Once more with feeling

The election was almost certainly Vajpayee's "last hurrah". He is nearing 80 and visibly slowing down. He has been in politics for too long to be shell-shocked by the turn of events. He would be more -- or perhaps less -- than human though if he did not experience a twinge of hurt at the hasty and unceremonious manner of his ouster from the parliamentary leadership of the party that he has served so loyally, so long, so manfully and so well. All too often Vajpayee has seemed to be something of an enigma, a study in equivocation. He is a person of decent and very human instincts, a poet with a poet's sensitivity and sense of introspection. And yet he is also proud of his long association with the RSS, which -- shorn of hyper-nationalistic verbiage -- is a very passable approximation of a fascist organisation. To some party hardliners though, Vajpayee is lacking in "ideological core".

The Gujarat outrage of 2002, "a killing spree that lasted days" and left 2000 Muslims dead, reportedly also left Vajpayee disconsolate, so much so that he poured out his anguish in verse. His instinctive reaction was to replace Modi as Chief Minister. He was stymied though by his own long time deputy Advani, who -- according to a Financial Times magazine report -- outwardly appeared to concur but unobtrusively orchestrated moves against this. At a closed-door party meeting in Goa, Vajpayee was confronted by colleagues who professed "undying support" for the "hero of Gujarat". Vajpayee capitulated and even gratuitously told the Goa meeting that "Everywhere in the world, Muslims find it hard to live with their neighbours".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In 1998 Christian communities in Indian tribal areas were victims of concerted and premeditated attacks by zealots. Belatedly Vajpayee moved to quell such persecution but also called for a national debate on proselytizing by Christian missionaries. He failed even to disavow the openly minatory tactics of his more rabid followers designed to deny the Prime Ministership to Sonia Gandhi, a design that had no sanction or imprimatur in the Indian constitution and in effect amounted to a negation of the people's verdict. Phaedrus of old may have had in mind instances of volte-face, doublespeak, sophistry and masterful inaction when he wrote of "adding insult to injury"!

Admittedly it is not easy to move against old colleagues but in matters of basic principle this is what distinguishes a true leader of peoples from a lesser man. Pandit Nehru surely agonised over the decision to ease out Purushuttam Das Tandon, a party stalwart and old colleague from UP, from the Presidentship of the party in 1950, when the latter was perceived to be more communal than secular in outlook; but remove him he did. Edward Heath was prompt in dropping Enoch Powell from the Shadow Cabinet in1968 over a racist speech. At the end of the day Vajpayee may be remembered more for what he failed to do than for what he did; a thoroughly decent man who lacked some crucial ingredient that distinguishes between a genuine leader and those who follow in order to lead.

Sonia Gandhi possibly does not have the intense craving for the highest political office, as did for example Nixon or Charan Singh. It would be simplistic though to conclude that she was cowed into withdrawal by the likes of Sushma Swaraj, Uma Bharti and others. To be sure the prospect of seeing Sushma Swaraj with her head tonsured and Uma Bharti presumably in sackcloth and ashes is deterrent enough and such a spectacle would have done nothing for female pulchritude in India either. The stridency of personal attacks may have served to push Sonia towards a decision to which she was already inclined but might not have been the main reason for her refusal to serve as Head of Govt. As early as 1991, Sonia had declined the Party leadership -- and at one remove the Premiership -- following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, a decision that placed Narasimha Rao in the Prime Minister's chair.

The history of coalition governments in India is hardly reassuring. And Sonia is as aware as anyone that Congress strongholds in the crucial States of UP, MP, Bihar and Maharashtra must be revivified before the party can aspire to reclaim its old pre-eminence in Indian politics. This may be her priority at this point. Secondly by separating the Presidentship of the Party from the Office of Prime Minister, she has reverted to what was a welcome norm during Nehru's tenure of office.

The choice of Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister was surely inspired. A person of high competence, low profile and unimpeachable integrity, he will symbolise continuity of government, inspire confidence abroad and ensure good governance within the country.

He is, however, essentially a technocrat, without political gravitas or a base, and it will not be easy thus to put his high office to effective use as a "bully pulpit", to move and motivate the masses, or to inculcate certain core values or norms of democracy. Every aspect of political authority may not therefore naturally gravitate to the Office of Prime Minister. Singularly enough there are as many as three former diplomats in the Cabinet, all of whom took early retirement for a career in politics. For a bureaucrat it cannot be an easy transition, from the orderly world of officialdom to the uncertainties of politics.

Given that the legitimate end of all political effort is the "well-being of the individual in a life of safety and freedom", politics is surely as honourable a calling or vocation as any. It is thus always heartening when people of proven calibre, competence and experience seek a career of public service. Former diplomat KR Narayanan added to the dignity of the high office that he adorned until recently. Late Prime Ministers Shigeru Yoshida of Japan and Lester Pearson of Canada, both former diplomats, excelled as political leaders. Pakistan's experience between 1947-58 in this regard, however, is less than edifying. During this time three former bureaucrats reached the highest echelons of Govt. namely, Prime Minister Chaudhury Md. Ali (1955-56), Governor General Ghulam Muhammad (1951-55), and Governor General (1955-56) and later President (1956-58) Iskander Mirza. Ghulam Muhammad and Ali once belonged to the Audit and Accounts Service. Mirza was one of the early recruits to the Political Service; earlier he served in the army.

Ali was the only one of the three to have served as de jure Head of Govt. A man of intellectual curiosity and accomplishment, it was during his brief stint in office that the first constitution of Pakistan was adopted. Years later he wrote his very readable memoirs, "The Emergence of Pakistan". An anecdote that I have no reason to doubt is very revealing about his range of interests. Late in life, in a London clinic recuperating from a heart attack, he had a visitor, a former colleague from British India days. The visitor found the patient reading a book on organic chemistry. Ali, however, was a reluctant politician with few political pretensions and no base -- an almost insurmountable handicap in politics.

Mirza and Ghulam Muhammad held high titular office but there was nothing titular in the manner of their manipulation of power, people and politics. With the coming into force of the 1956 constitution, Mirza's title changed from Governor General to President and he would have taken a most solemn oath to defend and uphold the constitution. He went about this task in the strangest manner imaginable; by abrogating it only months before the first ever general elections were due. The deed done, the realisation dawned that he had also forfeited the legitimacy of his high office. Not surprisingly within weeks he was consigned to exile and oblivion. Like his predecessor he would die in a distant land, unwept and unsung.

A well-known episode of his early career in the NWFP in British India times says everything about his mindset and methods. The Congess, including presumably the Khudai Khidmatgars, had decided to take out a procession which Mirza as Political Agent or DC was determined to thwart. He avoided confrontation. Instead at strategic points along the route of the demonstrators he arranged to serve cool refreshing drinks. On a hot sultry day the marchers welcomed the proffered drinks, which unknown to them were liberally laced with "jamal ghota", a potent indigenous laxative. The marchers dispersed well before their destination.

Ghulam Muhammad was a complex personality, feared for his short temper. He suffered from a form of paralysis -- possibly hemiplegia -- and hypertension, could not walk unaided, and was also afflicted with severe tremors of his hands. His speech was so garbled as to be intelligible only to those accustomed to it, to others it sounded like a series of grunts or gibberish. Persistent rumour ascribed his condition to an unpleasant and unmentionable social disease. Qudratullah Shahab -- himself a distinguished civil servant and a writer of eminence -- who served as his Secretary, had the happy habit of scrupulously maintaining a diary that was published posthumously. Shahab's diaries are replete with instances of Ghulam Muhammad's bizarre behaviour and way with people.

The diaries, in fact, afford an almost surrealistic account of happenings in high places. Once a Cabinet Minister accompanied by a Joint Secretary met GM on some official matter. Not surprisingly the Joint Secretary could not quite follow what the Governor General was saying. Irritably GM asked if he was hard of hearing. The thoroughly discomfited officer clutching at straws blurted out that he did have a hearing problem. No sooner said than remedy was forthcoming. An attendant was summoned and with the aid of an outsized syringe and powerful squirts of water proceeded to clean the ears of the hapless officer, in the presence, of course, of the Governor General and at Govt. expense.

Ghulam Muhammad seemed to rule by wile and whimsy. In April of 1953 he summarily dismissed a Prime Minister who had only days earlier passed the budget in the Assembly. In October of the following year when the Constituent Assembly sought cautiously, almost timidly, to circumscribe the arbitrary use of his power, he promptly dissolved the Assembly. The President of the Assembly, Tamizuddin Khan moved the Sind Chief Court for redress. The Chief Judge, Justice GB Constantine and Justice Buksh Memon found against the Governor General. Undaunted, but perhaps a little chastened, GM appealed to the Federal Court. There have been allegations that against every norm of propriety he even discussed the matter with the then Chief Justice M. Munir. Chief Justice Munir, with Justices Sharif, SA Rehman, and Akram concurring, set aside the Sind Court's verdict. The Court did not pronounce on the merits of the case, basing its decision instead on a specious technicality pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Sind Court. The lone and honourable voice of dissent was that of Justice Cornelius.

Munir's name and memory may never be de-linked from the opprobrium and escapism of this verdict. In his twilight years, perhaps with an eye to his place, if any, in history, Munir wrote two books. I was once told by a Pakistani friend that either in one of these or elsewhere he sought to rationalise this decision, contending that any other verdict would have precipitated military rule. If indeed he argued thus, he was in effect expounding a new doctrine of jurisprudence.

There may be something in the view that former bureaucrats if placed in the very highest political positions, more often than not exemplify the Peter Principle -- a person rising to the level of his or her incompetence. Dr. Laurence Peter, who formulated the eponymous principle, once in a light vein listed some historical personalities, to whom he felt the principle applied. The list included Socrates, a highly competent teacher but an unmitigated disaster as a defence lawyer, Julius Caesar, a great general but too trusting in his relationship with politicians, and Nero, a passable enough fiddler but a poor administrator.

Change through election is almost by definition evolutionary and not revolutionary, more of nicety and nuance, style and emphasis, than of substance. Any shift of policy seldom amounts to radical departure from the past. The new Government of India will certainly not disavow market economy policies but should give it a more human face and make it more voter-friendly. Minorities should certainly feel more secure. Foreign policy should continue to be given priority as befits a country of India's size, stature and potential. The priority to be given in the Govt.'s agenda to relations with smaller countries, in particular neighbours, can only be the subject of conjecture at this point. However, an observation, by Faiz Ahmed Faiz -- a person of culture, refinement and progressive ideas -- comes to mind. Apropos of what I am not quite certain and perhaps in a moment of despondency, he had once reportedly remarked: "Barkhurdar merey tho yeh khauf hai kuchh bhi nahi hoga. Ehsahi chalte rahega." (Roughly in English: My young friends, I have this nagging apprehension that nothing is really going to change. It will be just business as usual.) Faiz certainly did not have foreign policy issues in mind when he made this comment, but possibly even he did not quite grasp the scope or extent of its application.