India
In a candid reflection on the challenges faced by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) during its second term, senior Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has stirred controversy by suggesting that Pranab Mukherjee should have been made Prime Minister in 2012, with Dr. Manmohan Singh elevated to the presidency. These remarks, part of his book A Maverick in Politics, critique key leadership decisions that he claims contributed to a “paralysis of governance” and the eventual downfall of UPA-II.
Aiyar, who served as a minister during UPA-I, argues that the Congress’s decision to retain Singh as Prime Minister and appoint Mukherjee as President “doomed any prospects” of the party forming UPA-III. He further pointed out that Singh’s health issues and Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s illness in 2012 led to a leadership vacuum, compounded by mismanagement of critical events like Anna Hazare’s ‘India Against Corruption’ movement.
A Missed Opportunity for Leadership Realignment
Reflecting on the dynamics of 2012, Aiyar wrote, “The choice of Rashtrapati: Manmohan Singh or Pranab Mukherjee. Personally, I was of the view that Pranab Mukherjee should have been given the reins of the government, and Dr Manmohan Singh elevated to President of India when the office of Rashtrapati presented an opening.”
According to Aiyar, Pranab Mukherjee’s vast experience and active political persona could have revitalized the government during a critical juncture. Meanwhile, Dr. Singh, a figure of “high distinction,” would have been better suited to the ceremonial yet influential role of President. He cited Mukherjee’s memoirs, which suggested that such a move was indeed contemplated but never realized.
Fallout of Leadership Choices
The former diplomat painted a grim picture of the consequences of these decisions. “Dr. Singh’s health issues slowed him down, and this showed up in governance. As for the party, there was no official announcement about Sonia Gandhi’s health, leading to stasis and an absence of effective leadership,” he noted.
Aiyar did not shy away from linking the leadership choices to the broader political consequences. He argued that the “paralysis of governance” allowed “the worst excesses of Hindutva” to take root, paving the way for the BJP’s resounding victory in the 2014 general elections.
Sonia Gandhi’s ‘Vague Impressions’
Citing Mukherjee’s reflections, Aiyar claimed that Sonia Gandhi had given a “vague impression” of considering Dr. Singh as a presidential nominee during her holiday in the Kausambi hills. Mukherjee, in turn, speculated that this might open the door for him to become Prime Minister. However, the Congress leadership eventually chose to retain Singh as PM and appointed Mukherjee as President, a decision Aiyar deemed a historic blunder.
Balancing Governance and Public Perception
Aiyar’s critique extends beyond internal party dynamics to the broader implications of leadership on public perception. He recalled how international and domestic media criticized the UPA government, with Time magazine famously dubbing Dr Singh a “Do Nothing” Prime Minister. This negative coverage further weakened the UPA’s standing.
The “Left-Wing” Factor
Acknowledging potential challenges, Aiyar admitted that Mukherjee’s “Left-wing reputation” might have caused apprehensions among the business community and the United States. However, he maintained that Mukherjee’s leadership could have steered the government away from paralysis and provided a more robust response to political crises.
Aiyar’s revelations serve as a reflection on missed opportunities and the impact of leadership decisions on political trajectories. By revisiting these pivotal moments, he raises critical questions about the interplay of health, governance, and political strategy in shaping the course of Indian politics. His book adds to the ongoing discourse on the legacy of UPA-II and its ramifications for the Congress party.
English
Gujarati
Hindi
Kannada
Malayalam
Marathi
Punjabi
Tamil
Telugu
