Many in the Bharatiya Janata Party have been claiming that in an increasingly uncertain and difficult world, India needs “strong leadership.” The continuing war in Europe and the renewal of conflict in West Asia have increased global uncertainty. The Narendra Modi government’s self goals in dealing with the so-called ‘Khalistani activism’ in the West and western concerns about Indian democracy have also generated some uncertainty about India’s time-tested external relations. Finally, the evolving relations between the United States and its allies, on the one hand, and a growing China-Russia axis, on the other, have further contributed to the feeling that the external environment presents complex challenges.
Responding to this Prime Minister Modi and some of his cabinet colleagues and party spokespersons have suggested that India needs a “strong political leadership” at home to be able to deal with an uncertain and unstable external environment. The recent history of Indian democracy shows, however, that it is not ‘strong’ but ‘wise’ leadership that has been better able to steer the country through turbulent waters.
Indeed, in the very first decade after Independence, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was able to steer a newly constituted republic through not just the turbulence of Partition and domestic politics but also the uncertainties of a post-war, post-colonial world with the help and support of several powerful political leaders, some in his own cabinet and some who were chief ministers and provincial leaders. Nehru was a towering personality but not a domineering one. While he took full charge of foreign policy, his domestic policies were crafted and implemented by several politically powerful and astute leaders including Vallabhbhai Patel, C.D. Deshmukh, K.N. Katju, B.R. Ambedkar, John Mathai, Baldev Singh, Jagjivan Ram and Lal Bahadur Shastri.
Nehru’s was not a cabinet of One Hero and Many Zeroes. As PM, Nehru had to deal with powerful chief ministers including G.B.Pant, Shri Krishna Sinha, Shankar Dayal Sharma, C. Rajagopalachari, K. Kamaraj, N. Sanjiva Reddy, Pratap Singh Kairon, B.C. Roy, Y.B. Chavan and so on.
Even an all-powerful Indira Gandhi had to not only deal with powerful colleagues like Morarji Desai, Y.B. Chavan, Jagjivan Ram, K. Brahmananda Reddy and H.N. Bahuguna, but also powerful chief ministers like Annadorai, EMS Nambudiripad, Atulya Ghosh, M. Chenna Reddy and so on. It is only after 1974 that Indira Gandhi emerged all-powerful and was able to assert her political dominance. Yet, for all the power that she concentrated in herself and the Prime Minister’s Office, Mrs Gandhi’s record of governance was poor. She had a few stellar achievements in foreign policy and national security like the creation of Bangladesh and the nuclear tests of 1973, but at home her record on economic policy and internal security management was weak, despite her ‘strong’ leadership.
What the Nehru-Indira years show is that while ‘strong’ leadership implies having a competent and ‘strong’ team, its record of governance is shaped not by the leadership qualities of one person alone but by the competence of the team as a whole.
More recent experience, in fact, strengthens this argument. Consider the fact that even with over 400 members in Parliament, the Congress party government, headed by Rajiv Gandhi, and an all-powerful PMO, had at best a patchy record of governance, dealing with both external and domestic challenges. On the other hand, three successive PMs heading one virtual and two real coalitions were able to deal with external challenges in a far more competent manner.
P.V. Narasimha Rao headed what was a virtual coalition, given the divisions within the Congress party and his own uncertain political status. Yet, his record of governance was stellar. He not only guided the economy through its most radical transformation after Independence, bringing it out of a major external payments and domestic fiscal crisis, but he also steered the country through the rocky post-Cold War years after the implosion of India’s most important strategic partner, the erstwhile Soviet Union.
Rao was by no means a “strong” leader. He is, however, respected today as having been a “wise” leader.
The same can be said of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Heading a newly constituted coalition government that was rocky from the start, Vajpayee adroitly managed the diplomatic and economic fallout of the nuclear tests of 1998 and the war with Pakistan. These were no minor challenges. India was targeted with economic sanctions by the US, Japan and other developed economies. China was rising rapidly through the 1990s posing a new challenge to India and Vajpayee had no option but to cosy up to the US, calling it a ‘natural ally’. In the end, he managed to stabilise the external and domestic environment taking the economy forward on a path set by his predecessor. Vajpayee, too, is remembered as a ‘wise’ PM, not a ‘strong’ PM.
And then came Manmohan Singh. On the day when it became clear that a coalition government would be formed with support from Communist parties, the Bombay stock market indices tanked. Within days, Singh was able to restore confidence in the economy. His biggest political challenges were the completion of the nuclear deal with the US and handling the fallout of the 2008-09 trans-Atlantic financial crisis.
Despite his political weakness, he managed to conclude the nuclear deal and steer the economy through the financial crisis. His leadership was certainly not ‘strong’. But it was ‘wise’.
‘Wise’ leadership has done more for the world than ‘strong’ leadership. Stalin, Hitler, Mao were all ‘strong’ leaders. Nehru, Mandela, Vajpayee were all ‘wise’ leaders.
Rao, Vajpayee and Singh headed governments with experienced ministerial colleagues whom they respected and trusted and were happy to work with. If Rao had Singh, Chidambaram, Chavan, Pawar, Arjun Singh and so on as cabinet colleagues, Vajpayee had Advani, Jaitley, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sushma Swaraj, Mamata Banerjee, Yashwant Singh, Jaswant Singh and such like.
Singh had Pranab Mukherjee, Chidambaram, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Kamalnath, Jaipal Reddy and so on.
All politically astute and experienced. Colleagues who strengthened the leader’s hand but neither scared nor in awe of the leader to the point of being subservient.
An internally diverse nation faced with an uncertain external environment has for decades been better managed by wise leaders, not merely strong leaders. In the leadership that he has provided over the past decade, Modi has projected what is claimed to be ‘strong’ leadership. But he has rarely, if ever, demonstrated ‘wise’ leadership.
Indeed, one could suggest that populism and showmanship apart, Modi has demonstrated neither strength nor wisdom in dealing with such momentous decisions as the demonetisation of the Rupee, the handling of COVID-19 pandemic and the farmers’ agitation, the situation in Manipur, the challenge posed by China or indeed that posed by overseas Khalistani activism.
It is true that the domestic and external political, security and economic environment today are more challenging than in the recent past. To manage these challenges, India needs wise and mature leadership. Not intemperate, arrogant and hubristic leadership.
Sanjaya Baru is an economist, a former newspaper editor, a best-selling author, and former adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.s
