As the principal secretary to former prime minister Manmohan Singh for two tenures, T K A Nair was the most powerful bureaucrat during the UPA regime. A member of the 1963 batch of the Indian Administrative Service from the Punjab Cadre, he had earlier served in the offices of former prime ministers I K Gujral and A B Vajpayee as well.
Having had a ringside view of decisions that have charted the nation’s course, Nair talks about his experiences working with three former prime ministers, the shortcomings of the UPA governments, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the importance of the Congress and the Left joining forces.
Edited excerpts:
There are a lot of discussions on the probable ‘name change’ from India to Bharat. Being someone who has worked with three prime ministers, what’s your take on it?
The ongoing discussion is just stupid. The Constitution, in its first chapter, clearly says “India, that is Bharat”. In my perception, it’s merely an attempt to divert attention. India and Bharat are interchangeable.
It’s interchangeable, but can one of them be removed?
No. You just cannot do it, unless you amend the Constitution. Even then, it can be challenged in the apex court.
Opposition parties allege an ulterior motive behind the move. What do you think?
(Laughs). Anything that the government does becomes suspicious because of the way they do it. Some people term it akin to kite-flying, like the Uniform Civil Code; nothing happened later. I’m not a political pundit, but my gut feeling is that it was a ploy to divert the public’s attention.
Similarly, there is a proposal for ‘One Nation, One Election’...
Under the present federal polity of India, it’s not a good idea. The lifespan of the assemblies may differ. Even if you level it once, chances of a breakdown are high. It can lead to President’s rule.
Do you think such controversial moves are part of an attempt to bring in a presidential system?
I believe that India is too diverse a country to be under a presidential system of government. I think the strength of Indian democracy is its diversity.
The government has called a special session of Parliament later this month. What’s your hunch regarding this?
I have absolutely no clue (chuckles).
How different was the Vajpayee government from the Modi government?
I had worked with Vajpayee for two years. He was a man of consensus. Vajpayee, too, was a very good speaker. But there is a world of difference between the two. It’s the same with Manmohan Singh. Both cannot be compared.
Narendra Modi rode to power portraying himself as a strong leader capable of taking decisive decisions, pitting himself against the image of a ‘weak prime minister’ like Manmohan Singh....
Dr Singh was under lots of constraints, as he was heading a coalition government. It is unfair to compare him and the current PM. Also, their backgrounds vary so much.
Another constraint that Manmohan Singh faced – other than the compulsions of a coalition government – was that he was under the shadow of Sonia Gandhi. How did that affect the performance of UPA governments?
I won’t be able to tell you, as I was not privy to their discussions. I remember seeing Mrs Gandhi coming to meet Dr Singh in office regularly and discuss policy matters. It was a consensual process.
So, you mean to say there was no turf war between 10 Janpath and the PMO?
No, nothing of that sort.
But Pulok Chatterji, who was closer to the Gandhi family, replaced you ...
Only Manmohan Singh, Pulok and I know the real reason. It was I who initiated steps to bring Pulok to the PMO, as I was exhausted by then.
The Indo–US nuclear deal was a turning point for the UPA…
I still vividly remember Manmohan’s meeting with the then US president George W Bush. The chemistry between the two was fantastic. At one point in time, Mr Bush told his team: “I want this to be done. I am not an expert, but I want this to be done.” These were his words. There was tremendous opposition in the US and in India. The Left parties eventually parted ways with the UPA.
Could you please elaborate on that…
There was a man who played a crucial role in the creation of UPA and its functioning – Harkishan Singh Surjeet. I used to meet him every week. Whenever there was a problem, at the end of our meeting, he would hold my hand and say, ‘Tell Manmohan not to worry about anything.” That was a great source of strength. His successor, Prakash Karat, was unlike him. The Congress and the Left parting ways was not a very good thing for India.
Would things have been different had Surjeet been alive?
I am one hundred per cent sure about that. If Surjeet were alive, the Left and the Congress would not have parted ways. Surjeet was a political leader. Karat was a theorist from JNU. Theoretical and practical politics are different entities.
So, you mean to say it was Karat’s obstinacy that led to the Left leaving the UPA?
From Karat’s point of view, it was not stubbornness. Anti-Americanism held good for him. The reason why Manmohan Singh pursued the deal was because even with a small nuclear ‘toy’ in hand, you still had to fuel a ‘power’ plan.
Couldn’t the Left have been convinced?
Oh, yes, we did try. Once a rift, however small, is created, so many things happen.
While UPA 1 is remembered for its path-breaking initiatives like MNREGA, UPA 2 was notorious for its scams. Was this difference because of the absence of the Left in the coalition?
I believe so. The Left leaving UPA changed many things. Many things that should not have happened did happen. The counterbalance provided by the Left was there in UPA 1, but was absent in UPA 2.
What exactly went wrong with UPA 2?
In UPA 1, there was a common minimum programme that was discussed at the political level, before being implemented. I don’t think I should speak more about it when Manmohan Singh is still alive.
It was said that each party in the UPA coalition treated respective ministries as their independent turf and did as they pleased...
That is partly the answer. Not all are Manmohan Singh and good at heart.
But doesn’t that also imply that Manmohan Singh had no control over his ministers?
It was a coalition government led by a non-elected prime minister. These were real constraints. Manmohan Singh himself told me so several times.
Manmohan Singh came to power twice. When someone gets a second term, he is usually more powerful?
In his case, it was just the opposite.
Lok Sabha elections are coming up. What is your take?
I have no doubt that Modi will retain power in the current scenario. I keep saying that his greatest strength is the Opposition.
Now, we have an alliance called I.N.D.I.A. that looks almost similar to UPA....
I.N.D.I.A is full of contradictions. It’s going to be a herculean task to make people sit together and talk. Of course, Sharad Pawar can bring people together.
Where would you place Rahul Gandhi in the political scene of India?
I will use the word ‘evolve’. He is still evolving. (smiles)
On the one side there is a powerful leader like Modi and, on the other, there is Rahul Gandhi, who is still evolving...
It’s a fight between unequals. Even if Rahul Gandhi turns out to be a much better leader, the composition of the opposition group is such that he would not be able to handle all of them effectively.
There was an incident when Rahul Gandhi tore an ordinance brought out by the government...
It’s good that you mentioned that... That was symptomatic of what was wrong with UPA 2.
Were you in close contact with Rahul?
I have only met him once or twice.
How did he come across?
At the time, it was Sonia Gandhi who was in the political limelight. Rahul remained in the shadows.
Was Rahul ever considered for ministership in the second UPA government?
Yes, the PM did invite him many times. But Rahul refused. I don’t know why.
Had Rahul joined the government, he would have acquired some administrative experience...
He may have had reasons for that. He may have thought that he could influence the government’s decision-making even from outside of it. Some say he didn’t join because he didn’t want to be blamed for the UPA’s wrong decisions, as he was able to take credit for the good things.
How do you assess Narendra Modi?
Modi is doing some good things. Infrastructure development is one area. More roads and railway lines have come up. Only the unemployed and the very poor would have a grouse against Modi. He is undoubtedly the best communicator in India today. It is a great plus point in a democracy. What he communicates is so different (chuckles). He is also so versatile. He can be conducting a yaga or homa at 10am, and after half an hour, he can be seen shaking hands with US president Joe Biden. That’s him. If you term him a hypocrite, that’s your choice. But, as far as he is concerned, he performs. He actually performs on the Indian stage, and now even on the global stage.
Would that suffice for a PM or a statesman?
The country twice decided so. And, I believe, it would do so for the third time, too.
India’s strength is its plurality. How do you view attempts by the present government to bring in uniformity?
My only difference of opinion about the Modi government is there. I would otherwise have come out not only to vote for him but also promote him.
Did you ever expect Modi to become prime minister?
No, never.
Did the Congress leadership anticipate that the BJP would come to power through a landslide victory?
The Congress leadership, unfortunately, was in very bad shape then.
Some believe the 2G scam marred the image of UPA 2 and led to its downfall. Of late, some people claim that it wasn’t a scam...
Coalition politics is quite complex.
Will the I.N.D.I.A coalition suffer a similar fate?
Are there any other options other than it?
You said the Modi government has contributed tremendously to infrastructure development. On the other hand, there are allegations that select corporates are garnering undue favours.
I cannot deny that. He is favouring a particular group of corporates. It is known to all.
How do you view the G-20 meet in India?
It is a high-profile event in the history of India, and is sure to have its own impact. Everyone would be keen to get something done. Decisions can be taken on topics like climate change. Modi says India will be the spokesperson for the global south. That may be one reason why China is not participating. There won’t be immediate results. But it will help in repositioning India.
How do you view India’s stand on the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
You could definitely highlight it as a success of India’s foreign policy. The government of India was able to convince America and NATO that the country could not take a stance against Russia. The policy followed by the Modi government vis-a-vis western countries is interesting.
What’s the future of democracy in India?
(Laughs) We have to be optimistic that the Indian Constitution and the values, based on which the constitutional framework has evolved, will survive, albeit with minor aberrations here or there. Despite what happens here and there at one point of time, we are not in some sort of perpetual state of strife.
What about Manipur?
It’s a big tragedy. There’s a great failure on the part of the government. Replacing the chief minister would have sufficed. Irrespective of my applauding the PM for his foreign policy et al, what the government did not do in Manipur, is unpardonable.
You once said it will be a major developmental milestone if the whole country achieves Kerala’s HDI…
Kerala is ahead of other states in all socio-development indicators. The state has a long tradition of reformist movements. Today’s Kerala is not something that developed abruptly. It’s the continuation of a long journey — our progressive royal families, the communist governments, path-breaking legislation...
How do you assess the current Kerala government?
I believe the government is trying to do many good things, especially for the poor in society.
You had stated that your ‘choroonu’ was held at Sabarimala, sitting on your mother’s lap. It kicked up a huge row. Do you still stand by that?
Yes. Never even in my wildest imagination did I think young women in Kerala would say that they are ‘ready to wait’. Will a ‘naishtika brahmachari’ lose his ‘brahmacharya’ if he sees a woman’s face? Is he so fickle-minded?
You once termed Vajpayee as the greatest PM after Nehru...
Yes. I still believe he was a great prime minister. As PM, he was able to maintain the dignity of the office. He was a consensus-builder, one who didn’t create any disharmony in society. He also got many infrastructure projects going.
You don’t rate Manmohan Singh similarly?
I wouldn’t compare them.
When you were part of the PMO, it was dubbed a ‘Mallu Club’...
Yes, that’s right. Even the PM told me the same (chuckles)... even Mrs Gandhi. She one day told me: “Look, there’s talk that you have this Mallu Club.” G K Pillai was the home secretary, K M Chandrasekhar was the cabinet secretary, and then there was M K Narayanan as national security adviser. But that was not by design.
If you were to say the major reasons behind fall of UPA…
There are many things that could have been avoided.
Such as…
I may have to write a book if I must narrate all that (laughs out).
How’s your personal relationship with Manmohan Singh? Do you keep in touch?
Very much. I don’t call him on the phone often, as he is not well these days. But I do visit him.
The Manmohan Singh the world knows is a silent man. Your take?
I have neither seen him getting angry nor cracking jokes. He’s the incarnation of humility. He’s genuine. I don’t think there will be another person like him in politics.