एक समय की बात है, एक राज्य में चोरों की तूती बोलती थी। चोर ही राजा थे, चोर ही चौकीदार थे। धीरे-धीरे चोरों की हिम्मत बढ़ने लगी, उन्होंने अपार सम्पत्ति जमा कर ली। कुछ देश-विदेश के बैंकों में जमा कर देते थे, कुछ घरों के लॉकर में छिपा देते थे। बहुत कुछ सम्पत्ति जमीनों, दुकानों और मकानों के रूप में भी थे। सब कुछ बड़ी अच्छी तरह से चल रहा था।
परन्तु एक दिन सब कुछ बदल गया क्योंकि चोरों से परेशान जनता ने चोरों को गद्दी से हटाकर एक ईमानदार चौकीदार को राज्य का बागडोर सौंप दिया। नए चौकीदार ने ईमानदारी और तेजी से काम करना आरम्भ किया । जनता से चोरी की गयी संपत्ति किसने कहाँ छुपाई है, इसका पता चलने लगा। धड़ – पकड़ शुरू हो गयी। नए राजा की सबसे बड़ी कठिनाई यह थी कि चोरों की संख्या बहुत ज्यादा थी और पकड़ने के लिए ईमानदार और कर्मठ सिपाहियों की कमी थी। जो पकड़े भी जाते थे, उन्हें तत्काल न्यायालय से जमानत मिल जाती। परन्तु चोरों को चोरी करने का अवसर भी कम होने लगा। चोर बेहद घबड़ा गए। जो हो रहा था वह उनकी संवैधानिक परम्पराओं के विरुद्ध था।
समस्या की गंभीरता देखते हुए सबसे बड़े चोरों की सरदारनी ने हम-पेशा लोगों के नेताओं को एक रात्रि भोज के लिए आमंत्रित किया। उद्देश्य था, एक चौकन्ने चौकीदार से बचने का उपाय खोजना। दिल्ली में इतना शानदार भोज पहले किसी ने नहीं दिया था। भोजन के टेबल पर सरदारनी ने सुझाव दिया कि यदि पेशे के सभी लोग मिल जाएं तो वे चौकीदार को डरा कर भगा सकते हैं। समस्या यह थी कि सभी चोर दूसरे चोरों से अधिक कमाना चाहते थे। वे चौकीदार को भगाना तो चाहते थे परंतु एक यूनियन नहीं बनाना चाहते थे। अंत में सरदारनी ने सुझाव दिया कि जो आपस में मिलना चाहते हैं वे मिल जाए, जो नहीं मिलना चाहते हैं वे नहीं मिले परंतु सभी लोग प्रतिदिन जोर-जोर से चिल्लाकर जनता को बताएं कि ‘इस चौकीदार का विश्वास नहीं करो, वह चोर है। चौकीदार चोर है, चौकीदार चोर है।‘ सरदारनी ने यह भी बताया की यह उसके गुरु का मूल मंत्र है की यदि एक झूठ को बार – बार दुहराया जाये तो जनता उसे सच मान लेती है| यदि जनता का एक भी भाग हमारी बात में विश्वास कर ले तो चौकीदार जहाँ से आया था वहीँ वापस चला जायेगा।’
यह सुझाव सभी चोरों को पसंद आया। उस दिन से सभी चोर रात- दिन एक ही सुर में चिल्लाने लगे, “चौकीदार चोर है, चौकीदार चोर है।” कभी-कभी तो चिल्लाने वाले भूल जाते कि वे चौकीदार के विरुद्ध नारा लगा रहे हैं या अपने विरुद्ध!
(Whenever I hear the word ‘Westland” my goes to the era when Rajeev Gandhi committed the blunder of acquiring Westland Helicopters. I wrote “Gandhis’ deadly deal with Mrs. Thatcher for Westland Helicopters”, an account of how governments in democratic countries yield to pressure, originally in June 2016. British Prime Minister Thatcher, known as ‘Iron Lady’, yielded to pressure of manufacturers of Westland helicopters and in turn pressurised first Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi, India’s strong Prime Minister and after her death, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (who was appointed Prime Minister in violation of constitutional propriety; read https://www.devendranarain.com/rajiv-gandhi-an-…inister-of-india/) to accept the defective helicopters and thereby save the manufacturers. Mrs Thatcher found herself in deep trouble when the scandal broke out in Britain. It was perhaps the single most important factor that led to her resignation and downfall. On the other hand, in India even after 10 deaths caused by crash of two of these helicopters, no one raised a finger.)
Deal to please Western friends at the cost of Indian lives
Sonia-controlled UPA government’s deal with AgustaWestland for the acquisition of choppers for the VVIPs signed after quite a few politicians, civil servants, high ranking officers of the Indian air force and others became richer and cancelled after the fact became public knowledge (the names of beneficiaries still remaining in the realm of speculation) has been added to its long list of scams. More than 30 years ago, when the Westland Helicopters had a separate identity, after over a year of flip flops and despite protests, Rajeev Gandhi government had signed a deadly deal with Britain to acquire 21 Westland helicopters. The helicopters were grounded after major crashes in which 10 precious lives were lost. Surprisingly, no stigma of scam was ever attached to the deal with Westland Helicopters though it was not above board.
I am one of those few persons alive who can recount how the decision to acquire Westland Helicopters was taken because I was the one who had made strongest protest and I was the one who was censored by Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi for opposing the deal.
Here is a brief account.
Once a successful company, Westland Helicopters, the last manufacturer of helicopters in Britain, gradually became unprofitable. By 1984, it had inventory of 41 WG30 helicopters which no country was ready to touch because of serious technical snags. Worried about the consequences of the closure of the company – loss of employment and burden on the exchequer on account of social security schemes – the British Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher started using her political influence to find buyers. Her mission succeeded when Indian Prime Minister Mrs Gandhi agreed to buy 27 helicopters.
The advantage to India, Mrs Thatcher explained to Mrs. Gandhi, was that India did not have to spend its taxpayers’ money for the acquisition of the WG30 helicopters; a part of British aid (in form of outright grant) to India under poverty-alleviation programme would be diverted for the purpose; since it was British money, India should not have any objection.
Mrs Thatcher’s plan got a serious setback when after Mrs Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984, her pilot son and successor openly opposed the deal. Perhaps Rajeev Gandhi was aware of the defects in WG30 helicopters but not of his mother’s commitment. In reply to a Parliament question, he had said that those helicopters were unsafe. But Mrs Thatcher, the Iron Lady, was not the one to accept defeat so easily. She continued to work on Rajeev Gandhi and ultimately he melted. One fine morning, he suddenly announced his decision to acquire 21 helicopters. (By this time the management of the company had been taken over by the global engineering conglomerate GKN.)
(It seems, our Congress leaders cannot see their foreign friends in trouble. Sonia-controlled controlled UPA government decided to buy AugustaWestland helicopters which were so costly that the USA had refused to buy for its President who flies in the costliest aircraft. Indira Gandhi had agreed and Rajeev Gandhi acquired Westland Helicopters which were considered so unsafe that there was no taker.)
Since it was the Prime Minister’s diktat, the process of getting clearances was put on a fast track. The Ministry of Civil Aviation circulated a Note for the Public Investment Board (PIB), a Committee of Secretaries to the Government of India, headed by Secretary of the Department of Expenditure, that considers major investment proposals (not exempted from its purview) and recommends sanction, with or without amendment, or rejection by the Cabinet. The materials before the PIB include the proposal of the Ministry/Department (in form of the Note for the PIB) and appraisal report prepared by the Planning Commission. (That was the procedure before the Planning Commission was replaced by Niti Aayog.)
At that time I was heading the Project Appraisal Division of the Planning Commission. It was my responsibility to present an objective appraisal to the PIB. According to the Note for the PIB, a new public sector undertaking known as Helicopter Corporation of India (HCI, later changed to Pawan Hans) to be financed jointly by the Government of India and the Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC, the leading oil producer public sector undertaking) would purchase 21 WG30 helicopters from Westland and 21 Dauphin helicopters from France, for providing helicopter support services to the off-shore exploration operations and air-services to Jammu & Kashmir and the North-East. It was also stated that for meeting the cost of 21 Westland Helicopters, the British government was giving outright grant of £65 million. In other words, there was no capital cost to India for the acquisition of Westland Helicopters.
At this stage it would be relevant to throw some light on the economics of the British aid to the developing countries. During visiting fellowship at the Oxford University (1978-79) I had a brief attachment with the British Overseas Development Ministry which gave me an opportunity to study and understand the subject. All aids were tied; funds had to be utilised according to the British terms and conditions. Before committing any aid which was in form of outright grant, a cost-benefit analysis was carried out. Very often, aid was tied to acquisition of products of companies facing financial crisis. Cost-benefit analysis indicated whether the value of aid was more or less than the cost of social security in case the company closed down. If the cost was less, it made more economic and political sense to pass on the product to a developing country as aid. The face value of aid could be easily inflated to impress the recipient. The use of aid for the acquisition of Westland Helicopters very much fitted in the scheme of things.
The gist of my appraisal report was as follows.
Need for the project: The Ministry of Civil Aviation had not established need for 42 helicopters. At the most, about 21 helicopters could be justified.
Economic viability of the project from the point of view of the country: Even though 21 Westland Helicopters were coming free, their operation and maintenance cost was so high that the entire project would be economically unviable.
Financial viability of the new company: Due to the high cost of operation and maintenance, the company would incur losses every year. The loss in the first year was estimated at Rs. 60 (sixty) cr. (As far as I remember, the company incurred that much loss in the first year.)
Safety of helicopters: The Planning Commission had no expertise on the subject. However, according to a reply given by the Prime Minister himself on the floor of the Lok Sabha, the Westland Helicopters were unsafe.
My conclusions were: (a) there was absolutely no justification for Westland Helicopters and (b) HCI should acquire only Dauphin helicopters.
Before the matter came before the PIB, as was the practice, the Financial Advisor & Additional Secretary of the Ministry convened an inter-ministerial meeting to sort out the differences. It was an exercise in futility. After listening to my objections, he said that he would put up the minutes of the meeting to his Secretary who in turn would place it before the Minister who in turn would inform the Prime Minister. The message was loud and clear.
Around that time I found the Petroleum Secretary very tense. I had known him since the early 1970s when he was a Joint Secretary. During an informal chat he told me that being Secretary of the administrative ministry of the ONGC which was party to the proposal, he could not oppose it but wanted me to make a strong case against the Westland Helicopters.
In the PIB meeting held one evening to consider the proposal, three Secretaries including the Secretaries of the Planning Commission and the Department of Expenditure supported my stand and recommended acquisition of only 21 Dauphin helicopters. The Civil Aviation Secretary, the only other member of the PIB present that day, announced that the PIB decision was not acceptable to the Ministry and that the Ministry would seek the approval of the Cabinet. Shortly thereafter, the Cabinet approved the proposal for the acquisition of 42 helicopters.
My role as an advisor on the proposal was over and I got busy with appraisal of other projects. But something happened a couple of days after the Cabinet approval that keeps me haunting even now. At the next meeting of the PIB to consider some other proposals, I was the last to enter the meeting room which was packed to its capacity. Several Secretaries and other senior officers as well as heads of several public sector undertakings were present. I was about to occupy a chair in the last row when the Chairman of the PIB saw me and asked me to sit in the front row. After I had occupied the chair, he looked at me and said: ‘That evening you were making so much noise. Do you know what Prime Minister has written about you? He has virtually censored you. He has written that the appraiser failed to appreciate the fact that the Westland helicopters were outright gift to India.’
For a long time I have been debating within myself whether to share my reaction with the people I do not know. (Before writing today, I have shared it only with my family and close friends.) Ultimately I have decided to make it public. I think, at the fag-end of my life – I am 75+ – I should share not only my achievements and failures but also my stupidity.
What I was told was so sudden and so unexpected that I had no time to think how to react. On the spur of the moment, without realising the implications of what I was saying, some words came out of my mouth which I could not have uttered publicly had I time to think. Without losing a moment I gave my uncharitable reaction: ‘Sir, what can I say when Prime Minister has censored a small fry like me but I can tell you a joke. I wanted to buy a necktie but it was costing Rs. 100. I’m a poor man. I could not afford to pay Rs. 100. Taking pity on me, the shopkeeper offered me a pair of old shoes free of cost. I put those shoes around my neck. This is what the Prime Minister has done.’
I heard loud laughter which was followed by pin-drop drop silence. Then I heard the voice of the Chairman, PIB. In a very serious tone he said: ‘Your days are numbered.’ It was at this stage that I realised my stupidity. He was very fond of me and always stood by me whenever I was in trouble due to my free and frank advice but this time I had crossed all the limits. Perhaps he felt that if I faced any trouble because of what I had uttered, he would not be able to come to my rescue. Among those present there were a few who were sympathetic to me but most of them must have been happy that they would get rid of a trouble maker.
But I was lucky. Either the matter was not reported to the Prime Minister or, if reported, he did not take it seriously though sometime later a proposal came from the PMO to post an officer to supervise my work. It was scuttled by Secretary of the Planning Commission. I completed my tenure on December 30, 1987. Despite the best efforts of Secretary, Planning Commission for extension for one tear, I was allowed extension only for 13 days. Thereafter, under an arrangement with the Department of Revenue, my parent Department, I worked in the Planning commission for a few months during which salary was paid by the Department of Revenue. Later, I was denied the third term in the Commission. For some time I carried the impression that it was all due to my remarks against the Prime Minister. But I was wrong. The real reason was something else, a much bigger scam I had exposed shortly before the end of my tenure. (I will write about it at a later stage.)
Arrival from Britain as helicopters, return (partially) as scrap
The formal agreement for the acquisition of Westland Helicopters with £65 million of British grant was signed in March 1986. Incidentally, two more important agreements were signed that month: (a) $285 million contract for the acquisition of Bofors guns and (b) contract for the acquisition of the British aircraft carrier HMS HERMES of 1953 vintage which was commissioned in May 1987 as INS VIRAAT .
It seems, Rajeev Gandhi, the youngest Prime Minister in Indian history, the only one to be sworn in as Prime Minister even before the parliamentary party enjoying majority in the Lok Sabha had formally elected him as leader and overconfident due to unprecedented mandate in general election held after his appointment as Prime Minister, was in great hurry to win friends and get influenced by them. He paid the price only for the Bofors deal which had been finalised after payment of commission, but not for the Westland helicopter deal which was not above suspicion and which caused death of 10 persons in two crashes.
The 14-seater helicopters arrived in 1987. It was found that even its payload was severely constrained by its rotor capacity and its engine required servicing after every 70 hours of flight making it costlier that what had been estimated earlier. The first crash took place in 1988 and the second crash took place in 1989, both due to design flaws. The entire fleet had to be grounded and it was decided to dismantle and sell the remaining 19 helicopter as scrap. After nine years of efforts AES Aerospace of Britain agreed, reportedly at Westland’s request, to buy the entire scrap for £900,000, much less than the reserve price of £1.9 million. However, after acquiring scraps of six helicopters, the buyer discovered that the cost of shipping was very high and there were no buyers of the spare parts. The deal was cancelled. Perhaps 13 dismantled helicopters are still lying in crates somewhere in Mumbai’s dockyard. The remains of WG30 could be seen in the Helicopter Museum in Somerset, England.
Rajeev Gandhi who acquired Westland helicopters knowing very well the defects and who was therefore squarely responsible for the death of 10 persons in two crashes, was (posthumously) awarded Bharat Ratna and is still worshipped by the Congress.
Consequences faced by Mrs. Thatcher
Mrs. Thatcher’s jubilation over the success of her plan proved short lived. The misuse of foreign aid meant for poverty alleviation programme in India was not sufficient to save the financially ailing company. The British government started scouting for a saviour for its last helicopter manufacturer. The process led to serious differences between Mrs. Thatcher who wanted the Westland Helicopters to merge with an American company, Sikrosky and her Defence Secretary Michael Heseltine who insisted on merger of Westland as well as British Aerospace with the Italian company Agusta and French companies. The relationship between the two became so sour that the Defence Secretary resigned in January 1986. It seriously damaged Mrs. Thatcher’s reputation and political stature.
After resignation, Heseltine returned to the backbenches from where he continued to create problem for Mrs. Thatcher. He strongly opposed her when she needed support for her extremely unpopular Community Charge (also known as the poll tax) in 1988-89. He challenged her leadership of the Conservative party in late 1989 and in the first round of voting secured enough number of votes to force second round. Fearing defeat Mrs. Thatcher resigned but it was more popular John Major who replaced her.
Westland continued to haunt Mrs. Thatcher for years even after her resignation and retirement from politics. In 1997, Clare Short, UK’s International Development Minister, ordered an enquiry into the deal with India. She described linking aid to domestic political and financial considerations by Mrs. Thatcher as “outrageous” and called for delinking aid from political considerations. Later, investigations carried out by the UK’s National Audit Office revealed that the Thatcher government lost ‘over 105 million pounds on the Westland-30 programme including money spent on its research and development.’
At the end, everyone was loser. It was ‘catastrophic waste of money”, for Britain, as some British officials described it. India wasted huge amount of money on operation and maintenance of those faulty flying machines and 10 Indian lives were lost in two crashes.
End of Westland Helicopters as a separate entity
Despite Mrs. Thatcher’s opposition, Westland Helicopters ultimately merged with the Italian company Agusta. Its management had already been taken over by the global engineering conglomerate GKN when Rajeev Gandhi was being pressurised by Mrs. Thatcher. Later in 1988, GKN acquired the shares held by another British company, Hanson plc. Six years later it became a wholly owned subsidiary of GKN. In 2000 GKN and Italian company Finmeccanica merged their respective helicopter subsidiaries. In 2001 the merged entity came to be known as AgustaWestland. Later, in 2004,Finmeccanica acquired GKN’s too. The latest development (January 2016) is merger of AgustaWestland and Leonardo – Finmeccanica’s Helicopter Sector.
Westland’s revisit to India in the company of Agusta of Italy
Even after losing its separate existence, Westland continues to trouble India. When the people had almost forgotten the havoc caused by Westland Helicopters in the 1980s, tagging behind Agusta of Italy it made a fresh attempt to enter India . This time the strategy was different because no aid money was available as bait. AgustaWestland tried to get orders by following the international practice of ‘buying’ supporters, much more aggressively than what Bofors and others had done in the past. Unfortunately, premature leakage of payments of huge amounts of bribes to those who could influence the decision, those who had to take the decision and those who had resources to influence public opinion spoiled the game, leaving the company as net loser. By the time the deal was cancelled, the company had paid millions of dollars as bribe. After cancellation India recovered Rs. 2068 crore – Rs. 200 cr. by encasing bank guarantee and the rest on order of the appellate court of Milan – as against Rs. 1620 crore it had paid to AgustaWestland.
Helicopters India did not need
The most important fact that emerges from the Westland and AgustaWestland sagas has been overlooked. In 1980s the Government of India imported 21 defective Westland helicopters which were not needed. In the latest scandal the Government decided to buy 12 very costly AgustaWestland helicopters which were unnecessary. The demand for VVIP choppers was artificially created more than a decade ago. Till date absence of such choppers has not been felt. We never heard that a Prime Minister or a Defence Minister could not visit a place for want of an AgustaWestland type chopper.
Demystifying a mystery
A mystery remains: what made Rajeev Gandhi change his mind on Westland helicopters? My research has revealed two explanations.
(1) According to the declassified British government documents, Mrs. Thatcher twisted Rajeev Gandhi’s arms. He yielded to her threat that that refusal to accept her proposal could prove ‘problematic’ for further economic aid.
(2) According to an Indian author Jayanta Kumar Ray(India’s Foreign Relations, 1947–2007), “The decision was inexplicable, unless one referred to an important event in the life of Westland towards the end of 1985. At that time, an American-Italian consortium, with an in-law of the Indian Prime Minister in a dominant position, took over the Westland helicopter company.”
If the above claims are true, Rajeev Gandhi’s heart melted under pressure of two western women.
The bottom line is that to the old wisdom that ‘there is always a woman behind every man’s success’ should be added another worldly wisdom: ‘it is equally true that very often there is a woman behind a man’s foolishness.’
Devendra Narain
IRS(Retd)
A former head of the Project Appraisal Division of the Planning Commission
(The image is symbolic. It is not the image of the “hero” of my story.)
Birth of a new revolutionary in India, the land of revolutionaries, who wants “Azaadi” (freedom).
I was driving my scooter at normal speed but a policeman gave signal to stop by the side of the road. I was surprised. I had not violated any traffic law. I had not jumped red light. I parked the scooter and asked the policeman, “What is my fault?” But he was busy giving similar signal to all vehicles on the road. I asked a fellow victim who was standing by the side of his scooter. “VVIP movement.” He explained.
I saw a couple of cars driving without being stopped. Rahul Gandhi was sitting in one of the cars. I could recognise him because he was waving at us. He must be thinking that we were waiting for his darshan. As usual in the public, he was smiling. I always admire his smile because it is very innocent, very childlike. Whenever he smiles, you can see two sweet dimples on his lovely chicks. Unfortunately, nobody responded but that did not seem to discourage him. After a couple of minutes another fleet of vehicles passed by. This time it was Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, sitting next to the driver and waving at the crowd. He too was smiling but people ignored him too.
My experience is that whenever a leader sees a gathering – big or small, friendly or hostile, making celebrations or in mourning – his right hand automatically starts waving. Perhaps, one day geneticists may discover the gene that gives brain signal to waive at the sight of a gathering.
I asked the same fellow victim the reason of arch rivals rushing in the same direction. He looked at me with surprise and said, “It seems you did not see the morning news on TV. In a school, a few hundred metres ahead on this very road, a new messiah is chanting some mantra since morning. It seems all the VVIPs are rushing to seek his blessings. If you are also going for that, try your luck.”
I cursed myself. These days one should be very alert. You never know when an intellectual or a celebrity will inform you that it is time to move out of the country due to intolerance or when a new saviour announces his arrival.
Out of curiosity I decided to have a look at the new Messiah. Somehow I reached near the holy site to get a glimpse of the messiah. I saw a boy, about ten or eleven year old, standing in the school compound and shouting at the top of his voice: ‘
“Azaadi” “Azaadi”
(“Freedom” “Freedom”.)
About a dozen children who had surrounded him also cried, “Azaadi” “Azaadi”.
The leader shouted next slogan: “We want Azaadi” “We want Azaadi from suppression”.
The other children repeated the slogan.
The leader gave the next call: “We want Azaadi from domination”.
His supporters too shouted.
“We want Azaadi from fear”.
“We want Azaadi from fear” I heard the echo.
“Azaadi” “Azaadi”.
They were shouting.
VVIPs like Rahul Gandhi, Seetaram Yechury, Arvind Kejriwal and many others were also repeating those slogans.
Scores of media persons were taking photographs and recording the historical event. TV channels were making live telecast with a running commentary that a new revolutionary had appeared on the horizon to save this country from oppression and suppression, that he is demanding “Azaadi” from fear and “Azaadi” from poverty, that he is demanding “Azaadi” from all the evils.
I had not heard words like ‘poverty” but when the media persons were announcing, that must be true interpretation of what the boy was shouting.
Some politicians and media persons were discreetly making inquiries about the boy’s religion.
“Oh, he is not a minority. Never mind, find out his caste.” I heard someone whispering.
After some time, the new revolutionary got tired and sat down on a bench. His friends followed him. VVIPs rushed with glasses of juice and milk. They were all eager to catch his attention and get photographed with him.
Rahul Gandhi being the foremost in the hierarchy of VVIPs there, pushed all others, put his around the boy and tried to run away with him. Seetaram Yechury and Arvind Kejriwal rushed to snatch the boy but Rahul Gandhi’s security guards did not allow that. The boy was struggling to get out of the clutches of Rahul Gandhi.
“‘You can’t touch him. He is a Marxist. I need his support to rout Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal assembly election.” Yechury yelled.
“No. He is a new messiah. He is a Gandhian. He wants freedom from oppressive regime of Narendra Modi. You will see, he will force Modi to quit India. I am taking him to Mom to discuss the next course of action.” Rahul staked his claim.
Not to be left behind, Arvind Kejriwal shouted: “He represents common man. I need his support to defeat the communal forces in Punjab election.”
Rahul Gandhi shouted at Kejriwal. “I have first claim on this saviour of the country because I came before you.”
Sitaram Yechury corrected Rahul Gandhi. “I have first claim because I had reached here before all of you. Moreover, he is from my school. I too had studied here.”
Arvind Kejriwal looked angry. “I could not reach earlier because Delhi police stopped my car to give way for Rahul Gandhi’s car. This is all because Delhi police is not under my control. I may have to go on hunger strike against highhandedness of Delhi police.”
Sitaram Yechury looked at Rahul Gandhi. “Let us first save this revolutionary from Kejriwal. We can settle our differences later. We may fight in Kerala but we are comrades-in-arms in West Bengal.” He said
Rahul smiled. Immediately they formed an ad hoc united front against their common adversary.
‘Keep away. We have first claim on him.’ Both of them told Kejriwal.
“We will use him to bring Modi’s barbadi.” They said to each other. (barbadi – detrsuction)
Kejriwal withdrew. Strategic withdrawal. He knew such ad hoc fronts would not last. He tweeted: “If Modi arrests this revolutionary it will be the beginning of his downfall.”
In the heart of heart he must be praying that the boy gets arrested. A close follower whispered in his ears: “Sir, please don’t take this boy’s help. He seems to be a bigger orator than you. You will have no chance if he joins our party.”
Kejriwal realised his mistake but whispered in the ears of his follower: “You’re right but we can’t give the impression that we are ignoring him. If he comes along, I will drop him somewhere so that he is nowhere. Worse comes to worst, I will push him in the company of Yogendra Yadav and Prashant Bhushan and he will never know where to go, what to do.”
The follower looked at his leader with admiration.
Meanwhile, the revolutionary had managed to get out of the clutches of Rahul Gandhi and rushed to his parents. His beaming parents and siblings formed a protective ring. The media persons rushed to them. “I want his exclusive interview.” Everyone wanted to register his or her claim.
The mother was feeding sweets to the revolutionary son. All family members were posing for photographs. The father assured the media, “Have patience. Everyone will get chance. Please, write down your name and mobile number in the register I have kept with the revolutionary’s elder brother.”
The media persons rushed to make entry in the register.
I saw some teachers standing at a distance. Since I had no chance of getting photographed with the revolutionary, I went to them to get some more information about the new revolutionary.
A teacher explained: “He is a bully. Does not study nor does allow any classmate to study. But for the government policy, we would have thrown him out of school long back. This morning, when I asked him whether he had done his homework, he rushed out of the classroom and started shouting ‘Azaadi! Azaadi!’ We don’t know who informed the media. What to do?”
“But his parents to be very happy.” I expressed my surprise.
“Yes. Till yesterday, they used to tell us to persuade the boy to take interest in studies. Today they are very happy.” The teacher said.
“Why so?”
“Because they have realised his potential. Now there is a leader in the family. One day he will be MP or MLA. May be, even a Minister. There is no need to pursue studies. His future is bright. As bright as future of Lalu’s sons.” He explained.
More political leaders had arrived on the scene when I was leaving.
(I had posted this blog originally on August 5, 2020 on my website www.devendranarain.com . After reading a recent article – “Fifth column by Tavleen Singh: A new Congress President. Really?” – I decided to make my message more forceful. The revised version includes some more anecdotes and excludes what is not relevant now.
In the article, the self-proclaimed “unabashed admirer of Dr. Singh” claims that “had Dr. Manmohan Singh been allowed to function properly as prime minister, it would have been much harder for Narendra Modi to win in 2014. It was no secret in government circles in Delhi during his second term that he could not take serious decisions or make policies without consulting his boss.” She further writes that she has been “an open admirer of the good doctor’s economic policies” and that she has said more than once here that she believes that “the reforms he brought when he was Finance Minister under P V Narasimha Rao transformed India.”
“Dr. Manmohan Singh: An Evaluation by an Insider” should not be interpreted as a critique of Tavleen Singh’s article. Everyone has the right to form his or her opinion for which he or she must have a valid reason, information not available to those who have the opposite opinion. What I have written is based on my personal experience.)
Millions of words have already been written admiring or criticising Dr. Manmohan Singh. Before admiring Dr. Singh as a great economist or expressing sympathising with him for his helplessness before Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, one should know how he worked as Finance Minister and in other capacities in the Government of India. However, very little has been written by those who worked under him before he became Prime Minister. A notable exception is C. G. Somiah, former CAG, who was Secretary of the Planning Commission (PC) under him.
I had the fortune or misfortune of working under him twice, once in 1980 when he was Member-Secretary, PC and I was a Deputy Secretary in the Project Appraisal Division (PAD) of the PC and again between 1985 and 1987 when he was Deputy Chairman of the Commission, and I was head of the PAD. Though I did not work under him later, I got the opportunity to closely interact with him when he was Finance Minister, and I was a Joint Secretary in charge of the monitoring of central projects in the Department of Programme Implementation.
Before sharing my experiences, I would like to make a general observation. Dr. Singh is not a politician, has no political base, no capacity to be a political leader, but had political ambitions. He contested only one election in 1999 to the Lok Sabha from South Delhi and lost badly to a BJP candidate. For holding political posts, he needed political patronage. He was sent to the Rajya Sabha from Assam, a state with which he had absolutely no connection. When he filed denomination paper first time to enter the Rajya Sabha, his address was “c/o Chief Minister, Assam” because he had no house in the state. I understand, later he purchased a house there. He has been a member of the Rajya Sabha since October 01, 1991 with a brief break of 2 months in 1991.
A man weak by nature became weaker to remain in power. When Rahul Gandhi publicly tore up an ordinance approved by the cabinet, any Prime Minister who gave some value to his or her self-respect than to the post, would have resigned but Manmohhan Singh swallowed the insult. In the past too, he had swallowed insults not only by Rahul Gandhi’s father but also by the bureaucrats working under him
Dr. Manmohan Singh swallowed insult by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, not once but twice
In 1985, at a meeting of the National Development Council held to discuss the Seventh Five-Year Plan, Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi strongly criticised the PC (of which he was Chairman) for not appreciating the importance of education. Dr. Singh was sitting next to the Prime Minister on the dais with his head down. He was unable to face the gathering of Cabinet ministers, state Chief Ministers, and officers of the central and state governments. I was also present. During the tea break, the topic of conversation among the officers was whether Dr. Singh would resign. I was the first to meet him when he entered the room for tea. There was no sign of shame or regret on his face. He asked me whether I had taken tea. I answered in the affirmative. He proceeded to meet others.
A few months later, Rajeev Gandhi publicly called the PC ‘a pack of jokers’. There was again speculation whether Dr. Singh would resign. C. G. Somiah has written in his book that it was he who persuaded Dr. Singh not to resign. I doubt that. In my opinion and in the opinion of many others who were in the PC, Dr. Singh was the last person to resign from a high-ranking post. Perhaps, Somiah gave him an excuse to stay.
Swallowed insult by bureaucrats working under him
In 1985 when I was working in the PAD of the PC, my boss, Mr. Nitin Desai, a learned person, left the PC to join the UN. Before leaving the Commission he told me that he had advised Secretary not to impose anybody on me. The reason was that after him there was hardly any senior person with more experience of project appraisal than me and he knew that I would not work under a person who did not know the subject. However, Dr. Singh wanted to bring a favourite who was ignorant of project appraisal. I requested him not to bring such a person but did not succeed. Left with no choice, I announced my decision to revert to my cadre, Indian Revenue Service. Soon thereafter, a couple of senior secretaries including the PC Secretary met Cabinet Secretary and successfully stopped the appointment of that person. Dr. Singh quietly swallowed the snub.
What happened in 1993-94 was even more shocking. In November 1993, without consulting me (he could not have consulted me because at that time I was abroad for a delicate eye surgery), he sent an order to the chairman of the CBDT that I should be recalled from deputation (in October 1991 I had joined the Department of Programme Implementation as Joint Secretary) and appointed Director General of Systems (the Directorate was making preparations for the computerisation of processing of income tax returns). The chairman simply ignored it and told me (after I returned from abroad) that somebody else was on his mind. I did not tell Dr. Singh anything because I was sure that he would not assert. A few months later, I happened to meet him at a small lunch party given by a retired secretary who was teaching management in London. Dr. Singh asked me whether I had joined the Directorate. I told him that had I joined I would have definitely called on him to thank him. Naturally, he asked the reason. I told him the truth that the chairman ignored FM’s order because he wanted his favourite for that post. Dr. Singh’s face remained expressionless, as we normally see. He quietly swallowed the insult. Any other FM would have fired the Chairman, CBDT, for disobeying his order but had there been another FM, the Chairman would not have disobeyed him. The Chairman knew that he could ignore Dr. Singh without any fear of retaliation.
One who had no courage to say a word to defiant bureaucrats working under him could not be expected to even mildly protest when Rahul Gandhi tore up the ordinance.
Dr. Manmohan Singh the economist in Government of India
Dr. Singh might have been a brilliant student of economics but theoretical knowledge of economics is not sufficient to understand real-life economic issues and to solve economic problems. During his tenure as Member-Secretary or Deputy Chairman of PC, I did not find any major contribution by him except papers on the high cost of economy prepared by different divisions of the PC on his order (when he was Dy. Chairman). Those papers were never discussed. Later, thousands of kilograms of papers were sold as scrap.
Many people give him credit for initiating economic reforms in 1991 but several senior colleagues of mine who had long experience of working with him believed that he was merely carrying out orders coming from the World Bank which had been working for a long time to get the Indian market opened to the West. A few supporters of the world Bank had entered the Government of India before he became Finance Minister and were preparing the ground.
The credit to him reminds me of a joke. After a man had saved a child from drowning in a pond, many persons came to thank him and compliment him for his bravery. The nervous saviour said, “it’s okay but tell me, who pushed me in the pond?”
For the same reason, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao too does not deserve credit. He was a week leader not capable of taking harsh decisions especially when other Congress leaders were swearing by socialism. 28 years ago, when thousands of innocent Sikhs were being slaughtered by Congress goons, we had seen how weak a home minister he was. At a meeting of a group of ministers in 1994, I had seen that most of ministers had no respect for him.
Sometime in 1986, one day Dr. Montek Ahluwalia, an Additional Secretary in the PMO, brought a proposal from Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi that the PC should prepare transport and energy models keeping in view India’s needs 20 years hence. The petroleum model, prepared by a professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, was discussed in a meeting chaired by Dr. Singh. An important part of the model was the calculation of the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) of the production of crude. Dr. Singh himself did not make any comment. He merely asked senior bureaucrats and technocrats to give their views. They all praised the professor for doing an excellent job. I was the last to be invited by Dr. Singh to give opinion. I said that in my opinion calculation of LRMC was misleading because it was based on very limited data which could not be considered representative. This was a big shock to the professor and others present. After some uproar, Dr. Singh said that if what I had said was correct, then the entire model would have to be redone. Later, I learnt that the professor had completely rewritten his report.
I was surprised that why this simple thing did not occur to a highly acclaimed economist?
When Dr. Singh became Finance Minister in 1991, I went to his office in the North Block to congratulate him. He asked me to give some suggestions for improving tax collection. He had to present his first budget in Parliament. I told him that since I was only a joint secretary level officer (at that time I was Director of the Directorate of Organization and Management Services of the Income Tax Department) it would not be proper for me to send any suggestion to him directly and if I sent anything through proper channel there was little chance of it reaching him. He advised me to give him my suggestions informally without my signature. After a couple of days, I gave him three suggestions. I told him that vested interests might oppose the suggestions. He thanked me and assured me that he would seriously consider these suggestions.
After two or three days, a member of the CBDT asked me to see him. When I met him, he showed me the paper I had given to Dr. Singh. I was shocked when I read the first part of what he had written, “Suggestions received from Devendra Narain.” I looked at the member’s face expecting an unhappy reaction, though I had a very good question with him. He asked me to read further. Mercifully, FM had added, “I had asked him to give his suggestions. I have known him for a long time…” followed by a few words of appreciation.
Anyway, two of the three suggestions were included in the Finance Bill. As expected, the lobby of the vested interests became active and one of the two suggestions was dropped from the Bill. What had been included was withdrawn the next year.
As Finance Minister, Dr. Singh was Chairman of a Group of Ministers set up to review problems faced in the implementation of public sector projects. As Joint Secretary and chief monitor of Central Government and public sector projects (I was Joint Secretary in the Department of Programme Implementation), it was my duty to identify the problems and present reports to the Group for solutions. One such report president in 1995 was on the problems in the implementation of road projects. During the discussion, I got the impression that Dr. Singh had not read my report. He was sitting totally disinterested. As expected, the Transport Minister was successfully misleading him as well as the then Deputy Chairman of the PC who later became President of India. I tried my level best to persuade a few Secretaries to correct the Minister but none dared to do so. I could not speak when my Secretary refused to say anything. Later, I went to Dr. Singh’s room to tell him that the Transport Minister had misled him and everybody. His reaction was more frustrating.
Dr. Manmohan Singhthe politician
Sometime in 1980, I was asked to appraise a proposal to set up a naphtha-based petrochemical complex in West Bengal. My finding was that since gas-based petrochemicals were much cheaper in the international market, a plant based on imported naphtha would be uneconomical. at that time doctor Singh was member secretary of the PC. When the appraisal note duly approved by my boss and an internal committee of the Planning Commission, reached Dr. Singh, he sent for me. When I entered his room I found him quite agitated. Without mincing words, he told me that my appraisal note had created ‘a first-rate constitutional crisis’ because Jyoti Basu, the West Bengal Chief Minister, was very much interested in the project and such an adverse appraisal note would make him very angry and that he (Dr. Singh) would find it difficult to finalise the state’s five-year plan with the CM. By that time, I had appraised hundreds of projects and quite a few had gone against the political interest or the interest of powerful lobbies but no one had accused me of creating any ‘political’ or ‘constitutional’ crisis. An appraisal note being only an advisory, the government had every right to reject it. I politely told Dr. Singh that I was a mere deputy secretary, incapable of creating any ‘constitutional crisis’ and the government was free to reject my advice. I further told him that instead of getting angry, the West Bengal CM should be happy that he had been cautioned before it was too late. That infuriated Dr. Singh more. He asked me to leave his room. Mercifully, the state plan was finalised without any ‘constitutional crisis’. Later, a naphtha-based petrochemical complex was set up in Haldia and suffered losses for a long time.
Manmohan Singh the politician had no courage to tell the Chief Minister of a state that his (Chief Minister’s) proposal should be reconsidered.
In 1978 when Atal Behari Vajpayee was Foreign Minister, I was asked to appraise a proposal to set up a split-location cement plant, part in Nepal and part in India. My finding was that the project was not in India’s economic or financial interest. I had quantified the annual financial loss to the country. I had added that if the government viewed the project as an aid to Nepal, it was a different matter. One day in 1980 (after Congress was back to power), at a meeting in the PC, I heard an annoyed Dr. Singh saying that ‘politicians make all sorts of senseless commitments creating problems for the government’. I found an entirely different Dr. Singh who was once so anxious to please Jyoti Basu! It kept on haunting me for some time before I realised that there was no inconsistency in his stand. In one case he was trying to win the favour of Jyoti Basu and in the other case, he was trying to win the favour of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi because the proposal to set up a cement plant had been mooted by Indira Gandhi’s opponent Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Conclusion
Dr. Singh is basically a weak man, not capable of taking a tough position. Having worked under or with him for several years, I do not agree with the claim that had he been allowed to function properly as a Prime Minister it would have been harder for Narendra Modi to win election in 2014. One who had no courage to take any stand against defiat bureaucrats working under him, should not be expected to take tough administrative, political, economic and military decisions. High level corruption when he was PM was not surprising. He became Prime Minister, not by accident but because of the “qualities” Sonia Gandhi saw in him. He was ambitious, servile, pliable, a Teflon, and knew the art of survival under dominating political masters. Morale of the story is: “STOOP TO CONQUER”.