FROM THE TELEGRAPH OF 11 JANUARY 2006
At the PM’s
displeasure
Two changes were
noteworthy in the recent ministerial reshuffle. One was the replacement of
Renuka Chaudhury by Ambika Soni. To the unobservant it may have looked like Tweedledum
and Tweedledee – one presentable woman being replaced by another. Chaudhury’s
tenure was not scintillating; perhaps she will be remembered for appointing
nine female tourist car drivers. There are only so many ministerial positions,
and if there are more claimants than can be accommodated at any one time, the
number of positions can be stretched with a game of musical chairs. But it is
not really a replacement of like by like. Renuka Chaudhury has been a member of
Parliament for two decades, and Ambika Soni never. But Soni has always been a
Congresswoman, whilst Chowdhury was in Telugu Desam Party till recently. Perhaps
loyalty has been rewarded.
The replacement
of Mani Shankar Aiyar by Murli Deora is a more substantial and dramatic change.
Just the week before, Aiyar had been in Peking pursuing his pet idea of India
and China bidding jointly for oil concessions. The following weekend he was
removed from the petroleum ministry. His displacement conflicts with the theory
that Manmohan Singh is incapable of unpleasant action. When he became Prime Minister,
the commonest cliché employed for him was the Good Doctor. His manners are
legendary; his niceness is so well known that politicians of limited
intelligence make fun of his ‘weakness’. What he did to Aiyar shows that this
is not entirely true.
There were various
rumours to explain Aiyar’s fall from favour. He was reported to have argued in
favour of Iran, which is next in America’s sights after Iraq. He was supposed
to have got into arguments with the Prime Minister. He was said to disagree
with the Prime Minister’s growing closeness to the United States.
Some of these
things may be true. I would, in fact, be surprised if there had not been
fireworks. Aiyar has brains, and independent thinking is liable to lead to
trouble, especially with a cerebral Prime Minister. And Aiyar has a wicked wit
which he makes no effort to rein. So some of his barbs may have hit sensitive
spots. More likely, stories, embroidered or otherwise, were carried of what he
said about whom. Tittle-tattle is routinely used by people in government to do
down people they do not like; Aiyar was the perfect victim of malice.
The demotion
poses a personal problem for Aiyar. What he has suffered is pretty insulting –
serious enough for him to consider resigning. He cannot, of course, retaliate
in any manner; the Congress does not brook dissent these days. But he does not
lack targets. He was a terrific columnist; he would have a whale of time making
fun of the Hindutwits in their present disarray. He would have far more fun
doing that than he ever would as a second-rank minister. But then, Panchayati
Raj is his baby. He had persuaded Rajiv Gandhi to amend the Constitution and
devolve power to village Panchayats. He can hardly suggest now that his
remaining portfolio is not important. So he is hoist with his own petard.
However, those
who seek public office must accept the risks that go with it. Aiyar made his
bed when he became Rajiv Gandhi’s special assistant in 1989; now he must lie in
it. What is of more general interest is the implicit difference in approach
between the PM and him that led to his emasculation.
Aiyar
deliberately and publicly went about securing India’s oil supplies. His
approach was threefold. First, he encouraged the government oil companies to go
and get access to hydrocarbon supplies abroad, and backed their efforts with
the influence of the government. Second, he tried to reduce the competition
they faced by persuading competing countries to cooperate. Finally, he
similarly tried to draw hostile countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh into
cooperative relationships.
These
initiatives were confined to hydrocarbons. But they had larger foreign policy
implications, for it would have been impossible to cooperate with countries on
oil or gas and remain hostile to them otherwise. Conversely, Aiyar’s oil
diplomacy would not have gone far without a change in overall relations. Aiyar
never spelt out his larger vision. But I could infer a dream of making India a
hub, the centre of an Asian oil market, an integrator of Indian Ocean
countries.
This vision
collided with Manmohan Singh’s vision of a US-India alliance. The US abominates
the present regime in Iran; it is extremely hostile to the Iran-India gas
pipeline across Pakistan. It offered Manmohan Singh an alternative: Oil from
Saudi Arabia and maybe Iraq, plus plenty of nuclear power with the help of US
companies. It persuaded King Saud to come to Delhi and give his own assurance.
And it told India that as a price for buying into this dream, India had to help
in defeating Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Is this deal
worth taking? I have no doubt it is. For whatever ambitions India may have of
becoming a regional hub or centre or power would be easier to achieve with US
cooperation than without. If I had to choose between the larger Mani and
Manmohan visions I would choose the latter. But I do not really see the need to
choose. The only point on which they differed was Iran, and specifically the
pipeline. And on this, the unreliability and hostility of Pakistan would have
persuaded me to go with Manmohan Singh.
But so could have
Aiyar. He could have given up the Iran pipeline and pursued all his other dream
projects. The US may also have misgivings about China signing up oil
concessions in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. But it is doing nothing to
stop China; and as long as it is not, it should have no problem with India and
China cooperating to get concessions. It should prefer that to China alone
getting concessions. This could not have been a bone of contention.
So I think the
ideological difference between Mani and Manmohan was bridgeable, and could not
have led to the separation of Mani from oil. It was something smaller. Some Congress
ministers regard Manmohan Singh as a Johnny-come-lately, and do not consult him
enough; he may have used Aiyar to send them a message. Frictions, mistrust and
misunderstandings build up even between friends of decades when they are thrown
together in government; pride does the rest of the damage.
The demotion of
Aiyar was an unusual step for Manmohan Singh. But he has rather taken foreign affairs
to heart. India’s foreign policy entered a transition with the collapse of the
Soviet Union 17 years ago; it is still to arrive somewhere. The BJP tried to
reach an understanding with the US; but the negotiations ran aground in its
last days. Manmohan Singh would like to make India a full-fledged ally of the
west, with all the support that would bring; and he has probably no more than
three years to do it. He is in a hurry; he is impatient with dissent. Which is
a pity, because questioning leads to more robust policies. He is taking risks,
but has surrounded himself with yes men. One only hopes he will be lucky.
