FROM BUSINESS WORLD OF 9 NOVEMBER 2005
Time for a reshuffle
The mention of Natwar Singh as a non-contractual
beneficiary of Saddam Hussein’s multiple enrichment programme may be an error.
After all, there are many Natwar Singhs; some of them may even have a son named
Jagat Singh. It may also happen that someone intercepted the benefits intended
for Narwar Singh without his knowledge. No one should be condemned without
proper process – a process that the government has initiated with the
appointment of Virendra Dayal as fact collector.
But it is also clear that until –
unless – his name is finally and unequivocally cleared, his effectiveness as
minister of external affairs will be severely constrained on three grounds.
First, the world would give more credence to the Volcker Report than to Natwar
Singh’s denials. It would prejudge him; wherever he goes, Natwar Singh will be
branded as Saddam Hussein’s beneficiary. Second, this image of his will be
particularly damaging in our relations with the United States, which are
currently at a critical stage. The Prime Minister set in motion a strategic
congruence between India and the US; he cannot afford to jeopardize it on
account of a crippled foreign minister. And finally – and there are some signs
of it already – Natwar Singh may try to grow roots in his job by reverting to
the anti-US line that was his life-long speciality – though not his alone.
The leading candidate for Natwar
Singh’s position must be Pranab Mukherjee. He is as senior as Natwar Singh; he
has been minister of external affairs. The only reason why he did not get the
ministry last year was that Natwar Singh’s tenure in the foreign service was
seen to qualify him for the job; he had qualifications for none other, although
that is hardly a disqualification for any ministerial post in our system.
Pranab Mukherjee would also be keen to move from defence to external affairs,
and would not doubt press his case to the PM and Sonia Gandhi in the most
presentable form.
However, the PM should see this
not just as an unavoidable chore, but as an opportunity. The government was
formed last year in a hurry, and was inevitably based on untidy political
compromise. Now the PM has seventeen months’ experience, not only of the
performance of various ministers, but of the relative weight of his political partners.
As to performance, it must be his
perception as it is outside that P Chidambaram has not somehow lived up to his
considerable acumen and reputation. His second budget, which he had ample time
to prepare, was not much to write home about; on the contrary, his innovations,
namely the taxes on cash withdrawals and deemed employee benefits, were
unnecessary and deeply resented by their victims. For the rest, he has been
benignly inactive, whether it be in respect of banking reforms or the capital
market.
Mr Chidambaram may actually do
well as foreign minister. His training is just right for the minutiae of
international negotiations. He has a presence, and his mastery of English would
make him effective in international fora. And he is probably more in tune with
the PM’s thinking on foreign policy – on the realignment away from defunct
non-alignment.
His transfer to external affairs
would leave the PM with the question of whom he should make finance minister.
There will be many candidates amongst Congress heavyweights; but luckily, the
case of none is strong. The last Congress finance minister was the PM himself,
and all before him is history. So he has pretty much a free hand.
Instead of rewarding an old horse
from the Congress, he should for once follow his heart and appoint someone
whose economic expertise he trusts. Of such there are two. There is Montek
Singh Ahluwalia, who was the PM’s right-hand man in the finance minister and
who continues to be his close associate. And there is C Rangarajan, whom he
appointed Governor of Reserve Bank and who is now his informal economic
adviser. Ahluwalia may well be his preferred choice; he would run the finance
ministry with competence, and would serve the PM’s interests without burdening
him with details. Rangarajan, on the other hand, has a reputation of his own;
so much so that when his own chosen ministers did not perform too well, PM
Vajpayee had seriously considered appointing Rangarajan as finance minister.
Ahluwalia may make a brilliance finance minister, but Rangarajan has the kind
of distinction that might make him more acceptable to the political
establishment.
On both these candidates the PM
would know his own mind very well and can do without outside advice. Being a
cautious player, he may well hesitate to force his choice upon his party. But
he should consider how Narasimha Rao brought him out of retirement and changed
India’s future. He has the same opportunity 14 years later; he should not miss
it.
