 "Pawar wasn't PM as Delhi didn't trust him: Prithviraj Chavan")
Sharad Pawar's recollection of politics and history is selective and not entirely accurate, Congress leader Prithviraj Chavan tells Aditi Phadnis.
He may be an alliance partner, and may have been in government for 10 years, but Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar continues to attack and criticise Congress President Sonia Gandhi. As a chief minister you have worked with him. As a Congressman how do you see these attacks?
I don't want to join a debate. But it is all a matter of perception. Maybe from where Sharad Pawar was standing, he could have seen a thing as right or wrong. But there are some factual errors that need to be corrected in his statements.
We have to see things in perspective. His perception is the National Advisory Council (NAC) was a super Cabinet which influenced, even overruled, Cabinet decisions and generally acted as an extra-constitutional body. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The NAC was created after a Cabinet decision to which Pawar was a party because he was part of the Cabinet at the time. It was just a think tank on social issues, created through executive order, much like the Planning Commission. Although the Planning Commission does not exist now, it too was the result of an executive order and gradually grew to a position where its vice-chairman attended cabinet meetings and even gave his views when asked but had no veto powers and certainly did not contradict the government at any point. Maybe the NAC, over time could have grown in its role. But its mandate always was as a sounding board on social issues. Nobody - whether Congressmen, NGOs or experts - colluded with Sonia Gandhi to suborn or undermine the government. In any case, the NAC comprised experts, who were generally opposed to the Congress.
On the other hand, there were many in the party and the government, who did not necessarily agree with everything the government - or the NAC - was recommending. For instance, on the food security legislation, there were questions in the Congress whether the government would be able to bear the financial cost. On Right to Information there was a concern that it would slow the government down. The NAC's decisions were adopted after they had been debated, discussed and analysed by government and suitably modified for practicality.
The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), not just the Congress, was a coalition of ideologies. Even then, there was a consensus between the groups that comprised the alliance and the core group - remember, the Left parties were supporting the government at that time - acted as the coordination body. That body in turn interacted with the UPA coordination committee. There was adequate discussion on all matters before the government, whether it was recommendations made by the NAC or anything else. Pawar was an important minister and he was part of all discussions.
So what is the real angst?
I think the real grudge is the events of 1991 when he says the "first family" prevented him from becoming prime minister. Recall the context. It was 1991, just a month after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. To think that at time Sonia Gandhi, who was in deep grief, could have gathered together a close set of advisors to think and discuss who could be the next prime minister is patently far-fetched. In fact, she had no role in running the affairs of the Congress until 1998 when she became its president.
Rahul Gandhi was around 20 when he lost his father. He was hardly in a position to influence anything in 1991. He started taking an interest in the affairs of the Congress only after he became vice-president at the Jaipur session of the Congress. Even as general secretary, he was only looking at his own portfolio. So all this talk about super cabinet, "first family" strains credulity.
Several experts have said the NCP might jump ship and cross over to the National Democratic Alliance at the right time. What is your prognosis?
I can't really say. That's for Pawar and his party to decide. But it is not as if he hasn't jumped ship before. At the moment, the NCP is giving constructive support to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). When the (Assembly) election results came in, he said he was ready to support the BJP. But later he said he said so only to keep the BJP's alliance partners confused. I don't know what the future strategy will be. But one thing is certain. His 60th birthday, which in the Hindu tradition is the most important landmark in a person's life, went off unnoticed. But his 75th birthday is being celebrated with great fanfare. He has given extensive interviews to all Marathi television channels. Celebrations have been going on for a year. Is this an attempt to stay relevant? I don't really know. Not that he has to stay relevant in Maharashtra. He is known all over the state. He is an acknowledged leader of farmers.
Is there any major ideological or programmatic difference between the Congress and the NCP? Why does the NCP even exist?
Pawar is accomplished and intelligent. When Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, Pawar was chief minister of Maharashtra. He believed that now that the family dynasty was over, he was the senior-most and financially best endowed leader in the Congress to become prime minister and that people would fall at his feet.
He did offer moral and material help to many in the Congress to create a bedrock of support for himself while the election was on. As his emissary, Suresh Kalmadi was sent to prospective MPs with offers of help. But ultimately Delhi just did not trust him. He believes Sonia Gandhi stopped him from getting the top job. But at the time, Arjun Singh and M L Fotedar as well as other leaders felt that as the number of MPs, who have been elected from the South far outnumbered those from the North, it was their choice that had to be respected in electing a leader of the Congress Legislature Party (CLP). So the choice was between Singh, P V Narasimha Rao and Pawar. Rao had many things in his favour. He had never left the party (Pawar left the Congress twice and returned finally at the instance of Rajiv Gandhi). So that might have been a factor. I cannot speak with any real authority because at that time I was only a first-time MP - an MP only for a month.
In Maharashtra how do you propose to work together?
Although some leaders of my party are jumping at the chance and are actually working with the NCP, the truth is we have no formal alliance - only a working relationship. But I find that even in the local body elections it is the NCP and the BJP who are partners. For instance, they had a tacit alliance for some of the seats in the elections to eight council seats. The NCP supported a rebel in Kolhapur, who was also backed by the BJP.
At the national level, how do you visualise working together?
The way I look at it, the NCP is offering issue-based support to the BJP. But at the same time it does not want to lose its secular image.
