In the national interest, Dr Singh?

Wasn't he the FM who said "I wouldn't lose my sleep over it" and took credit for his financial policies for the artificial boom of stock market by scammers that eventually crashed. So much for his credentials as economist who didn't have a clue of what was happening. Now does he have any clue on national security and sovereignty? If the N-Deal must be gratified by the US Congress, why not by the Indian Parliament and Indian scientific community ?

I've marked in bold a few important points Arvind has raised in his article.
--------------------
Article by Arvind Lavakare in Rediff:

February 06, 2006

One meaning of the word 'confer' is 'have discussions'. Its extension into 'conference' would therefore mean a formal meeting where there would be discussion, however brief.

But Sonia Gandhi-appointed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's press conference the other day was anything but that. There was to be no discussion whatever at that 'conference' -- even a refutation of the answer or a supplementary was denied. It was no more than a question-and-answer meeting, with journalists being given numbers on placards. Bowler number seven bowled to Younis Khan and Younis Khan condescended to play him -- period. Take it or leave it.

That is why Manmohan Singh got away with his laughable innovation of the phrase 'enlightened national interest.' The UPA government's decision on the Iran vote at the IAEA board of governors' meeting at Vienna, relations with USA and other countries, the government's economic and domestic priorities -- all these, our PM said, would be guided by 'enlightened national interest.'

Isn't any country's prime minister expected to act only and exclusively in 'national interest'? So what was Manmohan Singh being so lofty and solemn about?

And 'enlightened' national interest? What's that? Is it some kind of 'spiritualised' national interest? Was it national interest born of profound wisdom that only Manmohan Singh and/or Soniaji possesses?

We will not know. We will not because, as said earlier, Manmohan Singh's meeting with the journalists the other day was but a Q-and-A meeting. But our media would do well to note that phrase and ask the PM at some future meeting to spell out the epistemology of his 'enlightened national interest' phrase. But beware: he might well answer, 'I would not like to comment.'

If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh truly had national interest at heart, he would have spelt out at length why our country's almost entire nuclear science community's vicious but studied opposition to the Nuclear Energy Pact with the US is wrong and antinational. Why are scholars like Bharat Karnad repeatedly writing in the press warning the educated against that pact? The prime minister seemingly is unconcerned in his ensconced belief of 'enlightened national interest.'

If the man had the courage of a true patriot, he should convene a live televised debate on this pact with him facing nuclear experts, some former members of the armed forces and defence analysts. Assuring our ignorant Parliament that the pact was in our best interest and then telling President Bush that the deal had the backing of Parliament though Vajpayee (with 138 MPs in the Lok Sabha) objected to it is neither being honest nor courteous to a democratically elected Opposition.

If Manmohan Singh truly had national interest at heart, he would not have publicly defended Buta Singh's recommendation to dissolve the Bihar assembly and thereby undermined the sanctity of the Supreme Court judgment on the issue while also pooh poohing it as but a 3-2 verdict.

If Manmohan Singh truly had national interest at heart, he would not have upheld his government's decisions on the gubernatorial mischief and malfeasance in Goa and Jharkhand.

If Manmohhan Singh truly had national interest at heart, he would not have described Sonia Gandhi's role as being 'a legitimate influence on the government' when the fact is that 'Madam' has been grafted into a bizarre, surreal constitutional position without being made accountable to Parliament in any which way.

Leave alone his newfound catchphrase of 'enlightened national interest,' our prime minister was not quite honest at his Q-and-A meeting the other day. He claimed credit for the national economy's conspicuous growth 'in the last three years' cleverly overlooking the fact that his UPA government came to power less than two years ago, and that economic policies take a couple of years to show results.

Similarly, he claimed credit for the excellent relations with the US and when the fact is that it was the NDA efforts that had brought a US President to our cities and villages so soon after the superpower had slapped a slew of sanctions on us. Ditto with China being made to agree by NDA to Sikkim being a part of India and to exchange the long outstanding matter of maps of the disputed borders.

Tailpiece: There was one small mercy at Manmohan Singh's press meet: he didn't describe the defreezing of Quattrochis's millions in London as an act of 'enlightened national interest.' And, considering the way he ridiculed L K Advani, that presumably is the act by which he'd like us to judge his work.

A servile PM

Excellent Editorial in Samachar.com on the Prime Minister. Many do think that he is the father of reforms, but actually he is not.

-------------

Back in the 70s when Mrs Gandhi was putting artificial clamps on economic growth in the name of `garibi hatao’ and implementing her own peculiar brand of socialism, it had become second nature for her followers to dub anyone talking economic sense as an agent of capitalists. Dhirubhai Ambani had yet to make his first million.

Invariably, it were the Tatas and the Birlas who were caricatured on the stump by Congressmen and Commies as if they were carnivores feasting on the cheap labour of toiling Indians. Of course, the crazy imagery was meant only to fool the great unwashed masses into keeping the corrupt rulers in power indefinitely.

Therefore it was poetic justice when in the early 90s under the intense pressure of the IMF-World Bank combine the same party was obliged to abandon its socialistic straitjacket and embrace the cause of economic liberalisation, nay, pragmatism.

Manmohan Singh as an economic bureaucrat had rather enthusiastically tightened the screws on corporate India in the name of socialism, impeding its growth potential. He had been a senior economic bureaucrat in successive governments in New Delhi. And done everything to raise the socialistic content in state policy at the behest of his political masters.

Now in his new avatar as Finance Minister in the Narasimha Rao Government he was made to dismantle a good part of the very license-quota regime he had himself helped put in place. While keen observers noticed the sharp U-turn he had taken in first enforcing strict production and distribution controls and then removing them in the post-90s phase, he himself seemed blissfully unaware of the inherent irony in his professional career.

Only weeks before he became the Finance Minister of India, and in that capacity felt obliged to embrace the path of reforms and liberalisation, he had argued forcefully in favour of socialism at a South: South seminar.

Amazingly, he did not protest when they sought to make him out as if he was the real father of reforms. He wasn’t. He was merely following the dictates of his latest masters who this time were in Washington and not in New Delhi. Economic bankruptcy had stared India in the face in the early 90s. The Fund-Bank agreed to rescue provided India opened up its economy.

In other words, Singh can be relied upon to do the bidding of his masters, whoever they might be. Therefore it was not surprising at all that be it Goa or Jharkhand, Bihar or Quattrocchi, the gentleman Prime Minister did not bat an eyelid, dutifully doing the bidding of those who had catapulted him into the prime ministerial `gaddi’.

Since even his worst critics concede that financially he stood to gain nothing from monkeying around with the constitutional law and norms in pushing the partisan interests of the Congress leadership in all the above cases, it is clear that he has a strong `jee-huzoor’ trait in his mental make-up which makes him obey blindly his masters of the day. Thus everything Sonia Gandhi wants him to do, he does without a murmur of protest.

After all, as Finance Secretary under Charan Singh he had slapped high duties on soaps and toothpaste and such like items of daily use only because the late BLD leader wanted him to attack what he had perceived to be the urban constituency of the BJP. Singh willingly enforced the late PM’s diktat because questioning his superiors is not part of his character.

The latest reshuffle of the Cabinet further underlines a complete lack of vertebrae in the prime ministerial body. He was well aware that Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Law Minister Hansraj Bhardwaj had caused him much embarrassment, but he could not, would not, move them out of their current ministries for fear of annoying their real boss in 10 Janpath.

As Home Minister, the blame for Jharkhand, Goa, Bihar, et al must be laid at the doorstep of that colourless and clueless Patil. As for Bhardwaj, it is public knowledge that he went to great lengths to ensure that Rs 21 crores of the Bofors loot was finally delivered to that Italian fugitive from the Indian law.

Dropping Bhardwaj from the Cabinet was never on the agenda of the helpless PM. But the spineless PM could not even replace the crude Bhardwaj as Law Minister with an able and well-regarded Kapil Sibal. L. K. Advani has a point when he insists that Manmohan Singh is the weakest PM the country has had.

This can only tarnish the image of the country and hold it back from attaining its full economic, social and political potential.

Send in your comments on this article to samachar_editor@sify.com

Analysis: What the PM said

Wow, what an irresponsible answer from the PM ? Can't this be considered contempt of the court ??
-----------
From rediff:

When asked to explain his take on the Supreme Court's judgment regarding Bihar, Dr Singh didn't do well.

In his first public statement on the judgment -- which led to the resignation of Governor Buta Singh -- the prime minister said, "Our own view is that we did the right thing on the basis of material available at that point of time."

This part of his argument is understandable. But then he pointed out that even in the Supreme Court, there was a difference of perception and opinion on the subject 'that has to be taken into account'.

Does that mean someone can break the law because a minority in Parliament voted against it? His remarks stunned his well-wishers and critics alike.