|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Time of Transition: Rajiv Gandhi to the 21st Century THIS book is a compilation of articles published by the author from 1996 to 2005, when he held no formal governmental office. It has an introduction longer than any of the articles in praise of his political mentor Rajiv Gandhi to whom the book is dedicated. The articles have been grouped into five chapters—Democracy, Secularism, Socialism, Nonalignment and Neighbourhood Policy. The mould does not quite fit, and there are duplications and repetitions. Was it worth re-treading these pieces as a twice-told tale? The answer is definitely in the affirmative.
There is no need for Aiyar to pull his punches, and he does not. Profound and serious research has gone into the authorship of these articles, but this background is applied with the lightest of touches. The history of the period covered and the political analysis it provides are valuable for the specialist and layperson alike. The quality of writing is so delightful and the humour so trenchant that the text makes the reader purr with pleasure. In riding his well-known hobbyhorses, Aiyar tries gallantly but not always convincingly to square the circle of human rights, poverty alleviation, globalisation and economic liberalisation. He treats the concept of non-alignment with a sure and delicate touch displaying great awareness of the dynamics of European politics. Showing remarkable foresight about the absence of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, Aiyar presents an illuminating critique of the post-Pokhran II nuclear policies of the BJP-led coalition. He justly applauds Rajiv Gandhi’s comprehensive disarmament address to the UN in 1988. As he rises above the ridiculous argument about whether non-alignment should be capitalised and /or hyphenated. His writing shows his agnosticism by using all the alternatives in the same article. The author makes a tantalising suggestion that he would offer himself as a special envoy for talks with Pakistan. Moreover, he offers eminently sensible suggestions like the talks should be more or less continuous, in a neutral and consistent and somewhat inaccessible venue to journalists such as on the Indo-Pakistan border. He points out that the discussions should include issues related to Kashmir, and on India’s part there must be a recognition that there will inevitably be contrary mindsets encountered, even the paranoid military one for which Pakistan is notorious. In welcome contrast with the practice of Indian publishers, the price is modest, and hopes are raised of the book finding the wide market it fully deserves. But Aiyar has been badly served in editing and proofreading. Among the innumerable howlers are, for example, variable spellings of Vajpayee’s middle name throughout the book, and three different versions of Bal Thackerey’s name on two consecutive pages. Punctuation marks are erratically placed, there is no consistency in the writing of dates, and it is impossible to believe that Aiyar would write "corruption corporate", "lap" for "tap" or place Rajiv Gandhi in the United Nations in 2001. There is no index, which would have proved valuable in tracking the narrative of Aiyar’s b`EAte noirs. These mistakes are unwarranted irritations in a book as worthy as Aiyar’s, and if there is a second edition, the editorial eye must show proper diligence. To showcase his great intellectual qualities would have been far from Mani Shankar Aiyar’s mind, but readers dazed by the brilliance of his thought and expression will be asking themselves; can Congress afford to have such an articulate, dedicated follower out of its highest policy-making circles? Who is better placed to lead India in discussions with Pakistan, or to coordinate national policy towards the "Maoists"? No one can contest Aiyar’s subtlety in foreign affairs or his passionate commitment to the welfare of the poor and underprivileged, and no one today expresses the Nehru-Rajiv Gandhi policies of Congress principle better than this author.
|
||
|
|
||
The Mani Shankar Aiyar
we know is what we get—a devotee of Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv
Gandhi; dedicated Congressman, implacable critic of non-Congress
governments and leaders, irredeemable socialist, undaunted secularist,
occasional side-swiper of his Congress colleagues, brilliant wordsmith
and wit. There is no ‘side’ to Mr Aiyar: he is truly a man who
speaks, acts and writes without fear or favour. If Aiyar had chosen to
be a humourist, he would have been India’s Art Buchwald; if he had
chosen satire, he would have been India’s Cicero against Cataline.