Opinion All the PM’s answers

It is still not clear what narrative to take out of this interaction. The PM seemed to be saying that there was some cause for concern on corruption but not as much as had been suggested. The discussion was not so much about a resolve to combat corruption as it was an attempt to throw cold water over it. He was at his forceful best in countering the charge that his government had caused high losses in the 2G scam. He rightly pointed out that mere non-auction of spectrum is no more a crime than giving subsidies. A government may decide to dispose of it at whatever price,if it can make a reasoned case for doing so. It is the first time that he has defended the broad policy framework both on substance and on procedure. The policy framework did,after all,have the backing of the then finance minister as well. A. Raja may have been guilty of specific allocation decisions. But he was very much operating within the framework of a policy that the government as a whole seems to have endorsed.

But there are two mysteries. The minor one is on messaging. What took the PM so long to explain this to the public? What about the attempts over the last two months to distance the PM from the policy framework,by suggesting that he had endorsed auctions? If there is one big takeaway from the experience of the last two months,it is this. The cabinet needs to adopt a practice perfected by Jairam Ramesh: govern with what are called speaking orders. These are orders that clearly and publicly explain why certain decisions have been taken (whether the reasons are compelling or not can be debated). But at least government will not fall into the trap leaving it unclear who took decisions and why.

But watching the prime minister,you could not help feeling that there was a more Machiavellian political mind at work than we give credit for. For one thing,he consistently blamed coalition politics for the limits on his power. At a surface level,this can be seen to be a piece of evasiveness that it is: blame everyone but yourself. We should be vigilant against this kind of self-exoneration. But at a deeper level,look at how the crisis is playing out. The focus has shifted almost entirely to Raja and the corporates. The PM seemed to be saying that all the problems are at that level of implementation,not at the level of the cabinet.

But now ask a mischievous question. Would the CBI and the courts and all of us have been going after Raja as assiduously if a sense of crisis had not been built up? We will give the Supreme Court much of the credit for going after Raja. But the PM seemed to be signalling two things: the crisis was necessary to overcome the constraints of coalition government. And second,that crisis pertains to individuals,not to government as whole. Now that the crisis has resulted in actions against specific individuals,government can defend its broad policy framework. In short,Manmohan Singh has more shades of the devious politics of Narasimha Rao than we realise. Speak only long after the fact,and a crisis will turn into an opportunity.

What suggests deviousness at play is this. The lollipop character of the questions asked by the distinguished journalists suggests buying into the line that the government as a whole does not have much to account for. Not one probing question was asked about this government’s rampant decimation of institutions. Even the one thing the PM directly signed,the controversial appointment of the CVC,was conveniently forgotten. Unless there are fresh revelations,Raja,Kalmadi and maybe Ashok Chavan will be history in a few months,sacrificial goats that will have expatiated our longing that someone pays. The interaction was not designed to clear the air about what happened. It was designed to say: “Calm down,Raja is out,I am an honest guy and guess what,I am an economist too.”

The PM was combative about the BJP. He went so far as to insinuate that the BJP was holding up something as important as the GST because it wanted relief for a minister from Gujarat. It clearly signalled the intent that the government was ready to engage with any skulduggery to take on the opposition.

The PM’s constant refrain that talk about scams was denting the country’s self-confidence quickly elided the fact that the confidence has been dented more by a lack of visible leadership than it has by the press raising the pitch. Appeals to patriotism in a political argument should almost always raise a red flag: the PM’s exhortation that we worry about the image of the country was very much a disingenuous blaming the messenger.

The PM continued his refrain of being helpless on several fronts. The only politically interesting statement he made was that for government growth was the highest priority,even if it meant risking inflation. But on most other issues,his answers were characteristic: things are out of my control,or there is a committee looking into it. But the overall impression was a steely determination to hold on. But since he cannot like a true leader roar,and silence was becoming exorbitantly costly,he did the thing he does so well: just whimper enough in the hope that he cuts a sympathetic figure. But he was not a prime minister taking charge of a crisis; after all,in his reckoning,there isn’t one.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi

express@expressindia.com<.i>