Commentary/Saisuresh Sivaswamy

Inder Kumar Gujral ko gussa kyon aata hai

It was a very different prime minister one saw on telly the other day, in the debate over his reported statement on Kashmir last weekend. One uses the word 'reported' with caution, since the premier has been gracious enough to admit that possibly the 'chaste Urdu' in which he rendered the 'Come-back-all-is-forgiven' speech to the militant youth of Kashmir, was misunderstood by the reporters.

Hitherto, Inder Kumar Gujral has been conducting himself as if he were modelling for India clay. He has been waffling, unable to take crucial decisions (which is a worse sin than P V Narasimha Rao's indecisiveness), and clearly not the man of destiny the prime minister is supposed to be. In fact, the criticism of him often went like -- if Deve Gowda was removed for being too decision-oriented, Gujral hopes to continue in the job by not taking decisions. And his apolitical nature, while estranging him from no one, certainly did not endear him either.

But the debate in the Lok Sabha over his offer of unconditional talks to the militants -- which was later modified to include only our youth, not those from the other side - showed a new face of our prime minister. He was acerbic, and some would say even hitting below the belt as he focused his ire on one of the most respected parliamentarians, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Luckily, this diatribe could not last long, thanks to the intervention of another ex-prime minister, Chandra Shekhar. But the anger in Gujral's face could leave no one in doubt that, yes, Gujral has had enough.

Whether it is the prime ministership at the head of a disparate coalition, or his own softness, or the growing realisation that he is the fall guy who is going to be left holding the baby in the not-too-distant future, there can be no doubt that Gurjal has realised there has been a serious erosion in his public image and unless he did something, he will soon be credited with the title 'worst prime minister ever of India'.

To that extent, he is right. As of now, he is only a shoo-in away from that sobriquet -- no guesses as to who it belongs to as of now -- but the remedy, one would have thought, lay in looking inward and no converting parliamentary debate into, well, Parliamentese.

Just as every job has certain requirements that the incumbent is expected to fulfill before making a job of it, so does the prime ministership.

And just what are these, before we look at whether the incumbent here satisfies them? The foremost, of course, is that it is a job for the head, not for the heart. You may have been born across the border but, still, when you deal with Pakistan you cannot afford to overlook the fact that there have been three official wars so far with it and that, in each case, Pakistan has been the aggressor. Nor can you overlook the fact that, yes, it still indulges in low intensity warfare over Kashmir, and that it provides arms and training to militants across the border which it has perforated at will. So, before offering anyone unconditional talks, the prime minister has to ensure that the ground realities are clearly in India's favour so that we can deal from a position of strength.

Another requirement is that the prime minister be decisive. Not just take decisions, but make sure that it is the best decision and that it is taken on time. If there is a yawning deficit in the oil pool which can only be remedied by raising the price of petroleum products, then the prime minister as the chief executive of India Inc. has to decide pronto since further delay could lead to a higher hike. The prime minister cannot allow such a crucial issue to be converted into a political football among the parties supporting his government.

The third, but by no means tertiary, requirement is that the job is political. Yes, there have been prime ministers in the past who have been statesmen but, essentially, this is a job that concerns politics. For apart from being the country's highest elected authority, the prime minister is also the mascot for the ruling party at election time.

His performance on the job is what is make the voter decide for or against his party so, to that extent at least, it is his responsibility to ensure that, while he may not have done anything dramatic in office, he has at least not done anything that will bring his party ill repute.

Translated, this means that when a chief minister from your own party has been caught with his hand in the till, you exert your moral pressure to make him relinquish office and, when that fails, to use the power vested in the office you hold to uphold the constitutional provisions in letter and in spirit.

As to how the incumbent has fared on each of these requirements, it is there for all to see. To a certain extent, every job is a kind of sentence, in that it imposes on one rigidities and regimen. One would rather be doing something else than the present task, is a feeling that creeps up on all of us at some time or the other, regardless of how lucrative or otherwise attractive the job is.

I suppose the prime ministership is one such as well, for it completely curbs your freedom -- not just of movement but I dare say of thought as well. You cannot say what you feel because it may very often be in variance with the established national policy.

For most other incumbents, this must have been a small sacrifice for all the glory but, then, I K Gujral is a different kind of person. He realises his job is extremely political, and he is extremely apolitical. He realises the job calls for some crudity in dealing with the likes of Laloo Yadav, but he is an extremely decent human being. When the qualifications of an incumbent clashes with the job requirements, the result is frustration and anger, as Gujral is obviously feeling now.

There are two ways this can be handled by an employer -- change the job or change the man. I dare say the latter is the better way out.

Tell us what you think of this column