One of the toughest, and yet most enjoyable aspects of a political journalist’s job is to figure out where truth lies when two fellow-travellers give you totally contradictory versions of the same story. I recorded separate interviews with Manmohan Singh and Narasimha Rao in the run-up to the 2004 elections for NDTV’s Walk the Talk (for text, www.expressindia.com) and took them back to the economic reform phase in 1991. Manmohan Singh said that Rao told him, you go ahead and do what you want. But remember that if it goes wrong, you will be blamed. Rao had a different spin: when there was opposition to reforms from his partymen, he said he told them, “Bhai, don’t attack him (Manmohan Singh). He is not a political man. Talk to me.” So, what was the truth? Did Rao tell Singh that if things went horribly wrong he should prepare to be the scapegoat, or did he draw away from him the fire and venom of old protectionist lobbies, political and corporate?

Between the two, however, my call wouldn’t be that tough, or risky, if I chose “apolitical” Dr Singh’s claim over his then, very political prime minister’s.

The situation now is a little bit similar. What Manmohan Singh as prime minister is trying to do to our foreign policy, or rather the way in which India relates to the post-Cold War world, is comparable to what he did to its economy in 1991. The Left actually gets it when they say the nuclear deal is not just about energy, that it is a paradigm shift. There are aspects of this where they do not get it, but that is a different argument for another Saturday. The relevant issue now is that when Manmohan Singh pushes this “shift” in 2008, which course is his political leader of today going to choose? To use him as a convenient scapegoat if things go wrong, a sacrificial one if the party decides to retreat and bury the hatchet with the Left in his expendable, “apolitical” back, or embrace him with pride, protect him in this moment of change and challenge, and draw away the fire and the venom from him?

... contd.