The Hindu Business Line : The imperatives of right governance

NEWSPAPERS have been full of reports about the fleeting episode in the Prime Minister's office in Parliament on Wednesday, the central allegation being that Dr Manmohan Singh behaved "uncivilly" with an NDA delegation which included the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr L. K. Advani.

According to reports, the PM "flung back" the suggestions which the Opposition delegation had handed to him, which was construed as being "impolite and discourteous" on the part of Dr Singh.

That something certainly went wrong at the meeting is amply indicated by the meeting ending in a couple of minutes. The question is: Did the PM really behave in the way he has been charged with, and if so, did he do the right thing?

To answer these points, there is an over-riding question that has to be answered first: Is Dr Manmohan Singh a quintessential politician — perhaps in the mould of his predecessor, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee — the inference being that he has no compunction at all in being all things to all men?

In other words, as one would expect from a seasoned politician, every action of Dr Singh would have been calibrated to serve a specific purpose, which in this case would have meant letting Mr Advani and his delegation know in accepted political style that he is extremely upset with what has been happening in Parliament over the past few weeks, the sum total of which has been to disrupt parliamentary work meant for effective national governance.

But, as the world knows, Dr Singh is no politician (indeed, this is why he was chosen Prime Minister by the powers that be in the Congress). He is also known to be "gentle" in his ways, which, on the face of it, would give the lie to the charge that he flung the "suggestions" back at the NDA delegation.

In fact, a Congress spokesman has been quoted as saying that "Manmohan Singh can't be discourteous to a fly. So to say he was rude or that he had flung down the note is difficult to accept".

It is just possible that two actions of Dr Singh set the cat among the pigeons vis-à-vis the NDA delegation.

One, his physical gesture in letting the "suggestions" fall on the table after they were given to him (he simply could not have "flung" back the papers) and two, and more important, his unambiguous statement (made to the delegation almost simultaneously, as reported) that the proper place to discuss the suggestions was the House and not the PM's chamber where the representatives of the people would not be present.

Perhaps, the Prime Minister can be faulted on the point that he could have been a trifle less abrupt on the point of principle involved, but then, in doing so, he would have been less of Dr Manmohan Singh and conformed more to the general behaviour associated with the tribe of politicians (with honourable exceptions) of which he is most certainly not a part.

The problem does not lie with Dr Singh but with those who have chosen to play up the issue and score a brownie point in the ongoing UPA-NDA political tussle, what with some State polls coming up.

What the incident has, in fact, revealed is the NDA leaders thinking that the business of governance can proceed unhindered even if parliamentary proceedings are halted on some pretext or the other.

In other words, is the imperative of governance more important than the debates in the House which, in a parliamentary democracy, ultimately lead to the policies on which governance is based?

Would the NDA enlighten the nation with its views on this subject, especially when Dr Singh has made known his stand in the clearest possible manner?

Ranabir Ray Choudhury