HVK Archives: Faux pas or test balloon?
Faux pas or test balloon? - Organiser
Shyam Khosla
()
18 May 1997
Title : Faux pas or test balloon?
Author : Shyam Khosla
Publication : Organiser
Date : May 18, 1997
Prof Bhabani Sengupta's highly controversial appointment as OSD in
Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and his ignominious exit within 24
hours following a public outcry has put a question mark on the
credibility and leadership of our gentleman Prime Minister, I.K.
Gujral. At best, it was a faux pas on the part of Gujral to let
personal friendship blind him to national interest by selecting a
reckless maverick for a highly sensitive position. At worst, it
was a test balloon to gauge public response to Sengupta's'
reprehensible concepts like "trading Siachen for peace with Pak".
Be what it may, the Sengupta episode will continue, to haunt Gujral
for a long time to come.
It is no one's case that Gujral was not aware of the Professor's
credentials. They had had a long association and Sengupta has been
informally advising Gujral on foreign affairs during the latter's
two stints as External Affairs Minister. Sengupta had in his
infamous letter to The New York Times on May 30, 1974, called for
international sanctions against India if she went ahead with its
nuclear programmer. He wanted the international community to force
India to make a formal commitment to UN Security Council that she
will never, repeat never, undertake the manufacture of nuclear
weapons and that such a commitment be written into the Indian
Constitution.
There is a strong case for India going nuclear in view of the
perceived threat from China and Pakistan but there is no unanimity
in the country over the issue. However, there is a broad consensus
among all parties that the country should keep its option open. The
entire country stood behind the decision not to sign the CTBT. The
Professor's views are in contravention of the national consensus.
The same is true of the "Siachen for peace" slogan. Everyone wants
peace with Pakistan and with other neighbours but it cannot, and
should not, be sought by sacrificing larger national interests.
No one bothered about Sengupta's obnoxious theories and ideas till
he was an ordinary citizen airing his views from public platforms
and through the media. It is a measure of our democratic spirit
that even some of his views perceived to be anti-national were
tolerated. But once he occupied a public office, concerned citizens
raised their voices. A person of doubtful credentials should not
have been allowed to occupy such a sensitive position and continue
airing his unrestrained views on every conceivable aspect of our
foreign policy.
The explanation offered by the PM's camp that Sengupta was
recruited as a speech-writer just because he has a facile pen does
not carry conviction. You don't appoint speech-writers as OSD with
Secretary's rank. Sengupta is a high-profile man who would not
have accepted a nondescript job of a ghost writer. It is obviously
an afterthought to explain away an indiscretion or worse.
What forced the Prime Minister's hands was a relentless attack by
former Prime Ministers, Chandra Shekhar and Atal Behari Vajpayee,
in Lok Sabha on the appointment. Chandra Shekhar said the
controversial professor should not continue in office for a moment
and that senior officials in the External Affairs Ministry mere
reluctant to show sensitive documents to the man. He had written
to the Prime Minister demanding Sengupta's sack as the officials
had publicly made certain statements on Siachen and nuclear
programme even after assuming office. Vajpayee lent his voice to
the demand saying there was no evidence to show that Sengupta had
had second thoughts on his totally unacceptable views on issues on
which there was a broad national consensus.
Congress party's Chief Whip, Santosh Mohan Deb and former Minister
of State for External Affairs, R.L. Bhatia, too expressed concern
over the appointment. Deb thought it would not be desirable to
have an adviser like Sengupta and Bhatia pointedly asked if the
Prime Minister was testing public opinion on trading Siachen with
peace on Indo-Pak border. Their criticism caused much
consternation in the ruling camp particularly in view of the recent
experience with Sitaram Kesri.
The Prime Minister developed cold feet and did not rum up in the
House that afternoon as desired by the Speaker promising to make a
statement the next day. Meanwhile, Sengupta resigned and the
announcement was made by the Principal Information Officer to
defuse the situation. It was an assertion by Parliament of its near
unanimous will. Near unanimous because another maverick, Rajesh
Pilot, struck a discordant note asserting that appointment of
officials was a prerogative of the Prime Minister and no one should
tell him whom to appoint and whom not to. Pilot may have personal
and factional reasons to say what he said. But the question being
asked in political circles is: Who had questioned the PM's
prerogative? What had been questioned was a manifestly wrong
appointment made on personal considerations. And if the Prime
Minister had taken a well-considered and right decision why did he
buckle under pressure? This too does not reflect well on the Prime
Minister's personality.
This is not to suggest that Gujral should have ignored the near
unanimous view of the House against his friend. That would have
been most undemocratic. That he saw quickly that he had taken a
wrong step and took measures to contain the damage goes in Gujral's
favour. But one had expected the Prime Minister to say a word or
two in defence of his decision. Under what circumstances had he
made the appointment and why had he readily accepted the
resignations? That was not to be. Gujral chose to sidetrack the
issue giving rise to suspicions that the decision to appoint
Sengupta was not as innocent as Information Minister Jaipal Reddy
wants us to believe.
The Sengupta episode is not the only indiscretion committed by
Gujral. His statement that it was he who, as External Affairs
Minister, had permitted re-fuelling of US planes and his hasty
retraction "I-didn't-mean-what-I-said"-after it was challenged by
Chandra Shekhar has sent shock waves among the small group of
Gujral loyalists. What was Gujral's motive behind making that
false claim? Was he trying to send signals to USA that he was not
anti-America as was being perceived by the super power? Was he
scared by reports that H.D. Deve Gowda's perceived friendship with
Russia had prompted USA to engineer his downfall? He does not
deserve to head the Government of India if there is an iota of
truth in these suggestions.
Gujral's refusal to grant an interview to Bihar Governor to steer
clear of the controversy and avoid the impression that he was
taking any interest in the developing situation in Bihar because of
Laloo Yadav's likely prosecution in the fodder scam is yet another
example of how unsure of his position Gujral is. Yadav is the
President of the Janata Dal to which Gujral belongs. The former has
been threatening to topple the Central Government if anyone tried
to destabilise Bihar Government. Gujral's admission that he is
keeping himself out of the is a proof positive that the Prime
Minister does not-and wants the nation to know that he does
not-take decisions which only he should take. Can the Prime
Minister remain a silent spectator if a Chief Minister, even if he
is the president of the party ruling at the Centre, refuses to
resign even after he is chargesheeted? What message is Gujral
sending to the nation?
The manner in which Gujral was chosen leader of the United Front
and the fact that the ruling alliance is dependent on an unreliable
supporting party makes him a weak prime minister He was virtually
forced to re-induct almost the entire outgoing ministry. The only
addition he could make, an admirable one at that, was the induction
into the Cabinet of S. Jaipal Reddy. His handling of the Sengupta
incident and re-fuelling of US planes has shown turn to be a
vacillating leader. He will have to act with tact but firmness if
he is not to go down in history as a lame duck Prime Minister.
Back
Top
|
