The Hindu Business Line : Professionals need crutches in politics

THE other day, in his first address to the nation on television, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said that "well-meaning citizens" who had strong views on the decline of "morals and ethics in public life" should engage themselves even more closely with the "political process" because there "was no better way to deal with (the) incipient threat to our democracy than to meet it head on by joining public life ourselves".

As an example, he cited his own experience as "someone who made it to the top without allowing his principles to be mutilated".

As Prime Minister, Dr Singh did what was expected of him, namely, launch into an exhortation, the target of which was to get the educated intelligentsia with the "right" credentials into the mainstream of public life.

The need to do so is, of course, underscored by the fact that, in recent times, the non-entry of "professionals" into public life has become glaringly noticeable, which has not only lowered all-round standards in the political sphere but has also made it easier for the "unwanted" to cast their hats into the ring.

The result is that people with criminal and other charges against their names are making it to State Assemblies and the Lok Sabha in ever larger numbers, which in fact has become a point of discussion in the country over the past few years. (The "tainted Ministers" issue is a direct offshoot of this phenomenon.)

In view of this, the Prime Minister is absolutely correct when he says that without the participation of "good guys, the level of governance at different levels cannot be raised", and that the "involvement of capable professionals alone could (induce) a Government to give off its best".

The exhortation ended in the following appeal: "I appeal to each one of you to participate in our public life so that governments at all levels — Central, State and local — are all constantly put on notice and not just tested once in five years".

The point is that while Dr Singh's appeal is urgently required and makes eminent sense in the national perspective, the implementation of the idea by intending candidates has become so difficult that it is no longer considered a useful career option by most people.

The Prime Minister cited his own example as a successful case, which is true. But he would have been even more objective had he mentioned, in the same breath, that his ultimate success was due solely to the fact that there were people like Indira Gandhi, Mr Narasimha Rao and Mrs Sonia Gandhi, who offered him public office (the posts of Reserve Bank Governor, Finance Minister and Prime Minister, respectively), the clear implication of this being that without such "crutches" professionals like Dr Singh would have remained with multilateral institutions, etc., all their lives.

Indeed, coming to the latest elevation in Dr Singh's career, it can perhaps safely be said that had the foreign-origin issue relating to Mrs Sonia Gandhi not been raised by the BJP, conventionally speaking, the Congress Party chief would have assumed the mantle of Prime Minister of the new Government.

In that case, Dr Singh would in all probability have been appointed Finance Minister, which would mean that Dr Singh would not have made it to the "top".

To say all this is not to belittle the achievement of Dr Singh or to deflate the importance of his appeal but merely to emphasise the fact that unless there is a godfather for the professional in the murky and shadowy world of Indian politics today, there is very little chance for him to play a meaningful role in the top echelons of governance.

And yet, without the guiding hand of professionals at the helm of affairs of the nation, one would imagine that there is not much scope left for the average Indian today to dream about a better life for his descendants.

One wishes that the Prime Minister's exhortation meets with some success, but would a hardboiled professional be prepared to waste his time and talent in trying to get the better of the average Indian politician and the faceless, fawning bureaucrat — an exchange in which he is certain to come out the loser because of the sheer weight of numbers on the other side?