Appraisal
The Gentle Colossus
A scholar and diplomat, India's first Dalit President gave us an enlightened moral centre
In March 2000, when Bill Clinton visited India as the United States president, K.R. Narayanan was his host as the Indian head of state. At a banquet in Clinton's honour, Narayanan spoke without mincing words. "For us," he said, "globalisation does not mean the end of history and geography and of the lively and exciting diversities of the world. As an African statesman has observed, the fact that the world is a global village does not mean that it will be run by a village headman. In this age of democracy it will be headed by a panchayat. For us, the UN is the global panchayat, and that is why we want it to be democratised and sustained.... In such a globalised world society, there would be no place for war, for hegemonistic controls or cut-throat competition."

The message he wanted to convey was simple: globalisation must benefit all nations, big and small, rich and poor, and all peoples, especially those at the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder, or else it won't be acceptable. In other words, economic policies must be crafted to help equitable development, a primary objective of our freedom struggle.

Steeped in the values of our national movement, Narayanan frequently reverted to those principles, especially in his last days. Gandhi, Ambedkar and Nehru were the three leaders who helped mould his ideas. He was aware of the differences in their approaches; and yet, strove to synthesise their views so as to bring out the essential unity in diversity underlying our very nationhood.

But he never fought shy of facing reality, however grim and bitter. He conveyed his opinions unequivocally but without rancour and taking care not to hurt anyone's sentiments. In his last article that appeared in The Indian Express after his death, he wrote: "While celebrating the achievements of our Independence for the last 60 years, we must question ourselves to find answers for the empowerment of the people who are on the margins of the society. Any attempt in that direction is an attempt not only for the empowerment of India, but also enlightenment of those people who are in important positions determining the destiny of this country."

He emphasised on the spread of education as he was convinced that it was the only way to eliminate ignorance. But last year, he told a gathering that when he was in the Planning Commission for a brief while as a minister of state he felt that "even our planners were suspicious of mass education as they were afraid of how the masses would behave towards the government if they were educated." This was the observation of a dispassionate analyst, not a professional politician.

That was Kocheril Raman Narayanan—dignified, upright and outspoken. Hiren Mukerjee once described Jawaharlal Nehru as a "gentle colossus". That is precisely how one can characterise K.R. Narayanan.

He was a scholar, educationist and diplomat rolled into one. That a person of his background could attain such heights is a tribute to Indian democracy. As head of state, he took certain momentous steps—like returning the recommendation to dissolve the UP assembly in 1997 for reconsideration to the Union cabinet headed by I.K. Gujral. Reflecting on that step, my father Nikhil Chakravartty wrote: "Narayanan has demonstrated...that even one voice in defence of morality can overcome the calculations of the many who may be entrenched today in the circle of power. His unostentatious appearance while at the same time upholding moral strength has won the respect of millions.... What he has done is to rekindle the hope that everything is not lost with the ugly cesspool all around."

Much has been written about the pain and anguish he felt over the happenings in Gujarat 2002. Several of us criticised his silence. We were aware that he could hardly speak out against his own government, but felt that he should have rushed to Gujarat to demonstrate his solidarity with the victims of the carnage. Little did we know that while he was not physically fit to undertake the journey, he was constantly exhorting the then prime minister to deploy the army to save the innocent.

In diplomacy he made an extraordinary contribution in improving Sino-Indian ties. This happened twice—in the mid-'70s when he went to Beijing to restore the ambassador-level ties impaired after the 1962 border conflict, and in 2000 when he travelled to the Chinese capital on a state visit to repair the ties that had suffered following Pokhran-II and certain utterances by persons in authority in South Block. As a member of the media team accompanying him, I saw how he engaged his host, the then Chinese president Jiang Zemin, in discussing regional and global issues. Those discussions helped evolve commonality of perceptions on a range of subjects—from globalisation to multipolarity.

He was an engaging conversationalist with an inimitable sense of humour. A warm-hearted family man he would, on many occasions, disarm others with his sharp and witty comments. At a recent meeting of activists striving for the national rural employment guarantee scheme, he delivered a brief speech wherein he pointed out that since womenfolk constituted a large chunk of the assembly, the activists' eventual success in their endeavours was beyond any shadow of doubt.

A person of exceptional integrity, K.R. Narayanan played a pivotal role in reinforcing the country's democratic foundations. He was, of course, the first Dalit President of India, but then he was that and much more. His wise counsel and sane advice at this crucial juncture will be deeply missed especially by those who, like me, were privileged to interact with him closely and thus immensely profit by that association.
 
Daily MailPublished
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Nov 18, 2005 12:00 AM
10
I am glad, as a former member of the Citizens' Tribunal on the Gujarat Carnage 2002 led by Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, that Sumit Chakravartty shows courage in raising the issue of President Narayanan's role during that critical event in Gujarat. The President in India, which has a written Constitution, is not a mere rubber stamp like the Queen in England, which has no written Constitution. He is an executive president to some extent and must make his his presence felt in some way at critical moments in the nation's history. There are various ways in which our President can do this but total public silence on such occasions is impermissible. Unkind people began to attribute Narayanan's silence and inaction on Gujarat 2002 to his expectation and hope of a second term in office which the BJP government was not going to give him in any case. After leaving office Narayanan told Rajdeep Sardesai that he was a prisoner in the Rashtrapati Bhawan, which was sad but perhaps true in his case! A President is not known just for his good speeches but for his actions at a critical juncture. Narayanan was certainly a good diplomat and member of the IFS who delivered inspiring homilies but perhaps he did not know how to act. This might not have happened if Narayanan had he been a good member of the other All India Services. One thinks of TCA Srininvasavaradan (a great constitutionalist-civil servant), former Home Secretary and of Nirmal Mukarji (a great civil servant), former Cabinet Secretary. Both fearlessly gave independent advice to Mrs. Gandhi over her decision to impose Emergency and paid the price for it when she returned to power in 1980. The President of India, like lesser mortals in the IAS and the IPS, is an agent of the Constitution of India and not a servant of the govenment of the day. He must follow, not the order or the wishes of the latter but the dictates and imperatives of the former. As a sensitive man, Narayanan perhaps felt a sense of failure on this score,which eventually killed him, not his illness. After his public inaction over Gujarat 2002, Narayanan became somewhat of a lame duck President, a bit like Nehru after the Chinese debacle. And maybe he set a bad precedent for his successors as well!
K.S.Subramanian IPS(Retd).
K.S.Subramanian
Delhi, India
Nov 15, 2005 12:00 AM
9
A spade must be called a spade. For all his accomplishments and virtues, History will remember Narayanan as the man who loved the comforts of his office more than his people or country. Nothing he did will recompense what he failed to do during the terrorism inflicted by the saffron government on innocent citizens in 2002. Shame should have prevented him from canvassing the perpetrators of that genocide for a second term in office, but it didn't. A nation looks to its leaders to awaken a sleeping collective conscience at critical moments. Naraynan failed us utterly precisely at the moment he was needed most. He didn't earn the millions spent on his upkeep.
david albuquerque
Brisbane, Australia
Nov 15, 2005 12:00 AM
8
Lalit writes:

>>Why on earth did Mr Narayan not take a plane to Gujerat and try and stop the riots. His presence there would have helped.

He was a figurehead with no power. I agree his presence might have focused more media attention on the problem.
Old Mac
???, United States
Nov 15, 2005 12:00 AM
7
Just an afterthought.
The post of India's president should be given to some one who can play a note worthy role in India's political and social life. It should not given to show that minority and dalits can aspire to the top of India's hiearchy Presidents

Their basic qualification is that they have done all that was required of the people in power.
lalit bagai
kalundborg, Brazil
Nov 14, 2005 12:00 AM
6
If anything that distinguishes him from the rest of the crowd was this : he was a permanent house boy of the Nehru-Gandhi household, even while he was President of India !

The rest is one load of secular crap.
Ramana Murthy
NEW YORK, United States
Nov 14, 2005 12:00 AM
5
It may be bad taste to criticise the deceased mr Narayan , but I think its pardonable to say the following.

Why on earth did Mr Narayan not take a plane to Gujerat and try and stop the riots.His presence there would have helped.

Why did he wait to criticise the BJP government til after they failed to support him for his second time candidacy for presidency. And what in facts and deeds did he do to help the dalits and weaker sections .

If humanitarian gestures will win a person a permanent place in India's star studded firmanent , then I can propose a few from those who write frequently in these columns.
lalit bagai
kalundborg, Brazil
Nov 14, 2005 12:00 AM
4
KRN had achievements to his credit and is perhaps the best example of what dalit empowerment does and the kind of opportunities they have in India of today, and this does not detract KRNs early struggles and his single minded pursuit of his goal to reach the top, but many recent articles compare him with Rajendra Prasad and Abdul Kalam (see, TJS George in NIE, and he claims Farukkhuddin Ali Ahamed as the worst, which may not be the case). This is blatantly false as we shall see.

Rajendra Prasad brought light and wisdom to the position and did nothing to promote himself, which cannot be said of KRN, who loudly hankered for a second term. Rajendra Prasad fought with Nehru on principles but KRN spoilt the Clinton dinner due to his old prejudices. Those people who argue that BJP ‘denied’ him his second term think that second term for KRN is his birth right, which is not true. He clung to power tenaciously – otherwise, the principled ‘working president’ that he claimed to be, could simply have resigned instead of giving that belated interview on the discomfort of his conscience over Gujarat.

In contrast, according to TJS George, Farukkhudin Ali Ahmed was the worst. He was a well known freedom fighter who also had the unfortunate fate to sign approving the imposition of Emergency. We should remember that many leaders include JP thought initially that emergency would do a lot of good. In that uninformed age, Ahmed could have just been another victim of that vitiated atmosphere, rather than an active conspirator with Indira Gandhi, as people think. Of all Presidents, perhaps with exception of Venkatraman, Farukhudin Ali Ahmed was the one to deal with lots of the loony lot.

Where does our APJ Abdul Kalam stand? There is little glorious so far. He seems to fall behind in thinking (he could have easily asked the Centre to list down the criteria for approving / rejecting the Mercy petitions and then acted on Dhananjoy Chatterjee’s petition rather than the other way round, thus denying justice to the poor man – who can bring him to life now?). He ‘approved’ the actions of Buta Singh and steadfastly clung to the chair even when the SC laid down an adverse judgment on the actions of the Governor. There was hardly any ambiguity on the rightness or wrongness of Buta Singh’s decision, unlike the vitiated atmosphere of Farukkhudin’s time. BJP was also there with leading legal luminaries like Arun Jaitley to feed him with the Constitutional angle. APJ Abdul Kalam, the failed scientist, has now proved to be nothing more than a power hungry politician.

If KRN has proved that a dalit can move to the highest office, then Abdul Kalam has proved that being a minority is no bar on moving to highest office either. That is a small consolation in having had / having these worthies at the top.
ramachandran
Chennai, India
Nov 13, 2005 12:00 AM
3
When a Dalit reaches the highest office in the land, it is a shining moment for India. K.R.Narayanan turned out to be one of the greatest Presidents India ever had. He was a great humanitarian, upholder of law and justice and a champion of the weaker sections of society. His unheralded attempts to persuade Prime Minister Vajpayee to send troops to stop the massacre in Gujerat met tardy ears, but have forever enshrined his memory in the hearts of millions. His standing up to the Gujral cabinet because of his qualm about dissolving the U.P. assembly showed that he had the courage of his convictions. He would be remembered for setting the standards which would be guide posts for his successors.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Nov 13, 2005 12:00 AM
2
K R Narain was the best president India has ever had. Statements like below can be expected from BJP bumlickers. According to them, anyone who doesnt support BJP is a traitor
mahinda
baroda, India
Nov 13, 2005 12:00 AM
1
KR Narayan acted as the President of the Congress rather than of India during 1999 when the govt lost by a vote and there were no alternatives. He was in such a hurry that he did not give Vajpayee time, but waited alike a BhoomaDevi when it came to Sonia's turn. Thats a disgrace for him and he was no better than Sanjiva Reddy who used his office to topple the Janata govt. His leftist leanings and his ati-US feelings were an embarassment as was evident from the way he spoke when Clinton was here. He was more interested in scoring points than upholding his office.

And finally his gaffes about the Gujarat riots after he had quit office speaks rather ill of him. He had no compunction in trying to get the support of the same govt to get his second term, but when it was denied, he turned against them. It shows him in very bad light(though his leftist friends would call it a strategy).

When he started, he gave the impression that he would be in the mould of Zakir Hussain and Venkatraman but in the end he belongs to the category of Fakruddin Ali and Sanjiva Reddy. A total waste.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY