Wednesday, April 1, 2009

View Point: Can Advani match Manmohan?

The BJP says Manmohan Singh is weak and no match for their strongman Advani.

Is that true? Let us examine their qualifications.

Born in 1932, Manmohan Singh graduated in economics from Punjab University, read for his tripos (first class honours) from St John's College, Cambridge University, where he won the Wright's Prize in 1955 and the Adam Smith prize in 1956. He got his DPhil from Nuffield College, Oxford University, in 1962.

His thesis was on "India's Export Trends and Prospects for Self- Sustained Growth". By age 30, he understood that Nehru's inward- looking economic policy was misplaced.

He has worked at the United Nations, served as governor of the Reserve Bank, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission and chairman of the University Grants Commission. He has taught at Punjab University and Delhi School of Economics.

In government, he reversed what we call Nehruvian socialism during his five years as finance minister between 1991 and 1996. His policy crafting gave India economic success, through a doctrine now called Manmohanomics, which he continued in his five years as prime minister from 2004 to 2009.

In 1991, the year Manmohan became finance minister, India's per capita GDP was $328, and Pakistan's was $458. In 2008, Pakistan's was $623 and India's $900. From 28 per cent behind Pakistan, India went ahead 30 per cent because of him. No Indian leader has ever been as qualified, or as effective, as Manmohan Singh.

Born in 1927, L K Advani attended D G National College, Hyderabad, Sindh, but could not get a degree. His website says he got an LLB from Bombay University's Government Law College, but does not say when, and his autobiography does not mention this degree at all.

He worked for the RSS publication Organiser till 1967, where he wrote film reviews. After a brief term in the Delhi municipal council, because of his RSS connection, Advani was nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Jailed along with other opposition leaders during Indira Gandhi's emergency of 1975-77, Advani came to power as the combined opposition defeated the Congress for the first time since independence.

Because of his journalism experience, Advani became minister for information and broadcasting in 1977. At the age of 45, this was his first job in an executive position. It was a brief experience; the government collapsed in two years.

In the 80s, Advani became a star when he campaigned on the Babri Masjid issue across India. It was demolished on December 6, 1992. He says he did not anticipate this, showing his lack of understanding of the Indian mind, and of consequences. Over 2,000 Indians were killed.

As home minister in Vajpayee's government (1999-2004), Advani got his second executive job at age 72. Did he build his tough-man image then?

No.

He surrendered to Jaish-e-Mohammad at Kandahar after the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane in December 1999, and released Masood Azhar and Omar Saeed Shaikh, who later beheaded Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl.

In March 2002, as Union home minister he could not prevent the massacres in Gujarat, in which 1,000 were killed.

If he has no record to speak of, why do his supporters call him strong?

Advani actually has very little experience in executive or policy positions. And he does not show evidence of being able to overcome this lack of experience through his intellect, or his effort.

His autobiography ("My Country, My Life") is maudlin, and peppered with mistakes. With typical hyperbole, he calls the emergency the "darkest period in Indian history" but then he reports its years wrong (pages 259, 266, 270). He spent years in villages in RSS service, but mistakes (on page 69) Guinea worm for tapeworm.

Advani's problem is that his intellectual bandwidth is limited by his ordinary education. He is not at the same level as Oxbridge's Manmohan, and Harvard's Obama.

His reading is basic and he likes it pre-digested through writers like William Shirer and Thomas Friedman.

In a lifetime in opposition, Advani has stirred the pot with drawing-room solutions to emotional problems. The sort of problems that trouble our aching nationalists. India is weak -- we must build an atom bomb! Pakistan is doing terrorism -- we must hit back! Hindu sentiment is hurt -- we must replace the Babri masjid!

Such a Manichean and innocent view of the world is touching, because it comes out of trauma (Advani was kicked out of Karachi at partition).

One of the most moving moments of his life, according to Advani, was when on a tour to the Himalayas, he asked what a passing stream was, and was told it was the Indus, Sindhu nadi, from which he gets his Sindhi identity and we get our nation's name.

He is unable to separate himself from this sentimentalism.

Though he keeps attacking India's minority-ism, his own mentality is still that of a besieged minority from Sindh.

Manmohan was also kicked out (he is from village Gah in Chakwal), but has lifted himself above our sub-continental pettiness.

Manmohan has the exposure, and the intellect, to detach himself from the insanity below. Advani cannot do this, because he has been wading in it and beating his breast, even after Indians built one of the most successful democracies in the world.

Crucially, Manmohan has deep access into pan-Indian culture because of his ability to read, in addition to Hindi and Gurmukhi, Urdu.

He educated Indians on Iqbal through his budget speeches as finance minister. I was familiar with Tarana-e-Hindi (which Indians know as Saare jahan say achcha), but I had not registered its most stirring couplet till I heard Manmohan recite it in his Punjabi lilt: Yunan-o-Misr-o-Roma, sub mitt gaye jahan say, ab tak magar hai baqi naam-o-nishaan hamara.

Advani does not have this access into his own culture because, as he wrote to his regret, he did not learn to read Sanskrit. His grandmother could read Gurmukhi, but he could not.

While he speaks Sindhi well (Benazir opened a conversation with him in Sindhi but then could not continue it), he cannot read it in Nastaliq because he went to an English-medium school, St Patrick's in Karachi.

He mistakes Persian script for Arabic (page 34).

He writes that till the age of 20 he did not even speak Hindi properly. Not particularly good qualifications for a man whose policy thrusts -- Ram temple, Uniform Civil Code, Article 370 -- are all cultural.

Politically, both Manmohan and Advani are weak, and dependent.

Manmohan is a member of Rajya Sabha (not directly elected), and serves at the pleasure of Sonia Gandhi.

Advani contests for the Lok Sabha, but from Gujarat, where he is at Modi's mercy (Advani cannot speak Gujarati). And he has spent a lifetime bending his knee to the RSS, which echoes his seething resentment of Muslims.

But while he's politically weak, Manmohan is undisputed master of policy. And because of his integrity, Sonia Gandhi has given him a freehand where it matters.

Sonia did not push for the Indo-American strategic alliance; that is all Manmohan.

Manmohan brings an economist's cold view to policy: he has the mind of the bania, rather than the warrior, whom we more readily identify with Advani. Advani loves Rajasthan, India's only martial state, and has "developed a fascination for this land of heroes and martyrs."

India does not need its leaders to be martial heroes and martyrs. We need education and healthcare and a strong economy.

India, and also Pakistan, needs a bania's self-preserving mentality because under the warrior's code, we commit suicide quite easily, like we did in 1962's avoidable war with China.

Advani doesn't want the Indo-US nuclear deal because it is surrender.

Under it, some current and all future nuclear installations will be now classified as civilian and subject to international regulation, while others will be outside scrutiny, free to make weapons. What is wrong with this deal? India has been starved of nuclear technology for four decades, which it will now get freely. But Advani says it makes us 'strategically subservient' because the US does not treat us as 'equals'.

He sees foreign policy in terms of honour and dishonour.

Advani is clueless on economics because of his lack of education, and uninterested in it because the subject lacks heroic emotion.

If he does take power, his urge for martyrdom will be disciplined by India's bureaucracy, as Vajpayee's was before him। He will be made more realist by the limits of power, which will deflate his bombast, as he finally gets a proper education, at age 82.

http://www.asianwindow.com/india/can-manly-advani-match-weakling-manmohan/

16 comments:

  1. Well.... in my opinion Advani can't be compared with Manmohan. Manmohan has the caliber to take the nation to a level if he is given power to take action......

    ReplyDelete
  2. Key is provided given power on which I too agree. Congress is still an ideal solution provided Sonia and Rahul are assasinated.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As Governor of RBI and Economic Advisor to Government of India, Manmohan was one of the pillars of the socialist phase of Indian economy. If he did not think socialism was good, why did he accept the posts.
    Today Pakistan's per capita income is $908 and India's is $948 (Source-IMF). Please correct the figures.
    If one compares India's growth rate in the 1980's to the 90's with respect to the global growth rate, the differential (Indian growth rate - Global growth rate) was higher in the 80's. I think the same is applicable for the 2000's. So much for the effectiveness of Mr. Manmohan.
    Who was responsible for India's growth in the 80's compared to 70's. Mr. VP Singh.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sanket,you can try contacting the author in the link about the wrong figures. I don't think India ever had a socialist economy. India had a goal to achieve socialistic pattern of society in the long term but it was different. India had its own economic model wherein the central planning played a prominent role. It was never a question of either Socialism or Capitalism.I don't see anywhere Manmohan singh terming the centralised planning bad. The article had a very simplistic argument of inward looking Nehru and Outward looking MMS. I think we shouldn't read much beyond the intended purpose of the article ie., to draw a comparison between Manmohan and Advani.

    Manmohan on 'India's Central Planning: Nehru's Vision and the Reality',his first interview as Indian PM: http://www.indianembassy.ru/docs-htm/en/en_hp_win_ms_t001.htm

    I think the growth momentum in 1980s was not due to any one individual but many factors including the base effect and cumulative advantages accrued to the economy over years.1980s saw the beginning of economic reforms. The situation was changed in the later years with two sucessive drought years if I am not wrong.

    MMS is given the credit for initiating comprehensive economic reforms in 1991 when India found itself in a BoP crisis and agreed to IMF's prescription of structural adjustment programme. MMS as the finance minister initiated policy measures (like the New Industrial Policy) and opened up various economic sectors. All successive governments followed the suit. The growth in 2000s has much to do with the steps taken in the 1990s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Chaitanya,
    It is always wrong to attribute growth to a single person.
    During his tenure as Chief Economic Advisor did MMS ever give suggestions for liberalization?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Number 1. Manmohan Singh is an economist of incomparable talent and NOT a politician. The country requires his concentrated professional talent in the economic sector. He should not be made to perform various administrative duties of a PM. This duty as a politician is eating up his time and health. Had the rigorous duties of a PM not been there on him, we could have got his innovative economic ideas in the fullest measure for the development of our country.
    Number 2. Can anybody answer why some terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir were to be freed to rescue a single and private individual called Rubaiya Mufti, who was she? Can we compare this with the lives of 310 odd passangers sitting hostage inside the plane Kandahar. What alternative could have been done, can anyone come up with an alternative suggestion for better management of such crisis as Kandahar. That the Indian the-then FM went himself to Kandahar may be an issue but nothing more is involved in this incident

    ReplyDelete
  7. Manmohan Singh stands nowhere in front of L. K. Advani. He is a much more stronger personality and has a mass appeal more than manmohan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It was the National front government(supported by BJP from outside) which was in power when Rubaiya was exchanged with terrorists. I think it was a big mistake on the part of the government which never realised the seriouness of the issue. Those were the initial years of the armed resistance in J&K.

    It can't be compared with Kandahar hijack incident which involved the question of many lives. But the point is Advani and his party believe in politicisation of terror. No one heard about Kandahar in 2004 polls. Now Advani'claims'that his party was harder against terrorism. When people start asking him about his own record as union Home minister, he made a flip-flop and disowned the decision made by NDA govt to release the terrorists. Please go through the blogpost on Kandahar episode. The NDA govt failed to prevent the plane from leaving the Indian airspace even when the plane halted at Amritsar for refueling.

    No one could have done anything after the plane left the Indian airspace. The question is more about the flipflop of " I am harder and stronger" Advani who disowned the decision of the then cabinet committee of security meeting. Was he not aware of it? How can he embarass his old colleagues by taking a different stand after so many years just for the sake of public posturing?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well no problem. If Advani has done a wrong thing don't vote for him. An alternative suggestion was sought for in the post for better management of Kandahar episode, can anyone from any political belief suggest an alternative solution path which could have been pursued. Number 1
    Please account for Afzal Guru.
    Please account for Quatrocchi money release by the initiative of the Government of India. If CBI could not prove anything against Quatrocchi, it was for Quatrocchi himself to request the British Bank to de-freeze his money as CBI could not produce any evidence against him. Why Indian representative had gone to Britain to release Quatrocchi's frozen money?
    So there are qustions equally uncomfortable to both parties or group of parties.
    NOT TO VOTE AT ALL for these people who take the Indian electorate for granted

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Friends i don't understand that why only during Congress's tenure as Government at the Center do we have scams.Remember the Harshad Mehta Scam was during Manmohan Singh's term as FM and the recent Satyam Scam during this tenure as PM.What scam next?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oil for Food in Iraq, BMW involvement of sitting MP

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well done.

    Manmohan is better than Advani.

    Now will the gentleman who wrote this blog tell me if that was the case why on earth is Sonia the leader of Congress and not Manmohan.

    What qualifications have Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi or for that matter Priyanka Gandhi got which makes them suitable for leading the nation?

    What was the qualification of Pratibha Patil vis-a-vis Abdul Kalam for the post of president?

    Where was the wisdom of the blog writers then?

    ReplyDelete
  13. just imagine what image advani would potray when he meets people from other countries.Manmohan singh is so respected by everyone across political lines even though advani and his party can't accept that.

    The low level of advani is so evident from his personal attacks on India's prime minister just because he is in the opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If he understood the flaws in Nehruvian policy and still endorses the dynastic rule of the Nehru-Gandhi family, he is a true opportunistic politician.

    Besides, he is yet to win a Lok Sabha election. We have been ruled for 5 years by a Prime Minister who did not enter with public mandate who was guided by a dynasty we should have done away with years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trying to compare Manmohanji with Advani is like comparing Mahatma Gandhi with Adolph Hitler. The fact is Advani is no match for Dr. Singh who is King

    ReplyDelete


ShoutMix chat widget