soft communalism of that era that it supported him in the 1984 general elections against its own creation: BJP!

Sanghvi then moves on to the fact that Rao failed to control the insurgency in Kashmir,

The insurgency in Kashmir that had begun in 1989 raged out of control.

This is again quite an interesting accusation because while the Kashmir dispute owes its origins to India’s partition, the terrorism which has ravaged the state for the last two decades can be directly traced to the rigged elections of 1987 in which the Congress-National Conference alliance relied on fraud and coercion to win the state elections. Indeed, many of the defeated candidates in that election subsequently became the leading lights of the insurgency movement.

And the criticism that Rao failed to stabilize Kashmir can be leveled against virtually all subsequent Indian prime ministers. Indeed, it is only in the last few years that the situation in the Kashmir valley has improved and that is due as much to the changed geo-political environment as to a particularly adroit display of skills by the Indian political establishment.

And if Rao gets blame for not solving the Kashmir problem, then what about the Punjab problem? K.P.S. Gill, widely seen as the architect of Punjab’s resurrection, was first appointed as the state police chief by Rao. Gill credits Rao for never interfering with policing in Punjab. A militancy which had ravaged the state for years was completely crushed under Rao’s watch.

And what of Rajiv Gandhi’s record on Punjab? He signed the Rajiv-Longowal accord but even failed to protect his partner!

Moving on,

He failed to protect the Babri Masjid (though Liberhan has mysteriously let him off on that one) and could not prevent the rise of the BJP. At the same time, he alienated India’s Muslims, most of whom have never forgiven him.

Now, it is indisputable that failing to protect the Babri Masjid is the biggest blot on Rao’s record. No defending that. But here again, the role of the Rajiv Gandhi’s government must be examined.

To balance the Shah Bano case in which his government had bowed to the demands of Muslim fundamentalists, Rajiv Gandhi’s  government opened the locks of the Babri Masjid and permitted Shilanyas. The government’s decision—motivated by political considerations of undercutting BJP—subsequently led to Advani’s  rath yatra and the demolition of Babri Masjid. So while the Rao government deservedly faces flak for its failure to protect the Mosque, the role of the Rajiv Gandhi government cannot be discounted.

And what of Sanghvi’s charge of Rao failing to prevent the rise of BJP. Well, even if one admits that a challenge to what was virtually a one party system was necessarily bad, Rao can hardly be the only Congress leader blamed when BJP grew from a paltry two seats in 1984 to 89 seats in 1989 general elections which were fought under Rajiv Gandhi’s leadership. In most quarters, a 45 times increase in merely five years would count as quite a substantial growth!

Finally, Sanghvi points out the corruption which was endemic during the Rao era. Here again, Rao is on a sticky wicket. It is indeed true that Rao tolerated and perhaps even encouraged high-level corruption most noticeably in the JMM bribery case.

But surely Sanghvi could not be oblivious of the fact that the Rajiv Gandhi government was perhaps the first government in free India’s history unseated solely due to corruption–the infamous Bofors scandal. Surely,  Sanghvi cannot have forgotten  the cries which reverberated across the country: Gali gali mein shor hai, Rajiv Gandhi chor hai. V.P Singh’s movement brought high-level government corruption to the forefront for the first time. It marked the end of the era of innocence in which it was believed that while India may indeed be an extremely corrupt country, at least the highest echelons of power were imperious to the attractions of graft. Now, Rao’s record on corruption may be murkier than Rajiv’s but not by much.

What must be clearly understood is that the different level of challenges faced by the Rajiv and Rao administrations. Rajiv Gandhi was elected with the largest majority in this nation’s history riding on the sympathy wave after Indira Gandhi’s assassination. He was young and passionate and appeared unblemished by coterie politics. The world was at his feet and yet, what exactly did he achieve? Contrast that with Rao who lacked Gandhi’s number—during his entire term Congress was a minority government—and his impeccable pedigree. He inherited an India which was economically collapsing with major insurgencies raging on in sensitive states. Whatever he achieved was despite these severe handicaps.

Here, the record on economic reforms must be set straight,

India was bankrupt. We needed the IMF’s money. The IMF would only give us money if we agreed to liberalize the economy. Rao accepted the IMF’s term because he had no choice. But in his single-best decision while in office, he chose a non-politician, Manmohan Singh, to be finance minister. Singh reformed the economy and put India on the path to glory.

This is a strange and yet oft-heard argument. So Rao should get no credit—apart from his decision to appoint Dr. Manmohan Singh as his finance minister—because India was operating under IMF imposed duress. However, Dr. Singh deserves to be hailed because he reformed the Indian economy! Was he not operating under the same rules?*

Indeed, what needed to be done about the Indian economy—essentially, dismantling the license permit Raj has been known since the days of the Swantrata party. What was lacking was the requisite political understanding and will. Rao provided the political cover which Dr. Singh needed. How important was that political guidance is clear from the fact that when Dr. Singh himself took over as the prime minister in 2004, he failed to advance the process of economic reforms because of pressure from the Left (Or at least that was the claim.)

So to blame Rao for not being an entirely enthusiastic supporter of liberalization in a party which is officially socialist to this day is laughable considering its leader in 2009 credits a retrograde step like bank nationalization carried on in 1969 at the height of the socialist mania for saving the Indian financial sector in 2009! Or is it Sanghvi’s argument that Sonia Gandhi is an extremely enthusiastic supporter of economic reforms? ( A detailed examination of Dr. Singh’s own record as an economist would reveal that he was never a particularly enthusiastic supporter of liberalization either.)

Now, Sanghvi may well argue that he is no fan of Rajiv Gandhi. Fair enough. But that is not the point. What Sanghvi essentially argues is that Congress’ distaste for Rao is justified by his disastrous record of governance. In that case, the Congress should be equally embarrassed by Rajiv Gandhi whose record of governance—as established in the above paragraphs—was anything if worse. And yet, While Rao’s reputation is “mud”, Congress party claims Rajiv as a great visionary and runs full page advertisements on his anniversaries. For exactly what? Computerizing the Indian Railways system?!!!

So why this discrepancy? Is it really hard to attribute it to dynastic considerations in a party which unapologetically accepts members of a single family as its ruling deity generation after generation?

It is perhaps a measure of the intellectual vacuousness of our leading media lights that they indisputably accept the notion that Congress can only be run by Nehru-Gandhis. Who else has even been given the chance to govern independently? And the one who got the opportunity as an accident of history is run down when his record can stand up to close scrutiny with any of the Family’s leading lights.

If only as Sanghvi argues, Indians had a sense of history!

* Is it not one of the true hallmarks of leadership to appoint the right people for the job?