In his first term as prime minister, Manmohan Singh carried the burden of being the country’s “nominated” chief executive, with the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) almost laying down the government’s agenda for the social sector: at least for the first three years. Alongside, he had to deal with an ideologically incompatible ally in the Left (till he was rid of them in his fourth year) and often intransigent cabinet colleagues, led by former HRD minister Arjun Singh.
But when the UPA returned with an increased majority in 2009, Manmohan’s grip on the reins—his unblinking helmsmanship of the nuclear deal, his steering of the recession-time economy—too was cited to explain why the coalition was back on Raisina Hill. He was seen as a factor, at least as much as the party-led welfarism. The Manmohan Singh of UPA-II is accordingly much more his own man. The Left is not breathing down his neck. Sonia, in the last nine-odd months, has largely left him to his own devices. She may have written a couple of letters to him—one on food security, another on the price rise—but there is no NAC yet (the government note on it, sources say, is ready for the PM’s signature though). Plus, despite a few looming profiles, there is no real challenge to the PM from any of his cabinet colleagues. As for Rahul Gandhi, heir apparent, he is far too busy with his Grand Tour of the country to be an irritant. In any case, with Rahul’s politics still in evolution, the PM is perhaps not as sharply contrasted ideologically to him as to his mother.
In all these months, Sonia seemed to have subtly and wilfully receded from the scene—almost as if, having secured the party and family’s political future, she was savouring the interregnum even as the son came into his own. She no longer heads the NAC, nor does she have to spend time mollifying Left leaders. This aspect of semi-detachment has left Manmohan with the stage all to himself, and for many Congressmen, especially senior party functionaries, this is disconcerting. This unease is manifesting in two parallel, emerging strands of opposition to him. One comes from those who have views on India’s foreign and economic policies, the other from those disturbed at the sight of a confident, assertive Manmohan driving the national agenda. This opposition has not found any visible sign of support from 10 Janpath. “Mrs Gandhi,” a senior cabinet minister told Outlook, “does not interfere in the foreign policy and economic arenas too much.” For the socialist core of the party, without an obstructive Left ally, this is no help.
Many Congressmen would like UPA-II to be a continuation of UPA-I: a time of “consolidation” in the social sector. Manmohan has more on his mind. He has begun restructuring India’s security team—if not architecture—with the exit of one-time 10 Janpath faithful M.K. Narayanan as national security advisor. Besides, he has sharpened his climate policy, “allowing” his highly regarded special envoy Shyam Saran to quit, signalling which side of the debate he’s on.
More than anything, his unambiguous line on Pakistan—be it Sharm el-Sheikh or his recent decision to resume talks—mirrors his determination to take the issue head-on, in the face of disapproval even from his own party. And despite environment minister Jairam Ramesh claiming party support for his line on Bt brinjal, GM foods are clearly part of the PM’s second Green Revolution blueprint. As for his ushering in a nutrient-based subsidy regime despite disquiet in the cabinet and party, it’s an indication, partymen warn, of things to come in the economic arena.
In UPA-I, as the economy rode the wave of global prosperity, the PM had more elbow room in economic policy but was hamstrung by the Left. Though he has more political space on this front now, economic circumstances temporarily thwart his ambitions. But his real challenge will come when he tries to fully flesh out that autonomous centre-right space. Says partyman Mani Shankar Aiyar, “If UPA continues on the path of accelerated growth leading to accelerated disparities, it might seriously endanger our democracy, given there is insurgency in a third of our districts. UPA needs to make inclusive governance through elected local bodies the principal instrument for securing inclusive growth.” This is the sort of debate one may hear more of in coming months.
Laying the ground S.M. Krishna, Nirupama Rao with Pak foreign minister in NY
Sharm el-Sheikh July 2009; Indo-Pak talks February 2010
PM: The joint Indo-Pak statement delinked composite dialogue from action on terrorism. Also allowed a reference to Indian involvement in Balochistan.
Party: It should have been consulted before signing the joint statement. Instead, the Opposition was given a handle to attack the government.
PM: Talks must continue despite Pune attack
Party: Disquiet in the party, with many returning to the post-26/11 mood
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already demonstrated that he has a vision of a subcontinent at peace with itself—and he is determined to pursue it. “For the prime minister,” PMO sources told Outlook, “good relations with Pakistan and resolving the Kashmir issue are key to his ambitions of making India a superpower and to the creation of wealth that will make India a more equitable society.” It’s against this backdrop that the controversial Sharm el-Sheikh statement, the determination to resume talks with Pakistan—even after a blast ravaged Pune’s German Bakery—and replacing M.K. Narayanan with Shiv Shankar Menon as NSA need to be viewed.
If the nuclear deal was the high point of Manmohan’s prime ministership during UPA-I, the task he has clearly set for himself in its second edition is to achieve a breakthrough in Indo-Pakistan relations. “The PM,” sources close to him had told Outlook at the time, “sees no merit in a stagnant pool. He sees greater merit in the turbulence that might result from what is being seen as a dangerous approach.” But the specifics of the PM’s Pakistan initiative—decoupling the composite dialogue from action on terror and the curious reference to Balochistan—made Congress circles uncomfortable. The party’s spokespersons, led by media committee chairman Janardan Dwivedi, projected disquiet within the party through their ultra-cautious briefings, and there were reports that Union defence minister A.K. Antony was unhappy with the end-user agreements relating to defence purchases with the US. Then, a Calcutta paper ran a report saying finance minister Pranab Mukherjee was “unhappy” with the statement, adding fuel to the fire. Pranab, when asked to comment on the veracity of the report, just smiled benevolently. When this, too, was reported in the press, the party high command imposed a gag order on all briefings, on and off the record, till the core committee meeting was held on July 24 last year. The episode ended with Sonia Gandhi making a guarded defence of the PM.
This time, the party has chosen a low-key response, with its spokesmen saying that since these will be “talks about talks”, not too much should be read into them. A ministerial source, however, told Outlook, “At the time of the Sharm el-Sheikh statement, the party was still in a pre-election, post-26/11 mode. Now we have crossed that hump. Besides, we need to have the self-confidence to talk to Pakistan, Pune or no Pune, to strengthen the civilian regime there.”
The replacement of Narayanan with Menon as NSA, a ministerial source told Outlook, is part of the PM’s new security architecture the PM envisions. It was Menon, this source said, who was pilloried for the Sharm el-Sheikh statement (he was the foreign secretary then and was responsible for the draft) even though the line clearly came from the PM. Now, Menon’s appointment is a signal that that line will prevail, especially as Narayanan, with his background in intelligence, was seen as “too anti-Pakistan”.
Hot water Chemicals and fertiliser minister M.K. Azhagiri outside Parliament
Fertiliser subsidy February 2010
PM: Moots withdrawal of subsidy for urea
Party: Sees it as first strike against subsidies
In the run-up to the Union budget for 2010-11, the UPA has raised urea prices by 10 per cent, while permitting the fertiliser industry to fix retail prices of other subsidised fertilisers, thus reducing the government’s subsidy burden by Rs 50,000 crore in the financial year, starting April 1. The new policy will determine the subsidy on phosphorus and potash based on their nutrients.
The government says the new policy will increase agricultural productivity by rationalising the unhealthy overuse of urea-based fertilisers and promoting greater usage of secondary and micro-nutrients, end the practice of the government fixing a maximum retail price, and replace the current system of giving subsidy to the industry with direct assistance to farmers. But the Congress is not convinced about the advantages the government says will accrue from the new policy. It feels the move will hit farmers, a key aam aadmi constituency of the UPA government, even as fertiliser companies will stand to gain—as if on cue, stock prices of top fertiliser companies went up 2 to 4.5 per cent in late trading on the day the announcement was made.
Of course, the matter was discussed at a meeting of the party’s core committee, attended by Sonia Gandhi, before it came to the cabinet. At this meeting, Manmohan presented it as a fait accompli and said it was something the government could no longer afford to delay. When it was brought to the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), at the end of an hour-long discussion, during which minister for chemicals and fertilisers M.K. Azhagiri presented both the note for the changes as well as a dissent note—and even asked finance minister Pranab Mukherjee to defer the move, not everyone was entirely convinced, a cabinet source revealed to Outlook, but it was pushed through.
The change in the fertiliser policy, Congress sources say, is being seen as a precursor of things to come. Will the current subsidies on petroleum products be the next to shrink, they ask. It may be good economics, but it can’t be good politics.
Climate change: The exited Shyam Saran
Climate change-Shyam Saran Dec ’09-Feb 2010
PM: A flexible line on the per capita emission argument. Uncomfortable with Shyam Saran's ‘obdurate’ approach.
Party: Should not yield to the West
In the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh took the flak not just from the Opposition after announcing a unilateral cut in carbon intensity, but also from members of his own party. At that time, his stand caused a fair amount of disquiet also among the 18-member official negotiating team, headed by the PM’s then special envoy on climate change, Shyam Saran, though it was more than apparent even then that he had the full support of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The babble of voices coming from within the government appeared to be creating confusion about India’s stand on climate change, but sources close to the PM had told Outlook then, “The fact that differences between Jairam and members of the team are playing out in the public domain is deliberate. The PM wants both views to emerge and he will take the final call. India cannot, at any cost, allow a US-China gang-up against India.” He had also stressed that the changes were tactical, not fundamental, geared to making India a deal-maker rather than a deal-breaker. The PM, these sources added, wanted to move India away from the role of leader of naysayers to that of “a responsible stakeholder, which acts as a bridge between contending platforms to build a consensus on contentious issues”. And Jairam—who has worked with the PM in the past too in the Congress’s economic cell—had succeeded in introducing “flexibility” into the climate change discourse.
Jairam Ramesh with the Chinese climate change team in Copenhagen
Today, after the exit of the PM’s special envoy on climate change, Jairam is having the last laugh. Sources close to Jairam say that Saran’s exit was inevitable. At the time Saran was given the climate change charge, the PM was the environment and forests minister, and neither of the two ministers of state—Namo Narain Meena and S. Raghupathy—were seen as capable of handling the climate change negotiations. But with Jairam’s appointment to the job, it was a matter of time before Saran left: he was asked to stay on till Copenhagen. Sources close to Jairam say that when he took over, he had told the PM that the climate change negotiations should be handled by the PMO, and that he would be happy doing the domestic part of the job. But the PM turned down the offer, as Jairam would be required to answer questions in Parliament on the subject.
Of course, the signal Manmohan has given by allowing Saran to quit—though he offered him MoS status, even if belatedly—is, as unhappy Congressmen put it, that India will be “junking the per capita emission principle”. “Will the shift from the per capita principle help us solve our energy problems? What are the benefits of this new line?” a party functionary asks. Evidently, there is need for debate—and transparency—on issues like climate change, which affect the future of the country, in a fundamental way.
The Bt bug Which way will baingan go?
Bt Brinjal October 2009
PM: GM foods could help usher in a second green revolution
Party: Wary of the possible health hazards
As the political storm rages over Bt brinjal, it’s becoming increasingly clear that ‘science’ is likely to trounce ‘ideology’ in the battle of genetically modified (GM) foods. In this face-off, not only have Manmohan Singh’s ministerial colleagues—Sharad Pawar, Prithviraj Chavan and Kapil Sibal—come to his rescue, but the PM’s economic advisory council too has joined the fray. “After the success of Bt cotton and the benefits it has brought to the farmers in Gujarat and Maharashtra, it’s imperative that the government have a clear policy on GM crops,” the pmeac has said in its Review of the Economy (2009-10). “The regulatory framework should clearly assess performance in the field and the impact on environmental and food safety issues and bring the results into the public domain at the shortest possible time.”
For environment and forest minister Jairam Ramesh, who’s drawn a distinction between food and non-food and public and “private” research to justify his indefinite “moratorium” on Bt brinjal, this is a losing battle, even though he apparently has the support of the party—and if reports are to believed, of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who, party sources say, is believed to have “expressed her apprehensions about the impact of GM foods on health”. But PMO sources say the way Jairam went about this was wrong: “Given that there are two equally strong views on GM foods, he shouldn’t have got involved in the public hearings. Tomorrow, if a nuclear plant is to be set up somewhere and we call for a public hearing at the proposed site, will it ever be built? What we need is a proper mechanism to deal with such issues.”
For Telangana Self-immolation by Osmania student Yadaiah
Telangana December 2009
PM: Intelligence misled him and Chidambaram into agreeing for a separate state
Party: Embarrassed and divided
The UPA government plunged into a serious crisis after Union home minister P. Chidambaram, in a dramatic announcement on Dec 9 midnight, said that the Centre would initiate the process of creating a new state of Telangana. Today, two months on, it hasn’t quite recovered from the reverberations it set off. Instead of cooling tempers in Telangana, the move provoked a counter-agitation in the rest of Andhra, dividing all political parties, including the Congress.
The government’s damage-control strategy in the ensuing weeks, concluding in its decision earlier this month to set up a five-member committee under Justice Srikrishna to examine the demand for a new Telangana state as well as, curiously, a “united Andhra”, does not seem to have helped much. The Rosaiah-led Congress state government has to contend with a students’ uprising in Hyderabad’s elite Osmania University amidst reports that the Maoists, active in the region, are backing it, as well as the fallout of 300-odd suicides across Andhra Pradesh. The situation has clearly spiralled out of control—and the announcement that the committee has till December to sort out the issue has done nothing to pacify people on either side of the divide.
Everyone now knows that Telangana Rashtra Samithi chief K. Chandrasekhar Rao was nowhere near death on the 11th day of his fast, and that much of the pro-unity agitation that played out on the streets was sponsored by the late ysr’s son Jaganmohan Reddy and his cohorts, including the Bellary brothers.
Chidambaram’s supporters say that the party’s core committee, including the PM and the Congress president, were party to the decision. But party sources say that both sides of Raisina Hill—the PMO and the home ministry—have to take responsibility for the Telangana imbroglio. “Clearly, NSA M.K. Narayanan—and the intelligence agencies—‘misled’ the government, but where was PC’s political judgement?” asks a party functionary. “This just proves that he may be efficient, hard-working and can put systems in place, but he is simply not political. And the party is paying for it.”
Grand alliance Chatwal with T.K.A. Nair and former Slovenian model Ursa Philbin, an assistant of Chatwal’s son Vikram
Chatwal and the Padma January 2010
PM: Felt NYC hotelier had lobbied effectively for the N-deal in the US and recommended him for the Padma
Party: Uncomfortable with Chatwal's unsavoury past
Nothing signalled the confidence of UPA-II—and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh—more than the award of the Padma Bhushan to the controversial businessman Sant Singh Chatwal, whose wheeling-dealing inside the Beltway has given him currency in two world capitals, Washington and New Delhi. The Padma was an open acknowledgement of the role he had apparently played in lobbying for the nuclear deal in the US, especially among the Democrats and, more specifically, with close friends Hillary and Bill Clinton. Clearly, that mattered more than his unsavoury doings—including charges of alleged bank fraud—in the land of his origin.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time Chatwal’s name had been recommended for the award. Shortly after the N-deal became a reality in the last year of UPA-I, his name was floated for the Padma Shree. At that time, the government couldn’t muster the courage to give him the award; it overrode any inhibition this time around. When questions began to be asked about his godfather, the names of PM’s principal secretary T.K.A. Nair, Union ministers Praful Patel and Vayalar Ravi began doing the rounds. But the PMO couldn’t escape responsibility for giving the award, leaving red-faced Congress spokespersons with the embarrassing task of explaining how it happened. Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi did a cryptic job: “The government can explain this. But in general, the party wants the award to be given to those who increase the award’s prestige, not those whose integrity is in doubt.”
