Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar, in his latest book, argues that Pranab Mukherjee should have been made Prime Minister in 2012 instead of Manmohan Singh, who was then recovering from health issues.
Aiyar believes this would have prevented the "paralysis of governance" and "doomed" any prospects the Congress might have had to form United Progressive Allice-III
He says the decision to retain Manmohan Singh as the PM and shift Pranab Mukherjee to the Rashtrapati Bhawan "doomed" any prospects the Congress might have had to form UPA-III.
Aiyar puts forward these ideas in his forthcoming book A Maverick in Politics published by Juggernaut. In the book, Aiyar talks about his early days in politics, navigating through the Narasimha Rao years, his time as a minister in UPA I, his Rajya Sabha term and then his "decline...fade out...fall".
"In 2012, the prime minister (Manmohan Singh) underwent operations for multiple coronary bypasses. He never quite recovered physically. It slowed him down and this showed up in governance. As for the party, there was no official announcement about the Congress president's health when she took ill at about the same time as the PM," Aiyar says.
It soon became clear that in both the offices -- the PM's and the party president's -- there was stasis, a distinct absence of governance, while several crises, particularly Anna Hazare's 'India Against Corruption' movement, were either not handled effectively or not handled at all, says the diplomat-turned-politician.
"The choice of Rashtrapati: Manmohan Singh or Pranab Mukherjee. Personally, I was of the view that Pranab Mukherjee should have been given the reins of the government and Dr Manmohan Singh elevated to President of India when the office of Rashtrapati presented an opening in 2012," he says.
"This was principally because we needed a very active PM in good health and with the energy to lead the government (Pranab Da) and a person of high distinction who had served his country exceptionally well (Dr Singh) to preside over the nation. Pranab's memoirs indicate that this was in fact contemplated," Aiyar points out.
He quotes Mukherjee as saying in his memoir that while Sonia Gandhi was 'on holiday in the Kausambi hills', she had given the 'vague impression' that she was considering making Singh the 'presidential nominee'.
"This led Pranab to wonder 'if she selected Singh for the presidential office, she may choose me as the prime minister'. For reasons to which neither I, nor it seems anyone else, was made privy, the decision was taken to retain Dr Manmohan Singh as PM and shift Pranab Mukherjee upstairs as Rashtrapati," says Aiyar.
"That, in my view, doomed any prospects the Congress might have had to form UPA-III," he adds.
While the Indian media slammed the government, Time magazine ran a very damaging cover story that described Dr Singh as a 'Do Nothing' Prime Minister, he recalls in the book.
Aiyar argues that Pranab's left-wing reputation would have disturbed the business community and the Americans if he were made PM, but there was no one more experienced than him.
"I hazard the view that if this obvious step had been taken, we would not have gone into a paralysis of governance and thus opened the door to the worst excesses of Hindutva in the general elections of 2014," he says.
In the book, Aiyar also recounts his own most telling memory of the "meltdown of UPA II" was when he returned home one evening he found his wife, Suneet, sitting before the TV set with a shattered look on her face.
"When I inquired what the matter was, she raised her stricken face and exclaimed, 'No scams today!' We, therefore, went into the 2014 general elections very much a runner-up. In the event, the election exposed the Indian National Congress as a broken reed that fell from 404 seats in 1984 to 44 seats in 2014," Aiyar says.
Talking to PTI about his view expressed in the book that Mukherjee should have been made PM in 2012, Aiyar said, "Manmohan Singh had six bypasses. So, we were crippled at the head of the government and at the head of the party. But there was one man who was still full of energy, full of ideas, had a certain amount of charisma and could have run either the party or the government or even both. And that was Pranab Mukherjee."
"...And if that had happened, if Dr. Manmohan Singh had become President and Pranab had become the Prime Minister, I still think we would have lost in 2014. But not by this massive humiliating defeat that we actually had, where we fell to 44 seats. I mean, a party that had been at 414 in 1984, December, had fallen in 2014 to 44 seats. And that is because there was no governance," he told PTI.
In 2013, everyone was recovering from illness and so a lot of charges were made against us, which had never been established in a court of law, he said.
In his book, Aiyar says the government and the party were unable to carry credibility in answering the charges to an obviously sensational-hungry media and thought the issues could be quashed by getting the ministers concerned to resign.
That resolved nothing, and only aggravated the harm the unproven allegations caused to the government's reputation, he says.
The Commonwealth Games scandal also contributed to blackening the government's face in the eyes of the general public, Aiyar adds.
"But what, perhaps, put the lid on the UPA government's election prospects was the mishandled Anna Hazare-led agitation, 'India Against Corruption'.
"The minister of home affairs, PC who initially refused Anna Hazare permission to conduct his fast in the Ram Lila grounds, eventually caved in and the Ram Lila grounds became 'ground zero' for a much-publicised agitation. I think the lowest point in UPA-II's reign was when three Union ministers went to Delhi airport to receive the private aircraft of Baba Ramdev, the highly controversial 'godman' who was supporting Anna Hazare," Aiyar says in the book.
© 2024 Rediff.com -