PM’s straight talk

I cannot recall any press conference of Dr Manmohan Singh that created such varying and contradictory reactions in the media than the one addressed by him on May 24, 2010, on completion of one year of his second tenure as Prime Minister. Some sections of the media have been virulent in their criticism of Dr Singh’s statements not because of any provocative statements he made but because of their perception that he said nothing new, nothing that people had not known before and that he evaded some important questions as he did not wish to get into any controversy. Some other sections of the media, however, considered his handling of such questions an indication of his smooth transformation from the status of an unwilling bureaucrat to one holding the highest political office in the country.
For an impartial assessment of the merits or otherwise of Dr Singh’s various statements at the press conference it will be useful to deal with them under two sections: one of questions relating to him personally and the other about the decline of confidence among the people that the various plans and projects for which massive allocations of funds have been made will be implemented satisfactorily in the next four years of his term.
As regards the first category of personal questions it will be admitted even by Dr Singh’s harshest critics that he was quite frank and unambiguous in his answers. When asked of rumours about differences of opinion between him and Congress president Sonia Gandhi on some important policy issues, he dismissed them as not having even an iota of truth. On the other hand, he went on to say that “he was very fortunate in receiving constant advice and guidance from her”. He further said that there was no question of his leaving his post so long as the task he had been given remains unfinished.
People have noticed — during the last six years of Dr Singh’s tenure as Prime Minister — that he has never claimed that he was assigned the task of Prime Minister because of any strength of backing for him within the party. Six years as head of the government in the largest democracy in the world have not made him forget the fact that the task had been given to him without any serious consultations among Congress members of Parliament. In fact, he has always been bold in his public assertion that he is occupying the post because of the choice made by the Congress president and that he will remain in the post so long as this task remains assigned to him.
At the same time, Dr Singh has always shown great political skill in answering questions about Rahul Gandhi being inducted as his successor. He has publicly stated that he had invited Mr Gandhi to join his Cabinet but Mr Gandhi wants to focus on the task of reviving his party. Even though the question was asked again during the press conference and was really intended to draw him into a discussion about the possibility of Mr Gandhi being chosen as Prime Minister now, Dr Singh did not bite the bait. He simply said he considered Mr Gandhi as suitable to hold the post of Cabinet minister and that if the Congress decides that the Prime Minister should vacate the post in favour of a younger person he would be very happy to make place for anybody the party may choose. Of course, since Dr Singh is 78 years old there will be many in the party younger than him who consider themselves qualified to take over the office of the Prime Minister. His answers to all questions about him were politically correct and show his skill and maturity in handling such difficult questions.

I will now come to the statements, or lack of them, on the tardy rate of implementation of the various multi-billion-rupee plans and projects that had been announced by the United Progressive Alliance government in the last three years. The ground reality is that there have been no indications of any high degree of commitment on the part of the government to ensure that these projects actually take off the ground.
While the government has been making announcements about massive deployment of funds for removal of poverty and creation of employment opportunities in the rural areas, experts with adequate administrative experience have been pointing out the urgency for revamping the entire administrative machinery at the field level. Many say that their apprehensions about the inadequacy of an administrative infrastructure at the field level were not misplaced. “Bureaucratic sloth” is a common phrase which politicians use as the main reason for the poor rate of progress in some of the rural development and employment-generation schemes. However, no serious changes have so far been made to enable the active involvement of both the civil services and the political class in the implementation of these schemes in the field. It should be remembered that some of these schemes are not altogether new for the people. The National rural employment guarantee scheme, for example, was being implemented with great success, though on a limited scale, in Maharashtra. It should have been possible to build on the experience of states like Maharashtra for implementing the employment guarantee scheme more expeditiously in other states.
Legislative delays are creating problems in many development programmes. In fact, over 60-65 bills are pending in Parliament and delays in getting the legislation passed through Parliament are bound to further impact the programmes in the field.
Another disappointing part about Dr Singh’s statements was his reference to his reluctance to issue what he called a “gag order” on ministers in the matter of public expression of their individual views about the policies and programmes of the government. No one can deny that certain standards of discipline have to be maintained by all members of the Council of Ministers about expressing their views in public on matters still under the consideration of the Cabinet. While the ministers should be given full freedom to express their views within Cabinet meetings, this freedom should not be misused. Restricting them should be seen only as an exercise of the legitimate right of the Prime Minister who is described as the “head” of the Council of Ministers in our Constitution. Unfortunately, Dr Singh’s statement on “gag order” could be misunderstood as tolerance on the part of the Prime Minister of the breach of the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, as prescribed in the Constitution.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra