If Congress Had Abandoned PV, BJP and TRS Will Claim His Legacy 

Half Lion, by Vinay Sitapati is in the news for its controversial observations. Already a best seller, the book attempts to trace PV Narasimha Rao, the economic reformer and the Chanakya. Recently in Hyderabad for the launch of the Telugu and English versions of the book, Vinay Sitapati spoke to Sakhipost about the book and the protagonist himself.

What made you to write this book on PV Narasimha Rao almost a decade after he is gone?

Well... Two reasons! First... I am a child of liberalisation. I grew up in 1990s in Bandra in Bombay. Most of my friends had not heard of Narasimha Rao. I began to realise as I grew up that so many of the changes that I saw around me were because of Narasimha Rao. My father moved from a PSU job to private sector. There was a big change in infrastructure. There was the first toll road. First private jet airliner took off in 1993.

I think there is a Narasimha Rao moment in every Indian’s life. The economists have been able to show that every family, no matter how poor, is better off in absolute terms after Narasimha Rao than they were before. So, there was a story waiting to be written. Two years ago, I read a book by a Harward University professor titled Deng Hsiao Ping and the Transformation of China. It was the story of China changing in 1980s. After reading it, the first thing that I said there is a book waiting to be written about India and the man it is about should be Narasimha Rao.

What was the kind of research that went into the book? Who were the people you met? Were you able to meet those associated with the man? Were you able to lay your hands on original material?

I interviewed Narsimha Rao’s cook Rajaiah who had gone to more than 100 countries with Narasimha Rao. So you get a sense of the man through people all around him. I also interviewed a lot of people who were critical of Narasimha Rao like Mani Shankar Aiyer, bureaucrat KR Venugopal. So there is a lot in this book, which is positive, but there is also quite a bit which is negative.

I have done more than 110 interviews. I interviewed Mr Manmohan Singh, I interviewed Narsimha Rao’s close confidante Kalyani Shankar. I have also interviewed Narasimha Rao’s personal doctor. I interviewed Narsimha Rao’s cook Rajaiah who had gone to more than 100 countries with Narasimha Rao. So you get a sense of the man through people all around him. I also interviewed a lot of people who were critical of Narasimha Rao like Mani Shankar Aiyer, bureaucrat KR Venugopal. So there is a lot in this book, which is positive, but there is also quite a bit which is negative.

I argued that Narsimha Rao is the greatest prime minister india had since Jawaharlal Nehru.But, that does not mean he is perfect. I tried my best to humanise the man. I read more than 200 books and articles. Most importantly, Narsimha Rao’s family gave me access to all his papers without any strings attached. There was no censorship. From 1976, when he becomes Congress general secretary till 1996, when he is kicked out as Party president, every document drafted by the Congress Party went through him. Every evening he would come back, he would write on his computer. He would write down the day’s events. For a political historian like me, he was an ideal candidate for biography because he left such a paper trail.

Were you able to interview anyone close to Sonia Gandhi?

Many of them were interviewed. The ones I quoted in the book are Jairam Ramesh, Salman Khurshid and Satish Sharma. But, I interviewed many more, who did not want their names to be publicized for obvious reasons.

Give us a sense of PV Narasimha Rao, the man, because a lot has been written about him - his life, his linguistic proficiency, his economic thought, his knowledge of foreign affairs, international relations and his being a Chanakya in politics. But, when you read this book, he also comes across as a very vulnerable man.

I think Narsimha Rao’s defining personal quality was loneliness. It can be traced from his childhood. The problem with Narasimha Rao is that by the age of 10, he is married against his will. Because he is so much brighter than anyone else in his village of Vangara, his father sends him off to a village faraway. And thirdly, he is given in adoption. These three things make him extremely lonely. So you have a person with very complicated personal life. This personal quality of Narasimha Rao, the loneliness, becomes the professional asset. The reason Narasimha Rao is chosen as Chief Minister in 1971 that he has no faction in the Congress Party backing him. One of the main reasons that Sonia Gandhi selected him in 1991 is that unlike Arjun Singh, unlike Sharad Pawar, he has no faction in the party. His personal loneliness made him the consensus candidate.

But, how is Narasimha Rao as a politician. How do you trace his journey from Hyderabad to Delhi?

To trace the journey of Narasimha Rao, in his early days, he was a strong socialist, influenced by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ramananda Teertha in Hyderabad state both of whom are Leftists within the Congress. It is only after Indira Gandhi removes him as Chief Minister, he travels to the US and realises that though his heart remains socialist, mind became more pragmatic and capitalist. There is also a parallel discovery of his political skill. That’s the other story. Now, the central question of this book is that Narsimha Rao is a man without personality. He is not a charismatic man. As Jairam Ramesh says, he had the personality of a dead fish. He is a man who is not loved by the people. He had no control over the party and is in a minority in Parliament.

No world reformer has been able to bring about the kind of change that he did with so little power. If you compare him to Deng Hsiao Ping, They are very similar in the manner in which they brought a change to a billion lives, but, once Deng came to power, he hasdcomplete control over the party. He was operating in a dictatorship. Narasimha Rao had none of those benefits. So I kept asking as what kind of political genius can bring about change without power and that is the central question of the book.

It is usually said that Manmohan Singh was the father of Indian reforms. From what you say in this book, PV Narasimha Rao was a pragmatist much before he had actually started the liberalisation process. Is he the face of liberalisation while Manmohan Singh is the mask, to borrow a phrase from Govindacharya?

There is no question that Narasimha Rao is the father of liberalisation. Narasimha Rao micro-managed the economic reforms. He was not just the political face. However, Narasimha Rao realised that liberalisation is politically unpopular, which is why he tried his best not to take credit. Having said that, I must say Manmohan Singh too played a very important role. In a few instances where Narasimha Rao faltered for political reasons, such as devaluation of the rupee, Manmohan Singh stood up and steadied Narasimha Rao. In many ways, Manmohan was a loyal lieutenant along with Rao’s principal secretary Amarnath Varma. Also, unlike every other Congressman, Manmohan has been loyal to the memory of Narasimha Rao.

That brings us to the second major facet of PV Narasimha Rao’s tenure - the Babri issue. A lot of blame is put on PV that he slept through while the demolition was happening. Your book argues that he was very much awake and very much active in monitoring things. Do you think at some stage, he blindly believed in Advani? He definitely made an error of judgment. It’s not just Advani. I saw documents on all the meetings he had between November 15 and November 30. He met every Hindu leader with one purpose in mind. Please protect the mosque on December 6. He was begging them.

Was he aware that something is going to happen on December 6?

there were two demolitions taking place on December 6 - one - the demolition of the Babri Masjid by the BJP, Sangh Parivar and its affiliates. The second is the demolition of Narasimha Rao by his rivals within the party. Narasimha Rao was well aware that this game was being played. His problem is that the only way to protect the mosque as per the Indian Constitution is to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Government under Article 356. But, his own law minister, his own cabinet told him it would be illegal as article 356 clearly says that you can impose Central rule only when there is breakdown in law and order not when breakdown in law and order is anticipated.

On the October 31, 1992, the VHP declared that they will have a pooja right next to the mosque. They promised to protect the mosque. If a hundred thousand karsevaks congregate next to the mosque, there is always a threat to the mosque. So from October 30 to December 6, everybody knew that there was possibility that the mosque would fall. There is no mystery here. As I point out in the book, there were two demolitions taking place on December 6 - one - the demolition of the Babri Masjid by the BJP, Sangh Parivar and its affiliates. The second is the demolition of Narasimha Rao by his rivals within the party. Narasimha Rao was well aware that this game was being played. His problem is that the only way to protect the mosque as per the Indian Constitution is to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Government under Article 356. But, his own law minister, his own cabinet told him it would be illegal as article 356 clearly says that you can impose Central rule only when there is breakdown in law and order not when breakdown in law and order is anticipated.

We see two distinct phases of his personality - before May 21, 1991 and after that. Some who wants to become a sanyasi, someone mired and steeped in books and reading May 21, 1991 changes it all. He suddenly becomes pro-active. According to your book, he had actively lobbied to become a prime minister. That sounds strange. Can you explain that?

Narasimha Rao had an acute sense of political circumstances and context. When he felt that the stars were aligning, he changed change his mind rapidly. Narsimha Rao decided to become a monk. But suddenly, he gets a phone call that Rajiv Gandhi is killed. At 4.30 am next morning, Gopal Krishna Gandhi, the jt secretary for the President of India, gets a phone call from PV asking for an appointment with the President. I asked Gandhi why did PV tried to meet the President. Gopal Gandhi smiled at me and said let’s just say it was not a courtesy call. PV’s diary is very clear that he had realised that suddenly he was in the running.

But, what about his estrangement with Sonia Gandhi? What do you think is the tipping point?

Sonia Gandhi was only one of the many constraints that Narsimha Rao had faced. He had a party that hated him. It had nothing to do with Sonia Gandhi. First two years of Narsimha Rao’s prime ministership, Sonia Gandhi was a grieving widow. She had no interest in politics. Sonia Gandhi was not his biggest problem. He simply had to manage her. There is no evidence either to show that she had tried to interfere on policy. She definitely tried to encourage political opposition to Narasimha Rao within the party after 1993. The real tragedy is the way he was treated after his resignation. His treatment by Sonia Gandhi and Congress Party is nothing short of shameful. When the history of Congress Party’s economic reforms was written in the party website, Narsimha Rao’s name was not mentioned. That is scandalous. The way the Congress tried to erase the legacy of Narasimha Rao was unwarranted.

But, PV seems to be bouncing back even long after his death. And there is a race to claim his legacy.

If the Congress had abandoned him, the BJP and the TRS will be racing to claim his legacy.