Challenger of Command Economy It was Nehruvian economics and politics that dominated independent India’s national life for nearly half a century. And Narasimha Rao was its product, its beneficiary, and to some extent its theologian. For over two decades since he moved to Delhi from Andhra Pradesh, there was hardly a Congress Party document that was not written or vetted by him. They all were reaffirmations of faith in ‘socialistic pattern of society’. Little did anyone expect that Narasimha Rao would dethrone that huge and invincible structure. He was 70 years old when he was sworn in as Prime Minister. It is remarkable that at that ripe age he could radically depart from a faith he was born into and grew up with. Equally remarkable is that he was assisted in this subversion by Manmohan Singh, another person who was one of the pillars of the command economy edifice. It is perhaps more than a coincidence that Manmohan Singh succeeded Narasimha Rao as a Congress Prime Minister. Two regimes succeeded Narasimha Rao: the NDA and the UPA. Both of them stand bitterly opposed to him for one reason or the other. But neither of them could repudiate the economic paradigm that he had put in place. His subversion of the command economy was so complete that its fundamentals are beyond debate today. Narasimha Rao was not a knight in the shining armour from the free market castle. But he subverted the command economy effectively. He did it quietly. Dismantled Political High-command After liberation the victim of oppression tends to imitate the oppressor. We find many instances that prove this formulation in history. We see many examples in our day to day lives as well. Narasimha Rao was a victim of the arrogance of high-command politics. During his tenure as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, he was a butt of joke for his frequent trips to Delhi. The high-command culture also showed him in poor light, as an indecisive and weak leader. He was a silent sufferer of the misdemeanours of the party apparatchiks from Delhi. However, when he himself became the high-command and enjoyed unchallenged power of the offices of Prime Minister and Congress President, he did not imitate his oppressors. He did away with the high-command culture. His ministers worked uninterfered by the so called omnipotent PMO. Haughty, upstart and arrogant party ‘functionaries’ were nowhere to be seen. He subverted the High-command culture. Unannounced, and quietly. Rejected Patron-Client Equation Narasimha Rao acknowledged his political mentors and idols. Swami Ramananda Tirtha was his political inspiration. Burgula Ramakrishna Rao was his mentor. But strangely, he refused to be a mentor. He never encouraged a patron-client relationship between him and scores of his political followers and admirers. His conduct with them clearly showed that he wanted to consider them as colleagues, associates and friends. His comportment did not evoke strong loyalties. He was avuncular, but not a Robin Hood. It is perhaps this that left him with no die-hard followers who are prepared to shout slogans when he achieved, wail for him when he lost, and protest loudly when he was humiliated in his death. Failed to be an Icon There are few who would stand up to say that it was Narasimha Rao who changed the course of Indian history in the last decade of the last century. There was no demand for a commemorative stamp; for the award of Bharat Ratna; for naming a government scheme after him. His birth and death anniversaries are tame and unwilling routines. While those who lost their perches as a result of his subversion are unforgiving, its beneficiaries did not feel obligated to stand by him. The former felt they lost out because of him. But the latter did not feel he directly benefitted them. For every one of his achievements - his electoral record, his land ceiling legislation, and his liberalization - he does not spring up like an icon in the public consciousness. Nobody owns Narasimha Rao. No caste, no linguistic group, no region, no stream of thought, and no cohesive group of people feel passionate about him and his long presence in India’s public life. This is a major failing of Narasimha Rao, the political leader in flesh and blood. That is a disservice he had done to himself. Perhaps it is an unconscious subversion. This would not diminish his place in history but at the same time without a sprinkling mention of his name, memory and ideas the contemporary public discourse is vastly impoverished.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 00:30:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015