Vinay Sithapathy’s PV Narasimha Rao: Half-Lion, harbinger of New India

Twenty five years after he unshackled Indian economy that till then remained fettered by the licence-permit raj and imprisoned by moribund ideas of socialism and state control, PV Narasimha Rao is remembered more and recalled with much more respect than while he was alive. A man, who many believed would end up to be a lame duck PM, ended up as the hero of liberalisation and harbinger of India’s post-cold war foreign policy restructuring. Vinay Sithapathy delved deep into Narasimha Rao, the unknown and put together Half-Lion, which is the most authoritative biography of the man, who changed India forever. Here is SakshiPost’s exclusive interview with the author:

What made you to write this book on PV Narasimha Rao almost a decade after he is gone?

Well... Two reasons. Frist... I am a child of liberalisation. I grew up in 1990s in Bandra in Bombay. Most of my friends had not heard of Narasimha Rao. but, all of them knew who Mahesh Bhat’s second wife was. I began to realise as I grew up that so many of the changes that I saw around me is because of Narasimha Rao. My father moved from a PSU job to a private sector. First McDonalds came. There was a big change in infrastructure. There was the first toll road. First private jet airliner took off in 1993. I think there is a Narasimha Rao moment in every Indian’s life. The economists have been able to show that every family, no matter how poor, is better off in absolute terms after Narasimha Rao than they were before. So, there was a story waiting to be written. Two years ago, I read a book by a Harward University professor titled Deng Hsiao Ping and the Transformation of China.It was the story of China changing in 1980s.And the political leader who made it happen was Deng Hsiao Ping. After reading it, the first thing that I said there is a book waiting to be written about India and the man it is about should be Narasimha Rao.

What was the kind of research that went into the book? Who were the people you met? Were you able to meet those associated with the man? Were you able to lay your hands on original material?

A lot of work has gone into it. I used to be a journalist, but I am also an academic. I studied at Harward University and now I am finishing my PhD from Princeton. So I have learnt a lot of research skills. I have done more than 110 interviews. I interviewed Mr Manmohan Singh, I interviewed Narsimha Rao’s close confidante Kalyani Shankar.I have also interviewed Narasimha Rao’s personal doctor who took his blood and urine samples every morning and spoke to him in Telugu and English.. I interviewed Narsimha Rao’s cook Rajaiah who had gone to more than 100 countries with Narasimha Rao. So you get a sense of the man through people all around him. I also interviewed a lot of people who were critical of Narasimha Rao like Mani Shankar Aiyer, bureaucrat KR Venugopal. So there is a lot in this book, which is positive, but there is also quite a bit which is negative. As all human beings are you have positives and you have negatives. I argue that Narsimha Rao is the greatest prime minister india had since Jawaharlal Nehru.But, that does not mean he is perfect. I tried my best to humanise the man.I read more than 200 books and articles. Most importantly, Narsimha Rao’s family gave me access to all his papers without any strings attached. No censorship. I saw Narsimha Rao wrote notes on the margins of academic articles like Clash of Civilization and connecting it to the experiences to Babri issue.He gave detailed notes in the background. I could access many letters, documents, notings on books. In many ways, Narsimha Rao thought in text. Just to give you an example, in 1976, when he becomes Congress general secretary in 1996 when he is kicked out as Party president, every document drafted by the Congress Party went through him. Every evening he would come back, he would write on his computer. He knew three computer languages - cobol, basic and unix. He would write down the day’s events. For a political historian like me, he was an ideal candidate for biography because he left such a paper trail. I must also add that research requires a lot of effort and hardwork. For example, everyone I interviewed, after the interview I sent an e mail saying this is how you are being quoted. When the book has come out, there is a lot of controversial material in the book, but not one person can point out to a wrong footnote, wrong quote or wrong data. None said I have been quoted out of context.

Were you able to interview anyone close to Sonia Gandhi?

Many of them. The ones I quoted in the book are Jairam Ramesh, Salman Khurshid, Satish Sharma. But, I interviewed many more, but for the fairly obvious reasons that the Congress Party and Sonia Gandhi especially, are not going to be happy with this book, they told me that they don’t want their names to be used.I decided that it is only ethical and fair that I honour their request. Give us a sense of PV Narasimha Rao, the man, because a lot has been written about him - his life, his linguistic proficiency, his economic thought, his knowledgeof foreign affairs, international relations and his being a Chanakya in politics. But, when you read this book, he also comes across as a very vulnerable man. I think Narsimha Rao’s defining personal quality was loneliness It is his defining quality. And I trace that from childhood. The problem with Narasimha Rao is that by the age of 10, three things happen to him. One - he is married against his will. He doesn’t know what is happening. Because he is so much brighter than anyone else in his village of Vangara, his father sends him off to a village faraway. So, he is uprooted from friends and familyin the pursuit of knowledge. And thirdly, he is given in adoption to a neighbouring family to protect their land. These three things so early to happen to a child make him extremely lonely. He becomes bookish. He spends lot of time in books. So here you have a person with very complicated personal life. this personal quality of Narasimha Rao, the loneliness, becomes the professional asset. The reason Narasimha Rao is chosen as Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in 1971 that he is professionally lonely. He has no faction in the Congress Party backing him. One of the main reasons that Sonia Gandhi selects him as the Prime Minister in 1991 is that unline Arjun Singh, unlike Sharad Pawar, he has no faction in the party. His personal loneliness makes him the consensus candidate.

But, how is Narasimha Rao as a politcian. How do you trace his journey from Hyderabad to Delhi?

There are two questions. One is his intellectual journey as a politician. To trace the journey of Narasimha Rao, in his early days, he he was a strong socialist, influenced by Jawaharlal Nehru and Ramananda Teertha in Hyderabad state both of whom are Leftists within the Congress. It is only after Indira Gandhi removes him as Chief Minister, he travels to the US, he realises that eventhough his heart remains socialist, his mind becomes more pragmatic and capitalist. He realises that market forces can sometimes be useful, that we must move beyond Soviet Union to other countries. So, there is an intellectual political journey, from a card-carrying socialist to a pragmatist. There is also a parallel discovery of his political skill. That’s the other story. Now, the central question of this book is that Narsimha Rao is a man without personality. He is not a charismatic man. As Jairam Ramesh says he has the personality of a dead fish. He is a man who is not loved by the people. He is a man who is not able to control his party and he is a man who is a minority in Parliament. No world reformer has been able to bring about the kind of change that he didwith so little power. If you compare him to Deng Hsiao Ping, They are very similar in the manner in which they brought a change to a billion lives, but, once Deng comes to power, he has complete control over the party. He was operating in a dictatorship.Narasimha Rao had none of those benefits. The change that Narasimha Rao brought about in India is very similar to the change that Jawaharlal Nehru brought to India in the early years of independence. But remember, Jawaharlal Nehru was the beloved of the people. He had complete control over the party. And his party dominated parliament. Narasimha Rao had none of these advantages. So the puzzle that I kept asking is what kind of political genius can bring about change without power and that is the central question of the book.

It is usually said that Manmohan Singh was the father of Indian reforms, from what you say in this book PV Narasimha Rao was a pragmatist much before he had actually started the liberalisation process. Is he the face of liberalisation while Manmohan Singh is the mask, to borrow a phrase from Govindacharya?

There is no question that Narasimha Rao is the father of liberalisation. If you have to give credit to one person,Narasimha Rao micro-managed economic reforms. He was not just the political face. He was a micro manager. I saw documents on telecom policy. LIne by line, Narasimha Rao tweaked. Today, the most visible face of liberalisation is that there are one billion mobile phones in India. The reason that happens is Narasimha Rao allows private sector entry. He allowed foreign institutional investors’ entry. The problem is Narasimha Rao realised that liberalisation is politically unpopular, which is why he tried his best not to take credit. Having said that Manmohan Singh played a very important role. In a few instances where Narasimha Rao faltered for political reasons, such as devaluation of the rupee, Manmohan Singh stood up and steadied Narasimha Rao. In many ways, Manmohan was a loyal lieutenant along with Rao’s principal secretary Amarnath Varma. Also, unlike every other Congressman, Manmohan has been loyal to the memory of Narasimha Rao. That brings us to the second major facet of PV Narasimha Rao’s tenure - the Babri issue. A lot of blame is put on PV that he slept through while the demolition was happening. Your book argues that he was very much awake and very much active in monitoring things and trying to put out the fires. Do you think at some stage, he believed in Advani? He definitely made an error in judgement. there is no question. It’s not just Advani, Between November 15 and November 30, I saw documents on all the meetings he had. He was meeting every Hindu leader. He met Shankaracharyas, he met Ashok Singhal, he was meeting the people from the VHP, from the RSS , the BJP with one purpose in mind. Please protect the mosque on December 6. He was begging them. He would quote Sanskrit, the Bhagavad Gita.

Was he aware that something is going to happen on December 6?

It’s like watching an India-Pakistan match. Either India will win or Pakistan will win. On the October 31, 1992, the VHP gave a declaration that they will have a pooja right next to the mosque, not on the mosque, the promised to protect the mosque. Right next to a mosque, where a new temple would be built. If a hundred thousand karsevaks are next to the mosque, there is a threat to the mosque itself. So from October 30 to December 6, everybody knew that there was possibility that the mosque would fall. There is no mystery here. As I point out in the book, there were two demolitiosn being planned on December 6. One - the demolition of the Babri Masjid by the BJP, Sangh Parivar and its affiliates. The second is the demolition of Narasimha Rao by his rivals within the party. People like Arjun Singh, Sharad Pawar were determined that whatever the outcome, Narsimha Rao, who is an accidental prime minister, should be removed. Narasimha Rao was well aware that this game was being played. His problem is that the only way to protect the mosque as per the Indian constitution, is to dismiss the Kalyan Singh Government under Article 356. But, his own law minister, his own cabinet tell him that it is illegal as article 356 clearly says that you can impose centrtal rule only when there is breakdown in law and order not when breakdown in law and order is anticipated. All through, Kalyan Singh has been promising to protect the mosque. to the National Integration Council, to the Cabinet, to the SupremeCourt. Narsimha Rao’s problem is he is desperate for some one to tell him please impose president’s rule. I saw the Cabinet minutes. None of his Cabinet ministers recommended Central rule.

We see two distinct phases of his personality - before May 21, 1991 and after that. Some who wants to become a sanyasi, someone mired and steeped in books and reading may 21, 1991 changes it all. He suddenly becomes pro-active. According to your book, he had actively lobbied to become a prime minister. That sounds strange. Can you explain that?

One of the amazing things about Narasimha Rao he had an acuse sense of political circumstances and context. When he felt that the stars were aligning, he could change his mind rapidly. Here is a man, who knows how to change his mind when the circumstances change. Narsimha Rao decided to become a monk, he decided to become the head of the Kurtalam Mutt in Tamil Nadu. He was about to go to sleep. His diary is excellent at that point. He suddently gets a phone call. He is in Nagpur. He gets information that Rajiv Gandhi is killed. At 4.30 am next morning, Gopal Krishna Gandhi jt secretary for the President of India gets a phone call saying that saying Gopal, I am coming to Delhi. Can I meet the President. I asked Gandhi why did PV want to meet the president. Gopal Gandhi smiled at me and said let’s just say it was not a courtesy call. His diary is very clear that he realised that suddenly he was in the running. Narsimha Rao’s genius is that even though he is ambitious and calculative, in the Congress party, the worst thing you do is to show you are ambitious.

But, what about his estrangement with Sonia Gandhi? What do you think is the tipping point?

I have a full chapter on this. Sonia Gandhi was only one of the many constraints that Narsimha Rao faced. He had a party that hated him. It had nothing to do with Sonia Gandhi. First two years of Narsimha Rao’s prime ministership, Sonia Gandhi was a greiving widow. She had no interest in politics. Sonia Gandhi was not his biggest problem. He simply had to manage her. There is no evidence that she had tried to interfere on policy. She definitely tried to encourage after 1993 political opposition to Narasimha Rao within the party. The real tragedy is the way in which he was treated after his resignation. His treatment by Sonia Gandhi and Congress Party is nothing short of shameful. The way his body was treated, When he fought cases, nobody from the Congress accompanied him. When the history of Congress Party’s economic reforms was written in the party website, Narsimha Rao’s name was not mentioned. That is scandalous. The way the Congress tried to erase the legacy of Narasimha Rao was unwarranted.

But, he seems to be bouncing back. And there is a race to claim his legacy.

If the Congress had abandoned him, the BJP and the TRS will be racing to claim his legacy.