Back to the Basics?

The PM’s 90-minute interaction with a select group of editors in New Delhi on September 6 was intended to convey to the media and the public at large that the UPA-II dispensation headed by Dr Manmohan Singh was not gripped by a sense of drift as is the dominant impression today. There is no gainsaying that this impression has been strengthened by the head of government’s lacklustre performance in Parliament’s monsoon session if one excludes his impassioned speech during discussion on the Nuclear Liability Bill, a subject close to his heart (on account of its direct linkage with the Indo-US N-deal).

In the course of the interaction Dr Singh listed the Ayodhya problem (in the light of the forthcoming judgement on the title suit of the Babri Masjid), the rising popular anger in Kashmir and the Maoist upsurge in tribal India as the top political challenges before his government and the country. But regrettably he did not give any indication of innovative approaches to meet those challenges.
In his opinion, the way the aftermath of the judicial verdict on the Ayodhya issue is handled “will have a profound impact on the evolution of our country”. As for Kashmir, he confessed he did not have any “instant solution” and would go for “experimentation”, adding: “...and the country must learn to be patient.” On Leftwing extremism, he did speak of the two-pronged strategy of tackling underdevelopment and poverty even while restoring law and order but there was no departure from the beaten track: “After all, the Naxalite areas happen to be those areas which are the heartland of India’s mineral wealth. Now, if we are not allowed to exploit the mineral resources of this country, I think the growth path... could be adversely affected.”

His two other assertions reinforced the view that he continues to rely on the current paradigm of development fashioned by the neo-liberal offensive of the international financial institutions of the West: (a) “The only way we can raise our heads above poverty is for more people to be taken out of agriculture.” (b) “...there has to be a balance. You cannot protect the environment of this country by perpetuating poverty.”

On the Supreme Court’s order to ensure free food for the poor at a time when foodgrains were rotting, he, however, spoke out his mind explicitly. “I respect the sentiments behind the (court) decision... to ensure that the food needs of the deprived sections are met. But quite honestly it is not possible... to give free food to all the poor people.” He agreed that cheap food should be guaranteed for the poor but if free food is given on a large scale “you could destroy the incentive of our farmers to produce more food...”.

The PM was, nevertheless, right on one count: he admitted different points of view were being openly articulated within the ruling party, and recalled that such diverse opinions existed even during Jawaharlal Nehru’s time (though, he felt, those were less now). At one level this phenomenon reflects the health of our democracy since dissent is an essential ingredient of our democratic functioning. At another level it reveals that the liberalisers wielding the levers of power in governance are not having a field day as those upholding the Nehruvian ethos of development are not in the least inconsequential within the Congress as also the UPA chairperson’s National Advisory Council today. Rahul Gandhi’s utterances in Kolkata have brought that out in sharp relief.

Meanwhile in the death of Homi Nusserwanji Sethna, 86, in Mumbai on September 6 the nation has not just lost the principal executor of the Pokhran-I peaceful nuclear explosion of May 18, 1974 but also one of the symbols of our self-reliant national advance so meticulously worked out with immense success by both Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter.

Against the backdrop of the complex scenario before the nation at present is it not time we returned to the basics of that policy (that we seem to be seeking to jettison of late due to external pressures)? National interest certainly warrants such a step.

September 8 S.C.