 |
 |
|
| Vol. 4, Issue 5 May 2012 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting & Essays |
|
|
Reportage |
Falling Man
|
| Manmohan Singh at the centre of the storm |
|
Published : 1 October 2011 |
| |
|
|
SIPRA DAS / THE INDIA TODAY GROUP / GETTY IMAGES |
|
|
|
|
[ I ]
| O |
N THE MORNING OF 15 AUGUST, India’s Independence Day, it was raining cats and dogs in Delhi. By 7 am, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was atop the ramparts of the 17th-century Red Fort, hoisting the flag and saluting the assembled soldiers and citizens from behind a glass enclosure. Amid a sea of umbrellas, children who had gathered |
to watch the parade ran about, as if at a disorderly festival ground; the soldiers and paramilitary troops paraded on the wet asphalt, completely drenched.
It was an unusually gloomy Independence Day, and not merely because of the inclement weather. After a cursory presentation of his government’s achievements over the past seven years, Singh devoted almost the entirety of his eighth Independence Day speech to a series of crises: the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai; the ongoing “challenge of Naxalism”; inflation and rising food prices; the “tensions caused” by land acquisition; and, most of all, “the problem of corruption”—“a difficulty for which no government has a magic wand”.
After his speech, Singh was driven to Congress headquarters at 24 Akbar Road for the party’s own flag hoisting ceremony. Traditionally, the Congress party president presides over the flag raising, but with Sonia Gandhi hospitalised in the US, many predicted Rahul Gandhi would seize the moment and hoist the flag himself. Instead, he passed the duty to the senior Congressman Motilal Vora, and Singh stood nearby with the party’s senior leaders as they saluted the flag and sang: jhanda ooncha rahe hamara, vijayi vishwa tiranga pyara.... (Let our flag always be lofty, this world-conquering, beloved tricolour.) Manmohan Singh, in his iconic powder blue turban, and the Home Minister P Chidambaram were the only ones not wearing the Gandhi cap—a one-time symbol of the party of Independence that had more recently become the emblem of its newest and most popular nemesis, Anna Hazare.
The Maharashtrian activist had announced his plan to begin an indefinite hunger strike in Delhi the following day, and Congress leaders were buckling under the pressure: one quarter of Singh’s speech at the Red Fort had been devoted to corruption and the Lokpal Bill, whose passage Hazare was demanding. After the flag hoisting, Rahul Gandhi called Singh, Chidambaram and Defence Minister AK Antony into a meeting in the party office to discuss Hazare. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the party’s most reliable problem solver, had already left the premises, and Rahul sent someone to retrieve him.
| SHEKHAR YADAV / INDIA TODAY GROUP / GETTY IMAGES |
 |
Union ministers P Chidambaram (right) and Kapil Sibal (centre) who, in August, made an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Anna Hazare’s hunger strike. |
According to accounts provided by three party insiders—two members of the Congress Working Committee (CWC) and a top Congress functionary—Rahul expressed his displeasure with the personal attacks on Hazare that had been launched in his absence, and suggested that greater tact should be employed to deal with Hazare’s impending fast.
Unlike his mother, who is said to be firm and precise in her orders to senior party leaders, Rahul’s directions proved insufficiently forceful to avert the looming disaster. After the meeting, according to the three party sources, Chidambaram took charge of the situation in concert with Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal, and the two lawyers-turned-politicians devised a plan to prevent Hazare from staging his fast. Citing the best legal justifications—section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and 188 of the Indian Penal Code—Chidambaram sanctioned Hazare’s arrest the following morning, and then all hell broke loose. Agitated crowds massed outside Tihar Jail while Hazare took maximum advantage of Chidambaram’s error, refusing to accept release until his conditions for the fast were granted. Hazare and his allies had humiliated the government, and the ensuing spectacle at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan soon became Indian television’s most successful reality show, with record-setting ratings for the nonstop coverage on every single news channel.
Singh’s prime ministership, already battered by 12 months of scandals and setbacks, seemed to have hit a new low; his impeccable reputation as an incorruptible man of integrity—which served for so long as a firewall against criticism—no longer shielded him from the consequences of his government’s failings. If the prime minister privately expressed any opposition to the decision to arrest Hazare, he seems to have done nothing to prevent it.
“It was Manmohan Singh who lost face, since it was his decision to leave everything in the hands of Chidambaram and company,” one of the CWC members said. “The people who make mistakes keep making them, and the ministers—especially those who are professionals—are so arrogant.” While the nation’s attention was fixed on Ramlila Maidan, the upper echelons of the Congress drew their knives in private—and they did not spare the PM: “Everyone called up everyone else, and they were all so furious at Chidambaram, Sibal and Manmohan Singh,” said the party functionary.
The ‘professionals’ were soon pushed aside in favour of Pranab Mukherjee, who managed to negotiate a resolution with Team Anna to bring an end to the fast after a special session of Parliament voiced its near-unanimous assent to a Lokpal Bill that met Hazare’s conditions. “When it was finally decided to let Pranab deal with the Hazare thing, it meant snubbing Chidambaram and Sibal” and sidelining Singh, according to the CWC member. “What was it, if it wasn’t a public snub, that Manmohan Singh had to hand over the political leadership to Pranab because he wasn’t capable of defending his own colleague’s blunders?” the party functionary added.
| | | |
| |
|
|
|
|
Readers' Comments |
Total Comments
|
|
Jograaj
4 February 2012 02:01 PM
|
|
A balaced article and very well researched piece of work. Great job!
It will be good if you could profile other Indian politicians as well in a similar neutral tone.
All the best for your journalistic career!
|
|
|
|
Mani
22 November 2011 01:03 AM
|
|
Too verbose..ended up analyzing singh's past and an account of events that happened well before, which are highly documented and analyzed in detail..the article had very little of singh's power declining after the scam, the current agitation, sonia's illness, rahul's rise..very weak in terms of contemporary issues..a lil caught out at the end in terms of content, gr8 effort thou
|
|
|
|
Neil Kitson
9 November 2011 08:44 AM
|
|
I found this article to be very interesting and it was a pleasure to read.
|
|
|
|
narayanan
30 October 2011 07:55 PM
|
|
The dark umbrella does not allow light to fall on the head of the beholder.
|
|
|
|
Mahalingam Sankriti
27 October 2011 06:15 PM
|
|
Very well researched and written article.
no one, including this writer gives PVN the credit he deserves. He ran the coalition govt. without the help of "madam' as is well known. MMS has somewhere said' do not give me the credit. PVN stood behind me like a rock."In comparison MMS is a weakling.
Further if you analyse the so-called liberlisation movement,no one gives credit to Rajaji and his ideas in "swatantra". the congress used to brand him as a capitalist and worse!
|
|
|
|
R.V.S.Sharma
26 October 2011 10:05 PM
|
|
The writer earning his bread the hardest way.Why such a lengthy article to say nothing ? Malayali loquaciousness is hard to be cured !
|
|
|
|
kjram
14 October 2011 08:07 PM
|
|
A balanced analysis of the two sides of MM Singh- the economist vs the politician. However in his second term, MM Singh seems to be faltering at every step and when he speaks, though very little, he looks apologetic and helpless. As a CEO of a country it is important that he speaks and in terms of crisis it is all the more important to 'communicate, communicate, communicate" - over communication is OK and but not the silence he practices. As a result people have dubbed him a puppet, remote controlled, incompetent, helpless, mercy of maipulators, governance deficit, shieldor of the corrupt etc. History would record his second term as a PM as a disaster especially when India could have accelerated its economic growth and scaled new heights. Compare him with his predecessor Vajpayee who in spite of a bigger coalition steered the ship than MM Singh.
|
|
|
|
Adhyatmaramam Bulusu
13 October 2011 05:06 PM
|
|
A brilliantly written summary of Dr. Manmohan Singh, the politician. The two comments of a former senior secretary - "------- Manmohan Singh is overestimated economist and an underestimated politician." and "Manmohan Singh is an honest man in a pecuniary sense, but not in the high political-moral sense, as someone who wants to correct wrongs in governance by taking on dishonest people or practices. That's not him. Look at his response on 2G - He says 'I never knew' or ------------- . That fits a pattern, --------------- ".
It is more than ample evidence to say "After all, Doctor sahib is neither diffident nor mild nor unambitious; he is no different from any other ambitious politician well versed in the art of real politik. He is very consistent while dealing with the Harshad Mehta scam, nuclear power bill or 2G scam; the politician in him comes out with all the art of real politik and ambition for power. His honesty in the pecuniary sense gives him an excellent cover." Congratulations and thanks for such a revealing study.
|
|
|
|
Manmeet Singh
13 October 2011 02:53 PM
|
|
Stectacular article, very well written.
I feel sorry for Indians to have a Prime Minister like this and who is so careless and "Majboor".
Who says he is not corrupt, I say he is not corrupt but he hides himself from his responsibilities, but get others responsible for what he is not doing. very diplomatic he is.
|
|
|
|
binjovango
12 October 2011 08:33 AM
|
|
Brilliant article......vinod ...you done a good job
|
|
|
|
Robin
11 October 2011 04:38 PM
|
|
Well written article.
A lot of people think they can become a leader by reading books or taking degrees , like our PM. They can—but they're not the ones we'd expect.
|
|
|
|
AP Keshari
10 October 2011 05:01 PM
|
|
While this is a well-researched piece, it ends up drawing some wrong conclusions even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
At one point, the article actually contradicts itself: After pointing out how Dr Manmohan Singh knew that improprieties were happening (2G) and how he kept saying (or lying?) “I never knew”/“No one told me”, the article still concludes that “..His reputation for honesty may remain intact, but the course of this particular scandal—and a host of others that have transpired under his watch—suggests that honesty alone is an insufficient defence in crises that demand more from leaders..”.
Perhaps Caravan (and Mr Jose) ought to have begun by clarifying how they define Honesty.
The Berkeley economist Dr Atanu Dey, in his blog, presented a view that held the Doctor sahib to be “despicably dishonest”: http://www.deeshaa.org/2011/02/08/dr-manmohan-singh-is-a-despicably-dishonest-man/
At times this article fails to delve deeper into key issues: for instance, why was Dr Manmohan Singh so reluctant to ‘build an image’ or create his own political identity? Perhaps a closer look at the relationship between The Family and the family Retainer (as The Economist described him) would have yielded additional insights.
Finally, at the end of it all, the article still comes across as yet another gratuitous, albeit mild, attempt to try and shield Dr Singh from some serious issues of propriety concerning him.
+
|
|
|
|
Max
7 October 2011 03:39 PM
|
|
Well researched, nicely written, deliberately "balanced/censored".
Inconclusive. Beyond a semi-bio sketch, does Vinod have any opinion?
Hope at least he has a complete, clear picture of MMS!
Great to see a true academically qualified person on our PM chair.
but unfortunately, a waste of such a qualification! he could have continued teaching economics.
it is high time to re-define honesty.
when do we talk of ethics and responsibility of a citizen?
MMS may or may not have pocketed any black rupee, but consider the "intangible personal worth" (including his power, post, fame, growth etc) for which he played deaf, dumb and blind, allowing all that went wrong ( that we know or don't yet, and we may never know). He may started with good intentions, but he consciously allowed his (political) growth to defocus from country's true growth he could have led.
Not all the intentions of Sonia directed team has been truly, honestly, sincerely for the good of the country. (well, top corporates and corrupt politicians in white khadi may disagree, for their true gratitude) MMS should be knowing this better than anyone else, but he has looked away from his role and moral responsibility to his country allowing mess to happen.
A PM, who does not know what to do in Goa, sleepless working over weekends, for no overtime, has helped as many crooks to thrive under his shadow, let politicians and corporates rob all the tax paying people he is supposed to protect, is denying any knowledge. and we still praise him with all (joyful) tears for his innocence, integrity and honesty. Can anyone ever help us?!!!
He can be honest for once, by not telling he "did not know all this happened". - at least now,
for there is enough evidence to prove that he knew, he did not act for Indians, and he is equally good at playing "politics".
|
|
|
|
Narendra Kaushik
5 October 2011 04:58 PM
|
|
The marathon write up reminds me of a story a friend mailed me sometime back. A young Indian - say X - who was migrating to a foreign country, authorised a friend of his - say Y - through power attorney to look after the house. Y let out the house and would honestly send the rent remuneration to X. He looked after the house till he grew very old. Then his son - Z- took over. Z threw the tenants out and usurped the property. X went to the court. Interestingly, Y deposed in his favour. Z's culpability was proved beyond doubt. But the judge was still in cleft stick on whether he should prosecute Y as well. After all Y was supposed to guard the trust X reposed in him. Same goes for MMS. nicely written piece. kudos!
|
|
|
|
Harkirat Singh
5 October 2011 03:52 PM
|
|
Job Well Done!!!
|
|
|
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |
|