by Kuldip Nayar
Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said openly that the terrorists had used Pakistani soil to plan the operation, and criticism hurt Islamabad the most. Manmohan Singh and Gilani did reaffirm their resolve to fight terrorism and cooperate with each other, and yet it was the first time an Indian prime minister had declared that talks with Pakistan would continue uninterrupted, and be kept separate from India’s concerns on terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil. Another statement which an Indian prime minister made for the first time was an acknowledgement that he did ‘have some information’ on the unrest in Baluchistan. The allegation that New Delhi was giving money to the Baluchistan nationalist leaders was confirmation of sorts and Pakistan went to town about this.
So strong and widespread was the criticism of Manmohan Singh for separating Indo–Pakistan talks from terrorism emanating from Pakistan that there was no follow up to the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting. New Delhi was particularly incensed by Hafiz Sayed’s free movement in Pakistan notwithstanding clear evidence of his involvement in the Mumbai attack and continuing anti-India tirades and activities. Action against him was seen as a litmus test of Pakistan’s sincerity.
No doubt, Pakistan has itself paid a heavy price for terrorism which it blessed to engage India while standing behind the scenes. But the terrorists have become a Frankenstein to devour the creator. They pose a problem to the region. During my visits to Pakistan after the Mumbai attack I did not find any evidence to show that Islamabad was keen on punishing the terrorists. The intelligentsia felt sorry that such an attack had taken place but seemed helpless. No one was willing to show the candle to the ISI.
For having mentioned Baluchistan, Manmohan Singh faced strident criticism because this was the first time that the Indian government had said anything on the subject despite Pakistan’s relentless propaganda about it. The Manmohan Singh–Gilani meeting did not really break the ice and the two countries stood apart as usual.
Eventually, New Delhi made a move to invite the Pakistan foreign secretary for talks, which too failed. At a reception at Pakistan House in Delhi I asked Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir why the talks failed. ‘We are the prisoners of the past,’ he said. That in a nutshell describes the failure of interactions between India and Pakistan to normalize relations. Subsequently, the two countries shed some of the hostility for economic reasons. Pakistan extended Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India, which had already done so a decade earlier. The breakthrough in the trade relationship came in 2012 when Pakistan agreed to a negative list, that is, the items which India could not export numbering roughly 1500. I felt that the trade between the two countries would eventually be free and lead to the solution of other problems. I did expect hiccups but was optimistic that the goods would flow from one side to the other. However, the transit facilities to Afghanistan and the countries beyond did not seem to be coming through. New Delhi should have made more efforts to use the road through Pakistan to Afghanistan because it would have opened the markets of Central Asia.
There is no set formula I can apply to assess the performance of Dr Manmohan Singh or his government. Instances of good or bad governance are available, more bad than good. Even so, two of India’s founding fathers identified a criterion to measure the success of a government. Mahatma Gandhi’s yardstick was to identify the poorest individual in the country and determine how far his life had improved. Jawaharlal Nehru said that the touchstone should be how far any government ‘enables the individual to rise above his petty self and think in terms of the good of all’.
On either count, neither Manmohan Singh nor his government has fared well. True, there has been economic growth, but this has manifested itself more in high-rise buildings, dazzling TV networks, opulent plazas, big dams and large industrial estates than in the infrastructure or in the improvement of the lot of the common man. Nehru once observed that high economic progress was not his dream of tomorrow’s India if it lost its spiritual heritage in the process. I too believe in this dictum.
Economic inequalities and inequities have galloped without restraint. Far from seeing any improvement in their standard of living, the poor have not been able to maintain their abysmal standard of living, nor do the prospects ahead auger hope. Those below the poverty line may have fallen to 40 per cent of the population according to the official records but no reduction in poverty is visible. The Planning Commission goes on changing the definition of poverty to keep the figure low. The middle class has felt the squeeze all the time.
That the Manmohan Singh cabinet is not a cohesive unit came to the fore in 2011 when differences simmered all the time among senior ministers, particularly Pranab Mukherjee and P. Chidambaram. Neither could reconcile to Sonia Gandhi’s choice of Manmohan Singh. They considered him a loyal bureaucrat planted in the political field which was beyond his depth and qualification. Pranab knew that Sonia Gandhi did not trust him for the top job because her husband too had nurtured doubts about him.
Chidambaram thought that his ability for exceeded that of Manmohan Singh. On several occasions, Sonia Gandhi intervened to ensure that the other Congress ministers in the cabinet supported him. My information was that Manmohan Singh gave it back to them, when a 2G spectrum (relating to mobiles) note by the finance ministry was made public. The note said that Chidambaram, then the finance minister, could have stalled the allotment of licences had he insisted on their being auctioned. Chidambaram suspected that Pranab Mukherjee was responsible. Pranab, as finance minister, got a private detective agency to have his office checked because he thought that the home minister had bugged his room. The private agency found the spots which were used for bugging although this had ceased when the search was conducted a search.
The 2G spectrum note was given out by the prime minister’s office, not by the finance ministry. This was done in response to a query under the RTI by a BJP activist. I vainly tried to find out whether Sonia Gandhi suspected Manmohan Singh but it was clear that she did not hold either Pranab or Chidambaram responsible for any harm they caused to each other. She was keen on the two staying together and got them to realize that both were making a mountain out of a molehill.
I do not want to assess Manmohan Singh’s term as prime minister because he is still in harness. I can, however, say that the hopes I had pinned on him have been dashed. His government could have performed far better and at least given a semblance of governance to the country. His failure, particularly after the CPM withdrew their support, is palpable. His explanation is that the coalition dharma, meaning thereby the compromises he has to make to get the support of his allies, left him with very little leeway. He may be right but his helplessness has cost the nation dearly.
The Manmohan Singh government will go down in history as the most corrupt period faced by the nation. When members of the ruling party and their allies are caught siphoning off money, no rules are considered sacrosanct and no values are sacred. The government could have at least introduced a better Lokpal Bill but Manmohan Singh did not appear his own master when it was being prepared or introduced. His helplessness in face of the forces against which he has to contend is pathetic. He could have resigned from prime-ministership and in that way, at least in part, redeemed his reputation.
I confess that I have dealt with the last decade cursorily because I have very little information which has not appeared in print. My two friends, Kailash Prakash and Krishna, both former Secretaries to the Government of India, told me that readers expected from me some word of guidance. I am hardly the person to undertake this because even I have been searching for ‘an avtar’ for my country.
I do however feel that if the idea of India is to mean anything we must try to bring back morality to politics. India has been known for its value system not the riches. We should refurbish the Laxman Rekha to differentiate moral from immoral, right from wrong, a line which has got effaced over the years.
Nehruvian thinking led me to believe that a democratic society with individual freedom and a dominant public secto
r could coexist. My experience nullifies such a possibility. One thing which is clearer to me than before is that our future depends on the quality of our people and their capacity to work.
True, the polity has been trivialized by political, religious and economic forces. In the midst of rivalries among them the country’s development has lagged behind. Disillusionment and frustration, and the inevitable fallout, violence, have engulfed certain areas in the absence of integrity and development.
India is always a story of shadows and sunshine. Which of the two prevails at a particular time gives it bad or good name. The last decade or so is no exception apart from the fact that the shadows have lengthened. Corruption has darkened the skies and exposed a system reeking with graft. An utter want of governance has added to the woes of the nation.
Regional politics has replaced national thinking. I see this growing at the expense of the Centre or the national point of view. Federalism is the answer but how do we ensure that the states do not become prey to local chauvinism, caste temptations, and religious pulls and pressures. An all-India perspective is necessary, but this is not possible when the states provide a majority to a political party to remain in power.
The time has come to think seriously about a presidential form of government providing the individual elected a fixed tenure, of say five years, to function without requiring maneuvering a majority in Lok Sabha. She/he will be responsible for an all-round development ensuing that the states do not encroach upon the subjects the constitution has given to the Centre. Safeguards can be built in to ensure that the president does not turn into a dictator.
I feel that the next few years will be really challenging. Probably what India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said, that the following generations were sentenced to hard work, is true. The confidence which the people have developed in themselves and in their country, sustains hope that India will see the sunlight increasing and the shadows receding.
Epilogue
Injustice still hurts me just the same way as it did over sixty years ago, and among my very few friends are those who similarly care about the violation of basic values. Indeed, my instincts from a very early age have been to recognize such people who suffered victimization and marginalization. I have worked with them in Kashmir as they searched for an identity, in Bihar where land-grabbers have fraudulently seized people’s land, and elsewhere where large dams have been constructed, evicting thousands of farmers and tribesmen.
Indeed, seeking a responsive chord wherever and whenever it was possible to find it has been a guiding principle for me which made religious and political boundaries becoming largely irrelevant. The young Muslim who protected my parents at Sialkot railway station during Partition was a human being first and a Pakistani second. He earned my gratitude and loyalty forever. Hindus who likewise risked their own lives by sheltering Muslims in 1947 or Sikhs in 1984 belong to the élite group of eternal heroes.
While harking back to the past, I may have romanticized some of the experiences of both Hindus and Muslims but in doing so I was only projecting the harrowing times that the three countries, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, endured. All of them were born out of blood and they separated from their kith and kin to find their individual ethos and identity.
All I know is that in my case the plight of others has touched me so deeply that I have sometimes made their sufferings mine. When I crossed the border on 13 September 1947 I had seen so much blood and destruction in the name of religion that I vowed to myself that the new India which we were going to build would know no deaths due to differences in religion or caste. I therefore wept when I witnessed the mass-murder of Sikhs in 1984 and saw a repetition of such inhumanity in Gujarat in 2002, viewing it as a microcosm of the communal violence I had witnessed in 1947: the same refugee camps, similar stories of rapes, and the expulsion of innocent Muslim families from their hearths and homes. Gujarat caused me to ponder on how distant we still were from the vow I had undertaken over six decades ago to help transform India into a genuinely secular polity.
I cannot count how many threats and the hate mail I have received in my journalistic career. They have largely emanated from Hindus who believe that I take a pro-Muslim and pro-Pakistan stand. I cannot pretend that I am the only person, journalist or writer, who has received threats or hate mail. Nor can I say that I am the only witness to horrific days in 1947 and subsequently. Perhaps others have written more eloquently about those times. All I know is that I too have cried to myself at night and sensed a personal sense of helplessness that comes from the absence of a foundation on which to build.
I recall that when I brought home to my mother my first salary, a paltry sum even by the standards of the time, she told me how she had dreamt that I would one day be rolling in wealth. Then she said: ‘You will be a great man one day, but I shall not be there to see you.’
She breathed her last before my eyes. In the same way, I felt helpless when my sister, Raj, died a few months ago. She was the closest friend I had. I remember requesting the police who knocked on my door during the Emergency to delay my detention till I had met her. Raj’s last note with a rakhi said: ‘My dearest brother who has been everything to me in my life, my guide, my friend and my saviour. If only all brothers could be like you this world would be an excellent place to live. How proud I am of you.’ Perhaps it was my parents who drilled it into me that you can only find respect for yourself if you respect others.
It may not have been obvious to me as a young man, but good journalism is all about exposing injustice and highlighting heroes, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, although my teenage brain may have impelled me to become a lawyer, my human instincts were actually marching in a different direction. Looking back, it now seems obvious that I was destined to embrace the world of journalism. It was only a matter of how and when. In the event, it has been a long stint notwithstanding the realization that I could have prospered more elsewhere. In my profession what haunts me is that I do not write better. I should after having spent over fifty years in journalism.
India is engulfed in a series of crises, a new one taking hold before the last one has ended. I blame the political parties most for failing to reach a consensus on the basic issues concerning the country. That is probably why there is less of India and more in terms of regional, religious, and ethnic identities. I have found the youth disappointed and disillusioned, taking to careerism and consumerism rather than working for an egalitarian society and towards deepening India’s ethos of secularism and democratic socialism. True, the young have of late awoken to the cancer of corruption that seethes within the system yet they remain devoid of ideals, without ideological moorings like lamps without oil. My fear is that they may some day seek desperate remedies. Will they succeed? I do not know, but what I do know is that if the means to achieve an end are vitiated the ends are bound to be debased. That is what Mahatma Gandhi taught us. I wish the country would follow him more than the economic and social pundits who have before them grand and extravagant visions unsuited to India’s genius.
The Delhi durbar, as the political cauldron is known in Delhi, has been full of intrigues. I saw them from close quarters for the first two decades after Independence and watched it keenly later from outside. It was like the times immemorial: the fight for the top job. First it was who would be the raja, has now changed into who would be the prime minister. No method was mean enough to grab the top position and no method was spared to suppress the opponents within and without the party, although the emphasis was on the value system. The battle for succession was as full of intrigue after Nehru as was after Shastri. Things became more sordid after the death of these two leaders.
I have seen very few living within their means. Someone has helped them by somebody from somewhere. The entry of corporate sector in is a recent phenomenon. In fact, those who have preferred to adopt a simple austere life are very few, resisting all temptations. Probably what holds good for political leaders also h
olds good for journalists and others.
My contact with the youth has been limited. They are resentful of what goes on in the name of politics but very few among them are willing to soil their hands with dirt and come to the field to challenge the entrenched elements. I am not taking a despondent view of the present but I do feel consumerism is embracing the youth rapidly.
It is healthy that my generation is fading away. As Romain Rolland says in his book, Jean Christopher, man must die for a child to be born like the day which must consume itself in the darkness of night for a new dawn. An individual must be born again and again as must a human soul or self. This is a journey from the horrible to the sublime. It does not end the quest.
Annexures
1
Annexure
The Indian Media
Journalism as a profession has changed a great deal from what it was in our times. I feel an acute sense of disappointment, not only because it has deteriorated in quality and direction but also because I do not see journalists attempting to revive the values once practised. The proliferation of newspapers and television channels has no doubt affected the quality of content, particularly reporting. Too many individuals are competing for the same space. What appalls me most is that editorial primacy has been sacrificed at the altar of commercialism and vested interests. It hurts to see many journalists bending backwards to remain handmaidens of the proprietors, on the one hand, and of the establishment, on the other. This is so different from what we were used to.
At that time, proprietors left us alone to get on with the job of reporting, commenting on current political developments, and the like. I concede that there was a Lakshman Rekha which stopped us from transgressing beyond certain norms of free expression. It was, however, understood that journalists would not slant their story in a particular direction, nor make personal attacks on any leader in the government or political party. Also, the question of ‘paid news’ just didn’t arise.