& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Manmohan Singh — four years on

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
***The obvious inference is that policies are devised in the air-conditioned rooms of South Block, the prime minister's office and the Planning Commission. They do not tally with the aspirations on the ground. For Manmohan Singh to say that his policies are "inclusive" is all right on paper. But when millions go without food at least one time a day, there is something wrong somewhere.***
FOUR years is a long period in government to prove your mettle. A few days ago Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's fourth anniversary in office was celebrated in Delhi, with Congress president Sonia Gandhi hosting a dinner. Public participation was nowhere. Probably, this epitomises the four-year-old rule of Manmohan Singh.
The distance between him and the public has been too visible. Is it because he stays away from politics? He continues to be a member of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House. Ali his predecessors sought election to the Lok Sabha, which is the house of the people.
His reluctance to do so once again underlines his disdain for the rumble and tumble of politics. He is capable, clean and competent. Probably, these qualities, however endearing, do not necessarily make a person an outstanding ruler. Somehow, one has the feeling that he could have done much more than he has.
After completing his first year in office, he gave himself six out of ten marks. I think if the average of the last four years was to be taken,
he would be somewhere between four and five. This year has been the worst. He has had all the opportunity, but probably his political acumen has failed to keep pace with the demands of governance.
I realise that Manmohan Singh is heading a coalition. There are groups within the cabinet, and one of his ministers tells me that only the Congress members support him. This is indeed a handicap, because the attitude of
unwilling ministers, even if he ultimately prevails, shows up in the implementation of policies.
This is in contrast with the working of a few other prime ministers whom I have observed from close quarters. Lal Bahadur Shastri took some important decisions without even consulting the cabinet. For example, he did not tell any of his ministers in advance how he ordered the army to cross the international border in Punjab to relieve Pakistan's pressure at Chum-Johari on the jammu-Srinagar road, then the only land link with India.
Mrs. Indira Gandhi ousted Morarji Desai from her cabinet for political reasons. Although the
contest between her and Desai for leadership exposed the rupture, she had her way. Ministers sub-. scribed to the principle of collective responsibility. Devaluation of the rupee was an example. It was a disaster, but no minister even voiced his protest against the move.
Of course, after she reconstituted the Congress there was no question of anybody differing with her. When the emergency was imposed Swaran Singh merely
inquired in the cabinet whether it was necessary to do so when an emergency was already there post-1971 Bangladesh war. He was quietly dropped.
True, Manmohan Singh does not have the political stature of Shastri or Mrs. Gandhi. But his greatest limitation is that Sonia Gandhi is always looking over his shoulders. He has to consult her even on trivial matters. And sometimes he has been embarrassed because Sonia Gandhi had decided something contrary to what Manmohan Singh had announced.
Given that he is a world-recognised economist, people expected a lot from Manmohan
Singh in the economic field. If one were to go by the rate of growth, one would say that he had done a tremendous job, averaging 8% annually in the four years he has been in power. But a person like him, who was once considered close to the Left, has pawned the growth rate to the top five percent of the country.
No doubt, India's middle class has expanded to 350 million, but the 20 million at the bottom is destitute. The government's own
report published earlier this year says that more than 70% of the people live on less than a dollar per day. What does development or progress mean when roughly 70 million people are deprived of basic necessities? At least he could have given them clean drinking water, even if he was unable to provide one electricity bulb to brighten their dark homes.
His Finance Minister P. Chidambaram said in a press interview that poverty was no less belittling before they came. True, but then Manmohan Singh promised to spend 3% of the GDP on health. It is hovering around 1%, less than that of Pakistan. In the field of education, the perfor-
mance has not been up to the mark, although the government did far better last year than before.
When Manmohan Singh was the finance secretary, and subsequently deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, he had to run from pillar to post to raise money for India's foreign exchange requirements. In Delhi recently, former Reserve Bank governor Bimal Jalan commented at a seminar that India, for the first time in its history, had sufficient
capital, manpower and technological expertise to resolve its age-old problems of poverty and deprivation.
Yet, somehow, for hundreds of millions of those living below the poverty line the country had not moved on, and is still stuck in the same old rut. Delhi, Bombay and Chennai may be bursting at the seams with billionaires, but the wealth is not being transferred to the needy. What has gone wrong, and why is there no spillover of wealth and skills to where they are most required, are questions which only the prime minister can answer.
The obvious inference is that policies are devised in the air-
conditioned rooms of South Block, the prime minister's office and the Planning Commission. They do not tally with the aspira-tions on the ground. For Manmohan Singh to say that his policies are "inclusive" is all right on paper. But when millions go-without food at least one time a day. there is something wrong somewhere.
Inflation is a sign of wrong priorities and wrong policies. After all, it stood at 3.5% last December. Now it is around 8%. People at the top do not suffer because they do not have to look after pennies. It's the common man who is bearing the brunt. Manmohan Singh has been found wanting. What does development mean to the person who is as helpless and as hungry, even today, as his forefathers were before independence?
Leave the economic field aside, even the law and order situation has not improved. The police are as callous as before and human rights violations are equally appalling. The Congress-led government rightly rescinded TADA, but the National Security Act is more restrictive in application and more draconian in nature.
As a person, Manmohan Singh has been one of the best prime ministers the country has had. Not even his severest critics would query his honesty and integrity. But, as an administrator he has not come up to the level that a country of India's size and complexity requires.
KuMp Nayar s an eminent Indian columnist