The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

PERSPECTIVE

A Tribune Special
Misplaced centre of power
Governance affected even on important issues,
says Vijay Sanghvi

In an article of fertile imagination, a commentator has made the Congress president Sonia Gandhi write to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to give her assessment of the situation and what needed to be done. The content is not important or even material but it becomes important for what it conveys.

The commentator, an ardent admirer of Sonia Gandhi, has admitted even in his imagination that the centre of power in the present dispensation resides not in hands of the Prime Minister but outside his office and in 10, Jan Path. The admission is inherent in directives to Manmohan Singh as to what he should do.

The new arrangement for power sharing came in existence by a decision of Sonia Gandhi to gift the office of the Prime Minister to Manmohan Singh instead of her taking oath. It was generally presumed and also believed that Sonia Gandhi would handle all political issues while economic issues and governance by Manmohan Singh. This was not power sharing but shifting the centre of power from the PMO to the Congress president.

No decision in governance can be devoid of politics. Since Sonia Gandhi was supposed to take political issues, Manmohan Singh held office without power but still answerable to people. Sonia Gandhi held power without office and not responsible to Parliament.

Neither Sonia Gandhi nor her advisers appear to have been aware of or realised the significance of the new arrangement that was totally contrary to the arrangement that had dominated since 1946. Acharya Kripalani, a powerful Congress leader, had raised the issue in 1946 by asking a question, “who would be more powerful: the Prime Minister or the Congress president since the Congress would nominate the Prime Minister?

Nehru had ruled that since the Prime Minister would be answerable to people and responsible to Parliament, he could not be subjugated to the party that was not answerable to people.

That was to settle the distributive arrangement of the centre of power remaining in hands of the Prime Minister. Even though there were Congress presidents till 1978 apart from the Prime Minister, the position of Prime Minister remained supreme. It was followed also by the non-Congress Prime Ministers as well. Since 1980, one person held both the positions in the Congress so that there was no need to redefine it. But the arrangement underwent a drastic change in May 2004.

Advisers to Sonia Gandhi believed and behaved as more powerful than Cabinet Ministers without regard to its consequences. The Prime Minister could not take a single decision even on an issue of pure non-political nature without endorsed by Sonia Gandhi.

Since she was easily amenable to even a slight pressure, most allies of the Congress used her to put pressure on Manmohan Singh to accept their demands which he normally would not have accepted if he were a free agent of action.

Manmohan Singh had to accept additional financial burden to an extent of Rs 1.23 lakh crore for implementing two fancy projects of Sonia Gandhi — the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and the Debt Write Offs for farmers — even though the party did not have rank and file available to reap political benefits of the schemes by letting beneficiaries to know who was responsible for these benefits.

Obviously, Sonia Gandhi was not told of the consequences of its implementation without creating the political apparatus to ensure proper delivery and political benefits accruing from it to her.

Manmohan Singh found a way out to ward off the increasing pressure from the Sonia Gandhi camp for such unacceptable demands. He referred them to a Group of Ministers or to Group of Secretaries. In four years, he appointed as many as 52 such Groups, largest ever and perhaps equivalent to total under all successive dispensations for final decision and Sonia Gandhi could not even protest. But the result was standstill governance even on vital issues.

Earlier, many observers believed that Manmohan Singh would walk away by putting in his papers under too much of amoral pressure because of his habit of wearing his moral stance on his sleeves all along his career. But he could not build up personal courage to confront Sonia Gandhi to assert to recapture the centre of power so as to be an effective Prime Minister.

Even after a clear signal from Sonia Gandhi’s preparation for launching her son for the leadership, Manmohan Singh carried on in office instead of packing his belongings. She naturally continued the façade that Manmohan Singh was her preference for the top office. But the rank and file had already started looking to Rahul Gandhi.

Sonia Gandhi had created an alternative pole of gravitation in the party by launching Rahul Gandhi even though she maintained a different public posture. To be charitable to her, she genuinely did not think of the need to consider the consequences of her action on demand of her partymen.

What has Sonia Gandhi done in 56 months to rejuvenate the party taking advantage of fact that the Congress was in the saddle after 15 years? The party did not win most of state assembly elections in the period. Even in Karnataka and Maharashtra, it was forced to come to arrangements with others as it failed to win back those states.

There is not a single state where she has been able to hunt out a person who was in a position to inspire the masses and carry them along with the party. Instead she kept on putting in saddle persons chosen by her advisers not based on their ability but on their family connections.

Sonia Gandhi had inherited the nominated culture and continued with it because her advisers were the same persons who had remained loyal to others before her. They preferred security of their chair rather than strengthening the party by bringing in capable men and women to helm of affairs for the party.

Sonia Gandhi could not establish a two-way communication system in the party so that she would have vital information on the state of affairs and the ground realities. She depended on secondary assessments since workers did not have an access to her and could not even hope to express their views through the party forums as debate was shunned in every party platform.

Maintaining her supremacy was more important than allowing a healthy debate that would have strengthened her understanding and could have perhaps resulted in better decision in rejuvenating the party. Edicts were issued in her name but the ordinary party workers could not point out the ill-effects of such decisions.

Favourite Chief Ministers were allowed to indulge while those competent were publicly rebuked and thus their authority was undermined. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy could announce a scheme for granting same concessions to Christians who wanted to visit Jerusalem as were available to Muslims for Haj without anyone even considering how powerful a gift it was to the Bharatiya Janata Party. However, Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit was publicly rebuked for her sound decisions in the interest of the poor.

All this was happening in the Congress when the Bharatiya Janata Party was on a very weak wicket under Lal Krishna Advani than it would have been under Atal Behari Vajpayee. Advani was not a widely acceptable even in the Sangh Parivar and the BJP while they had no alternative to accepting Vajpayee. Thus, the BJP was no more a unified force under Advani and it had lost its main identity in the 2004 elections.

Hence, the Congress could have further weakened it. But nothing was done. In fact, when Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was in a weaker position due to internal opposition from the Sangh Parivar and its affiliates, the Congress allowed him advantage to win the state on his own and even exploit the new situation that was thrust on the BJP by his victory despite the opposition from within. The Congress could not turn it to its advantage by driving a wedge between Advani and Modi as they were now rival claimants for the top position.

Sonia Gandhi had the centre of power in her hand. Instead of using it to reaffirm the supremacy of the party, she frittered away nearly three years on deciding when to launch her son Rahul Gandhi for the leadership instead of forcing him to work from ground level and build his own network and loyalties. What she has given him is the family name for loyalty and not his personal playground with a team dedicated and loyal to only him.

When the family name fails in the realisation of cheque, it has continued to issue cheques like the Lehman Bank; every debtor would flee and every creditor would be at the neck of the family like they are at the Lehman Bank and there is no George Bush with slush funds to bail out.

The Congress is today a hulk without any functional organs or bones to make it stand on its own. It is suspended from a peg that is made of the family name Gandhi. Its engine is not propelled by any programme with which any section can identify its interest. It is no more all-inclusive in character as it was in the past. It is merely an assortment of different factions with the only objective of occupying an office of power.

Factions are disconnected with people since they depend for their existence only on pleasures of the leader. No wonder, such machinery could not convert the good will generated by the mother and the son into votes for the party in the assembly elections in state after state during the last four years.

The leadership lamented the inability without taking measures to rejuvenate the machinery with concrete actions. But the nature of action needed to be different than the traditional methods.

You do require a brain trust around that can think out-of-the-box solution to critical situations. Who would find such a brain trust when age-old advisers stand as a wall to immunise the leader from outside influences?

OPED

Nobel Prize in science
Often politics, not merit, governs the choice
by Pushpa M. Bhargava

Nobel Prizes are rightly regarded as the highest recognition that one can get in areas like physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine. It is also true that for every Nobel Prize winner, there are a number of equally (sometimes even more) deserving who did not win the prize.

For example, how many would have heard of Waksman who received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of streptomycin, which was hardly exciting after the Nobel Prize to Fleming for his discovery of penicillin? On the other hand, J.D. Bernal who co-discovered operational research and is considered to be one of the most brilliant and productive physicists of the last century, and J.B.S. Haldane, never received the prize.

Then there are those who may not have been known widely or publicly because of their low-profile lifestyle but who surely deserved a Nobel Prize. Amongst those whom I have known well, I believe Alex Rich (who discovered polyribosomes that act as a platform for synthesis of proteins in all living cells, and the three-dimensional structure of t-RNA which acts as the pawn broker in the transfer of information from DNA to protein in all living material), Paul Zamecnik (the discoverer of t-RNA which is one of the most important and universal constituents of all cells), the late Seymour Benzer (who, amongst other major discoveries, also discovered the first behavioural mutants in living systems and worked out methods to separate and study them), the late G.N. Ramachandran (the best known Indian biologist) and Premkumar Reddy (who discovered the first mutation in a normal cell that leads to cancer and is one of the hundred most cited scientists in the world), have been worthy of a Nobel Prize.

There are also cases where a Nobel Prize should have been awarded but was not because of (almost certainly) a sex bias. Two examples are of Lisa Meitner, the physicist who made vital contributions to nuclear physics and the subsequent nuclear revolution, along with scientists like Niels Bohr (who did receive a Nobel Prize), and Rosalind Franklin whom I knew and who, it is widely believed, should have shared the Nobel Prize for the discovery of structure of DNA, which was given to Francis Crick, Jim Watson and Maurice Wilkins. Between Wilkins and Franklin, the appropriate choice should have been Franklin but Wilkins was the head of the laboratory and Rosalind a very shy and modest (and a very pretty) woman!

At least two Nobel Prizes have been given for discoveries that were subsequently proven to be wrong. Heinrich Wieland was given a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1927 for the discovery of the structure of cholic acid, which structure was proven to be wrong within a year of the award. And in 1959, two of my friends (now no more), Severo Ochoa and Arthur Kornberg, received a Nobel Prize for the discovery of enzymes (biological catalysts) that carry out the synthesis of RNA and DNA (chemicals responsible for heredity in living systems) which turned out to be the wrong enzymes.

There are, however, cases where there are reasons for far more serious complaint. I will mention two such cases. The first case is of Sam Weiss who discovered the enzyme (enzymes are biophysical catalysts and are mostly proteins), RNA polymerase, that makes RNA which has a replica of the genetic information contained in the DNA of all living cells. RNA (ribonucleic acid) is an essential constituent of all cells excepting certain viruses, and performs many important functions such as in protein synthesis; it also acts as a genetic material of certain viruses.

If one were to choose the most important enzyme out of the thousands known, RNA polymerase will probably be voted at the top. Ochoa received the Nobel Prize for discovering the wrong enzyme for making RNA. Sam Weiss’ discovery of the right enzyme was far more important and central to modern biology, but he was ignored for he was self-effacing.

But perhaps, the most glaring mistake the Nobel Foundation has ever committed is in regard to the award of the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine announced on October 6, 2008 to Luc Montagnier, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, and Harald zur Hausen. While I welcome this recognition of the work of Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi on the AIDS-causing virus, HIV, I am shocked that Robert Gallo, the co-discoverer of the virus, has been excluded from the award.

I have known both Bob Gallo and Luc Montagnier well for nearly four decades, and say this against the background of intimate knowledge and understanding of their scientific work; with Luc Montagnier, I have a joint publication (Journal of Membrane Biology: 1926, 26, 1-17).

Bob Gallo was responsible for creating the first awareness — both in the scientific community and in the public — of the virus. His work on HIV and AIDS has both depth and breadth that has not been excelled by any other scientist. He is also accredited with other major discoveries such as of the human leukemia-causing viruses and interleukin-2. He is one of the hundred most highly cited scientists in the world and is a winner of virtually every major scientific award, including the Lasker Award which is widely considered as a prelude to the Nobel Prize.

Bob Gallo also has had the courage to make mistakes and then later recognise that he made a mistake. He has been extremely vocal and has known the joy of living. I found it difficult to make Luc Montagnier smile, while Bob Gallo’s laughter could be heard across the laboratory’s corridor. Both Luc and Bob enjoy excellent wine. But then, there is a lot more (such as company of pretty women!) for a man to enjoy life. In this respect — as in respect of scientific accomplishments — Bob has had a clear edge over Luc. Was all this a fault?

This is not to imply that a Nobel Prize should not have been given to Harald zur Hausen. Surely, it could have been given in the following year. Alternatively, Bob Gallo, Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi could have shared a Nobel Prize next year. The above exclusion of Bob Gallo would probably go down in history as the worst mistake ever made in the history of Nobel Prizes.

Profile
Bhimsen rose like a meteor
by Harihar Swarup

Bharat Ratna, the country’s highest civilian award, was caught up in political controversy this year as BJP leader L.K. Advani, sought it for Atal Bihari Vajpayee while the Congress favoured veteran Marxist leader Jyoti Basu and Mayawati pitched for BSP founder Kanshi Ram. The selectors rightly decided to bypass the three stalwarts and zeroed on Bhimsen Joshi, a non-political personality. The Doyen of Indian classical music, he is known as music’s renaissance man. His rendition of Mile Sur Mera Tumhara Too Sur Bane Hamara, along with other doyens of music, virtually became an unofficial national anthem way back in 1988.

The top honour for the 86-year-old Joshi caps a distinguished career, spanning over seven decades since his first performance at the age of 19. A descendent of Kirana Gharana, Joshi is renowned particularly for the Khayal form of singing, and for his Bhajans.

His debut album, containing a few devotional songs in Kannada and Hindi, was released when he was barely 20. There is a magic in Bhimsen’s voice which keeps the listeners spellbound. His bhajans, More Ghar Aao Pyare, Tan Man Dhan Saab Bhent Karungi and Piya Too Manat Nahin drown the listeners in melody. Joshi is indeed a musical marvel.

Bhimsen was born into a Brahmin family of Gadag in Karnataka. His childhood was spent there. Even as a child he was crazy about music, to the disappointment of his father who desired that Bhimsen should get sound education and qualify as a doctor or an engineer. But Bhimsen, neglecting his studies, pursued music instead. At last he could not control any more his yearning to learn music, and one day he ran away from home.

He had heard that Gwalior, Lucknow and Rampur in the North were the best places to learn classical music. Therefore, his first destination was Gwalior. A few years of his youth were thus spent in the company of well known musicians at Gwalior, Lucknow and Rampur, serving them and learning as much as he could from them.

His father, having been convinced of Bhimsen’s fervent desire for knowledge of music, abandoned his policy of opposition, brought his son back and made arrangements for him to learn under the guidance of Sawai Gandharva of Kundol. This opportunity opened the vaults of rich and rare musical treasures to Bhimsen. His natural tuneful voice received further polish from his guru. Like a diamond which sparkles all the brighter after it is expertly cut, Bhimsen’s voice began to shine with a new lustre and brilliance which dazzled and cast a spell on the entire country.

With his experience, Bhimsen began to understand the psychology of his audience. He would gauge the intellectual level of his listeners within minutes of the start of a concert and cater to their taste, drawing applause. He would keep the listeners spellbound, fully under control. For the audience, it was a visible treat which carried them to celestial heights.

Bhimsen’s name and fame rose like a meteor and he began receiving invitations from far off places. One night he would be in Kolkata, the next day in Delhi and the following evening in Mumbai. He had to switch over to air travels to keep up his appointments. The pilots of Indian Airlines and airport officials came across Joshi so often that he has come to be known as “Flying musician of India”.

Every year Bhimsen observes the punyatithi (death anniversary) of his Guru Sawai Gandharva with a music festival in Pune. For three consecutive nights, about 10,000 people attend the programme from 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. The spectacle is one fit for gods as eminent classical prodigies vie with each other to enthrall the audience.

Supreme confidence in his own abilities and unfailing commitment to music remain intact as Bhimsen touches 86 and races towards nineties. His fans wish him a long and healthy life.

On Record
Slowdown won’t hit India’s growth: Vohra
by Bhagyashree Pande

Manoj Vohra

Despite the economic crisis threatening to get into a deflationary spiral, India and China will continue to grow robustly in the long-term. However, if India has to take the lead as the Asian tiger, it has to take some convincing action on the fiscal management front, says Manoj Vohra, Research Director, Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

In an interview to The Sunday Tribune, he dwells upon how things will change for India and neighboring China and says that fiscal and monetary measures taken by India to counter the crisis have been inadequate and rather belated. China, on the other hand, has been more fleet footed and is better positioned, he feels.

Excerpts:
Q: What will be the impact of economic meltdown on the real economy of India and other countries?

A: We have not seen the worst impact of the meltdown as yet; the real crisis will begin to unfold in 2009 with the contraction of economies in the US, Euro zone and Japan. In Asia, countries like Korea and Taiwan will also see a sharp slowdown and some economies in Eastern Europe look vulnerable. However, China and India will be relatively resilient to the crisis.

Q: What is the EIU’s forecast of growth for India and China?

A: As per our forecast currently India will witness a real GDP growth of 6.3 per cent in 2008-09, and 6.1 per cent in the next year. We had predicted that the growth of 8-9 per cent in India was not sustainable and was a sure sign of overheating. India needs to match its rapidly growth demand with supply-side expansion, enhance productivity, further liberalise FDI norms and address infrastructural inadequacies.

Q: How do you see the global economic crisis impacting India going forward?

A: The fallout from the global financial crisis has had an increasingly severe impact on India, causing the stock market and currency to slump and the banking sector to experience a sudden liquidity crisis. FDI is also expected to witness a negative impact. The economic slowdown was initially restricted to the industrial sector, but the most recent data show that it is spreading to the services. Moreover, the risks are on the downside, as India’s budget and external deficits put the government in a relatively weak position to implement supplementary fiscal measures if the global downturn proves to be more severe than we are forecasting.

Whereas the RBI has responded vigorously, if somewhat belatedly, to the crisis by boosting liquidity and loosening monetary policy, the federal government is not in a strong position to respond with supplementary fiscal measures. Fiscal policy had already been loosened in the pre-election budget for fiscal year 2008-09, and any further stimulus will worsen the overshoot of the official budget deficit projections.

By contrast, the RBI has had a complete reversal of policy, pumping liquidity into the banking system and cutting interest rates aggressively. Some believe that public sector banks are under pressure from the government to lower interest rates. This is unlikely to restore sustained confidence in the market in the foreseeable future.

Q: Where do you see the inflationary pressure in coming days? Will it ease?

A: The Economist Intelligence Unit expects consumer price inflation to average 7.8 per cent in 2008-09 and 6.7 per cent in 2009-10. We expect inflation to fall to single digits by the end of this fiscal year. India will remain vulnerable to upward inflationary pressures over the next 12-18 months on three main counts:

First, the rupee is not expected to regain all of its recent losses and could come under renewed downward pressure. Second, the implementation of substantial pay rises for 5m government workers in January 2009, significantly above the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, will have significant knock-on effects on other public-sector pay rises. And third, the collapse of global oil prices since August will not cut inflation in India much as domestic fuel prices are heavily subsidised and were shielded from the oil price surge in late 2007 and the first half of 2008.

Q: What kind of fiscal measures will help improve the overall economic situation?

A: We suggest, among others, rationalising taxes and duties to expand the tax base. The government needs to do some serious thinking on the fiscal management front. It should check wasteful public spending and undertake administrative reforms in an accelerated manner.