I don’t see the Nehru-Gandhi family returning to power: Sanjaya Baru

His book on his days in the Manmohan Singh PMO , released ahead of the 2014 election, whipped up a storm for its claim that files were sent to Sonia Gandhi. In his latest offering, 1991: How P V Narasimha Rao Made History, Sanjaya Baru revisits that time to examine the politics behind the economic reforms initiated by Rao. He tells Rajeev Deshpande that the year was a harbinger of change on several fronts
Why is 1991 so important? Why not 1984, 1996 or 1999, which were important political landmarks too?
But in 1991, a lot of important things happened.Most remember the economic crisis and a shift in policy. But equally important were the end of the Cold War, collapse of the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the shift in our foreign policy.
Chandra Shekhar allowing overflight of US aircraft was a big pro-American military decision. Narasimha Rao ’s visit to Israel, South Korea and his Look East policy. There is no other year with such a combination of economic and foreign policy changes.
Finally I argue that with the death of Rajiv Gandhi, a phase in Indian politics ended. I do not see the return of the Nehru-Gandhi family to power in this country.
You don’t?
I do not. After 1989, the family has not been back in office. The UPA was a coalition and the PM was not from the family. Rajiv’s assassination ended all that.
You argue that Rajiv Gandhi’s policies contributed to the 1991 economic crisis. But he is seen as a modernizer.
There is no question that he was a modernizer intellectually. He took policy decisions like computerization. But the crisis of 1991 was a sharp increase in fiscal deficit. And an unsustainable BoP (balance of payments). I quote Jagdish Bhagwati, I G Patel, Vijay Joshi and IMD Little, four top economists. They all attribute the problems to a series of policy measures taken during 1985-89 and 1990 (by the V P Singh government).
So when Chandra Shekhar’s government could not present the Budget in 1991, did Rajiv Gandhi know the consequences?
Absolutely. If you read the autobiography of then President R Venkataraman, he kept Rajiv informed. He sought an assurance that Chandra Shekhar be allowed to be PM for a year. Venkataraman knew the implications of a default would be catastrophic.
In the first year of his prime ministership, how much independence did Rao have?
If you read some other accounts — mine is only on 1991 — Rao asserted the PM’s autonomy. He did regularly visit Sonia Gandhi. He visited her as the widow of his predecessor. He did not visit to take instructions. I think that was part of the problem. The coterie around her wanted him to behave as if she was the boss. Courtesy was not enough, she wanted authority.
So were economic issues used to attack Rao?
Jairam Ramesh records how Arjun Singh, A K Antony, Vayalar Ravi and left-of-centre Congressmen attacked Rao who had to quote Nehru at length. The political challenge came after Babri Masjid.
It does seem that the Babri Masjid demolition subsumed the reforms part of his legacy.
Rao’s own view was that if things went right everyone would get the credit, otherwise he would get the blame. I wrote in ‘The Accidental Prime Minister’ that the relationship between Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi was exactly the same. All success would go to the party, failure to the government. Singh accepted that, Rao did not (in the context of Sonia’s role).
It is hard not to get the feeling that you seem to believe the Nehru-Gandhi influence on Congress and politics was not positive.
I come from a Congress family; my great grand uncle worked with Nehru at Anand Bhawan (in Allahabad). My father was a Youth Congress leader who worked under Congress CMs. I have seen Congress as a national party. After Indira Gandhi returned to office in 1980 it became more and more a family proprietorship.
How did the Manmohan Singh-Rao relationship function?
Manmohan Singh has always recognized his debt. I have tried to restore balance. The narrative sometimes has had it that the reforms of 1991 were done by economists. Very few recall the role of political leadership like Rao and even Chandra Shekhar. Manmohan Singh came on the scene because Rao wanted an economist of international stature…some people (wrongly) said he was Rajiv’s or Sonia’s choice.
So how do you see the accusation that Rao was “soft saffron”?
He was the only ex-PM to write (he wrote his account of Ayodhya). There is no reason not to believe his detailed arguments.