An Attractive Alternative

The Indian political atmosphere has been getting charged by manipulation as a run up to 2014 national elections. Ours is a parliamentary democracy like that of UK, not a presidential one like that of USA and France. But there is a chorus rising from some quarters, perhaps designed, perhaps spontaneous, to make our parliamentary elections look like presidential ones. Parliamentary de jure, presidential de facto. Rahul Gandhi v/s Narendra Modi.

Rahul Gandhi has proved that he understands the democratic ethos of India better than those who were pushing him into a personality cult mode. He has proved his political maturity by not falling for the bait, declaring that he is not a contender for the prime minister’s post. Three cheers to him for that.

Rahul’s words on  March 5, 2013 are worth recalling: “My priority is not to become the prime minister…the question of who will be the prime ministerial candidate of the Congress does not interest me…I have no lust for power or to become the PM.” 

In the sixty-five years of our history as a free and democratic country, the prime ministers have been chosen by the force of circumstances rather than manipulative self promotion. Who else could have been an alternative to Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 and 1999? Did he promote himself the way it is done so blatantly today in the BJP? Was Jawaharlal Nehru not the natural choice in 1947 although surrounded by men of equal eminence? Did Lal Bahadur Shastri have to manipulate his way to the prime minister’s chair in 1964? Was not Indira Gandhi chosen by the Congress in preference to Morarji Desai in 1966? And was not Morarji Desai chosen PM by the Janata Party after a massive victory in 1977?  Charan Singh’s very  short stint as PM in 1979 by splitting from the Janata Party may be considered an aberration as that of Chandra Shekar’s in 1990. Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980 after a massive mandate for her party. Circumstances forced Rajiv Gandhi into politics after the tragic death of Sanjay Gandhi who was also seen to be manipulating his way to become PM. And Rajiv Gandhi became the unanimous choice of the Congress in the emotionally charged atmosphere after the assassination of his mother Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. The choice was endorsed by the record breaking mandate with two thirds majority in the general elections that followed two months later. Rajiv Gandhi proved himself to be a democratic leader who did not use his big majority to turn himself into a “supreme leader”, a term that is used these days by some politicians with limited following.

V P Singh became prime minister by consensus after the victory of the national third front led by his party, the Janata Dal. Narasimha Rao had almost retired from politics when he was asked to take the prime minister’s mantle following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991. Deve Gowda and I K Gujral were forced by circumstances to become unexpected PMs for short periods. Both were chosen by their party, which was leading the ruling national coalition. I have already mentioned Vajpayee of the BJP who was the only acceptable choice of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) from 1998 to 2004. 

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was formed in 2004 with the Congress under Sonia Gandhi’s leadership as the leading party. She was the natural choice to become PM. But she declined and proposed Manmohan Singh to become the Prime Minister. Her choice was accepted by the party. Singh will complete nine years as PM  in May 2013.

I have given historical details of the selection of all our prime ministers since independence in order to bring out the fine and decent ways we have gone about in the past. It has always been the parliamentary way albeit with variations. Never has it been one man/woman against another. It has been one party against another. Of course, the personality of the leader and of the local candidate has played a significant role in the election.  In a country of India’s size, population and diversity, this has been the most sensible course to follow. And we have succeeded in a big way. Look at our neighboring countries and their volatile forms of governance. We have stability. We have growth. Slow and steady.

An election to be fought on the basis of projected prime ministers will be a national nightmare. The followers of Modi may want it that way. But the supporters of freedom and diversity will never want it that way. That is why I appreciate the decision of Rahul Gandhi not to fall prey to the manipulations of those who want him to be declared the prime ministerial candidate of the Congress. An expanding collective leadership with an empowered local leadership is definitely an attractive alternative.

Published in The Navhind Times, Panorama 10.03.2013