Narayanan was never meant to be national security advisor

By the time you read this, India may have a new national security advisor.

What seems clear, however, is that M.K. Narayanan, who held the job for many years, will finally be shown the door and settled in some Raj Bhavan to eke out the rest of his

days.

 

   Narayanan is a controversial figure. I’m not going to get into the whole issue of whether Narayanan seriously damaged our intelligence-gathering capabilities (and R&AW in particular) or whether he should have done the decent thing and resigned after the intelligence failures of 26/11.

 

   My concern this week is different. Narayanan was never meant to be national security advisor. When the UPA came to power, he was given a part-time appointment as internal security advisor with the brief of cleaning up the intelligence bureau. He only became national security advisor by accident: because Mani Dixit died unexpectedly.

 

   Dixit’s death at the start of what should have been the finest hour of his career transformed India’s national security environment, led to Narayanan’s appointment to his job, and had serious consequences for India.

 

   I often wonder – each time I hear some discussion of how the national security portfolio has been handled – what things would have been like if Dixit had lived.

 

   Because I knew Dixit and admired him enormously, I would like to think that things would have been much better. But that’s an assumption, one of the big ‘what ifs’ of history.

 

   The truth is that so much of what happens in government is determined, not by men but by fate. Narayanan had a second wind at the end of his career, long after his retirement from service, only because of Dixit’s demise. But what if Dixit had lived and Narayanan had never got the job?

 

   Though we rarely seem to dwell on this, much of what has occurred during the life of the UPA could well have been very different had a series of untimely deaths not robbed the Congress party of some of its finest leaders.

 

   The biggest of the ‘what if’ questions is: what would have happened if Madhavrao Scindia had lived?

 

   At the time of his death, Scindia was deputy leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, second only to Sonia Gandhi. When the Congress won power, the leader of the Opposition should have become the next Prime Minister. As we all know, Sonia turned the job down. But would she have given it to her deputy if Scindia was still alive?

 

   I don’t suppose we’ll ever know. In those days, Manmohan Singh was leader of the Congress in the Rajya Sabha and many people reckoned that he could never be Prime Minister because he had lost the only Lok Sabha election he had ever contested. So, political observers regarded Scindia as Sonia’s clear number two.

 

   I don’t question the logic behind these assumptions, but my guess for what it’s worth, is that Sonia would have opted for Manmohan Singh even if Scindia had been alive. The last time the Congress came close to forming a government (after the confidence motion that felled the Vajpayee ministry) Manmohan was Sonia’s choice for PM. And I think he never really ceased to be her preferred Prime Minister.

 

"When you see men at the peak of their powers struck down before they can contribute fully, you can’t help wondering: what if they had lived?"

   Nevertheless, nobody can deny that the UPA would have been enriched by Scindia’s presence. He would probably have been the home minister and I have no doubt that he would have overhauled and strengthened our security apparatus.

 

   Here’s another ‘what if’? What about Rajesh Pilot?

 

   At the time of his sudden death in a road accident, Pilot was one of the most dynamic members of the Congress front bench. He had energy, charisma, a don’t-give-a-damn attitude and a strong base in Rajasthan. He was not going to be Prime Minister but he would certainly have been a key minister in any Congress government. Given his record, he would have been one of the best ministers in Manmohan’s Cabinet (my guess is that he would have got Defence because of his Air Force background) and would have contributed greatly to 21st century India.

 

   A final ‘what-if’: how about Jitendra Prasada?

 

   At the time of his sudden death, Prasada was regarded by many in the Congress as something of a dissident. Newspaper gossip columns portrayed him as one of those who was opposed to Sonia Gandhi’s leadership of the Congress party.

 

   Some of those reports were, no doubt, exaggerated. But equally, it is no secret that Prasada was hardly a member of the inner circle of Congress leaders and if not a dissident was certainly an outsider.

 

   But this ignores his background. For many years, he was Rajiv Gandhi’s political secretary and enjoyed Rajiv’s trust and confidence. I knew him a little during this period and liked him immensely. He was an urbane, modest man with a shrewd grasp of the realities of Indian politics and a realistic assessment of his own strengths and limitations.

 

   While it may be true that he was not in with Sonia during the months preceding his death, I think this was a temporary phenomenon and would have reversed itself automatically had he lived a little longer. Certainly, the Congress would have benefitted enormously from his understanding of north Indian politics.

 

   It is slightly ironic that all three men are represented in this government by their sons. And, all three sons are among the young stars of the ministry.

 

   Jyotiraditya Scindia is the senior-most of the three and is a well-regarded technocratic minister with the potential to be a terrific chief minister of Madhya Pradesh one day. Sachin Pilot has inherited his father’s dynamism and charisma and has the advantage of the first-rate education which economic circumstances denied his father. Jitin Prasada is the Congress’ face of the future. Well-liked and bright, he will probably be chief minister of Uttar Pradesh if the Congress ever takes office in that state.

 

   If the sons have contributed so much to this government, think what the fathers would have done! (And on a slightly cynical note, think also about how dynasty dominates the Congress party…)

 

   History is full of ‘what ifs’. Sometimes as much as you mourn the loss of an individual, you don’t feel that India is any worse off because of his passing. (Sanjay Gandhi, for instance.) But often, when you see men at the peak of their powers struck down before they can contribute fully, you can’t help wondering: what if they had lived?

 

   So, as the fuss over Narayanan’s removal continues, spare a thought for Mani Dixit. If he had lived, we wouldn’t have to worry about Narayanan’s exit. And India would have been a much safer place.