08-07-2006, 10:07 PM
Op-Ed in DNA.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Needlessly rebellious</b>
Jyotirmaya Sharma
Monday, August 07, 2006Â 21:42 IST
There is an uncanny similarity between Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh. Apart from their claims to minor royal lineage, they are both distinguished by a style that can best be described as sanctimonious, long-winded and self-righteous. They have no mass base politically and have depended on the largesse of their leaders or parties to prop up their political fortunes. Both are political lightweights, who now are creating news that is best described as making a mountain out of a molehill.
Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh also exemplify the state of political parties in India. Natwar's party, the Congress, has long functioned on the principle of âposition for loyaltyâ. <b>The large influx of bureaucrats and technocrats in the party in the 1970s and the 1980s was a symptom of its increasing alienation from grassroots politics and of its shrinking mass base.</b> With the exception of Mani Shankar Iyer, most of these entrants were given Rajya Sabha seats. Natwar Singh remains, till recently, the most loyal embodiment of, well, loyalty, and the archetypal family retainer.
Just like in Roman times, when manumissioned slaves often resorted to writing learned texts on freedom, Natwar Singh, too, has chosen to show that he is his own man. This sudden burst of selfhood and agency has come a bit late in the day, especially after he has been accused of misusing his position within the Congress to help his son's friends. <b>Little did he realise that the Congress is monotheistic in its recognition of the primacy of only The Son, and loyalty doesn't allow you to enter the extended family.</b>
Despite all that has been written about Natwar's alleged complicity in writing letters of introduction for his son's friends, this is a simple case of a self-important individual handing out patronage. That this was done on Congress party letterhead seems to be the issue. Also, given the remarkable likeness public figures in India share with the blind king in the Mahabharata, Natwar must now support his son and his less than straight friends, not because he thinks they are right, but because he must prove that blood is thicker than unctuous loyalty.
The Congress finds itself in a bind. It rewarded Natwar for years of unquestioning loyalty, made him the foreign minister when the UPA came to power in 2004, and now has unceremoniously dumped him. The idea behind all this is really the one that impelled great scientists like Copernicus, namely, saving the phenomena and its appearance.
<b>For the Congress, the only thing that it needs to save is the almost mystical name and persona of Sonia Gandhi. More than any other time in its history, Sonia is Congress and the Congress is Sonia. Natwar Singh has sought to challenge this very assumption.</b>
Natwar has also been misled by the support from sources such as the Samajwadi Party, TDP and the AIADMK. These parties have no use of Natwar other than using him to target Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. Having appended his name to the privilege motion against the Prime Minister, Natwar Singh has not only burnt his bridges with the Congress but has also opened himself to becoming a pawn in a murky game of political brinkmanship. His detractors, who blame him for being a pawn in the oil-for-money scam, will now see him as a pawn in another equally sordid game.
Ideally, Natwar Singh ought to have gracefully accepted the findings of the Pathak Report. After all, it only implicates him for writing three letters that led to a larger scam. Going by press reports, the Report has clearly stated that neither he nor his son have taken money or are directly involved in any shady deal. In this sense, he stands sufficiently exonerated.
<b>Ambition incommensurate with talent is the bane of politics in India. Natwar Singh is a victim of this incurable affliction.</b> When he was secretary general of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Delhi in the 1980s, a junior IFS officer dared to confine Natwar's profile to a single sentence â âMr Natwar Singh was a career diplomatâ. An irate Natwar sent back the brochure with a correction. He described himself as a career diplomat, who read, wrote, and whose moments of reading and writing were interspersed with moments of silent reflection.
Natwar Singh ought to be doing this now, especially the silence and reflection bit. But since the Mahabharata and the Gita have figured in this article earlier, it ought to end with a quote from the Gita. Natwar would do well to look at the sixth verse of the sixth chapter, which suggests that the self is the greatest friend of the self and the self is the greatest enemy of the self; there is no friend or enemy beyond the self, and hence, know thyself.
The writer is a commentator on political issues.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Needlessly rebellious</b>
Jyotirmaya Sharma
Monday, August 07, 2006Â 21:42 IST
There is an uncanny similarity between Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh. Apart from their claims to minor royal lineage, they are both distinguished by a style that can best be described as sanctimonious, long-winded and self-righteous. They have no mass base politically and have depended on the largesse of their leaders or parties to prop up their political fortunes. Both are political lightweights, who now are creating news that is best described as making a mountain out of a molehill.
Natwar Singh and Jaswant Singh also exemplify the state of political parties in India. Natwar's party, the Congress, has long functioned on the principle of âposition for loyaltyâ. <b>The large influx of bureaucrats and technocrats in the party in the 1970s and the 1980s was a symptom of its increasing alienation from grassroots politics and of its shrinking mass base.</b> With the exception of Mani Shankar Iyer, most of these entrants were given Rajya Sabha seats. Natwar Singh remains, till recently, the most loyal embodiment of, well, loyalty, and the archetypal family retainer.
Just like in Roman times, when manumissioned slaves often resorted to writing learned texts on freedom, Natwar Singh, too, has chosen to show that he is his own man. This sudden burst of selfhood and agency has come a bit late in the day, especially after he has been accused of misusing his position within the Congress to help his son's friends. <b>Little did he realise that the Congress is monotheistic in its recognition of the primacy of only The Son, and loyalty doesn't allow you to enter the extended family.</b>
Despite all that has been written about Natwar's alleged complicity in writing letters of introduction for his son's friends, this is a simple case of a self-important individual handing out patronage. That this was done on Congress party letterhead seems to be the issue. Also, given the remarkable likeness public figures in India share with the blind king in the Mahabharata, Natwar must now support his son and his less than straight friends, not because he thinks they are right, but because he must prove that blood is thicker than unctuous loyalty.
The Congress finds itself in a bind. It rewarded Natwar for years of unquestioning loyalty, made him the foreign minister when the UPA came to power in 2004, and now has unceremoniously dumped him. The idea behind all this is really the one that impelled great scientists like Copernicus, namely, saving the phenomena and its appearance.
<b>For the Congress, the only thing that it needs to save is the almost mystical name and persona of Sonia Gandhi. More than any other time in its history, Sonia is Congress and the Congress is Sonia. Natwar Singh has sought to challenge this very assumption.</b>
Natwar has also been misled by the support from sources such as the Samajwadi Party, TDP and the AIADMK. These parties have no use of Natwar other than using him to target Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. Having appended his name to the privilege motion against the Prime Minister, Natwar Singh has not only burnt his bridges with the Congress but has also opened himself to becoming a pawn in a murky game of political brinkmanship. His detractors, who blame him for being a pawn in the oil-for-money scam, will now see him as a pawn in another equally sordid game.
Ideally, Natwar Singh ought to have gracefully accepted the findings of the Pathak Report. After all, it only implicates him for writing three letters that led to a larger scam. Going by press reports, the Report has clearly stated that neither he nor his son have taken money or are directly involved in any shady deal. In this sense, he stands sufficiently exonerated.
<b>Ambition incommensurate with talent is the bane of politics in India. Natwar Singh is a victim of this incurable affliction.</b> When he was secretary general of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Delhi in the 1980s, a junior IFS officer dared to confine Natwar's profile to a single sentence â âMr Natwar Singh was a career diplomatâ. An irate Natwar sent back the brochure with a correction. He described himself as a career diplomat, who read, wrote, and whose moments of reading and writing were interspersed with moments of silent reflection.
Natwar Singh ought to be doing this now, especially the silence and reflection bit. But since the Mahabharata and the Gita have figured in this article earlier, it ought to end with a quote from the Gita. Natwar would do well to look at the sixth verse of the sixth chapter, which suggests that the self is the greatest friend of the self and the self is the greatest enemy of the self; there is no friend or enemy beyond the self, and hence, know thyself.
The writer is a commentator on political issues.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->