The Hindu : A tale of two Ministers

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 12, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

A tale of two Ministers

By Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Economic freedoms and closed minds go ill together and this remains the unresolved contradiction at the heart of the BJP.

IN ANY Cabinet, most Ministers rarely rise above the routine parameters of their office. They operate within existing conventions, initiate an incremental policy change here or there and are considered lucky if they can avoid public scandal of some sort. This will probably be the fate of most of the Ministers in the current Union Cabinet. A few will meet the fate of Shatrughan Sinha, designated a spectacular failure as Minister of Health. Some like George Fernandes will be remembered more for their public garrulousness than their achievements in the relevant Ministry. Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jaitley will be remembered for showing extraordinary talent that was, in the final analysis, squandered on the party, rather than on substantial policy initiatives. Lal Krishna Advani will probably come out even more statesmanlike than most expect, but whether the country is more secure internally is an open question. Jaswant Singh as Foreign Minister might be given credit for presiding over fundamental shifts in Indian foreign policy, though as Finance Minister he like his predecessor, Yashwant Sinha, will probably be rated as quite ordinary. But more than any of these figures, two Ministers most powerfully define the public image of this Cabinet: Murli Manohar Joshi and Arun Shourie. Both have far reaching policy agendas, both are constantly under public scrutiny, and each represents a significant aspect of the BJP's policy ambitions. But in all likelihood, Dr. Joshi will be adjudged, at least in terms of the agenda he set for himself, an altogether more successful Minister than any of his colleagues.

Both Mr. Shourie and Dr. Joshi have reason to be in the BJP. Both share a deep antipathy towards the Congress. Dr. Joshi has been a lifelong proponent of Hindutva while Mr. Shourie's exaggerated paranoia about conversions, and his attack on Marxist historiography made him a darling of the RSS. Both have so far avoided charges of personal corruption that plague many of their colleagues and this is an asset for both of them. But despite these similarities, no two Ministers could be unlike each other. Joshi is a consummate organisation man, with deep roots in the party and in the RSS. Shourie is still an itinerant intellectual outsider and vocal crusader. Dr. Joshi, although a professor by vocation, is a man of few words and does not engage in elaborate argument, while Mr. Shourie takes public reason seriously, arguing his case in excruciating detail. Dr. Joshi appears politically ambitious, while Mr. Shourie's ambitions, if any, are well disguised. Dr. Joshi is publicly distant surrounded by flatterers and eulogists of all kinds, while Mr. Shourie's modesty can be disarming.

But most importantly, their policy agendas go in two different directions. Dr. Joshi's aim is simple: to use the ideological apparatus of the state to enhance the cause of Hindutva. This ambition involves enhancing the powers of the state and increasing state control over every sphere of education. There is greater centralisation of higher education than before, the autonomy of most institutions, including the IITs and the IIMs has been seriously eroded and appointments are vetted to facilitate maximum ideological penetration. Dr. Joshi has been using the powers of the state to effect far reaching changes in curriculums and textbooks, to monitor the activities of intellectuals and to discourage foreign collaborations. Dr. Joshi realised that the long-term prospects of Hindutva depend, in no small measure, on the ability of the education system to reproduce ideologically stunted minds, and he has methodically gone about achieving this aim. He has made large parts of the educational establishment, including our top scientists, go along with some very dubious educational goals. Admittedly, many of the fellow travellers of Hindutva are opportunists, likely to turn as fast as the next government arrives. But it is fair to say that Hindutva has become the common sense of education rather than a fringe movement. Education is one sector that is, arguably, subject to more rather than less regulation. While the effects of these educational policies have been to cumulatively diminish the education sector, he has at least achieved what he set out to achieve. "Control" is the word that best describes Dr. Joshi's educational goals and in this he has succeeded.

Mr. Shourie, on the other hand, is an ardent liberaliser and passionate economic reformer. He recognises the ways in which the state distorts incentives in the economy, the ways in which state power is a source of corruption rather than oversight, and the ways in which state public sector undertakings place an undue burden on taxpayers. If enhancing state control is Dr. Joshi's ambition, reducing it is Mr. Shourie's passion. He has relentlessly argued the case for disinvestment, for reforming government and for less onerous regulation. While Dr. Joshi has increased bureaucratic oversight in institutions such as the UGC, Mr. Shourie has been trying to expose bureaucratic foibles. While Dr. Joshi wants to use the state to increase ideological control, Mr. Shourie wants to reduce the state to prevent its ideological and material corruption. But while Dr. Joshi has succeeded, Mr. Shourie's efforts will, in the final analysis, be judged a failure. Despite a promising start, disinvestment targets have fallen woefully short and economic reform in general is at a standstill. Mr. Shourie's attempts to ideologically reconfigure this Cabinet's agenda have become increasingly ineffective and it is increasingly doubtful whether he will have had an enduring impact on the country in the way Dr. Joshi, for good or for ill, will have. On the other hand, we have, if anything, only underestimated the profound structural impact the Human Resource Development Ministry had on education in this country.

There are lessons in Dr. Joshi's success and Mr. Shourie's failure.

First, admittedly, Mr. Shourie's task was more difficult because economic reform involves battling with more vested interests than imposing educational control does. It is still very difficult for imaginative individuals to make a profound policy impact directly if they do not have the weight of organised power like a political party behind them. Mr. Shourie is very good at engaging public reason; unfortunately his own party is not interested in public reason.

Second, it shows the nature of the Government's priorities, economic reform ranks lower than we think. The Prime Minister probably used Mr. Shourie as a sounding board and then hung him out to dry, just as Jaswant Singh did to another would be reformer, Vijay Kelkar. Mr. Shourie might have hoped that access to the Prime Minister might make up for his lack of organisational support within the party, but the Prime Minister seems to have let his down at crucial moments. Within political circles serious economic reform is just not as sustained an object of attention as distributing ideological patronage is.

Third, the press has probably become irrelevant in policy matters. The more the press attacks Dr. Joshi, the less he feels the need to respond and the more emboldened he becomes. Mr. Shourie, on the other hand, seriously takes his case to the press and the public with very little effect. We are in a political culture where brazenness pays more than reasonableness, where simplemindedness has more payoffs than arguments truer to the complexity of the world, and where organisation will triumph more than the power of ideas. Finally, while in theory there is no contradiction between a tight cultural and educational agenda on the one hand and a liberal economic policy on the other, in practice the two will always collide. Economic freedoms and closed minds go ill together and this remains the unresolved contradiction at the heart of the BJP. It is tragedy for the country that this Ministry will be remembered most for Dr. Joshi's successes and Mr. Shourie's failures.

(The writer is Professor of Philosophy and of Law and Governance, JNU.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Treading with caution

Stop smoking on screen

A tale of two Ministers

Congress, Dalits and elections

Should India do the U.S. bidding?

Where the public is kept in the dark