The
2012 presidential election may well go down as a turning point in
history. Not because of who becomes president and what he does. But
because, for the first time, Sonia Gandhi did not have it her way all
the way. To that extent, we may be witnessing the beginning of the
end of dynasty's unnatural hold on democracy in India. At the same
time, the politicking highlighted the existential conundrum of
Manmohan Singh. Both developments augur well for the future.
Five
years ago Sonia Gandhi was the tzar of political India and her word
was law. Even non-Congress leaders saw some extraterrestrial aura in
her and were inclined to let her have her way. She used that position
to make a nonentity the president of our great country. That
president diminished the presidency, but the Congress President saw
nothing wrong. As far as she was concerned, she was exercising her
family's right.
That
was then, this is now. She was keen, for wholly personal reasons, on
keeping APJ Abdul Kalam out. She succeeded, but she had to pay a
price for it – the price of accepting Pranab Mukherji as the
Congress' official candidate. From the outset Pranab was seen as a
natural. His acceptability to other parties gave him winnability as
well. But it is well known that Sonia Gandhi was always cautious
about him, unsure of the absoluteness of his loyalty. In a party
where absolute personal loyalty to the family is paramount, he was
never a favourite.
In
the presidential run-up, although Pranab was widely discussed as an
ideal candidate, Sonia Gandhi saw to it that no candidate was
announced. Speculation spread, damaging the party and damaging
Pranab Mukherji. Sonia's silence even triggered rumours that she was
looking for a “surprise” candidate, another Pratibha Patil
perhaps. But subsequent developments indicated that the challenges
thrown at her forced her hands and she had to approve the name others
had already approved.
Mamata
Bannerji's challenge was the most serious. She is an eccentric and
her motivations are suspect. But she made things move by announcing
the names of Congress candidates – which made Congress spokesmen
livid with rage – and then rejecting them. She promoted Kalam's
name with such vigour that Sonia must have sensed danger and settled
for the lesser evil.
Mamata
also promoted Manmohan Singh's name as a second choice. This was
calculated mischief. Sections of the Congress had been in favour of
replacing Manmohan Singh. The recent Working Committee meeting heard
strident criticism of him. Most of the attackers were currying favour
with Sonia Gandhi with the theory that Rahul Gandhi would make a
better prime minister. When Mamata jumped the gun, however, Congress
flunkeys rushed to say that Manmohan Singh would remain in the prime
minister’s chair even after the next general election.
And
why not? Who is more pliable from Sonia Gandhi's viewpoint? Manmohan
Singh has an international profile and an intellectual standing of
his own. At the same time, he is capable of complete
non-interference in the management of the country, including its
economy. What more can Sonia Gandhi and her satraps ask for?
The
big mystery of our times is why Manmohan Singh carries on the way he
does. Every scandal, every policy failure, every problem that festers
due to inaction brings him discredit – for no fault of his. He is
allowed little real power and he exercises less. Why does he hang on?
It was the economic crisis of 1991 that catapulted him to fame.
Today's economic crisis has shown him up as a tragedy, with
Standard & Poor's latest report specifically mentioning his
ineffectiveness. The tragedy of the good and capable Manmohan Singh
is the tragedy of India. The psychological – as distinct from
constitutional – acceptance of the Indira dynasty's presumed
supremacy has made politics and public life topsy turvey in our
country. Now that we have seen the limits of Sonia Gandhi's power,
perhaps things will get better from now on.