- Created on Friday, 01 January 2016 05:42
- Hits: 4141
(Image Courtesy: narendramodi.in)
If I were Prime Minister and if I were to write my year-end, self-assessment report (SAR), what would I do? I would structure SAR around several indicators of performance in five areas.
These are 1) Foreign Affairs, 2) Governance including supervision and monitoring of Council of Ministers, policy formulation and pursuit of institutional approach; 3) Cooperative Federalism; 4) public outreach both via social media including Mann Ki Baat and ground-zero interface with stakeholders such as victims of social atrocities and agrarian crisis; and 5) My conduct as a parliamentarian including as the Leader of the Lok Sabha.
As a conscientious karm yogi with grounding at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), I would take up first the last indicator – the toughest one on which not much has been said and written in depth.
Rahul Gandhi’s barb –‘PM Modi does not have the guts to face the House (Lok Sabha)’ haunts me most as it got prominent coverage in media in August 2015.
Trinamool Congress MP Derek OBrien's jibe ‘please grant a visa to the Prime Minister of India to come to the Rajya Sabha’ rankles in mind even after one year. Other notable MPs’ taunts at my sparse attendance in Parliament are also unforgettable.
I sense people have noticed the contrast in my facial expressions under two different situations - when I sit in Lok Sabha and when I am travelling abroad to restore Indian pride, attract foreign investment and advance our strategic interests.
Before any critic says that my contrite expression at Lok Sabha seat is similar to that of a reluctant school boy forced to sit in a classroom, I must rush to Parliament library to retain my claim as the country’s Pradhan Sevak (prime servant). Library is the best place to reflect and to compare my conduct in Parliament with that of my predecessors.
This would help me prepare a realistic and ethical SAR, which in any case is not meant for public scrutiny. SAR will also help me discover the import of jibes hurled at me by the Opposition on my record as a Parliamentarian.
I decide to start with Bharat Ratna Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose is also my role model. Rummaging through parliament debates, I stumble upon instances of Mr. Vajpayee’s making interventions during the question hour. He supplemented answers given by concerned ministers to ‘starred’ questions. He made interventions in chaste Hindi. I wondered why I can’t do so as I am equally good in articulating my thoughts in Hindi. Starred question is one under which MPs can put verbal queries and get oral answers.
Sensing my interest in performance of ex-PMs, librarian brought to my notice similar replies given by P.V. Narasimha Rao to MPs seeking additional information in the case of starred questions.
The Librarian also brought to my attention the replies given by predecessors to Rao including Jawharlal Nehru. Most ex-PMs intervened confidently in debates that followed special mention of an issue by a member of parliament.
They also apprised MPs of the purpose and outcome of their foreign visit by way of statement to both houses of Parliament. This tradition, however, was marginalized under the tenure of Dr. Manmohan Singh.
Late V.P. Singh went one step in building rapport with other MPs: He regularly wrote to all MPs about the decisions taken by his minority Government.
The most important enlightenment I got from rapid-fire reading was the humbleness with which Mr. Rao made interventions. An instance in point is the way he fielded supplementary queries on supply of potable water to villages in Rajya Sabha on 18th May 1995.
He stated: “There is what is called a problem village. A problem village, according to my understanding and I am subject to correction, is a village which we have not touched at all, where we have not provided even one single source of drinking water so far.”
Answering supplementary to another starred question on industrial licensing in August 1994, Mr Rao stated: “this question is full of difficulties, complications, conflicting views and so on. This had figured in our discussion last year. It is not true that I have expressed any definitive opinion on this and even if I did, it is only my opinion. I would not like to depend on that and take a decision entirely on that. I would like this House and the other House to discuss it. I would like to have very detailed talks with everyone concerned before we take a decision one way or the other.”
This prompted me to delve more into governance mantra of Mr. Rao, who headed Congress minority Government during one of the country’s most critical economic phases. I wondered how he managed to usher in most difficult reforms with political handicaps, whereas I am ducking such challenges in spite of having crystal-clear mandate.
I learnt that Mr. Rao had made consensus the pivot around which he pushed politically sensitive reforms. A few days after becoming PM, he told Parliament in July 1991: “My approach is going to be one of consensus on all issues—political and others—which face the country. I have problems on which I would be contacting, I would be discussing and I would be sharing my thoughts with the leaders of the Opposition parties and I would try to build a. consensus. The decision of course has to be mine and of this Government and the responsibility and whatever consequences, are to be faced will be faced by this Government. But before taking decisions I am willing not only willing—I am going to have this consensus approach built into every consultative or deliberative process of the Government.”
I admire his courage to administer bitter pill to the nation by telling MPs about the writing on the wall. It is the foundation for robust economic growth that he laid on which I now-a-days spin yarn of dreams for the public
On 20th July 1991, Mr. Rao stated forthrightly: “Imagine that the country is going to become a defaulter next week. Imagine that the country is going to have an unlimited inflation within the next 15 days, if that happens. Imagine that the country will be absolutely in anarchic condition. If all these things happen, people will come on to the streets and there will be no law and order, there will not be a semblance of the Government. These are the horrendous consequences which stare us in the face, no matter how they were brought about, no matter who brought them about. This is not the time to go into that. Historians will write about them. It is not for us now. We have to face these problems. In order to solve these problems we will have to see that there is no unwillingness on the part of anyone to undergo this ordeal.”
I wish I had pursued Mr. Rao’s consensus mantra and avoided getting carried away by the wrong advice given by my closest Cabinet colleagues. They led me into embarking on confrontationist path right from the word go. They influenced me and the speaker into rejecting Congress’ demand for appointment of their representative as Leader of the Opposition (LOP) in Lok Sabha.
Both the Government and the Speaker flaunted rule and tradition that required 10% representation in Lok Sabha for a party eligible to stake claim for LOP post. Congress needs 55 seats in LS for this purpose against 44 it won during the general elections.
Heavens would not have fallen if I had shown the magnanimity of amending the rules and tradition to grant LOP status to leader of the largest opposition party, irrespective of the number of seats it has. After all, I have the courage of the conviction to break traditions as I showed during my surprise visit to Pakistan.
Leaving LOP slot vacant caused permanent vacancy in the selection committee for Lok Pal as provided for under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Act has not been amended so far to pave the way for substitution of LOP with leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha. This, in turn, has dented my image as a person who has zero tolerance for corruption.
Had there been Lokpal, my job would have become easier in dealing with demand for probe into alleged scams such as Lalitgate and DDCA scam.
The avoidance of both rigid LOP stance and ordinance-issuing spree in 2014 would have facilitated better relations with the Opposition.
I now realize that the acrimony with the Opposition especially with the Congress has hindered my development agenda. The backlog of pending legislative agenda is growing by the day.
My recent invitation to Congress President Sonia Gandhi and ex-PM Manmohan Singh to have tea at his residence has not improved the relations. I think I should take lead in building bridges with the Opposition and devote a lion’s share of my time in Parliament during the forthcoming session.
I should now act as one among the equals. I should perform the role of proactive Leader of the House. If I do so, there is no reason why the stroppy Opposition would not gradually mellow down. I have no other choice but to pursue this option diligently though belatedly.
After this introspection as a true swayamsevak, I defer giving marks to myself on the toughest indicator. I would like to give marks after the budget session.
As for four other indicators, I don’t have to labour much in giving marks. As I prefer a composite evaluation, I have decided to delay SAR by a few months.
I realize that I have to main a respectable distance between my role as PM and as vote-catcher at the election rallies where political acrimony pops out as super-heated steam. I have to let budding Statesman in me overshadow BJP’s lead vote-catcher in me till the next Lok Sabha polls. I better delegate the latter job to party leadership.
I intend to do so by keeping in mind what Vajpayee stated in October 1999 while enunciating his Agenda for Building Proud & Prosperous India.
As put by Vajpayee, “now that the election is over, we should put the acrimony and bitterness of the last couple of months behind us and get down to the task of nation-building. There is not a moment to lose. The Opposition’s role in a democracy is no less important than that of the Government. It is a role mandated by the people and comes with a lot of responsibility. Constructive criticism is an essential input for good policies and programmes. Consensus on national issues is necessary for effective action. I look forward to both constructive criticism and consensus on national issues.”
published by taxindiaonline.com on 30th December 2015