Manmohan's indecisiveness costing India dear
A few years ago, when Greg Chappell was Big Boss, I asked Saurav Ganguly on how he felt losing the Indian captaincy. Ganguly, candid as ever, replied, "I miss being in the team, but frankly, am relieved at not being captain. An Indian cricket captain is under constant pressure, and after four to five years at the top the pressure gets to you!" If being captain of the Indian cricket side is tough, then being prime minister of the country is a shade tougher. This Independence Day, as Dr Manmohan Singh created a slice of history by delivering his seventh speech from the Red Fort ramparts - the most since Indira Gandhi - there was a suggestion that maybe what is true of an Indian cricket captain also applies to the leader of the country's political ship: has Manmohan Singh's prime ministership run out of steam is the big question being asked.
Next month, the prime minister will turn 78. In itself, age should not be a constraint. Last year, after his second major heart surgery, Dr Singh appeared recharged during a general election campaign where his persona was made a key factor. When he was repeatedly attacked for being a 'weak' prime minister, there was even an uncharacteristic flash of anger, as he questioned the credentials of those targeting him. Indeed, having successfully piloted the Indo-US nuclear deal, and then presiding over the best Congress performance in over two decades, there was reason to believe that the genial sardar had come into his own, revealing himself to be more than just an 'accidental politician'.
A year later, the doubts have resurfaced, even the goodwill which the prime minister's personal integrity so readily attracts appears to be slowly evaporating. The charge of being indecisive is now finding a silent echo even among his many admirers. The examples offered are many. The Kashmir crisis has festered since June, yet it took over two months before the prime minister publicly intervened. Even then, his response was tepid: a promise of jobs and the appointment of another committee indicative of a bankruptcy of ideas. On the Naxal challenge, the government's stand ranges from uncertain to chaotic. When a Mamta Banerjee speaks out of turn in virtual support of the Maoists, the prime minister seems reluctant to rein her in. When a Jairam Ramesh collides with a Praful Patel over the much-needed second airport in Mumbai, the prime minister appears unwilling to exercise veto power.
When an A Raja finds himself discredited over serious allegations of corruption, the prime minister doesn't appear in any hurry to seek an explanation or effect a ministerial reshuffle. When rotting foodgrains symbolize the inefficiency of Krishi Bhavan, there seems little urgency in enforcing accountability. And even the attempt to get the crumbling Commonwealth Games house in order appears to lack credibility: an 'empowered' committee of secretaries is a classic 'Yes Minister' recipe for more confusion . The solution to every policy issue - be it a Bhopal judgment or a caste census - is to appoint a group of ministers, usually headed by the ultimate political all-rounder Pranab Mukherjee (there are 47 GOMs, of which the finance minister heads 27). The result is a perceptible sense of drift in just the first year of a new government.
Ironically, Dr Singh in his second term should have been much more in command than in his first innings when he was still coming to terms with his dramatic ascent. In 2004, Dr Singh was saddled with a government that was critically dependent on the left and a motley group of small parties. In 2009, the mandate was clearly for a more stable coalition, with the UPA no longer in need of weekly life support from any of its coalition partners. In term one, the prime minister could be held hostage by the left over critical economic policy choices, this time he should have no such fear. And yet, timidity in governance has become the hallmark of UPA II, almost as if the prime minister's bureaucratic past has returned to haunt his political present.
The bureaucrat tends to be risk averse, the politician tends to take chances. Two years ago, when confronted with a belligerent left, Dr Singh put his government on line over the passage of the nuclear deal. In those difficult months, it appeared that the prime minister had discovered a political spine and the power of the PMO. Unfortunately, deal done and election won, Dr Singh seems to have retreated into a shell.
The reluctance to take the initiative may also stem from conflicting signals emerging from the other power center, 10 Janpath. In his first term, Dr Singh's prime ministership was boosted by Sonia Gandhi's reassuring presence by his side. This time, the Congress president has been less protective of the prime minister, be it after the Sharm-el-sheikh tangle, the Naxal conflict or fuel pricing. For marginalized Congressmen, be it Mani Shankar Aiyar or Digvijay Singh, this is then open season to keep sniping at the government in the belief that dissent is tolerable.The re-emergence of the National Advisory Council as an alternate policy group has only further undermined cabinet authority.
Which is why it is time not just for the prime minister to assert himself, but for Mrs Gandhi too. Her silence on critical issues is only giving extra ammunition to those who feel that the UPA leadership is either tired or complacent, or perhaps both. Six years ago, it was Mrs Gandhi who handpicked Dr Singh as the chosen one. Now, she needs to help revive his flagging prime ministership before its too late.
Post-script: The capital's gossip bazaar is working overtime, claiming that Dr Singh has already been sounded out for a possible move to Rashtrapati Bhavan in 2012 and a smooth transition of power to Rahul Gandhi. If only politics was as simple as cocktail party chatter!
(the writer is editor in chief, IBN 18 network. Email email@example.com)
More about Rajdeep SardesaiRajdeep Sardesai is the Editor-in-Chief, IBN18 Network, that includes CNN-IBN, IBN 7 and IBN Lokmat. He comes with 22 years of journalistic experience during which he has covered some of the biggest stories in India and the world. Prior to setting up the IBN network, he was the Managing Editor of both NDTV 24X7 and NDTV India and was responsible for overseeing the news policy for both the channels. He has also worked with The Times of India for six years and was the city editor of its Mumbai edition at the age of 26. During the last 22 years, he has covered major national and international stories, specialising in national politics. He has won numerous other awards for journalistic excellence, including the prestigious Padma Shri for journalism in 2008, the International Broadcasters Award for coverage of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award for 2007. He has won the Asian Television Award for best talk show for the Big Fight on two occasions and his current flagship show on CNN-IBN, India at 9, has been awarded the best news show at the Asian awards for the last two years. He has been News Anchor of the year at the Indian Television Academy for seven of the last eight years and won more than 50 awards in this period. He has also been the President of the Editors Guild of India, the only television journalist to hold the post and was chosen a Global leader for tomorrow by the world economic forum in 2000. An alumni of St Xavier's College, Mumbai, he has done his Masters and LLB from Oxford University and has also played first class cricket for the Oxford University team. He has contributed to several books and writes a fortnightly column that appears in seven newspapers.
- + The striking similarities of Modi and Indira's politics
- + AAP and the business of Delhi-centric news
- + Both 1984, 2002 a blot but conviction better in Gujarat
- + Cometh the anti-establishment neta
- + Can Arvind Kejriwal avoid a repeat of the 1989 VP Singh phenomena?
- + India is changing and it's in the positive direction
- + Arvind Kejriwal-AAP success has many lessons for Rahul Gandhi
- + Kejriwal and Modi: Agents of change promising too much, too soon
- + Don't ban opinion polls, but bring in a code of conduct for pollsters