Narcissus or Machiavelli? Learning Leadership from Indian Prime Ministers 9780367469511, 9781032044200, 9781003032267

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication Page
Contents
Preface
1 Introduction
2 Jawaharlal Nehru: a mindful headmaster (15 August 1947–27 May 1964)
3 Indira Gandhi: a lone ranger (14 January 1980–31 October 1984 and 24 January 1966–24 March 1977)
4 Rajiv Gandhi: an episodic lion (31 October 1984–2 December 1989)
5 P.V. Narasimha Rao: an ardent disciple (21 June 1991–16 May 1996)
6 Atal Bihari Vajpayee: a silent assertive (19 March 1998–22 May 2004)
7 Manmohan Singh: a reluctant administrator (22 May 2004–26 May 2014)
8 Narendra Modi: the Modi (26 May 2014–incumbent)
9 Shastri and Desai: the movers and shakers (9 June 1964–11 January 1966 and 24 March 1977–28 July 1979)
10 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences
Index

Citation preview

Narcissus or Machiavelli?

This book is about leadership and its strategies. Drawing on Indian prime ministers since Independence, it traces the personality traits and leadership skills that have shaped many futures. It examines a range of leadership profiles to study dominant traits in one of the most demanding leadership roles in the world. The volume focuses on Machiavellianism and narcissism as a framework for policy-personality connections and demagogic tendencies in leaders in politics and in everyday life. Accessible, engaging, and provocative, this book will be essential reading for professionals across industries and corporations. The general reader interested in leadership studies and Indian politics will also find this book useful. Nishant Uppal is on the faculty of Organization Behavior in the Human Resources Management Group, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow. His recent publications include Duryodhanization: Are the Villains Born, Developed, or Made up? (2018), Leadership in Organization (2020), Understanding the Theory and Design of Organizations (2020), and HR Analytics (2021). He has published in a number of international journals, such as Personality and Individual Differences, Studies in Higher Education, International Journal of Manpower, Team Performance Management, and European Business Review, among others. More recently, his research focus area has been in understanding the effects of negative personality traits on work, family, and societal outcomes. Dr. Uppal specializes in the fields of analytics, leadership, change management, knowledge management, organizational adaptation, job design, organizational structure, and personality.

Narcissus or Machiavelli? Learning Leadership from Indian Prime Ministers

Nishant Uppal

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Nishant Uppal The right of Nishant Uppal to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-46951-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-04420-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-03226-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

In Honor of Shri Sukhdeep Uppal (Papa) Dedicated to Vihaan and Kabir

Contents

Preface 1 Introduction

viii 1

2 Jawaharlal Nehru: a mindful headmaster (15 August 1947–27 May 1964)

21

3 Indira Gandhi: a lone ranger (14 January 1980–31 October 1984 and 24 January 1966–24 March 1977)

53

4 Rajiv Gandhi: an episodic lion (31 October 1984–2 December 1989)

75

5 P.V. Narasimha Rao: an ardent disciple (21 June 1991–16 May 1996)

97

6 Atal Bihari Vajpayee: a silent assertive (19 March 1998–22 May 2004)

117

7 Manmohan Singh: a reluctant administrator (22 May 2004–26 May 2014)

141

8 Narendra Modi: the Modi (26 May 2014–incumbent)

158

9 Shastri and Desai: the movers and shakers (9 June 1964–11 January 1966 and 24 March 1977– 28 July 1979)

182

10 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences Index

194 212

Preface

Nehru’s jacket and mass appeal, Indira Gandhi’s sari and stoutness, Vajpayee’s poetry and philosophical pauses, Manmohan’s reticence, and Modi’s charismatic rhetoric: do these personality characteristics have any implications for their leadership behaviors and decisional attitudes? It is an extraordinary and overwhelming enquiry. While we find umpteen investigations in the American context where researchers and scientists have successfully established personality-behavior linkages for U.S. presidents, scarcely do we find such systematic accounts for prime ministers of India, the world’s largest and most complex democracy. The unavailability of such an account is baffling yet expected. Finding a theoretically valid framework that may be used as a lens to examine political behavior is challenging. Whereas the forced fitting of a framework may produce unreliable results and thus controversies, loose applicability may cause a lack of representativeness and comparability. Even extreme care in the selection of a framework may result in catastrophic controversies, as it may irk a certain set of individuals or institutions that have a contrarian ideology. Another challenge emerges from availability of information and its presentation. While in certain occasions it appears in abundance, in other cases there is an absolute absence or (even more dangerously) inaccessibility. The propaganda works in a subtle and complex manner in democracies, such that the available information may carry elements which are consciously and deliberately embedded in public ideology through populist media vehicles. Filtering (and digging) them out is tedious and debatable. Even the absence or inaccessibility of information may be due to conscious efforts of certain individuals or institutions who could infer, utilize, and popularize the results of the study in a scandalous and provocative manner. Thus, apolitical representation and interpretation of facts and theories become critical and challenging. Nevertheless, the attempt has been made to address these issues in a most delicate and sophisticated manner. A theoretical framework has been applied that has been found to be ubiquitously representative of political leadership behaviors and decisional attitudes. Instead of information, facts have been put through the framework to avoid possible controversies. Sources of facts (given in the book) used to establish

Preface

ix

a personality-political behavior relationship for Indian prime ministers are usually available (yet not utilized) in the public domain, and thus are easily verifiable. Undeniably, some sources required deeper and greater research than did others. All sources are provided in references and footnotes for readers to extract more information. Apparently, readers may easily find (and possibly criticize) the style in this preface so far to be defensive. I must admit that this view is not entirely unfounded. After several rounds of rigorous editorial reviews and corresponding revisions, the outcome needs to be protected from possible and unintended controversies. Readers will appreciate the content more if they know the procedural efforts used and their associated limitations. So, what is this book about? I present in the introduction the utmost requirement for understanding the psychographic profiles of Indian prime ministers. I offer the readers similar research done in other countries as examples. The contents in this chapter vivify the benefit and usefulness of research that establishes the linkage between political leaders’ personalities and their behaviors and decisional attitudes. I apply narcissism and Machiavellianism as two personality traits that are found ubiquitously in all political leaders in history and present times. Some scholarly accounts even claim that these two traits are quintessential for leadership escalations. While I am not wholly ignorant of other personality typologies and casually acknowledge their presence and implications, parsimoniousness is a natural limitation in any such investigation. Besides, interestingly, these two traits turned out to be greatly representative of our constituents’ behaviors. Also, readers will find when they progress in the book, the two traits as an extraordinarily fascinating comparative yardstick. I facilitate this comparison in the last chapter. In between, I present in various chapters the behaviors and decisional attitudes of prominent Indian prime ministers that indicate the presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism in different degrees. I must admit here again that I do not catalogue all of the prime ministers. I excluded the ministers who were in office for an insignificant period. For example, Gulzari Lal Nanda was only an interim prime minister until the parliament chose the next leaders after Nehru’s death. Additionally, several prime ministers came to office during the 1990s, some of whom served for less than a year. While the criteria for exclusion may appear to be time duration, these prime ministers practically and perceptibly did not possess any influential authority in office. This exclusion may inculcate dissatisfaction in some readers, yet it is critical for this book to avoid redundancies. I apologize in advance for the omissions. Examination of political leaders’ personality-behavior linkages has several advantages. It helps ordinary citizens decipher the dispositional source of their political leaders’ behaviors and decisional attitudes. The knowledge of connection between political leaders’ personalities and their behaviors aids in predicting future behaviors and can greatly influence the logic behind

x

Preface

voting choices in a democracy. Additionally, it can facilitate international scholars to comprehend and compare the contextual difference and implications of the complex nature of the Indian polity. I grew up in a small city in Madhya Pradesh named Shahdol. I distinctly remember when Mrs. Indira Gandhi once arrived in a helicopter for an electoral campaign. She came out of the chopper wearing a sari and covering her head with it. The whole town surrounded the stadium. I doubt if all of the spectators voted in her favor or if her spectacular arrival converted any opposition, yet the gathering was marvelous. I further wonder if such a grand arrival and exhibitionism will attract masses anymore in current times. In sum, I now somewhat know an additional reason for the grandiosity, spectacle, and fashionable presentations in politics. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the editors who reviewed and worked tirelessly towards evaluating the current book. My special and many thanks to Aakash Chakrabarty, my commissioning editor, for handling administrative issues on my behalf that I am apparently so weak in. Brinda Sen, my editor, deserves my special gratitude for guiding me through this project with just the right touch. Her dedication and contribution to this project were remarkable. For her memories, her patience, and her guidance, I wish to thank Shivani Uppal, my mother. I also acknowledge the confidence shown in my work of scholarship by my friend and guide – Gautam Wahi; I hope he meant what he always said to encourage me. Finally, I would extend my heartfelt gratitude to my sons, Vihaan and Kabir, for constantly inspiring me to do the best I can.

On September 3, 2020, a BJP functionary came up with ‘Modi Idli’ in Tamil Nadu in direct competition with the highly popular ‘Amma Idli’. Additionally, Modi and ousted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak both have suits with their names embroidered all over them. *** Modi criticized IIM Shillong for prefixing Rajiv Gandhi’s name superfluously. According to Modi such tagging caused confusion in the minds of applicants that it was a privately run management institute. *** A Right to Information query raised in 2013 was answered that over 450 schemes, building projects, institutions, etc. were named after the three members (Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi) of the Nehru– Gandhi family. *** Modi changed his appearance and grew a flowing beard and long hair during the Kolkata assembly election campaign. Popular media compared it with Rabindranath Tagore.

1

Introduction

They tell over to themselves with vast amusement that a crafty scoundrel or spell-binder could pass off on the people of Paris or London. —Jean-Jacques Rousseau1

Plato’s fierce aversion and distaste for liberal democracy emerges from his proposition that it facilitates the evolution and growth of demagogues, who eventually mutate into tyrants. A democratic city in Plato’s view is sustainable only when its leaders are selfless and not demagogic, which is an impossibility due to the differential capability among democratic men who are free to pursue an enterprise of (their) choice. Therefore, logically and conveniently, demagogues equally possess “the license to do what (they) he wants”.2 Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, in his Politics even recognizes democracy’s flaw and the potential instability it faces caused by “demagogues”, who alternately “stir up” and “curry favor” with the people.3 Jason Stanley4 more recently shared Plato’s and Aristotle’s apprehensions about liberal democracy and proposed that it is for namesake only. Specifically, when it does not somehow constitutionally prevent the emergence of propagandist demagogues. He argues: A certain form of propaganda, associated with demagogues, poses an existential threat to liberal democracy. The nature of liberal democracy prevents propagandistic statements from being banned, since among the liberties it permits is the freedom of speech. But since humans have characteristic rational weaknesses and are susceptible to flattery and manipulation, allowing propaganda has a high likelihood of leading to tyranny, and hence to the end of liberal democracy. Thus, there is a natural incentive in having precautionary knowledge about the prevalence of demagogic and propagandist personality characteristics in leaders of a liberal democracy.

2

Introduction

Furthermore, according to the late Fred I. Greenstein,5 professor of politics at Princeton University and an American political scientist, known for his work on political leadership and the U.S. presidency: Political institutions and processes operate through human agency. It would be remarkable if they were not influenced by the properties that distinguish one individual from another. . . . The personalities (Therefore) of political actors impinge on political affairs in countless ways, often with great consequences. Greenstein presented a complex process (Figure 1.1) in which political leaders interpret and react to environmental forces. While leader personality clearly operates as a critical mediator between socio-political, economic, and international environment and policy decisions, there are multiple challenges in assessing political leaders’ personalities. Political leaders are physically distant and often unavailable for controlled laboratory-based experimental research by using typical psychometric tools. Besides, it is too ambitious for social scientists, who like to pose onerous questions, to expect lawmakers to appear as guinea pigs in their Skinner box. The second critical challenge lies in the selection of a widely acceptable theoretical apparatus that can provide unbiased insight into leaders’ personality characteristics. Finally, a third and unanswerable challenge exists in the associated paradox. Identification of demagogic characteristics in political leaders has an inherent existential threat to their propagandist approach. Demagogues thrive on the ignorance of their followers. Therefore, such exposure of their weaponry will potentially disarm them from a strategic viewpoint. This systematic risk in such intellectual pursuit is unavoidable; however, to the other two challenges, I propose the following resolves.

Resolve 1: the historiometric analysis The historiometric analysis provides a valid and widely approved method in this regard. The historiometric analysis of contextually rich historical narratives in order to understand social phenomena has a long-standing history in social science, predating even the earliest laboratory studies in psychology. For instance, in social psychology, historiometric analysis has been used to demonstrate the conditions under which authoritarianism is likely to emerge, the role of mass media in violent crime, and the influence and effects of leader personality.6 Historiometric analysis becomes even more useful while analyzing the unique or rare data spread over a long period in time and measuring the specific context and situation. Historiometric analysis utilizes historiophoty (the representation of history and our thought about it in visual images and filmic discourse) and historiography (the representation of history in verbal images and written

Present

Past 1

8 Historical conditions

Macroenvironment

Future

12 Future states

Current state of society and polity

2 Microenvironment

7 Socializing agents and social background

of society and polity

3

6

11 Future states

10

Perceptions of the environment

5

Predisposition

of immediate environment

Current state of immediate environment

9

Biological underpinnings of personality, temperament, physiological state, genetic inheritance, etc.

Political responses

Future states of predispositions

Introduction

Conscious political and politically relevant orientations (political and politically relevant cognitive, affective, and conative dispositions-e.g., identification, opinions, Developing attitudes, 4 Functional bases of conscious predispositions beliefs, orientations - basic (including values, personality structures: perceptions, ideology, 1 cognition and needs conscious stereotypes, 2 mediation of selforientations, etc.) other relationships functional bases, 3 ego defenses and biological underpinnings)

3

Figure 1.1 Personality and politics

4

Introduction

discourse) to examine the truth and accuracy presumed to govern the professional (or unprofessional social media governed) practice of psychographic profiling of the subjects in question. Historiometric analysis has been employed to assess eminent world leaders’ personalities and their effect on the constituents they lead. In this regard, psychographic profiling of American presidents has been a popular subject matter of scrutiny among social psychologists.7 Historiometric analysis as psychographic assessment of the subject matters (e.g., American presidents) provides not only mutual comparison of subjects but also their cross comparison with the general population. For example, Valenty and Feldman state that: when all of these data are analysed, presidential personalities can be assessed, comparisons made between presidents and the mass public, a typology developed, and the characteristics associated with presidential success determined. Relative to the general population, one discovers that presidents are lower in character and agreeableness, less open to experience, more neurotic, extraverted, and conscientious. Looking at individual presidents, John Adams, Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were the most neurotic; Teddy Roosevelt and Clinton were the most extraverted; Jefferson and J. Q. Adams the most open to experience; Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Jackson the least agreeable; and Wilson and Washington the most conscientious. Some differences appear between Democratic and Republican presidents; recent Democrats, for example, tend to be more extraverted, more open to experience, and lower in character. Twentieth-century presidents are much more extraverted and more variable on conscientiousness and character than their nineteenthcentury counterparts. Presidents ranked more “successful” by historians tend to score high on assertiveness and achievement striving and low on straightforwardness. In a similar study, Winter8 compared various American president dyads and exhibited differences and similarities between (for example) Kennedy and Bush using historiometric analyses. He observed: Both presidents came from private school, Ivy League, upper-class backgrounds of wealth and privilege, with rumoured philanderer fathers and strong mothers. For all these similarities, though, there is a world of difference between JFK and W. Examining these differences will suggest other elements of “multiform” personality. There is a considerable difference in intelligence – about 25 IQ points. There are important differences in attitudes, beliefs, and values such as liberalism, right-wing authoritarianism (i.e., conventionality, obedience, and aggression), and, perhaps, acceptance versus denial of personal

Introduction

5

responsibility. There are also major differences of cognitive style: Kennedy scored higher in integrative complexity, and had a coherent verbal manner of expression, laced with irony and wit. Bush’s language, in contrast, is awkward and saturated with the earnest rhetoric of conventional morality. In a study conducted before the U.S. presidential election of 2016, it was found that narcissistic entitlement was closely associated with conservative positions, whereas narcissistic exhibitionism was more associated with liberal values.9 Narcissism has been linked with military action. U.S. Presidents such as Nixon have been studied in the context of taking harsh military actions in response to narcissistic impulses (such as an inflated ego). A study on U.S. presidents up to George W. Bush showed the implications of grandiose narcissism on leadership roles. It was found that grandiose narcissism was associated with positive outcomes such as “public persuasiveness, crisis management, agenda setting, and allied behaviors, and with several objective indicators of performance, such as winning the popular vote and initiating legislation”.10 It was also found to be associated with negative outcomes such as unethical conduct and impeachment resolutions. Another important study11 linking personality traits and psychological factors with political outcomes discussed the implications of the “extreme” personality of Trump on election campaigning. It argued that electoral success has increasingly come to depend on the individual candidate’s orientations rather than issue orientations, and that physical appearance, personality traits, family dynamics, and other non-political factors now play a key role. The increasing lack of party allegiance has led to voting on the basis of the perceived personality of the presidential candidates. Perhaps Trump’s recent loss in the 2020 U.S. presidential election poses an example for the effects of public perception of a leader’s personality. In the context of these circumstances, the article stated that personality traits such as extraversion, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism play a key role in shaping the public perception of presidential candidates and can have both positive and negative outcomes. As far as the dark traits are concerned, the study stated that Trump shows extremely high scores for all three traits, i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism: His reputation is characterized by very low agreeableness and warmth, low conscientiousness and discipline, high extraversion and anxiety, low emotional stability, strong ego-reinforcement behavior, a clear tendency to seek admiration, insensitivity and lack of remorse, and a tendency to manipulate to meet his goals. When compared to 21 other populist leaders in the world, Trump scored highest on narcissism and Machiavellianism and third highest on psychopathy. The study also stated that socially desirable personality traits led to a

6

Introduction

more positive style of campaigning, whereas high scores of the dark traits led to negative forms of campaigning, as seen in Trump’s case. Studies have also been conducted on U.S. President Barack Obama’s personality, linking it with his leadership style and political implications of the same. Based on a different theoretical framework of personality studies other than the big five and dark triad, he has been linked with the “confident conciliator” personality prototype.12 This personality type is associated with ambition, confidence, assertion, dominance, accommodation, cooperation, and conscientiousness. A similar research study strives to resolve the perceived differences between his image as “philosopher king” and a “polarizing politician”. It also predicts the outcomes of his presidency.13 Profiling of political and military leaders based on a study of personality traits has increasingly become an area of interest in recent academic research. A number of examples of such researches show the relationship between key executive decisions, national policy formulations, and leaders in political roles of prominence. For example, Post14 explored the personalities of Bill Clinton and Saddam Hussein and linked their actions to psychological studies, thereby stating that individual personality traits of political leaders play an important role in ultimately shaping world politics. He traced the development of ambition and ideals in Clinton through a study of his childhood experiences and family relationships, particularly his relationship with his mother, Virginia Kelley. The book described Clinton’s lack of trust in colleagues and advisors as president, as a result of complicated and unreliable family dynamics in his childhood. The study demonstrated that Clinton displayed high levels of ambition, strong high idealization, a general movement toward people, a preference for validation and praise, and strong opposition to receiving criticism. His demeanor as president was marked by persistence, impatience, a desire to be special, competitiveness, and a propensity to take risks. In the same book, a verbal analysis of Clinton’s interviews and extemporaneous responses in conferences has been carried out, and it concluded that he exhibited narcissism by virtue of the ‘me’ pronouns used and the nature of his response to allegations, among other things. The book made similar observations of Saddam Hussein’s personality and leadership style. His childhood has been linked with experiences of confrontation and the gradual development of a lack of self-esteem. Overall, it stated that Hussein is capable of reversing his course, believed in circumstantial loyalty, was patient, and had an inability to accurately read political circumstances and to look at the larger picture. His personality has been termed as displaying “malignant narcissism” (p. 356). Accordingly, his narcissism is based on an exalted self-concept, no constraint of conscience, an aggressive pursuit of his goals, paranoia, self-inflation, and over-reading the degree of his support. The book therefore attempted to define the psychology of these two leaders by setting certain parameters to study their personalities. Russian president Vladimir Putin has also been studied, employing a similar theoretical framework. He has been associated with Millon’s definition

Introduction

7

of a personality type known as the “expansionist hostile enforcer”,15 which includes dominance, ambitiousness, conscientiousness, dauntlessness, and introvertedness. His strengths have been described as his confidence and self-assertion and his weaknesses have been described as lack of empathy and cognitive inflexibility. Furthermore, in a study16 of British prime ministers and their propensity to engage in “foreign policy fiascoes”, it was found that individual decision making by leaders with traits such as high levels of self-confidence and inclination to pursue conflictual strategies (associated with narcissism) played a great role in policy fiascoes such as Brexit as compared to “non-fiasco prime ministers” and other leaders who did not display such traits. Immelman and Beatty17 presented a paper at the 26th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology that highlighted Mugabe’s (Zimbabwe’s erstwhile president) personality as the “bureaucratic compulsive”. They mentioned: with his [Mugabe’s] obsessive compulsiveness, considerable narcissism, substantial dominance, austere, ascetic aloofness, and distinctly distrusting tendency, Robert Mugabe is a bureaucratic compulsive, which is defined primarily by exaggerated or maladaptive levels of compulsiveness and narcissism. Leaders with this composite character complex are noted for their officious, high-handed bearing, intrusive, meddlesome interpersonal conduct, unimaginative, meticulous, closed-minded cognitive style, grim, imperturbable mood, and scrupulous if grandiose sense of self. Further elaborating political implications and consequences of bureaucratic compulsive behavior, they showcased that such leaders are quite willing to use military force to achieve their objectives, tending to divide the world, in their thought, between the moral values they think it ought to exhibit and the forces opposed to this vision. They tend to have a strong, almost Manichean, moral component to their views. They tend to be described as stubborn and tenacious. They seek to reshape the world in accordance with their personal vision, and their foreign policies are often characterized by the tenaciousness with which they advance one central idea. Racial prejudice and xenophobia are also attributes that have been explained via the dark traits. The presence of these attributes in individuals in positions of prominence may have a catastrophic impact on intranational peace and circumstances. A prominent research study18 stated that the explanation for prejudice may depend on situational and personality factors. Studying Polish community members, the nature of prejudice among the group was defined based on their relation with the dark traits, collective

8

Introduction

narcissism, authoritarianism, and social dominance. The study concluded that the dark traits are linked to racial prejudice through the attribute of social dominance, and collective narcissism is linked to racial prejudice through identification with right-wing authoritarianism. The study of personality traits has been extended to study the formation of political ideology as well. It has been found that psychopathy and entitlement are strong predictors of extreme political views such as White identitarianism, authoritarianism, and liberalism.19 The use of personality studies to observe personal as well as political behavior in individuals has branched out into the fields of literature, history, and mythology as well. Similar assessments have been conducted to explain the behavior of other historical and mythological figures as well. The book Duryodhanization: Are villains born, made or made up?20 explores the implications of the dark traits in the behavior of characters from the Mahabharata to redefine the conceptualization of the term “villain” and the negative connotations attached with it. It describes characters traditionally perceived to be positive as possessing narcissistic, Machiavellian, and neurotic tendencies; and it explores the nature of and causes behind the development of the dark traits that define the traditionally negative characters. Similar investigations have also been made in popular culture. A research article21 studied the intersection of popular culture and evolutionary psychology and attempts to reorient the negative attributes associated with the dark personality traits towards a more positive reading. The article explored a variety of stereotypes in literature as well as media that are narcissists, psychopaths, or Machiavellian in nature. Some examples discussed include the Byronic antihero (devised by the eighteenth-century Romantic poet Lord Byron), James Bond (created by author Ian Fleming), Hannibal Lecter (created in the novels of Thomas Harris and widely known in a Hollywood movie series), and the Machiavellian TV series character Dexter. The article explored how a certain fascination with the dark traits has been captured in these fictional narratives and how real-life circumstances lead to this fascination. For example, deteriorating economic conditions and not possessing adequate buying power may result in the formation and popularity of characters such as Batman, which provide an imaginative refuge and catharsis. Largely, the article covers the question of why antiheroes and psychopaths make for appealing characters in popular culture and underlines the dynamics between popular culture and the economic and psychological surroundings of consumers.

Resolve 2: theoretical apparatus A valid and reliable framework is critical for historiometric analyses of human behavior (Winter, 2005). An invalid and half-cooked measurement produces statistically inaccurate results and thus may lead to disastrous consequences and controversial implications, especially when the subject matter of enquiry is of very high stature.

Introduction

9

Most recently, Jaimini Bhagwati,22 former Indian Foreign Service officer from 1976 on, an economist and foreign policy expert, presented a fascinating behind-the-scenes look and fresh insights into each prime minister’s (PM) governance. Bhagwati used a popular framework to assess the PMs on the values of character, competence, and charisma, to measure their impact on India’s story. As an insider and proximal associate to Indian political leadership, Bhagwati does a fairly reasonable job of dissecting the role of prime ministers from the economic and international viewpoint. However, Bhagwati as a formally trained and fervent economist somewhat neglects to establish an important policy-personality connect. The following questions, for example, remain unresolved in Bhagwati’s account: 1) What personality characteristics led Indira Gandhi to astutely and secretively arrange to impose a national emergency? 2) What made Manmohan Singh a successful bureaucrat, teacher, and finance minister, yet a silent prime minister? 3) What made Rajiv Gandhi take exceptional and unprecedented family holidays? and 4) Why is the Modi brand leveraged in almost every public and social policy, including modi-idli? This weakness in an otherwise exhaustive and insightful account in Bhagwati’s work emerges from the use of the theoretically ambiguous concept of 3Cs (character, competence, and charisma) to assess the dispositional and decisional capabilities of Indian prime ministers. Furthermore, while Bhagwati’s account of Indian prime ministers is informative, the use of a behavioral framework (the 3Cs model) is theoretically equivocal and somehow does not appear robust enough to facilitate a personality-policy connection and thus dispositional predictions. In this regard, Machiavellianism and narcissism are two personality traits that have emerged as legitimate frameworks for studying policy-personality connections and demagogic tendencies in political leaders. As discussed previously, several political leaders have undergone a psychometric screening using narcissism and Machiavellianism as two personality traits that provide significant psychological bases for their behaviors and decisions. For example, while narcissism in ex-U.S. President Nixon is believed to have led him to take harsh military actions,23 British political leaders high on this trait caused foreign policy fiascos such as Brexit.24 Similarly, ex-U.S. President Donald Trump has been found to be high on Machiavellianism, thus reflecting his strong ego-reinforcement behavior, insensitivity and lack of remorse, and a tendency to manipulate to meet his goals.25 Additionally, numerous studies26 (in consonance with the studies presented in the previous sections) utilize these two essential demagogic personality traits existent in political leaders that significantly influence their decision patterns. While narcissism and Machiavellianism have been studied widely to examine political leadership behaviors, one should not easily ignore other personality traits (such as psychopathy and the big five traits: openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and neuroticism), which have been sporadically used for studying political leadership behaviors.

10

Introduction

However, narcissism27 and Machiavellianism28 have been found to be significantly informative because they can together represent most of the political decisional behaviors. Besides, no single study can incorporate all of the available personality traits to dissect human behavior.

Machiavellianism and narcissism Machiavelli: The Prince

Narcissus

The supreme law of politics is success. Politics, therefore, cannot recognize any moral law as binding. What is bad in the conduct of individuals can be the most imperative of duties for a statesman if the good of the state so demands. A ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also must be positively willing to act unscrupulously at the right times.

A young beautiful boy who rejects the love of others as unworthy, until he comes across one of great beauty that he does love, but that one is his own reflection in water. The longer he stares at his own image, the more he is driven by both passion and heartache, and over time he perishes in a state of despair because he could not have his object of desire.

The term Machiavellianism29 has come to be associated with the psychological parameters of measuring manipulative personality traits in individuals. Common tendencies of Machiavellianism include manipulating others to achieve personal gain, being focused only on one’s own ambitions, exploitation, lying and deceiving as per one’s convenience, being capable of causing harm to others to achieve one’s own ends, being cynical of morality and goodness, avoiding commitment and emotional attachment, prioritizing money and power over relationships, lacking principles and values, etc. Therefore, Machiavellianism in an individual is reflective of a worldview marked by cynicism, paranoia, and self-centeredness; it is indicative of the tendency to use certain behavioral tactics (not necessarily moral or ethical) to safeguard or justify one’s means to an end. In psychology, narcissism30 is a personality trait that can be linked with a positive sense of self. Narcissism can be defined as “a relatively stable individual difference consisting of grandiosity, self-love, and inflated self-views”. It could culminate in healthy self-love (primary narcissism) or more negative forms of expression of the self. Some common tendencies associated with narcissism are a sense of superiority, lack of empathy, a dysfunctional need for praise and admiration, an inflated sense of self, indulging in practices that highlight one’s own qualities, etc. Much like other personality traits, the presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism has certain implications on the behavioral outcomes of individuals, and especially leaders. This can be seen in the narrative behind their etymological origins. The terms are derived from the historical and mythological figures Niccolo Machiavelli and Narcissus.

Introduction

11

Niccolo Machiavelli was a diplomat and philosopher in the Italian Renaissance who practiced and propagated the political approach and strategic practices (mentioned in his work, The Prince) which largely gave way to the philosophy that the end justifies the means. Narcissus, a Greek mythological character and the son of the river god Cephissus, is symbolic of a perverse form of love by traditional standards, wherein he fell in love with his own reflection, neglecting the nymphs who pursued him earlier. Strong, inherent behavioral impulses in both cases, of manipulation and self-inflation respectively, are connected to outcomes that manifested in the lives of the two figures. Similarly, the impulses that drive personality traits and their outcomes can be studied to establish a link between the psychological or behavioral tendencies in individuals and the consequences of their actions that are governed by these tendencies. Machiavellianism and narcissism have a direct correlation with human behavior, and the degree to which individuals possess these traits affects their actions and demeanor. The impact can have negative or positive results and may vary in individuals depending on the type and extent of the trait present.

Narcissism in political leaders It has been found that there is a link between narcissism and leadership: narcissists are more likely to become leaders.31 Whether they are able to lead effectively is not established since research variously points towards extreme negative effects or extreme positive effects or null effects in some cases when it comes to the impact of narcissism on organizational effectiveness. Narcissists were found to actively participate in bringing about bold changes and having the ability to persuade others to accept these changes. Narcissism is significantly related to charismatic and visionary behavior. They were also found to be deemed as unethical leaders who worked for themselves rather than their organization and had negative relations with supervisor ratings of leader integrity. Narcissism has long-term negative effects on mentoring and negatively impacts the overall ability of a leader to take criticism and a lack of empathy. However, narcissists are passionate, innovative, and visionary in their approach. Narcissist political leaders generally perform well individually but could prove harmful for others around them. They are more likely to lead the organization to success in chaotic or novel situations. Narcissism affects the efficiency of task performance contingent on the degree of complexity of the task at hand, the spectatorship it attracts, and the nature of the relationship establishment it requires with others. Narcissists are more prone to indulging in counterproductive behavior at work such as bullying, arguing, and in some cases, violence on provocation of the ego. Narcissist leaders do well in the beginning of their leadership role but eventually endure negative long-term consequences. The “emerging zone” is

12

Introduction

marked by success, charisma, risk-taking, and innovation while the “enduring zone” could witness loss of relationships, failure due to not being able to take criticism, and turning non-productive on account of being grandiose or paranoid. It can, therefore, be seen that narcissism can have both positive and negative effects and is influenced by certain factors such as time, context, and the extent of the trait present.

Machiavellianism in political leaders Machiavellianism as a personality trait has the potential to influence human behavior and affect tangible and intangible outcomes in various ways. Studies show that leaders high on Machiavellianism, known as “high-machs”, are more likely to control and initiate group interactions. They are found to function more effectively in ambiguous contexts rather than clear, straightforward ones, and they are considerably resistant to social pressures. When it comes to performance in group discussions, high-machs were efficient in display of leadership, performing well in the given task and contributing to the progress of the task as a group. They could not perform well when it came to situations that demanded the establishment of an appropriate network of communication. They were more likely to be elected as leaders and performed well in a task-oriented leadership role as compared to low-machs. They comparatively issued more orders and initiated discussions. It was found that highmachs could adapt to changes in situation and give fewer or more orders and demanded assistance as and when required. Studies have also observed that individuals possessing high levels of Machiavellianism can practice deceptive interpersonal measures and can lie conveniently and effectively. They are not prone to being vindictive or hostile and can remain calm in uncertain or chaotic situations. Research32 shows that high-machs are capable of displaying confidence in situations where they are unsure, and their sense of timing in interpersonal situations is opportunistic and astute. In small groups, there is a higher propensity for them to become leaders, and they are good bargainers.

The Indian landscape While internationally historiometric analysis has gained significant prominence in understanding political leaders’ personalities as a tool for behavioral and policy prediction, surprisingly we have no such scholarly account available for Indian prime ministers. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, once stated: If any functionary under our constitution is to be compared with the U.S President, he is the Prime Minister and not the President of the Union.33

Introduction

13

This undeniable importance of the position of prime minister has been defined in Article 74 of the Indian constitution, which states that he/she will be the head of the council of ministers, advising and aiding the president. This places him/her as the de facto executive head of the government and the president as the constitutional head. Article 78 further defines the duties of the prime minister, which largely involve communicating essential decisions of the council of ministers regarding administration and legislation to the president. The duties and role of the prime minister, however, go way beyond what has been defined in the constitution. The prime minister is responsible for the selection of the council of ministers and ministers in the cabinet and for resolution of differences within the cabinet or between various departments in the administrative set-up. Given the complex and dense nature of the country, an intricate administrative structure is in place which places immense human resource management as well as leadership duties in the hands of the prime minister, who serves as the head of this structure. The intelligence services in India are controlled by the prime minister, and the police and administrative services are also centralized. All cabinet meetings and key decisions regarding executive policies take place under his/her leadership. Allocation of portfolios and shuffling or redistribution of ministries is also his/her prerogative. The parliament is called into session by the president in consultation with the prime minister and can be dissolved at his/her recommendation. In the parliament, the prime minister controls his/her ministers and defends the major policies tabled by the government. The power to advise the president to declare an emergency in the nation or president’s rule in the states is one of the most important powers vested in the hands of the prime minister. The relationship of the prime minister with the party or party leader finds no explicit mention in the constitution and remains an ambiguous subject which has changed historically depending on the circumstances. In certain cases, the party president has had access to a number of key roles, but the position of the prime minister has come to acquire a more powerful role than the former in recent years. The dominance of the PM in matters regarding foreign policy has been an undeniable fact since the independence of the country. The PMs hold importance internationally as representatives of the country, more so than the foreign ministers, which in turn enhances their domestic stature within the country. All-important, international conferences are attended by PMs, and the final say in matters regarding international affairs is theirs. There have been several instances of unilateral decision making without the consultation of the cabinet when it comes to international operations. Being the leader of the largest democracy in the world, one of the fastest growing economies, and a nuclear presence in South East Asia, it can be said that the Indian prime minister plays a crucial role in influencing the international political fabric as well. Certain factors such as the increased use of electronic media and social media, the increased complexity in strategic decision making, and the

14

Introduction

weak nature of party organization, which does not function from the grass-roots, have resulted in further increasing the power as well as responsibilities of the prime minister. The office of the PM also holds social responsibilities and influence, which affect and are affected by these factors. There is a tendency in India to vote for the leader rather than the party.34 The office therefore requires charismatic social skills and a direct relationship with the people. The PM is looked upon as the leader of the nation, which in the context of India has often acquired moral undertones. Through cultural governance, promulgations of certain media narratives, or by virtue of exceedingly strong beliefs, PMs in India have often transcended their partisan positions to present themselves as moral leaders and leaders of the country and the people, more so than the president or any other figure. An early example can be seen in the Gandhian moral stance, which Nehru carried forward from the independence struggle to his office as the PM. Subsequently, other PMs also strived to be upholders of morality against corruption and exemplary leaders of the nation. The Indian PMs, therefore, have come to play an important social role as well. It can therefore be said that as far as wielding political power is concerned, the prime minister of India holds the paramount position to do so. A number of checks and control measures are in place in the Indian democratic system to prevent autocratic tendencies. These include consultation with the president, independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press, parliamentary consensus, the role of the election commission, and the electoral mandate being in the hands of the common people. Coalition politics, pressures from chief ministers, and a multi-party system also play a decisive role in determining the amount of influence the prime minister has. In spite of these checks, a large portion of political and executive power lies in the person of the prime minister, and he/she is the fulcrum around which the political system functions. Therefore, owing to the importance of the prime minister’s constitutional position in India and the subsequent implications, the unavailability of their historiometric-based psychographic profiles is baffling.

What can we predict? An important outcome of historiometric analyses of a prime minister’s dispositional characteristics is the answers to several complicated and controversial issues concerning a leader’s success and plausible effect they bring to their constituents. For example, a study of American presidents’ personalities35 found a connection between a president’s level of authoritarianism and perception of threats among the general masses. It found that a higher degree of authoritarianism facilitated presidential continuity in power by establishing a threat among the masses that in their absence from power there will be higher unemployment and inflation.

Introduction

15

Another study36 of American presidents asserted that leaders’ personality studies aid in prediction of their behaviors and subsequently their policies. For example, with respect to George W. Bush, the study made the following four predictions, which turned out to be true: 1

2

3

4

In foreign affairs, Bush would endorse more aggressive policies (high power motivation), for example on Iraq, depending particularly on whether the “hawk” or “dove” faction of his foreign policy advisors came to have the most influence over him. (This was back when the U.S. invasion of Iraq was just a gleam in the eyes of Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.) In making decisions, Bush would rely on small, secluded groups of close friends and advisers who were similar to himself (high affiliation motivation), which might alienate people with different views and experience. Bush would enjoy being president, due to his high power and belowaverage achievement motivation, rather than becoming frustrated in the manner of a Jimmy Carter. For the same motive reasons, he would demonstrate greater political effectiveness than some pundits might have expected.

Based on the analysis of personality traits, an article (by Nai, Coma, and Maier, mentioned earlier) predicted the implications of Trump’s presidency on national politics and predicts the outcomes of his style of governance: Overall, the comparison of his profile with trends described in the literature suggests that Trump will continue to be in campaign mode and be relatively successful in (short-term) crisis management, agenda setting, and the setup of new legislative initiatives. At the same time, his profile will undoubtedly drive impulsive decisions (e.g., as indicated by Trump’s management of the North Korea issue, from “Little Rocket Man” and the “Fire and Fury” rhetoric to the praise of Kim Jong Un as “terrific” and “very talented” in the space of a few months), unilateralism and anti-globalism (the “America First” doctrine and the recent U.S. withdrawals from the Iran deal and the Paris climate accord are perfect examples), and a lack of inclusivity (e.g., as demonstrated in various decisions on domestic politics that tend to further divide rather than to unify the nation – and, of course, the “very fine people on both sides” misstep regarding the events in Charlottesville). Besides, electoral outcomes can also be predicted via personality studies. Electoral outcomes may be predicted and assessed based on a systematic study of the voters’ as well as the leader’s personality. Thus, it can be observed that the field of personality studies in relation to the interpretation of political figures, circumstances, and actions is rich in

16

Introduction

various kinds of literature. From all of these examples, it can be seen that personality studies have the potential to add important dimensions to our understanding of human behavior, social relations, as well as to make sense of the milieu around us. Since the world in the human worldview centers around the individual, it is essential to study all aspects of the individual, including the psychological, behavioral, and developmental impulses that constitute personality traits. Such a study has far-reaching implications on understanding in various academic as well as non-academic fields. One of the most important fields that has made use of the concept of personality studies is the study of politics. National as well as international events depend on the interplay of several political factors, of which prime ministers are a significant part. Studying the characteristics of these leaders as well as creating psychological profiles based on these traits can provide valuable insights into how world leaders (who are inevitably at the center of world politics) are likely to react in certain situations. It helps in understanding executive decisions and policy formulations made in the past as well as predicts patterns, based on similar observations, for the future. The kind of decisions that determine the course of political history are significantly (though not entirely) dependent on the kind of individual taking charge in making those decisions. It is, therefore, useful as well as interesting to study the personality profiles of political leaders in the contemporary world.

Aim Thus, in sum, this book employs historiometric analyses to create a psychographic profile of eminent Indian prime ministers using a personality framework of narcissism and Machiavellianism and studies factors such as their temperaments, decision-making methods, communication style, educational qualifications, and general attitude towards work. The psychographic assessment is done by studying public records of their perceived personalities, executive and personal decisions, and behavioral aspects, which are then assessed vis-à-vis the prominent personality traits, i.e., Machiavellianism and narcissism. Tendencies associated with Machiavellianism include being focused only on your own ambitions, prioritizing money and power over relationships, coming across as charming and confident, exploiting others to get what you want, lacking principles and values, being cynical of morality and goodness, rarely revealing your true intentions and showing a lack of warmth in social interactions. Narcissism is defined as a “relatively stable individual difference consisting of grandiosity, self-love and inflated self-views”.37

Introduction

17

The Machiavellianism and narcissism traits are inevitably present in all individuals, but especially leaders. Considerable research argues in favor of the presence of Machiavellianism and narcissism in leaders across history and contemporary organizations. However, scholars are unsure about its consequences on various constituents such as subordinates, organizations, the environment, and society. There are significant empirical evidences that highlight the “bright sides” of dark traits. Nonetheless, in the present work we adapt a neutral approach and only attempt to dissect the presence of dark traits in the Indian political leaders. Furthermore, the current book also assesses the intellectual capital of the prime minister to substantiate the historiometric analyses. It uses educational levels (e.g., higher studies), scholarly contributions (publications such as books, articles, and monographs), scholarly accomplishments (national and international academic awards such as the Novel Prize, Booker Prize, and Sahitya Kala Academy Awards), and policy decisions as proxy for intellectual capital. The historiometric analyses of Indian prime ministers carries with it an entire arrangement of new principles about what is good and what is bad management, what are the right and the wrong activities in a country. It likewise accompanies a number of presumptions about how value and wealth is made in this rising economy. In sum, in today’s globalizing environment, where innovation and agility are seen as central to a nation’s international stature, psychographic profile of its decision makers has become increasingly important as a mechanism for establishing dynamic and mutually benefitting partnerships among various stakeholders within and across nations. By making occasional historiometric appraisals of key political leaders, I analyze what our country really did with their human capital and how it influenced the country’s development eventually. Furthermore, in the areas of policy making, I attempt to satiate the quest of academicians and scholars to understand the pool of human capital that runs the country. The historiometric appraisals of prime ministers delivers a colossal measure of vitality, which can take a country as diverse as India a long way past their stipulated goals. It intrigues citizens and lawmakers to re-evaluate these leaders’ demeanors on intangible resources and to begin perceiving that human capital may bring out the difference between irrelevance and brilliance, excellence and mediocrity. After all, we would want to avoid Mugabe’s urge for sycophantic ingratiation and flimsy adulation to give birth to Fallot Chawaua(s) in India.38

Notes 1 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1964). The social contract (1762), p. 43, book. 4, chap. 1. South Bend: Gateway. 2 Cooper, John (Ed.). (1977). Plato: Complete works. Indianapolis: Hackett.

18

Introduction

3 Aristotle. The politics, book. 5, chap. 5. 4 Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works (p. 27). Princeton: Princeton University Press. 5 Greenstein, F. I. (1992, March). Can personality and politics be studied systematically? Political Psychology, 13(1), 105–128. 6 Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28(3), 357–371. Crayne, M. P., & Hunter, S. T. (2018). Historiometry in organizational science: Renewed attention for an established research method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(1), 6–29. 7 Valenty, L. O., & Feldman, O. (Eds.). (2002). Political leadership for the new century: Personality and behavior among American leaders. Greenwood Publishing Group. Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Potomac Books, Inc. 8 Winter, D. G. (2005). Things I’ve learned about personality from studying political leaders at a distance 1. Journal of Personality, 73(3), 557–584. 9 Hatemi, P., & Fazekas, Z. (2018, July 14). Narcissism and political orientations. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/ajps.12380 10 Ashley L. Watts, S. (n.d.). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among U.S. presidents: Ashley L. Watts, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Sarah Francis Smith, Joshua D. Miller, W. Keith Campbell, Irwin D. Waldman, Steven J. Rubenzer, Thomas J. Faschingbauer, 2013. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/10.1177/0956797613491970 11 Nai, A., Coma, F., & Maier, J. (2019, January 22). Donald Trump, populism, and the age of extremes: Comparing the personality traits and campaigning styles of Trump and other leaders worldwide. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psq.12511 12 Immelman, A. (n.d.). The political personality of U.S. president Barack Obama. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/ psychology_pubs/25/ 13 Winter, D. (2011, November 22). Philosopher-king or polarizing politician? A personality profile of Barack Obama. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00852.x 14 Post, J. M. (2005). The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. The University of Michigan Press. 15 Immelman, A., & Trenzeluk, J. (n.d.). The political personality of Russian federation president Vladimir Putin. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https:// digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/104/ 16 Brummer, Klaus. “Fiasco prime ministers”: Leaders’ beliefs and personality traits as possible causes for policy fiascos. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2015.1127277 17 Immelman, A., & Beatty, A. (2003, July). The political personality of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Boston, MA, July 6–9, 2003. 18 Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Sawicki, A., & Jonason, P. K. (2020). Dark personality traits, political values, and prejudice: Testing a dual process model of prejudice towards refugees. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110168. 19 Moss, J., & O’Connor, P. (2020, July 18). The Dark Triad traits predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7369609/

Introduction

19

20 Uppal, N. (2018). Duryodhanization. New Delhi, India: Penguin Random House. 21 Jonason, P. K., Webster, G. D., Schmitt, D. P., Li, N. P., & Crysel, L. (2012). The antihero in popular culture: Life history theory and the dark triad personality traits. Review of General Psychology, 16(2), 192–199. 22 Bhagwati, J. (2019). The promise of India: How prime ministers Nehru to Modi shaped the nation (1947–2019). New Delhi, India: Penguin. 23 Hatemi, P., & Fazekas, Z. (2018, July 14). Narcissism and political orientations. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/ajps.12380 24 Brummer, Klaus. “Fiasco prime ministers”: Leaders’ beliefs and personality traits as possible causes for policy fiascos. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2015.1127277 25 Nai, A., Martínez i Coma, F., & Maier, J. (2019). Donald Trump, populism, and the age of extremes: Comparing the personality traits and campaigning styles of Trump and other leaders worldwide. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 49(3), 609–643. 26 1) Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. 2) Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the US presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489. 3) Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 339–363. 4) Bedell, K., Hunter, S., Angie, A., & Vert, A. (2006). A historiometric examination of Machiavellianism and a new taxonomy of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12(4), 50–72. 5) Al-Jafary, A. A., Aziz, A., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1989). Leadership styles, Machiavellianism, and needs of Saudi Arabian managers. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 2(1), 103–111. 27 Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Miller, J. D., Campbell, W. K., Waldman, I. D., .  .  ., Faschingbauer, T. J. (2013). The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism: Implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among US presidents. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2379–2389. 28 Deluga, R. J. (2001). American presidential Machiavellianism: Implications for charismatic leadership and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 339–363. 29 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002).The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. 30 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002).The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. 31 Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617–633. 32 Ankit, & Uppal, N. (2021). How Machiavellianism engenders impression management motives: The role of social astuteness and networking ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110314. 33 Pylee, M. V. (1960). Constitutional government in India. London: Asia Publishing House, p. 252. 34 1: Gould, H. A. (2019). India votes: Alliance politics and minority governments in the ninth and tenth general elections. Routledge.

20

Introduction

2: Meyer, R. C. (1989). How do Indians vote? Asian Survey, 29(12), 1111–1122. 35 Doty, R. M., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978–1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 629. 36 Winter, D. G. (2005). Things i’ve learned about personality from studying political leaders at a distance 1. Journal of Personality, 73(3), 557–584. 37 Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002).The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. 38 In January 2000, Fallot Chawaua, the master of ceremonies of a promotional lottery organized by the Zimbabwe Banking Corporation, announced that Robert Mugabe won the Z$100,000 first prize jackpot. The lottery was open to all clients who had kept Z$5,000 or more in their ZimBank accounts.

2

Jawaharlal Nehru A mindful headmaster (15 August 1947–27 May 1964)

If Jawaharlal Nehru were to open a Facebook or Instagram account, what would be his display picture? How would that differ pre- and postIndependence? Who all will be there in the photos? Irrespectively, he would have received millions of likes and comments, although the configuration and nature of his followers might have dramatically changed between the period of freedom struggle and his premiership. Anyway, wouldn’t that be a very normal course for any social media account? Jawaharlal Nehru, at different instances in the public narrative, has been isomorphic with the nation, the Congress, and the freedom struggle. His immense popularity can be justified in the context of his relations with Gandhi, the status and position of Motilal Nehru in the economic, social, and political sphere, and his education and capabilities. Another contributive factor to this popularity is his personality and intellectual and social profiles, which perhaps also explain why he rose to the position that he did as compared to some other capable contemporaries. Public interviews, biographical accounts, his speeches, letters, and autobiographical writings, and other historical accounts of Nehru radiate restrained but immense self-confidence. They display a peculiarly astute ability to think, compare, gauge, plan, and act. There is an alert awareness not only of the political surroundings at home and worldwide, but also of his own strengths and weaknesses. Thus, based on historiographic observations presented in the following sections, we may assess the degree to which Nehru’s personality displayed certain traits such as narcissism and Machiavellianism. In the following sections, I present Nehru’s psychographic outline, relationship behaviors, and intellectual profile as indicative analysis of the presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism traits in Nehru’s persona.

Psychographic profile The dynamically evolving public image Like all other public figures, Nehru’s physical appearance provides clues to his personality.1 One’s physical appearance helps to gauge the extent to

22

Jawaharlal Nehru

which public opinion matters to the individual and how important one’s selfimage is. As is evident in Gandhi’s ‘charkha’, Khadi dhoti, and bare chest, the choice of clothes and the artifacts one associates with sometimes also become markers for ideology and tools to make a larger statement. Nehru’s outward appearance in the visual archives available is that of a sharply dressed, well-groomed man. The choice of his clothes changes across time. During the Independence struggle, in spite of his privileged economic background, he wore plain khadi clothes with a jacket later known as the ‘Nehru jacket’ and a ‘Gandhi cap’ to symbolize the use of ‘swadeshi’ goods as well as solidarity with Gandhi and the Congress. After the Independence of India, his choice of everyday clothes changed to ‘achkans’ with a red rose attached to one of the buttons, which visually set him apart from his contemporaries, though he continued to wear the ‘gandhi cap’. Shankar Ghosh wrote in his biographical account of Nehru that “After becoming Prime Minister, Nehru discarded the common man’s dhoti and kurta and took to achkhan and sherwni”. The website of News182 presents a number of photographs that represent the situational and versatile dressing sense Nehru had. Margherita Stancati, a journalist from the Wall Street Journal,3 interviewed Nehru’s tailor in Delhi in 2013, who noted: Nehru was very cautious about his dress. He was a royal man. . . . He wore only black, white, cream and gray. Additionally, Langkjaer,4 an expert in men’s fashion in history commenting on Nehru’s apparent simplicity remarks that in his “plainness lay power and dignity”. We should now have some clarity and guesstimates about Nehru’s appearance on his Facebook account. One may expect a lot of photos where Nehru will strike a pose as a grand fgure with style. This facilitates our scrutiny about Nehru’s psychographic profile to some extent. I described in Chapter 1 that the use of physical artifacts to communicate symbolic messages, as well as paying close and consistent attention to sartorial choices, show awareness of the public gaze and a desire to portray the self in a certain way that is indicative of narcissism. Furthermore, as narcissist leaders actively fish for praise and admiration, they consciously engage in dressing and fashion that complement their need for self-love. Nehru’s personality was captured in various ways in the public imagination. A visual representation of that perception can be seen in the way he is portrayed in sketches on national and international stamps. A certain portrayal of Nehru was derived from popular opinion and captured in these stamps, which in turn helped in further promoting and propelling that image or opinion. He appears to have been popular with the children. He was widely acknowledged as “Chacha Nehru”. Children’s Day is celebrated on 14th November in his memory. Various postage stamps launched depicting Nehru displayed this attribute of agreeableness in his perceived personality by showing a close bond between Nehru and the children of the country.

Jawaharlal Nehru

23

This was also perhaps owing to the fact that he was one of the few prime ministers who publicly addressed, spoke, and wrote for, as well as about, the children of the country. Nehru has also always been a favorite of various philatelists,5 as one can find a variety of portrayals for Nehru ranging from ethnically dressed Naga leader to motivational walk with the Central Reserve Police Force. Vulnerable narcissist Large volumes of works written by Nehru, including his autobiography, books, letters, and personal diaries, facilitate direct access to his private thoughts and self-perception. In the foreword to the book containing letters written by him to Indira Gandhi,6 he mentions that he has been told that there is virtue in these letters, and he hopes that it interests other children as well. He is apologetic that the circle of access is limited to readers of the English language. He writes, The fault is entirely mine. I can only remedy it now by having a translation made. A Hindi Translation is being prepared and if all goes well, may soon see the light of day. He seems to have been well aware of the importance of these documents to the contemporary public as well as to posterity, which points towards a degree of narcissism. Moreover, what are the usual intentions behind writing autobiographies? Theories prevalent and popular among critiques that examine autobiographies provide measures that indicate an author’s vulnerability and narcissism. According to Kafka:7 In an autobiography one cannot avoid writing “often” where truth would require that “once” be written. For one always remains conscious that the word “once” explodes that darkness on which the memory draws; and though it is not altogether spared by the word “often,” either, it is at least preserved in the opinion of the writer, and he is carried across parts which perhaps never existed at all in his life but serve him as a substitute for those which his memory can no longer even guess at. Also, in addition to use of ‘often’ versus ‘once’, use of ‘I’ versus ‘we’ in texts of autobiographical accounts indicate a degree of narcissism or Machiavellianism in the narrator. One may now read Nehru, An Autobiography8 to assess these traits in Nehru as well. Autobiography, books, letters, and personal diaries, all written by an observant and sensitive Nehru, periodically talk about his behavioral traits. In the satire published in The Modern Review,9 Nehru talks about his tendency to drift away into his own thoughts when people are talking to him:

24

Jawaharlal Nehru The train of thought holds him in public speech, but at other times his looks betray him, for his mind wanders away to strange fields and fancies, and he forgets for a moment his companion and holds inaudible converse with the creatures of his brain. Does he think of the human contacts he has missed in his life’s journey, hard and tempestuous as it has been; does he long for them?

He confesses this aspect of his behavior in an interview with Arnold Michaelis in 1958 aired on Doordarshan,10 where he observes that while people are saying something important, he sometimes gets lost in his own thoughts. While this kind of self-involvement is suggestive of narcissistic strains, the lack of “human contact” mentioned in the quote is also indicative of a sense of loneliness. This loneliness is intertwined with the inability of identifying oneself with a place or a group of people. In the 1958 interview with Michaelis, Nehru commented on what he called spiritual loneliness: I have a feeling of a certain satisfaction with the opportunities I’ve had in life so I have no sense of frustration but undoubtedly there is a feeling of loneliness which creeps upon one. I had always thought that it would be rather normal for many people that were sensitive. It’s a curious thing how in the middle of the crowd, I am one of the crowds and yet apart from it. It is perhaps this feeling of not being able to identify wholly with the milieu around him, which gave him the ability to develop an objective point of view towards politics, socio-economic conditions in India, international affairs, and himself. For example, Nehru did not see the freedom struggle as a selfless endeavor. He closely linked it with the self. In the interview with Michaelis, he talked about how one could find meaning in life only if one has a mission or a function combined with coordination between thoughts and actions, or otherwise life becomes a cycle of meaningless trivialities. He said: My association with the struggle of freedom for India has provided a sense of mission in my life. My acceptance, emotionally and intellectually of the ways of our leader, Mahatma Gandhi satisfied me . . . and my ability to act on that . . . produced a sense of fulfillment. It’s not something anyone can learn by reading a book . . . it’s a thing you have to grow into. He links the larger endeavor of the struggle with personal fulfillment and deriving existential meaning for the individual. In the same interview, he discusses how the idea of salvation is to ultimately serve one’s own spiritual

Jawaharlal Nehru

25

purpose, even if it is done through service to others. The ultimate goal is salvation of the individual. In his biography on Nehru, Frank Moraes11 has traced Nehru’s loneliness back to his childhood, where he struggled to find companionship with the elders in his house and his later years in school at Harrow, which Moraes describes as a period of exile (I describe in detail later about the nature of his relationships). Nehru admits in his autobiography,12 “I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere”. Commenting on this feeling years later, he pointed towards the result of such an experience, which is eventually ending up feeling at home everywhere. A relatively definite sense of self emerging out of prior unsurety and loneliness explains the way in which the self-confidence in Nehru’s personality took shape. Some other narcissistic behavioral attributes which he has periodically discussed include self-centeredness, lack of empathy, and aversion to authority. In his letters to Indira Gandhi,13 and also in his open letter to the children of India, he confessed how he detests elders or authoritative figures who believe in moral, pedantic sermonizing and who do not use open discussions to talk about facts. This aversion manifested in regular fall-outs with Motilal Nehru and, on some occasions, Gandhi. Pupul Jayakar’s biography on Indira Gandhi14 suggests that Nehru often placed a greater stress on the affairs of the country than on personal domestic matters. When he returned to India in order to accept the presidentship for the Congress, Kamla Nehru was critically ill in Switzerland (more on this later). Reaction to public admiration Nehru enjoyed the most amount of acclaim and adulation by the public than any other prime minister in India. Academician Michael Brecher15 describes a first-hand account of Nehru’s popularity based on his visit to India: After the usual garlanding ceremony, with the ubiquitous photographers surrounding the Prime Minister . . . a large crowd patiently awaited the arrival of their hero. As his open car approached the entrance, a mighty roar went up, ‘Pandit Nehru ki Jai’ (Hail Pandit Nehru). Unlike the throngs in the totalitarian states, this was a spontaneous crowd expressing genuine affection for India’s first citizen. Being accustomed to this adulation for the past 25 years, Nehru took it in his stride, smiling to the crowd and reciprocating their warm greetings. . . . Further evidence of this hero-worship was provided during the lengthy journey by car along the dusty roads of rural Hyderabad. At one large village a crowd of 10,000 had gathered to greet the Prime Minister. They broke into a frenzied run towards the opposite side in order to get a look at him. The

26

Jawaharlal Nehru race for a ‘darshan’ was like an instinctive, compelling drive, a craving for association with an exalted man. Throughout the journey there was a mumble among the crowds along the route. . . . “We saw him, we saw him” they were saying in ecstasy to their families. (Brecher, 96)

As President Pranab Mukherji pointed out in a 2018 article in Reader’s Digest,16 Nehru strongly discouraged all sorts of hero worship. At the same time, however, Nehru was often comfortably at the receiving end of it. The extent of the popularity, the degree to which the individual is aware of it, and how s/he responds to it are factors that reveal characteristics of their narcissistic personality. A certain degree of narcissism often ensures mass appeal and therefore has a considerable impact on the individual’s popularity.17 Interviews provide visual clues to study the body language and physical personality traits of public figures. Since the responses are immediate, the reading is based on candid and relatively original reactions. In his book, Michael Brecher, who extensively interviewed Nehru, has observed that: A combination of his self-image as indispensable to the attainment of his ambitious goals for India, domestic and international, and a deep rooted dependence of his colleagues and aides on his leadership and ultimate decision making authority in virtually all matters important and trivial had profound negative consequences for the working of all branches of India’s administration. (p. 402) Nehru was well aware of his popularity and responded to it with great wit. In the interview with Arnold Michaelis, Nehru said he does not hold his public activity or talent responsible for his contemporary importance in India. He finds it essential for the people and him (as prime minister) to have a mutual respect, which will result in the smooth functioning and the “good of the country”. He admittedly says that “behind that, if I may objectively say so, is a level of conceit” and goes on to joke, saying “I know that even if I am not Prime Minister, I am very important still in India”. He is therefore evidently aware of his place in the public perception and the possibilities of conceit and self-aggrandizement that come along with such an inflated public image. Having been elected as the president of Congress twice in a row, before the elections, Nehru wrote an article on himself, which was anonymously published in The Modern Review in Calcutta. It establishes a self-reflexive link between his popularity, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. The article read: Watch him again. There is a great procession and tens of thousands of persons surround his car and cheer him in an ecstasy of abandonment.

Jawaharlal Nehru

27

He stands on the seat of the car, balancing himself rather well, straight and seemingly tall, like a god, serene and unmoved by the seething multitude. Suddenly there is that smile again, or even a merry laugh, and the tension seems to break and the crowd laughs with him, not knowing what it is laughing at. . . . Is all this natural or the carefully thought cut trickery of the public man? Perhaps it is both and long habit has become second nature now. Mention of self-astuteness and emotional control indicate higher selfassessment. He goes on, saying: Jawaharlal cannot become a fascist. And yet he has all the makings of a dictator in him – vast popularity, a strong will directed to a well-defined purpose, energy, pride, organizational capacity, ability, hardness, and, with all his love of the crowd, an intolerance of others and a certain contempt for the weak and the inefficient. His flashes of temper are well known and even when they are controlled, the curling of the lips betrays him. His over-mastering desire to get things done, to sweep away what he dislikes and build a new, will hardly brook for long the slow processes of democracy. He may keep the husk but he will see to it that it bends to his will. . . . For two consecutive years Jawaharlal has been President of the Congress and in some ways he has made himself so indispensable that there are many who suggest that he should be elected for a third term. .  .  . By electing him a third time we shall exalt one man at the cost of the Congress and make the people think in terms of Caesarism. We shall encourage in Jawaharlal the wrong tendencies and increase his conceit and pride. He will become convinced that only he can bear this burden or tackle India’s problems. Let us remember that, in spite of his apparent indifference to office, he has managed to hold important offices in the Congress for the last seventeen years. He must imagine that he is indispensable, and no man must be allowed to think so. His conceit is already formidable. It must be checked. We want no Caesars. Even though Nehru found the article amusing and humorous, the words show an attention to detail which seems autobiographical. The narcissistic (and also Machiavellian) impulses mentioned in the article, including hypocrisy, conceit, and calculative expression of warmth, seem to be qualities that Nehru knows he possesses. The self-refexive article perhaps is used as a self-employed measure to keep the narcissistic tendencies in check. However, both the content of the article as well as the fact that he wrote a lengthy satire on himself provide a close insight into the narcissistic side of his personality. The pseudonym under which this article was published is telling of Machiavellian refections as well. The pseudonym was ‘Chanakya’, who was an infuential and astute Indian political fgure in Chandragupta’s

28

Jawaharlal Nehru

court.18 In a note added later to the article, Nehru referred to Chanakya as “the prototype of Machiavelli”.19 Evidently, Nehru’s confidence and grandiose responses with respect to public adulation is greatly enhanced in his later political years, specifically when he is the unchecked chieftain parliamentarian. In the pre-premiership period, especially in the presence of other nationally admired leaders (such as Gandhi, Patel, and Bose among others), Nehru’s grandiosity and exhibitionism is significantly subdued and barely finds opportunities to surface. Leadership refined Nehru looked at himself as a leader who was responsible for shaping the future of his subordinates, i.e., the people of India. Shankar Pillai, the famous cartoonist, regularly showcased how Nehru’s position as leader was captured in the public imagination. Shankar Pillai showed Nehru in one of his cartoons20 as holding several mics and speaking at length. This cartoon had a side note, saying: PM said he had not broadcast for a long time. He did not warn he would make up for the most time. Another such cartoon by Pillai indicated Nehru’s eagerness to portray his electoral decisions as a panacea where he campaigned for Krishna Menon.21 How he sees his own self in relation to the country gives an insight into his self-perception and enhanced self-concepts. He had observed quite early in his career, The Indian masses have the ingrained habit of expecting everything to be done from the top . . . but our effort will be to train the masses to act for themselves. (Moraes, 507) He therefore posed as a trainer to the people who followed him reverentially. He also assumes the role of an educator or teacher. He describes his leadership role in the following words: The policies that I have encouraged, advocated, sponsored, have not been just individual policies. They have vaguely and broadly speaking, the backing of the masses in this country. My chief business, in so far as the people are concerned, has been, if I may use the word, to speak to them as a schoolmaster, to try to explain things to them in as simple a language as possible. (Brecher, 111) This attitude of shouldering responsibility for subordinates was also carried on to the parliament after he became prime minister of independent

Jawaharlal Nehru

29

India. Nehru’s self-image as the protector of the people proved to be verging on an imposition of his worldview at several instances. In the parliamentary debates surrounding the Hindu code bills, Nehru seems to pose as the reformist voice which sought to modernize the country by instilling a progressive social conduct among the majority (more on this in a later section). The Hindus constituted 80 percent of the population at the time, and many of them lived in joint families. Nehru rejected this practice as “a relic of a feudal age, utterly out of keeping with modern conditions”.22 In the examples mentioned earlier, there seems to be a gap between what the people practice and what Nehru would ideally want them to practice. This gap he attempts to bridge as a “schoolmaster” or a “trainer”, transferring his knowledge and understanding of the state of affairs to the people in a simple language even when it is not in keeping with their worldview. This didactic stance is sometimes maintained in the face of opposition from the masses, as well as can be seen in the case of the Hindu code bills. It is legitimized, alternatively, on the grounds of knowledge as well as modernity. In January 1952, Nehru spoke at a press conference: So far as the Hindu Code Bill is concerned .  .  . an attempt has been made in it to bring about a measure of uniformity keeping in view at the same time the different customs that have developed through the ages. There is nothing in it, as far as I know, and so far as many learned men in the Hindu Law and the Shastras have advised us, that is opposed to the basic principles of the Hindu Law or Dharma. . . . So far as I am concerned, I am convinced that the progress of the Indian people must be on all fronts – political, economic and social. All these are interrelated and backwardness in one lead to stagnation and a brake on the others. That all round progress must be related to modern condition should be based on the genius and basic ideas which have governed India for long time past. It is from this point of view that I consider a codification of Hindu Law necessary. (Schoettli, 315) In the letters written to his chief ministers, Nehru attempted to maintain complete transparency of thought. His distaste for didactic sermonizing caused him to stress a detailed rationale of his decisions so that information and an educated approach could justify the proposed decision. The rationale behind each policy was described in elaborate detail. Nehru sometimes revealed to his ministers his fears, confusions, and apprehensions in the letters. Margaret G. Hermanne has observed: when the trait score for self-confidence exceeds that for conceptual complexity, the leader tends to be more principled and less pragmatic in decision making and dealings with others. Such leaders know what they want and what should happen and spend their time persuading others of the appropriateness of their course of action. . . . These leaders seek

30

Jawaharlal Nehru out information that will confirm their case and enhance their ability to convince others of what should be done. The focus is on developing a persuasive rationale for an already selected course of action. (Hermanne, 392)

Nehru displays a similarly high level of self-confidence and relentlessness. In the Penguin edition of a collection of his letters to his chief ministers,23 it can be seen that detailed information is provided, and occasionally the input of the chief ministers is also asked for; however, there is repetitive use of phrases such as “the only way to . . .” and “the only solution .  .  .”, which provides what Nehru thinks is the correct course of action to deal with the problems at hand. He also often expresses an almost paternal disappointment when Congressmen side with dissenting forces or do not fall in line. Speaking of communalism, he said in a letter dated 1 November 1951: I can understand these criticisms from non-congressmen who have had some communal background in the past. But it amazes me that any Congressman should so mislead himself and others. (Penguin, 53) In relation to the policy of non-alignment, in a letter dated 26 October 1959, he states: Only unthinking persons can suggest any change in our basic policy. (Penguin, 233) These phrases display a distaste for dissent among his ministers. At the same time, he is careful not to turn dictatorial. He occasionally asks for their opinions and often offers advice saying, “I leave this to your discretion”. Overall, the letters display a sense of control and an urge to build and maintain consensus, both of which are tendencies associated with mild narcissism and Machiavellianism. One may ponder decades later whether Nehru actually meant to offer discretion to his state-level ministers. Nehru’s (false) international projection Margaret G. Hermann, in her assessment of Saddam Hussein’s leadership style, has observed how nationalism affects the leadership and decisions of political figures. She says the higher the score on nationalism, the more isomorphic the country and the leader.24 In the letter dated 1 November 1951, Nehru displays a strong distaste for opposition to his foreign policy with Pakistan. He legitimizes his stance by stressing his role in the freedom struggle and the right of people like him alone to attempt to define the nation and nationalism:

Jawaharlal Nehru

31

These flourished in the name of nationalism and culture. They demanded loudly what they called strong action against Pakistan, which included war and criticized government policies one of appeasement of Pakistan. These people, most of whom had done little in the struggle for India’s freedom, become her aggressive champions – their India being limited of course to those who agreed with them. (Penguin, 51) Nehru became isomorphic with India. This can be seen in the strong sentiments in the statements quoted previously, his relentless drive to modernize India and turn it into a socialist state, as well as the deterioration of his physical health after the Chinese invasion of 1964. Nationalism becomes an important factor to consider while assessing the leadership role and personality of a figure such as Nehru, whose rise to power as PM is inevitably linked with patriotism and nationalism. Nehru and India have been conflated in the public imagination as well. However, Nehru’s nationalism was that of internal and external collaboration and is completely different from Hermann’s reading of Hussein’s nationalism. Nehru’s political outlook seems to have laid more stress on international affairs and India’s image in the international community. Another facet of the kind of nationalism mentioned earlier would mean that the image of India abroad was crucial in defining both the country’s and Nehru’s worth. Parliamentary debates of the 1950s reveal that Nehru became increasingly irritable in matters concerning foreign policies and did not respond well to criticism. When it was pointed out that Nehru’s foreign policy lacked realism, he replied saying: It seemed to me that those people who pride themselves of being practical politicians normally know nothing about realism or about the state of affairs. (Schoettli, 248) As a response to the concern that India was not actively engaging in world politics, Nehru responded: I say we have taken a more active part in the past two or three years in foreign policies than many other countries, barring the Big Powers. I do not understand this business, except that these people who talk like that know nothing about what they are talking of and do not study or read or understand what is happening around them. (Schoettli, 248) In the 1958 interview with Michaelis,25 Nehru appreciated the ability of Gandhi to differ in terms of policies without displaying hostility towards the opponent. He admired this as a tactful way of carrying out effective

32

Jawaharlal Nehru

persuasion. He adopted a similar method in the parliament as well as in foreign relations. Nehru’s foreign policy laid constant stress on peace and non-alignment. The friendliness in his attitude towards opponents displays a profound understanding of human social behavior and reveals subtle Machiavellian impulses. Important decisions in foreign relations, such as the formulation of the Panchsheel principles, is also indicative of Nehru’s Machiavellian potential. In this context, he said that the Indians were to function as peacemakers and peace bringers because today we are not strong enough to be able to have our way. (Schoettli, 241) With this basic reason as the core, the Panchsheel principles were internationally legitimized on the grounds of peace, friendliness, non-violence, and pacifsm. Apparently, Nehru projected India to international communities as a peaceful neighbor. Often it dearly costed him in terms of dilution of Indian international borders at multiple fronts. India’s projected peacefulness probably led to China’s ascension to the United Nations Security Council in place of India and several significant northern border compromises toward Pakistan. Positive image projection was possibly Nehru’s natural urge. Nonetheless, Nehru believed in freedom of the press and was not vehemently opposed to criticism from the media, however only within the country. He famously told the renowned cartoon artist, Shankar Pillai, “Don’t spare me, Shankar”.26 Shankar has said that Nehru demanded original sketches of the cartoons personally criticizing him and thanked Shankar for helping him spot his inherent weaknesses. These cartoons, published in leading newspapers, also provide an insight into the public perception of the personality of political figures and can prove helpful in gauging the elements of the narcissism and Machiavellianism traits in their personalities. Parliamentary Nehru Even though difference of opinion was not discouraged amongst leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru, Shastri, Desai, Patel, Jinnah etc., in certain matters posing extreme incongruity, the friendly approach was replaced by an explicitly Machiavellian one. When asked about the partition, Nehru stated in the interview that they thought it was better to have separate countries than to constantly have to deal with separatist tendencies.27 He said that his colleagues in the Congress were in favor of land reforms, which Jinnah and his followers did not want. In Nehru’s opinion, this became the decisive splitting factor. Given a situation where consensus could not be built, Nehru and the Congressional leaders chose to bear the consequences of partition rather than give up on their policies of land reform, which were essential for

Jawaharlal Nehru

33

the creation of a welfare state. Within the parliament as well, differences in opinion and debates emerged, but in many cases, Nehru was ultimately able to implement his views, as in the case of the Hindu code bills. Another satirical cartoon28 by Shankar Pillai showcased Nehru as rubberstamping decisions unchallenged as an evidence of the support that Nehru enjoyed in the parliament in the former part of his career, which enabled unilateral decision making. He was single-handedly passing legislative bills and the entire parliament was metaphorically in his hands. Similarly, a cartoon29 published in 1962 is a satirical take that suggests that the voter must be converted into the doctrines preached by the Congress, reinforcing the pedantic nature of Nehru and Congress. Nehru referred to the Congress Manifesto as the ‘Sacred Bible’, which has been mocked by Pillai in this cartoon. ***** In sum, it can be said that even though there is often a tendency to conflate Nehru’s personality and policies into the rhetoric of nationalism, his personality was much more layered and complex. Nehru had a charismatic aura, which made him popular with the masses. He displayed a sensitive intellectual capacity, which could compare the political situations across historical and geographical spheres. This capacity enabled him to see merit in every point of view, which made objective distance an integral part of his personality. The historic opportunities at his disposal, the way he handled these opportunities, the formation and implementation of his ideologies, his evolution as a politician, and the way it was captured in the public imagination can be read to conclude that he possessed a moderate and adequate amount of narcissism and Machiavellianism. After this assessment one may conclude some personality traits prevalent in Nehru, but one should register his dispositional evolution with time. Arnold Michaelis interviewed him twice, once in 1958 and once in 1964, a few weeks before his death. The younger Nehru talks in a pensive manner, repeatedly pausing for reflection and often looking away from the eyes of the listener. He intersperses serious, reflective commentary with humor, often cracking jokes at his own expense. He is calm and his dialogue is periodically interrupted by laughter. The older Nehru sits with a handkerchief in hand, slightly fidgeting with it every now and then. Still pensive, his gaze shifts from the listener to elsewhere. The Gandhi cap and wristwatch from the previous interview is missing, and his dialogue is relatively more serious, lacking humor. Naturally, the content also varies. During the 1958 interview, he enthusiastically quotes his own speech, reads it out to Michaelis, and calls it a “good” speech. He also refers to how his foreign visits and methods of diplomacy have helped create an atmosphere of friendliness even where there is difference of opinion. Employing the “I” pronoun throughout the anecdote, he explains how he facilitated better communication on the matter of policies wherever he travelled throughout the world. The 1964 interview

34

Jawaharlal Nehru

Superior Beings or Pre-Premiership, Pre-Independence

Vul n

era

ble

Na

rcis

sis

m

Nehru Gr an dio

se

Na

r ci

ss

ism

Juniors, Subordinates, Noobs, and Masses or In-Premiership

Figure 2.1 Nehru’s dynamic narcissism

reveals a sense of opposition in the country that had set in. By this time, widespread criticisms for his decisions had taken shape. Nehru admits he finds it challenging to convince the farmers to adopt his farming methods. He rationalizes and defends the Indo-Pak relations and the defeat of the Indian army by the Chinese forces. The explicit narcissism of 1958 seems to have mellowed down and transformed into defensive rationalizing in order to justify his decisions taken as prime minister. Figure 2.1 represents a dynamic psychographic and dispositional profile of Nehru. Clearly, the evidences cited indicate that his dispositions were subject to a mental hierarchy that Nehru would assign to the targeted subjects. Also, it lies in the time period in reference.

Personal relations Nehru with family Jawaharlal Nehru’s familial relationships are reflective of certain traits of his personality that also became decisive factors, at various instances, later on in his political career. An awareness of adulation, inability to form a deep, emotional connection with individuals, and an aversion to authority are some such traits that can prove to be narcissistic triggers. Adulation

Jawaharlal Nehru

35

followed Nehru throughout his lifetime. It came from the female members of the Nehru family, from the Indian masses, and from many of Nehru’s contemporaries. Vijaylakshmi Pandit, in her memoir,30 has described the special attention that is given to a brother in the Indian culture. She writes about the affection and importance given to Nehru in the Nehru household, on account of being the only male child. About her own relationship with her brother, she says that it was an “unreasoning love” and “it bordered on adoration”. She wrote that her admiration and love for Nehru did considerable harm in her political life:31 I have a mind of my own and have always been able to use it . . . but I gradually found myself accepting bhai’s views without any questioning. . . . This was also unfair to bhai who never tried to bring pressure on anyone. Biographical sources on Nehru’s life suggest that his childhood was that of material abundance and emotional comfort, and his mother among other relatives doted on him. Pandit describes32 Nehru’s wedding as: lavish to the point of ostentation. . . . Father’s love for my brother was deep – nothing in the world was too good for him, and his bride must have the best of everything. In the years at Harrow, he refers to himself as an outsider unable to fit in. Through his years as a lawyer in Allahabad, Nehru describes his life as having turned into a mundane, cyclical existence. It has been speculated that the loneliness was caused by either the age gap between siblings or his inability to identify himself with his surroundings. However, he describes it as a “spiritual loneliness” that often comes naturally to people who are “sensitive”. Aside from existential loneliness and phases of internal alienation, Nehru grew up in an atmosphere of attention and comfort. In a letter to Indira Gandhi,33 years later, he referred to two types of problem children: One is the spoilt child who has been used at home to getting everything he or she wants without working for it or any other trouble. The other, the neglected child, whom people at home, usually in large families, where there are many children, ignore and who is thus, not properly looked after. He further said that the spoilt child, when he goes out into the world, expects everyone to pat him on the back all the time as he was petted at home. The neglected child is not used to meeting people – so when he goes out into the world, he keeps apart from others and feels dissatisfied and angry and blames everybody. He believed that a child who grows up in a privileged atmosphere and is admired often evolves into an adult with an inflated image of the self who considers himself or herself to be entitled to praise. Later on, in the political

36

Jawaharlal Nehru

arena as well, he was aware of being at the receiving end of widespread admiration and wrote that it could easily turn into narcissism. His relationship with Kamala Nehru is a second indicator of the inability to form deep, emotional connections. Vijaylakshmi Pandit’s memoir talks about the lack of privacy that the young couple had in a joint family setup, which denied them the space to form an emotional bond. The difference in cultural backgrounds and intellectual worldviews has also been seen as one of the reasons why the relationship between them was slow to mature and strained by physical and emotional distance. Biographies and correspondence reveal that the tumultuous events in the freedom struggle, Nehru’s political responsibilities, regular imprisonment, Kamala’s tuberculosis, and her turn towards spirituality in the last few years of her life were some of the challenges that further strained their relationship. In 1935, Kamala wrote to Prabhavati Devi:34 He is angry with me. There is no one with me now except God. The world is a net and if one is entangled in it, there is sorrow and more sorrow. I made a big mistake by spending thirty-five years of my life as a housewife. If I had searched for God during that period, I would have found him. While the factors mentioned previously proved to be major reasons behind a strained relationship, Nehru’s own individual personality also played a part. He seems to have had an inability to form channels of intimacy with individuals. This is indicative of narcissistic as well as Machiavellian personality traits. It was perhaps these traits in Nehru’s personality which hampered the establishment of successful relationships with Kamala Nehru and several others, throughout his lifetime. In his autobiography,35 Nehru wrote, “I was a most unsatisfactory person to marry”. He once wrote to Padmaja Naidu: Think of me as I am – full of conceit and full of myself, callously unaware of what I do to others. It is not a lovely picture but it is nearer the truth than the imaginary picture in most minds. Nehru wrote to Syed Mahmud in 1933: Yes, we did not discuss personal matters. You ought to know me sufficiently to realize that I never discuss them unless the other party takes the initiative. I would not do so even with Kamala or Indu. Such has been my training. (Brecher, 79) The 1958 interview with Michaelis revisits the tendency in Nehru of not being able to form lasting associations when he says that, at various instances,

Jawaharlal Nehru

37

one has friends with which one identifies but there is never a constant factor, hinting that loneliness is inevitable. Walter Crocker, in his biography, Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate, called him a “horror of intimacy”. All of the aforementioned instances establish his incapability to form intimate relationships. In a paper titled “Nehru: Authority, intimacy and vocation in the life of a revolutionary”, Glynn L. Wood has linked these character traits of aloofness and inability to form intimate connections with Nehru’s political activity. Furthermore, an article quotes Hsu,36 stating: The need for intimacy is as important as requirement for food, water and air. For those individuals lacking intimates, the lack will generate the kinds of psychological materials which feed enthusiasm for patriotism, national expansion, amorphous communes, missionary zeal and universalist movement . . . that agitators compensate for poor personal relationships with the adulation of their followers. Wood, therefore, points out that the lack of intimacy in personal relationships facilitated Nehru’s evolution into a political figure. The lack was also compensated for in the form of praise and admiration from the masses. Biographical sources describe the immense nature of adulation and admiration that Nehru received from the people of India when he toured the country. Pupul Jayakar’s biography37 confirms this speculation: Jawaharlal confessed to Indira earlier in March, that the ease with which he related to the crowds and the way they adulated him covered up a failure to understand individual human beings. “The crowd ceased to fascinate me as it used to, and I found out how utterly alone I was”. Nehru and Motilal Nehru had a strong aversion to authority. In an open letter to the children of India, he wrote: Old people have a habit of delivering sermons and good advice to the young. I remember that I disliked this very much long ago when I was a boy. So I suppose you do not like it very much either. Grown-ups also have a habit of appearing to be very wise, even though very few of them possess much wisdom. This aversion can be traced back to his childhood, where he found it troublesome to reconcile with the patriarchal authority Motilal Nehru commanded in the household. Glynn L. Wood38 explores Nehru’s equation with private authority embodied in his father. His feelings towards Motilal were a combination of fear, admiration, and love. Wood studied the correspondence

38

Jawaharlal Nehru

between the two in his years at Harrow to observe that while the tone of the letters were largely affectionate and Nehru was a dutiful son in accepting his father’s advice on several matters (he later also accepted his choice of bride and his decision that Nehru become a lawyer), there were instances of disagreements, especially regarding political matters. Nehru could not reconcile with Motilal’s moderate stance in relation to British rule, which caused periodic disputes, culminating in a major disagreement, which took Gandhi’s intervention in order to get resolved. In a critical letter he wrote from England, for which he later had to apologize, Nehru said:39 I am sorry you don’t approve of my opinions, but really I can’t help holding them in the present state of affairs. . . . The British government must be feeling very pleased with you. Nehru’s reactions to Motilal’s authority were, therefore, ambivalent, oscillating between loyalty and rebellion. Later, when Gandhi, in many ways, replaced Motilal’s role as a dominant male fgure of authority in Nehru’s life, a similar approach marked their relationship as mentor and mentee. The narcissistic impulse to lash out against authority was held back by the familial factor involved in parental authority as well as the Oedipal guilt to replace the male aggressor by becoming a male aggressor oneself. The character traits of both aversion to authority as well as ambivalence possibly led to Nehru becoming the political figure that he became. Wood links both of these character traits to Nehru’s choice of vocation as a political revolutionary. Wood40 quotes Wolfstein to explore the connection between paternal authority and the choice of an individual to become a revolutionary: The revolutionist is one who escapes from the burdens of oedipal guilt and ambivalence by carrying his conflict with authority into the political realm. Wolfstein describes an ambivalent relationship with a paternal figure of authority, which develops in the genital phase and becomes increasingly intense in adolescence, as a pivotal factor in causing revolutionary outcomes in individuals. These conditions, he argues, are then followed by a traumatic occurrence, which decreases ambivalence and clearly establishes the governmental authority as malevolent, “unlike one’s father who served as the basis for one’s standards of morality and hence can be fought with a clear conscience”. Nehru and Gandhi In Nehru’s case, his encounter with Gandhi became the emotional and philosophical trigger instead of a singular, decisive occurrence. He describes this experience in The Discovery of India:

Jawaharlal Nehru

39

And then Gandhi came. He was like a powerful current of fresh air that made us stretch ourselves and take deep breaths, like a beam of light that pierced the darkness and removed the scales from our eyes, like a whirlwind that upset many things, but most of all, the working of people’s minds. (361) Michael Brecher has viewed Nehru’s relationship with Motilal and Gandhi in a different light. He defines their relationship in terms of paternalism. He labels his ambivalence as “indecisiveness” stemming out of an inherent lack of self-confidence caused by the overarching male presence in his life, thus pointing towards vulnerable narcissistic strains: The benefits of aristocratic background and education were not without price. Security was accompanied by an overweening paternalism which hindered his growth to self-reliance. This tendency to depend on a strong, decisive, and older man became a marked feature of Nehru’s character in his adult life. Even before the death of his father in 1931, he had already transferred this dependence in large measure to Gandhi, who served as guide, counselor, and father-confessor in matters both political and personal. It was not until his early sixties that Nehru emerged completely from the shadow of the two men who exercised more influence on his character than all other persons. Thus, despite his enormous power and prestige, he often exhibited a lack of confidence about the right course of action. In part, this was due to the intellectual in Nehru who saw all points of view and therefore hesitated to act boldly lest he destroy that element of ‘good’ which he thought all viewpoints possessed. But in large measure, this indecisiveness can be traced to the circumstances in which his character was molded. (78) This explanation, however, is an oversimplification, and the relationship, especially between Nehru and Gandhi, bore a more nuanced dynamic. Their partnership was marked more by a combination of emotional affinity and political favorability than by dominance and subservience. This combination somewhat coherently defines the dynamic between the two. Personal as well as domestic matters of the Nehru household were frequently discussed with Gandhi, and correspondence reveals an emotional bond in place. On the political front, a symbiosis was in place. B.R. Nanda41 elaborates on this symbiosis: The political equation between Gandhi and Nehru, extending as it did over a quarter of a century, was not static. It was continually evolving, and seeking a new equilibrium in response not only to the inner drives of two men of exceptional energy and integrity, but to the realities of

40

Jawaharlal Nehru the changing political scene in India. . . . He (Nehru) owed his position in the party and the country in a great measure to his own qualities: his high idealism and dynamism, tireless energy and robust optimism, infectious faith in the destiny of his party and his country, his glamour for youth and charisma for the masses. Nevertheless, it is doubtful if he could have reached the apex of party leadership so early and decisively, if Gandhi had not catapulted him into it at critical junctures in 1929 and 1936. (24)

Nehru in turn became Gandhi’s link with the younger, more radical generation and his advisor on external affairs. Such paradoxical opinions with respect to Nehru’s relationship with his father and Gandhi makes confounding impressions. Inconclusiveness stems from the paradoxical opinions whether Nehru collided with Gandhi for mentorship or for a source of power, an indicator of Machiavelli’s tendency. Narcissism in a leader can be measured from the way in which differences of opinion are handled. There was a considerable difference in ideologies when it came to Nehru and Gandhi. The two differed on the aftermath of the Chauri Chaura incident in 1922, on the issue of complete independence over dominion status in 1928, on the Gandhi-Irwin Pact in 1939, on Gandhi’s resolve to fast against separate electorates for untouchables, over the withdrawal of the civil disobedience movement in 1934, on the approach to the World War in 1939, and on the issue of the Partition of India. The differences were voiced publicly and discussed at length but never pushed to the breaking point. Nehru’s Machiavellian abilities gave him the political sense to not break completely with Gandhi. The Calcutta Congress of 1928 is an apt example where Subhash Chandra Bose and Nehru opposed a motion passed by Gandhi, which had been previously discussed at a party session, regarding the Dominion Status, giving the British government a period of one year to grant India complete independence, before launching the non-cooperation movement. After initial opposition, Nehru ultimately fell in line with Gandhi’s stance, thus inviting criticism from the radical and socialist elements in Congress, including Bose, of choosing loyalty over principles. The decision, however, was not an emotional case of being dominated but an astute, calculated reading of the political situation. In a letter to Bose, Nehru explained the need to stick with Gandhi: The Left was not strong enough to shoulder the burden by itself, and when a real contest came in the Congress, it would lose and then there would be a reaction against it. (Nanda, 16) Nehru warned Bose of the many “disruptive tendencies” already in place in the country, and how it was wrong to add to them and weaken the national

Jawaharlal Nehru

41

movement. In the case of an open disagreement regarding the Gandhi-Irwin pact, Nehru expressed a similar practical approach: The thing had been done, our leader had committed himself and even if we disagreed with him, what could we do? Throw him over? Break from him? Announce our disagreement? That might bring some personal satisfaction to an individual, but it made no difference to the final decision. (Nanda, 8) The partition of India is an example where Nehru’s political opinion was able to surpass that of Gandhi’s. J.M. Post, in his book, Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior, talks about the role of the mentor in shaping the personalities and actions of political leaders. He observes that in a healthy dynamic, the mentor and the protege benefit mutually. However, there comes a point when the protege wants to assert a sense of his individual self, which Post sees in relation to growth and maturity. It can be said that a successful establishment of the individual self may nourish and promote the narcissistic side of the protege’s personality. The relationship between Gandhi and Nehru can be seen vis-à-vis this framework. In personal as well as public accounts, the relationship between Gandhi and Nehru has been reiterated repeatedly. Nehru advised Gandhi on external affairs and also sought Gandhi’s advice religiously. Their disagreements did not affect the dynamics of their symbiosis and mutual regard. A 1928 correspondence between Gandhi and Nehru42 reveals a difference in opinion regarding Gandhi’s theological views expressed in Hind Swaraj. Gandhi was not pleased with Nehru’s criticism and asked him to declare “warfare” publicly and “unfurl his banner” in a dignified way by making the letter public. Nehru was quick to state that there could never be a war between them, and he accepted that his views were not rigid and that he could be persuaded by Gandhi. Another confrontation between them is revealed in correspondence in 1945 when they differ on the future of India. Gandhi wished for villages to be the basic units in independent India and simplicity the national way of life, whereas Nehru in sharp contrast envisioned infrastructural modernization and urban development as the right course of action for India. In spite of their differences, the two leaders remained friends. While Gandhi maintained the ideological upper hand, Nehru’s political position was considerably consolidated. His relationship with his mentor was marked by a balance between fearless expression, disagreement, self-assertion, as well as regard and seeking validation. On his speech at Gandhi’s death, he regrettably said that “we can no longer run to him for advice”.

42

Jawaharlal Nehru

Nehru and contemporaries Unlike Nehru’s equation with Gandhi, differences in outlook with some of his contemporaries could not be reconciled effectively. However, owing either to his efforts to build consensus and avoid open conflict or to the ambivalent character of his personality, Nehru consistently strived to maintain a neutral stance. According to Ramchandra Guha,43 Nehru had conflicts with other Indian leaders, such as Rajagopalachari, Rajendra Prasad, and Patel, over socialism; with Subas Chandra Bose over the fascist approach; and with Jinnah over the status of the Muslims. Nehru’s contests were always over ideas, never over any personal interests of his own, although he waged them without quarter and provoked a good deal of personal enmity. Also, his relationship became increasingly strained with Bose. He wrote in a letter to K. Menon: Subhas has gone off the rails and has been behaving very badly in many ways. His principal supporters are very irresponsible and unreliable people and it is quite impossible for me to join this motley group with whose viewpoints on national and international politics I do not agree. (Nanda, 18) Further, Minoo Masani, a key fgure of the Congress Socialist Party, wrote in his memoirs of Nehru’s ambivalence: When faced with a difficult choice, he would be non-aligned. Subhas Basu was quite cynical about such an attitude and told us that Nehru was an opportunist, who thought about his own position first and then about anything else. (Nanda, 19) Subhash Chandra Bose and his brother consistently criticized Nehru in public as well as in personal correspondence. Nehru closed his correspondence with Bose stating, “I am sorry you find it difficult to understand me. Perhaps it is not worth trying”. However, Nehru tried to avert Bose’s expulsion and consistently mediated among the Congress Old Guard, Gandhi, and Bose. In 1945, Nehru replied to Gandhi’s letter44 that had enquired about “the controversy that had flared up” between Sarat Bose and Nehru: About Sarat Bose, I am completely in the dark as to why he should grow so angry with me, unless it is some past grievance about my general attitude in regard to foreign relations. Whether I was right or wrong it does seem to me that Sarat has acted in a childish and irresponsible manner. You will remember perhaps that Subhash did not favour in the old days the Congress attitude towards Spain, Czechoslovakia, Munich

Jawaharlal Nehru

43

and China. Perhaps this is a reflection of that old divergence of views. I know of nothing else that has happened. In his treatment of disagreements with Jinnah and the Muslim League, Nehru was comparatively more decisive. Nehru’s correspondence with Jinnah suggests that since 1938 and before, he had maintained a collaborative stance where he hoped to work with the Muslim League, even though he categorically refused to accept most of the fourteen demands put forth by Jinnah. However, in the face of independence, owing to certain irreconcilable differences, such as the refusal of the League to participate in bringing about land reforms, stark ideological differences, communal tensions, and their prior experience working with the Muslim League in the interim government, Nehru and Patel were convinced of the inevitability of a divide so much so that Gandhi’s intervention was overlooked. Sardar Vallabhai Patel’s role was pivotal in India’s maturation into a democracy. His pragmatism acted as the perfect ally to Nehru’s idealism. Some of Patel’s major achievements include the successful removal of the separate electorate system and the peaceful integration of the princely states with the exception of Hyderabad and Kashmir. While the two men were equal in terms of contributions, as Gandhi’s protege, the limelight tended to fall relatively more on Nehru. As his deputy prime minister, Patel constantly aided and questioned Nehru’s policies. There was a considerable concentration of power in Patel’s hands. He held important portfolios such as Home Minister, Information and Broadcasting Minister, and Minister for States. The two differed on a number of occasions, approaching issues with completely different perspectives. The relationship remained official and cordial, although Nehru did not necessarily comply with his outlook. Nehru vehemently advocated secularism while Patel fearlessly called on Indian Muslims to prove their loyalty by speaking up against Pakistani activities in Kashmir and denouncing claims of special treatment as minorities. In the constituent assembly debates, Patel favored the protection of property rights, opposing state acquisition except for a few cases. Nehru wanted to push the socialist agenda and vest more powers in the state legislatures. The constituent assembly ultimately decided on Patel’s view in an attempt to safeguard the citizens’ right to property. Patel had also alerted Nehru of the Chinese aggression towards India, suggesting that the states around the northeast boundary of India be militarily and politically strengthened. Correspondence reveals that Nehru, however, was convinced that there was no question of a Chinese military attack. In an interview in 1958, Nehru commented on the difference in the methods of Patel and himself, in his characteristic neutral manner, pointing out that both styles of governance had their strengths and weaknesses: Sardar’s whole life was a symbol of his thoughts, his ability and his working capability. . . . He was a stern and strict disciplinarian. . . . You

44

Jawaharlal Nehru just compare how Congress worked in Gujarat and in UP. He created a solid organization in Gujarat where there was not much flexibility. It had its strength and weakness too, that popped up later. . . . No one person had control (over Congress) in UP. At least ten to twelve persons were there and all of them were equal. .  .  . They kept on changing. Not like Gujarat and Bengal where a single person was there for ten years. . . . In UP, there was space for opposing one another and open discussions. But when it came to implementation, all came together. This had its weaknesses and strengths both. (The Print, 2019)

Nehru’s premiership can be viewed as a distinct phase of his leadership where he functioned as the head of the government with the entire administrative machinery under his command. His distaste for imposing his will on others or acting as a supreme figure of authority and his tendency to weigh both sides of the scale translated into what has often been described as indecisiveness in his capacity as prime minister. He has been accused of stalling important decisions and not being able to take decisive measures. It was in response to the piecemeal approach to the Hindu code bills that B.R. Ambedkar resigned, blaming the PM of slowing down the process. However, Nehru argued that proper consideration and time must be invested in the implementation of the bills, which had already stirred up disputes and dissent. Nehru’s administration was marked by inadequate delegation of duties, minimal demotion of ministers, and a general leniency. Crocker45 reports of a number of instances of corruption in Delhi and Punjab that were reported but not acted upon. His fortnightly letters to chief ministers are replete with nuanced decisions with an almost obsessive attention to detail. However, the ministers are seldom pressed into action or authoritatively commanded. Jivanta Schoettli46 has studied the parliamentary debates throughout the duration of Nehru’s premiership and observed that he strategically placed himself at the center of foreign policy, social reforms, and economic policy. She has studied the way in which laws were passed regarding the Planning Commission, which placed him as the central interlocutor of economic affairs, the Hindu code bills that were in keeping with his fierce secular principles, and the Panchsheela Agreement, which did not bring any immediate gains to India but established his position as the uncontested voice on International affairs. Her studies show that the parliament was a platform for healthy debate, and almost every bill was passed after fierce discussion and disagreement. In complicated matters that stirred up conflict, Nehru, in an attempt to minimize conflict and remain neutral, oscillated from mocking his opponents to not participating in discussions to relying on the advice of a selected few. Consequently, he played a major role as the builder of consensus. He employed strategic methods to exercise control but never took a

Jawaharlal Nehru

45

dictatorial or autocratic stance. His covert expectations for entitlements and public admiration probably led to his neutrality in cases of extreme disputes. Nehru refrained from openly naming a successor. In a number of interviews, he reiterated his belief in the Indian democratic system, saying that naming a successor would do more harm than good. The New York Times followed this question closely ever since his sickness in January 1964 and indicated the possibility of Guzarilal Nanda, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi, and Kamaraj becoming the next prime minister. The article47 hinted at Shastri’s succession, stating his popularity among the party ranks: Nehru is philosophically too much of a democrat and politically too much of a party man to try to dictate an unpopular choice to his Congress followers. Another article later that month spoke of the induction of Shastri as minister without portfolio as a hint towards Nehru’s preference. The same article also said: Extreme leftists had urged the appointment of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister’s daughter, to the Cabinet rather than Mr. Shastri, but it is understood that she and her father turned down the suggestion. She will remain an important political figure as “personal deputy” to Mr. Nehru. While Nehru inevitably groomed Indira Gandhi to occupy an important position in the Congress as well as national and international affairs, he overtly refrained from the practice of nepotism by not directly ensuring her succession as prime minister. The hurdles she faced with the Congress Old Guard before and after her succession as PM indicates that Nehru, aside from being her father and political mentor, had little to do with ensuring a safe political future for her. However, debates continue around Nehru’s intentions and efforts for Indira’s political future.

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Jawaharlal Nehru was homeschooled by private tutors until the age of 15. He was later educated at Harrow School in England. He graduated in natural sciences from Cambridge University and went on to study law at the Inner Temple. His early interaction with English tutors as well as the aristocratic atmosphere in his house when he was young, where Englishmen often frequented the home, perhaps provided him with a semi-Western sensibility. Being a student in Europe in the politically charged environment of the early twentieth century, he was exposed to socialist and liberal ideas as well as an awareness towards the world affairs which shaped his thinking.

46

Jawaharlal Nehru

His brief career as a barrister was followed by an intense political one. In 1919, he assumed the role of the Secretary of the Home Rule League in Allahabad. He subsequently held a series of important posts within the Congress, having being elected as President of the Party thrice in a row. Nehru travelled widely both within and outside India, which gave him immense exposure to the contemporary state of affairs. His relationship with Gandhi provided a nuanced insight into the freedom struggle as well as an understanding of the social and political fabric of the country. He was imprisoned nine times under British rule. Nehru drew from a variety of ideologies and thinkers during his lifetime. He was affected by theosophical Buddhist and Hindu literature, Fabianism, socialism, liberalism, and communism. He was influenced by Geribaldi, Annie Besant, Romain Rolland, Rabindranath Tagore, Gandhi, and several other academic, economic, and political giants. Nehru wrote four books which were published in his lifetime. The letters he wrote to his daughter, sister, as well as chief ministers during his term as PM have also been published. He maintained personal diaries as well as an elaborate official and unofficial correspondence, which constitute the massive archive available on Nehru’s writings. He was a voracious reader and also wrote extensively. The four books include An Autobiography (1936), The Discovery of India (1946), Glimpses of World History (1934), and Letters from a Father to his Daughter (1929). The mammoth tasks of the integration of the princely states into the Union of India was carried out by Sardar Vallabhai Patel and Nehru somewhat successfully. Although Nehru along with other leaders failed to prevent the partition of India on the grounds to prevent further disintegration, certain separatist tendencies still remained within India. The adoption of a new constitution was the next step that was carried out under Nehru’s premiership. The new constitution was adopted on 26 January 1950. The most major contributions which required drastic measures and firm decisions came in the form of economic and foreign policies. The independent India that Nehru and his ministers inherited had one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world owing to the deindustrialization carried out by the British. The Planning Commission was set up as an advisory body to the cabinet by Nehru in order to devise the five-year plans and aid the state governments as well as ministers to implement them in full measure. The commission periodically created tensions within the cabinet vis-à-vis its role and extent of power over matters of administration and governance. The five-year plans were based on the USSR planning models and aimed at bringing about social and economic growth through centralized measures. While the first five-year plan brought about positive changes, the second five-year plan failed to meet the measures necessary to successfully regulate the economy. Nehru and his government devised an economic framework

Jawaharlal Nehru

47

where the financial and the power to regulate finances largely lay in the hands of the state. Not entirely following Nehru’s personal philosophy, a mixed economy was proposed in the Policy Resolution of 1948. This was done with the objective of protecting indigenous businesses and industries. Since India was on the verge of losing foreign reserves on food grain imports, the first fiveyear plan largely aimed at improving agriculture and irrigation in order to increase output through higher investments and savings. This was carried out successfully, and the rate of economic growth reached the desired targets. With growing influence in party and the parliament, Nehru inspired a second five-year plan, which was more farsighted in its outlook and aimed at bringing about long-term growth and increase in output. It essentially revolved around industrialization, with a special focus on capital goods and heavy industries. It was committed to the socialist model and the major industries remained under central as well as state control. The consumer industries which were open to the private sector were closely controlled by licenses, which popularly came to be known as the License Raj. It has been argued that the impact this had on entrepreneurship in the country proved to be detrimental in the long run. The protectionism promoted by the second five-year plan was, however, not well received by the economic contours of Nehru’s time. Throughout this time, Nehru’s focus remained on the industries of steel and power. He famously regarded dams to be “the modern temples” of India. The Bhakra-Nangal was one such important project which considerably increased the power output and helped run domestic, agricultural, as well as industrial spaces. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Indian Institutes of Technology were built under Nehru’s premiership, which stressed science and technology to boost economic growth. While the second five-year plan brought about unprecedented changes in the industrial sector, with the limited funds that India could utilize, agriculture suffered a setback. Shortage of food intensified, which affected foreign reserves and brought about inflation. Nehru was a strong advocate of the policy of non-alignment during the Cold War. While this allowed international aid in building industries at home, it was not able to meet the objective of posing India as a leader on the international stage. The Bandung Conference proved to be a failure in the long run. Nehru and Menon’s diplomacy, which had been under constant criticism and scrutiny since the 1950s, in the media as well as the parliament, failed to recognize the Chinese as adversaries. The India-China War of 1962 confirmed China as an aggressor and came as a shock to Nehru, who had insisted on no possibility of a war taking place. The Panchsheel principles, which had initially envisaged and campaigned for peaceful coexistence and the independence of nations to choose their stance on international aggression, posed as an alternative to the existing conditions. With China’s violations, its foundation was irrevocably nullified.

48

Jawaharlal Nehru

Nehru was responsible for abolition of the zamindari system. He had vehemently campaigned for land reforms in keeping with the principles of equality and socialism that he strongly identified with. The farmers were brought into direct contact with the state under his government. The ownership of land was passed on to the tillers and landless farmers. This was done with the objective to empower farmers and diminish the power of intermediaries. These land reforms could not fully reach the farmers working at the grass-roots level, and a hierarchy of a different kind was created where upper-caste farmers became landlords while the lower castes largely remained landless. They were, however, successful in abolishing a system which had been the root cause of economic as well as social inequalities in rural India. One of the most controversial domestic reforms carried out by Nehru were the Hindu code bills. The bills comprised the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The laws were seen by Nehru as a progressive step towards bringing about national unity. The bills did not interfere with personal laws of the minorities, and their implementation on the Hindu community alone was justified on the grounds that Hindus constituted the majority of India’s population. In attempting to diminish ethnic, religious, and caste-based differences, Nehru’s government overlooked the largely heterogenous attributes of the community they termed as ‘Hindu’, which included Sikh, Jains, and Buddhists. However, among the several causes for controversy and dissent among the public, the central cause for concern was that the bills were implemented against the will of a vast majority of Hindus that publicly opposed the bills. The nature and consequences of the bills were highly complex and are subject to speculation even today. Under Nehru, the fundamental framework on which the country was to move forward was put into place. In spite of an eclectic demography and a complex social, lingual, and religious dynamic, his government was able to form the union of India and, to an extent, successfully maintain it as well. The issue of Pakistan could not be resolved, and the partition along with its consequences inevitably became a part of India’s history. Unlike other newly independent countries, democracy was given supreme importance in India, and in spite of the overbearing importance of Nehru on the political stage, it emerged as a true democratic structure where general elections were successfully held and the parliament allowed space for debates and voices of dissent. Under Nehru’s leadership, agriculture suffered but industrial output doubled between 1950 to 1960. Poverty largely prevailed, and not much was done to improve primary education, but there were significant advances in technology and infrastructural development. Science and research became important centers of focus. He pushed for a socialist welfare state, which brought about certain social reforms but did not do much to improve the economic conditions of the country.

Jawaharlal Nehru

49

In conclusion, Nehru’s prominence in Indian history is undisputable. This may be safely attributed to his dispositional and intellectual characteristics. His social and political status, economic policies, and international relations are reflections of his nature. One should, however, never form opinions, as Nehru would have wished.

Notes 1 Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Potomac Books, Inc. 2 www.news18.com/photogallery/india/rare-photos-of-first-prime-minister-ofindia-pandit-jawaharlal-nehru-1576431-35.html 3 www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-18040 4 Langkjaer, M. A. (2014). From cool to un-cool to re-cool: Nehru and Mao tunics in the sixties and post-sixties West. In Global textile encounters (pp. 227–236). Oxbow Books. Michael Alexander Langkjær is a part-time teacher at the University of Copenhagen and works extensively in the field of post-war Anglo-American youth and rock performer fashion and costume. According to Langkjaer, fashion is motivated style situated within a broader political, social, aesthetic, ethnic, and gendered context. 5 www.istampgallery.com 6 Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1973). Letters from a father to his daughter. Children’s Book Trust. 7 Kafka, Franz, The Diaries: 1910–13. 8 Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1980, January 1). An autobiography. Oxford University Press. 9 https://thewire.in/history/when-jawaharlal-told-people-not-to-elect-him-congresspresident-for-third-term 10 Prasar Bharti Archives: Jawaharlal Nehru’s interview with Arnold Michaelis – 1958; www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk 11 Moraes, F. (2007). Jawaharlal Nehru. Jaico Publishing House. 12 Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1980, January 1). An autobiography. Oxford University Press. 13 Nehru, Jawaharlal. (1973). Letters from a father to his daughter. Children’s Book Trust. 14 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 15 Brecher, M. (2016). Political leadership and charisma: Nehru, Ben-Gurion, and other 20th century political leaders: Intellectual Odyssey I. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 16 Nehru was a politician, statesman, institution-builder, and a nationalist committed to the plurality that makes India exceptional. In his thinking, only a democratic structure, which gave space to various cultural, political, and socioeconomic voices, could hold India together. Nehru also strongly discouraged all forms of hero worship. As early as November 1937, he had penned an article titled “Rashtrapati” under a pseudonym, Chanakya, in the Modern Review of Calcutta, edited by Ramananda Chattopadhyay, accusing himself of having all the makings of a dictator, and concluded: “We want no Caesars.” Full article can be accessed at: www.readersdigest.in/conversations/story-wewant-no-caesars-124325 17 Uppal, N. (2020). CEO narcissism, CEO duality, TMT agreeableness and firm performance. European Business Review, 32(4), 573–590.

50

Jawaharlal Nehru

18 Kautilya, V. (1992). The arthashastra. New Delhi, New York, NY: Penguin Books. Chanakya or Kautilya was the minister in the Kingdom of Chandragupta Maurya during 317–293 B.C. According to doctrine as advanced by Chankya, there are four functional objectives of a political leader: acquire, consolidate, expand, and enjoy the power. He advised six forms of diplomacy required to be observed by political leaders: Sandhi (accommodation); Vigrah (aggressive departure from associations); Asana (neutrality); Dvaidhibhava (superior military prowess and power); Samsarya (supporting weaker states); and Yana (attack when required). 19 www.outlookindia.com/website/story/we-want-no-caesars/292586 20 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sunday-story-jawaharlalnehru-through-shankars-eyes/ 21 https://scroll.in/article/721427/as-a-poet-who-caricatured-historical-figuresmay-get-jail-a-film-recalls-nehrus-thick-skin-to-satire 22 Som, R. (1994). Jawaharlal Nehru and the Hindu code: A victory of symbol over substance? Modern Asian Studies, 28(1), 165–194. 23 Nehru, J. (2015). Letters for a nation: From Jawaharlal Nehru to his chief ministers 1947–1963. UK: Penguin. 24 Hermann, M. G. (2003). Assessing leadership style: Trait analysis. In J. Post (Ed.), The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders (pp. 178–214). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 25 Prasar Bharti Archives: Jawaharlal Nehru’s interview with Arnold Michaelis – 1958; www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk 26 https://theprint.in/theprint-profile/shankar-the-political-cartoonist-to-whomnehru-said-dont-spare-me/340396/ 27 Prasar Bharti Archives: Jawaharlal Nehru’s interview with Arnold Michaelis – 1958; www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdkRwYkkSxk 28 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sunday-story-jawaharlalnehru-through-shankars-eyes/ 29 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sunday-storyjawaharlal-nehru-through-shankars-eyes/ 30 Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. 31 Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. 32 Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. 33 Nehru, J. (1929). Letters from a father to his daughter: Being a brief account of the early days of the world, written for children. Allahabad Law Journal Press. 34 Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. 35 Nehru, J. (1941). Toward freedom: The autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru (Vol. 58). John Day Company. 36 Hsu, F. L. (1971). Psychosocial homeostasis and jen: Conceptual tools for advancing psychological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 73(1), 23–44. 37 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 38 Wood, G. L. (1974). Nehru: Authority, intimacy and vocation in the life of a revolutionary. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 105–121. 39 Nanda, B. R. (1996). Nehru and the British. Modern Asian Studies, 30(2), 469–479. 40 Wood, G. L. (1974). Nehru: Authority, intimacy and vocation in the life of a revolutionary. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 105–121. 41 Nanda, B. R. (1996). Nehru and the British. Modern Asian Studies, 30(2), 469–479. 42 www.ndtv.com/book-excerpts/book-excerpt-when-gandhi-threatened-nehruwith-making-a-letter-public-2080511 43 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 44 Nanda, B. R. (1996). Nehru and the British. Modern Asian Studies, 30(2), 469–479.

Jawaharlal Nehru

51

45 Crocker, W. (2011). Nehru: A contemporary’s estimate. New Delhi, India: Random House. 46 Schoettli, J. (2013). From TH Marshall to Jawaharlal Nehru: Citizenship as vision and strategy. In Citizenship as cultural flow (pp.  25–43). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 47 www.nytimes.com/1964/01/19/archives/indias-big-question-who-after-nehruillness-of-leader-points-up-his.html

References Brecher, M. (2016). Political leadership and charisma: Nehru, Ben-Gurion, and other 20th century political leaders: Intellectual Odyssey I. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Correspondent, S. (2016, December 16). Remembering Nehru through stamps. Retrieved from www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/Remembering-Nehru-throughstamps/article16892277.ece Crocker, W. (2008). Nehru: A contemporary’s estimate. Noida, UP: Random House India. Daniyal, S. (2015, April 18). As a poet who caricatured “historical figures” may get jail, a film recalls Nehru’s thick skin to satire. Retrieved from https://scroll.in/ article/721427/as-a-poet-who-caricatured-historical-figures-may-get-jail-a-filmrecalls-nehrus-thick-skin-to-satire India’s big question: Who after Nehru?: Illness of leader points up his unique role and stirs speculation over future leadership. (1964, January 19). Retrieved from www. nytimes.com/1964/01/19/archives/indias-big-question-who-after-nehru-illness-ofleader-points-up-his.html Kothari, U., Singh, D. K., & Ali, A. (2019, November 14). When Nehru sat down for a tell-all on Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad & Netaji’s Hitler leaning. Retrieved from https://theprint.in/opinion/when-nehru-sat-down-for-a-tell-all-on-sardar-patelmaulana-azad-netajis-hitler-leaning/320736/ Moraes, F. (2007). Jawaharlal Nehru: A biography. Mumbai: Jaico Pub. House. Nanda, B. R. (1998). Jawaharlal Nehru rebel and statesman. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Nehru Bose Jinnah correspondence 1937–38: CabinetMissionPlan. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/cabinetmissionplan/nehru-bose-jinnah-correspondence1937-38 Nehru,J.L.(2018,August 29).We want no Caesars: Nehru’s warning to himself.Retrieved from https://caravanmagazine.in/vantage/want-no-caesars-nehrus-warning Nehru, J. L., Gandhi, I., & Guhathakurta, A. (2004). Letters from a father to his daughter. New Delhi: Puffin Books. Nehru, J. L., & Khosla, M. (2015). Letters for a nation: From Jawaharlal Nehru to his chief ministers 1947–1963. Haryana: Penguin Books India. Nehru hints choice of his heir in naming of Shastri as Deputy Minister without portfolio’s designation is viewed as defeat for leftists. (1964, January 23). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/1964/01/23/archives/nehru-hints-choice-of-his-heir-innaming-of-shastri-as-deputy.html Outlook India Photo Gallery–K. Shankar Pillai. (n.d.). Retrieved from www. outlookindia.com/photos/people/k-shankar-pillai/14193?photo-55629 Post, J. M. (2004). Leaders and their followers in a dangerous world: The psychology of political behavior. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

52

Jawaharlal Nehru

Post, J. M. (2008). The psychological assessment of political leaders with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Schoettli, J. (2017). Vision and strategy in Indian politics: Jawaharlal Nehrus policy choices and the designing of political institutions. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Section I: Selected letters. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.gandhiashramsevagram.org/ selected-letters-of-mahatma/gandhi-letter-to-jawaharlal-nehru4.php Stancati, M. (2013, March 4). Nehru’s tailor on dressing a Prime Minister. Retrieved from https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/03/03/nehrus-tailor-ondressing-a-prime-minister/ Unny. (2015, November 15). Sunday story: Jawaharlal Nehru through Shankar’s eyes. Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/ sunday-story-jawaharlal-nehru-through-shankars-eyes/ Wood, G. L. (n.d.). Nehru: Authority, intimacy and vocation in the life of a revolutionary. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/41854623?read-now=1&seq=16# metadata_info_tab_contents

3

Indira Gandhi A lone ranger (14 January 1980–31 October 1984 and 24 January 1966–24 March 1977)

Indira Gandhi’s transformation from being a Gungi Gudia1 (speechless marionette) to an “iron-willed stateswoman” is surprising, remarkable, and unprecedented. Indian polity that was notoriously known for its timidity under the veils of tolerance witnessed many unforeseen iron-fisted decisions, such as nationalization of banks, national emergency, the East Pakistan war, and Operation Blue Star, under the premiership of Indira Gandhi. This transformation remained a matter of perpetual query amongst not only the erstwhile political stalwarts but also contemporary political thinkers. We may extract some answers to this question by scrutinizing Indira’s psychological, social, and intellectual profile.

Psychographic profile Indira Gandhi’s premiership was marked by challenges of grave magnitude at the national and international levels. Her charismatic personality contributed greatly to surviving and meeting these challenges. A fiercely decisive disposition, strong assertion of the self, political astuteness, boldness in speech and action, and hostile responses to criticism or opposition are some characteristics associated with the narcissism and Machiavellianism traits that can be seen at various instances in Indira Gandhi’s demeanor and actions. The looks Public perception and the way her image were received seem to have been important to Indira Gandhi. Pupul Jayakar, in her biography2 of Indira Gandhi, talks about how she was extremely meticulous with her speeches as well as clothes. Her sari, her blouse, her shoes, her bag were selected for every single function. She was anxious to appear at her best. . . . The white streak in her hair over the years was carefully groomed to give her a touch of distinction.

54

Indira Gandhi

The book also describes how she was not shy about being photographed, held press conferences once a month, met people outside her residence constantly, and started informal talks on All-India Radio. This self-conscious stance coupled with her charisma and careful measures for outreach ensured massive popular support for Gandhi for the major part of her career, but it also led to allegations of encouraging a cult of personality in a democracy. A compensatory narcissist In an article3 titled “Indira Gandhi: The Relationship Between Personality Profile and Leadership Style”, Blema Steinberg states that Indira Gandhi had a composite personality type known as the “compensatory narcissist”, which is an infusion of the ambitious with the reticent and contentious personality traits. The three traits mentioned can be traced from Gandhi’s early childhood as described in a range of biographies. The early experiences of compensating narcissists .  .  . have suffered “wounds” early in life. Rather than collapse under the weight of inferiority and retreat from public view, like the Reticent, or vacillate between loyalty and anger, like the Contentious, however, the compensating narcissist develops an illusion of superiority. Life thus becomes a search to fulfill aspirations of status, recognition, and prestige. (767) She has been described as a lonely and aloof child. Due to the family’s constant involvement in the freedom struggle and Kamala Nehru’s failing health and detachment, she was largely neglected as a child. She says, “I wanted to be more with my parents. I hated being left behind. I did not want to be with myself”. She recalls an incident which permanently affected her self-confidence. Her aunt, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, called her ugly and stupid: “This shattered something within me. Faced with hostility, however well prepared I am, I get tongue-tied and withdraw” (Jayakar). The nature of her education was sporadic, and she travelled throughout her adolescence. These instances perhaps contributed to the reticent dimensions of her personality. The ambitious pattern can be traced from the way she idealized Joan of Arc and dreamt of leading people to freedom like her parents and grandfather. As a child, she organized and led the ‘Vanar Sena’, which was the Congress wing comprising children. At 12 years old, her diary was filled with notes for appointments, protests, and meetings. The ambition and narcissism in her personality can also be seen as a trait she inevitably inherited from the political position and legacy of the Nehru family. The contentious dimension possibly stemmed from the constant domestic unrest in her joint family. According to Gandhi, as indicated by Papul Jayakar,4 her mother was not treated well by her aunts and Swaroop Rani. She

Indira Gandhi

55

felt responsible for the well-being of her mother and often protested against this unjust treatment. She also went against her father and Mahatma Gandhi in marrying Feroze Gandhi. Later on, in her political career, the contentious side of her personality seems to have taken the dominant role. Steinberg5 concludes that as Gandhi started gaining popular support, became the Congress President and consequently, the Prime Minister, the aloof and introverted aspects of her personality diminished and the dominant, contentious, and ambitious aspects found greater expression. Therefore, we can safely infer that the search for aspirations of recognition and prestige associated with the ‘compensatory narcissist’ surfaced and affected political decisions, possibly such as the Declaration of Emergency in 1975. Rebellion Indira Indira Gandhi expressed her capability to form strong, independent opinions as well as to take individual political decisions from the very beginning. In her personal life, she went against the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru to marry Feroze Gandhi. On the political front, she did not allow Nehru’s position as a political giant to overshadow her position as the President of the Congress Party. In an interview for the newspaper Blitz, Jawaharlal Nehru told Russi K. Karanjia: It is well known that I did not groom her or help her in any way to become the Congress Party President – but she did; and I am told by people who do not like me or my policies that she made a very good president. Sometimes she chose a line of her own against my way of thinking, which was the right thing to do. .  .  . We worked more like political colleagues than a father-and-daughter combination. We agreed on some things. We differed on some others. Indira has a strong independent mind of her own, as she should have. (Gupte, 248) This drive to go against the other, irrespective of their position, to implement one’s own will, indicates the presence of narcissism. In the subsequent years, her narcissistic and Machiavellian impulses gained momentum as she came to exercise considerable influence on Nehru’s executive decisions. One of the most important examples being the Kamaraj plan, which aimed at centralizing power and eliminating political rivalry. When Kamaraj was nominated by the Syndicate as a prime minister candidate, it is believed that Indira “Gandhi began conducting backdoor maneuvers to secure her candidacy; however, she kept a low profile during all phases of the new succession struggle”.6 By the time Nehru died, Indira had a considerable political presence within the party as well as the country. She was popular among the general population and had several key contacts in India and abroad.

56

Indira Gandhi

Narcissism in Indira’s personality seems to have taken a more visible shape after Nehru’s death. She was aware of the power of her position. In Lal Bahadur Shastri’s cabinet, Indira held the portfolio of Minister of Information and Broadcasting. When unrest arose in Madras in relation to the question of Hindi being adopted as the official language, she traveled to Madras to meet with and assure the people that coercion would not be used, although her role in the cabinet did not give her the authority to do so. In this regard, she said: Do you think this government can survive if I resign today? I am telling you it won’t. Yes, I have jumped over the Prime Minister’s head and I would do it again whenever the need arises. (Jayakar) Owing to her participation in the freedom struggle, the role of her father and grandfather in Indian history, and the narcissistic tendencies in her personality, Indira often described herself as a national leader who was above politics. In the 1971 election campaign, she responded to the Congress Syndicate’s slogan “Indira hatao” by replacing it with the slogan “Gareebi hatao”, which represented a moral high ground and a concern for the nation over petty political rivalries.7 In an interview with the news channel AP in 1978, Indira Gandhi said: There are two types of politics. Abroad, in the western countries, they regard it as a career; I have never looked at it like that. My family came into politics when there was no question of any kind of post or reward. It was just a voluntary life of very great hardship – not for the sake of suffering hardship but for a cause which was independence of India. Now I feel that until we solve the problem of poverty, we haven’t really consolidated our independence. Therefore, that struggle is still on and while it’s on, I don’t think any patriotic person can sit silent. So far as the career part of it is concerned, I am not interested and I would have liked to work much more quietly but the behavior of the government and the manner in which they have sought to crush the opposition which is mainly the Congress, has left me with no choice. In his book called Narcissism and Politics, Jerrold M. Post studied Indira Gandhi’s rise to power within a generational framework. He explores the unconscious narcissistic link between generations in which the individual’s identity is influenced to accommodate the traumas, dreams, and hopes of the previous generations. From her aforementioned interview it appears that she sees national politics as something that she inherited from her family as opposed to a conscious personal choice. She attributes her life choices in the present to the ideal of independence which was invoked by her family in the past.

Indira Gandhi

57

There is also a sense of responsibility to defend the party. As in the case of Nehru, Indira’s personality seems to have had an isomorphic link with nationalism so much so that personal ambition and patriotism became inseparable concepts in her worldview. Her success became the success of the country and vice versa. In May 1980, she said in an interview: I stand for India’s unfettered independence of action, self-reliance and economic strength. Those who are against self-reliance or secularism or socialism find some reason or the other to malign me. (Guha, 824) Her break from the Syndicate provides important insights into the narcissistic and Machiavellian traits of her personality. Before she assumed office as PM, she had been famously referred to as “Gungi Gudiya” or “dumb doll” by Ram Manohar Lohiya.8 This is suggestive of a larger perception of the older generation of politicians, even within the Congress, who looked at her as an inept politician. The Syndicate, wholly comprising men, perhaps as a result of their gender biases among other reasons, underestimated her potential. Indira, against all expectations, emerged as a highly individualized voice. Her ability to gauge the party opinion against her and to counteract boldly and craftily reveals both narcissistic as well as Machiavellian qualities. To enforce her decision of the nationalization of banks, she relieved Morarji Desai from the Ministry of Finance and kept the portfolio with herself. The nationalization was enforced within days of his resignation. It established her position as a national reformist figure who was needed by the Congress more than she needed it. Speaking of the Syndicate, she said: They had driven me to the wall. Some decisive action was necessary. He (Morarji Desai) had to be sacrificed. (Jayakar) The choice of using the word “sacrifce” here suggests that she believed that her place in the political scenario was important and it could be safeguarded at the expense of senior members such as Morarji Desai. Romesh Thapar9 viewed nationalization (and its timing) of the leading banks of the country as the opening of an entirely new phase in the country’s development and polity. According to Thapar, Indira carefully chose the year of 1969 to launch her ferocious and sustained assault on the men who had been trying to hold her captive and to claim her political position as national leader. The struggle for power to influence decisions within the Congress, with Indira on one side and the Syndicate on the other, reached its peak when V.V. Giri, supported by Indira, was elected as president as opposed to the Congress Party candidate, Sanjeeva Reddy. The Syndicate had hoped that Reddy would be able to create a situation where Indira could be forced to

58

Indira Gandhi

resign as PM. The majority voted for Giri. Indira was consequently expelled by the party president on the grounds of indiscipline. Justifying the expulsion, Nijalingappa said: The history of the twentieth century is replete with the instances of the tragedy that overtakes democracy when a leader who has risen to power on the crest of a popular wave or with the support of a democratic organization becomes victim of political narcissism and is egged on by a coterie of unscrupulous sycophants who use corruption and terror to silence opposition and attempt to make public opinion in echo of authority. The Congress as an organization is dedicated to democracy and socialism has to combat such trends. (Guha, 661) Nijalingappa’s statement alleged that Indira had prioritized self-promotion over the promotion of the party. The Congress Party subsequently split into Congress (O) and Congress (R). The latter won the general elections of 1971 owing, largely, to Indira’s charming personality and rigorous campaigning. The central role occupied by Indira in the party is refected in the fact that Congress (R) was renamed as Congress (I), where ‘I’ stood for Indira. Indira to criticism A political leader’s negative approach to criticism or opposition is a reflection of the underlying narcissistic need for admiration. It also gives an insight into the Machiavellian desire to control outcomes and place oneself in a strategic central position. Key positions in Congress (I) were held by leaders that Indira Gandhi trusted. Renowned cartoonist R.K. Laxman once satirically presented Indira’s selection and appointment of cabinet minister as “political swayambar (In ancient India, a girl of marriageable age was often allowed to choose a husband from a group of suitors)”.10 It was perhaps for this reason, after the 1971 elections, that the chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan were replaced. In 1973, the government rejected the seniority principle and appointed A.N. Ray as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This was heavily criticized and was viewed as an attempt to centralize power and exercise central control over the judiciary. R.K. Laxman depicted in his cartoons Indira Gandhi’s blatant control over the Indian judicial system (in the stunned and un-blindfolded ‘Justicia’11 and the timidity of the Judicial Office while confronting Indira Gandhi).12 Highlighting Indira Gandhi’s failure in negotiating with Zulfikar Bhutto in the Simla Accord, where despite the upper hand that India had after victory in the Bangladesh war in 1972, the contention of Kashmir could not be favorably discussed, and the territory acquired during the war was returned, her former Private Secretary N.K. Seshan remarked:

Indira Gandhi

59

The Prime Minister had become very, very arrogant. She loved being called Durga. The Bangladesh victory was a turning point. Sanjay was the only person who had a total hold on her. She had no tolerance for any other person. (Jayakar) Opposition or disagreement within her council of ministers or party members was met with a firm hand. Mohan Dharia was reportedly removed from her council of ministers in 1975 because he suggested reconciliation with the leader Jayaprakash Narayan when Narayan was about to stage a widespread protest against the Congress government. In her first term as prime minister, at a Congress Workers’ Meeting in Poona, she responded to critics questioning her policies in an eloquent manner, saying: I do not see myself in the role of an imitation of Nehru. If I think it is necessary to depart from his policies in the interest of the country, I shall not hesitate to do so. Foreign aid is necessary to make us independent. I say this with firmness today. Nobody outside or inside this country can ask me to deviate from my chosen path. (Jayakar) The choice of these words seems to leave little room for debate or discussion. Her differences of opinion with Jayaprakash Narayan assumed the shape of bitter animosity with important consequences. It can be viewed as a political struggle on one level and a magnified translation of personal strife and a clash of egos on another. When Indira did not attend a meeting, he called in relation to the disturbances in East Pakistan, and he said: What does Indira think of herself? Does she think she can ignore me? I have seen her as a child in frocks. (Jayakar) A series of letters exchanged between them in 1974 bears testimony to a deteriorating relationship, where Indira refuses to pose as a subordinate of any kind. Having played an important role alongside Nehru in the independence movement as well as in forging important negotiations in independent India, Jayaprakash Narayan was a cherished public figure. The fact that irrespective of his seniority and position, Indira dealt with him in the same manner as she dealt with others who challenged her power represents the intolerance for criticism and disregard for authority associated with narcissistic and Machiavellian personality traits. Censorship of the press also took place in an unprecedentedly strict manner during her tenure. Appointments in the print media industry were influenced. Indira personally mentioned and contradicted claims of newspapers repeatedly during her speeches in parliament as well as in interviews.

60

Indira Gandhi

An article in the New York Times issue of 21 December 1975 reports an informant commenting on the new press ordinances implemented in the emergency: the main point is that they won’t criticize her. Mrs. Gandhi cannot stand criticism – any criticism. (New York Times, 1975) According to this article, censorship during the Emergency of 1975 took an almost fascist turn. All news was sifted through and approved before it could be published. Satirical jokes and cartoons were also banned. Indira’s rationale was to take these steps to ensure peace and prevent physical agitations in the country. Use of success In the war with Pakistan in 1971, Indira’s strong-willed leadership and charismatic personality played a key role in affecting the consequences. Even in the face of clear aggression from President Nixon and the alliance between Pakistan and the U.S., successful military operations were carried out in East and West Pakistan. She traveled extensively in a number of Western countries from the Soviet Union to the U.S., elaborating on the crisis of the refugees from East Pakistan in India and attempting to turn international opinion in favor of the formation of Bangladesh. She astutely placed the onus of deciding the future on Pakistan. Yahya Khan’s attack in Western India came as the perfect opportunity to carry out military action on both sides and establish the independence of Bangladesh. Indira Gandhi’s central role in handling the situation was applauded by Girilal Jain,13 who said: India’s self-esteem and image in the world have improved considerably as a result of the revival of the fortunes of the Congress Party under Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s leadership. The Machiavellian instinct in Indira almost immediately called for fresh elections in 13 states in 1972 where Congress easily won, thus consolidating power in her hands. Indira and emergency The emergency imposed in 1975 is one of the most controversial decisions taken during Indira Gandhi’s tenure. It established the association of words like “autocratic” and “dictatorial” with her premiership. Absolute control by the prime minister on all national affairs had an adverse effect on the public’s perception of Indira Gandhi’s personality. For example, according to popular media,14 practices such as the sterilization of men under the scheme

Indira Gandhi

61

of ‘family planning’ was hyperbolically captured in the public imagination as a cruel dictator castrating India. It can be speculated that the decision to impose the emergency was carried out in a Machiavellian attempt to retain power, in the face of the Allahabad court judgement which prohibited her from voting in parliament. Indira’s rationale was that Jayaprakash Narayan, the RSS, and other opposition leaders, instead of waiting for the next elections, had resorted to extraconstitutional measures and had invoked violence and chaos in urging the public to disregard the orders of the government and the police.15 According to Guha,16 Indira Gandhi viewed the emergency as a measure to prevent internal and external aggression and save the country from the pressing concerns of poverty. Even though the opposition leaders had resorted to impatient measures instead of allowing the democratic conducting of elections to take place, Indira’s view reinforces narcissistic personality traits as it justifies interfering with the natural processes of a democracy to establish the individual as the legitimate figure in charge over others. The imposition of the emergency was carried out in an astute and secretive manner, where even her closest allies within the party were informed only hours before its implementation. The president’s rule was established at midnight, and all opposition members along with Jayaprakash Narayan were imprisoned the following day. Justifying the emergency in a public address in November 1975, Indira took a maternal stance, referring to herself in third person: Our opponents wanted to paralyze the work of the Central Government. We found ourselves in a serious situation and we took certain steps. But many of the friends in the country were rather puzzled as to what has Indiraji done? What will happen to the country now? But we felt that the country has developed a disease and if it is to be cured soon, it has to be given a dose of medicine even if it is a bitter dose. However dear a child may be, if the doctor has prescribed bitter pills for him, they have to be administered for his cure. . . . Now when a child suffers, the mother suffers too. Thus, we were not very pleased to take this step . . . but we saw that it worked just as the dose of the doctor worked. (Guha, 744) The allusion to motherhood seems to have been a common trend in her speeches. During the emergency, paranoia can be seen in the arrest of the leaders and journalists, the censorship ordinances on the press, and the imposition of the president’s rule in Tamil Nadu in January 1976. Indira often relied on her personal instincts and acted without revealing her intentions. Even her closest advisor and son, Sanjay Gandhi, was not informed when the emergency was lifted and fresh elections were called in 1977. This came as an unexpected decision and the return to democracy, negating all

62

Indira Gandhi

speculations of Indira’s leadership turning into an autocratic regime. In a characteristically irritable rebuttal to the criticisms of the emergency raised in the Shah Commission Report, Indira Gandhi said in an interview with Thames TV in 1978:17 If you want to give a lecture on the Shah Commission you needn’t even have me here. You can give it anyway, as other media are doing. We do not accept the Shah Commission’s report and the people of India do not accept it. . . . How does Mr. Shah know what is happening in the political world? What are the forces at work which want to destroy a developing economy? Is a judge competent to decide that? Then why have democracy, why have elections, why have people in power? It was a purely vindictive action by the present government. It’s very interesting that of the cases referred to the Shah Commission, they did not want to enquire into any cases except those against me. . . . In the courtroom itself they had a picked crowd which jeered us. We didn’t want any cheering, but if anybody did, that person was thrown out. . . . And if you’re not bothered about what the people are thinking you should not talk about democracy. There is an undertone of impatience and irritability expressed by her at the failure of the journalist to look at both sides of the argument. She shows positive affirmation in the belief that she had the backing of the people. In the beginning of the interview, when she is asked whether she can see the circumstances in which she might become prime minister again, she says: I can certainly see the circumstances but the question is whether I want to be or will agree to be. There is a strong assertion of the self, carried out through a calm restraint in demeanor coupled with challenging and aggressive speech. After having lost her seat in the parliament, she still displayed confidence in her decisions and prospects for the future, almost predicting the outcome of the elections of 1980. Machiavellian calculative anticipation and narcissistic self- assertion can be seen in her answer. The decision of imposing the emergency and the way it was implemented also speaks volumes about the aforementioned personality traits. Indira Gandhi was the first and only female prime minister in India. She acquired the role at a time when the political scene both within the country and abroad was largely dominated by men. Along with the challenges of forming a stable government in a diverse, newly independent democracy, curbing internal disturbances, and managing external affairs, she had to constantly outmaneuver the members in her own party to stay in power. From the very beginning, there was a rift between the senior male members of the Congress and Indira, which ultimately resulted in a split. It is

Indira Gandhi

63

possible that these circumstances brought out as well as contributed to the Machiavellian traits of her personality, which find evidence in her political decisions and leadership style. The constant pressure to outwit others in order to safeguard her position perhaps resulted in suspicion and paranoia. The narcissism, Machiavellianism, and dominance of her personality, can also be viewed in the context of this defense mechanism. In spite of having been elected out of office and facing criminal charges, she maintained a stoic calm and a confident self-image. Her executive decisions and leadership and governance style provide evidences of narcissistic personality traits.

Indira’s interpersonal relations A common narcissistic trait is the inability to form warm and caring interpersonal relationships. Indira Gandhi’s complex personality does not solicit any generalizations in relation to her capability of forming such relationships, but a pattern of aloofness and strife can be observed consistently across her various relationships. In the public sphere, she was able to display agreeableness with the masses and had gathered considerable support from political colleagues and friends. However, she had also established several acrimonious relationships, and her political rivals were aggressive in their criticism. In her private life, she witnessed domestic strife with her aunt Vijaylakshmi and later on with her husband, Feroze Gandhi. Accounts of these conflicts give an insight into the degree of narcissism that affected the formation of warm and successful interpersonal relationships. When Indira was 15, Nehru wrote to Vijaylakshmi Pandit:18 During the last fourteen months or so I have written to Indu regularly and have hardly missed a fortnight. It has been a very one-sided correspondence as my letters have invoked practically no response. . . . I gather that Kamala is treated much the same way. . . . I know that Indu is fond of me and Kamala. Yet she ignores us and others completely. Why is this so? Indu, I feel, is extraordinarily imaginative and selfcentered or subjective. Indeed, I would say that, quite unconsciously, she has grown remarkably selfish . . . now this is natural in a girl of her subjective nature and especially at her age. But there can be too much of it and I am afraid there is too much of it in her case. Indira Gandhi’s childhood at Anand Bhawan has been described as a lonely one. On account of having a large family dominated by adults who were involved in the freedom struggle and imprisoned frequently, she was largely neglected as a child. B.K. Nehru recalls life at Anand Bhawan in his biography:19 I have no recollection of Indira at all. She must have been in the background, so insignificant that I do not recall seeing her.

64

Indira Gandhi

According to her biographical account by Papul Jayakar, reportedly the repeated absence of her parents from her life during her teen ages formulated attitudinal loneliness in her.20 The neglect perhaps developed into loneliness that followed her outside the house, through to her years studying in Switzerland as well. In 1939, she wrote21 to Jawaharlal Nehru: I have strange moods and strange ideas fleeting across my mind, for some time, I am like one possessed, and always with disastrous results. But all this too is the outcome of being alone – for I am lonely too – terribly lonely and alone. So dependent on you. The relationship with her parents characterized by love, neglect, and sporadic physical as well as emotional distance perhaps led to an insecurity which periodically triggered the Machiavellian impulse of distrust in her. This trait translated in her political career as suspicion of others and a tendency to surround herself with very few trusted people. Of her relationship with Nehru, Pupul Jayakar wrote: She would savor her father’s words, be deeply influenced by them, but immediately something within her acted as a control. She was unwilling to trust anyone, even her own father. She was often critical of what her father said but only she had the privilege of such criticism. She would not permit anyone else to say a word against her parents. She had inherited the temper of the family but while in her grandfather and father it flared up violently only to disappear in a few months, in Indira it went underground. On the surface she would return to calm, but she rarely forgot and seldom forgave. Jerrold M. Post has mentioned that the influence of Indira’s relationship with her parents and grandparents on her personality development occurred through an indirect projection of their own ambitions. Papul Jayakar in Indira’s biography highlighted the considerable influence that her family’s involvement in the freedom struggle had on her. Freedom from the British rule became a binding factor, which was given utmost importance by male as well as female members of the family. The effect that this political involvement of the adults had on her can be seen from the game she played as a child, in which metal toy soldiers with white shields were arranged in files and marched into an imaginary fire. She imagined herself to be Joan of Arc, leading the soldiers into the fire. The ambition and vocation of the adults imprinted itself upon her own identity and consequently formed her aspirations for the future. Politically, proximity to Nehru provided Indira with an exposure to national and international affairs. The two often disagreed and Indira acted according to her own instincts on a number of occasions. She was able to carve out an independent political presence towards the end of Nehru’s

Indira Gandhi

65

lifetime. Publicly, Nehru always maintained that he did not groom Indira to be involved. However, her political grooming in its entirety happened because of her closeness to Nehru. The question of having a dynastic approach to politics was often declined by Nehru, who until the very end refused to name a successor and did not directly aid Indira’s rise to power. Katherine Frank22 has observed that: Nehru had never even made any financial provision for his daughter’s future. Apart from her father’s possessions and the family home, Indira inherited only her father’s royalties and these fluctuated and were never lucrative. Nor did she have a home in Delhi. .  .  . A place in Shastri’s cabinet provided her with both a salary and a roof over her head. Aside from inevitable neglect, the house in which she grew up was often rocked by conflict. Her correspondence with Jawaharlal Nehru speaks of domestic unrest within the house among the women of the house, including Swaroop Rani, her sister ‘Bibi Amma’, and Vijaylakshmi Pandit on one side and Kamala Nehru on the other. Indira believed that Kamala was at the receiving end of unjust behavior and was fiercely defensive and protective of her mother. Her relationship with her aunt and others was marked by a strain which affected her personality development. It was perhaps because of witnessing conflict in her formative years that Indira’s personality later developed a sense of prolonged aggression towards adversaries and a lack of confidence. She surrounded herself with people who could be trusted rather than people who were more capable of running the government. Her relations with Vijaylakshmi Pandit could not be reconciled, and Pandit also became a political opponent later on when she stood with the opposition against Indira. With husband Difficulty in forming warm, caring interpersonal relationships was a narcissistic trait that also surfaced in Indira Gandhi’s relationships with Frank Oberdorf and Feroze Gandhi. She remained non-committal towards both of them for a long period of time before she finally married Feroze. Jayakar23 reports that confiding in Shanta Gandhi before their marriage, Feroze said that Indira had traces of Nehru’s pride in her, which often caused problems between them. He said: If my relationship with Indira continues as at present, I see many difficulties ahead. They discussed Indira’s incapacity to completely surrender herself to anyone. She could take but not give. She was not prepared, he thought, to merge or lose her separate identity, even for a moment.

66

Indira Gandhi

In describing her relationship with Feroze Gandhi, Indira wrote to Dorothy Norman: I am sorry though to have missed the most wonderful thing in life – having a complete and perfect relationship with another human being. She also said of her marriage: I did not have less love. I think my husband gave very deeply to me and I to him. . . . Conflict and unhappiness are not the worst things that can happen. It is all the experience one has that makes one what one is – the wider the experience, the stronger one’s personality. (Gupte, 229) The marital disturbances between the couple were brought under much public scrutiny. A clash of egos, physical distance, Feroze’s infidelity, and hostile relations towards Nehru were some factors that seem to have ended the marriage. The tendency to keep emotional distance and not give up one’s individual identity points towards narcissism. However, the inability to survive on one’s own is also a manifestation of the personal emotional insecurity associated with a narcissistic personality. While maintaining emotional distance is a dominant characteristic in Indira’s personality, there also seems to be a pattern of emotional reliance on male figures. For example, Papul Jayakar24 cited Shanta Gandhi to highlight Indira Gandhi’s desperate clinginess to Feroze Gandhi. Earlier this anchor had been Jawaharlal Nehru, on whom, in spite of arguments and differences, she relied for emotional support. Later on, this space was subsequently filled by Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi. With sons In spite of being separated from her husband, Indira seems to have been a dedicated mother and has openly defined motherhood as the most fulfilling experience for a woman. Indira had a loving relationship with her sons. She had married Feroze clarifying that she wanted children and companionship from the marriage. A number of personal and political biographies, newspapers, and magazines have periodically indicated that Indira practiced nepotism, promoting Sanjay to positions of power at a pace and scale that only the prime minister’s son could have been promoted. She had a soft spot for Sanjay and worried about his future. She wrote25 to a colleague in 1971: Rajiv has a job but Sanjay doesn’t and he is also involved in an expensive venture. He is so much like I was at that age, rough edges and all, that my heart aches for the suffering he may have to bear.

Indira Gandhi

67

She relied heavily on his advice and called his support as equal to that of “an elder brother”. Her close advisers such as P.N. Dhar and P.N. Haksar were replaced by Sanjay. Guha has written about the careful uplifting of Sanjay’s image and popularity that was carried out: Less surprising perhaps was the attention paid to the prime minister’s son by All-India Radio and the state-run television channel, Doordarshan. In a single year, 192 news items were broadcast about Sanjay Gandhi from the Delhi station of AIR. In the same period Doordarshan telecast 265 items about Sanjay’s activities. When he made a twentyfour-hour trip to Andhra Pradesh, the Films Division shot a full length documentary called A Day to Remember, with commentary in three languages. Several such maneuvers were carried out to consolidate the central position that Sanjay came to occupy in Indian political affairs, which is suggestive of a Machiavellian approach. Sanjay exercised the power to appoint and remove ministers, influence the PM’s priorities, decide allocation of licenses, and allotment of portfolios, even when he did not hold one. In an interview with Surge,26 when asked if Indira Gandhi listens to his advice, Sanjay answered with a sense of entitlement: Of course, she listens to me. She listened to me even when I was five years old. Rajiv’s entry into politics was also done in accordance with her wishes. With daughters-in-law Accounts of her relationships with her daughters-in-law reveal that her role in the house was that of an established matriarch whose authority could not be challenged. While she shared good relations with Sonia Gandhi, relations with Maneka became increasingly strained. It ultimately culminated in her asking Maneka to leave the house because she had defied her instructions to not attend a conference organized by Indira’s political rivals. Maneka had also sold Surya, a newsletter earlier run by Sanjay, without Indira’s permission,27 and there had been disagreements regarding her political career previously. With the Syndicate and seniors and colleagues Indira Gandhi’s relations with the Congress Syndicate (which can be seen as her seniors), her subordinates (or juniors), and members of the opposition all indicate autocratic tendencies guided by narcissistic and Machiavellian impulses. The Syndicate, while choosing to support Indira as Shastri’s

68

Indira Gandhi

successor, had hoped to have a considerable say in political and executive matters, which Indira’s narcissistic approach did not leave much room for. However, their support was vital for her. She therefore dealt with them in a Machiavellian manner, periodically demonstrating her superiority. Her relations with most of the senior members remained strained. She was not afraid to be critical of senior authority from Shastri’s time. Inder Malhotra28 reports in his biography that when Sardar Swaran Singh was appointed as the foreign minister, Indira Gandhi was critical of Shastri’s decision and felt that owing to her international exposure, the post should have been given to her. From the very beginning, her political career started with contention with Guzarilal Nanda, who consistently opposed and challenged her authority, as was witnessed in the subsequent presidential elections of Congress. Indira had complete disregard for the Congress Old Guards, who she saw as astute opportunists who could not bear to see her act independently. The differences in ideologies consequently lead to a split in the Congress. Out of all of her father’s old colleagues, her feud with Jayaprakash Narayan was perhaps the most bitter one and the most publicly displayed. Guha29 described it as follows: As a veteran of the freedom struggle, and as a comrade of her father’s, Jayaprakash Narayan would regard Mrs Gandhi as something of an upstart. For her part, having recently won an election and a war, the prime minister saw JP as a political naïf who would have been better off sticking to social work. It was therefore both a political as well as a personal feud, which Indira fought with conviction. As a result, Narayan was eventually imprisoned. She treated her subordinates with a heavily didactic and centralized approach. P.N. Dhar, in his book, Indira Gandhi, the Emergency and Indian Democracy,30 recounts an incident where he disagreed with her, suggesting that Pakistani territory must not be immediately given back, which caused her to fly into such a rage that he was asked to leave the room (63). Pranab Mukherji, in his memoir,31 mentions another instance where he was rebuked like a child: Sanjay Gandhi told me she had been upset ever since she had heard of my defeat, and she made her displeasure evident when I met her. I was unambiguously chastised. It was about 9 p.m. and Indira Gandhi was sitting in the dining room at one end of the long dining table. She had a bad cold and was soaking her feet in a tub of warm water. Standing at the other end of the dining table, I received a vociferous dressing-down for what seemed to be an interminable span of time. I was rebuked for taking the ill-advised decision of contesting from Bolpur, against her advice, and was told that such imprudent decisions nullified all my

Indira Gandhi

69

other hard work. Having recognized my folly, I could do nothing but stand there till she calmed down. She then sent me home with a basket of fruit. In an attempt to centralize the organization, she is known to have dismantled the democratic nature of the Congress Party, which earlier comprised leaders elected from the grass-roots level. Appointments were made on the basis of favorability rather than credibility. Since the hostile political conditions required Indira to watch her back at all times, she preferred to appoint people she could trust in the higher ranks. In an open letter to Indira, Nijalingappa32 wrote: you seem to have made personal loyalty to you the test of loyalty to Congress and the country. R.K. Laxman’s satirical representation once33 indicated her perception in the masses about her position among her ministers. Unlike her predecessors, Indira lacked reconciliatory skills and had hostile relations with the opposition as well. Guha observes:34 Mrs Gandhi paid other political parties scant respect. She attended Parliament less regularly than Nehru, and spoke much less when in it. Nehru forged abiding friendships with politicians of other partiessomething quite inconceivable in the case of Mrs Gandhi. Her relations with seniors, juniors, and members of the opposition were marked by suspicion, hostility, ferce disagreement, confict, and didacticism. The presence of the narcissism and Machiavellianism traits made her approach increasingly centralized and hampered cordial relations with colleagues.

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Indira Gandhi received a sporadic education owing to the uncertainties her family was subjected to during the freedom struggle. Jawaharlal Nehru’s aversion to British schools at the time, Kamala Nehru’s tuberculosis and subsequent spiritual withdrawal, and Indira’s own failing health also became factors that impeded a coherent, wholesome education. Initially homeschooled, she went on to study in various schools such as St. Cecilia’s and St. Mary’s in Allahabad, the Modern school in Delhi, the experimental Pupil’s Own school in Poona, and the International school of Geneva. Her education at Shantiniketan, where Rabindranath Tagore was her mentor, may be considered as a life-altering experience for her. Indira went on to attend university at Oxford in Somerville College. She is known to have had an active political life and decent academic scores, except for Latin which

70

Indira Gandhi

she struggled to pass. She could not complete her graduation. However, she received a number of honorary degrees later, including one from Oxford. There is a substantial archive of correspondence which has been published in various books; however, her papers, unlike Nehru’s, were not made public. Indira Gandhi received her political education from a young age in the company of political stalwarts. The time she spent in her father’s home in Anand Bhawan as hostess after Kamala Nehru’s death initiated her into the Congress and the national political scene. She inherited a socialist vision for the country from her father. This vision was further refined by her secretary, P.N. Haksar, who aided her in translating it into practice. In her lifetime, close involvement with the general public of India, social struggles abroad, and intellectuals around the world, she was able to acquire a practical knowledge that perhaps compensated for the lack of a formal, traditional education. Indira Gandhi is known for her poverty alleviation programs. She coined the term ‘Gareebi Hatao’ and worked to move towards a socialist welfare state.35 The nationalization of banks and abolishment of privy purses was carried out under her leadership in the face of much opposition. The aim was to provide economic aid to the farmers, promote hard work over privilege, and to ultimately diminish poverty by bringing about economic socialism. State control over the economy was strengthened, and the economy was closed to foreign investment. In the 1960s, Indira Gandhi’s devaluation of the rupee led to a rise in prices. In 1967, Indira took the drastic measure of nationalizing 14 private banks on 20 July 1969. The official motive was to accelerate bank lending to the agricultural sector at a time when big businesses consumed vast proportions of credit flow. This aligned the banking sector with the goals of socialism, helped boost farm credit, and aided lending of funds to several other priority sectors. Banks opened branches in rural regions and savings increased. These banks, however, indulged in a competition to please their political bosses, instead of focusing on project appraisals.36 In 1980, deterred to procure an International Monetary Fund loan, initiated drastic economic reforms. The sixth five-year plan (1980–1985) was aimed at encouraging competitiveness in the economy. This meant the removal of the license Raj. Indira Gandhi was the first Indian PM to authorize a nuclear test in Pokhran in 1974. This was seen as a great accomplishment by the Indian voters and was successful in improving Indira Gandhi’s image at a time when domestic affairs were deteriorating. It encouraged scientific development. As a result of this test, however, international paranoia led to the development of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in 1974 to curb nuclear proliferation and to prevent nuclear supplies from reaching India in the future.37 The formation of Bangladesh was a result of Indira Gandhi’s executive decisions in relation to East Pakistan in 1971. The government ensured accommodation of the refugees and took measures to control their rising

Indira Gandhi

71

resentment. The Mukti Bahini forces, which played a key role in the military success of India, were mobilized at her orders. Indira Gandhi probably recognized that intervention in East Pakistan could result in an armed conflict between India and Pakistan and that support would be required from the United Nations Security Council. She engaged in extensive foreign travels, gathering support and concern for the rising issue of refugees in India. Meanwhile in December 1971, Yahya Khan ordered an air force strike in western India, and war broke out on December 4. India recognized the formation of Bangladesh on December 6th. The Pakistani troops in East Pakistan were defeated by the Indian Army, which ultimately resulted in the formation of Bangladesh. The military success in 1971 boosted the confidence of Indians and was applauded in the parliament and the media. As an important consequence for India, the immigrants had changed the demography of states such as Assam and had consequently affected vote bank politics. Indira Gandhi capitalized on the victory to win the forthcoming elections. Relations were strained with China and the U.S., who extended support to West Pakistan. In the long run, with the formation of the Bangladesh National Party, principles of secularism in Bangladesh diminished, and close ties with India eventually got strained.38 Her adventures in Bangladesh were deeply noticed and appreciated by Indian Muslims. Indira found strong footing among Indian Muslims and most definitively encashed her enticements in gaining a few additional minority votes. However, this portion of her political adventure was not very well received. According to Noorani:39 Indira Gandhi’s policy towards Indian Muslims was nothing but a cynical exploitation spread over a decade and a half. Its elements were promises galore coupled with administrative cosmetics. Both were designed to attract and also cover up unredressed grievances and unresolved problems. The record bears a documented recall because a lot of myths have come to surround it. The Declaration of Emergency in 1975 is a milestone decision associated with her career. The opposition parties even after several decades use emergency as bait to offend the general masses. Poverty was increasing in India, student movements were gaining momentum against her government, government employees demanded better working conditions, and there was a general sense of dissatisfaction with the current government’s administration and corruption, which culminated in protests. Jayaprakash Narayan, spearheading the protests in Patna, publicly declared Indira’s prime ministership illegal and urged his supporters to pressure the legislators to resign so that the Congress government could be brought down. Indira Gandhi saw these activities as extra-parliamentary and declared an emergency on the grounds that there was a threat to security and democracy in India.40 Owing to the imprisonment of the members of the opposition, impositions on the

72

Indira Gandhi

media, and violations of human rights, this decision was not received well, and the Congress became extremely unpopular. Simultaneously carried out were policies such as the Twenty Point Program for Economic Progress and sterilization to control population growth. Throughout her tenure, Indira Gandhi had to face internal disturbances and secessionist movements across the country. She engaged in dialogue with Sikkim, Kashmir, Nagas, and Punjab, among other rebellious demands such as that of the Naxalites. The creation of Haryana was carried out in her premiership. While each issue was handled individually in an eclectic manner, the issue of unrest in Punjab could not be addressed successfully. When the negotiations with the Akali sikhs did not work out, it is rumored that Sanjay Gandhi posited Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a contesting power to undermine the influence of the Akali Dal. However, Bhindranwale became the face of the militant Khalistan movement.41 Widespread violence was carried out against targeted individuals as well as the general public in Punjab. Indira Gandhi failed to act timely to meet the growing terrorist activities with an appropriate response. When Bhindranwale and his followers took refuge in Amritsar and plotted to launch attacks from the Golden Temple, the situation had worsened to the point where military action could not be avoided. The military operation that ensued resulted in the death of the Sikh militants, along with other dire consequences. The Golden Temple was damaged to a great extent, which became a poignant blow for the Sikh community throughout the world. Indira Gandhi’s assassination was carried out on the back of this rising tide of hatred against the PM. The assassination further triggered brutal riots and massive persecution of the Sikh community. Conclusively, Indira’s personal, relational, and intellectual profiles clearly confirm her tendencies to suppress oppositions, resent criticism, and take bold decisions and affirmative actions. While she challenged superior authorities, she also collaborated with lower ranks to accomplish goals. No other prime minister in India suffered such strong opposition while sustaining the Chair.

Notes 1 Sarkar, J. (2015). The making of a non-aligned nuclear power: India’s proliferation drift, 1964–8. The International History Review, 37(5), 933–950. 2 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 3 Steinberg, B. S. (2005). Indira Gandhi: The relationship between personality profile and leadership style. Political Psychology, 26(5), 755–790. 4 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 5 Steinberg, B. S. (2005). Indira Gandhi: The relationship between personality profile and leadership style. Political Psychology, 26(5), 755–790. 6 Singh, S. (2012). Unraveling the enigma of Indira Gandhi’s rise in Indian politics: A woman leader’s quest for political legitimacy. Theory and Society, 41(5), 479–504. 7 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nation-world/top-six-political-slogansand-their-impact/bari-bari-sabki-bari-abki-bari-atal-bihari/slideshow/23599 155.cms

Indira Gandhi

73

8 Sarkar, J. (2015). The making of a non-aligned nuclear power: India’s proliferation drift, 1964–8. The International History Review, 37(5), 933–950. 9 Thapar, R. (1984). Defeating the political hijackers. Economic and Political Weekly, 2065–2065. 10 http://yousaidit-rklaxman.blogspot.com/2015/04/indira-gandhi-2.html 11 h t t p s : / / 1 . b p . b l o g s p o t . c o m / - 9 L U 3 U a k e 3 7 o / X B c I W e d B 8 n I / AAAAAAAAL6E/NIKyYTivcGcVm5zSJ7dpN2OaPoXcFHKQgCLcBGAs/ s1600/20181029_191816.jpg 12 https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UZ32B7JG4Fw/XBcIT-1RlHI/AAAAAAAAL58/qtdFfANvP0jjfLs5vz0Fn3CD6peoPDgwCLcBGAs/s1600/20181029_191731.jpg 13 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 14 https://feminisminindia.com/2020/09/04/history-of-forced-sterilisation-concernsus-even-today/ 15 www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/9/19635/Indira-GandhiHer-Triumphs-and-Failures 16 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 17 The excerpts of this interview can be seen on the following channel: www. youtube.com/watch?v=q8aETK5pQR4. Although, I invite the readers to investigate further before formulating an opinion on the basis of this interview. 18 Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. 19 Nehru, B. K. (2011). NICF guys finish second. Penguin. 20 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 21 Nehru, J. (1989). Freedom’s daughter: Letters between Indira Gandhi and Jawa harlal Nehru, 1922–39. Hodder and Stoughton. 22 Frank, K. (2001). Indira: The life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. London: HarperCollins. 23 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 24 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 25 https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/books/mixed-doubles-5229496/ 26 www.nytimes.com/1976/05/03/archives/mrs-gandhis-son-is-growing-in-powerson-of-mrs-gandhi-is-growing-in.html 27 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/society-the-arts/media/story/19820315-manekasmother-snubs-indira-gandhi-by-selling-her-magazine-surya-india-to-bjp-members771599-2013-10-17 28 Malhotra, I. (2014). Indira Gandhi: A personal and political biography. Hay House, Inc. 29 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 30 Dhar, P. N. (2000). Indira Gandhi, the ‘Emergency’ and Indian democracy. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. 31 https://scroll.in/article/970077/memoir-of-a-loss-pranab-mukherjee1935-2020-on-a-crucial-political-event-in-his-life 32 Gupte, P. (2012). Mother India: A political biography of Indira Gandhi. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 33 www.outlookindia.com/photos/photoessay/dirty-pictures/321?photo-55237 34 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 35 Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. 36 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 37 www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-making-the-nuclear-suppliers-group1974-1976

74

Indira Gandhi

38 Guha, R. (2017). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Pan Macmillan. 39 Noorani, A. G. (1990). Indira Gandhi and Indian Muslims. Economic and Political Weekly, 2417–2420. 40 www.sankalpindia.net/book/open-letter-mrs-indira-gandhi-jayaprakash-narayan 41 www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/jarnail-singh-bhindranwale-congress-sanjaygandhi-zail-singh-108455-2012-07-08

References Frank, K. (2005). Indira: The life of Indira Nehru Gandhi. New Delhi: HarperCollins. Guha, R. (2019). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. New York, NY: Ecco, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Gupte, P. (2011). Mother India: A political biography of Indira Gandhi. New York: Penguin Books. Jayakar, P. (2000). Indira Gandhi, a biography. New Delhi: Penguin. Livemint. (2019, August 14). A short history of Indian economy 1947–2019: Tryst with destiny & other stories. Retrieved from www.livemint.com/news/ india/a-short-history-of-indian-economy-1947-2019-tryst-with-destiny-otherstories-1565801528109.html Mukherjee, P. (2015). The dramatic decade: The Indira Gandhi years. New Delhi: Rupa Publications.

4

Rajiv Gandhi An episodic lion (31 October 1984–2 December 1989)

Rajiv Gandhi attracts confounding commentary. For example, it is popularly believed – and the following section in this chapter will provide some such evidences – that his ascension to premiership was largely nepotist and accidental. Although accidents heralded him to a leadership position, his decisional capabilities seemed leaderlike. Although he exhibited timidity in handling scams, he boldly and astutely managed cross-border issues. His choice advisory was also mixed. For instance, he allowed young coteries such as the two Aruns, as well as veterans such as P.V.N. Rao, to consult him on crucial political matters (more on that later). Presented as follows are evidences from his psychographic, relational, and intellectual profiles to assess whether Rajiv’s confounding features indicate narcissism or Machiavellianism.

Psychographic profile Dubious political debut A number of biographical sources, as described in the following sections, indicate that Rajiv Gandhi’s personality throughout his lifetime oscillated between moderate narcissism and reticence. As the prime minister, his actions occasionally displayed Machiavellian impulses. It can be observed from his interviews, public addresses, actions, and public perception in the media that his premiership seems to have been an eclectic mixture of charisma, boldness, complacence, and adaptability with polar periods of high popularity and harsh criticism. Owing to the mammoth political presence of the Nehru family up until 1984, Rajiv Gandhi’s entry into politics and consequent rise to power cannot be studied without contextualizing it within a generational framework. His immediate political success was a result of the intertwining factors of his individual personality as well as his familial relationships and inheritance, with the latter playing an essential role. By this time in the Indian political scene, the personality of the political leaders had come to play an important role in garnering votes. The Congress had been able to ride on the cult of personality tide, which had a

76

Rajiv Gandhi

considerable impact on its vote bank in the past. Rajiv Gandhi emerged as a substitute to replace the void thus created by Indira Gandhi’s death. There was an appreciation for aspects of his personality such as youth, restraint, and shyness. His public image earned him the title of “Mr. Clean”,1 suggesting that he was a modern, progressive man who was incorruptible and honest. At a time when most political figures harbored political ambition and corruption was prevalent, Rajiv Gandhi posed as an individual who did not have an aggressive political ambition, and his restraint was seen as wisdom.2 The political campaigns were solely built around him as an individual and his position as Indira’s heir. Thus, the perceived personality traits of moderate narcissism, agreeableness, and reticence perhaps provided a refreshing change to the public mind and aided his rise to power. The fact that Rajiv lacked political ambition was public knowledge. Employed as a full-time pilot in the Indian Airlines, he had chosen to not be as actively involved in politics as the rest of his family. He joined Congress not voluntarily to build a political career but to support his mother after Sanjay Gandhi’s death. In an interview with India Today in August 1980, Rajiv said: I’m not prepared to jump into politics and stand for elections from Amethi or Allahabad as people are suggesting I should do. Mainly because I think it would be wrong purely from a moral point of view, maybe not from a political convenience point of view. It might be the done thing, politically, but I’m not inclined to agree. So I’m really not making any decisions at the moment. The way I look at it is that mummy has to be helped somehow. She had a lot of support from Sanjay and now it’s not there. I can’t really give her the sort of support he was giving her. He’d been in the game since 1973. In my case, I don’t know anybody, I don’t know much about politics, so there is no question of my stepping into his shoes. So I must help her out in some other manner. I personally think the best way is to be a sort of communication medium to her. Indira Gandhi reverberated his concerns, saying: Rajiv lacks Sanjay’s dynamism and his concerns, yet he could be a great help to me. (Jayakar) It was, therefore, his mother’s position rather than his own ambition or political acumen that drove his actions at this stage. It was also the sudden death of Indira Gandhi that became the immediate reason why he was sworn in as the prime minister with no relative political experience. He inevitably inherited the responsibility of maintaining the family prestige as well as continuing the political involvement that had been an integral part of the family since Motilal Nehru’s time.

Rajiv Gandhi

77

Along with his individual personality traits, the generational association that the people had with the Nehru family became one of the major reasons behind an unprecedented electoral success in 1984. Rajiv’s close adviser, Mani Shankar Iyer, later wrote in his book that the “victory was as much his late mother’s as his own”. Throughout the campaign, a number of voters referred to him as “Indira’s son”. Ramchandra Guha writes: The Congress campaign, overseen by the advertising agency Rediffusion, presented Rajiv Gandhi as the logical heir to his mother’s legacy . . . it capitalized on the growing mass insecurities whereby Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination was equated in the public mind with an assault on the Indian State and that perception was constantly reinforced. (Guha, 866) The position of the previous generations of the Nehru family had a direct link with his image as an individual as well as a leader. In addition to familial and dynastic dividends, Rajiv’s accession to the prime minister’s position has been attributed to a dubious and unscrupulous electoral campaign as well. A noticeable and conscious deletion of Indira Gandhi’s government accomplishments between 1980–1984 from all campaigns was vividly observed.3 It was probably due to little legislative or administrative achievements to boast of during this period. Rajiv Gandhi’s campaign thus focused primarily on accusing, though flimsily, the opposition. The prime minister accused, for example, that the opposition parties (and their leaders) such as BJP, JP, and Dalit Mazdoor Kisan Party were “receiving assistance from certain foreign powers, which were interested in making India weak” and that conferences of opposition leaders “had sown the seeds of poison” which endangered national unity. He offered no evidence to support such accusation.4 These tactics dismayed many, including members of the prime minister’s own party and distinguished commentators who had often supported his mother. Commenting on the electoral campaign and its vivid communal biases to gain Hindu voters’ favors, James Manor5 stated: Still more surprising was the Prime Minister’s appeal to Hindu chauvinism and anti-Sikh sentiment. At a November rally in Delhi he refused to intervene to prevent the city’s Sikh mayor (a member of his own party) from being shouted down, and then went on to use the Hindi word “badla” meaning ‘revenge’ – in a highly ambiguous speech that followed. He is the first Indian Prime Minister to have used this word in public. . . . Sikh opinion was outraged and many Congress-I leaders were privately alarmed when two sitting MPs in Delhi who were said by one independent investigation to have been involved in the anti- Sikh riots were kept on the Congress-I ticket and when a third activist who was also allegedly involved was given a ticket which had been denied to a Sikh incumbent.

78

Rajiv Gandhi

Perennial persona Jerrold M. Post6 describes the narcissistic link between generations where the hopes and traumas of a generation are passed on to the next, affecting the personalities and identity formation of the consequent generations. In Indira Gandhi’s case, her childhood provided a conditioning which inculcated a spirit of martyrdom, and the environment in which she came of age inevitably induced political service as a part of her identity. In the case of Rajiv Gandhi, the previous generations had a different kind of impact. It contributed to introverted behavior and an aversion to public life. In an interview with Simi Garewal,7 he said: I was very quiet, very shy. Thinking back now, I was always embarrassed at being my grandfather’s grandson. I think that was the real reason. I remember he came to school when we were there. I just didn’t come out. I was always somewhere at the back. They couldn’t find me. At another instance in this interview, he recalls his days in Cambridge, saying: It really built your character; it developed your personality and gave you a view of the world which you don’t get from India and specially if you are related to the Prime Minister or are the grandson of the Prime Minister. His words suggest that when he refers to himself as an introvert, he also links this attribute of his personality with the position of his family, reinforcing Post’s8 observation about the effects of the experiences of the previous generation on the identity formation of the subsequent generations. In this case it had adverse effects on his self-confidence, therefore leading to low narcissistic strains during Rajiv’s early years. Rajiv’s dispositions Several biographical9 sources reveal that Rajiv was quiet, shy, and an introvert as a child. His personality seems to have been marked by a dominant reticent strain, where he found it difficult to express himself emotionally or otherwise. Vijayalakshmi Pandit10 compared Rajiv and Sanjay Gandhi, saying: My impression is . . . that there was a world of a difference between them. In their thinking, in their actions even their speech. Rajiv was gentler, always. Even when he wanted to do something naughty or say something bad, he said it in a reasonably soft way. When his father, Feroze Gandhi, passed away, Rajiv did not express any emotion. In the interview11 with Garewal, he said:

Rajiv Gandhi

79

I went through a very difficult period but we had been brought up perhaps to be a bit stoic and I kept it all inside. I didn’t let it come out or show in any way. I remember my mother was a little worried she spoke to some people saying Rajiv is bottling it all up inside. It’s not coming out. It’s something that remained with me. Indira Gandhi’s close friend Pupul Jayakar12 described her relationship with Rajiv: It was based on a deep affection but clothed with a formality which rarely permitted close and intimate encounters. All of these remarks reveal that Rajiv had a reserved demeanor, was not emotionally expressive, and was an introvert, signs indicating a reticent personality. The transition The narcissist thrives on praise from others and public attention, whereas Rajiv displayed an aversion to the public eye. However, this trait diminished in his capacity as prime minister, and the narcissistic impulses took precedence. In an interview with India Today in 1980, when asked: You have a reputation for being a person who sets great store on the value of privacy. But ever since Sanjay’s death, you are very much in the news, and you have started seeing a lot of important people. Do you resent this invasion of your privacy? He replied: Yes, I do. But I’ve been able to keep it at a distance in a way. It doesn’t really seep in. I’ve managed to keep it at a different level really. So far, I’m not really involved in politics. However, as soon as he was elected as the Congress Party president in 1984, the desire for aloofness was replaced by a rigorous effort to become popular with the masses. The change in his personality was captured in an article in India Today in December 1984:13 Gone is the comfortable slouch, the diffident approach with people or the first signs of a double chin. This is definitely a determined, belligerent, chin-up Rajiv Gandhi. But the biggest, most revealing aspect of change in his campaign style since he was last out at the hustings in the Andhra Pradesh-Karnataka assembly elections in January 1983, is his growing self-confidence. It shows in his determination to get through to as many people as possible by cutting across the tightening security ring. It shows in his eagerness to move audiences with word and gesture.

80

Rajiv Gandhi And it shows in his new found ability, however equivocal, to try and respond. Gone, too, are the flat monotone and groping for words that affected his public addresses till recently, and the reticent, ambiguously neutral projection of thoughts and ideas. There is now a forcefulness, a quickening of reflexes, and an effective emotional edge to the urgency of his appeal for votes.

This change in approach and personality was visually captured in the India Today issues of 1980 and 1984. In Rajiv’s photograph,14 published along with the interview held with him in 1980 before he had entered politics, a relaxed Rajiv sits in a chair in his house in informal clothing – denim pants and a short-sleeved shirt. The photograph was captioned ‘Not really involved so far’. However, various other photographs published in December 1984 by India Today,15 during his election campaign, showcase a remarkable transition from the reticent to the narcissist (e.g., captioned as ‘Rajiv Gandhi on tour: aggressive and appealing’). Rajiv’s accomplice Narcissism in a leader can be gauged by the appointments made, whether due credit is given for contribution by subordinates and the way opposition or difference of opinion is dealt with. During his tenure as PM, the cabinet was shuffled 27 times, with Rajiv reportedly appointing close friends and trusted people as ministers and members of the PMO. Politicians such as Arun Nehru and Arun Singh came to form what was popularly known in the media as his “young coterie”. In 1989, an article in India Today observed: India’s foreign policy has been hamstrung by ad-hocism. Under Rajiv, the bureaucrats in the Prime Minister’s Office have had more say in matters of international diplomacy than the mandarins in the Ministry of External Affairs. Again, this is a reflection of Rajiv’s later style, listening to and trusting just a few selected advisers. The result: people like Finance Secretary Gopi Arora are given sensitive diplomatic assignments, undercutting the ministry responsible in terms of its morale and effectiveness. A sycophancy seems to have surrounded Rajiv Gandhi, which is typical of political leaders with a narcissistic personality type (Post, 101). In an anonymous essay in Mainstream magazine in 1990, Narsimha Rao commented on the narcissism of Rajiv Gandhi: Thereafter Rajiv Gandhi was right-right all the way, whatever he said or did. So there were no limits any more to what he said or did. . . . What he heard day in and day out from his young coterie was nothing but

Rajiv Gandhi

81

fulsome praise. He became a praise addict. The elders either joined the chorus or looked on, not knowing what to do. (Sitapati, 102; emphasis added) Rajiv to critiques The Rajiv Gandhi government was able to make somewhat successful agreements with the Sikh, Assamese, and Mizoram secessionist forces.16 These pacts were designed and drafted by government officials and diplomats such as G. Parthasarathy. However, the credit in press conferences and elsewhere went solely to the prime minister, who was seen as the unifying force in the country.17 In the initial years of his premiership, in spite of the scathing attacks he made on the opposition in his public addresses and interviews, he was seen as a leader capable of accepting challenges from the opposition and accommodating differences of opinion. An article published in India Today18 in December 1985 read: Bharatiya Janata Party’s L.K. Advani says: “When you speak to him (the prime minister) privately, he comes out as a sincere and interested person who is keen to shed the confrontationist attitude of his mother”. . . . Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi presiding over a meeting with opposition leaders, denuded of power in the last Lok Sabha poll but still given their head by a young man who feels he can cope with their political challenge. The meeting is not a symbolic one-time affair, as was usual in earlier times. It takes place twice, three times, oftener. and an opposition politician recalls that the dialogue led to an amendment in the anti-defection bill. “He’s pulled the rug from under our feet”, confesses a Telugu Desam functionary. This perception seems to have been considerably altered in the later years. The 1989 election campaign demonized the opposition, juxtaposing images of amputated bodies and bloodshed with references to their reign in an unprecedentedly critical manner. His tolerance for disagreement also seems to have declined. In an interview with India Today in 1988,19 V.P. Singh was asked: but the general impression is that the prime minister is quite open and takes his cabinet ministers into confidence? He answered, saying: The prime minister takes decisions without even consulting the ministries concerned. He decided to announce the new education and textile policies without taking the Finance Ministry into confidence. I told him before the education policy was to be laid on the table of the House that

82

Rajiv Gandhi we should examine the financial implications. He didn’t care. Now we find there is no money for its implementation. In the case of the textile policy, he was more concerned about synthetics. I made it clear that if this policy was carried out, it would mean leaving the synthetic fabric out of the fiscal net for some time. . . . Anyone who raises any question about the Bachchans is either thrown out or harassed. I was expelled from the party within 20 hours of my writing a letter to the prime minister requesting him to institute an inquiry into Ajitabh’s owning a flat in Switzerland.

His fallout with V.P. Singh is of importance since it was brought under considerable public scrutiny and came to symbolize the consequences of differences in opinion with the PM irrespective of one’s performance records. Singh, in his capacity as the finance minister, had carried out a number of raids and earned the title of a second “Mr. Clean”. His transfer from the finance portfolio to the defense portfolio and the consequent expulsion from the party facilitated the speculation that Rajiv Gandhi was involved in practicing or facilitating corrupt financial practices. Reaction to the press can also be employed as a measure to gauge the narcissistic need to diminish criticism and opposition. An article in the New York Times in 1987 investigated the 11 prosecutions for financial irregularities and 26 additional demands for evidence that were meted out to the Indian Express in Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure right after the newspaper had campaigned for his removal on the grounds of incompetence and misconduct. The New York Times called it the “biggest crackdown of dissent” since the emergency of 1975. It can be deduced from these instances that in appointing and shuffling his ministers, allowing himself to be at the forefront of praises meted out to activities carried out by his government and handling differences in opinions, criticism, and the opposition, Rajiv Gandhi increasingly showed narcissistic tendencies, especially towards the latter part of his tenure as PM. Glorifying present with a better past The Machiavellian capabilities and narcissistic impulses of Rajiv Gandhi became manifest in his efficiency in carrying out election campaigns and the content of the Congress Party’s election manifestos. The Nehru-Gandhi name was repeatedly capitalized upon to justify his own position as the logical heir to their legacy. In the 1984 election campaign, almost every speech began with the mention of Indira Gandhi’s vision as well as murder: Some days ago, Indira Gandhi was assassinated. She was killed by people who hoped to break India into fragments and make us fight among ourselves. That event opened our eyes to the divisive forces at work in the country. But the India of Gandhi, Nehru and Indiraji cannot be

Rajiv Gandhi

83

broken by the bullets of two assassins. The need of the hour is for all people to rise and protect India’s integrity and unity. (India Today, 1984) Even in later public addresses in the 1989 campaign, he stresses that: Congress does not have a five-year record, but a 42-year one where we have given strong, stable governments, eradicated poverty and brought about changes. The visions of “Panditji” and “Indiraji” are constantly reiterated in several speeches across Rajiv’s tenure. The Congress manifesto of 1984 also seems to have had similar symbols. India Today reviewed the document, stating: In parts, this neatly-presented 24-page document reads like a shrill harangue by Mrs Gandhi, in others like a dreary five-year plan of action. . . . There is a strong note of self-congratulation in relation to the record of the last five years, but marked once again by a focus on Indira Gandhi to the exclusion of everybody else who might have played a role. Thus: “Indira Gandhi rehabilitated the shattered economy and placed it on the path of dynamic growth during 1980–84”. Indeed, the manifesto itself has a color picture of Rajiv Gandhi on the cover – yet another ‘first’ in the personalization of party politics. The birth centenary of Jawaharlal Nehru before the elections in 1989 was celebrated in an extravagant manner: Seminars, photo exhibitions, TV quizzes, poetry festivals, musical concerts, even skating competitions were held in Nehru’s name, all paid for by the state and publicized by state radio and television. On the face of it, these programs merely honored India’s first Prime Minister, but at another, more subconscious level, the blitz repeatedly and subtly whispers the real but hidden message: that there has been no better guardian of the nation than the Nehru family and letting the family down would, in the ultimate analysis, amount to spurning a sacred legacy and inviting forces of chaos. (Guha, 898) Use of media The election campaign of 1989 made use of cult-of-personality tactics to juxtapose negative images associated with the opposition and patriotic images such as the national flag and the ‘charkha’ associated with Congress and Rajiv Gandhi. This was an astute move since it made use of visual images and the state-controlled Doordarshan to form a favorable public opinion. It also resonated with what a voter told India Today in 1984: “I

84

Rajiv Gandhi

didn’t understand what Rajiv Gandhi was saying but he looked like he can run the country”. In November 1989, The New York Times wrote: Under the slogan “My Heart Beats for India!” the party has been suggesting in sometimes disturbing line drawings, the horrors it contends will befall the country if the opposition comes to power in elections from Nov. 22 to 26. Using repulsive symbols like scorpions, a dismembered baby doll, sinister masks, smoking guns and fighting cocks, the advertisements all repeat the theme, “Will India survive a coalition government?” The advertisements are the work of Rediffusion, an agency run by Arun Nanda, a friend since childhood of the Prime Minister, are generating bitter criticism in this country of high illiteracy where pictures may be worth even more than the standard thousand words and they have also been ridiculed in parody. The aforementioned measures taken by Rajiv Gandhi as the president of and chief campaigner for the Congress Party are suggestive of the astute leadership style associated with the Machiavellian personality type. Mysterious silence In his personality, a moderate degree of narcissism is also balanced with restraint. His demeanor throughout his premiership was marked by selfconfidence coupled with reticence. While the former gave impetus to bold moves such as the accords signed with the Sikhs, Assam, and Mizoram and the Indian participation in the Sri Lankan civil war, the latter spurred speculations of corruption associated with the Bofors arms deal, alleged silence on allegations of corruption against the officials in his government, and the growing security around him, which created the impression of deliberate stonewalled aloofness in the latter half of his tenure. His name being associated with extravagant holidays and corruption scandals points towards inappropriate use of power and Machiavellian tendencies. It also considerably tainted his public image. The Indian Express covered Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Lakshadweep around New Year’s Day in 1988 in elaborate details. It was an extravagant trip which made use of government resources such as the aircraft carrier, INS Viraat. Security personnel, engineers, the army, navy, and Congress leaders were pressed into service. Movement to and from the island was restricted, and all essential supplies had to be airlifted. The party was attended by actors such as Amitabh Bachchan. It was largely covered in the media as an example of unreasonable excess. R.K. Laxman parodied the party in a cartoon that mentions Sonia Gandhi, saying: Relax Rajiv, now (in Lakshadweep) you are away from the problems, scandals, inflation, riots, poverty, capitalism, socialism, etc. And you are already worrying which place to go to relax next?

Rajiv Gandhi

85

The Bofors corruption scandal took place in 1986. In an interview with the National Herald in 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was called “a gentleman – one who is unable and unwilling to use the kind of political methods successful politicians deploy”, to which he responded, saying “the distinction between the right and wrong must be kept. The end does not justify the means”. However, in 1986, the Swedish press had reported that Indian officials had been bribed to obtain the contract for the supply of Howitzer field guns by Bofors. In spite of pressure from the opposition parties, Rajiv Gandhi did not take active action against the accused, leading to the speculation that he was associated with the corruption charges. The reticent side of his personality took precedence, and these speculations were not addressed. Although there was no clear evidence against him, the opaque, complacent manner in which the charges were handled and the dismissal of V.P. Singh lead to the widespread belief that his position as ‘Mr. Clean’ was suspect. Rajiv Gandhi maintained throughout the scandal that “the issue of secularism could only be fought by fighting the BJP which was the root cause of all communal venom in the country” (National Herald, 1991). Secularism is marked not by heeding the wishes of all religious faiths equally, but by treating them equally before the law, irrespective of their religious inclinations. Rajiv Gandhi took a series of steps which portrayed a belief in the former outlook towards secularism in politics. He overruled a Supreme Court judgment that had enhanced the protections available to divorced Muslim women in spite of having voted in its favor in the parliament previously. This popularly came to be known as the ‘Shah Bano case’.20 The Islamic clergy was pleased, but this act was heavily criticized by the opposition and the media. Rajiv was also responsible for the opening up of Babri Masjid to the Hindus in Ayodhya who were allowed to worship there. This greatly upset the Muslims and possibly led to the demolition of the mosque.21 In 1988, the government banned Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, alleging that it had attacked Islamic belief systems. Commenting on this series of steps taken in the appeasement of communal forces, Neerja Chowdhury wrote: Mr. Rajiv Gandhi wants both to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. If one act is aimed at the Muslim vote, the other seemed to target the far larger Hindu vote. . . . A policy of appeasement of both communities being pursued by the government for electoral gains is a vicious cycle which will become different to break. (Guha, 877) These actions point to the fact that the public vote takes precedence in executive decision making. This approach is indicative of assigning paramount importance to remaining in power, which is suggestive of a Machiavellian leadership style. R.K. Laxman satirically portrayed the Shah Bano case, where Rajiv Gandhi appears to be attempting to appease the Muslim women community without offering actual aid, saying “take it easy Shah Bano”.22

86

Rajiv Gandhi

Interpersonal aspects The young coterie The nature of Rajiv Gandhi’s interpersonal relationships and the dynamic he shared with his coworkers define aspects of his personality as well as his leadership style. It can be associated with cordiality, minimal personal conflict, and a degree of restraint. In spite of the narratives in the media, interviews reveal that his relationship with even the fiercest opponents, such as V.P. Singh, was based on political rivalry and differences in views on policies rather than personal conflict. However, the nature and frequency of appointments, expulsions, and replacements made indicate a Machiavellian approach to administration. His leadership style combines a general tendency to centralize power, concentrating decision-making power in the person of the prime minister, and a tendency to heavily rely on advisors in the decision-making process. The centralization is indicative of narcissistic impulses while the reliance on advisors points towards a delegative approach to leadership. Worth underscoring though is that the nature of his advisory was often referred to as the young coterie. Most newspapers and magazines described Arun Singh and Arun Nehru as Rajiv’s young coterie, his eyes and ears in the government and his closest aides.23 Preference to younger people in his choice of appointments led to the belief that Rajiv was signaling a generational change in his ministry. Sources24 describe the way in which Arun Singh in his capacity as the parliamentary secretary and later defense minister influenced major decisions. Rajiv constantly relied on Arun Nehru for political advice, and he served in various committees that influenced important decisions. An article in India Today in 1985, titled ‘Arun Nehru rises to a position of power second only to PM Rajiv Gandhi himself’, quoted Sitaram Kesari describing the position that Nehru held at the time: The prime minister has in fact allotted to him some of his own work. He will make the Department of Internal Security the key link in the administrative chain. In 1984, the same magazine had commented on Rajiv’s dependence on the young coterie: Jawaharlal Nehru, with his towering personality and intellectual pride, walked alone in public life, never hobbling on friendly crutches. Indira Gandhi was a lone ranger in politics, using subordinates rather than depending on friends. But Rajiv needs a peer group for the pitching and tossing about of ideas, men he can trust. And the importance of the two Aruns was obvious last fortnight in the manner they followed Rajiv like his shadow.

Rajiv Gandhi

87

For a long time, Rajiv’s relationship with these two contemporaries was that of mutual dependence and largely harmonious working. However, later differences arose, and Singh resigned while Nehru was removed since his loyalty, in Rajiv’s opinion, was suspect. The splits could have been strategically and politically motivated considering Singh’s position in the defense ministry at a time when widespread corruption charges were surfacing and Nehru’s alliance with members of what was to become Jan Morcha later on. Both of them, however, blamed it on the way differences of opinion were handled by Rajiv. In an interview in the Wild Films India archives,25 Arun Nehru spoke of the reasons behind his resignation: The idea of forming Jan Morcha only came when Rajiv took action. None of us were going to oppose him but we were not willing to toe the line. He was not the supreme leader. We were willing to discuss matters and if reason prevailed and majority prevailed, accept a decision; but nobody was a yes man. The thing is, with a sycophant or with a yes man, you can keep humiliating him and he will take it because with every humiliation he gets some sort of a promotion but there are others who will not . . . and what Rajiv forgot was a very basic point of governance – that five percent do the work of the other ninety five percent. It’s just that five percent that really matters. So his effective team, he fought and that actually leads to a lot of bitterness . . . for a whole year we (Arun Nehru, V.P. Singh, Chandrashekhar, Mulayam Singh and others) were just meeting each other and then it sort of gelled and took off. .  .  . We discussed about the future, we discussed political formations . . . whether we should do it alone or align with other parties. . . . A lot of people were in touch with us. In hindsight, if Rajiv didn’t push us to the edge, he could have prevented it but Jan Morcha was really his creation. He pushed us over the edge and we had no option. Vishwanath was very reluctant to fight. Nehru’s observation, though opinionated, points towards the PM having an almost autocratic attitude towards colleagues where disagreement was not entertained. Arun Singh’s explanation, however, somewhat indicates a rationale behind Rajiv’s outlook which led to disagreement. It is also indicative of a turn from trust and reliance to suspicion. Singh told journalist Shekhar Gupta in 2006:26 I have absolutely no idea who took money in Bofors. I know only this much – somebody had. My argument which cost me my friend had nothing to do with who took the money. It had to do with who would catch the people who took money. In my opinion, it was the job of the executive. I and he, as he was my immediate boss at the time, represented the executive in India and it was the executive that had failed. The executive had to rectify things. Mr. Gandhi believed, I think, that if

88

Rajiv Gandhi I failed or made a mistake then he would have to carry the can for what would then be perceived as a major cover up . . . what hurt me most was he wasn’t sure if I was making a power play. That was the biggest insult. I left him with great bitterness.

With V.P. Singh A number of narratives published after Rajiv Gandhi’s death, such as Working with Rajiv Gandhi by R.D. Pradhan, cover at length his qualities as a leader. Pradhan’s book is somewhat critical of the strict manner in which the bureaucracy was handled. However, a common reference that is made in these narratives is to the charming and kind manner in which colleagues and subordinates were often treated. Media archives also reveal that especially in the initial phase of his premiership, Rajiv was surrounded by people who found his administrative outlook favorable, although these people were often compartmentalized as “sycophants”. The most highlighted and keenly followed adversary who turned into a nemesis and, along with other factors, played a key role in electoral defeat was V.P. Singh. While his political campaign and interviews at the time were fiercely critical of Rajiv Gandhi’s role in handling the Bofors scandal, in an interview called ‘Walk the talk with V.P. Singh’, in July 2005, he commented on his relationship with Rajiv and the nature of the animosity between them in a comparatively more positive manner. He was asked: you were so motivated and all the rhetoric was anti Rajiv, anti-corruption and personal. How did you and Rajiv relate to each other after the election. Did he forgive you? He answered by saying: I never made any personal charge against him. I made charges of lapses as a government head but I didn’t make a personal charge. After that I had called on him and on Kashmir issue, I had invited him for dinner, and a few more issues for a one-to-one talk. .  .  . No, he didn’t show any bitterness. That way he was very sophisticated and polished and it showed. . . . I never made the charge that he made money on Bofors but somebody did. . . . I was a great admirer of his and I virtually saw no fault in him. I used to fight with my friends for him that we have got a better leader than Indira Gandhi. That was my state of mind. The differences arose not on Bofors but on the HDW submarine which led me to resign. . . . We fought each other very honestly. He did what he believed at the time and I did what I believed. . . . It would have been better had things not developed this way but I think neither of the two could have helped it.

Rajiv Gandhi

89

His response is a comment on Rajiv’s ability to function smoothly with the opposition in spite of a bitter campaign and consequent electoral defeat. It also indicates that the rivalry was not Rajiv’s creation but possibly a matter of discord based on an outlook towards policies which “could not be helped”. These can be seen as behavioral tendencies to move away from rather than towards conflict, thus indicating a lower influence of the narcissism and Machiavellianism. Generational shift It is widely known that there was a generational shift in appointments in Rajiv Gandhi’s premiership. Some of these appointments represent the potential role of Machiavellian traits in executive decision making. For example, Indira Gandhi’s close aide, R.K. Dhawan, had been replaced by Fotedar and other younger personal aides.27 Rajiv had explained it as a generational shift in administrative style. Dhawan was rehired soon. The Los Angeles Times described the reason behind his dismissal and reappointment as a politically astute move: In describing the tension between Rajiv Gandhi and his mother’s former special assistant, the Calcutta-based weekly magazine Sunday declared, “Crown princes never get on with court chamberlains.” Gandhi himself was quoted extensively at the time as saying Dhawan’s departure was part of an overall change in style from one generation to the next. It was just such a change in style that alienated many of the old stalwarts of the Congress Party, eroding Rajiv Gandhi’s support. In an effort to woo back the support of the party’s political bosses last month, Gandhi rehired Dhawan. Rajiv and Rao Vinay Sitapati’s biography on P.V. Narasimha Rao views Rao’s key role in Rajiv’s government and his consequent, gradual sidelining in a similar light where the relationship between Rao and Rajiv was mutually motivated by political gains. This dynamic is also of importance because while Arun Singh, Arun Nehru, and V.P. Singh were Rajiv’s contemporaries, Rao can be seen as a senior in a sense. While the former were vocal about their differences, the latter maintained a neutral and largely loyal stance throughout. In Rajiv’s new cabinet, P.V. Narasimha Rao was shifted from the home ministry to the defense ministry, which was a subtle demotion. In the words of Pranab Mukherjee: Rao’s indispensability was clearly demonstrated when Mr Rajiv Gandhi formed his government and he wanted to have a new team. But it was recognized that without P.V. Narasimha Rao there cannot be a team.

90

Rajiv Gandhi Therefore, he not only continued as minister in various ministries with which he dealt, but also, he proved to be indispensable in the Congress ministry. During Cabinet meetings, Rao would be seated to the left of Rajiv. Other Indira loyalists such as P.C. Alexander were soon eased out. Pranab left to form his own party. But Rao remained, as prominent in the new republic as he had been in the ancient regime. (Sitapati, 99)

Even though Rao’s portfolios were shifted according to Rajiv’s convenience, his presence in the government owing to his experience as well as place as a representative of the old Congress stalwarts was crucial. He was not favored in the presidential election in 1987, was made the foreign minister in 1988 where his position was often vetoed by the PM, and was eventually sidelined. Their boss-employee relationship was marked by differences but not confrontation. This dynamic perhaps also aided Rao’s survival in the government as compared to many other senior members of the Congress. Rajiv’s relationship with Rao reiterates his tendency to rely on colleagues for advice, a Machiavellian sense of timing and strategy in relation to shifting of portfolios, and a natural preference for non-confrontational colleagues. Rajiv and family Most of Rajiv Gandhi’s familial relations were marked by restrained affection. Pupul Jayakar28 describes his relationship with Indira Gandhi as one based on a deep affection but clothed with a formality which rarely permitted close and intimate encounters. The restrained expression of emotion in Rajiv Gandhi is more indicative of the reserved demeanor associated with the reticent personality rather than the incapability to form deep emotional bonds associated with the narcissistic personality type. Apart from his strained relations with Sanjay Gandhi based on his political actions rather than personal animosity, there are minimal evidences of conflict with family members. Nepotism can be seen as an extended attribute of narcissism.29 It is largely based on the need to promote the self by ensuring similar achievements for one’s progeny. Nepotism in a political democracy stems from the belief that only oneself and the people closely associated with oneself are capable of running the government. This goes against the very definition of democracy, which relies on a base in the grass-roots level instead of a top-down structure. It is therefore essential to ascertain the role of nepotism in relation to Rajiv Gandhi’s ascension to the position of prime minister. Given the political prominence of the Nehru family from Motilal Nehru to Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi’s comparative lack of political grounding

Rajiv Gandhi

91

as well as a general aversion towards the vocation, it can be said that Indira Gandhi’s involvement was key in ensuring a favorable political milieu for him. His rise to the post of PM was ensured partially by this favoritism and partially by the deaths of Sanjay and Indira Gandhi, which acted as catalysts. This favoritism is reflected in the fact that he was called to live in the prime minister’s residence and groomed in a way which made him an important link between ministers, scientists, party members, VIPs, and the prime minister. He told the press that he decided to resign as a pilot because “Mummy has to be helped somehow”.30 Jayakar’s biography on Indira Gandhi31 also makes it evident that Indira Gandhi sought Rajiv’s help after Sanjay Gandhi’s demise. The fact that help was sought from a family member with no relative political experience is indicative of a nepotistic outlook. Sanjay Gandhi’s role as a major political influencer in executive matters despite holding no prominent executive position is a comment on the tendencies of nepotism and Machiavellian suspicion of people, other than family, in Indira Gandhi. However, until her death, Rajiv Gandhi maintained that it was “wrong from a moral point of view” to think of succeeding her as the prime minister. Jayakar’s biography indicates that Indira Gandhi’s death and the threat that the consequent, widespread communal violence posed served as the immediate cause for Rajiv Gandhi’s appointment as the prime minister.

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Rajiv Gandhi studied in Shiv Niketan School in Mumbai, Welham Boys’ School in Dehradun, and the Doon School in Dehradun. He studied engineering at Trinity College but did not complete the course. He also got enrolled for mechanical engineering at Imperial College, London but did not obtain that degree as well. He joined the Flying Club in Delhi and eventually became a pilot, flying for Indian Airlines. He became a member of the parliament in 1981 and then eventually the president of the Congress Party. After Indira Gandhi’s death, he became the prime minister in what proved to be a landslide victory. He admitted to not paying enough attention to his studies as a student and having no real interest in academics. India witnessed a number of internal disturbances during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure. He was somewhat successfully able to curb secessionist forces through agreements. The agreement with Sant Longowal resulted in the lifting of the president’s rule from Punjab and fresh elections being held. Chandigarh was promised to be transferred to Punjab, and a considerable share of river waters was assured. It was able to restore democracy in the state, although it became the major reason behind the assassination of Sant Longowal. The government was also able to reach an agreement with the All-Assam Students Union. As a result, violence in the state of Assam was curbed, and the Asom Gana Parishad was formed, which won the consequent elections.

92

Rajiv Gandhi

The rebellion from the Mizo National Front was curbed by forging an agreement with the MNF leader Laldenga, who went on to become the chief minister of the state of Mizoram. Rajiv Gandhi is responsible for implementing the national education policy in May 1986. The aim was to provide residential schools in all districts, which were to be run by the center. The policy aimed at ensuring a proper education for students in rural parts of the country. Rajiv Gandhi took the decision of sending the Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka to intervene in the clash of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) with the Sri Lankan government. Owing to the strong sentiments in Tamil Nadu in support of the Jaffna Tamils in Sri Lanka, Indian support in terms of airdropping food supplies was carried out. Rajiv Gandhi’s government launched Operation Poolalai in 1987 providing air-borne supplies to regions with a Tamil majority. However, this was seen as a breach of Sri Lankan sovereignty since it was essentially an internal matter. The Indo-Lanka Accord was signed in July 1987, which stated that the Sri Lankan government would allow the provinces with a Tamil majority to exercise more power. In turn, the LTTE would surrender arms to the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF). The accord failed and the IPKF was attacked by the LTTE, which resulted in heavy casualties and the consequent removal of Indian forces from Sri Lanka. Rajiv Gandhi is responsible for bringing about digitalization in India. He promoted technology by reducing tariffs, taxes, and import quotas on telecommunications and computers. The concept of public call offices (PCOs) was introduced, providing greater connectivity across the country. In his tenure, the Center for the Development of Telematics (C-DOT) was set up to cater to the requirements of the telecommunications sector. He is thus credited with revolutionizing the Telecom and Information Technology sectors. In 1989, the 61st Amendment to the Constitution was made during his tenure, lowering the voting age to 18 years from the previous 21 years age minimum. It was received in a positive light and was seen as a measure to empower the youth in the country. The Anti-Defection Law was passed in his premiership, which prevented the members of parliament (MPs) and members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) from joining the opposition party until the subsequent election. It had positive impacts on the political fabric as bribes and corruption were regulated to a great extent. Rajiv Gandhi employed V.P. Singh, market economist Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and the technocrat Sam Pitroda to usher in economic changes. The government budget in 1985 increased exemption limits for income tax and reduced direct taxes for companies. There was an overall stress on reducing controls. The focus was to liberalize the Indian economy and enhance private production. The last budget formulated by his government introduced new surcharges on hotel bookings and flights. Taxes were also increased on consumer durables. An employment generation scheme for the rural population was devised, bringing the focus back to the rural demography. Another

Rajiv Gandhi

93

significant departure was to diminish the License Raj, eliminating bureaucratic restrictions on the purchase of consumer goods, capital, and imports. J. Bradford DeLong, economic historian and a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, however, shares his doubts32 about Rajiv Gandhi’s capabilities to build consensus (despite political support in the parliament) among opposition and senior members from his own party around his supposedly good policies: Yet somehow, somewhat paradoxically, the political power of Rajiv Gandhi’s government was not transformed into rapid structural reform. Factions within the Congress Party seemed not to believe that their interests were bound up with the success of their leader and his policies, but were instead threatened by the potential backlash against an administration that was concerned with the prosperity of the rich rather than alleviating poverty: the Rajiv Gandhi regime had, after all, tried to increase the profits of businesses and cut marginal tax rates food, kerosene, and fertilizer. Thus, the reform plans carried out under Rajiv Gandhi were hesitant, and less bold than one would have expected given the rhetoric of its initial speeches. In sum, following the highlights of Rajiv’s life can summarize his dispositions. He was a dull student and not a very bright scholar. He undertook politics as a vocation to offer moral support to his mother with an objective to fill the void created by his brother’s death. No record shows that he ever willingly pursued politics as a career. As a politician too, his performance records more or less appear disordered. Confounding instances such as formation versus deformation of a young coterie and conscious silence on dubious defense deals versus affirmative stances with respect to matters of Sri Lanka, Punjab, and Assam project puerile and indeterminate dispositions where value systems remained under construction.

Notes 1 Wariavwalla, B. (1988). India in 1987: Democracy on trial. Asian Survey, 28(2), 119–125. 2 Mehta, V. (1996). Rajiv Gandhi and Rama’s kingdom. Yale University Press. 3 Manor, J. (1985). Rajiv Gandhi and post-election India: Opportunities and risks. The World Today, 41(3), 51–54. 4 Manor, J. (1985). Rajiv Gandhi and post-election India: Opportunities and risks. The World Today, 41(3), 51–54. 5 Manor, J. (1985). Rajiv Gandhi and post-election India: Opportunities and risks. The World Today, 41(3), 51–54. 6 Post, J. M. (2014). Narcissism and politics: Dreams of glory. Cambridge University Press. 7 http://simigarewal.com/rajiv_i_knew.html 8 Post, J. M. (2014). Narcissism and politics: Dreams of glory. Cambridge University Press.

94 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Rajiv Gandhi E.g. Mehta, V. (1996). Rajiv Gandhi and Rama’s kingdom. Yale University Press. Pandit, V. L. (1979). The scope of happiness: A personal memoir. Crown Publishers. http://simigarewal.com/rajiv_i_knew.html Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. India: Penguin Books. www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/19841231-rajiv-gandhi-goes-on-agruelling-campaigning-spree-covers-19000-km-in-12-days-803539-1984-12-31 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19800831-sonia-is-deadagainst-the-idea-of-my-getting-into-politics-rajiv-gandhi-821377-2014-01-14 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/19841231-rajiv-gandhi-goes-on-agruelling-campaigning-spree-covers-19000-km-in-12-days-803539-1984-12-31 Kreisberg, P. H. (1986). Gandhi at midterm. Foreign Affairs, 65, 1055. www.indiatoday.in/magazine/indiascope/story/19860315-pressure-beingapplied-on-g.-parthasarathi-to-withhold-his-resignation-800693-1986-03-15 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/19851231-after-a-decade-of-unrestindia-stands-on-the-threshold-of-a-new-political-consensus-802273-201401-29 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19880331-it-is-clear-thatanyone-who-touches-the-mighty-bachchans-will-be-in-trouble-v.p.-singh797103-1988-03-31 Mody, N. B. (1987). The press in India: the Shah Bano judgment and its aftermath. Asian Survey, 27(8), 935–953. https://magazine.outlookindia.com/story/what-if-rajiv-hadnt-unlocked-babrimasjid/224878 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/people/23-choicest-cartoons-from-r-klaxmans-vintage-box/take-it-easy-shah-bano-/slideshow/46041875.cms Gupta, B. S. (1988). Cabinet-making and unmaking. Economic and Political Weekly, 230–233. E.g.: Thapar, R. (1986). No integration without integrity. Economic and Political Weekly, 719–719. Please see: WildFilmsIndia (Dir.). (2018, August 23). Arun Nehru on jan morcha and Rajiv Gandhi split. Youtube, WildFilmsIndia. Retrieved from www.youtube. com/watch?v=PXIzV8KMOck http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/-i-did-not-take-any-money-that-iam-100-per-cent-sure-of.-for-the-rest-i-cannot-say-but-i-would-have-foundout-/9632/0 https://theprint.in/opinion/r-k-dhawan-stood-by-sonia-gandhi-when-no-oneelse-did/94459/ Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational identification: Seeing oneself as central to the organization’s identity. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), 163–181. www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/11/01/son-heir-tried-to-avoidpolitics/55ecdd6e-1ae2-44d5-acc6-150eacc38a8f/ Jayakar, P. (1992). Indira Gandhi: A biography. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books. De ong, B. (2003). India since independence: An analytic growth narrative. In D. Rodrik (Ed.), In search of prosperity: Analytic narratives on economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

References As crisis worsens, it appears he can do no right: It’s season for Gandhi-Bashing in India. (1989, March 31). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from www.latimes.com/ archives/la-xpm-1989-03-31-mn-728-story.html

Rajiv Gandhi

95

Badhwar, I., & Chawla, P. (2013, December 4). Rajiv Gandhi has proved to be a total failure: V.P. Singh. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/ magazine/cover-story/story/19880331-it-is-clear-that-anyone-who-touches-themighty-bachchans-will-be-in-trouble-v.p.-singh-797103-1988-03-31 Baweja, H. (2013, September 27). I definitely would not have wasted almost a year: Rajiv Gandhi. India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/ cover-story/story/19901115-i-definitely-would-not-have-wasted-almost-year-rajivgandhi-813275-1990-11-15 Bharati Archives, P. (Contributor). (n.d.). 1984 Elections: Rajiv Gandhi in Dehradun talks of “Bharat ke tukde tukde politics” [Video file]. Retrieved May 4, 2019 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zs_SK6ozIA Bobb, D. (2013, November 12). Rajiv Gandhi’s dazzle of initial promise only serves to spotlight his subsequent failures. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday. in/magazine/cover-story/story/19891115-rajiv-gandhis-dazzle-of-initial-promiseonly-serves-to-spotlight-his-subsequent-failures-816753-1989-11-15 Bobb, D. (2014, December 4). Sonia is dead against the idea of my getting into politics: Rajiv Gandhi. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/ cover-story/story/19800831-sonia-is-dead-against-the-idea-of-my-getting-intopolitics-rajiv-gandhi-821377-2014-01-14 Chawla, P. (2013, December 24). Arun Singh resigns as Union Minister, move hits Rajiv Gandhi with the force of a betrayal. India Today. Retrieved from www. indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19870815-arun-singh-resigns-as-unionminister-move-hits-rajiv-gandhi-with-the-force-of-a-betrayal-799844-1987-08-15 Crossette, B. (1989, November 15). Selling of India: Tough ads by Congress party. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.nytimes.com/1989/11/15/world/selling-ofindia-tough-ads-by-congress-party.html Digital, India Today. (2014, February 18). Rajiv Gandhi is back in command, having reestablished his authority after months of drift. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/editor-s-note/story/19861115-rajiv-gandhi-isback-in-command-having-reestablished-his-authority-after-months-of-drift801406-1986-11-15 Digital, India Today. (2014, May 6). Arun Nehru and Arun Singh: Rajiv Gandhi’s power-brokers. India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/coverstory/story/19841215-arun-nehru-arun-singh-rajiv-gandhi-power-brokers-8035511984-12-15 Digital, India Today. (2014, May 7). Forecast shows Congress(I)’s unity and integrity message has effectively gone home. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www. indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/19841231-forecast-shows-congressis-unityand-integrity-message-has-effectively-gone-home-803527-1984-12-31 Dubey, S. (2014, April 3). After a decade of unrest, India stands on the threshold of a new political consensus. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/ magazine/nation/story/19851231-after-a-decade-of-unrest-india-stands-onthe-threshold-of-a-new-political-consensus-802273-2014-01-29 Guha, R. (2019). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. New York, NY: Ecco, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. India’s Rajiv: Part 1: The person [Interview by S. Garewall]. (2012, October 16). In SimiGarewalOfficial. Youtube. Indira Gandhi talking about Rajiv Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi: Rare footage [Interview by H. Times]. (2014, March 1). Youtube.

96

Rajiv Gandhi

Jayakar, P. (2000). Indira Gandhi, a biography. New Delhi: Penguin. “The main enemy is the BJP”: Rajiv Gandhi in March, 1991. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.nationalheraldindia.com/archives/the-main-enemy-is-the-bjpformer-prime-minister-of-india-rajiv-gandhi-in-march-1991 Malhotra, I. (2015, January 4). Rear view: How Rajiv had a great fall. The Indian Express. Retrieved from www.indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rearview-how-rajiv-had-a-great-fall/ Mitra, S., & Chawla, P. (2014, March 28). Arun Nehru rises to a position of power second only to PM Rajiv Gandhi himself. India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/19851031-arun-nehru-rises-to-a-position-ofpower-second-only-to-pm-rajiv-gandhi-himself-802116-2014-01-15 NDTV (Director). (2014, January 4). Walk the talk with VP Singh (July 1005). Youtube. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaO49Vu-eFc Ninan, T. (2014, May 7). Party manifestos and their “strange” content. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/19841231-partymanifestos-and-their-strange-content-803538-1984-12-31 Post, J. M. (2015). Narcissism and politics: Dreams of glory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pradhan, R. D. (1995). Working with Rajiv Gandhi. New Delhi: Indus. Sethi, S. (2014, May 7). Rajiv Gandhi goes on a gruelling campaigning spree, covers 19,000 km in 12 days. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/ nation/story/19841231-rajiv-gandhi-goes-on-a-gruelling-campaigning-spreecovers-19000-km-in-12-days-803539-1984-12-31 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd/Viking. Video: Bofors cost me Rajiv’s friendship: Arun Singh. (2006, July 27). India News Today. Retrieved from www.ndtv.com/video/news/news/bofors-cost-me-rajiv-sfriendship-arun-singh-5698 W. (Director). (2017, August 1). Rajiv Gandhi Congress campaign, 1990 [Video file]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=38gAlRturJs WildFilmsIndia (Director). (2018, August 23). Arun Nehru on Jan Morcha and Rajiv Gandhi split.Youtube.Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXIzV8KMOck

5

P.V. Narasimha Rao An ardent disciple (21 June 1991–16 May 1996)

Narasimha Rao’s premiership has been associated with some of the most pivotal changes in the modern economic history of India. However, he was often termed in the popular media as “the forgotten prime minister”.1 His contribution largely remained unacknowledged until recent scholarship brought the focus back to his central role as an individual in bringing about the changes. Tolstoy’s perspective on history discredits the role of leaders in affecting historical events.2 It has been noted3 that given the socio-economic conditions of the time and the political opportunities that shaped up, it was the context that influenced the economic decisions taken, and if Rao wasn’t the prime minister at the time, events would nevertheless have unraveled in exactly the same manner. Thus, the contextual factors are given more importance than the individual. Such a view, however, discounts a significant portion of the nuances that go into the formation of political history. Three recent works on Rao have reiterated this point. Vinay Sitapati’s book, Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao Transformed India,4 Jairam Ramesh’s book, To the Brink and Back: India’s 1991 Story, and the documentary titled PV: Change with Continuity directed by Srikar Reddy and Sravani Kotha have been crucial in restoring the importance of Rao as a leader and highlighting the part his personality, strengths, weaknesses, and choices played in affecting modern Indian economic history. The changes brought about during his tenure had a colossal, unprecedented impact on the economy, and though drafted almost a decade earlier, had not been implemented by any of his predecessors. The crafty manner in which execution was ensured is also a skill peculiar to Rao’s personal leadership style. Assessing Narasimha Rao’s personality as an individual and establishing a link between his personality traits, leadership style, and some of the executive decisions he took during his premiership therefore becomes important to understand the changes that took place during his premiership, in a holistic manner.

98 P.V. Narasimha Rao

Psychographic profile Humbly arrogant Accounts from contemporaries (potentially colored by personal biases) suggest that an underlying sense of superiority governed his actions. Jairam Ramesh describes Rao as a leader with “the charisma of a dead fish” and as someone who “lacked luster” before assuming office as PM. However, he also says of Rao:5 Mr. Narasimha Rao had a great sense of himself. It was not in-your-face arrogance. He was an intellectual . . . intellectually arrogant in a very low-key sort of a manner. M.K. Narayanan, one of his critics who worked closely with him, says: He was a deep thinker. He was intellectually very arrogant. He believed that there were no equals as far as he was concerned. . . . I spent hours and hours with him. It was obvious that he thought of himself as way above the crowd. . . . I had been at the receiving end of his whiplash comments from time to time so much so that I once said to him “Sir, you are infinitely superior to me you don’t have to remind me of that from time to time.” (CIC seminar)6 Rao’s leadership style was not pompous or extravagant in nature. Even though the most pivotal and unprecedented changes were brought about in the industrial sector during his premiership, he did not claim complete credit or capitalize on it to enhance his individual public stature. The changes were submitted in the parliament by P.J. Kurien, the minister of state for industry, who stated in the Lok Sabha on 24 July 1991: Sir, I beg to lay on the table a statement (Hindi and English versions) on Industrial Policy. This was followed by a press conference where the finance minister, along with the ministers for industry – P.J. Kurien, Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, Rangarajan Kumaramangalam, and P.K. Thungon – explained the new changes and addressed questions. Rao’s Independence Day speeches and public addresses (mostly selfwritten) similarly seldom took individual credit and employed the pronoun “we” instead of “I”. It has been argued that the tendency to not take excessive credit was a way to avoid opposition to the drastic reforms that were being engineered as well as to keep the precarious nature of his political position stable.7

P.V. Narasimha Rao

99

Enhanced self-concept Jairam Ramesh provided an unpublished self-portrait that Rao himself wrote, titled Two Crucial Years: India under Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Stewardship.8 It provides an insight into his self-perception. He describes his leadership as “sagacious” and crucial. The 46-page document is neither overly pompous nor humble in its content, but the choice of words and his opinion of himself gives a glimpse into his narcissism. It reads: Two years ago, when the young and dynamic Shri Rajiv Gandhi was martyred in the cause of the nation’s unity and integrity, veteran freedom fighter Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao was called upon to make up his unfinished task. On May 29, 1991, the Congress Working Committee asked the scholarly Narasimha Rao to lead the party at the hustings in the remaining constituencies. The italicized words above (and below) provide crucial insights about how Rao perceived himself. Further the document says: The Congress once again emerged as the largest single party in the country. . . . With a long administrative experience, he (Rao) had served in almost all key ministries at the centre . . . and had been a close associate of both Shrimati Indira Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi, both in office and opposition. . . . That is where Narasimha Raoji’s sagacious advice proved useful and she did initiate some new ideas and measures. The young Rajivji pursued these ideas and practices with youthful boldness and greater vigour. .  .  . Narasimha Raoji has helped him in drawing up the manifesto and has come to realize in the period since the Congress went out of office, the economic situation in the country has so deteriorated that immediate remedial measures were needed. . . . It is the sagacious leadership of Shri Narasimha Rao which has enabled the [Congress] party to survive all threats to the government at the center in and outside Parliament. At times, inner-party developments have created doubts about the survivability of the government. But by combining inner-party democracy with discipline, Narasimha Raoji has belied such doubts whenever they have arisen. (Ramesh, 237–240) In the document, Rao recognizes his place as the principal advisor to Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and indicates that his advice ensured the survival of the party, the government, as well as the nation. He uses adjectives such as “scholarly”, “veteran”, and “sagacious” to describe himself. The content of the document as well as the fact that he wrote a self-portrait reflects a self-awareness and sense of appreciation for himself that can be associated with narcissism.

100

P.V. Narasimha Rao

Independent decision making This strong sense of self may have caused his managerial style to center largely around himself when it came to decision making. His close friend Kalyani Shankar9 said of him: He would listen to everybody, take everybody’s inputs but he would always make up his own mind. Jairam Ramesh has stated that Rao wrote most of what he spoke himself. He received inputs from individuals, but like Jawaharlal Nehru, he created his own speeches. In areas that were of paramount importance and in which he had expertise, he chose to lead himself. However, in areas where he lacked experience, he allowed adequate independence to the ministers he appointed. For example, he kept the industry portfolio to himself and gave a free hand to Manmohan Singh in the case of fnancial reforms. A close aide to Rao who preferred to stay anonymous said: I don’t believe he was indecisive; he was deferential to authority or to positions where the ultimate responsibility for decisions lay, but where he was assured that the position was his to hold, he was quick to decide. He crafted the National Policy on Education in May 1986 within eight months of taking charge of that (human resource development) ministry, and directed its modification, as prime minister, six years later. . . . I think he was confident that the public postures of pressure to which he appeared subject would never, at that point in time, translate into actions that would threaten his government or indeed – and this was crucial and borne out in his private conversations with those who pressured – thwart the essential pace of reform. (Ramesh, 224) Ambitions? Another common indicator of narcissism in political leaders is their sense of ambition and the drive to acquire and maintain power. Rao’s ambition was understated as well. When he was deposed from the position of the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh during Indira Gandhi’s time, or removed as general secretary when he was lobbying for the presidentship, or when he was eventually sidelined in the Rajiv Gandhi government, his outward demeanor was that of acceptance. Rao’s personal diary entry in June 1991 reads: In my case, both with Indiraji and Rajiv, it was the level of a Central Minister and no higher. There was talk about the post of Congress President, Rashtrapathi, Vice-President, etc. . . . but every time they eluded

P.V. Narasimha Rao

101

me. And this happened several times. Yet, I did not bother, personally, since I still suffer from that phenomenon called lack of ambition. (Sitapati, 151) Rao’s personal diary entry right after Rajiv Gandhi’s death speaks of Pranab Mukherjee, suggesting that Rao was to become the elected Congress president and prime minister. Rao’s political experience, Machiavellian vigilance, and a subtle expectation for power is implicit in the diary entry that reads: I knew that his report was too good to be true. Either he was himself a dupe or he was party to some kind of design and was trying to lull me. He had done this role many times in those crucial years of Indiraji. I did not want to react. I mentioned about my health and said I feel a bit diffident. I suggested N.D. Tiwari instead, taking care to add that I was not refusing, yet it would be good if he came up after a better consensus. I also knew that NDT as unacceptable as, or more so than, myself, in the scheme of things. (Sitapati)

Covert suspicions Biographical sources and observations made by peers indicate several personality traits in Rao which signal Machiavellian tendencies. Suspicion of others and not easily trusting people is one such trait. Before assuming office as the PM, he was not exclusively associated with a coterie or faction. The only major confidantes throughout his life were Kalyani Shankar, Lakshmi Kantamma, and Chandraswamy. His personal papers include individual investigative files on all of his potential rivals. He kept tabs on the functioning of members of the opposition as well as dissenting voices within his own party.10 The services of the Intelligence Bureau were employed to do so. There seems to have been a general sense of suspicion towards others. Aside from being an underlying Machiavellian impulse, this was perhaps also partially owing to the fact that he was head of a minority government and did not enjoy full support within the party itself, which required him to constantly watch his back in order to maintain his position. Union Home Secretary Madhav Godbole says that Rao was discreet.11 Much like Indira Gandhi, he rarely revealed his true intentions. Narsa Reddy said: When you go to meet Rao, it is as good as talking to the wall. The wall does not reply. Nor does Narasimha Rao. (Sitapati)

102 P.V. Narasimha Rao This can also be seen in the way in which he periodically chose to criticize Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, and other colleagues anonymously in the Mainstream but never openly disagreed with them or criticized them. A justifcation of his actions explaining the reasons behind his decisions in relation to the demolition of the Babri Masjid are recorded in his book, Ayodhya 6 December, 1992.12 The book condemns the opposition as well as fellow Congressmen who in his opinion wanted to use him as a scapegoat to rid themselves of any responsibility. The fact that he personally decreed that the book be published only after his death shows his unwillingness to reveal his thoughts which could spark controversy. His earlier book, The Insider, was also written in the form of fction, hence concealing his true opinions. Selective dispositions Rao embodied the contradictions of action and inaction, boldness and indecisiveness. On topics such as liberalization of the economy, he displayed bold, firm measures backed by skillful political maneuvering; on the issue of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, his response was that of inaction. In both instances, a number of external factors governed his actions. In an interview with journalist Shekhar Gupta,13 he admitted that he had to take steps to change the economy because the circumstances had driven him to the wall. He said: when the ground beneath one’s feet itself is moving, the turning becomes easy. This implied that the circumstances more than his own courage or boldness had brought about liberalization. The fact that he did not publicly take credit indicates low levels of narcissism but the presence of Machiavellianism. At a time when liberalization was vehemently opposed, so much so that a no-confidence motion was to be passed against him, not taking credit for it was perhaps an astute act of political survival more than an example of personal humility. Sitapati also contests the argument that the circumstances caused the economic changes by studying the various political manipulations that Rao orchestrated to aid liberalization and by pointing to the fact that long after the crisis of 1991 abated, he did not choose to abandon liberalization. In the case of Babri Masjid, Rao’s inaction has been variously described as an attempt at political survival (the imposition of the president’s rule in anticipation could have been deemed as unconstitutional), an overestimation of himself as a Hindu leader (believing that the car sevaks would not resort to violence), and his personal bias towards the Hindu community. While one decision ended up being fruitful, the other ended in catastrophe. In both instances, however, an astute scrutiny of the political

P.V. Narasimha Rao

103

circumstances as well as a keen observation of human behavior was involved. Both situations were handled in a manner which hints at a Machiavellian disposition. Attitudinal evolution The difference in the way in which Rao handled bringing about major reforms as chief minister and as prime minister perhaps suggests the ability to evolve. It can also be seen as a change in behavioral traits in relation to the nature of the post. As chief minister, he implemented land reforms with a firm hand.14 This brought considerable backlash from within and outside the party. As prime minister, Rao stood behind reforms while shifting the onslaught of criticisms elsewhere. When it came to facing backlash after execution of economic reforms, Rao employed Dr. Manmohan Singh as the primary face of the change. Dr. Singh recounts that he was told regarding the devaluation of the rupee, if things go well then it is fine, but if there is backlash, he is the one who will have to pay for it with his job.15 In the face of opposition, Rao usually kept out of verbal conflict by leaving Dr. Singh to do the explaining. In his Tirupati presidential address, he was careful to appropriate the names of Nehru, Indira Gandhi, as well as Rajiv Gandhi to justify economic liberalization and the turn away from socialism instead of projecting himself as the primary architect and executer. Years later, he told journalist Shekhar Gupta:16 You see Nehru was a person who said something about his not being a Nehruite. Gandhi was a person who said very strongly that I’m not a Gandhiite. This becoming “ite” becomes something frozen. Gandhi was never static. Nor was Nehru. Why did Nehru leave the whole of agriculture in the private sector? If you are talking about socialism, don’t misunderstand. It’s not being imported from abroad. It is being evolved under our own conditions. So that should suffice as a permanent answer to what Nehru was trying to do and what we are trying to do. (NDTV, 2013) Astutely articulate As prime minister, Rao was able to read the political situation and gauge his opponents so as to come up with appropriate methods of placating or outwitting them instead of adopting an aggressive, straightforward approach to reforms, which he did as chief minister. Rao’s self-portrait from Jairam Ramesh’s book,17 Two Crucial Years: India under Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Stewardship, speaks of his ability to

104 P.V. Narasimha Rao interpret the rationale behind the ideas of his opponents as well as supporters, indicating an astute political sense: Naturally, the new policy had to update the basic approach to national development written into the second and third five-year plan documents by Jawaharlal Nehru and carry forward the new thinking initiated by Indiraji and pursued by Rajivji. But the BJP, which has emerged as the main opposition party, mistook the innovative measures suggested by Manmohan Singhji as abandonment of the Nehruvian approach. Partly taken in by the BJP propaganda, but largely because of their inability to free themselves from the hold of their dogmas, which in any case had proved mistaken, the Left Front parties also were critical of the new economic measures. They, however, had no alternatives to suggest. If the BJP hailed the measures for toning up the economy for wrong reasons, the Left Front’s criticism lacked rationality. Now, of course, the BJP too has become critical of the economic policy, and is talking in terms of certain old concepts whose definitions have to be changed with the changing times. (Ramesh, 239) He often employed rhetorical devices to persuade his opponents. His speeches in the parliament were filled with philosophical allusions, mythological anecdotes, and Sanskrit shlokas. They were rarely plain or direct in nature. Jairam Ramesh recounts that Rao focused on the political packaging of essential reforms. The preamble to each draft of reforms had to contain not just the right content but also the right words. He famously stressed the ability to “facilitate a U-turn without it seeming to be a U-turn”.18 To soften the blow of drastic economic reforms such as liberalization and encouraging foreign investment, he used phrases such as “continuity with change”, even when it can be argued that the continuity aspect of it was considerably lacking in the new reforms. Satpati19 in his book used a caption for a photo mentioning Rao as “still number two” beside Rajiv Gandhi. It can be said that Rao was adept at using the art of rhetoric to carry out political maneuvering, which indicates a Machiavellian personality. Rationalizing the rationales Rao has been associated with acts that were widely projected as unethical. Apart from the Babri Masjid question, the violent manner in which militants and their families were treated in Assam and Punjab in 1991, his alleged attempt at having papers planted to link Sonia Gandhi to the Bofors scam and his misuse of government institutions such as the Intelligence Bureau for carrying out personal espionage can be seen as means that he thought were justified by the end. He has also been accused of corruption.20 Though

P.V. Narasimha Rao

105

absolved of the charges later on, he was convicted of bribing four Jharkand Mukti Morcha MPs by a special court. In response to legal suits filed against himself as well as his colleagues, he said in his interview with NDTV:21 There are two fields – one is the legal field, the other is the political field. There’s much in common but they are not identical. Tactics are not identical. Conclusions are not identical. The logic is not identical. Therefore, for a perspective you will have to know both fields and distinguish where a politically correct decision can become legally incorrect. This is possible. I have shown it. I have seen it. (NDTV, 2013) This rationale that seems to have governed much of his political decisions indicates a Machiavellian bent of mind.

Interpersonal relations Narcissism and Machiavellianism traits in Rao can also be assessed by looking at his personal and professional relationships. Individuals with high narcissistic personality traits find it difficult to cultivate meaningful interpersonal relationships. Sitapati’s biography22 reveals that Rao’s personal life was marked by loneliness. He grew up with his biological as well as step family, into which he was adopted as a child. His relationship with his wife and children remained estranged throughout his life. He had a falling out with his son Prabhakar by attempting to distance him from politics when he wanted to have a political career. He developed a relationship outside of marriage with Lakshmi Kantamma and probably Kalyani Shankar later on. These relationships were not hidden from the public eye, but neither were they fully defined. Mentee but not a mentor Rao developed close relationships with a number of religious figures, who also became political allies and helped in his political growth, such as N.K. Sharma and Chandraswamy. The most important of these figures who he greatly venerated was perhaps Ramanand Tirtha, who became a mentor as well as father figure in his life. Most of Rao’s political decisions were influenced by Tirtha in the early phase of his career. Tirtha strongly believed in land reforms and wanted the land to be owned by tillers themselves. The aggressive manner in which Rao pursued this vision in his years as chief minister and the fact that he gave up his own lands to the cause is indicative of his dedication towards his mentor. Tirtha’s ideas influenced Rao’s ideologies, which also played an important role in his years as prime minister. In all probability, he inherited his Hindu leanings from Tirtha. Like his guru, he remained deeply religious but secular at the same time. His religious leanings

106 P.V. Narasimha Rao may also be seen as an explanation for his soft-handed attitude towards the BJP, however, given the opportunity to split the Congress and side with them in 1996, Rao showed allegiance to his party. The way in which socialism was infused with spirituality is also a common factor in both of their leaderships. Rao described his guru as “someone whose saffron robes scared (some people) as red rags” (Sitapati, 21). Rao continued to infuse politics with spirituality even when he turned away from socialism. Jairam Ramesh recounts how Rao would often quote Sanskrit shlokas to justify his actions in the parliament. The extent to which (if at all) his mentor’s opinions overshadowed his own is yet to be determined. However, there is no question that there was considerable influence. Sitapati23 points out that Tirtha perfected the art of using both violent struggle as well as Gandhi resistance and that this coexistence of moral and immoral aspects affected Rao’s approach to leadership throughout his premiership. Rao was reportedly greatly affected by Tirtha’s death and had the Ramananda Tirtha Memorial built in Hyderabad where his remains were buried. Rao’s ability to fall in line and follow his leaders can be seen in his relationship with Ramananda Tirtha, Ramakrishna Rao, Indira Gandhi, and even Rajiv Gandhi. However, he never nurtured any proteges or encouraged patrons. He largely surrounded himself and his cabinet with people suitable for work rather than people who owed allegiance to him. Upward submission Rao’s relationship with the Gandhi family is a comment on his ability to deal with those higher in command and hierarchy. He largely displayed submissiveness and allegiance. This was done with the ultimate aim of remaining in the good books of the bosses. When it did not pay off, his disgruntlement was not publicly displayed, but it can be seen in the deeply critical articles published anonymously by Rao. Sitapati24 has pointed out: There is no evidence that Narasimha Rao advised Rajiv Gandhi against his missteps. In an anonymous article published later, he would be critical of Rajiv’s “naivete” on Ayodhya. But when writing under his own name, in a book on Ayodhya published after his death, Rao absolved Rajiv of any responsibility. Whatever the inner half of Rao may have thought, his public half never faltered in praise of the Nehru-Gandhis. His relationship with his seniors was evidently confounding. As mentioned earlier, he involved the name of the Gandhis in every drastic measure he took as prime minister, but he personally was critical of their decisions and wanted to work differently. The difference between his actual and public opinions can be seen in the several essays he wrote anonymously as well as in his personal papers. He consciously avoided openly criticizing or disagreeing with his bosses.

P.V. Narasimha Rao

107

He chose to vent through writing in personal diaries and anonymous articles, maintaining a diplomatic stance and retaining his political position. One such example is an article written anonymously, titled “The Great Suicide”, which appeared in Mainstream Weekly in January 1990.25 The authorship of the article has been attributed to Rao. It is highly critical of Rajiv Gandhi and outlines the downfall of the Congress Party. It says: Everyone here and abroad knew that the essential element in the 1984 Lok Sabha poll was the “sympathy wave”. Indira Gandhi thus served the Congress in death as much as she did in her lifetime. Indeed more, according to some. Naturally, therefore, when victory came, no one quite knew what it signified and what to do with it. Most of all, Rajiv Gandhi became a victim of this new bonanza. The intoxication was too high. From that dizzy height, his view of the political terra firma consequently got blurred. . . . Rajiv’s ‘hum dekhenge ki’ . . . became a joke in the Hindi-speaking world. It was not his fault that he chose an English expression and rendered it literally into Hindi, with hilarious consequences. Yet, none of the Hindi pundits in his camp had the guts to tell him. Samayadar was another similar howler. It was thus a distorted beginning. Rajiv Gandhi seemed remote, alien. He did not seem to “belong”, except as Indira Gandhi’s son. It is widely believed that the article was written by Rao, owing to his friendship with the editor of Mainstream Weekly, Nikhil Chakravarty, his practice of contributing to regular, anonymous articles, and the fact that the article claimed to have been written by “a leading figure in the Congress-I”.26 If it was indeed written by him, a very clear distinction appears in his public and personal statements of Rajiv, who was higher in command. Though the authorship of the article is anonymous, sufficient evidences point it to Rao. He chose loyalty over ideology when Indira Gandhi deposed him as the chief minister. He became an indispensable advisor to both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi. He consciously made sure that this position stayed secure. Adaptability and learnability were essential characteristics of his personality. Sitapati27 narrates an incident where Rao overheard Rajiv saying that the old members in Congress weren’t capable of understanding the new changes associated with computers that he was going to bring about. The very next day, Rao called for a computer and learned how to operate it. He eventually became fluent in programming languages. His love for technology, combined with the pressing need to stay updated in order to remain in power, especially with a PM who was known for employing the youth, enabled him to get well versed with personal computers, which was an extremely new commodity (in India) at the time. The short period in which he achieved this knowledge is also a testament to his intellectual capacity, as is the fact that he was fluent in ten languages. Thereafter, he maintained digital diaries and wrote extensively using his computer.

108

P.V. Narasimha Rao

It was perhaps Rao’s experience, loyalty, and apparent lack of ambition that ensured his position as one of the principal advisors to Rajiv Gandhi as well. An interview with Pranab Mukherji found in Rao’s archives in 2015 states: (Rao’s indispensability) was clearly demonstrated when Mr Rajiv Gandhi formed his government and he wanted to have a new team. But it was recognized that without P.V. Narasimha Rao there cannot be a team. Therefore, he not only continued as minister in various ministries with which he dealt, but also, he proved to be indispensable in the Congress ministry. (Sitapati, 121) As his anonymous essays reveal, Rao was critical of the significance of Rajiv’s “young coterie” whose advice he heeded the most. However, Rao was aware of the significance of his position and saw himself as second in command. In his digital diary, he wrote: For many years now, I have had this dilemma. I have been seen as a wise person, No. 2 to the leader. Sometimes people have been very kind to me, attributing good decisions to me and bad ones to someone else or some inexperienced adventurist group. This has not always been the case, yet by and large, the hunch was correct. More decisions taken at my instance proved to be good and more taken against my view proved to be bad or harmful. I can say this honestly, although I never said it openly, for fear of creating controversy. (Sitapati) This shows that Rao was careful to shroud his disagreements and downplay his capabilities to keep the bosses or seniors in favor. However, he saw himself as number 2 to the leader, next in line for power. Eventually, the influence of the number 1 in command dwindles, and the next in line has to seize that opportunity. Rao was therefore patient but ambitious in an understated manner. Even though he was eventually comparatively sidelined by Rajiv Gandhi, the fact that he was called upon to hold the post of PM after Rajiv’s assassination confirms that his position as number 2 was not just something he believed in, but it was a widespread perception that was also shared by the Congress Party members as well as Sonia Gandhi (at the given time). With Sonia His relationship with Sonia Gandhi changed over time. According to Natwar Singh, Sonia was not someone Rao saw as his senior or someone he needed to report to. Nevertheless, during the first half of his tenure, he met

P.V. Narasimha Rao

109

with her regularly and constantly clarified misunderstandings created by “middlemen”. The meetings soon stopped, and a bitter dynamic developed. Natwar Singh, in his book, One Life is Not Enough,28 has commented on their relationship: He said, “I can take on Sonia Gandhi. But I do not want to do so. Some of her advisers have been filling her ears against me. I don’t take them seriously. Sonia’s case is different. Her attitude towards me is affecting my health. If she wants me to go, she only has to say so. I have done my best to meet all her desires and requirements promptly. You worked closely with her and must know and should know why Sonia is so hostile to me?” It was speculated that Sonia Gandhi was influenced by her advisers, offended by Rao ignoring her, and unsatisfied with the pace at which the investigation of Rajiv’s murder was being carried out. The Babri Masjid event served as the final nail in the coffin. Natwar Singh recounts how Rao made repeated attempts to bridge the communication gap, but she remained adamant.29 When she refused to get an RAX phone installed to establish a direct line of communication, Rao said “it was like a slap on my face”.30 The relationship irreparably soured to the point where Rao was completely abandoned by the party and isolated even after his death. His corpse was not allowed inside the party headquarters. The decision taken by Rao’s government to appeal against the Delhi high court judgment which rejected a police complaint regarding the Bofors scam upset Sonia Gandhi. She reportedly asked veteran Congress leader, Margaret Alva, “What does the Prime Minister want to do? Send me to jail?” Jairam Ramesh observes:31 Mr. Narasimha Rao cynically used Chandraswamy to discredit Mrs. Gandhi in the Bofors deal. This is documented in a memoir written by the director of enforcement, Javed Chowdhury. While the Congress party may have been unfair to Mr. Narasimha Rao, Mr. Narasimha Rao worked hard to make the Congress party be unfair to him. (NDTV, 2017) A number of union ministers also confirm that the relationship between the two got strained primarily over the pace of the investigation into Rajiv Gandhi’s murder. K.V. Thomas states that Sonia was not happy with the way in which it was being handled and that became the pretext as well as buildup to her entry in politics. In August 1995, Sonia Gandhi issued a public statement accusing the government of an uncharacteristically slow probe into the prime minister’s death and questioned if the prime minister was being treated this way, what hope did the ordinary citizens have.32 Since the Congress was in power at the time, this was a direct allegation at Narasimha Rao. He, on the other hand,

110 P.V. Narasimha Rao claimed to have done everything she asked for. Natwar Singh33 recounts that he mentioned all the steps that were being taken to speed up the process, such as making P. Chidambaram the head of the probe, and said “If she thinks my leaving will improve the matter, I will go”. With Manmohan Rao believed in delegation where it was due. Dr. Manmohan Singh had agreed to become the finance minister only if he would be given a free hand, and Rao made it clear that he would have to bear the brunt of failure if it so happened.34 The relationship was symbiotic and one never overpowered the other. While Dr. Singh made up for Rao’s inexperience in the economic sphere, Rao ensured political backing. Of his relationship with Dr. Singh, Rao said: I don’t think I managed to bring about reforms alone. It was an objective situation which had its own momentum and it created itself. Dr. Manmohan Singh did his very best to push it forward. Behind him, I stood like a rock, giving him political support through thick and thin. This is the kind of teamwork we had. . . . It is not just the finance-minister, it is the duo. The prime minister giving him the political wherewithal, the armor which he needs and the finance minister being the expert in the job in which I don’t interfere, unless I find people tell me something like a backlash, then I warn him and he takes the warning. . . . There were many occasions where I encouraged him where I found him diffident. I defended him. It’s a question of managing people. (NDTV, 2013) In spite of this partnership, public perception was skillfully manipulated so that people believed that the changes were being ushered solely (or at least largely) by Manmohan Singh. Important articles from various newspapers and magazines announcing the union budget and depreciation of the rupee only bore photographs of Dr. Manmohan Singh, which indicates that he was perceived as the chief architect and propagator of the new reforms. Symbioticism Rao managed people skillfully. He maintained friendly relations with members of the opposition such as Vajpayee and Advani. He placated the Left with idioms of secularism and largely managed to keep a precarious government intact for a full five-year term. He did not readily remove ministers until necessary and encouraged a clash in views. Sitapati35 cites an incident where Rao told a subordinate, “I don’t like you but I need your input”. Rao told V.R. Mehta, when he was appointed as the vice chancellor of Delhi University:

P.V. Narasimha Rao

111

Sometimes you will get messages from me. Don’t listen. .  .  . You do whatever you think is right. But I have to call because there will be someone sitting with me who wants that. (Sitapati) He, therefore, did not surround himself with sycophants or rely heavily on a particular group of advisers. He was able to get a holistic picture of things which gave him instincts for political survival. His reconciliatory approach towards politics can be seen in his critique of Rajiv Gandhi: He should have consolidated his position in the first five years of his prime ministership by keeping those whom he considered rivals at bay within the party. (Mainstream Weekly, 1990) An astute political sense can also be seen from the strategic nature of his appointments. The appointments of Manmohan Singh as finance minister, P. Chidambaram as commerce minister, and A.N. Verma as principal secretary proved to be highly fruitful moves.36 Rao’s rivalries, though comparatively fewer in number, had important impacts. The Hawala case allegations played a significant role in his eventual political isolation. His dismissal of Arjun Singh shows his capability to employ firm measures when necessary. The likes of Arjun Singh, M.L. Fotedar, Jairam Ramesh, and Natwar Singh were eventually sidelined. Ramesh said of Rao, “He had a contempt for Congressmen. He never had a kind word for anyone”.37 Vinay Sitapati conclusively remarks: the prime ministerial Rao was “clearly versed in the ‘realist’ tradition of Chanakya and Machiavelli by believing that consistent and moral means were unsuited to the complexities of governing India”. (Sitapati, 220) As a response to the different problems that each sector of the Indian economy had, Rao adopted an eclectic and artful approach. Appointing Manmohan Singh as finance minister proved to be a well-thought-out and fruitful move. Other ideas for financial reforms were discussed centrally and created simultaneously. Some of his major actions were carried out at the risk of causing irreversible harm to his personal image as well as position of power. He decided to stick with economic liberalization even after the immediate economic crisis in 1991 had been dealt with. He ran a minority government, with pressures from the Congress Party’s Gandhi leadership, who had previously propagated a socialist welfare state. There was also opposition from the Leftists. In spite of all of this, privatization continued in an increasingly open economy. As the leadership in the Congress Party shifted from Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi, Rao

112

P.V. Narasimha Rao

quickly adapted to the changes and continued to hold an important position in the affairs of government. Even though Rao was not a boastful orator and worked silently, he seems to have switched between silent isolation and aggressive expression tactfully. He did not associate strongly with one personality cult or any single party faction. He remained in a kind of ideological isolation in that sense, thus diminishing both support as well as opposition. However, in dealing with the ministries of law, education, etc., he was aggressive and action oriented. He delegated responsibilities adequately. The power of execution was not entirely concentrated in his hands. At the same time, he asserted a strong sense of self, independent from the control of the Nehru-Gandhi family, and took a number of important executive decisions single-handedly. Individuals with narcissistic tendencies have an inability of developing warm and caring personal relationships. Rao was not close to his children or his wife. While Rao’s inability to connect with his family could be a result of physical distancing from them for a prolonged period of time, it could also be suggestive of a personality type. His relationships with the other two women in his life have largely remained ambiguous. His relationship with seniors, colleagues, and subordinates display the observation and cautious tact associated with Machiavellian personality type.

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Narasimha Rao completed his school education in the Katkuru village in Telangana. He went on to obtain a Bachelor of Arts degree from Osmania University. After graduating, he moved to Pune to study astronomy. At this time he was an avid reader of the Hindu nationalist V.D. Savarkar, the communist weekly called New Age, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, as well as Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He graduated from Fergusson College, Pune with a first class degree. He went on to study law in Nagpur University, where he stood first. In Hyderabad, he joined a legal practice under Burgula Ramakrishna Rao, the soon-to-be chief minister of Hyderabad. He was a short story writer and translator from Marathi and Telugu. He had also been an unnamed contributor to Mainstream. Among the Teluguspeaking elite in Andhra Pradesh, he was known as “Ashtavadhani”, meaning a literary master. He was fluent in over ten languages. Although he had not studied computers as a subject in school or college, while working as a minister under Rajiv Gandhi, he became fluent in BASIC and other computer code languages. He wrote an autobiography called The Insider, which was published in 1998 and was widely read. Another book written by him is Ayodhya: 6 December, 1992. He served as chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, the Congress general secretary, union minister, and the prime minister of India. The economic crisis had reached rock bottom in 1991. By June 1991, India had only enough foreign exchange reserves to pay for two weeks of

P.V. Narasimha Rao

113

imports. Rao took the unprecedented step of economic liberalization, opening up the economy for competitive private companies as well as foreign investment. This was done with an objective to find a solution to the prevailing economic crisis as well as to turn India’s approach away from the socialist welfare state agenda, which had not been working well in the past decade. Liberalization expanded the corporate class as well as middle-class incomes. The tax policies were redefined to ensure that the upper economic classes paid more tax than the economically weaker sections. The government started generating more revenue, which could be utilized for welfare schemes. Industries reserved for the public sector were lessened in number. Indirect taxes such as MODVAT were extended to almost all commodities and excise duties were reduced. There was a devaluation of the rupee, and the operational framework for the license raj had been dismantled. However, Bhagwati38 pointed out: Within two years of Rao taking over, India’s crisis in servicing its hard currency debt abated and the pace of reforms also slowed down in tandem. A failure in the decision-making abilities of Rao was his choice of inaction in the Ayodhya case, where kar sevaks demolished the Babri Masjid in 1992. He did not employ the army or paramilitary forces to intervene. The reasons for this passive approach could have been personal communal prejudices, strategic neutrality by siding neither with the Hindus nor with the Muslims, weak and faulty decision-making capacities, or political pressures. Although the reasons are difficult to determine, the consequences were dire. There were communal riots and instances of violence across the country, such as the Bombay Stock Exchange and Mumbai bombings, which resulted in loss of lives, injuries, and property damage. Muslims lost faith in the Congress. An important decision in Rao’s tenure in the context of foreign policy was the Look East Policy, which aimed at improving relations with countries in the East. India began engaging in dialogues with the ASEAN nations in 1992. In 1996, India became a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). This enhanced investment and trade opportunities with countries towards the east of India. In the sphere of welfare reforms, Rao renewed the public distribution system to focus on the poorer parts of the country. The price of the basic food grains was dropped to less than regular ration shops. Rao appointed K.R. Venugopal to overlook the implementation of the scheme, which was regulated from the prime minister’s office. The scheme, however, proved to be a failure in the long run owing to its limited outreach and corruption of government officials. A national employment scheme was also employed, which did not have far-reaching effects. Education was not opened to the private sector, and the license regime persisted in the field of education.

114 P.V. Narasimha Rao Conclusively, Rao’s silent outlook carried immense inwardly thoughtfulness. His political life has two contrarian episodes – one representing indispensability and the other removability. His troubled familial relations are further contrarian to his effective maneuverability through complicated politically instable coalitions. Rao, nonetheless, succeeded in maintaining a coalition for the full tenure of five years, which is commendable and unprecedented.

Notes 1 www.livemint.com/Opinion/0i3G8vG5fALoILBeJBqqHL/PV-Narasimha-Raoa-forgotten-prime-minister.html 2 Stambler, I. (2006). Heroic power in Thomas Carlyle and Leo Tolstoy. The European Legacy, 11(7), 737–751. 3 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0IM7iPm_io&list=LLJDMp1NbI5VqmE6RfnW KJ9A&index=427 4 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0IM7iPm_io&list=LLJDMp1NbI5VqmE6Rfn WKJ9A&index=427 5Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. 6 Youtube. (2018). CIC event: “Half-lion: How P.V Narasimha Rao transformed India”: 30th September 2016. CIC. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/ watch?v=S_Q7xWKyXVo 7 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 8 This can be found cited in the following book: Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. 9 www.foundingfuel.com/article/the-man-who-knew-tomorrow/ 10 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 11 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 12 Rao, P. N. (2006). Ayodhya 6 December 1992. Penguin Global. 13 Youtube. (2013). Walk the talk: P V Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQU1vw12_o 14 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 15 www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/rupee-devaluation-in-1991was-ordered-via-hand-written-says-manmohan-singh/story/302250.html 16 Youtube. (2013). Walk the talk: P V Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQU1vw12_o 17 Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. 18 Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. 19 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited.

P.V. Narasimha Rao

115

20 Ramesh, J. (2015). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publishers. 21 Youtube. (2013). Walk the talk: P V Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQU1vw12_o 22 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 23 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 24 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 25 www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5438.html 26 www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/pv-narasimha-rao-the-subversive-insider/ article31939743.ece 27 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 28 Singh, N. (2014). One life is not enough. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publication. 29 Singh, N. (2014). One life is not enough. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publication. 30 Singh, N. (2014). One life is not enough. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publication. 31 Youtube. (2017). The enigma that was Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl7kikPY0jM 32 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/sonia-gandhiand-narasimha-rao-had-strained-relations-k-v-thomas/articleshow/305033 04.cms 33 Singh, N. (2014). One life is not enough. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publication. 34 www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQU1vw12_o 35 Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. New Delhi, India: Penguin Books Limited. 36 Singh, N. (2014). One life is not enough. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publication. 37 Youtube. (2017). The enigma that was Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl7kikPY0jM 38 Bhagwati, J. (2019). The promise of India: How prime ministers Nehru to Modi shaped the nation (1947–2019). New Delhi, India: Penguin.

References Alva, M. (2016). Courage & commitment: An autobiography. Retrieved from www.amazon.com/Courage-Commitment-Autobiography-Margaret-Alva/ dp/8129139561 The Great Suicide. Mainstream Weekly. Retrieved from www.mainstreamweekly.net/ article5438.html Narasimha Rao, P. V. (2000). The insider. New Delhi: Penguin Books. Narsimha Rao, P. V. Change with continuity. Vimeo. Natwar-Singh, K. (2014). One life is not enough: An autobiography. New Delhi: Rupa Publications India. Natwar Singh’s account of frosty relations between Sonia Gandhi and PV Narasimha Rao. (2014, August 1). The Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes. indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/natwar-singhs-account-of-frostyrelations-between-sonia-gandhi-and-pv-narasimha-rao/articleshow/39416293. cms?from=mdr Ramesh, J. (2016). To the brink and back: India’s 1991 story. New Delhi: Rupa Publications India.

116 P.V. Narasimha Rao Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd/Viking. Youtube. (2013). Walk the talk: P V Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www. youtube.com/watch?v=vUQU1vw12_o Youtube. (2017a). The enigma that was Narasimha Rao. NDTV. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl7kikPY0jM Youtube. (2017b). Narasimhanomics and the legacy of reforms. Jaipur Literary Festival. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVLzdToLNPw Youtube. (2018). CIC event: “Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India”: 30th September 2016. CIC. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch? v=S_Q7xWKyXVo

6

Atal Bihari Vajpayee A silent assertive (19 March 1998–22 May 2004)

Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s most remarkable and unprecedented achievement has been the fact that he was able to successfully run for a full term a non-Congress coalition government, especially after years of Indian parliamentary instability. This achievement has been largely attributed to his personality and the ability to reconcile and operate with differences. An article in the Washington Post in their obituaries section on 16 August 2018 described Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s persona as “more of a philosopherking rather than a hard-nosed politician”. This view seems to have resonated with his contemporaries as well as the media at the time. His strong sense of rhetoric was and still is seen in the public perception as that of an artistic poet rather than that of a demagogue. It can be said that his personality contributed to a large part of his political success and public image. However, in general, Vajpayee was an animated orator who interspersed his speeches with passionate poetry. In the following sections, I assess his dispositional, relational, and intellectual profiles as a measure of his decisional and political capabilities.

Psychographic profile Biographies, accounts from contemporaries, speeches, poems, media accounts, and actions taken during his premiership reflect agreeableness1 and conscientiousness2 as the dominant traits in Vajpayee’s personality. His political actions, administrative style, and decisions taken as the prime minister are also suggestive of the presence of these personality traits. While he has been credited with accommodating different opinions, he is also known for delivering passionate speeches and aggressive vocal attacks on political opponents. Reaction to criticism Vajpayee had a healthy tolerance for constructive criticism. However, he strongly dismissed personal attacks and was passionate in defending himself, his party and the RSS against any criticism. He often attacked his

118 Atal Bihari Vajpayee opponents and critics aggressively in the parliament using appropriate rhetorical devices. This was periodically interspersed with open condemnation of “below the belt” politics and literary references to emphasize the need for healthy debate and criticism. He never took an aggressive stance against the media. In a parliamentary address he quoted saint Kabir saying “nindak neeyare raakhiye”, suggesting that critics play an important role in keeping one in check, whereas sycophants can cause more harm.3 His administrative style also shows that he was comfortable with differences in opinion and was himself rarely heavily opinionated. This was a part of his reconciliatory leadership style as well as the agreeableness of his personality. The parliament represents open dialogue and debate as essential processes in decision making. It has often been said that Vajpayee was a parliamentarian first and then the prime minister. His attendance in the parliament since the beginning of his political career was excellent as compared to others. He participated actively in debates surrounding important issues. When asked in 2004 if he will bring in the legislation stated in the BJP manifesto regarding people of foreign origin not being allowed to hold offices in the government, he said: Yes, we will. If it gets a majority it will get passed as well but, in all honesty, it is my experience that until there is a debate over the issue, the question of legislation should not be brought up. (NDTV, 2004) Repeatedly emphasizing open debates on various platforms shows the innate need to accommodate different views and avoid unilateral decisions. It also reflects political experience and practicality, especially in a situation where there is a coalition government and dialogue would potentially prevent dissolution of the government. Vajpayee’s demeanor in the parliament can be seen as an important tool in assessing his personality. He used the art of rhetoric efficiently in the parliament. Vajpayee would alternate between humor, poetic expression, and aggressive speech in his speeches in the parliament. L.K. Advani later recalled that it was this quality which Vajpayee possessed and he lacked that made Vajpayee a better politician. His oratory skills were appreciated by the masses as well. In one of the sessions he humored: A lot of you say Vajpayee is a good man but his party is not good. Please let me know what do you intend to do with the good Vajpayee then?4 The entire parliament, including the opposition, cracked up in laughter. However, his attacks on opponents were also aggressive. He would employ long pauses and passionate, fiery metaphors and phrases to express discontent. In his famous reply to Sonia Gandhi in the parliament, he said:

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

119

I was shocked when I read Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s speech, “The BJP led government has shown itself to be incompetent, insensitive, irresponsible and majorly corrupt.” In the political sphere, people who are working shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this same country, even if there are differences, this is what your assessment says about them? Is this the way to express differences in opinion?5 It is the government that has betrayed the mandate of the people. We have come here through the support of the people and we will stay until the people want us. Who is your mandate to stop us? Who made you the judge to say we betrayed the mandate? Maybe you are not ready for a demonstration of your power. When the assembly elections take place, then that tussle will settle it but what is this? Please fight in a dignified manner. Be mindful of this nation’s ethics. He held the ethics and protocols of the parliament in high regard. He expressed disdain for personal attacks against individuals, and in spite of aggressive disagreements over political matters, maintained friendly relations with opponents in his personal life. His book, A Constructive Parliamentarian, published in 2012, enlists the number of bills he introduced into the parliament (20 of which were introduced when in opposition) and the relevant debates over those bills. The fact that he wrote a book on the subject shows the importance he gave to the proceedings of the parliament. Publishing such a book for the general public emphasizes the educational aspect of the parliament, which Vajpayee seems to have acknowledged. His book, Four Decades in Parliament, includes a number of speeches delivered in the parliament. Vajpayee’s reconciliatory skills also become apparent in his interactions in the parliament. He would appreciate or acknowledge members who did not belong to his own party wherever necessary. He would at once make great claims about party loyalty and comment on placing the national interest over party politics at the same time. This skill played a major role in ensuring political effectiveness for him. It also enabled him to function in a secular manner in spite of considerable pressure from Hindutva agenda-driven organizations in the country. L.K. Advani recounts that this quality ensured Vajpayee’s acceptability to the masses and ensued ascension to the premiership. Advani said: I hold that both Deen Dayal ji and Vajpayee ji, both were committed to the RSS ideology like me, but both of them had an ability and competence to remain firm to the ideology but at the same time realize that a political party cannot confine itself to a political group. In a country like India particularly, it has to appeal to the masses that have nothing to do with ideology and so in that process they should be able to interpret ideological positions also as the time requires. This remarkable ability both of them had. It was because of this quality that they were

120 Atal Bihari Vajpayee acceptable to the public. I always felt that it is this ability of the two leaders which makes them fit for the office of prime minister. (India Today, 2018) Sources of followership As one of the founding members of the Bhartiya Janta Party, Vajpayee wanted to espouse Gandhi socialism as a cornerstone for the primary BJP ideology. The capacity to amalgamate or reconcile extreme positions is suggestive of political tact. However, his neutral stance was backed by a strong ideological base, party allegiance, and strong personal beliefs as well, which makes his astuteness different from that of more extreme Machiavellian personality types (such as Narasimha Rao, who was able to maintain neutrality because he was discreet and deliberately, calculatedly silent, and neither sided with nor opposed any group or faction openly). Vajpayee was able to do so in spite of his strong allegiances, which he was publicly vocal about. While the former did not attract enemies or followers, the latter attracted a huge following and very few enemies. Post highlighted in his book that Vajpayee declared in a parliamentary address in 1996 that issues of potential discords such as ram mandir and the abrogation of article 370 were deliberately left out of the government’s agenda because the party did not have a majority in the parliament.6 Had the party had a majority, the content of the decisions would have been completely different. It is with this outspoken honesty that Vajpayee headed the coalition government. Vajpayee’s large following can be ascribed to his charismatic personality. In his book, The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, Jerrold M. Post has suggested: The centrality of the self for the narcissist influences all aspects of political behavior. The narcissist’s sensitivity to slight and need to be seen as all-knowing and perfect tends to lead to a sycophantic leadership circle. (Post, 101) However, Vajpayee’s executive team, members of the prime minister’s office, and immediate advisors cannot exactly be called “yes men”. Decision making took place after debate and discussion. The factors responsible for the formation of a sycophantic circle in the BJP for Vajpayee, therefore, include his charismatic, borderline narcissistic personality along with a common, strong ideological base, prior electoral success, and the ability to work with an eclectic administrative setup. Characteristic signs in poetic creations Like Nehru, Vajpayee wrote extensively and published a number of books. These include Meri Ekyavan Kavitayein, Twenty-one poems, Four decades

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

121

in parliament, Decisive days, and Kya Khoya Kya Paya, among others. This shows a conscious effort to make his ideas accessible and actions transparent to the public. It typically links with the author’s narcissistic need to leave a legacy behind or to be remembered. However, the content in Vajpayee’s books seems to be direct, and the political aspect seems to have been stressed more than personal or autobiographical details. Poetry is a form of literature that makes available to the reader the conscious and subconscious of the poet. The form and content of Vajpayee’s poems can be studied to analyze his personality. In terms of themes, his poetry mainly consists of political commentaries and philosophical poems about human existence and the nature of life. In most of the poems, the poet becomes the central character and the narrative runs in the first person. The self therefore finds a strong presence in the poems. Except for Vajpayee’s poems such as ‘I am neither silent nor do I sing’ (‘Main na chup hoon na gaata hoon’), ‘Let’s say something to our own minds’ (‘Apne hi man se kuch bolein’), where the ‘I’ gets existential and questions life, most of the other poems reflect a strong sense of self, where he poses as the voice of reason leading the people or lending advice. In the poem ‘Two sentiments’ (‘Do Anubhutiyaan’), there is a transition from a lonely, pessimistic poet stuck in a writer’s block, unable to express his feelings, to a new, optimistic frame of mind where he has new things to say. The poem starts with the sentence “I do not sing”, “गीत नहीं गाता हू” ँ and then goes on to say, A new song I sing Who will listen to the sobs of broken dreams A torn inner state of mind pinching the eyelids I will not give up I decide not to be a coward On time’s countenance I write and erase A new song I sing I have fought with every challenge I have relit extinguished diyas.7 Vajpayee as the poet poses as a courageous individual with the potential to change the broken dreams and the sad inner state of people through his poetry, thus occupying the role of a leader and rescuer. Other poems such as ‘We cannot bow down’ (‘Jhuk nahi sakte’) reflect a sense of showing courage and overcoming all odds against adversaries as well. Furthermore, ‘A confrontation with death’ (‘Maut se than gayi’) reflects a bold and courageous sense of self. The ‘I’ has the potential to fight death courageously. It addresses death, saying: Do not tiptoe and arrive slyly Attack face-to-face then try me.

122 Atal Bihari Vajpayee Today a dire storm commoves Our boat is a guest in the arms of a whirlpool But there is a strong resolve to overcome it Looking at the hostile attitude of the storm Hostility arose in me I confronted death.8 Similar examples throughout his poems find either a strong first-person presence or a direct address to a second person. The poet (Vajpayee) is therefore almost always a character in the poem or the central figure narrating what he witnessed or experienced firsthand. The stance of the ‘I’ as a strong individual, a leader and guide of the people, forms a common pattern in the majority of the poems. This style of writing, which focuses on the individual more than the events and the inner self more than the outer milieu, demonstrates a self-awareness and individualistic worldview that can be associated with subtle narcissistic tendencies. However, the self-described in the poems also appears to be constantly changing and questioning itself. A number of poems are existential in their themes. ‘I am neither silent nor do I sing’ portrays a confused, lonely poet persevering in the face of adversity. The poem ‘Which path do I go on’ (‘Raah kaun si jaun main’) involves a dilemma surrounding personal choices. In poems such as ‘Height’ (‘Uchai’), the first-person narrator assumes a position of humility where he prays to stay humble: My lord! Never grant me the kind of height where I cannot embrace others Never make me that rude.9 The nature of the self-image varies in the poems from a strong, positive philosopher and guide, to a lonely, confused individual, to a humble one. It is therefore the strong, overall focus on ‘I’ and not the nature of this focus that hints at narcissism. A strong Hindu identity emerges as a pattern across Vajpayee’s poems. It occurs indirectly in the use of mythological anecdotes and metaphors; it also occurs in more deliberate ways like giving certain poems a Hindu theme or explicitly mentioning the term ‘Hindu’ and its connotations. The poem ‘Hindu disposition, Hindu life, Hindu is my introduction through and through’ (‘Hindu tan-man, Hindu jeevan, rag rag Hindu mere parichay’)10 represents the explicit kind of mention. The poem describes the poet vividly identifying with a Hindu identity. The Hindu here is hyperbolically elaborated as possessing metaphysical strength of the Gods, a superhuman awakening of the human race. He is described as peace loving and is against slavery and imperialism at the same time. He is committed to the service of the people.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

123

Other poems have subtler Hindu themes. The poem ‘Bless you Vinoba!’ (‘Dhanya tu Vinoba’)11 congratulates Vinoba as a cow rescuer and goes on to describe, in reverence, the useful attributes of a cow. Allusions to characters from the Mahabharata and Ramayana to describe contemporary figures or political situations are a common feature across the poems. The term ‘Hindu’ is not restricted to religious connotations. In certain places it assumes wider meanings. In the poem ‘The cry of 15th August’ (‘Pandrah August ki pukar’), the term ‘Hindu’ seems to become synonymous with being Indian: On the footpaths of Calcutta those who withstand wind and rain Go ask them what they have to say about 15th August. If by virtue of being a Hindu you are ashamed to hear about them Then come to the other side of the border where civilization is trampled.12 In the poems mentioned here, there is a strong and positive affiliation with the Hindu identity, which gives an insight into Vajpayee’s sense of self or self-perception. Self-righteousness can be seen as an underlying theme in poems that do not have any reference to being Hindu as well. Vajpayee’s poems have undertones of hope and humanism. The belief that human beings are capable of changing the present situation, which is often described as dark, runs through almost all of his poetry. Some poems are political commentaries on various topics. Overarching ideas throughout these poems include a sympathy towards the economically backward, a critical perception of the West, Indian nationalism, and the hope for a better future for the country. The topics range from world events such as the nuclear explosion in Hiroshima to a clear apprehension and critical approach towards Pakistan. ‘A plea for forgiveness’ (‘Kshama Yachana’)13 seeks forgiveness from Gandhi and Jayaprakash Narayan for not being able to fight the “darkness” appropriately. The poem could possibly be a reference to the Congress regime under Indira Gandhi. A more explicit criticism of the Rajiv Gandhi government is seen in ‘Do not go to Manali’ (‘Manali mat jaiyo’), in which the poet (Vajpayee) figures as an advisor to a young girl, urging her not to go to Manali as the political state of affairs is despicable in the area: If you do decide to go go with a trishool You will fnd Khalistanis in Rajiv’s regime14

124 Atal Bihari Vajpayee Ardent nationalism is a major theme in Vajpayee’s poetry. The nature of nationalism described in these poems has an overbearing, assertive tone. It often assumes an aggressive stance bordering on collective narcissism. The poem ‘India is not a mere piece of land’ (‘Bharat zameen ka tukda nahi’) personifies India as a strong human whose feet the Indian Ocean washes in reverence. It is described as a divine presence for which the poet feels extremely patriotic. The poem ‘The history of the world questions’ (‘Duniya ka itehaas puchta’) describes darkness enveloping the Western world and places like Rome and Greece becoming historically irrelevant. It juxtaposes this image with that of the emerging India, which is the new leading light for the world. This nationalism assumes an aggressive tone in ‘To the neighbour’ (‘Padosi se’), which is a direct address to Pakistan: Tell those attempting to end India’s freedom: It is dangerous to play with sparks The dream to set others’ houses on fames has always come true in one’s own home. Do not dig your grave with your own hands Do not hit yourself in the foot with your axe Oh silly neighbor open your eyes Do not put a price on independence It is priceless. But what do you know about independence? You got it for free you couldn’t pay the price You got two pieces with the support of the British Did you not feel ashamed dividing the mother?15 The poem goes on to mention the issue of Kashmir, over which India will not compromise. The poems, therefore, attempt to establish India’s supremacy over other nations in a number of ways and are filled with patriotic symbols. While their hyperbolic nature represents a literary tradition, which is common in certain works of Hindi literature, it can also be read as being representative of collective narcissism. Some of these poems are written in regional dialects and have known to be frequently recited in Vajpayee’s campaign speeches. They were also published publicly. Poetry therefore posed as a rhetorical tool to express and propagate political ideas as well. A part of his poetry can, therefore, be seen as propagandist in nature. Power for self and self-promotion The narcissism and Machiavellianism tendencies in political leaders can be assessed on the basis of three parameters: the degree and nature of their ambition for power and the extent to which they promote themselves. Vajpayee publicly condemned the ambition for personal power on various

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

125

occasions. In a parliamentary address in 1996, refuting claims that he was thirsty for power, he said:16 When I joined politics, I never thought I would become MP. I was a journalist and the kind of ugly politics that is going on now, I am not fond of it at all. I want to leave but politics does not leave me. I was a leader of the opposition, now I’m the prime minister. After a while, I won’t be prime minister anymore. It’s not like my heart started dancing with joy when I became prime minister and when I will leave everything and retire, please do not be mistaken that I will have some ill will in my heart even then. L.K. Advani has stated in an interview that Vajpayee was not in favor of leaving the Janata Dal to form the BJP, but he was pushed to do so when he was not made the president.17 Advani and Vajpayee both branched out when they felt their voice was not appropriately recognized. Vajpayee took decisive measures to be appropriately acknowledged; however, there are hardly any instances which suggest that his ambition took an aggressive or personal form. When the RSS backed L.K. Advani as the leader of the opposition instead of his senior and widely acknowledged suitor for the post, Vajpayee, he was distraught. N.P. Ullekh’s book, The Untold Vajpayee, describes how he felt slighted by the RSS. The national executive meeting of the BJP held in Ahmedabad in 1992 has been described where he expressed his disgruntlement by saying that Govindacharya was trying to play ‘Chanakya’ and manipulating the situation from behind the scenes when it came to deciding who would get the party’s important posts. However, he was also happy with the expansion of the party and maintained cordial ties with Advani, publicly supporting him. In gauging the extent to which he promoted himself, it can be observed that since cult-of-personality politics had become common by that time and the party heavily relied on him, he often employed first-person pronouns to highlight himself and the BJP’s achievements. In the parliament in May 1996, he said:18 Whenever it has been necessary, we have helped the governments in their crucial hours of need. The then prime minister Narasimha Rao ji had sent me, as a representative of the opposition, to Geneva to voice the nation’s interests and Pakistanis were astounded to see me. They said ‘where has he come from?’ because in their country, a leader from the opposition would not have been willing to help in such a matter of national interest. The leader there would have been busy working to ensure the failure of the current government. That is not our tradition, that is not our nature. I want this tradition to stay alive, this nature to stay alive. The game for power will continue, governments will come

126 Atal Bihari Vajpayee and go, parties will be formed and dismantled but this nation should remain alive, this nation’s democracy should remain eternally alive. In the same speech, he reminds the parliament that he has been duly elected, and therefore the party and its methods command respect. Regular references to personal anecdotes and repeated use of “I” show signs of stable narcissism, self-confidence, and self-righteousness. It can also be seen in the context of the cult-of-personality politics at the time. An example of this is the 2004 ‘vision document’ of the BJP’s ‘India Shining’ election campaign, which was promoted almost as Vajpayee’s individual vision. In an article published in The Milli Gazette in 2004, it is mentioned that Vajpayee appears 54 times in this 48-page document. The introduction to this document, written by Venkaiah Naidu, says: For the BJP, our vision, our political journey and our distinctive identity have always been personified by Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Because he best personifies our party, we have decided to illustrate this document with pictures showing different facets of his life. Media of the time revealed that the document incorporated a series of full-page pictures of Vajpayee, portraying him as the ideal leader. There are pictures of him with a charkha in Sabarmati ashram, at the nuclear testing range in Pokhran, leading a march, addressing a rally, and staging a satyagraha. While some leaders such as L.K. Advani and Venkiah Naidu are mentioned, it largely consists of Vajpayee’s pictures and references to past achievements and future feats that are possible under his leadership, suggesting that the future of the party as well as the country rests on him as an individual. The emphasis on Vajpayee’s persona in a public document that is meant to outline a political party’s national vision and goals of governance exemplifies the cult-of-personality politics that Vajpayee, among other leaders, was associated with. It also represents the nature of Indian politics, where the personality of the leader is directly linked with popularity and, hence, electoral gains. The document, however, was not drafted by Vajpayee, who has been perceived in the public imagination as a figure of humility. Popularity In a 22 December 2002 Times of India poll, 400 students from India’s most prestigious colleges were asked to select the ideal leader for India. Independence leader and spiritual icon Mahatama Gandhi led with 23 percent, followed by the then-current Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee with 20 percent. Vajpayee was immensely popular. The newspaper headlines reporting his death included headlines with phrases such as “Politics loses its

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

127

poetry”19 (Firstpost), “PM, poet, statesman, gentleman”20 (The Times of India), “Vajpayee, BJP’s gentle colossus, fades away”21 (The Hindu), and “Rajdharma Reminder”22 (The Telegraph). It was perhaps a combination of his personality, political stature, media consciousness, and moderate narcissism coupled with the nature of politics in general, at the time, which focused on individuals as leaders that ensured widespread popularity for Vajpayee. Consciousness about one’s reception including outer appearance can be seen as a measure for narcissism in famous personalities. Although Vajpayee does not seem to have explicitly been camera conscious, Nag,23 in his book mentions that Vajpayee never missed photo opportunities, even though it could have been at the behest of his PR team. Once he was popularly photographed and publicized wearing traditional attire representing a Haj committee delegation24 (readers must register that Vajpayee’s successor from BJP in premiership, Narendra Modi, boldly refused to put on a ‘skull cap’ offered by a Muslim cleric during his sadbhavana fast in Ahmedabad).25 It also shows Vajpayee buying the first metro card to inaugurate the first corridor of the Delhi Metro, and a picture taken at the Pokhran nuclear testing site in 1998. The onset of the PR-media culture had begun by this time, and being photographed was crucial. Vajpayee usually dressed simply but sharply in neutral colors and traditional outfits. However, on some occasions such as foreign visits, he wore more westernized attire. Administration and management Mild Machiavellian tendencies in Vajpayee’s disposition have periodically created considerable political impact. Out of the many tasks on his agenda, he chose to declare India as a nuclear power in a powerful oratory address almost as soon as he assumed office. This move came at a time when he was being viewed as a titular head, wherein the presumption was that the real power lay in the hands of L.K. Advani or the RSS. He established his authority and competence by executing something that would inevitably be viewed by every single person as revolutionary. The timing of this announcement and the way it was delivered speak of his strategic astuteness as a politician and orator. Vajpayee showed the efficient managerial abilities of an experienced and astute politician. His administrative style was not centralized and involved appropriate delegation. However, there are instances that hint at the narcissistic side of Vajpayee’s personality. When he went on journeys overseas, all of his ministers saw him off at the airport and waited for him when he returned – a practice that had been followed by the prime ministers before him, which he did not reject. Media consciousness and photo ops are also factors associated with him. Biographical sources reveal that in spite of adequate delegation of duties, the ultimate decision

128 Atal Bihari Vajpayee on important matters lay with him. He was the ultimate boss without seeming like one. He was the boss without giving the appearance of being one, but there was no doubt that he was the boss. His was the last word, says a joint secretary during Atal’s regime. (Nag, 354) He accommodated people of varied backgrounds in his administration. His closest key advisors included liberal leaders George Fernandes and Jaswant Singh. His choice of appointing people such as Brajesh Mishra indicates a reliance on experience over ideological backgrounds for appointment. Nag notes: A close aide of his says that Atal depended on those whom he was comfortable with. He knew the dictates of governance and wanted the advice of those who were best suited for the role. The RSS kept up its pressure on him, demanding its pound of flesh in governance; but Atal kept it at bay, especially when Rajendra Singh was the sarsanghchalak. (Nag, 211) Former union minister Arun Shourie describes Vajpayee’s administrative style, which did not center around him but depended largely on consensus building: In the cabinet meeting, he did not say anything first. The cabinet secretary would read the item and it would go around. Everyone would go on giving their views. At some stage Atalji would say “okay so then so be it, let’s move on. What the last person had said became the decision. Such was his model authority. (NDTV, 2018) Sudheendra Kulkarni, a member of his PMO, commented26 on the nature of his leadership within the institution of the party that he was not a dictator. According to Kulkarni, Vajpayee was the tallest leader of the party, but he did not impose his own view on the party.27 When he saw that the party was of a different consensus, he yielded to the wishes of the party. He has been criticized for not showing authority and taking a stand in critical places such as the dismissal of Narendra Modi or timely containing the Ayodhya movement. This can be seen in the context of the complexities of running a coalition government and avoiding polarization or a break between any two ideological organizations. It also reiterates how strongly he believed that consensual politics was the key to political success. In dealing with his cabinet and council of ministers, as the prime minister of a coalition government, his approach was largely collaborative. In

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

129

1982, addressing the national council meeting of the BJP at Surat in June, Vajpayee said: The greatest curse, not merely of Indian politics but of national life as a whole, is the general incapacity to work together. Let’s learn to unite, instead of dividing to create harmony where disharmony exists and to keep our self-interest and ego in leash.28

Role of RSS in formation years An important aspect of Vajpayee’s political leadership style and personality traits is the formative contribution made by the RSS. His training and exposure there was to define his dynamics with a number of political figures and inculcate in him a strong sense of institutional discipline and camaraderie. His early poems such as ‘Hindu jeevan, Hindu tan man’ are replete with religious and patriotic sentiments. He clearly identified with a strong Hindu identity, which was coupled with social groundwork and influential mentors in his years in the RSS, and contributed greatly to the formation of a concrete ideological base. Sudheendra Kulkarni,29 a member of his PMO, points out that before becoming an RSS activist, Vajpayee had worked with the student union affiliated to the communist party. The Marxist ideology had also influenced him in his youth. Kulkarni describes Vajpayee’s early days of solely associating with a Hindu identity as a phase which he later outgrew. Although the RSS as an institution contributed to the development of his personality, affected his leadership style, and influenced his political ideologies, it occasionally also went against certain personal beliefs and posed as a hurdle when he was prime minister. In the political sphere, the RSS ideology stood at odds with his liberal and secular stance. In the case of the Ayodhya movement, Vajpayee had to encourage the movement as well as discourage radical escalation. Murli Manohar Joshi says: That was Vajpayee. To reconcile, two or three or four different moods and create one consensus to the extent that he could continue with the Ayodhya movement (in his capacity as prime minister of a coalition government, in the face of opposition) which he did. (NDTV, 2018) He tactfully refrained from going on the journey and asked Joshi to go as he was the party president. He later condemned the Ayodhya incident and apologized at the same time by blaming the consequences on the previous governments, which did not deal with the issue timely and effectively. Similar problems with the RSS were faced in the diplomacy with Pakistan. He was able to withstand the pressure on various occasions, which is suggestive of a confident and charismatic personality. On one of his diplomatic

130 Atal Bihari Vajpayee visits to Pakistan, he faced strong opposition and demonstrations by fundamentalist organizations and parties, especially on the issue of visiting Minare-Pakistan, set up to commemorate the birth of the nation. Atal announced: I insisted on coming because I saw no logic in what was being told to me and I made it loud and clear to them that Pakistan does not require my stamp for its entity. Pakistan has its own entity. . . . If somebody back home asks this question, this will be my answer there too. (Nag, 248) In an interview with NDTV (2004), Vajpayee admitted that sometimes, to ensure consensual politics and to placate the VHP, he had to make compromises on his personal opinions. He said: It is important to take people along with you. It is impossible to do anything alone in this vast country. In a session in ‘Aapki adalat’, Vajpayee said that: To say the remote control of the BJP lies with the RSS in Nagpur is doing immense injustice to the party. It is not right. That such a large and influential party whose government is working in five states and who is preparing to form a government in the Centre, can be run by a remote control is absolutely unimaginable. We are a free organization. Most of us have been associated with the RSS and are very dedicated to it but that does not mean that the shots are called in Nagpur . . . we take independent decisions after carefully thinking them through. (India TV) Having taken a vocal independent stance, Vajpayee also often showed strong allegiance to the RSS. In the Lok Sabha, in May 1996, strong allegations were raised against the practices and legitimacy of the RSS by Indrajit Gupta of the CPI as well as other members of the opposition. Vajpayee aggressively defended the RSS and highlighted how Nehru and Shastri had praised its social activities in the past. His relationship with the RSS is key in understanding the assertive as well as reconciliatory aspects of his personality. In spite of dualities, an intricate balance of agreeableness as well as Machiavellian astuteness ensured a largely consensual administration.

Interpersonal relationships Vajpayee was born in a large family with three brothers and three sisters. He belonged to what could then be defined as a high-caste, middle-class family. Biographies suggest that he did not witness much conflict in his childhood. Interviews from his sister reveal that he had a playful personality and got along well with his siblings. Education and culture were inculcated in the

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

131

children of the family. His grandfather and father were poets from whom he inherited the love for reading. The freedom struggle had considerable influence on him and his brother. Both of them were briefly put in prison for reported arson against British offices at a very young age. Vajpayee was 15 years old when he joined the RSS. He was also associated with the youth wing of the Arya Samaj called the Arya Kumar Sabha. The development of intellectual and ideological ideas started early in his case. Like several other RSS members, he decided not to get married. However, he did not share the principled, austere reasons behind this decision that the RSS propagated. Vajpayee went on to run an unconventional household where Mrs. Rajkumari Kaul, his love interest from his youth, lived with her husband and daughters. In the only interview that Mrs. Kaul gave to a women’s magazine, she said that her friendship with Atal Bihari Vajpayee was way too mature for anyone to understand and that her relationship with her husband was way too strong for these rumors to dent. (India Today, 2018) Vajpayee adopted their daughter Namita and granddaughter Niharika. He maintained a close and healthy relationship with his family members. Indian culture usually considers such a relationship outside of conventional marriage unorthodox and often unacceptable. However, Vajpayee’s public image and political career were never slandered on this ground. This definitely exhibit strength of a person’s character. In an interview with the New Indian Express, Vajpayee’s niece, Mala Tiwari, described the close relationship he shared with her family, recalling their shared movie interests and the fact that Vajpayee instilled ethical values in them by encouraging them to stay away from dynastic politics. She said he used to tell them:30 Don’t expect me to recommend your names for any post. Slog for it on your own. His personal relationships did not include much conflict and showed signs of empathy and affection. In his individual, personal life as well, he did not completely espouse the austere RSS ways. He often enjoyed drinking whiskey and ate and loved non-vegetarian food.31 According to Mala Tiwari, he was an epicure, enjoyed watching movies, and listened to classical as well as Bollywood music. His personality was therefore perhaps a mixture of a liberal, laidback outlook as well as sincere dedication to strong, ideological beliefs. With opposition Vajpayee is known for an amicable personal dynamic with a number of his political opponents. In spite of major differences with Nehru, he admired the

132 Atal Bihari Vajpayee way in which he upheld parliamentary democracy. In spite of being fierce opponents, Indira Gandhi called upon Vajpayee for advice on the Shimla agreement. Narasimha Rao sent him to Geneva as a delegate and representative of India. Lalu Prasad Yadav and a number of members of the opposition made public statements in support of his receiving the Bharat Ratna. The coalition government was formed only because Vajpayee served as the liberal glue between the NDA members Nitish Kumar of Janata Dal, Chandrababu Naidu of the Telugu Desam Party, and Naveen Patnaik of the Biju Janata Dal. Manmohan Singh held Vajpayee in high regard. He told The Hindu in 2018: I had developed good relations with Mr. Vajpayee when I was Finance Minister. I used to consult him and I believe both he and Advaniji were in sympathy with the liberalisation policies that I was advocating. And on important occasions, like when I presented the Budget for 1992, and fertiliser prices were a big issue, he rescued me in Parliament. Once, when I had a very rough time in Parliament, he called me, and said, “Dr. Singh, one ought to have a thick skin. Even if we don’t support you, you must stay strong on your path,” he said. Vajpayee condemned Narendra Modi and Vinay Katiyar’s personal attacks on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin. He said, “Despite telling them, such things are repeated that is very regrettable” (NDTV, 2004). He had praised her when she was the leader of opposition in 2003, for “honoring the rites of consensus on foreign policy and observing the rules of fair play”. The book, The Untold Vajpayee, mentions how Rajiv Gandhi had tried to help him: When Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister, he somehow found out I had a kidney problem and needed treatment abroad. One day he called me to his office and said he was going to include me in India’s delegation to the UN and hoped I would use the opportunity to get the treatment I needed. I went to New York and that is one reason I am alive today. (Ullekh) At his death, Sonia Gandhi said in her condolence message: I am deeply saddened by the passing away of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. . . . His death leaves behind a huge void. I join millions of our fellow Indians in mourning his loss and pray for the departed soul. . . . Shri Vajpayee was a towering figure in our national life. Throughout his life, he stood for democratic values and demonstrated this commitment in all his acts, whether as a parliamentarian, a cabinet minister, or prime minister of India. He was a spellbinding orator, a leader of great vision, a patriot to the core for whom the national interest was paramount. (DNA India, 2018)

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

133

The ability to be friendly with the opposition and encourage honest, constructive criticism can be identified with a confident, secure as well as conscientious personality. Vajpayee respected members from the opposition. For example, owing to the unmovable opposition by Ram Naik against the selling of two oil companies in a cabinet meeting of 2002, he decided to give in to his demands instead of overruling him. D. Raja, a member of the CPI, has written of Vajpayee that he was “The right man in the wrong party”, further adding that even though he was of the right-of-center ideology, he consulted and listened to everyone (Outlook India). The manner in which Vajpayee ensured widespread consensus by choosing to nominate Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as the presidential candidate in 2002, and the fact that he was backed by a 90 percent vote, shows both the impact of his relationship with the opposition as well as his Machiavellian ability to carry out astute political maneuvering. With juniors Evidently, he received considerable respect from his juniors, from the opposition, as well as from his own party. He allowed space for individual ministers to function independently but reserved the final decision for himself, strictly ensuring avoidance of conflict and consensus building at all points. Narendra Modi, among many others, revered him. Following the 2002 riots, in the face of pressure from an NDA ally, Vajpayee had wanted Modi to step down from the position of Gujarat’s chief minister. Even though Advani and Modi did not hold him accountable for the riots, at Vajpayee’s behest, Modi offered to resign. The party consensus prevented the resignation from occurring. Later on, it was party consensus again that caused Modi to replace Vajpayee as the new face of the party. In speeches at various instances, Modi quotes Vajpayee and states that his policies are a continuation of Vajpayee’s legacy. The power dynamics were therefore clear in the relationship between the two. At crucial instances, however, the decisions were largely determined by the majority vote of the party. With Advani The most essential political partnership of Vajpayee’s premiership was that with L.K. Advani. The peaceful and civil manner in which the duo was able to function along with periodic differences in opinions can be attributed to both of their personalities, which were perhaps low on ambition, and quest for power and high on other Machiavellian traits. It can also be attributed to their history and grooming in the RSS tradition of camaraderie. The symbiotic relationship was driven by similar self-interests and an accurate reading of the political circumstances. At one point, it can be said that Advani had a larger backing than Vajpayee, but he named Vajpayee as his

134 Atal Bihari Vajpayee leader, recognizing his mass appeal which would ensure electoral gains and his seniority in the party. Advani and Vajpayee had different personalities. They were accused of deliberately employing a hardliner-moderate image, which could accommodate all viewpoints and ensure success for the BJP. Both of them categorically denied these allegations. However, this difference in ideology often translated into difference of opinion as well. Their management style also differed. Advani spearheaded the Ayodhya movement, which increased the BJP vote bank and groomed a new generation of BJP leaders. Vajpayee supported the cause but stayed clear of the radical aspect of the movement. Advani wrote in the magazine Sahitya Amrit that initially Vajpayee was not sure of the BJP’s involvement in the Path yatra, but being a democrat, he caved in to the party’s collective decision. Differences also arose on the question of Narendra Modi’s resignation in 2002. Vajpayee ultimately submitted to the wishes of the majority in the party. Differences were mostly resolved through consensus and compromise. Advani recounts that in the rare instances when Vajpayee felt strongly about something, Advani would follow his orders as the senior. While Advani posed as an “organization man” building the party structure, Vajpayee provided the charismatic, liberal, and affable face of a leader. Considering that the latter would garner more votes as compared to the former, Vajpayee was selected as the prime ministerial candidate if the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) came to power. With mentors The ability to learn from and work with seniors or an authority figure helps ascertain the presence of certain personality traits in individuals. In spite of a dynamic where differences were voiced freely, Vajpayee had a number of mentors or figures who influenced him considerably. Nag32 describes Vajpayee’s relationship with Morarji Desai: Although Desai had a Congress lineage, Atal realized that the former’s politics was not very different from his own. Desai was old enough to be Atal’s father and would admonish him at times when he felt that his minister had gone a little too far. The Jan Sangha leader, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, was also an early influence whose oratory skills Vajpayee admired. In a sense, he became Mukherjee’s successor after his death, becoming the new voice of the Sangha. He also worked under Deen Dayal Upadhyay as his protege. His dynamics with his mentors or seniors in RSS were also marked by high regard. The fact that he followed a number of mentors, as well as his respectful, yet not fully submissive relationships with them, indicate that he had an accommodative personality that did not find responding to authority difficult.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

135

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to school in Saraswati Shishu Mandir in Gwalior. He graduated in Hindi, Sanskrit, and English from Victoria College in Gwalior. He pursued and M.A. degree in Political Science from DAV College in Kanpur. He was a renowned poet and was viewed as an intellectual of some repute. He played an active role in the Quit India Movement of 1942, became an MLA through the support of majority votes from the Balrampur constituency, and worked for the RSS as well as the Jan Sangh. The Pokhran-2 nuclear tests were conducted in May 1998 in Pokhran, Rajasthan, within two months of Vajpayee becoming prime minister. Conducting these tests despite considerable international pressure is one of his most decisive moments as prime minister. As a consequence, India became a full-fledged nuclear power; the U.S., Japan, and other countries levied a series of sanctions against India. His diplomatic relations with Pakistan were marked by strategic restraint. In spite of several instigations, he kept the channels of diplomacy open. He also employed strategic restraint in the Kargil War, where the Indian Army was instructed not to breach the line of control (LOC), which rendered Pakistan as the major aggressor and ultimately created a favorable international interjection. From the very beginning of his term, he made strenuous efforts to improve relations with Pakistan, and he was responsible for the Delhi-Lahore bus route, which was started in 1999. He carried out sustained dialogue with both Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf. A short-term consequence was the Lahore declaration, which stated that the two sides would engage in avoidance of conflicts, consultations on security concepts, and transparent nuclear doctrines. His motive was to avoid nuclear aggression, enhance diplomatic relations, and reach a consensus on the issue of Kashmir. In the long run, however, relations between the two countries remained largely strained, and Vajpayee faced considerable backlash from the fundamentalist groups in India. As a consequence of the parliamentary attack in 2001 by a group of Pakistani terrorists, his administration initiated the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002, the goal of which was to curb terrorism through a strengthening of powers of the government authorities. They could investigate and act against suspects with more comparative freedom. The law received a majority vote in the parliament and was passed in 2002. Besides praising Vajpayee for his articulate and smart policy on Kashmir issues, former special director of the Intelligence Bureau and former chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), A.S. Dulat comments: Vajpayee is the only national leader who has had “the vision, time and inclination to devote himself to Kashmir”. That is of course somewhat

136 Atal Bihari Vajpayee self-serving, but it is true that Vajpayee is held in high regard by many in the Kashmir valley – a Hindu nationalist who won the respect of many Kashmiri Muslims.33 Vajpayee also worked to improve relations with the U.S., which had been strained in the Cold War period. Bill Clinton visited India in 2000, which was the first visit by a U.S. president in about 22 years. In the context of the rapid rise of the Taliban, the aim of the visit was to side with India over Pakistan in South Asia. Consequently, Vajpayee visited the U.S. five times along with Jaswant Singh, which resulted in relative normalization in relations between the two countries. A bilateral agreement was signed, testifying the same. Crediting Vajpayee with his foreign opportunist policies, a lead analyst in Asian affairs, K. Alan Kronstadt, commented in his report34 on 2004 Indian general elections with respect to India-U.S. relations: The sea change in U.S.-India relations after the Cold War accelerated after a March 2000 visit to India by then-President Clinton, and became even more apparent in the wake of September 2001 and India’s offer of full cooperation with U.S.-led counterterrorism efforts. Much of the progress in bilateral relations came through U.S. engagement with a center-right coalition government in New Delhi led by former Prime Minister Vajpayee. Although Vajpayee was a propagator of economic liberalization, his decisions could not be fully implemented due to immense pressure from the Swadeshi agenda of RSS as well as members that formed his coalition government. However, the private sector and foreign investments were encouraged. The finance minister during Vajpayee’s third term, Yashwant Sinha, pushed for downsizing the government and bringing about disinvestment in the businesses of the public sector. He said: We are making an immediate beginning by abolishing four secretarylevel posts through a process of merger and rationalization of central government departments. (Livemint) The privatization of companies owned by the state was one of the most important economic moves taken during Vajpayee’s premiership. On Yahswant Sinha’s lead, interest rates were rationalized, a housing boom was brought about, and the visible surge in the economic growth of the country was initiated. The phrase ‘India Shining’ became synonymous with economic and urban growth under Vajpayee and the BJP. His tenure was highlighted for the infrastructure movement, wherein the golden quadrilateral network of national highways was created, linking the major cultural, industrial, and agricultural

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

137

areas in India. The objective was to reduce the time and distance between Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata so that smooth movement of goods for trade could take place. It also aimed to improve mobility across the country, which it was successful in doing. Another justification for ‘India Shining’ was the rapid growth of mobile phones in the country, which was possible because of the way Pramod Mahajan revolutionized the telecom sector, under Vajpayee. The new telecom policy that was framed offered opportunities for private companies to expand. He was responsible for bringing competition in the telecom market, which ended up lowering call tariffs. The monopoly of the government ended, and the telecom sector improved massively. Even though these developments were taking place, a large part of the population still lived below the poverty line. Nonetheless, the phrase ‘India Shining’ eventually received a lot of backlash since it became a travesty in the presence of such disparities. Whereas Vajpayee’s wondrous reconciliatory capabilities and visionary and collaborative leadership style facilitated completion of his term as prime minister, it could not reward him a repeat term – a question that until today reckons ambiguous answers. In conclusion, Vajpayee’s personality can be associated with agreeableness and conscientiousness. Astuteness in reading and responding to political situations and the ability to prevent conflict to survive politically reflect the Machiavellian traits in his personality. He also displays narcissistic tendencies in his speech and demeanor. He is seen as the torch bearer of peace. His diplomatic relations with Pakistan constantly stressed peace and cooperation. In spite of Pakistani aggression at Kargil, the airplane hijack incident which was linked with illicit support from Pakistan, Musharraf’s erratic approach to relations with India, and the parliamentary terrorist attack, Vajpayee still insisted on cordial relations between the two countries. His response was not impulsive or aggressive; it stressed strict but sustained dialogue. His reaction to the 2002 Gujarat riots also suggested that he had little tolerance for impulsive or biased administration.

Notes 1 Individuals high on agreeableness are compliant, adaptable, engage in positive social exchanges, and exhibit channeled emotional arousal. Agreeableness negatively affects depression and stress arising due to challenges in the work environment through social support. 2 Conscientiousness is a personal characteristic that provides time efficiency, organizing skills, active problem-solving, and hence lower vulnerability to workrelated stress. It reflects the extent to which a person is careful and responsible. It controls the negative effects of various work-related stressors as people high in conscientiousness are able to control their behavior despite having negative work experiences. 3 www.amarujala.com/india-news/i-am-going-to-resignation 4 www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQRQ-z7ArBw

138 Atal Bihari Vajpayee 5 www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiUaYRtins&t=506s 6 Post, J. M. (2005). The psychological assessment of political leaders: With profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. The University of Michigan Press. 7 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी date last accessed 30 January 2021. 8 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 9 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 10 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 11 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 12 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 13 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 14 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 15 http://kavitakosh.org/kk/अटल_बिहारी_वाजपेयी 16 www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiUaYRtins&t=654s (please watch from 20:35). 17 www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpIncvfqkg&t=912s (watch from 5:40). 18 www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoiUaYRtins&t=1237s (watch from 40:19). 19 www.firstpost.com/india/politics-loses-its-poetry-roundup-of-headlines-inindian-dailies-observing-atal-bihari-vajpayees-death-4983371.html 20 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-poet-statesman-gentleman-atalbihari-vajpayee-passes-away-at-93/articleshow/65431919.cms 21 www.thehindu.com/news/national/former-prime-minister-atal-bihari-vajpayeepasses-away-at-93/article24704802.ece 22 www.telegraphindia.com/india/rajdharma-reminder/cid/1310672 23 Nag, K. (2016). Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Rupa Publications. 24 www.news18.com/photogallery/india/rare-unseen-pictures-of-atal-biharivajpayee-1846113.html 25 www.hindustantimes.com/india/revealed-why-modi-refused-to-wear-muslimskull-cap/story-y6EVuyRTJmeRPxuyiAecNK.html 26 www.thehindu.com/news/national/sudheendhra-kulkarni-on-atal-biharivajpayee-he-created-a-peace-template-for-the-subcontinent/article24709749.ece 27 www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpIncvfqkg&t=916s (watch from 15:12). 28 www.indiatoday.in/magazine/cover-story/story/20180903-the-legacy-ofvajpayee-1321144-2018-08-24 29 www.thehindu.com/news/national/sudheendhra-kulkarni-on-atal-biharivajpayee-he-created-a-peace-template-for-the-subcontinent/article24709749.ece 30 www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/aug/17/former-pm-atal-biharivajpayees-niece-recalls-her-movie-buff-chachaji-1858930.html 31 https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/vajpayee-was-an-oddball-of-an-rss-manwho-ate-non-vegetarian-food-and-enjoyed-his-whisky/99756/ 32 Nag, K. (2016). Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Rupa Publications. 33 Dulat, A. S., & Sinha, A. (2017). Kashmir the Vajpayee years. HarperCollins Publishers India. 34 Kronstadt, K. A. (2004, July). India’s 2004 national elections. Library of Congress Washington, DC Congressional Research Service.

References Atal Bihari Vajpayee defended RSS like no other BJP leader did. (2018, August 16). India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/india/story/atal-bihari-vajpayeedefended-rss-like-no-other-bjp-leader-did-1316190-2018-08-16 Bharatiya Janata Party. (2016, August 16). Samagrah atalji: Chunaoti bhrashtachar ki: Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www. youtube.com/watch?v=WoiUaYRtins

Atal Bihari Vajpayee

139

Bhattacharya, A. (2018, August 21). Who was Mrs Kaul? The Atal friendship Indian politics will never forget. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.indiatoday.in/ india/story/who-was-mrs-kaul-atal-bihari-vajpayee-1319036-2018-08-20 Foreign media on Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Philosopher-king, masterful orator. (2018, August 17). India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/india/story/atal-biharivajpayee-death-what-foreign-media-said-1316792-2018-08-17 Haidar, S. (2018, August 16). Atal Bihari Vajpayee shared Nehru’s vision of India: Manmohan Singh. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.thehindu.com/news/ national/manmohan-singh-on-atal-bihari-vajpayee-he-shared-nehrus-vision-ofindia/article24710747.ece India Today. (2014, November 30). Atal Bihari Vajpayee in aapki adalat [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBTVC7INyws India Today. (2018, August 17). LK Advani, Vajpayee’s closest friend for 65 years, talks to India Today | Rahul Kanwal interview [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqR-9e7Xjj4 Livemint. (2019, August 14). A short history of Indian economy 1947–2019: Tryst with destiny & other stories. Livemint. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www. livemint.com/news/india/a-short-history-of-indian-economy-1947-2019-trystwith-destiny-other-stories-1565801528109.html Nag, K. (2015). Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A man for all seasons. New Delhi: Rupa Publications India. NDTV. (2018a, August 16). “India has to run on consensus”: Atal Bihari Vajpayee on coalition politics (Aired: March 2000) [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItsLXL10SM NDTV. (2018b, August 16). “Never thought I would be a politician, always wanted to be a poet”: Vajpayee (Aired: April 2004) [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuRkJS7M7F0 NDTV. (2018c, August 18). Truth vs hype: The Vajpayee paradox [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpIncvfqkg NewIndianXpress. (2018a, August 17). Former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s niece recalls her movie buff “chachaji”. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www. newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/aug/17/former-pm-atal-bihari-vajpayeesniece-recalls-her-movie-buff-chachaji-1858930.html NewIndianXpress. (2018b, August 17). When Vajpayee’s nominee Kalam cruised to victory. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/ aug/17/when-vajpayees-nominee-kalam-cruised-to-victory-1858920.html Post, J. M. (2008). The psychological assessment of political leaders with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Singh, T. (Director). (2016, January 28). Interview with Atal Bihari Vajpayee [Video file]. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJtzlcajfc Team, D. W. (2018, August 17). Political differences didn’t stop Vajpayee from praising Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from www.dnaindia. com/india/report-political-differences-didn-t-stop-vajpayee-from-praising-soniaand-rajiv-gandhi-2650965 Team, T., Here, P. E., -, M. H., -, S. D., & -, M. B. (2018, August 17). Vajpayee was an oddball of an RSS man, who ate non-vegetarian food and enjoyed his whisky. Retrieved January 30, 2021 from https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/vajpayeewas-an-oddball-of-an-rss-man-who-ate-non-vegetarian-food-and-enjoyed-hiswhisky/99756/

140 Atal Bihari Vajpayee Thank Atal Bihari Vajpayee for the smartphone you flaunt. (2018, August 17). India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/atal-bihari-vajpayee/story/ atal-bihari-vajpayee-telecom-policy-1316546-2018-08-17 Ullekh, N. P. (2018). The untold Vajpayee: Politician and paradox. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Penguin Books, an Imprint of Penguin Random House. Vajpayee, A. B. (2000). Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, selected speeches. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India. Vajpayee, A. B. (2002). Indias perspective on ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific region. Singapore: ISEAS. Vajpayee, A. B., & Ghatate, N. M. (1996). Four decades in parliament. New Delhi: Shipra Publications. Vajpayee, A. B., & Varma, P. K. (2001). Twenty-one poems. New Delhi: Viking. Vajpayee was the right man in the wrong party | By D. Raja. (2018, August 18). Retrieved from www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/vajpayee-was-the-right-manin-the-wrong-party-by-d-raja/300514

7

Manmohan Singh A reluctant administrator (22 May 2004–26 May 2014)

Dr. Manmohan Singh has often been termed by the media and the opposition as a “weak” and “silent” prime minister. Aside from the fact that he was a nominated PM heading an eclectic coalition government, which may have obstructed a firm-handed administration, the milder aspects of his personality, for example, introversion and a precarious assertion of the self, might have contributed to this public perception. His executive actions as prime minister have largely not been viewed as drastic or aggressive either. At other instances he has admittedly called himself “the accidental prime minister” (Baru, 170). He reportedly had to practice several times to make his public speeches seem emotionally expressive. The lack of efficient and open communication is a characteristic feature of his leadership style, which seems to have stemmed from underlying introverted personality traits. The apparent disinterest in engaging in interpersonal interactions or the inability to express himself strongly, seems to stem from a precarious sense of self and shyness rather than the inflated self-perception that is associated with narcissism. Baru’s biography recounts an incident where when Mark Tully, the BBC correspondent in India: interviewed him (Dr. Singh) for the Cambridge University alumni magazine, Dr Singh told him that as a student at St. John’s College he would get up early in the morning before his fellow students to finish bathing because he felt shy about going into the common bathing rooms with his turban off. (Baru, 62) Such an instance could possibly suggest a lack of confidence from an early age. His communication skills as an academician and professor seemed to have thrived. However, it was in his personal interactions and interactions carried out in a position of leadership (that of being the prime minister) that communicative gaps such as lack of assertion and expressiveness seemed to have occurred. This indicates the incapability or undesirability of assuming a position of authority or taking charge of a social situation, both of which point towards an introverted personality and low levels of narcissism.

142

Manmohan Singh

Dr. Singh’s direct addresses to the common people of India were scarce as compared to any other prime ministers. He addressed academic and industrial audiences, but his participation in grass-roots level interactions remained minimal. He was also selective about interviews with journalists, often encouraging more one-on-one interviews with Western media. He seldom reacted to personal allegations in the press. More than one source (discussed in following sections) have revealed that even in cabinet meetings, he encouraged the concerned ministers to address issues and answer questions and he preferred to speak less. Unlike his predecessor and successor, Dr. Singh did not have the gift of rhetoric. His speeches were to the point, humble, and almost academic in tone. He stated facts with the preciseness of an intellectual and the humility of a statesman. The speeches were marked by self-deprecating humor. His jibes were directed at himself more so than the opposition or the government before him. His speech displays conscientiousness. It does not come across as boastful or manipulative (which are qualities associated with narcissism and Machiavellianism). Not capitalizing upon the tool of speech to shape public opinion can be seen as one of the several examples where he did not display the tact of a politician, thus indicating low levels of Machiavellianism. In family too, his daughters have said that they were not aware of their father’s mind on many issues because he rarely vocally expressed his thoughts, especially the ones related to his work. In an interview with The Hindu in 2014, Daman Singh said: He doesn’t tell his family anything about his work. I certainly didn’t expect him to talk to me – of all people – about this. His wife, Mrs. Kaur, said: He swallows everything, doesn’t spit anything out. (Baru, 64) Curiously, Singh took cognizance of his public perception. Justifying his position, Dr. Singh said in his third press conference: I do not believe that I have been a weak prime minister. I honestly believe that history will be kinder to me than the contemporary media or for that matter the opposition in Parliament. Given the political compulsions, I have done the best I could do. (Economic Times) While he used the pronoun “we” generously, he also often highlighted his individual role stating “I”, especially when speaking in his defense. His book, Changing India, involves a chapter “The Prime Minister speaks”

Manmohan Singh

143

written in response to the critics who alleged that he never spoke. Speaking at the launch of the book, he said: People say I was a silent prime minister. I think these volumes speak for themselves and I don’t want to boast about my goals or my achievements as the prime minister but the events that took place are well described in these volumes, particularly the volume that deals with “The prime minister speaks”. I would certainly like to say, I was not the prime minister who was afraid of talking to the press. I held press conference at home and after returning from official foreign visits. There was a time when my officials were not too sure of me being able to face the press but I did. (Wion, 2018) This comment indicates that he wanted to make a conscious effort to not sound boastful. The comment was also a jibe at Narendra Modi, who the Congress leaders constantly described as aloof. It can therefore be said that Dr. Singh, although largely humble, could praise himself and sarcastically criticize his political rivals, when it came to defending himself. Dr. Singh opined that his silence is a matter of principle. After a parliamentary session in 2012, he told the press: Hazaron jawabo se achchi hai khamoshi meri, na jaane kitne sawalo ki aabru rakhe. (My silence is better than a thousand answers, it keeps intact the honour of innumerable questions). . . . It has been my general practice not to respond to motivated criticism directed personally at me. (ET Now) The submissive approach backfired in certain instances. It was the lack of an assertive voice and a firm hand that did not uproot or attempt to eradicate corruption during the second term of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). Commenting on his assertiveness when it comes to differences in opinions with seniors, in an interview with Sunday magazine in July 1991, Dr. Singh defended himself, denying that he has a submissive temperament: I don’t think it is at all true that I have been timid. One day, when the country’s archives are prepared, people will know the truth. I have not been timid. I have spoken my mind freely and frankly. He goes on to admit that when it comes to execution, he has often been overruled by superiors, but in terms of expression, he has been assertive. He functioned well with authority. Throughout his career, loyalty towards his employers seems to have taken precedence over everything else. There are scarcely any instances of rebellion or disputes. This indicates an

144

Manmohan Singh

accommodative personality where the self does not hold an overbearing or overly assertive position. He further justified his dynamics with his superiors: When I came to the Finance Ministry in 1971, I wrote a paper called “What To Do With Victory” (that was when Indira Gandhi’s popularity was at its peak). I had written at that time that all these controls in the name of socialism would not lead to growth but would strangle the impulses for growth. I had said that these controls would not reduce inequalities but increase them. I have not been timid. I have spoken my mind freely and frankly. But I’ve also served as a faithful civil servant. Even if I have been overruled, I have carried out the orders of my political masters. (Business Insider) Ramachandra Guha has ascribed the development of such public perception, to some extent, to Dr. Singh’s inaction and the rise of comparatively more assertive personalities, during his second tenure as prime minister. He says: After Anna Hazare’s fasts, a popular, countrywide movement against corruption began to take shape. Singh still would not act. In the popular imagination, the prime minister was now seen as indecisive and selfserving, his fellow septuagenarian, Anna Hazare, as courageous and self-sacrificing. It is a mark of how disappointing Manmohan Singh’s second term has been that it has allowed an authoritarian village reformer – with little understanding of what Mohandas K. Gandhi said, did, or meant – to claim the mantle of the Mahatma. (India Together) Dr. Singh’s understated personality, his inability to act assertively, and the simultaneous rise of public figures with more vocal and aggressive personalities such as Hazare and Narendra Modi solidified the public perception of him as a weak and silent prime minister. The media picked up on words like “Maunmohan Singh”, which quickly spread as memes on the internet as well as jibes repeatedly employed by his critics. It can be said that it was a combination of his personality traits as well as the political circumstances at the time that contributed to a predominantly negative perception of him as PM, especially in his second term. Irrespective of the causes behind it, a communicative gap arising from an introverted personality seemed to have been a predominant feature during his premiership. While in some cases, it was associated with his gentleman politics, in certain other cases like the 2G and coal scam, this gap adversely impacted his public image.

Public appearances His pictures in newspapers and other media platforms are understated, not reflecting any signs of grandiosity. He is seen as expressionless, and

Manmohan Singh

145

sometimes smiling with either his hands folded across his chest or joined to greet ‘Namaste’. Juxtaposing this with PM Modi’s media images displaying a flamboyant use of kinesics such as his peace signs, waving gestures, or bear hugs, gives one a sense of how Dr. Singh comparatively appears less eager for visible self-expression or public reception. However, he did capitalize upon photo ops, which has become an important exercise for political figures to build public relations. His social media handles were simple, not known to consciously seek attention, and have a limited number of followers. An unobtrusive measure for narcissism is observing the structure of one’s office or bedroom. His biographer Baru has described his personal cabin as a: modest office in the prime minister’s official residence on New Delhi’s Race Course Road, a small room that could accommodate just a table and two chairs but overlooked a lovely lawn where peacocks strutted around. (Baru, 32) Therefore, it can be said that while Dr. Singh displayed pride at certain instances, his speech, demeanor, body language, social media presence, and physical surroundings do not display the signs of overt self-importance associated with narcissism.

Reluctant politician and dissonant leader The nature and degree of ambition in a political figure points towards the narcissistic need for control and attention. Dr. Singh’s demeanor as PM has displayed comparatively lower levels of political ambition. Sanjay Baru, a member in the PMO during his term, writes in his biography on Manmohan Singh: People have often asked me whether I thought Dr. Singh was ambitious. My sense is that ‘ambition’ is too strong a word to describe how he felt about his destiny. I would rather say he had faith in his own abilities, and all the pride, albeit never openly expressed, of a self- made man. (Baru, 33) Dr. Singh’s ascent to power was not a result of personal aspirations but a matter of appointment. Recounting his appointment, Dr. Singh said: In 2004, when the coalition government was formed, Soniaji chose me to be Prime Minister. Pranabji had reasons to feel the grievance, he was better qualified. . . . Pranabji knew I had no choice in the matter or any part in the decision. (The New Indian Express)

146

Manmohan Singh

Tokenism Narcissism can also be gauged by the capability of an individual to take criticism. Behind the inability to tolerate rejection is the narcissistic urge to always be right and to have one’s views accepted by the other. Dr. Singh does not respond well to criticism. He self-admittedly chooses not to react to personal critical attacks, preferring to stay silent. In case of criticism aimed at his actions or policies, he often tended to offer to give up his position in response rather than withstanding the criticism or retorting aggressively. As finance minister, whenever faced by scathing attacks from the members of the opposition, Dr. Singh offered to resign. Vinay Sitapati,1 in his biography on Narasimha Rao, mentions that he offered to resign thrice before an exasperated Rao had to persuade Vajpayee to call and placate him. Even as prime minister, when faced by criticism from Rahul Gandhi over the ordinance to protect convicted lawmakers, Dr. Singh contemplated resignation. It was towards the end of his tenure when the criticism reached its peak. He was held responsible for the corruption scandals and misgovernment. He did not openly address these issues or speak to the media. In an understated, covert manner, which often came out in passive-aggressive ways, Dr. Singh harbored a resentment towards criticism, reflecting the pride of a subtle narcissistic personality. Dr. Singh’s approach towards national politics appeared to have been a distant one. He cannot be described as a hard-nosed or seasoned politician. A number of factors may have been responsible for this view, some of which also reveal his personality traits. Dr. Manmohan Singh is an example of what Niraja Gopal Jayal has called ‘“token leaders”, i.e., leaders appointed through nomination by majority political leadership rather than being elected through backing by popular support from a parliamentary constituency. Jayal points out that Manmohan Singh has consistently sought to project himself as being remote from, even on occasion above, politics. Keeping a safe distance from party affairs, he has tended to behave like a technocrat at the helm of the state, a statesman rather than a politician. (Routledge, 63) Furthermore, Amartya Sen has observed: Has he (Dr. Manmohan Singh) been an extremely skilled political practitioner in the way Lyndon Johnson was? I would say he hasn’t. But that’s not the failure of an economist politician. That is the failure, or limitation, of not being a cunning political tactician. To some extent, he has been unlucky. To some extent, he has not been a sterling political strategist. I think what failed was not the vision but the execution of it, which is an area of playing the political game. . . . To summarize, did he

Manmohan Singh

147

have the kind of vision that one would expect from an economist prime minister? I would say yes. Has he been entirely successful in carrying this out? I would say to a great extent not. It is partly because of him not being a sufficiently good political strategist and tactician. (India Today, 2013) International focus to avoid internal confrontation Dr. Singh’s tendency to keep away from politics or to be comparatively inept in terms of political maneuvering indicates low Machiavellian traits in his personality. He was, however, selectively good at building rapport. His efficient foreign diplomacy confirms his ability to negotiate and form alliances wherever required. While the way he handled international relations reveals agreeable and even Machiavellian impulses, the same cannot be said of his handling of domestic affairs or relations. Guha, in an article titled “Traveling tips for the prime minister”, has explained the interest in foreign affairs over domestic ones, in relation to the fact that this was one arena which did not interest the Gandhi family. In terms of foreign diplomacy, he had more autonomy and authority. In India, Sonia Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi became the faces of Congress during interactions with the common people. Thus, it can be argued that while his actions did point towards certain Machiavellian abilities, the submissive side of his personality and the absence of a narcissistic assertion of the self took precedence when it came to political or administrative affairs.

Submission to seniority Rao and Singh Dr. Singh has repeatedly expressed gratitude towards colleagues across party lines, sharing credit rather than claiming it for himself. For one of his biggest accomplishments, the financial reforms of 1991, he bestowed nearly all of the credit to P.V. Narsimha Rao, the then-PM. Of Dr. Singh’s speech in 2018 during the launch of his book, Changing India, Guha writes: He acknowledged the support to his work of the prime ministers he had worked with, cutting across party lines – Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and P V Narasimha Rao – of his colleagues in the bureaucracy, and of younger associates who had provided key inputs into his policies. And he told many humorous stories, several aimed at himself. . . . Dr Singh came across as a person of warmth and compassion. There were no boastful remarks about his contributions to the nation (or to the world of scholarship either). The tone was scrupulously non-partisan throughout. (Hindustan Times, 2018)

148

Manmohan Singh

He therefore establishes that in case of a differing opinion, the orders of the seniors prevail. His relationship with P.V. Narasimha Rao is an example of such an equation. He held Rao in the utmost regard and remained loyal to him until the end. In speeches and interviews, he often credits Rao with providing the right environment to bring about economic changes. While Dr. Singh was the financial expert, a number of instances can be noted where he fell in line with Rao’s directions, which were in keeping with the political feasibility of Dr. Singh’s suggestions. In an interview with the Indian Express, Dr. Singh appreciated Rao’s political skills: There was a lot of opposition in the country and within the (Congress) party but Prime Minister Rao’s political management made it possible to overcome all that. (The Telegraph) Even when Rao made it clear to him that he would act as the scapegoat for all criticism directed towards the reforms, he went ahead with the changes at the risk of personal expense. In terms of action, Dr. Singh remained obedient to Rao’s directions. However, in terms of disagreements, he freely expressed his concerns. Later on, he even voiced his criticism of the way Rao handled the 1992 riots. Rajiv and Singh Throughout Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, Dr. Singh was largely sidelined. He was appointed as the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission. Rajiv Gandhi’s views on development and economic reforms were different from those of the members of the Planning Commission. Rajiv publicly called them “nothing but a bunch of jokers”. Characteristically unable to take criticism, Dr. Singh contemplated resignation. However, in spite of the insult, he stayed on and continued his duties. Sonia and Singh Dr. Singh’s relationship with Sonia Gandhi is an important one since it shaped the course of both of his terms as the prime minister of the country. Upinder Singh has described their relationship as one marked by “absolute trust and respect”.2 Even though Dr. Singh held the post of the prime minister, he worked in tandem with Sonia Gandhi, who was the party president and also the one who had technically appointed him. He was, therefore, never fully independent in terms of policy and decision making. The cover of the Congress Party manifesto of 2009 featured a page-long picture of Dr. Manmohan Singh as well as Sonia Gandhi, making it clear that there were to be two centers of power in the government.

Manmohan Singh

149

Compared to the manifesto covers of 2014 and 2019, where Rahul Gandhi appears on the forefront, the 2009 cover serves as a comment on who was to be at the center of the party affairs as well as the government of the country at that time. Sonia Gandhi had an important say in matters that are normally not within the purview of the party president. The selection of his own cabinet ministers was not independently carried out by the prime minister, and Sonia Gandhi’s personal aides were inducted into the PMO. In her capacity as the chairperson of the National Advisory Council, Sonia Gandhi participated actively in important executive affairs. In 2006, G.K. Vasan, who was the Minister of State for Statistics and Programme Implementation, wrote a letter to Sonia Gandhi that read: Respected Madam, on 29 January 2006, I took over as minister of state.  .  .  . During the first week of February 2006, I had detailed briefing from senior officers about the activities of the ministry. I intend to keep you informed every month about the performance highlights in the ministry and the initiatives taken by me. The highlights of the ministry’s activities during the month of February 2006 are as follows. (Business Standard, 2013) The letter provides an example of how certain ministers reported not just to the executive head of government, PM Manmohan Singh, but also to Sonia Gandhi, confrming that the hierarchical structure of the UPA government held two centers of power. The fact that Dr. Singh was accommodative and willing to share executive and administrative powers indicates low levels of both narcissism and Machiavellianism. Aside from personality traits, the fact that he had never won a Lok Sabha election and therefore lacked popular backing was also a factor responsible for his position. His public interviews suggest that loyalty was of importance to Dr. Singh, and he showed loyalty to Sonia Gandhi throughout both terms. Sonia, in turn, also backed him because of this attribute. Aside from influencing certain decisions, she largely gave him a free hand in running his government. However, his decision prevailing over hers in case of a disagreement was highly unlikely. Through the creation of the National Advisory Council, and her assuming the role of the chairperson, a legitimate channel was created to actively take part in policy making. Major schemes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) were introduced by this institution. However, Singh ensured the creation of the prime minister’s economic advisory council, which reviewed or countered the schemes introduced by the National Advisory Council, providing rationales on the economic and general feasibility of these schemes.

150

Manmohan Singh

Rahul and Singh The way Dr. Singh handled his public disagreement with Rahul Gandhi is also suggestive of a calm personality that is not subject to confrontations. Rahul Gandhi personally discredited the ordinance to save the accused legislators from disqualification, calling it “complete nonsense”: I will tell you what my opinion on the ordinance is. Its complete nonsense. It should be torn up and thrown away. That is my personal opinion.3 Dr. Singh, who was in the U.S. at the time, did not react strongly to such a remark. The ordinance was withdrawn by the cabinet, and Dr. Singh submissively took the public rebuke, which undermined his authority. Moreover, popular media created several memes depicting the Singh-Rahul-Sonia trio’s relationships as demeaning for the stature of Manmohan Singh.4

Singh and juniors In dealing with his juniors, Dr. Singh did not exercise authoritative measures. It has been reiterated that most of the party members and ministers felt that they owed allegiance to Sonia Gandhi and not Manmohan Singh and often reported directly to her.5 Heading a coalition government, he was also not in a position to carry out unilateral decisions. In his capacity as an administrator, he allowed freedom of expression, and while he took final calls, the power was not centralized in his hands alone. His conscientiousness meant that he had unusual working hours, waking up early in the morning and working until late at night. When the corruption scandals broke out in the latter half of his tenure, he did not fire any of the ministers responsible. Even before the corruption scams, he had scarcely ever removed ministers from their portfolios. As an article in The Quint (2019) put it: The polite, non-threatening demeanour that he possessed is best suited for that (consensus building). You don’t need charisma to bring others on board. What is required is a polite nudge, the capacity to take criticism in your stride, and the inclination to share power and responsibility. He had plenty of these qualities. His tenure is not known for any autocratic or decisively individualistic methods. Dr. Singh was perceived as a non-authoritative consensus builder: He learnt to value differences of opinion among his advisers. As PM, he would listen to all opinions, only rarely disagreeing with anyone in meetings, so as not to discourage free expression, and then doing what he felt was needed to be done. (Baru, 55)

Manmohan Singh

151

Singh and opposition In dealing with the opposition, Dr. Manmohan Singh posed as a statesman, not indulging in aggressive allegations or heated debates. Commenting on how the prime minister must assume a collaborative stance towards state governments ruled by opposition parties and the use of unbiased language, he said in 2018: My advice to the prime minister is that he should exercise due restraint becoming of the office of the prime minister. The prime minister when he goes to states which are ruled by parties other than to which he belongs, has an obligation not to use language of the type which has now become common practice. I would certainly say that has been my idea. My relations with the governments of Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh were very good. We never discriminated against the BJP ruled states and I said that Shivraj Singhji would himself be certifying what I am saying. What I would say is that the prime minister must set an example. (India Today, 2018) His unaggressive relationship with the opposition and the endorsement of an unbiased approach over party interests reflect low Machiavellian tendencies.

In parliament In the parliament as well, his demeanor largely remained calm and composed. When his term as a member of the Raja Sabha ended, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu summarized6 Dr. Singh’s contribution: A very gentle, calm and composed personality, Dr. Manmohan Singh through his participation in the debates of the House has contributed immensely in enriching the collective wisdom of the House on various issues, particularly, economic matters pertaining to the welfare and development of the nation. . . . This House will miss an able parliamentarian and an experienced and renowned economist.

Personal aspects Judging from biographical sources, Dr. Singh’s childhood seems to have been a tumultuous one. His father, Gurmukh Singh, was a clerk for a commission agent who traded dry fruits. Daman Singh, in her book, describes most of the problems of Manmohan’s childhood as national problems which the entire generation faced. However, personal problems also affected his growth as a person. His father remarried and had a second family when he was 11 years old. The family moved to Peshawar. He had lost his mother when he was

152

Manmohan Singh

very young. The partition of India caused a lot of upheaval, and the family was uprooted economically as well as socially. His father was missing for months. He could not establish a relationship with his stepmother, who became mentally unstable. A sense of stoicism overtook him in his early years. The trauma he faced as a child and the lack of a stable, reassuring family setup may have shaped the introversion in his personality. He had a respectful relationship with his teachers throughout his academic life, whom he often mentioned later in his interviews as prime minister. He had a successful marriage and a close relationship with his daughters. However, Daman Singh’s book, Strictly Personal, reveals how Dr. Singh was not very expressive in his personal life as well. He kept to himself and seems to have been an introvert. He also displayed conscientious tendencies and never went on any holidays with his family. Throughout his term of public office, the family did not take a single vacation together. Daman Singh states that Dr. Singh often brought a large amount of work home and always worked after hours as well. The book also describes him as a strict and protective father. An instance is described where his wife, Gursharan Singh, attended an event at Tagore theatre.7 She came back happy, having sung throughout the evening. However, she was greeted with stiff silence, which was her husband’s way of expressing displeasure over the fact that their daughter Daman had been left in the care of strangers during the event. She also described him as an affectionate father who wanted his children to have all experiences in life. He encouraged her to attend the Oxford ball with his friend Sudarshan, so that she would not miss out on the experience. His dynamic with his wife was that of a typical Indian marriage, where he rarely contributed to housework, and she had little imperatives in important matters such as moving to New York in 1966. The book tells us she was told and not asked that they were to relocate. Similar instances are described in the book which point towards a slight domination over his partner, but this can be seen in the larger context of the social practices and family dynamics of his times.

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Dr. Manmohan Singh is perhaps the most erudite and academic prime minister in Indian history. He studied Economics at Punjab University. He got an honors degree from Cambridge University in Economics, after which he pursued doctoral research at Oxford University. He served as an Economics professor at Punjab University. He also served as faculty in the Delhi School of Economics. Baru highlights: At a meeting of business leaders from India and Southeast Asia in Kuala Lumpur in 2005, the secretary general of the ASEAN, Ong Keng Yong,

Manmohan Singh

153

introduced Dr Singh as “the world’s most highly qualified head of government”. A standing ovation followed. (Baru, 226) Dr. Singh served as finance minister in P.V. Narasimha Rao’s cabinet. He was a former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) governor and also served as deputy chairman of the erstwhile Planning Commission. He has also been the chairman of the University Grants Commission. Books published in his name include The Quest for Equity in Development (1986), Global Trading System, the WTO and the Developing Countries (1999), To the Nation, for the Nation: Selections from selected speeches of Dr. Manmohan Singh (2006), and Changing India (2019). As for the books, even though it contains his individual contributions along with his speeches, interviews, and articles, the manner in which the content is presented is not narcissistic. The content revolves around the key achievements, changes, schools of thought, and policies rather than the man himself. The ability to share credit and not put oneself in the center or forefront of things indicates low levels of narcissism. The NREGA is an important achievement carried out under his government. It was first proposed by Narasimha Rao in 1991 as one of the most important measures towards rural welfare that materialized during Dr. Singh’s tenure in 2005. Its main objective is to ensure the ‘right to work’ for all sections of the society and to provide a hundred days of wage employment to adult members of each household that are willing to do unskilled manual work. Even though the outcomes vary across states depending on their capacity for implementation, it has largely been successful. For example, in Chhattisgarh, there has been a boost in demand for work, which is being met accordingly. Another legislative feat has been the passing of the Right to Information Act, which is a step towards making the functioning of the government more transparent. In keeping with the fundamental right to freedom of speech, this act states that all bodies of government are liable to provide information to any citizen seeking it within 30 days. If the case involves the citizen’s liberty or life, the information must be made available within 48 hours. Functional since 2005, this act has proven useful in various cases of corruption. He did not make any major changes to the foreign policy of his predecessors. Attempts at reconciliation were made in the cases of Pakistan and China. The Mumbai terror attack of 2008 also happened during his tenure, redefining relations with Pakistan. He stressed collaboration with Afghanistan as well as the U.S. The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was signed in 2005 between Dr. Mamohan Singh and the then-U.S. president, George W. Bush, in the face of much opposition at home. India’s military and civil nuclear facilities were separated, and the civil facilities were to be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. While the deal ended India’s nuclear isolation, it did little to impact the energy benefits in the country. He made

154

Manmohan Singh

attempts to end the border dispute with China by reopening the Nathu La pass. He was instrumental as finance minister in Narasimha Rao’s cabinet, where he efficiently ushered in the process of economic liberalization. During his time as prime minister, the Indian market grew steadily. His term witnessed the highest gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate in 2007. It reached roughly 10 percent in 2006–2007. It also witnessed a drastic inflation, decreasing the growth rate and causing widespread unemployment. While this was an impact of the larger global inflation problem, his administration could not do much to soften its impact. The value-added tax was also introduced during his term. In order to increase foreign exchange through export of goods and services, the Special Economic Zones Act (SEZ) was enacted in 2005. It aimed at inviting investments in India. In terms of welfare schemes, the National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) was initiated, organizing a large number of community health workers. The Right to Education Act was introduced in 2009. The Sarvashiksha Abhiyan was improved upon, and midday deals continued to be provided. The disease polio was eliminated during his term by 2011. Following the terror attack of 2008, anti-terror laws were made stronger. The National Investigation Agency was created, and amendments were made to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Terrorist activities and insurgencies in North-East India were considerably reduced during his premiership. An attempt to improve urban infrastructure was made in 2005 by introducing the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission. The aim was to provide basic services to the urban poor and enhance the physical as well as social infrastructure in cities in order to create “economically productive, efficient, equitable and responsive cities”. The golden quadrilateral network introduced during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s regime was improved upon. Whether or not Contradictory to his natural dispositions, it is in his years as a member of the opposition during the NDA government that he became increasingly vocal of his disagreements and criticism of the Modi government. He posed a critical voice on economic affairs as well as general government. He also took frequent personal jibes at the prime minister. While his tendency to not centralize attention points towards low narcissistic traits, there are certain instances where self-assertion also finds expression. The most decisive executive decision that Dr. Singh took, in spite of tremendous opposition, was to sign the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in 2005. As finance minister, he carried out unprecedented reforms in the same decisive manner. However, overall, in terms of executive decisions, Singh scarcely assumed an aggressive stance. He practiced the politics of reconciliation in his handling of Indo-Pak relations. He did not indulge in war mongering after the attacks of 2008 in Mumbai. His calm approach is partially a reflection of a low presence of narcissism in his personality.

Manmohan Singh

155

There are some subtle manifestations of Machiavellian tendencies in Dr. Singh’s personality, such as avoiding commitment and emotional attachments, rarely revealing one’s true intentions, and showing a lack of warmth in social interactions. Even though these are also traits of a reticent personality type, Baru observes that: Over time, his silences and his overt shyness seemed to be more strategy than the habits they had probably been, to begin with. (Baru, 65) While his introverted behavior and shy nature could be seen as factors affecting his social interactions, in certain cases, it could also be tactful silence. He is known to have presided over cabinet meetings without revealing his own personal view or true intentions. He has also employed silence to diminish friction and avoid confrontation, which is suggestive of survival techniques rather than timidity. Dr. Singh evidently lacked strong narcissistic and psychopathic tendencies, and certain aspects of his personality can be read as having subtle Machiavellian inclinations. This conclusion about his personality being low in terms of the attributes of narcissism and Machiavellianism can be seen as partially responsible for his executive decisions and general attitude towards governance. The fact that he was seen as highly successful and efficient as finance minister under P.V. Narasimha Rao but was not as successful as the prime minister suggests that personality traits, including the narcissism and Machiavellianism, determine the efficiency and success of leadership roles.

Notes 1 Sitapati, V. (2018). The man who remade India: A biography of PV Narasimha Rao. Oxford University Press. 2 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/unethical-betrayal-pmsdaughter-voices-family-anger/ 3 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rahul-Gandhi-trashes-ordinanceshames-government/articleshow/23180950.cms 4 www.altnews.in/fake-image-manmohan-singh-touching-sonia-gandh-feet/ 5 Baru, S. (2014). The accidental prime minister: The making and unmaking of Manmohan Singh. New Delhi: Penguin India. 6 www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/rajya-sabha-puts-on-record-its-appreciationof-manmohan-singhs-contribution-as-mp/1559384 7 Singh, D. (2014). Strictly personal: Manmohan and Gursharan. New Delhi, India: HarperCollins.

References Arora, S. (2014, May 18). The six contradictions of Manmohan Singh. Outlook India Magazine. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.outlookindia.com/magazine/ story/the-six-contradictions-of-manmohan-singh/290691

156

Manmohan Singh

Baru, S. (2014). The Accidental Prime Minister: The making and unmaking of Manmohan Singh. New Delhi: Penguin India. Correspondent, N. (2010, April 1). I studied under the light of a kerosene lamp: PM. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.ndtv.com/india-news/i-studied-underthe-light-of-a-kerosene-lamp-pm-414132 Denyer, S. (2012, September 4). India’s “silent” Prime Minister becomes a tragic figure. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.washingtonpost.com/world/indiassilent-prime-minister-becomes-a-tragic-figure/2012/09/04/a88662c4-f396-11e1adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html Dr Manmohan Singh: An unusual life in unusual times. (2019, December 30). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.hindustantimes.com/columns/dr-manmohansingh-an-unusual-life-in-unusual-times/story-omEvNOsU7W8LafoQW0O3gO. html Haidar, S. (2014, August 9). Manmohan was “overprotective” of Ministers, says daughter. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.thehindu.com/news/national/ daman-singh-manmohan-was-overprotective-of-ministers/article6297188.ece Haider, S. (2016, April 20). Exclusive interview with Daman Singh author of “strictly personal”. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.thehindu.com/news/national/ strictly-personal-manmohan-and-gursharan-author-daman-singh-interview-withthe-hindu/article6296609.ece The Hindu Business Line. (2004, May 31). Who is the real Manmohan Singh? Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tpopinion/article28863428.ece India Together: A Prime Minister in peril: Ramachandra Guha. (2012, January 11). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.indiatogether.org/articles/singh-op-ed Manmohan-Sonia core unit. (2006, September 9). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.hindustantimes.com/india/manmohan-sonia-core-unit/story-OQO4aqXL gUZrMMu3uKrfMP.html Mishra, M. (2019, September 25). Why Manmohan Singh was the most appropriate leader for the top job. Retrieved July 19, 2020 from www.thequint.com/voices/ opinion/why-manmohan-singh-was-appropriate-for-prime-minister Mishra, S. (2018, November 21). How former PM Manmohan Singh has emerged as a credible Modi critic. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.theweek.in/news/ india/2018/11/21/how-former-pm-manmohan-singh-has-emerged-as-a-crediblemodi-critic.html NewIndianXpress. (2017, October 14). Manmohan Singh reveals how he pipped Pranab Mukherjee to become Prime Minister in 2004. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/oct/14/manmohan-singh-revealshow-he-pipped-pranab-mukherjee-to-become-prime-minister-in-2004-1673793. html Our best and worst Prime Ministers, the Telegraph. (2014, March 23). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from http://ramachandraguha.in/archives/our-best-and-worst-primeministers-the-telegraph.html Prasannarajan, S. (2013, August 1). Manmohan Singh failed in the execution of his vision for India, says Amartya Sen. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www. indiatoday.in/magazine/interview/story/20130805-amartya-sen-manmohansingh-narendra-modi-congress-bjp-764970-1999-11-30 Pti. (2012, August 27). My silence is better than a thousand answers: Manmohan Singh. Retrieved July 19, 2020 from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/

Manmohan Singh

157

politics-and-nation/my-silence-is-better-than-a-thousand-answers-manmohansingh/articleshow/15831027.cms Pti. (2019, June 21). Rajya Sabha puts on record its appreciation of Manmohan Singh’s contribution as MP. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from https://economictimes. indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/rajya-sabha-puts-on-record-itsappreciation-of-manmohan-singhs-contribution-as-mp/articleshow/69892813. cms?from=mdr Pubby, M. (2019, December 6). Manmohan Singh blames Narsimha Rao for 1984 massacre. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/politics-and-nation/official-records-manmohan-singh-cited-what-gujraltold-nanavati-panel/articleshow/72392951.cms?from=mdr The seductions of self praise, the Telegraph. (2016, August 11). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from http://ramachandraguha.in/archives/the-seduction-of-self-praise-thetelegraph.html Sidelined by Rajiv Gandhi, how Manmohan Singh became Sonia’s trusted lieutenant & an astute politician. (2019, December 9). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.news18.com/news/opinion/sidelined-by-rajiv-gandhi-how-manmohansingh-became-sonias-trusted-lieutenant-an-astute-politician-2415991.html Singh, D. (2006, September 3). Cautious UPA ministers keep Sonia in the loop. Retrieved July 19, 2020 from www.business-standard.com/article/economypolicy/cautious-upa-ministers-keep-sonia-in-the-loop-106090401028_1.html Singh, D. (2014). Strictly personal: Manmohan and Gursharan. Noida: HarperCollins India. Sitapati, V. (2016). Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao transformed India. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd/Viking. TRAVEL TIPS FOR THE PRIME MINISTER, Hindustan Times. (2011, November 18). Retrieved July 17, 2020 from http://ramachandraguha.in/archives/travel-tipsfor-the-prime-minister.html Vij-Aurora, K. (2013, October 16). The abandoned: Insulted by Rahul Gandhi, the isolated PM refuses to resign but is determined to redeem his tainted legacy. Retrieved July 17, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/ story/20131021-manmohan-singh-insulted-by-rahul-gandhi-determined-toredeem-his-tainted-legacy-767956-1999-11-30

8

Narendra Modi The Modi (26 May 2014–incumbent)

In recent research1 comparing the personality traits of autocrats and nonautocrats around the world, the personality traits of Prime Minister Narendra Modi seem to score significantly high on certain narcissism and Machiavellianism parameters. A close examination of the existing literature about his communication style, decision-making methods, and general attitude also indicates a strong presence of these parameters in the prime minister’s personality.

Psychographic profile Rhetoric and optics The way Modi employs the art of rhetoric while addressing the public – the use of catchy phrases, dramatic pauses, and glorified anecdotes – possibly reflects Machiavellian tendencies. Such a theatrical way of speaking is not uncommon in Indian politics. Efficiency in communicating and appealing to the emotional as well as cognitive sensibilities of the masses is a major factor in ensuring electoral victory in any democracy. Modi’s strong personality, along with a crafty speech delivery, facilitates the molding and shaping of public opinion. The large-scale campaigns carried out by him ensuring a sweeping victory for the BJP in the 2014 general elections is a clear example of how individual personality traits have a direct impact on electoral outcomes in India.2 Speeches and optics go hand in hand when it comes to addresses to the nation over crucial matters. The nationwide blackout, lighting of candles, the clapping of hands to encourage health workers, the public use of brooms by celebrities and Modi himself to promote the cleanliness drive, the visual campaigning for the promotion of yoga, and the Howdy Modi event that Modi attended in Houston are some examples where the actions of the government were consolidated in the public perception along with the intelligent use of certain optical tools. Popular terms such as “Moditva” and “Modinomics”, the selfie with Modi

Narendra Modi

159

hashtag on social media, and the renaming of “Nehru jackets” as “Modi jackets” indicate that Modi, the individual, is at the forefront of public perception. At other instances, the actions are accompanied by catchy phrases and concepts such as ‘aatmanirbhar’ and the economic package worth Rs. 20 crore that was introduced to revive the Indian economy after the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic. The ability to motivate and influence the masses through appropriate use of rhetoric and optics points toward an astute understanding of the situation at hand as well as the psyche of the masses. These qualities reflect Machiavellian personality traits in Modi. In his speech and choice of words, occasionally certain phrases indicate narcissistic tendencies. For example, when in a speech he addressed Mulayam Singh Yadav, saying “It would take a 56-inch chest to convert UP into Gujarat”3, indicating it would take someone with the abilities of Modi to bring about changes in Uttar Pradesh. Another indicator is referring to himself in the third person while speaking publicly. In his rebuttals to the opposition, in the parliament as well as in interviews, Modi repeatedly draws attention to the argument that they cannot accept that a poor chaiwalla (tea-seller) is running the country. Similar references to his personal economic background as opposed to the almost dynastic position of the Gandhi family are often made in response to concerns raised by the Congress leaders. Modi has a charismatic demeanor. He is always sharply dressed and is known to be adequately conscious of how he looks and conducts himself, which points towards narcissistic tendencies. A former senior from the RSS, Shankersingh Vaghela, observed about Modi: He always used to do things differently from others in the group – if all of us wore long-sleeved kurtas, he used to wear short sleeves, and when all of us wore khaki shorts, he wore white shorts. And I remember one day the visiting RSS leader Golwalkar questioning Modi in public for keeping a trimmed beard. (Tharoor, 75) Modi’s uncle, Jayantibhai, remembers that when Modi was young, he “liked to dress properly and took care of his clothes. He did not allow them to get frayed and ruffled like other children. He spent a lot of time in grooming”. In an interview with actor Akshay Kumar, Modi said: It is true that it was in my nature to be proper. One reason could also have been that sometimes I felt a sense of inferiority because of poverty. To overcome that . . . I would fill burning coal in a steel pot and iron my clothes because we could not afford an iron.

160

Narendra Modi

The consciousness of how one conducts themselves and the change in sartorial choices according to suitable occasions refects an awareness and focus on the self that can be associated with narcissism. Besides, many empirical evidences indicate that Modi chooses his attire according to the context as a sign of subtle adaptations in clothing whenever required, in order to respond to or make a statement about the outer political milieu. These instances, even though subtle in nature, are well thought out and proper, reflecting a consciousness of carrying oneself in a particular manner. His ability to capitalize upon photos in the digital circulation is also a tendency pointing towards Machiavellianism. The curation of photographic images is creative and unprecedentedly flamboyant. The images are carefully constructed to reveal the desired side of Modi’s personality. For example, while Indian4 and international5 media depicted it somewhat contradictorily, Modi’s photograph of cave meditation at Kedarnath is a sign of a conscious media campaign. Another noticeable picture was from his days as CM of Gujarat, where he is holding The Economic Times, with books about world affairs and a laptop lying around him, depicting him as a superbly intellectual person.6 Whenever some of my marathoner friends share their photos on social media while running in the early morning, I always wonder who photographed them and why? Public outreach Modi has remained as the most prominent figure representing his party, and now the nation. In an interesting and complex analysis7 of the last six weeks of campaign coverage (for 2014 general elections) prior to the last election day in The Times of India and in Hindustan, Modi dominated both party and newspaper agendas. In terms of public relations, Modi displays an unprecedented effort at outreach. A direct channel of communication has been formed with the public via various social media handles, on which he is prompt with replies, retweets, and follow-backs. On Twitter, he is currently one of the most followed political leaders globally with 60.3 million followers. Periodic relevant campaigns are run creatively through these handles. For example, the Women’s Day post of March 2020, where the PM tweeted that he was thinking of quitting social media, attracted considerable attention. It was then revealed that this was to be done only for a day so that seven women from different socio-economic backgrounds may be allowed to run his account on Women’s Day. The tweets are often written in Indian regional languages with an occasional change in the script as well. The public relations are astutely and effectively handled to maintain interest as well as widespread outreach, with minimal reliance on the press and media channels. His radio talk show, Man ki baat, is also an example of the same approach. Such a well-established network that reaches out to the masses not only

Narendra Modi

161

allows control of the nature of information being broadcasted but also reflects the tendency to eliminate mediums and be in charge of communication oneself. Modi famously refrains from participating in press conferences and from encouraging direct questions in the rare conferences that have taken place. The elimination of middlemen from information exchange shows the Machiavellian ability of effectively managing a position of influence while controlling the degree of accountability at the same time. Two of the public outreach portals that reflect narcissistic tendencies are the websites narendramodi.in and pmindia.gov.in managed by the BJP IT cell. The websites were created to form a portal where the activities of the government as well as the prime minister could be tracked, and a direct line of communication could be established. On the websites, a majority of the content revolves around Modi, the individual, and a small section at the bottom is devoted to the activities of the government. The website images reinforce the fact that a positive image is curated in various ways individually, as well as with the help of a team of experts. It is perhaps a result of this curation that he has massive popularity, which often translates into reverence, as can be seen in publications such as the ‘Bal Narendra’ comics that describe a legend-like biography of Modi and the general folklore surrounding his individual image. Several Indian movies have also been released in the recent past to either criticize the opposition or to overtly highlight Modi’s accomplishments. Movies such as Thackeray, Tashkent Files, The Accidental Prime Minister, and Indu Sarkar depict the opposition in an awkward light, and the biopics, PM Narendra Modi and Uri: The Surgical Strike, directly promote Modi’s persona and accomplishments. Utilitarian alliances Modi exhibits a Machiavellian ease at forging utilitarian alliances. His biographer, Andy Marino, has discussed how in the years during and after the Emergency of 1975, Modi met several people and made valuable connections that helped broaden his understanding of the Indian political scenario and also helped his political career later on. He is also known to maintain cordial relations on social media with members of the opposition such as Shashi Tharoor. Modi’s foreign policy is marked by extensive travel, focused on establishing maximum strategic relations. While some of the foreign visits have proved futile, others have ensured an increase in foreign direct investment, a visible global presence, and increased energy security for India. The emphasis seems to be more on strategic partnerships rather than permanent alliances. An example is the International Solar Alliance8 and the Rafael transaction9 with France. Relations with the U.S. are strengthened based on the need to curb China’s influence and actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Modi’s foreign policy therefore displays a willingness to differ on certain issues and agree

162

Narendra Modi

and work together on others. It is also marked by a willingness to take risks. Irrespective of their outcomes and impacts, these characteristics indicate a Machiavellian ability to forge alliances. As mentioned earlier, the optics are also fully capitalized upon, and the PM’s travels abroad are covered extensively on social media handles as well as in the media. Modi as Stanley would see In recent years, across the world, a certain form of politics has emerged that embraces hyper-nationalism, xenophobia, and other kinds of virulent racism to draw support for a leader with authoritarian tendencies (Stanley, 2020). Ethnocentrism and xenophobia Allegations of ethnocentrism and xenophobia made against Modi open up questions about a darker dimension to the Machiavellian tendencies in his personality. Major instances where he is said to have personally displayed selective secularism include the Gujarat riots of 200210 and the recent implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act.11 His involvement in the former was negated by a supreme court probe, and the causes and implications of the latter are yet to be fully calculated. Owing to the self-other dynamic which governs all sociological interactions, a strong sense of ‘self’ could sometimes consequently imply a hostile approach toward the ‘other’. Modi as an individual as well as prime minister identifies strongly with his Hindu identity in a diversely religious India. He is also closely associated with the right-wing Hindu nationalist organization which, on several occasions, has resorted to extreme measures to safeguard their religious ideology and identity. This psychopathy displayed by extremist members of these wings stems from the paranoia around the self-other identity dynamic which are characteristic of large democracies in recent times. Some radical instances are reported in the popular media that reaffirm psychopathic extremities. Most recently, the Times of India reported on Sikh guru Sant Baba Ram Singh: Sant Baba Ram Singh, the Sikh preacher who allegedly committed suicide at the farmer protests outside Delhi, had purportedly written a letter prior to his suicide note that has been recovered from the Nanaksar Thath Gurdwara in Karnal, Haryana, which he headed. In the letter, Singh is said to have vociferously attacked the BJP and the RSS not only for the plight of the agitating farmers, but for trying to “finish the entire Sikh community and the Sikh race”. He called the RSS a “snake winding itself around the Sikh community”, The Print has reported. Amrita Basu’s essay in the Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics demonstrates how these wings have been instrumental in ensuring electoral success

Narendra Modi

163

for BJP and how Modi has an underlying pressure to appease them. However, it is problematic to directly link these factors with the presence of the narcissism and Machiavellianism in his individual personality. It is also problematic to precisely ascertain the degree to which the RSS continues to influence Modi’s decisions as the prime minister. Nationalism An aggressive sense of Nationalism often makes the individual leader isomorphic with the country. Almost all of Modi’s speeches reinvent the idea of India as a great nation, historically as well as in the contemporary scenario. His election campaigns are laden with economic hope for the country and the possibility of making India great again. Commenting on the electoral victory, the columnist Mihir Sharma said: We do not live in Modi’s India. We live in Indians’ India, and the reason so many Indians adore Modi is because he represents their preferred conception of the Indian state and the Indian nation. (New Yorker, 2019) It also became a widespread notion that opposition to the ideologies and actions of the Modi government meant opposing the nation itself. Dissent over the Modi government’s aggressive stance towards Pakistan was seen as an anti-India action. At a public address in Goa, he asked the people why India was being celebrated across the world today. The people replied: “because of Modi”. He denied that, stating that it is because the 125-crore people of the country have decided to provide an absolute majority to his party.12 Here, the success of India is linked directly with the BJP winning by a large mandate as opposed to coalitions and alliances. The nation and a political leader becoming inseparable entities in such a manner reflects an inflation of the self that points towards narcissism. Similarly, the conflation of Modi and Gujarat can be seen in the same context. More specifically, in his election campaigns in Gujarat, he often personifies the attacks of the Congress directed at him as attacks on sixcrore Gujaratis. Collective narcissism Recent studies on collective narcissism in psychology suggest that the idea rests on the greatness of one’s in-group contingent on external reception.13 Modi’s stress on the greatness of India and frequent foreign visits can be viewed in this context. collective narcissism is closely associated with the populist rhetoric and lies at the heart of political populist parties. The idea that an in-group is exceptional and great leads to paranoia against threats to that greatness, which explains hypersensitivity to criticisms against the in-group (in this case, the nation of India) and suspicion

164

Narendra Modi

towards foreign entities. The BJP’s distaste for (assumptively) separatists groups in Kashmir and position towards Pakistan may be viewed in this context. Collective narcissism stems from ideas surrounding identity, which are at the core of almost all facets of regional, national, as well as international politics in the contemporary world. Studying it in relation to the Modi government in India makes it clear that the psychological aspect of Modi’s politics can be studied to establish a direct link between his nationalism and the general tendencies associated with collective narcissism. Toward criticism Narcissism in a leader can be gauged by their ability to take criticism. In the interview14 with Akshay Kumar, Modi said he is not disturbed by criticism. He said that when I look at memes on the internet making fun of me, I enjoy them. In them, I look less at Modi and more at the creativity. Anyone who is opposing me, I enjoy their creativity and feel “what a precise way of saying things”. . . . Some people intentionally want to provoke you with their criticism. At that time, if you keep yourself in check and stay balanced, they fail in all their intentions. That makes them lose their sleep. If you react or respond, they have fun with it, but if you let it go, they lose sleep thinking “I tried so hard, to make Modiji scratch his head, but he is not giving any reaction” so that troubles them. However, such a relaxed response to criticism on social media is not the same treatment that is meted out to the press. Commenting on his disdain for the role of media, Modi told the Indian Express in May 2019: It is my belief that criticism must happen, not allegations. Like you must ask some questions to us (government) for the sake of democracy, similar probing questions should be asked to others also for democracy. Isn’t it? This is my quarrel. It was a remote-control government for 10 years. How many press conferences did you ask for from those holding the remote control? An illegal institution was created which could overrule the PM. Did you ask them about democracy? Questions like what you are asking me? You will teach me democracy? Did you ask them any of this? . . . Now you cannot frighten us with the veil of media. Newspapers were a kind of satyagraha at the time of freedom struggle. Those people running newspapers faced several troubles because of it. The media’s legacy is born out of that struggle. Earlier when I used to pick up The Indian Express, it wouldn’t matter to me whether a report is by Ravish or Rahul or someone else. Because all that mattered was The

Narendra Modi

165

Indian Express. But with the advent of social media, I can look at 50 tweets of Ravish and make an impression. Today the masks are off all journalists. . . . Your personal views are visible on social media. People now analyse that . . . the personal views being reflected in the media are not the neutrality of the media. That is why, if your reputation is on the line, it is because of that. You will have to observe restraint to protect your pratishtha. The entire fraternity will have to do. Earlier, when editors would present their views in some seminars, it was not taken otherwise. Today, it is not the case. The crisis of credibility is not of the media but the person who is working there. So do not abuse us. The answer highlights the aggressive stance towards unelected institutions such as the media to participate in opinion shaping, since the opinions are those of individuals. As observed earlier, Modi prefers to establish a direct line of contact with the masses rather than allowing the press to control the narrative. Websites such as mygov.nic.in serve as portals to address grievances and criticisms, diminishing the role of the media. He had once walked out on an interview in 2007 with journalist Karan Thapar, when Thapar had aggressively tried to probe into questions surrounding his image in the context of the 2002 riots. Since then, his relationship with the press has not been a smooth one, with limited access to one-on-one interviews and meetings. This approach shows a distaste for opinion shaping by the contemporary, profit-driven media and the desire to limit and disarm a particular wing of dissent. The insistence on taking questions in settings that can be controlled and an animosity with the press are indicators of narcissism in political leaders. Such traits resonate with the practices of other leaders with strong narcissistic personalities, such as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The lockdown and subsequent controls placed on national and international media in the name of security and to ensure peaceful reinforcement of the law in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 37015 could easily pass for an example that exhibits narcissism. In general, dissent has become a problematic practice in the current national political milieu in India. The disturbances at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and increasing association of the term “anti-national” with dissent, especially from students in the country, and the unofficial attempts to censor the press16,17 have been some instances that heavily discourage dissent. While not all of the paraphernalia surrounding these issues can be directly, personally linked with the PM, the fact that it has taken shape under his government could possibly be an indicator of certain tendencies associated with narcissism and Machiavellianism traits, such as the urge to be in control, promote unilateral thinking, prefer praise and shun censure, and place oneself as in charge of things.

166

Narendra Modi

Early life and family Examining Modi’s interpersonal relationships with his family, colleagues, and seniors reveals certain traits of his personality. He lived a frugal life as a child in Gujarat and belonged to the economically weaker section of society. About his childhood, he said: I had a lot of pain because I grew up in a village where there was no electricity and, in my childhood, we used to face a lot of hardships because of this. (Mukhopadhyay, 62) Andy Marino, Modi’s authorized biographer, states in his book, Narendra Modi: A Political Biography, that Modi has exhibited a strong sense of self since childhood. He did not respond well to authority and at one instance refused to show his homework to the class monitor, saying that only the teacher has the authority to do so. Several such stories from his childhood, recorded in biographies and narrated by friends and family members, point towards a distaste for authority, strong leadership skills from the age of six or seven, and an appreciation for important figures. Modi started working with his father at their tea stall at the age of six and became involved in distributing badges for Rasikbhai Dave, who was the local coordinator of the Maha Gujarat Janata Parishad in Vadnagar campaigning for a separate state of Gujarat. He describes feeling a sense of participating in something important as a child. His involvement with the RSS and a tendency to feel detachment from home and family members also seem to have started at a young age. The fact that these experiences took place in the developing stages of his childhood confirm that they played a key role in his personality development. The physical and emotional detachment from home points towards individualistic tendencies; the fascination with spiritual and mythological figures such as Shiva, Swami Vivekanand, etc. as well as political figures such as the leaders of the RSS reflects a desire to be great or to contribute to something extraordinary; the inclination to question authority as well as the tendency to lead shows a strong sense of self; and experiences of poverty perhaps gave rise to the desire to accomplish more (although Modi personally denies his childhood experiences of poverty as an influence on his public presence). In an interview, Modi described his sense of ambition, the desire to be someone “big” and appreciation for and fearlessness with figures of authority: When I was young, I had a habit of going to libraries and reading about the lives of big personalities. When the army people used to march in their uniforms, I used to look at them, and salute them trying to impersonate the soldiers. I had certain aspirations. Meanwhile, the war of 1962 broke out. . . . I used to go to the railway station and look at the

Narendra Modi

167

soldiers going out for war. I enjoyed it a lot. I wanted to work and die for the nation. . . . I was never afraid of meeting people in high authority . . . at the back of my mind I wanted to do something great, I also joined the Ramakrishna Mission.18 In the same interview, he spoke of his relationship with his family: If I had left my home after becoming PM, then I would have missed my family members but I have left everything behind at a very young age. Because of that, my life became totally detached. Therefore, what we call “lagaav, moh, Maya” (affection, possessiveness, and worldly relations) had no place in the training I received once I left the house. . . . It must have been hurtful back then when I left but now my life has become that way. Still I call my mother to my house sometimes . . . but it is natural that no one will be able to live with me. I am unable to give time mostly involved in field work.19 All of the childhood experiences mentioned and the subsequent development of traits and characteristics associated with these experiences, such as individualistic tendencies, the desire to be great, a strong sense of self, and the desire to accomplish more, point towards the growth of a personality with narcissistic impulses. Modi’s relationship with his family has been subject to much public scrutiny since the assumption of his office as PM. His scant interactions with family including his wife have been variously read as outcomes of personal choices, rebellion against social practices, rebellion against the dictatorial role of the social hierarchy within the family, spiritual motivations, and even the incapability to form warm and caring interpersonal relationships. However, irrespective of the reasons behind his choices with regard to maintaining relationships with his family, it can be said that he has voluntarily chosen to live an individualistic life. At the Jaipur Literary Festival held in May 2015, Megha Harish pointed out that unlike many other world leaders, such as Obama or Cameron, who strive to create an accessible family image, Modi’s persona is focused on him alone, and his interactions with other world leaders take center stage. Therefore, it can be said that his public and private life do not involve affiliations with blood relatives and focus more on him as an individual.

Interpersonal style With seniors Modi has largely had neutral relations with his seniors throughout his career. Modi hails from an organization (RSS) that has a high regard for seniority and the hierarchy around it. In his years working for the RSS, he

168

Narendra Modi

has functioned with a number of mentors, some of whom have also been described as role models in the past. His relationship with L.K. Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee during his time as the chief minister of Gujarat was largely smooth. After the 2002 incident, when Vajpayee expressed that Modi should offer to resign, Modi did eventually offer to do so, although it was not supported by the majority in the party. His relationship with seniors by and large remained neutral, not marked by distinctive instances of rebellion or an excessively submissive approach. In his position as the prime minister, Modi can be traced to have become increasingly unaffected by outer pressures. Jaimini Bhagwati has observed that Modi’s removal of senior members such as L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi from the cabinet was a step towards confining decision making to a group of impressionable and agreeable followers. He has increasingly withstood pressures from the RSS as well. Modi and Amit Shah have made it clear through their actions, especially in his second term as Prime Minister, that decision and appointment making rests primarily in their hands. Unlike the previous NDA governments, consultations were no longer made with the Sangh leaders before taking decisions relating to appointments or selection of the cabinet. Modi’s relations with Rajnath Singh – who can also be, in a sense, seen as his senior – have included disagreements but remained cordial through the years. Rajnath Singh cleared the air about their dynamic when he told the press in 2014: Those who know me can vouch for it that I have never asked for anything. So there is nothing to regret about. Yet, I would like to point out that in politics, the most popular leader gets primacy. You must have seen me conceding primacy to Modi even at the BJP national executive in Goa where he was declared the face of the party’s campaign. I chose to speak before him, giving clear indications of his leadership position. He is the most popular leader of the country. Moreover, in the Indian cabinet system, the prime minister gets primacy. . . . You see, even a family cannot run without conceding primacy to someone. In Modiji’s case, his primacy is very natural and not imposed. (First Post, 2014) The duo and distant others Observations can be made about political leaders and their relationships with what can be called their ‘juniors’. One such important relationship is that of Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. The two have often been described as the duo behind the BJP’s electoral success in the past. Shah has managed several portfolios under the Modi government, including that of the home minister. The relationship has a clear power dynamic, with Modi being the senior as well as leader and Amit Shah as his subordinate. Since both of

Narendra Modi

169

them are rooted in the RSS organizational ethics, have similar ideological stands, and have worked in tandem since Modi’s years as CM in Gujarat, the dynamic commands mutual understanding and trust. There is also public appreciation at various instances. Addressing a party meeting, Modi said: I have seen Amit Shah since student days and when we win victory after victory under his leadership, I feel very glad. It’s a momentous occasion when I see that there is a party in the country that is headed by a leader like him. (India Today, 2019) At a press conference Modi said, responding to a reporter, “in our discipline, the party president is everything”, pointing at Amit Shah and suggesting that he would be the one taking questions. At the first press conference that the two attended together, Amit Shah answered questions on behalf of Modi. Pivotal decisions taken by the government like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the abrogation of article 370 also witnessed Amit Shah as the primary face when it came to defending and answering questions. He was seen as presiding over the recent meeting with the state ministers regarding the Coronavirus pandemic. Thus, Amit Shah has an individual presence and accountability of his own, which he enjoys with the support of Modi. Modi remains the noble face of all the major changes brought about and steps taken by the government, with Amit Shah being the public rationale provider answering questions and addressing nuances behind these changes. In his relations with other subordinates, Modi does not cave in to public pressure by the media or the opposition to remove a minister from his or her office. This has been observed in the case of Sushma Swaraj and other ministers who have made controversial public statements and yet continued. However, a need for impressionable and agreeable subordinates can be traced in the power distance between Modi and other cabinet ministers. Hardly any cabinet minister holding a portfolio is a national leader and appears in the national media. Such biased power distance between Modi and Shah and others indicates without doubt a second line of leadership but without a trace of any other third person. Modi and the RSS Modi’s relationship with the RSS also reinforces his ability to work independently without pressure or fear. The relationship started out as a seemingly symbiotic one. The RSS helped Modi gain widespread electoral success in 2014, and Modi in turn posed as the ultimate Sangh Pracharak, rising to the highest political rank. However, while the ties remain, Modi’s style of functioning has been increasingly independent and individualistic. The economic

170

Narendra Modi

agenda of his government was under criticism from the Sangh for being friendly towards foreign businesses and over the belief that enough was not being done for farm and labor issues. Modi and Shah have nevertheless remained as the principal voices in government policies. Commenting on the fragile ideological association between Modi and the RSS with respect to Modi’s foreign policy, Hall20 states: It fits with the pragmatic approach he adopted as Chief Minister of Gujarat, when he risked the ire of fellow Hindu nationalists by pursuing development by any means that worked, rather than adhering to their generally anti-liberal economic thinking. And, above all, it fits with Modi’s aspiration to be India’s Deng Xiaoping, catching mice with whatever colour cat is to hand. The tensions between the issue of control can be seen every now and then as the RSS discourages personality cults, which is a significant reality of Modi’s government. The size of the mandate in 2014 and 2019 have largely circled around the persona of Modi, the individual. It has increasingly become clear that he functions without succumbing to pressures from the Sangh. In important issues such as the outbreak of the Coronavirus crisis, not a single meeting is held with the Sangh. The labor reforms in Lucknow, Bhopal, Goa, and Gujarat carried out in May 2020 were vehemently opposed by the labor wing of the RSS. However, the reforms were carried out without addressing these protests. The strong presence of Modi’s individual personality in the political forefront has increasingly waned the influence of the RSS on the decisions of the BJP-led government. Administrative style Modi’s colleagues confirm that Modi displays high levels of conscientiousness as prime minister.21 He is known to call upon ministers and officers during later hours of the day. He reportedly sleeps for four hours, rises at 5 a.m. every day to meditate and do yoga, spends 15 minutes reading the news on his iPad, and functions tirelessly on a disciplined schedule. Such self-regulation stemming from self-awareness can also be read as a positive outcome of narcissism. Owing to a robust leadership style, his administration centers around the person of the prime minister. The PMO, which had taken a backseat during the prior United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime has now assumed a significant place in the administrative hierarchy. He is known to have a presidential style of working. Certain senior civil servants have observed him to be more visible than other prime ministers.22 He is target-oriented and prefers outcome-driven, bullet-point solutions in meetings rather than general ideas relating to policy. He also reportedly goes

Narendra Modi

171

on surprise invigilation rounds to check on officers. One of his ministers told the press that he lays special stress on deadlines and gives his opinion bluntly, not sugarcoating it.23 While the ultimate decision-making power lies in his hands, a group of senior ministers are responsible for sorting out key issues. Late Arun Jaitley, Rajnath Singh, Manohar Parrikar, and Nitin Gadkari are important members of this group. His administration has witnessed an increased emphasis on senior bureaucrats with whom the PMO often directly engages. This can be seen in the management of the Coronavirus pandemic, which involves the PMO spearheading matters and the ministers as well as bureaucrats doing active groundwork. This places stress on efficiency over positions of power, encouraging a spirit of competition, and is testament to Modi’s astute and Machiavellian capabilities as an administrator. His premiership has periodically been associated with largely unilateral decision making. The step to abolish the Planning Commission, which he made publicly known in his first Independence speech, was taken unilaterally without a discussion in the cabinet. The decision of bringing about demonetization was carried out in a similar manner without informing the cabinet. The decisions of carrying out surgical strikes in Pakistan and demonetization were privately taken by Modi and his trusted advisors. Even though the BJP has a legislative majority in the Lok Sabha, these decisions were not discussed in the legislative houses, which might have adversely affected their quick and efficient implementation. The inclination to take individual action whenever one deems necessary is reflective of narcissistic traits. Appropriate delegation does take place, but much of the governance hinges upon the person of the prime minister. For example, he single-handedly managed much of BJP’s election campaigning and largely handled international diplomacy personally. About his own administrative and leadership style, Modi states: I never put pressure on anyone but when they see me themselves . . . like earlier, Prime Ministers use to leave office by 6 or 7 p.m. In afternoons as well, they were absent from office. I go in early morning and stay till late at night everyday so they notice that I work hard myself. They see that he is not making us do the labour, he sits and works himself as well. If there was a task assigned, sometimes I will call at 11 p.m. at night saying “What happened about that matter?” So they say “look at him he is still working”. So in a sense a team spirit is formed. You develop a work culture. Around me too, a work culture gets developed and that happens because I myself work continuously. Strictness and discipline does not come by imposition. I have spent my life in human resource development only. . . . Nevertheless, at the time of work, I like to stay involved in only work. I don’t like to waste my time in talking about irrelevant things. For example, when I am conducting a meeting and someone is wasting their time on their mobile phones, I point towards

172

Narendra Modi them and ask them “Tell me what do you think about what I was just saying?” They weren’t paying attention so they realize that “I have been busy looking at Twitter on my phone”. Since then they have understood that they shouldn’t bring mobile phones to meetings with me.24

This description points towards building a work culture around the persona of the leader and to lead by example, in a sense, rather than by imposition. He also clearly establishes his position of authority through certain direct measures. The awareness that one occupies the central position in developing a work culture and the central role as the creator of rules reflects narcissistic impulses. Late Arun Jaitley commented on Modi’s style of administration as well as traits that point towards the presence of a narcissistic as well as Machiavellian personality: Narendra Modi’s real strength is his strong mind like that of great sportspersons. . . . He is also a strict disciplinarian for himself and has a strong self-belief. These qualities, because of which he carries forward his agenda of development despite contrarian views, make him virtually unmatched in the political arena. . . . While in government, needless to say, he is extremely hardworking himself and he is activity-oriented. So he has a clarity on what every department in government is supposed to do. . . . He is a great learner, so he evolved and now that he is having an opportunity to make an impact in diplomacy, you can see him gradually evolve literally within months from a Chief Minister to a Prime Minister to a powerful international leader. . . . I don’t think there are many others in the political arena who could have done it so fast. . . . And when I said strong in the mind, for the next 10–12 years, he did not deviate from his agenda and finally succeeded in bringing his own agenda to the centre-stage rather than respond to the critics’ agenda. . . . He has a lot of confidence in his own self in what he is doing. (Deccan Chronicle, 2014)25

Intellectual profile and critical decisions Narendra Modi’s educational degrees have been subject to much controversy. However, in 2016, Arvind Kejriwal requested the Central Information Commission to provide details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications. Gujarat University’s Vice-Chancellor told the Press Trust of India, “Narendra Damodardas Modi passed his MA in Political Science in 1983 with first class, securing 499 out of 800 marks, which comes to 62.3 per cent as an external student” (Economic Times). Documents supporting this data were also shared. In response to an right to information (RTI) query by an Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) correspondent seeking a list of students who had qualified

Narendra Modi

173

for a BA degree in 1978, the School of Open Learning at Delhi University said, “The data is not maintained in the branch in the order as desired by the applicant” (India Today). His biographers confirm that he went to BN High School in Vadnagar, Gujarat. Modi comes from a family which is economically poor by modern standards. The family worked as day laborers, share-croppers, and eventually started a tea stall business. They came from a backward caste known as Ghanchi. Andy Marino has reported that Modi was argumentative as a student and participated in debates. He was also actively involved in theatre. Tharoor has observed about his education, Narendra Modi is an undoubtedly intelligent man: he is a quick study, masters a vast array of information and retails it with impressive recall but he does not have the educational credentials of many of his predecessors and contemporaries. (Tharoor, 99) His teacher Prahaldbhai G. Patel has said that Modi was not a very bright student . . . although he was very active in external activity. (Mukhopadhyay, 100) Marino reports that Modi was a voracious reader and widely read Vivekananda and other Indian philosophers. His ideological ideas were shaped in his years as a volunteer in the Rashtriya Seva Sangh, which he got associated with when he was eight years old. Modi is fluent in Hindi, English, and Gujarati and displays efficient speaking skills. Some of the books published under his name include Jyotipunj, Social Harmony, Journey: Poems by Narendra Modi, and Exam Warriors. Notable decisions One of the most crucial historical decisions taken by Modi was that of demonetization in which all 1000 and 500 rupee notes were rendered illegal as of midnight, 8 November 2016. The objective was to eradicate ‘black money’, i.e., money earned from tax evasion, corruption, and crime. The implementation had certain loopholes. There were not enough 100 rupee notes or notes of other small denominations to replace the older cash. There was a considerable shortage in the cash supply, which adversely affected demand, consumption, and consequently, production. It affected people who earned their wages as well as the micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises that conducted business transactions in cash. Rural areas were adversely affected, especially the fishing industry. India is reported to have lost about 1

174

Narendra Modi

percent in GDP growth in 2017 as observed by non-government economists. Bhagwati states: Direct taxes as a percentage of GDP went up marginally in the period 2014–18 from about 5.7 to 6.0. This better income tax compliance could at a stretch be attributed to the fear factor caused by the government’s warnings and the demonetization exercise. Comparatively, indirect taxes as a fraction of GDP increased more, from 4.4 to 6 per cent. (Bhagwati, 495) It is widely believed that close to 99 percent of the black money has come back into circulation, and the demonetization scheme failed to fully meet its objective. A nationwide goods and services tax (GST) was implemented in 2016 after both the houses of the parliament passed it on 8th August. The objective was to replace a series of indirect taxes levied by the state and central governments. The GST has integrated the complicated system of different federal and state taxes. It will increase tax collections and potentially reduce interstate barriers to trade. It is a major achievement. However, the implementation of this decision fell short. There were shortcomings in the GST software: closer and quicker attention was needed to help those who did not get their GST refunds on taxes paid on inputs, in time. Smaller businesses needed more time to file their GST returns as they gradually mastered the intricacies of the involved soft-copy forms. It was particularly important to help smaller exporters receive their refunds to maintain production since they easily lose credibility with importers if they do not adhere to delivery schedules. (Bhagwati, 496) In 2014, the Planning Commission was abolished by the Modi government, and in its place, the National Institute for Transforming India Aayog (NITI Aayog) was created. The Commission created five-year plans and played an advisory role while estimating the funds to be allocated to the states. The NITI Aayog is a think tank that creates yearly targets in consultation with the states. Short-term as well as long-term targets are set and assessed by the NITI Aayog. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) was created in 2016 under the Modi government. Under the code, lenders could remove defaulter promoters from companies and transfer them to financially stable owners. The IBC has not been able to bring about significant changes, as promoters such as Nirav Modi manage to escape after becoming defaulters on enormous loans. However, a sense of accountability has been created amongst

Narendra Modi

175

promoters. India’s economic growth reached the low point of 3.1 percent in March 2020. The GDP growth rate was 4.2 percent in fiscal year 2020. The economic crisis is predicted to worsen. Steps are being taken by the government to curb the balance sheet imbalances. However, the complete impact and resolution is yet to come in the future. Overall, it can be said that while Modi’s first term was marked by a stable economy amidst aggressive economic changes that may have hurt already precarious economic conditions, the second term witnessed a national economic crisis as a partial result of the global economic crisis, triggered to some extent by the government’s implementation of drastic economic measures. The most seminal decision taken by Modi in 2020 is that of abrogation of Article 370, which has repeatedly been labeled as “unconstitutional” in mainstream as well as social media.26 It was implemented with an objective to integrate India and ensure a sound administration of the otherwise disturbed affairs in Jammu and Kashmir. The decision was controversial, seen as a move to consolidate the center’s power against the wishes of the state. Popular leaders were kept on house arrest while this decision was implemented. The impact of this decision is yet to take full shape. Kashmir has been under constant public scrutiny ever since. So far there has been comparative peace in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), but the local economy has been disturbed. The Muslim Women Bill for the protection of rights on marriage, popularly known as the ‘Triple talaaq’ bill, was passed in 2019 in the face of much political opposition. A jail term of three years was prescribed to people accused of practicing instant triple talaaqs. The act safeguards gender equality and brings the Muslim women on par with the Christian and Hindu women who were under the protection of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Divorce Act. It also codifies laws for the Muslim minority, a subject which has been a controversial issue since the Shah Bano case under Rajiv Gandhi’s government. Modi’s diplomatic stance with Pakistan is that of aggressive rebuttal. In response to the Pathankot and Uri terrorist attacks in 2016, surgical strikes were carried out across the Line of Control.27 Similar strikes have been carried out in the past, but this time the media attention was immense, and there were more psychological outcomes than tangible ones. There have been varied responses in the press to this decision. While it has been seen as a necessary action, the way it was hyped and politicized has been largely criticized. India’s ties with the U.S. have improved in theory. President Donald Trump visited India for the first time as president. Successive meetings have taken place with now talks of improvement in trade relations as well. The Coronavirus pandemic witnessed the rise of India as a producer and exporter of protective equipment. The Coronavirus pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge during the second term of Modi as prime minister. In response to the outbreak, a nationwide lockdown was called for. Aside from essential goods and services, all

176

Narendra Modi

public activity including educational institutions were shut down. The lockdown was implemented in three phases, with a lift on restrictions as well as imposition of new restrictions in affected areas. The center worked in tandem with the state governments and eventually gave individual executive control to the state governments to take decisions independently. The center worked closely with the bureaucracy as well as the chiefs of police, health workers, doctors, scientists, etc., with advisory bodies and the PMO acting as the intermediary link. As an outcome of the pandemic, a healthcare crisis arose which had to be met, with several solutions including indigenous production of personal protective equipment (PPE) kits. The plight of the migrant laborers came to the fore, and the economy took a bigger hit with the unemployment rate reaching an all-time high. The prime minister ignited the ‘Aatmanirbhar’ campaign and offered an economic package of 20 lac crore rupees to deal with the economic crisis that the pandemic was causing.28 However, leading economists have observed that this was not enough to fully resolve the crisis. Regular addresses to the nation were carried out by the prime minister, highlighting major developments (mostly covering the positive sides) and the steps being taken for resolution. Key details relating to implementation and nuances were consequently announced by concerned ministries. Web portals were utilized to spread information regarding the same. In 2020, amid the Coronavirus pandemic outbreak, the Indo-China border dispute escalated as a military standoff ensued between both sides. A confrontation between soldiers took place in the Galwan Valley in Ladakh with a number of casualties. The pretext of building infrastructure aiding the troops in the area on both sides as well as Chinese suspicion over the abrogation of the special status of J&K became reasons for escalating tensions. Diplomatic dialogue was carried out, along with a firm-handed approach in action. The building of infrastructure was not stopped but further strengthened. Even Modi’s international policies with respect to Pakistan and China have also been a matter of scholarly scrutiny.29 There was a call for a nationwide ban on Chinese goods and bans on their sale. Many Chinese apps were banned by the Indian government.30 Meanwhile, Modi visited the military troops in Ladakh, addressing the army.31 The government was able to come to an agreement to bring about de-escalation on both sides and take necessary actions to promote peace. However, discussions are currently still ongoing, and clear terms have not been defined. The Modi government lay special stress on public welfare schemes. One successful example from the first term in office is the Swachcha Bharat Abhiyan (within four years from its inception, 8.4 crore toilets were built across the country). A large-scale campaign was run, and NDTV reported the sanitation coverage to stand at 93 percent.32 The movement, in order to sustain itself and be truly effective in the long run, must be able to expand to manage manual scavenging, infrastructural maintenance, and waste disposal issues. Some other examples of welfare schemes include Ayushman Bharat, direct benefit transfer, and Ujjwala Yojna.

Narendra Modi

177

The second term witnessed labor reforms. All central labor laws were merged to ease business activities. Four labor codes were introduced in the parliament. The code on wage was passed and went on to become a law. The allocation of fixed-term employment was allowed in all industries. Similar practices have been encouraged at the state level. The second term was also marked by welfare projects such as the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, where 72,000 crore rupees were deposited in the accounts of farmers and the Jal Jeevan Mission to improve the supply of drinking water. In 2019, the 124th Constitutional Amendment Bill was brought about, which gave 10 percent reservation to people belonging to economically weaker sections (with an annual income unto Rs. 8 lakhs) in educational and government institutions. A modernization of the defense equipment and a strengthening of the army in the country has taken place under the Modi government. India’s defense budget crossed about three lakh crore rupees for the first time. The Rafael deal was finalized, and M777 Howitzer guns as well as the Boeing B8 Poseidon were procured. The One Rank One Pension scheme was implemented, wherein the same pension was to be given to any personnel retiring at the same rank with the same amount of time served in the military irrespective of when they retire. In July 2020, the Modi government has reshaped its educational policy drastically. The Ministry of Human Resource Development has been renamed as the Ministry of Education. The curriculum has been divided into foundational, preparatory, middle, and secondary sections. The mother tongue of the students will be a medium of instruction until the fifth grade. Students will be taught data coding form the sixth grade onwards. The new educational policy aims to diminish a distinction between vocational and academic subjects and even merge curricular and extracurricular activities. A flexibility in subjects is also aimed at in higher education. Masters in Philosophy degrees are to be discontinued. Technological portals will play a bigger role in instruction and teaching. The newly suggested changes have yet to be implemented, and their holistic assessment can be made once the impact becomes clear. In sum, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personality can be perceived as one displaying considerable narcissistic and Machiavellian tendencies. His rhetoric, public relations, charismatic personality, style of administration, personal outreach, curation of a certain image, interpersonal relationships, and relationship with the press indicate the presence of strong narcissistic traits. A crafty articulation, capitalizing upon optics, and the ability to forge utilitarian alliances and shape public opinion point towards Machiavellian tendencies.

Notes 1 Nai, A., & Toros, E. (2020). The peculiar personality of strongmen: Comparing the Big Five and Dark Triad traits of autocrats and non-autocrats. Political Research Exchange, 2(1), 1–24.

178

Narendra Modi

2 Price, L. (2015). The Modi effect: Inside Narendra Modi’s campaign to transform India. New York: Quercus Publishers. 3 www.ndtv.com/india-news/youre-right-you-cant-turn-up-into-gujarat-says-narendramodi-to-mulayam-singh-yadav-548655 4 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/modis-cave-meditationat-kedarnath-drawing-more-pilgrims-officials-5806459/ 5 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/19/modi-mocked-meditating-himalayancavewith-room-service/ 6 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/chaiwalato-pm-modis-incredible-journey-from-poverty-to-power/a-knack-for-words/ slideshow/60718140.cms 7 Baumann, H. C., Zheng, P., & McCombs, M. (2018). First and second-level agenda-setting in the 2014 Indian general election: A time-series analysis of party-media relation. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(2), 205–226. 8 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/isa-nations-adopt-delhi-agenda-tohike-solar-share-in-energy-mix/articleshow/63258305.cms 9 www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46563090 10 Menon, N. (2007). Living with secularism. The Crisis of Secularism in India, 129(1). 11 Muralidharan, S. (2019). Secularism as equal citizenship. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(20), 21. 12 www.youtube.com/watch?v=95H7VEQIwyY 13 De Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism and its social consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096. 14 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/akshay-kumar-getscandid-with-modi-discusses-mangoes-sleep-and-the-dream-to-become-pm/ articleshow/69018129.cms 15 Amin, M. M. (2020). The domicile law of Jammu and Kashmir. Economic & Political Weekly, 55(37), 19. 16 www.hrw.org/news/2019/12/13/dissent-anti-national-modis-india 17 www.hrw.org/report/2016/05/24/stifling-dissent/criminalization-peacefulexpression-india 18 www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPIT6-PL050&t=2595s (please watch from 4:42). 19 www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPIT6-PL050&t=2595s (watch from 13:38). 20 Hall, I. (2015). Is a “Modi doctrine” emerging in Indian foreign policy? Australian Journal of International Affairs, 69(3), 247–252. 21 Bhagwati, J. (2019). Promise of India: How prime ministers Nehru to Modi shaped the nation (1947–2019). New Delhi, India: Penguin Viking. 22 Bhagwati, J. (2019). Promise of India: How prime ministers Nehru to Modi shaped the nation (1947–2019). New Delhi, India: Penguin Viking. 23 Bhagwati, J. (2019). Promise of India: How prime ministers Nehru to Modi shaped the nation (1947–2019). New Delhi, India: Penguin Viking. 24 www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPIT6-PL050&t=2595s (from 16:24) 25 www.deccanchronicle.com/141123/nation-current-affairs/article/strong-mind-pmnarendra-modis-strength-arun-jaitley 26 Amin, M. M. (2020). The domicile law of Jammu and Kashmir. Economic & Political Weekly, 55(37), 19. 27 Gokhale, N. A. (2017). Securing India the Modi way: Pathankot, surgical strikes and more. Bloomsbury Publishing. 28 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-narendra-modi-address-live-centre-announces-an-economic-package-of-rs-20-lakhcrore/articleshow/75699154.cms?from=mdr

Narendra Modi

179

29 Bajpai, K. (2017). Narendra Modi’s Pakistan and China policy: Assertive bilateral diplomacy, active coalition diplomacy. International Affairs, 93(1), 69–91. 30 https://retail.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/china-saysstrongly-concerned-over-indias-ban-on-59-chinese-apps/76708149 31 https://theprint.in/defence/modi-dares-china-tells-indian-army-our-enemieshave-seen-your-fire-and-fury/454020/ 32 https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/4-years-of-swachh-bharat-abhiyan-india-inchingtowards-open-defecation-free-9-crore-toilets-25117/

References B. (Director). (2019, April 24). PM Shri Narendra Modi in conversation with Akshay Kumar [Video file]. Retrieved July 30, 2020 from www.youtube.com/ watch?v=rPIT6-PL050&t=2594s Chotiner, I. (n.d.).An Indian political theorist on the Triumph of Narendra Modi’s Hindu Nationalism. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ an-indian-political-theorist-on-the-triumph-of-narendra-modis-hindu-nationalism Cichocka, A., & Cislak, A. (2020, February 6). Nationalism as collective narcissism. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2352154619301445 Dhingra, S., Yadavar, S., Here, P., -, S., -, I., & -, A. (2020, March 27). This is the team advising PM Modi in India’s battle against coronavirus. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://theprint.in/india/governance/this-is-the-team-advising-pm-modiin-indias-battle-against-coronavirus/388607/ Dissent is “anti-national” in Modi’s India. (2020, July 29). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.hrw.org/news/2019/12/13/dissent-anti-national-modis-india Goel, V., Gettleman, J., & Khandelwal, S. (2020, April 2). Under Modi, India’s press is not so free anymore. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/ world/asia/modi-india-press-media.html Guha, R. (2020, January 17). How there cannot ever be a team Narendra Modi, only a brand Modi. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/howthere-cannot-ever-be-a-team-narendra-modi-only-a-brand-modi/cid/1736693 India–US relations in the age of Modi and Trump. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2020/03/sasia-us-india-relations-trump-and-modi Iyer, L. (2019, June 22). Prime Minister and Home Minister Amit Shah’s picks occupy all important offices as RSS influence wanes. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/news/india/modi-shahs-picks-occupy-allimportant-offices-as-rss-influence-wanes/articleshow/69906309.cms Ketkar, K., Here, P., -, S., -, I., & -, A. (2019, February 11). Why just Indira and Priyanka Gandhi, media must psychoanalyse Narendra Modi too. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://theprint.in/opinion/why-just-indira-and-priyanka-gandhimedia-must-psychoanalyse-narendra-modi-too/190598/ Livemint. (2019, August 14). A short history of Indian economy 1947–2019: Tryst with destiny & other stories. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.livemint.com/ news/india/a-short-history-of-indian-economy-1947-2019-tryst-with-destinyother-stories-1565801528109.html Marino, A. (2014). Narendra Modi: A political biography. New Delhi: HarperCollins. Mishra, R. (2018, January 27). MODI@2: A hands-on PM with a “presidential” style of working. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.thehindubusinessline.com/

180

Narendra Modi

news/national/modi2-a-handson-pm-with-a-presidential-style-of-working/article8633244.ece Modi the astute politician and a star campaigner. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www. opindia.com/2017/01/modi-the-astute-politician-and-a-star-campaigner/ Mukhopadhyay, N. (2013). Narendra Modi: The man, the times. Chennai: Tranquebar. Mukhopadhyay, N. (2019, May 18). Modi-media relationship status: It’s complicated. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.deccanherald.com/opinion/comment/ modi-media-relationship-status-it-s-complicated-734549.html My relation with PM Modi “too sacred, emotional”, says Rajnath Singh: Politics news. (2014, September 23). Firstpost. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www. firstpost.com/politics/my-relation-with-pm-modi-too-sacred-emotional-saysrajnath-singh-1726603.html Narayanan, D. (2019, May 26). View: What shape will the BJP-RSS dynamics take under Modi 2.0? Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://economictimes.indiatimes. com/news/politics-and-nation/view-what-shape-will-the-bjp-rss-dynamics-takeunder-modi-2-0/articleshow/69498073.cms?from=mdr Narendra Modi degree row: DU college says it has no data of students passing out in 1978. (2017, March 14). India Today. Retrieved from www.indiatoday.in/india/ story/narendra-modi-degree-controversy-delhi-university-rti-965536-2017-03-14 Narendra Modi’s working style: Don’t theorise, give bullet points and keep offices clean. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/politics-and-nation/narendra-modis-working-style-dont-theorise-give-bullet-points-and-keep-offices-clean/articleshow/36116965.cms?from=mdr Padmanabhan, A. (2014, May 19). Five things you need to know about the Modi administration. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.livemint.com/Politics/bAi8n FcjkRU0e26VZlMg1I/Governance-as-Narendra-Modi-will-define-it.html The peculiar personality of strongmen: Comparing the Big Five and Dark triad traits of autocrats and non-autocrats. (2020, January 6). Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2474736X.2019.1707697?scroll=t op&needAccess=true PMINDIA. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.pmindia.gov.in/en/main/ PM Narendra Modi got a first class in MA from Gujarat University. (2016, May 1). The Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ news/politics-and-nation/pm-narendra-modi-got-a-first-class-in-ma-from-gujaratuniversity/articleshow/52061558.cms?from=mdr Populism, ontological insecurity and Hindutva: Modi and the masculinization of Indian politics. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1 080/09557571.2019.1588851 Post, J. M. (2008). The psychological assessment of political leaders with profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Post, J. M. (2015). Narcissism and politics: Dreams of glory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eprints.lse.ac.uk. 2020. [online]. Retrieved March 12, 2020 from

Pti. (2019, March 30). Strong mind is PM Narendra Modi’s strength: Arun Jaitley. Retrieved July 30, 2020 from www.deccanchronicle.com/141123/nation-currentaffairs/article/strong-mind-pm-narendra-modis-strength-arun-jaitley Pti. (2020, January 12). Anti-national sloganeers at JNU deserve jail: Amit Shah, slams Rahul, Kejriwal. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://economictimes.

Narendra Modi

181

indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/anti-national-sloganeers-at-jnu-deservejail-amit-shah-slams-rahul-kejriwal/articleshow/73217651.cms Reeta Tremblay Professor, & Michelle D. Bonner Professor. (2020, June 9). In India, Modi’s nationalism quashes dissent with help from the media. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://theconversation.com/in-india-modis-nationalism-quashesdissent-with-help-from-the-media-125700 The simple, and simplistic, messaging of Modi’s lectures is a big hit with his audience. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://thewire.in/politics/narendramodi-speech-simplistic-message Singh, A., Ranhotra, S., & Narang, A. (2019, August 4). The story of a friendship that scripted a new future of India. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://tfipost. com/2019/08/narendra-modi-amit-shah-friendship-01/ Singh, D., (2020, May 11). RSS had a swagger under Vajpayee: Former pracharak Modi has tamed it. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://theprint.in/opinion/ politically-correct/rss-vajpayee-pracharak-narendra-modi/418509/ Stanley, J. (2018). How fascism works: The politics of us and them. New York: Random House. Sudarshan, V. (2019, February 27). The magical effects of a good surgical strike. The Hindu. Retrieved from www.thehindu.com/thread/politics-and-policy/themagical-effects-of-a-good-surgical-strike/article26385830.ece Team, T., Here, P., -, S., -, I., & -, A. (2019, August 23). Modi-Macron embrace: Does India have permanent friends or is every alliance strategic? Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://theprint.in/talk-point/modi-macron-embrace-does-india-havepermanent-friends-or-is-every-alliance-strategic/281108/ Tharoor, S. (2018). The paradoxical Prime Minister: Narendra Modi and his India. New Delhi: Rupa Publications. Utpal Bhaskar, G. (2020, May 30). One year of Modi govt 2.0: More hits than misses. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.livemint.com/politics/news/one-year-of-modigovt-2-0-more-hits-than-misses-11590809608876.html Verma, P. (2016, October 18). It is Modi, not BJP that won this election. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/It-is-Modi-not-BJP-thatwon-this-election/article11640727.ece Vij-Aurora, B. (2020, April 16). Now it’s bureaucrats first, how COVID-19 has changed Narendra Modi’s style of governance. Outlook India Magazine. Retrieved July 29, 2020 from www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-now-itsbureaucrats-first-how-covid-19-has-changed-narendra-modis-style-ofgovernance/303091(n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2020 from https://twitter.com/ narendramodi ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

9

Shastri and Desai The movers and shakers (9 June 1964–11 January 1966 and 24 March 1977–28 July 1979)

Lal Bahadur Shastri (9 June 1964–11 January 1966) Lal Bahadur Shastri, when he assumed the office of prime minister, seemed to have mostly been perceived as an understated and humble individual. Even though he had achieved the stature of a key administrator, conciliator, and the right-hand man to Nehru (being the only minister in the cabinet to be appointed without a portfolio), his individual personality was not seen as an overbearing or charismatic one. In 1964, the New York Times1 published a profile on him, describing him as: a colorless, self-effacing, teetotaling, vegetarian peacemaker. An inevitable comparison with Nehru and the stark differences in their personalities further led to Shastri being defined as a self-effacing and not overtly strong prime minister. This view seems to have resonated with the media and also a number of his contemporaries, including the Pakistani president, Ayub Khan, Indira Gandhi, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, and others, who were reportedly not convinced of his capabilities as a leader and successor to Nehru. However, in spite of an understated personality that lacked charisma, he possessed an independent mind, strong will, pride, and an astute reading of political circumstances; the actions taken during his premiership and the way he conducted himself showed considerable presence of narcissistic and Machiavellian personality traits which, to a large extent, helped in changing the way he was perceived before assuming office as the PM. Psychographic profile Ambitions Shastri does not seem to have had the strong ambition or desire for power that is associated with narcissistic leaders. As the railway minister in Nehru’s

Shastri and Desai

183

cabinet, he had voluntarily resigned in the aftermath of a major train accident for which he held himself morally accountable. Unlike Morarji Desai, he never publicly expressed his desire to be the prime minister after Nehru’s death. Among the biographical sources available on his life, only Kuldip Nayar’s book, Beyond the Lines, states that Shastri secretly wanted the post. However, this claim was refuted by his son Anil Shastri. It can be said that there were no visible signs, public expressions, or actions that could suggest the presence of strong ambition. His favorite line by Guru Nanak that supposedly became the motto of his life: “Nanak nanhe hi raho, jaise nanhi doob, Aur ghaas jar jaye, doob khoob ki khoob” means stay as small and grounded as the grass.2 In the event of a fire, all tall plants get scorched, but the grass remains as it is. This choice of literature is a comment on his idealism and ideological views, but it can also perhaps be read as an insight into his approach towards the concepts of power or stature. Pride Instances of narcissism can be seen in the considerable amount of pride that Shastri displayed as an individual. His decision to not stay in the Teen Murti Bhawan and to concede to the wishes of Nehru’s family to turn it into a memorial could possibly have been a result of this pride. Indira Gandhi’s letter to him regarding the issue stated that the size of the house was not suitable for the prime minister of the country. She wrote that Nehru had required a larger space because of the large number of people that came to visit him, which would not be the case with Shastri. A version of the story surrounding the incident states that these lines offended him deeply, and he allegedly tore up the letter, saying he wanted nothing to do with Teen Murti Bhawan. In any case, the decision can be seen as a conscious move to both pay respect to Nehru as well as to preserve Shastri’s own pride and individuality. Other instances of his pride are the fact that after the first official press conference, where a number of probing questions were aimed at him, he stopped conducting press conferences; and he offered his resignation from the railway minister portfolio in Nehru’s cabinet, following a train accident. In both of these situations, he chose to safeguard his personal integrity and image, which is suggestive of a strong, idealistic perception of oneself and can be seen as a narcissistic trait. Conciliatory and independent In spite of being deeply Gandhian in his ideologies and Nehruvian in terms of allegiance, Shastri was capable of being an individual in his own right and functioned as both a conciliatory as well as an independent leader.

184

Shastri and Desai

Commenting on his conciliatory skills, the New York Times once aptly described him as follows: Mr. Shastri is known as one of the most adroit among Indian politicians at not making enemies. His solid reputation in the ruling Congress party is based on his services as an arbitrator and a conciliator among innumerable rivalries and feuding personalities. Politically Mr. Shastri is known as a man of the center, who moves with ease and apparent impartiality among almost all the diverse elements of Indian political life. (New York Times, 1964) The fact that he was chosen as the prime minister by most of the Congress Party members confrms his position as a candidate acceptable to all ranks and factions within the party, which was largely based on his conciliatory and uncontroversial history. When the issue of declaring Hindi as the official language of India came up, in light of the protests in the country and debates in the parliament, he deflected from his own personal view in favor of Hindi and articulated a four-point proposition which stated, among other things, that English could be used by the states as and when they deemed fit. This is an example of preferring to reconcile differences, to ultimately value national consensus over individual opinion, and to place national peace and unity over unilateral decision making. It also speaks of his Machiavellian ability to keep the Congress Party united, which had increasingly begun to vocally differ with the prime minister at various instances, especially on the Hindi debate. Along with possessing crafty conciliatory skills, Shastri also had an independent mind, and he displayed immense confidence in himself. In his official address where he announced Shastri as PM, K. Kamaraj had openly declared that moving forward it would be more of a collective leadership than one person being at the center of things, as Nehru had been. However, historians have noted that this did not turn out to be the case, and Shastri emerged as the central voice and force behind important matters.3 His premiership witnessed some bold and decisive executive decision making on his part, the most important one being the military action in the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. Shastri sanctioned a full-fledged attack on West Pakistan while J&K were facing infiltration. The firm-handed manner in which the decisions regarding the war were handled not only demonstrated his boldness as a leader but are also a comment on his individuality and departure from Nehru’s stance. The strengthening of the military and purchase of new equipment including tanks, the unfettered support to the military to be on the offensive side, and the glorification of the military in his famous slogan, “Jai

Shastri and Desai

185

jawan, Jai kisan”,4 are all examples of a departure from Nehru’s political and ideological stance. Shastri’s dedication and inclination for Indian defense services is well documented. His several photographs where he posed with military spoils is a gesture that celebrates military supremacy and possibly even a public display of power which can be associated with narcissism.5 A strong sense of self coupled with fearless expression in the face of opposition reflects traits associated with the narcissistic personality. The ability to forge alliances, reconcile opposing positions, and have a pragmatic approach (as opposed to a more ideological one that can be associated with Nehru) towards relations with Pakistan are evidences of the presence of Machiavellian tendencies in Shastri’s personality. Political acumen The Machiavellian impulses in Shastri’s personality can be seen mostly in his political instincts, an astute understanding of situations, and appropriate actions depending on circumstances. He made efficient appointments as the prime minister and reportedly also wanted to induct scientists into the cabinet. His decision to remove Morarji Desai from the cabinet and give the portfolio of Information and Broadcasting to Indira Gandhi also speaks clearly. He established a direct personal link with the people in the case of some of his policies. For example, while spearheading the Green Revolution, he personally operated a bullock cart and cultivated a kitchen garden at the prime minister’s residence while urging all Indians to do the same. Similarly, his call to fast once a week was preceded by a one-day fast observed by him and his family. This ensured his position as the leader of the people in the public imagination and directly linked national activities to the person of the prime minister. The slogan “Jai jawan, Jai kisan” also represents an astute reading of the circumstances in the country and to capture the pulse behind the need of the hour. Presenting it to the public in the form of a slogan, which was not only acoustically pleasing but also involved glorification, motivation, and morale boosting, reiterates his ability to read situations and respond effectively. Towards criticism Aside from the fact that he did not entertain press conferences, Shastri did not respond aggressively towards the media or the opposition. He did seem to be conscious of how he was perceived and perhaps wanted to maintain a certain image, as can be seen in the instances of pride mentioned earlier. However, he was not swayed by criticism or opposition of any kind. Within a few months of his assumption of office as PM, when a no-confidence

186

Shastri and Desai

motion was being tabled in the parliament, he stood his ground and stressed his right to make decisions independent of Nehru’s ways if the situation demanded so. His son, Anil Shastri, told ABP News: I have never seen Shastriji get upset because of criticism. He always viewed criticism in a positive and constructive light. If he saw any valid shortcoming in himself, he strived to eradicate it. (2013) While he did not have a distaste for criticism associated with the narcissistic personality type, he also had the potential to carry out what he deemed fit in the face of immense criticism and opposition, which shows the resolve and self-belief associated with the narcissist. In the beginning of 1965, when the Pakistani army had attempted to probe into the Rann of Kutch region, there was considerable pressure on Shastri by the opposition, to involve an international tribunal. However, he withstood the opposition and encouraged arbitration. A ceasefire was agreed upon and again, in spite of constant pressure to take the decision of arbitration back, Shastri saw it through. At the Tashkent conference, his decision to return the Haji Pir Pass acquired in 1965 was also a strategic decision not made under pressure. The decision was made being fully conscious of how aggressively it would be received in India. The ability to not cave under pressure, withstand criticism, and follow the rationale formulated by oneself in the face of immense opposition can be seen as traits associated with narcissism. As administrator As an administrator Shastri can be said to have been low on narcissism. He delegated responsibilities appropriately and was known as an efficient administrator. His administration was neither marked by autocratic or unilateral decision making, nor was it the collective leadership Kamaraj had anticipated it would be. C.P. Srivastava, in his biography on Shastri called A Life of Truth in Politics, says that during the war of 1965, Shastri convened emergency cabinet meetings to keep his colleagues in the loop about the development of events. He writes: Through all of this, Shastri had ensured India’s able representation in the UNSC .  .  . he was briefed constantly by military commanders, consulted the opposition, and even organized regular press briefings to inform the people and instill confidence in the leadership. This approach shows that his decisions were not autocratic and, as an administrator, while he was the authority calling the shots, he ensured that it was not being done unilaterally.

Shastri and Desai

187

Interpersonal relations Shastri’s personal and professional relationships were largely cordial; even though there were defined hierarchies in some cases, there were no instances of clashes that could be suggestive of narcissistic or Machiavellian tendencies. He came from a humble family and had a frugal childhood. His father passed away when he was six months old, and the role of the father figure was performed variously by his grandfather, great-uncle, and uncle at different points in time. Shastri himself was not an overbearing father. Accounts from his sons reveal that he addressed them as “aap” showing respect, and while he had the position of the patriarch in keeping with the social circumstances of the time, he was not a strict disciplinarian or an overbearing authority figure. However, he had strong ideologies, and the family members were expected to uphold his ideals. His relationship with Gandhi shows the will to be persuaded and the capacity for hero worship, and his relationship with Nehru shows mutual trust and understanding and the ability to speak his mind freely while recognizing the higher stature of Nehru. His relationship with Indira Gandhi has been a matter of media scrutiny. His son, Anil Shastri, has said: Lal Bahadur Shastri considered himself as protege of Jawaharlal Nehru. He held Indira in high regard and esteem. In fact, once Indira Gandhi wrote that it was because of him that she came into politics. . . . This only goes to show that Indira held Lal Bahadur Shastri in high regard and they got along well. There might have been differences on policy matters of which I do not know but definitely not on who should succeed Panditji. . . . They were never political adversaries at any time as made out by some people. (Indian Express, 2012) While there seem to have been slight disturbances in his dynamics with Indira Gandhi and Vijayalakshmi Pandit, the two eventually came to praise his efforts as the prime minister later on. The disturbances, however, have been highlighted to the point where it has been conjectured that Indira Gandhi was responsible for Shastri’s death. The subject has been a matter of public speculation ever since. Intellectual profile and critical decisions Shastri was taught by a Maulvi at the East Central Railway Inter College in Mughalsarai. He also studied at Harish Chandra High School. He went on to obtain a first-class degree in philosophy and ethics from Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith. He was given the title of ‘Shastri’, meaning scholar, when he completed his graduation.

188

Shastri and Desai

Lal Bahadur Shastri was the first PM to not have belonged to the Nehru family. He is credited with assuming office at a crucial juncture in history where a wrong choice of leader could have proved disastrous for the country. He was able to provide a smooth transition from Nehru to the upcoming democratically elected PMs. He was also able to provide a somewhat stable atmosphere to the country while efficiently dealing with the food crisis and winning a war in his very short tenure. He is credited with encouraging private enterprise and launching the Green Revolution. He promoted the White Revolution with the aim to enhance the dairy industry by increasing the supply and demand of milk products. This resulted in the formation of the National Dairy Development Board. The Food Corporation of India was set up in his tenure. He encouraged farmers to grow food grains and started a campaign that came to be known as the ‘Shastri-vrat’, where he urged the people to skip one meal a week to meet the food shortages in the country. Unlike Nehru, he gave due importance to the strengthening and modernization of the Indian Army. The budget for defense was increased. This was done as a necessary response to India’s defeat in the Indo-China War. Under his leadership, India was able to achieve military feats in the Indo-Pak war of 1965, which ended with a UN ceasefire declaration. It can therefore be concluded that Lal Bahadur Shastri’s personality seems to have had moderate degrees of narcissistic and Machiavellian traits. He is one of the few leaders whose personality, in spite of being comparatively low on those traits, did not have a negative impact on political success, and neither did the presence of these traits adversely affect his leadership skills. He displayed a fine balance.

Morarji Desai (24 March 1977–28 July 1979) Morarji Desai, much like Lal Bahadur Shastri, became the prime minister at a crucial time in history when a non-Congress leadership had to take reins of governing the country in the light of recent events, especially the Emergency of 1975. He headed a coalition government with perhaps the most eclectic mix of leaders. In the very short period of time for which he held the office of prime minister, it can be said that his actions and personality displayed a considerable presence of narcissism but perhaps fell short of delivering the Machiavellian decisiveness or astuteness that was necessary to head a coalition with diverse views. Ambition Desai evidently had a strong sense of ambition. He proposed his own name for the position of prime minister thrice before actually getting elected for the position. The faith he had in his abilities vis-à-vis his contemporaries is an indicator of narcissistic personality traits.

Shastri and Desai

189

Journalist Kuldeep Nayar alleged that Desai spoke condescendingly of the prime ministerial candidates after Nehru, especially Indira Gandhi, and truly believed that he was the most suitable successor.6 The extensive lobbying against Charan Singh in the bid for power is another example of his degree of ambition. Therefore, it can be said that ambition (along with other capabilities such as experience and a clean track record) played an important role in his becoming the prime minister. However, according to some reports,7 self-promotion also possibly contributed to the downfall of the Janata Party leaders and, consequently, the party itself. A sense of Desai’s pride and faith in his abilities can be seen in the way the position of deputy prime minister was negotiated with Indira Gandhi. When the portfolio of the finance ministry was taken away from him, he also resigned as the deputy prime minister, displaying characteristics of pride that can also be associated with narcissism. Desai often equated the victory of the Janata Party with a victory of democracy, the people of India, and truth. He repeatedly presented a contrasting picture of the fate of India under Indira Gandhi and the changing fate under the Janata government. The hyperbolic manner in which this was done, along with the very vocal criticisms against Indira Gandhi’s rule, are suggestive of a sense of self-righteousness. However, in spite of the scathing critical attacks, unlike other Janata Party leaders, he seemed to not have believed in vengeance or personal rivalry. He told Thamestv in 1977 of his time in prison during the emergency: When I was in prison this time, I had the opportunity to see whether I dislike people. I thought I had not eschewed hatred for anyone, but this time I found some cracks and I removed them. I do not have them anymore. I do not harbor dislike for anybody. He was the only leader who did not insist on action against Indira Gandhi and said she had already paid by losing the election. Enquiry committees were formed, and leaders including Charan Singh created considerable pressure for her arrest. Steps were taken to ensure that a similar emergency could not be imposed in the future. Therefore, while necessary legal actions were taken, Desai did not fully act out of personal vendetta. The fact that he was critical of the Indira regime and the hyperbolic manner in which he described his governance as a much better one in contrast can perhaps be read as indicators of narcissism. Media relations The treatment meted out to the press can be seen as a measure to gauge the ability to take criticism in political leaders, which in turn can be read as an attribute of narcissism. Following the heavy censorship imposed during the

190

Shastri and Desai

emergency, the press was given considerable freedom in his premiership. He said in an interview: We have restored the freedom of the press completely and reassured them that there will be no interference by the government in what they write and what they do in their profession as long as no specific law is violated. (Thamestv, 1977) However, in his book Kuldeep Nayar describes how he was threatened by Desai: I felt it was my duty to write against the non-performance of the Janata government. When it dismissed the nine Congress-ruled state governments, I wrote that such an action might be constitutionally correct but was morally wrong. I reminded the party of the expectations the people had placed upon them. Morarji rang me to warn that my writings were actionable and that he could put me behind bars. I told him that Indira Gandhi had done that and he too was at liberty to follow suit. He calmed down and said that if my purpose was not to destroy the government, I should not be writing in the way I had. I said in reply, Morarjibhai, the government will fall because of its own misdeeds, not because of my writings. (Nayar, Beyond the Lines) Nevertheless, he can largely be seen as liberal in terms of censorship and in fact must be credited with removing the sanctions imposed in the emergency and restoring democratic practices. Governing principles Desai was highlighted in the media as a highly principled, borderline ascetic individual. He remained celibate from the age of 29 after having his children, believed in vegetarianism, the existence of a higher power, and indigenous methods to cure illnesses such as urine therapy. He was therefore viewed as a conservative person. Although he self-admittedly did not like to impose his views on others, he said in an interview with India Today: If he (his son) drinks he would not be here. Then I would live nowhere near him. When he got married, I told his wife that she would have to wear Khadi and if she didn’t want to do it, she could live separately. . . . I don’t insist on vegetarianism but inside the house I don’t allow it. My daughter-in-law comes from a family of non-vegetarians. I don’t say that a non-vegetarian is not as good a person as a vegetarian. I just think it is wrong to have meat but if you want to have it, have it. He therefore seems to have been strongly opinionated, and his equation in the family was that of an authority figure. A strong ideological stance such

Shastri and Desai

191

as his can be associated with an obstinate sense of ideas relating to the self, which is suggestive of narcissistic impulses. His relationship with his son Kanti, who lived with him and was largely responsible for his appointments, was compared to that of Indira Gandhi’s relationship with Sanjay Gandhi. Allegations of siding with his son and favoring him in an extraordinary manner were made by the media as well as leaders such as Charan Singh. To an extent, the allegations hold true and are reflective of selective idealism, which can be seen as a Machiavellian attribute. Handling decision latitude Desai could not carry out much of the decision making independently. He was constantly under pressure from the heads of the factions within his party. For example, in relation to the reservation for backward castes in central and state jobs, his decision to appoint a commission and carry out reforms was done under considerable pressure from the backward class lobbies within the party. Desai’s relationship with Nehru had been cordial, and Nehru had once said of Desai: There are very few people who I respect so much for their rectitude, ability, efficiency and fairness as Morarji Desai. (Guha, 725) However, the same could not be said of his relationship with his colleagues in the Janata Party where the bid for power and authority were involved. Tensions had broken out within the cabinet, between Charan Singh and Desai, who were the home minister and prime minister at the time. The dismissal of Charan Singh and Raj Narain from the cabinet was carried out due to the growing resentment between the two leaders. His consequent reappointment was again done under pressure. The Jan Singh leaders and the Socialist leaders also deepened the divide in authority. The inability to maintain an alliance and to keep the party from disintegrating can perhaps be seen as an inevitable consequence of the circumstances, but it may also be said that a lack of astuteness, reconciliatory skills, and an ability to look beyond one’s immediate interests on Desai’s part could have also been responsible for the fall of the government and his ultimate resignation. However, some other Machiavellian traits such as political maneuvering to support one’s ambition for power and instances of nepotism can be seen in his personality as well as actions. The eventual sidelining of Jayaprakash Narayan, who was responsible for his election as PM and on whose promises and principles the ascent of the Janata Party was modeled, is also another example of Machiavellianism in Desai. Intellectual profile and critical decisions Morarji Desai went to Kundla School and Ava Bai High School in Gujarat. He completed his graduation from Wilson College in Mumbai and then

192 Shastri and Desai went on to join the civil service in Gujarat. He served as deputy collector in Godhra, chief minister in Bombay, finance minister in Indira Gandhi’s government, deputy prime minister, and then the prime minister of India. Morarji Desai believed in promoting the private sector in India. However, owing to the pressures from his coalition government, his administration ended up ensuring the compulsory tie-ups of foreign companies with local ones. As a result, foreign investment declined. In his brief tenure, the major agenda of the coalition seems to have been calibrating the aftermath of the Emergency of 1975. The GDP growth during his tenure declined, and no radical economic reforms were brought about. In 1979, Desai appointed a commission led by B.P. Mandal to identify socially backward classes and to look into the issue of reservations for the same. The Mandal Commission recommended that 27 percent of jobs in the government sector should be reserved for the other backward class (OBC). The formation of this commission, which was perhaps done with social welfare in mind, proved to have adverse historic consequences at the time of its implementation in the future. Desai’s major contribution was mostly to act as a bridge to restore a democratic balance to the country and somewhat stabilize the otherwise chaotic political situation. Thus, it can be concluded that while an analysis of Desai’s personality displays a considerable degree of narcissism and Machiavellianism, the degree of the latter trait was perhaps not enough to ensure his political success.

Notes 1 https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/25/archives/man-in-the-news-devoted-aide-tonehru-lal-bahadur-shastri.html 2 www.thestatesman.com/opinion/successor-swore-predecessor-1502723542.html 3 Nayar, K. (2012). Beyond the lines: An autobiography. Roli Books Private Limited. 4 Nayar, K. (2012). Beyond the lines: An autobiography. Roli Books Private Limited. 5 https://indiandefencenews.info/ordinary-man-with-extraordinary-achievement20-things-you-must-know-about-one-of-the-honest-pm-lal-bahadur-shastri/ 6 Nayar, K. (2012). Beyond the lines: An autobiography. Roli Books Private Limited. 7 Thapar, R. (1977). Bad habits persist. Economic and Political Weekly, 562–562.

References Agencies. (2012, July 6). Kulidip Nayar’s view about Lal Bahadur Shastri as PM disputed. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ latest-news/kulidip-nayars-view-about-lal-bahadur-shastri-as-pm-disputed/ Guha, R. (2019). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. New York, NY: Ecco, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Home. (2019, April 6). Retrieved August 10, 2020 from http://ramachandraguha.in/ Joy, S. (2019, October 2). Gandhi’s influence on Shastri’s Tashkent decision. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.deccanherald.com/national/gandhis-influence-onshastris-tashkent-decision-765667.html

Shastri and Desai

193

Karadia, C. (2015, January 3). Year 1979 ushered in a period of political uncertainty and instability. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.indiatoday.in/ magazine/indiascope/story/19790115-year-1979-ushered-in-a-period-of-politicaluncertainty-and-instability-821799-2014-12-09 Khare, H. (2020, July 19). Piloting a protocol of accommodation. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/piloting-a-protocol-ofaccommodation/article32132578.ece Man in the News: Devoted aide to Nehru Lal Bahadur Shastri. (1964, January 25). Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.nytimes.com/1964/01/25/archives/man-inthe-news-devoted-aide-to-nehru-lal-bahadur-shastri.html “Morarji Desai’s politics was based on discipline, principles”: PM Modi pays tribute. (2020, February 29). Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.hindustantimes.com/ india-news/morarji-desai-s-politics-was-based-on-discipline-principles-pm-modipays-tribute/story-jbmttFU410kOPxuGIRlc9J.html News, A. (Director). (2013, August 24). Pradhanmantri: Episode 7 Lal Bahadur Shastri [Video file]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWXwVK7rrNY Pandalai, S. (2015, September 25). When India found a leader, but lost a statesman. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/when-indiafound-a-leader-but-lost-a-statesman/article7689687.ece Purie, A. (2015, January 19). Unless you pass through difficulties you can never learn a lesson: Morarji Desai. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.indiatoday. in/magazine/interview/story/19790831-unless-you-pass-through-difficulties-youcan-never-learn-a-lesson-morarji-desai-822586-2014-02-26 Roychowdhury, A. (2018, October 2). Five instances why Lal Bahadur Shastri is the most modest prime minister India has ever seen. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://indianexpress.com/article/research/five-instance-why-lal-bahadur-shastriis-the-most-modest-prime-minister-india-has-ever-seen-4870695/ Shastri, A., & Choudary, P. (2014). Lal Bahadur Shastri: Lessons in leadership. Gurgaon, Haryana: Wisdom Village Publications Pvt. Shastri, A., Here, P., -, S., -, A., & -, H. (2018, October 2). Ambassador not Cadillac: How Lal Bahadur Shastri defied Nehru’s tradition. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://theprint.in/opinion/ambassador-not-cadillac-how-lal-bahadurshastri-defied-nehrus-tradition/127963/ Singh, A., Here, P., -, S., -, A., & -, H. (2020, February 29). Morarji Desai saw this letter from Indira Gandhi as a brazen attack on his self-respect and resigned. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/morarjidesai-saw-this-letter-from-indira-gandhi-as-a-brazen-attack-on-his-self-respectand-resigned/372939/ Srivastava, C. P. (2007). Lal Bahadur Shastri: A life of truth in politics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Successor who swore by his predecessor. (2019, January 10). Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.thestatesman.com/opinion/successor-swore-predecessor-150272 3542.html Wangchuk, R. (2018, October 17). Lal Bahadur Shastri is India’s original “Accidental Prime Minister”: Here’s why. Retrieved August 10, 2020 from www.thebetterindia. com/162422/accidental-prime-minister-lal-bahadur-shastri-india-news/

10 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

Scholars widely and internationally agree with the inevitable presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism in political leaders. Also, it is intuitively accurate to believe that some bit of narcissism and Machiavellianism, i.e., exhibitionism, self-admiration, articulation, manipulation, and social astuteness is required for gaining authority, power, and status. And they come naturally to Narcissus and The Prince. Additionally, many historiographic accounts showcase the consequences of the presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism in political leaders for their constituents. For example, it has proven effects on voting patterns and electorate results, public policies, and the nature of media expenditure. Furthermore, in theory, sufficient practical and behavioral implications are available for such propositions. For example, ancient philosophers and modern scholars ascribed the fall or success of a nation significantly to the personality dispositions of its political leaders and lawmakers.1 More radically, Barbara Levick2 attributed ambitio, avaritia, luxuria, and libido as corollary to an excessive desire for power, admiration, and status among senate and political leaders that consequently lead to the fall of the Roman empire.

Comparison We now have an account of the degree of narcissism and Machiavellianism present in the personalities of Indian prime ministers from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Where do we go from here? What implications can we draw from large qualitative data that projects our prime ministers in a certain light? More broadly and ambitiously, can we predict the future by knowing the past? A comparative analysis of the psychographic and intellectual profiles possibly is thus imperative to draw meaningful implications from the account of data presented in this book. The comparison is based on certain parameters which are suggestive of these traits, especially in political leaders. These parameters include political ambition, delegation of duties, relationship with mentors or figures of authority, style of government (unilateral or collaborative), image consciousness, response to photo ops, self-confidence, nature of nationalism, treatment

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

195

meted out to the press, response to criticism and opposition, etc. Based on the nature and degree of these parameters present in each prime minister, the levels of narcissism and Machiavellianism traits can be assessed and compared. The nature and degree of the aforementioned attributes have been discussed by employing unobtrusive measures such as assessing biographical accounts, letters, autobiographies, interviews, public addresses, accounts from contemporaries, newspaper articles, and social media accounts and by observing the general appearance and demeanor of the prime ministers in the public arena. Through a detailed study of these sources, the differences and similarities between certain prime ministers have been observed and the extent to which the narcissism and Machiavellianism traits are present in their personalities in comparison to each other has been stated. Ambition Political ambition for positions of power serves as a clear indicator of both narcissistic and Machiavellian tendencies. Dr. Singh’s ascent to the position of prime minister was not a result of his personal aspirations but a matter of appointment. Similarly, Rajiv Gandhi displayed low levels of personal ambition and, having come into the office of prime minister due to immediate circumstances (i.e., the assassination of Indira Gandhi and the riots that followed), he was largely seen as an outsider, in a sense, who was not driven by ambition. His initial aloofness from politics, prior career as a pilot, and entry into politics only after Sanjay Gandhi’s death, are further evidences. Similarly, Shastri does not seem to have had the explicitly strong ambition or desire for power that is associated with narcissistic leaders. He had voluntarily offered to resign from Nehru’s cabinet twice, and in spite of holding an important role in Nehru’s government, he never publicly expressed his desire to be the prime minister after Nehru’s death. Morarji Desai, on the other hand, was very vocal about his wishes to become prime minister. He strived for it thrice before actually assuming office. His frequent clashes over executive positions with Indira Gandhi and the extensive campaigning and lobbying that went into his bid to power with Charan Singh indicate a strongly ambitious outlook. Another example of fierce ambition can be seen in Indira Gandhi. A number of instances point towards this attribute in her personality. The split of the Congress into Congress(I) and Congress(O), the break away from the Syndicate, the need to declare a national emergency with the belief that her remaining in office was the only way to stabilize the situation in the country, and the removal of Morarji Desai from the cabinet to facilitate the nationalization of banks and secure her political position are some examples of this ambition. Narendra Modi was also not silent. Like Nehru and Vajpayee, his popularity left no question of competitors within the party. Once elected as the prime minister candidate, his extensive campaigning and public speeches and interviews made the ambitious side of his personality apparent.

196 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences Vajpayee’s understated ambition can be seen in his break from the Janata Party and the distress expressed when Advani was chosen to be the leader of the opposition by Govindacharya of the RSS. It can therefore be said that while he took decisive measures to be appropriately acknowledged, there are hardly any instances which suggest that his ambition took an aggressive or personal form. Owing to his popularity, it was a given that he would become prime minister in the event of a favorable electoral outcome. Political maneuvering or ambitious actions did not go into his assumption of office. Similarly, Nehru was adroit at reading political situations and was able to carve out a place for himself in the Congress Party (and national polity), immensely accelerated by the support of Gandhi. It can perhaps be said that he was an ambitious person, but his popularity left no question of anyone else apart from him assuming the office of prime minister. Interestingly, Narasimha Rao represents the Machiavellian ability to harbor the hope for positions of power but never come out as explicitly ambitious. A comparison of his public records and anonymous or personal writings reveals that he was in fact an ambitious individual who supported the Gandhi family in the hopes of recognition and political ascent. However, he was careful to not be vocal or expressive about this desire in speech or action. Mentor-protege relations The manner in which a protege responds to the mentor’s authority and the extent to which they break away from the influence of their mentors to establish their individuality speaks of their narcissistic tendencies. Some of the most prominent mentor-protege relationships are Gandhi–Nehru, Nehru–Shastri, Nehru–Indira, Ramanand Tirtha–Rao, and Vajpayee–many. The relationship between Vajpayee–RSS and Modi–RSS can also be seen within a similar framework, where the RSS represents the parent body, which shaped their ideologies and had considerable influence over them. The Nehru–Gandhi duo largely had a symbiotic relationship which functioned on mutual respect and gain. Differences of opinion that arose were handled amicably but also caused tensions at various instances. Nehru maintained his individuality, and while he sought Gandhi’s validation, he was largely able to maintain a separate identity and set of beliefs. As prime minister, his governance espoused Gandhi’s ideals of egalitarianism and nonviolence but also focused on the industrial and urban vision that he believed in as opposed to Gandhi’s agrarian and rural vision. Besides, historic evidences clearly suggest Nehru’s gradual departure from Gandhi’s mentorship over a period of time. Characteristic to the national politics of those times, the relationship between Shastri and Nehru was highly accommodative of individual

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

197

differences. Shastri posed as the principal voice of reconciliation among the differing views within the Congress and was virtually the link of communication to Nehru. Nehru valued his advice and input. Both of them came from the same ideological schools of thought and there were, therefore, minimal differences. As prime minister, Shastri was successfully able to depart from Nehruvian principles wherever he deemed necessary, thus establishing his individuality within a very limited time. Indira Gandhi’s position as the Congress Party president while Nehru was prime minister and her involvement in political matters by virtue of being Nehru’s daughter and the primary hostess in Teen Murti Bhawan inevitably meant that she was directly or indirectly groomed by Nehru. There are considerable examples where she differed with Nehru or took a different ideological stance. The consultative yet autonomous position she maintained as the Congress Party president and the fact that towards the end of his premiership she heavily influenced Nehru’s decision making suggests an identity independent of the mentor’s influences in Indira’s case. Rao’s relationship with Ramanand Tirtha involves hero worship and reverence on his part. As both chief minister and prime minister, he was heavily influenced by Tirtha’s beliefs. His early investment in land reforms, strong Hindu leanings, and the infusion of politics and spirituality are some influences that can be traced back to this relationship. This mentor-protege dynamic reveals the ability to fall in line and respond well to authority. Vajpayee’s dynamics with figures such as Morarji Desai, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, and Deen Dayal Upadhyay, who he acknowledged as heavy influences in his life, suggests that he had an accommodative personality and did not find responding to authority difficult. The dynamics can be described as responsive and respectful, yet not fully submissive. They are specimens of his Machiavellian skills of consensus building and reconciliation rather than reverence that involved blindly following directions. Vajpayee, closely associated with the RSS, was able to assert his individuality in certain cases such as the diplomacy with Pakistan, the condemnation of the Ayodhya incident, and in general functioning as the prime minister. However, his desire to promote consensual politics and his political obligations to placate the VHP and RSS very often led him to compromise on his personal opinions. In comparison, Modi has been able to take a highly individualized stand over the years. As compared to the beginning of his tenure, the executive decision making of the prime minister is now accommodative of, but not submissive to, the RSS position. In this context, Modi has been more autonomous than Vajpayee. Gauging narcissism based on mentor-protege relations and the ability of the protege to establish himself/herself as an individual outside of the mentor’s influence, it can be deduced that Vajpayee, Rao, and Shastri were comparatively moderate on narcissism while Nehru, Indira, and Modi were considerably high.

198 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences Style of administration Narcissism in prime ministers can also be determined by observing whether the decision making is done unilaterally, whether delegation of duties takes place appropriately, and whether the general style of administration is collaborative or individualistic. The inclusive way in which Shastri involved his cabinet ministers, members of the opposition, and military officials, and also briefed the press regularly, especially during the war of 1965 with Pakistan, suggests a collaborative approach to executive decision making. Manmohan Singh is known for his ability to build consensus and share power and responsibility. Key decisions and appointments were made in consultation with Sonia Gandhi. Heading a coalition government, he was also not in a position to carry out unilateral decisions. Certain ministers in his cabinet reported, not just to the executive head of government, Dr. Singh, but also to Sonia Gandhi, confirming that the hierarchical structure of the UPA government held two centers of power. In dealing with his juniors, Dr. Singh did not exercise authoritative measures. In his capacity as an administrator, he allowed freedom of expression, and while he made final calls, the power was not centralized in his hands alone. When the corruption scandals broke out in the latter half of his tenure, he did not fire any of the ministers responsible. Even before the corruption scams, he had scarcely ever removed ministers from their portfolios. His administrative style was, therefore, not one marked by extreme, centralized, or individualistic methods. The government under Nehru relied heavily on his own individual person. He single -handedly took care of diplomatic foreign relations and had a considerable say in the parliament owing to his stature and followers. In spite of fierce debates, his decisions regarding the Hindu code bills and the Panchsheel agreement as well as relations with China prevailed over the decisions of the opposing voices. Considerable autonomy was given to the institutions under him. Symbolically, his persona loomed large over all of these institutions. For example, his letters to chief ministers indicate the tone of a guide, leader, and authority figure, which has been unprecedented when compared to the relationships of other prime ministers with the chief ministers of the country. He held a central position in all matters relating to administration and governance. Indira Gandhi largely functioned as an autonomous entity even when she was in Shastri’s cabinet. An example of this is the public assurance she gave in Madras that Hindi would not be made the official language of the country, without consulting Shastri. The Congress split is also partially indicative of this tendency. As prime minister, she displayed a tendency to concentrate power in her own hands. Desai was relieved from the finance ministry, and she took the portfolio herself right before declaring nationalization of banks. The decision to implement as well as remove emergency was also taken

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

199

unilaterally. In general, decision-making powers were largely vested in her own person, and a tendency to not trust easily also resulted in an individualistic approach. Rajiv Gandhi’s appointments, both political and bureaucratic, consisted of people he trusted personally. The prime minister’s office assumed great power and sometimes overruled the concerned ministries. The decision of sending Indian peace-keeping forces to Sri Lanka was made unilaterally by Rajiv Gandhi without consulting the cabinet. The nature of appointments of ministers and officials, delegation of duties, their dismissals, the failure to conduct intra-party elections, and the attempt to curb the press seem to have been actions marked by a centralized approach. This points towards the urge to personally control executive outcomes, thus displaying narcissistic traits. Most uniquely, it is noteworthy that Rajiv took an unprecedented leave from office for a family vacation. Nonetheless, Rajiv Gandhi was criticized for coterie-style decision making, from which he certainly departed eventually. Modi is known to be a strict disciplinarian and a hard-working, straightforward authority figure. His attempts to establish direct lines of contact with bureaucrats and the rigorous monitoring and briefing to the PMO redirect much of the control in his own person. Many of the most pivotal decisions, such as demonetization and carrying out surgical strikes, were taken unilaterally. In the case of crisis, such as the handling in relation to the Coronavirus pandemic, effective communication between the center and states as well as between the PMO and the officials at the ground level took place. However, he is the face behind all important changes, and the ultimate decisions over important issues lie with him. Unlike Vajpayee, the RSS was not consulted when it came to making appointments in the government. In general, in spite of having appropriate channels of distribution, Modi largely remains at the center of administrative functioning. Rao’s managerial style centered considerably around himself when it came to decision making, although discussions were encouraged. He wrote most of what he spoke himself. He received inputs from individuals, but like Jawaharlal Nehru, he created his own speeches. In areas that were of paramount importance and in which he had expertise, he chose to lead himself. However, in areas where he lacked experience, he allowed adequate independence to the ministers he appointed. For example, he kept the industry portfolio to himself and gave a free hand to Manmohan Singh in the case of financial reforms. He was deferential to positions where the ultimate responsibility for decisions lay, but where he was assured that the position was his to hold, he was quick to decide. He did not nurture proteges or encourage patrons. He largely surrounded himself and his cabinet with people suitable for the work rather than people who owed allegiance to him. His continuous emphasis on open debates within his government shows the innate need to accommodate different views and avoid unilateral decisions. It also reflects political experience and practicality, especially in a situation where there is

200

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

a coalition government and dialogue would potentially prevent dissolution of the government. Vajpayee delegated adequately but retained the power to take the ultimate decision on important matters. He has been described as the ultimate boss without seeming like one. His choice of appointing people such as Brajesh Mishra indicates reliance on experience over ideological backgrounds for appointment. He reportedly depended on those whom he was comfortable with. He knew the dictates of governance and wanted the advice of those who were best suited for the role. In general, he was known for consensus building and facilitating dialogue. Ultra-nationalism Patriotism is an essential feeling which psychologically as well as sociologically consolidates the collective identity of a nation. Naturally, the leaders of the country espouse patriotic ideals. However, when the level of nationalism on the part of a leader reaches the point where the leader becomes isomorphic with the nation or starts equating themselves with the nation, it points towards a self-important attitude which reveals narcissistic tendencies. Also, nationalism differs from ultra-nationalism that fascist leaders may use as a tool to divide the community into us and them, although the nationalism differs from ultra-nationalism only by a thin line (Stanley, 2020).3 Nehru linked the larger endeavor of the freedom struggle with personal fulfillment and deriving existential meaning for the individual. Nehru’s isomorphism with the nation can be seen in the adamancy to decide the future for the country (socialism and modernization), the deterioration of his physical health after the Chinese invasion of 1964, and the strong stance in diplomacy with China. Nationalism becomes an important factor to consider while assessing his leadership role and personality since his rise to power is inevitably linked with the freedom struggle, patriotism, and nationalism. Nehru and India have been conflated in the public imagination as well. As in the case of Nehru, Indira’s personality seems to have had an isomorphic link with nationalism, so much so that personal ambition and patriotism became inseparable concepts in her worldview. Her success became the success of the country and vice versa. Similarly, criticism aimed at her policies was perceived by her as criticism aimed at the country. An essential manifestation of this perception came in the form of the Emergency of 1975, where in Indira’s opinion, the progress of the country became synonymous with her remaining in power. Modi also displays an aggressive sense of nationalism. Almost all of Modi’s speeches reinvent the idea of India as a great nation, historically as well as in the contemporary scenario. He represents the people’s preferred conception of the Indian state and the Indian nation. His election campaigns are laden with economic hope for the country and the possibility of making India great again, which are presented as events directly linked with his

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

201

own electoral success. It also became a widespread notion that opposition to the ideologies and actions of the Modi government meant opposing the nation itself. Dissent over the Modi government’s aggressive stance towards Pakistan was seen as an anti-India action. Through the glorification of the military, an anti-Pakistan stance, and questioning dissent in intellectuals, the government’s activities were legitimized as national and dissent as antinational. While this has not been done individually by Modi, it is a phenomenon associated with the government of which he is the head. The dangerous combination of nationalism and narcissism often in the past has led nations to become leader-centric. One needs to know everything that happened in Germany during the second world war and everything that happened in France during the advent of the nineteenth century is safely attributed to Hitler and Napoleon respectively by political historians. This signals towards missing a second line of command. Image consciousness The degree to which political leaders are conscious of the perception of their public image can be seen in their sartorial choices, outward demeanor, and exploitation of photo ops. Nehru’s outward appearance in the visual archives available is that of a sharply dressed, well-groomed man. His choice of clothes changed across time from the Independence struggle to the time he became prime minister. It changed from plain khadi clothes with a jacket to ‘achkans’ with a red rose attached to one of the buttons, which visually set him apart from his contemporaries. He reportedly took his Cadillac out while going to receive foreign dignitaries and otherwise drove in an ambassador. He once told Shastri that he wanted the foreigners to know that Indians can own Cadillacs, too (as recounted by Shastri’s son, Anil Shastri). Using physical artifacts to communicate symbolic messages as well as paying close and consistent attention to sartorial choices shows an awareness of the public gaze and a desire to portray the self in a certain way, which is indicative of narcissism. All of these attributes can be seen in Nehru’s personality. Shastri’s decision to not stay in the Teen Murti Bhawan and to concede to the wishes of Nehru’s family to turn it into a memorial was possibly partially influenced by the public gaze and the opinions of his contemporaries. Other instances that indicate that he was conscious of the public gaze include not shying away from photo ops, his decision to stop entertaining press conferences after the first one where a number of probing questions were aimed at him, and his resignation from the railway minister portfolio in Nehru’s cabinet, following a train accident. In the last two situations, he chose to safeguard his personal integrity and image, which is suggestive of a strong, idealistic perception of oneself and can be seen as a narcissistic trait. Like Nehru, Indira was also meticulous with her speeches as well as clothes. She was not shy of being photographed, held press conferences once

202

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

a month, met people outside of her residence constantly, and started informal talks on All-India Radio. Modi has a charismatic demeanor. He is always sharply dressed and is known to be adequately conscious of how he looks and conducts himself. He self-admittedly paid more attention to grooming as a child since he felt a sense of inferiority on account of his economic background. Subtle adaptations in clothing are made whenever required, in order to respond to or make a statement about the outer political milieu. Examples of these adaptations include uploading a picture on Twitter wearing a scarf to act as a mask in keeping with the Coronavirus pandemic precaution measures and the addition of accessories while being photographed in various cities of India to honor and please various communities. These additions, even though subtle in nature, are well thought out and proper, reflecting a consciousness of carrying oneself in a particular manner. Rajiv Gandhi and Vajpayee were also heavily invested in photo ops and visual appearances in the media, which by then had taken an important role to persuade public perception. Even though the most pivotal and unprecedented changes were brought about in the industrial sector during Rao’s premiership, he did not claim complete credit or capitalize on it to enhance his individual public stature. Along with introverted personality traits, the tendency to not take excessive credit also stemmed from a Machiavellian reaction to political circumstances. It was a way to avoid opposition to the drastic reforms that were being engineered as well as to keep the precarious nature of his political position stable. Singh hardly responded to allegations and criticism in the press, especially towards the end of his tenure, and was selective about interviews. He did not attempt to establish any grass-roots connections with the people of the country, and the credit for major reforms was shared by Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. Reaction to popularity The extent of the popularity of a leader, the degree to which the individual is aware of it (and invest into it), and how they respond to it are factors which reveal narcissistic characteristics of their personality. A healthy amount of narcissism often ensures mass appeal and therefore has a considerable impact on the individual’s popularity. Nehru enjoyed the most amount of acclaim and adulation by the public than any other prime minister in India. He was evidently aware of his place in the public perception and the possibilities of conceit and selfaggrandizement that come along with such an inflated public image. Nehru strongly discouraged all sorts of hero worship. At the same time, however, he was often comfortably at the receiving end of it. Large volumes of works

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

203

written by Nehru, including his autobiography, books, letters, and personal diaries, facilitate direct access to his private thoughts and self-perception. Indira Gandhi similarly was aware of and self-admittedly enjoyed the affection of and popularity amongst the common people at the beginning of her premiership. She was given the title of ‘Durga’ after military success in East Pakistan. She referred to herself as a mother of the people of India and appreciated being recognized. Rajiv Gandhi had a grandiosity and mass appeal which made him popular since the very beginning. The large mandate on which he started as PM bears testimony to the extent of his popularity. His interviews suggest that he was aware of this adulation and justified it on the grounds of being young and different. Vajpayee was another celebrated leader who wrote extensively and published a number of books. This again shows a conscious effort to make his ideas accessible and actions transparent to the public and may be linked to the narcissistic need to leave a legacy behind or to be remembered. Modi is one of the most popular and most followed political figures on social media. Careful PR exercises, closely monitored professional handling of websites and social media accounts, being the face of the government’s campaigns and policies, and verbal acknowledgement of his popularity show a close awareness, monitoring, and shaping of the public perception of him as an individual. Thus, it can be said that the prime ministers mentioned herein were not only immensely popular, but also aware of their popularity and paid close attention to it, a healthy amount of narcissism in their personalities also aided in adding to their mass appeal. Freedom of press Censorship on the press, or a general aversive attitude towards the press, points toward an inability to take criticism as well as the urge to control public opinion. The former can be associated with narcissistic and the latter with Machiavellian tendencies. Nehru believed in freedom of the press and was not vehemently opposed to criticism from the media. He famously told the renowned cartoon artist Shankar Pillai to give him original sketches of the cartoons personally criticizing him and thanked Shankar for helping him spot his inherent weaknesses. Aside from the fact that he did not entertain press conferences, Shastri did not respond aggressively towards the media or the opposition. He did seem to have been conscious of how he was perceived and perhaps wanted to maintain a certain image, as can be seen in the instances of pride mentioned here. However, he was not swayed by criticism or opposition of any kind. Desai, too, can largely be seen as liberal in terms of censorship, and in fact

204

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

must be credited with removing the sanctions imposed in the emergency and restoring democratic practices. Prime ministers who went out of their way to curb the freedom of the press are Indira, Rajiv, and Modi. Censorship of the press also took place in an unprecedentedly strict manner during Indira’s tenure. Allegedly, appointments in the print media industry were influenced. She personally mentioned and contradicted claims of newspapers repeatedly during her speeches in parliament as well as in interviews. Censorship during the Emergency of 1975 took an almost fascist turn. All news was sifted through and approved before it could be published. Satirical jokes and cartoons were also banned. Indira’s rationale was to take these steps to ensure peace and prevent physical agitations in the country; however, she was viewed by many as being averse to criticism to the point of paranoia. Rajiv’s tenure witnessed 11 prosecutions for financial irregularities and 26 additional demands for evidence that were meted out to the Indian Express right after the newspaper had campaigned for his removal on the grounds of incompetence and misconduct. A bill was introduced in the parliament to further check the freedom of press, under which the state could identify editors, journalists, or publishers who were responsible for “criminal imputations or scurrilous publications”, and the said individuals could be imprisoned on these grounds. The bill was not welcomed in the parliament or the media and was eventually dropped. Modi has been vocally critical of unelected institutions such as the media to participate in opinion shaping, since the opinions are those of individuals. He prefers to establish a direct line of contact with the masses rather than allowing the press to control the narrative. Websites and online government portals to address grievances and criticisms diminish the role of the media. His walking out on the 2007 interview with Karan Thapar and granting limited access to one-on-one interviews and meetings shows an aversion to the contemporary, profit-driven media and the desire to limit and disarm a particular wing of dissent. The insistence on taking questions in settings which can be controlled and an animosity with the press are indicators of narcissism. Besides, the most recent allegation that the Modi-driven NDA invests heavily in promotion using Facebook and its sister social media site Whatsapp to spread a political agenda (sometimes negative)4 is another indicator that points to malignant media associations, lest if ownership is untrue. Rao never took an aggressive stance against the media. His administrative style also shows that he was comfortable with differences in opinion and was rarely heavily opinionated. Not claiming credit or even appearing in key press conferences reiterates the low levels of narcissism. However, as mentioned earlier, the maintenance of a low-key profile was in keeping with his political tact, and therefore shows the Machiavellianism in his personality. Singh self-admittedly chose not to react to personal critical attacks, preferring to stay silent. It was towards the end of his tenure when the criticism reached its peak. He was held responsible for the corruption scandals

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

205

and misgovernment. He did not openly address these issues or speak to the media. In an understated, covert manner, which often came out in passiveaggressive ways, Singh was not appreciative of the censure of the press. His treatment of the press therefore shows tolerance but was not devoid of the self-appreciation and distaste for criticism associated with narcissism. However, not taking direct action against the press shows a low level of Machiavellian traits. Political astuteness Studying certain executive decisions and their outcomes can help determine whether the prime ministers in question were astute at understanding and reacting to the circumstances around them. The ability to do so successfully can be seen as an indicator of the presence of high Machiavellian personality traits (Ankit & Uppal, 2021).5 Each prime minister is bound to have successful feats and occasional errors of judgment. However, if the errors outnumber the feats or if the consequences of the errors are extremely dire, then it can perhaps be decisively concluded that as far as the astute reading of circumstances is concerned, the prime minister possesses low levels of Machiavellian traits. As prime minister, Nehru was able to implement a number of fruitful policies and also faced a few failures. However, many of the decisions taken reflect an ideological more than pragmatic understanding of his milieu. Diplomatic relations with China, culminating in the war of 1962, implementing Hindu code bills which instigated immense backlash, adopting the socialist model for the economy, and not strengthening the military in a timely manner are some such examples which do not reflect a precise reading of political circumstances. Shastri’s ability to make efficient appointments, his capacity to work with rivals (such as Desai and Indira), ability to recognize national problems and communicate the goals of the government as well as solutions to the people, his handling of the 1965 war and the inspired decision to attack West Pakistan, all point towards a Machiavellian understanding of the circumstances as well as the capability to act on them. Some of the strategic feats in Indira’s tenure include the political maneuvering in the war with Bangladesh and managing diplomatic relations effectively. Certain decisions that had negative consequences for the country can still be considered as outcomes of Machiavellian traits because they did involve a skillful assessment of prevailing political circumstances, and they proved fruitful for her personal motives. Examples of these include the nationalization of banks and the Emergency of 1975, among other things. Rajiv responded to the requirements of the changing times by revolutionizing the telecom sector, increasing the buying capacity of the middle class, and focusing on computers and digitalization. His government was able to make peace accords with Assam, Mizoram, and Punjab, which required

206

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

considerable political tact. The most fatal error in judgment was being too trusting in his handling with the LTTE and Sri Lankan government. The Bofors scandal and the timing of his dismissal of V.P. Singh can also be stated as examples of errors. He was also not able to grasp the pulse of the religious politics in the country. Selective and oscillating secularism, as can be seen in the Shah Bano case and allowing Hindus to worship in the Ayodhya mandir, confirm this fact. Rao’s personality was marked by the urge to know and keep eyes on everyone. His personal papers include individual investigative files on all potential rivals. The services of the Intelligence Bureau were employed to keep tabs on the functioning of members of the opposition as well as dissenting voices within his own party. This, among other things, perhaps enabled a truly astute understanding of political circumstances. The changes in the finance sector, liberalization of the economy, and the massive political maneuvering that went into it show his Machiavellian abilities. He is also alleged to have purposely not done enough in the Ayodhya matter, thus leading to speculations of a Machiavellian personality. Out of the many tasks on his agenda, Vajpayee chose to declare India as a nuclear power as he assumed office. The timing of this announcement and the way it was delivered speak of his strategic astuteness as a politician and orator. He had a special understanding of individuals, and his consensusbuilding skills were unparalleled. Singh had the similar skills of building rapport. His efficient foreign diplomacy confirms his ability to negotiate and form alliances wherever required. The Indo-U.S. nuclear deal was a decisive measure that he almost unilaterally took in the face of opposition, which proved fruitful in the long run. While the way he handled international relations reveals agreeable and even Machiavellian impulses, the same cannot be said of his handling of domestic affairs or relations. Modi’s executive decisions have been extremely bold and experimental and not always successful. Demonetization can be seen as one such instance where the economy was affected without fulfilling the desired outcome, but bringing about the GST proved fruitful to some extent, in the long run. The abrogation of article 370 and the CAA were met with fierce opposition and protests, which suggests that perhaps an accurate reading of the social circumstances was not given proper weighting before the implementation of these decisions, or only a certain demographic section of the country was kept in mind. Nevertheless, one may safely assume that each decision is based on calculation and is aimed towards an electoral agenda as well. The manner of implementation witnesses Machiavellian ways, too. *** On the basis of the parameters employed here, it can be observed that narcissism and Machiavellianism are traits present in each prime minister in varying degrees. Summing up all of the categories and determining the number of parameters that point towards the narcissism and Machiavellianism

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

207

traits in each PM can help in measuring the degree to which these traits are present in all prime ministers. Nehru scores high in narcissism and Machiavellianism based on his mentor-protege relations, style of administration, nature of nationalism, image consciousness, and awareness of and reaction to popularity. Shastri scores low in all parameters except in the case of image consciousness. Indira scores high in terms of all parameters, namely strong ambition, mentorprotege relations, style of administration, nature of nationalism, image consciousness, popularity and reaction to it, and the freedom of press. Desai scores high in terms of one parameter, which is ambition. Rajiv’s scores show the presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism in terms of style of administration, image consciousness, freedom of press, and popularity and reaction to it. The observation of these parameters in the case of Rao show high levels of both traits in terms of ambition, moderate in style of administration, and high levels of Machiavellianism in his treatment meted out to the press. Vajpayee’s scores are moderate in terms of ambition and style of administration and high in terms of popularity and the awareness to it. Singh scores low in most categories except in terms of freedom of press, where his actions and personality can be read as moderately narcissistic. Modi again scores high in both traits based on all parameters, including ambition, mentor-protege relationship, style of administration, nature of nationalism, image consciousness, popularity, and freedom of press. Thus, it can be observed that the number of parameters that suggest the presence of narcissistic and Machiavellian traits are seven in Modi and Indira’s case, five in the case of Nehru, three in the case of Rao and Vajpayee, four in Rajiv, and one in Shastri and Desai. It can, therefore, be concluded that the prime minister with the maximum number of matching parameters has the highest presence of the narcissism and Machiavellianism traits and similarly the one with the lowest number has the lowest presence of these traits. Following this scale, Indira and Modi show the strongest presence of narcissism and Machiavellianism while Shastri and Desai show the lowest.

Consequences According to Acemoglu and Robinson, political leaders’ excessive desire for power and admiration invariably lead them to promote extractive and non-inclusive socio-economic institutions that naturally cause failure of the nations they lead. From Aristotle to Adam Smith to Karl Marx to modern researchers, this supposition has stimulated the brains of philosophers for ages. Supportively, we have several such examples from Congo to Zimbabwe. Power indigestion Scholars6 formulated their central hypothesis around the fact that strong inclusivity through economic and political institutions guides incentives towards entrepreneurial activities and wealth generation in a country.

208 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences Furthermore, the political leaders who are immune to power and the idea to self-remunerate build inclusive political and economic institutions that partner in economic growth. On the contrary, lawmakers who are high on narcissism and Machiavellianism lack the intellectual capability to promote general inclusivity and thus invest heavily in self-incentivizing schemes and suffer from power indigestions. Following Adam Smith’s work, Khalil7 further differentiated political leaders as either authoritative or power-centric. Figure 10.1 presents pictorially the process described by Khalil. According to Khalil8: authority involves allegiance, which differs fundamentally from power as wielded by monopolists, sports’ referees, hegemonic states, and so on. According to Adam Smith9: at the head of every society or association of men, we find some persons of superior abilities; in a warlike society the men of superior strength, and in a polished one a few with superior mental capacity. A person with superior and desirable abilities attains a rank. This rank initially operates in only limited context and is acknowledged (and admired) by predefned and targeted spectators – usually commoners. While the rank is an individual phenomenon, social rank requires authentication by a system that defines whether the abilities fetching the rank are desired. According to Khalil: the sufficient condition for rank to develop into social rank is that the capability under focus becomes of particular importance, i.e., becomes the object of desire. A rank can become the object of desire given changes

thers

ent, and evelopm rment, D e w o p Em Rank

Social Rank

Equ

on istributi itable D

s to O of Rank

Authority Ambidexterity

Social Status

Power Isomorphism

Figure 10.1 Authority vs. power

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

209

in technology, resource availability, organisational relations and threats that face the society. Next, the social rank evolves into social status when a sufficient number of commoners admiring to attain the social rank realize their incapability to reach such a social rank. This incapability may originate out of several factors ranging from physical to financial. Such failed admirers attempt to attain the social status merely superficially by expending resources (e.g., club membership, frivolous consumption), by which they only achieve temporary and flimsy social status. In this way, low-rank commoners transiently succeed in identifying themselves with individuals having higher social status. The frivolous and huge market for products such as Fair and lovely in India is one such significant sign of the social status of “fairers”. Individuals with actual high status will observe mass admiration and replication. At this stage, individuals who only have superficially attained social status become the subjects of actual social status holders. Eventually such subjects start to alienate their authority and attribute it to the social status holder – the all-powerful kings or the Gods. Khalil termed this process as political subordination. People with actual social status – the Gods, whose capabilities are ordinarily unattainable and can only be superficially replicated – eventually acquire a large number of political subordinates. Once a rank is fully established into a social status with a noticeable and abundant sum of political subordination, the intellectual and cognitive appetite of those with such social status for mindless replication and followership – thus, isomorphism10 – or creative criticism – thus ambidextrous orientation11 – will determine the fate of society. The gods seeking power will sponsor isomorphism by promoting replication, whereas those seeking authority will promote ambidexterity through creative criticism. There is an apparent link between these economic and social theories. It is evident that leaders having preference for exploitative methods will likely promote isomorphism and create extractive political and economic institutions, whereas explorative methods will be adopted by leaders in order to counter isomorphism and promote inclusivity. The people with unique capabilities generate resources and attain ranks. They may either reinvest those resources in the development of ranks (capability) for others or increase the scope for their political subordination. Investment into development of ranks for others will require inclusivity and allegiance among social status holders, thus making them authority. On the other hand, extractive political and economic institutions will be formed to ensure continuous supplies of incapable, admiring, and imitating subjects: the political subordinates. Desire for widening the scope of political subordination will turn the social status holders into power. Power concentration in the hands of a limited few probably led to the failure of socialist nations.12 There cannot be a better explanation to the theory posited by Robinson and Acemoglu or Sharma or Adam Smith about the contribution of

210 Conclusion, comparison, and consequences power-centric and admiration-seeking political leaders in failing an entire nation. A plethora of examples, ranging from the fall of the Roman empire to the deplorable economic condition of Zimbabwe are evidence to this theory.

Notes 1 Acemoglu, R., & Robinson, J. (2012). Why nations fail. Crown Publishing Group. 2 Levick, B. (1982). Morals, politics, and the fall of the Roman republic. Greece & Rome, 29(1), 53–62. 3 Stanley, J. (2020). How fascism works: The politics of us and them. Random House Trade Paperbacks. 4 www.ft.com/content/9fe88fba-6c0d-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84 5 Ankit, & Uppal, N. (2021). How Machiavellianism engenders impression management motives: The role of social astuteness and networking ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 110314. 6 Diamond, J. (2013). Guns, germs and steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. Random House. Sharma, R. (2016). The rise and fall of nations: Forces of change in the postcrisis world. WW Norton & Company. 7 Khalil, E. L. (2005). An anatomy of authority: Adam Smith as political theorist. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(1), 57–71. 8 Khalil, E. L. (2005). An anatomy of authority: Adam Smith as political theorist. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(1), 57–71. 9 https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/part-i-of-justice 10 The term isomorphism derives from the Greek iso, meaning “similar,” and morphosis, meaning “to form”. Isomorphism refers to an ecological process in which over a period of time organisms residing within the same environmental conditions start adopting similar forms. These forms are often suboptimal as organisms are required to adjust their behavior and manage environmental cues in order to survive. In Science of Sociology, isomorphism refers to a constraining process that forces social units in a population to resemble other social units of higher order. The process of replication may be driven by the following mechanisms: 1) isomorphism stems from political influence and stronger legitimacy of the population with higher social status over commoners. The population with higher social status in order to legitimize their methods start to force the commoners to adopt; 2) isomorphism also occurs when commoners (in order to avoid uncertainties) start modeling their responses to social and economic problems on the responses to such problems designed by the population with higher social status. Hawley, Amos. (1968). Human ecology. In David L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 328–337). New York: Macmillan. 11 The word ambidexterity is derived from the Latin roots ambi, meaning “both”, and dexter, meaning “right” or “favorable”. More simply, it’s the individual’s capacity to use both right and left hands equally effectively. Social scientists have used ambidexterity to explain the ability of organizations to “maintains a high degree of balance between exploitation (learning via local search, experiential refinement, and reuse of existing knowledge) and exploration (learning gained through processes of concerted variation, planned experimentation, and play)”. Accordingly, organizations – whether commercial, political, or social – with ambidextrous orientations effectively reconcile trade-offs associated with conflicting

Conclusion, comparison, and consequences

211

demands from “today’s and tomorrow’s” business requirements. Therefore, scholars have strongly emphasized the importance of ambidextrous orientation in a social unit for its overall development. Intellectual capital facilitates both the exploitation and exploration processes of knowledge and other available resources. Whereas exploration involves the pursuit of learning outside of one’s current domains, exploitation involves refining and deepening one’s existing resources to become more effective. Scholars have suggested that while exploration improves an organization’s ability to search for new opportunities and renew its capabilities in changing environments, exploitation helps it to cultivate existing opportunities and capabilities and procure optimum gains. Thus, intellectual capital assists an individual in maintaining an appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation for survival and prosperity of self and others. Among various antecedents, leaders in society, especially those with higher social status, are regarded as critical for driving ambidexterity. Leaders’ preference for exploitation or exploration determines the direction of a society. They explicitly manage the balance of exploration and exploitation by bringing in new competencies to some units while utilizing well-developed competencies in others. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). New York: North-Holland. 12 Sakwa, R. (2005). The rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Routledge.

Index

Acemoglu, R. 207 administration style 198–200 adulation 25, 34–35, 37, 202, 203 Advani, L.K. 81, 118, 119, 125, 133–134 Ambedkar, B.R. 12, 44 ambidexterity 209 anti-defection bill 81 ardent nationalism 124 Aristotle 1 Arora, Gopi 80 Article 74, Indian constitution 13 Article 78, Indian constitution 13 Asom Gana Parishad 91 authoritarianism 2, 8, 14 Autobiography, An 23 Ayodhya: 6 December, 1992 112 Bandung Conference 47 Bangladesh 60, 70, 71 Baru, Sanjay 145, 152 Beatty, A. 7 Beyond the Lines 183 Bhagwati, Jaimini 9, 113, 174 Bhindranwale, Jarnail Singh 72 Bose, Sarat 42 Bose, Subhash Chandra 40, 42 Brecher, Michael 25, 26, 39 bureaucratic compulsive 7 Bush, George W. 5, 15 censorship 59–60, 190, 203, 204 Chakravarty, Nikhil 107 Changing India 147 Children’s Day 22 Chowdhury, Neerja 85 Clinton, Bill 6, 136 coalition politics 14 collective narcissism 8, 124, 163, 164 communalism 30

Congress Syndicate 67–69 Constructive Parliamentarian, A 119 Crocker, Walter 37, 44 cult-of-personality politics 125, 126 dark traits 5–8, 17 decision making 13 Declaration of Emergency in 1975 71 democratic city 1 Desai, Morarji 57, 134, 147, 183, 185, 188, 191, 192, 195, 197; ambition 188–189; governing principles 190–191; handling decision latitude 191; intellectual profile and critical decisions 191–192; media relations 189–190 Devi, Prabhavati 36 Dhar, P.N. 68 Dharia, Mohan 59 Dhawan, R.K. 89 Discovery of India, The 38 Dulat, A.S. 135 Duryodhanization: Are villains born, made or made up? 8 electoral outcomes 15 emotional control 27 expansionist hostile enforcer 7 Feldman, O. 4 five-year plans 46, 47 foreign policy fiascoes 7 Four Decades in Parliament 119 Frank, Katherine 65 freedom of press 203–205 Gandhi, Feroze 55, 63, 65–66, 78 Gandhi, Indira 23, 25, 35, 45, 53–56, 58, 60–63, 67–72, 76, 91, 187, 189, 195; compensatory narcissist 54–55;

Index criticism 58–60; with daughtersin-law 67; and emergency 60–63; with husband 65–66; intellectual profile and critical decisions 69–72; interpersonal relations 63–69; lone ranger 53–74; looks 53–54; psychographic profile 53–63; rebellion Indira 55–58; with sons 66–67; with Syndicate and seniors and colleagues 67–69; use of success 60 Gandhi, Maneka 67 Gandhi, Mohandas K. 24, 144 Gandhi, Rahul 150 Gandhi, Rajiv 9, 75–78, 80–86, 88–93, 107, 108, 199; accomplice 80–81; to critiques 81–82; dispositions 78–79; dubious political debut 75–77; episodic lion 75–94; and family 90–91; generational shift 89; glorifying present with past 82–83; intellectual profile and critical decisions 91–93; interpersonal aspects 86–91; mysterious silence 84–85; political ambition 76; psychographic profile 75–85; and Rao 89–90; the transition 79–80; use of media 83–84; with V.P. Singh 88–89; young coterie 86–88 Gandhi, Sanjay 61, 67, 68, 91 Gandhi, Shanta 66 Gandhi, Sonia 67, 108, 109, 118, 119, 132, 147–150, 198 Gandhi-Irwin pact 40, 41 Garewal, Simi 78 Ghosh, Shankar 22 Giri, V.V. 57 Godbole, Madhav 101 Golden Temple 72 Greenstein, Fred I. 2 Guha, Ramachandra 42, 68, 69, 77, 144, 147 Gujarat 44, 159, 160, 163, 166, 168–170, 173, 191, 192 Gupta, Shekhar 87, 102, 103 Haksar, P.N. 70 Half lion: How P.V. Narasimha Rao Transformed India 97 Hall, I. 170 Hermann, Margaret G. 29–31 high-machs 12 Hind Swaraj 41 Hindu code bills 48

213

Hindu identity 122, 123 historiometric analyses 2–8, 12, 14, 16–17 horror of intimacy 37 Hsu, F. L. 37 Hussein, Saddam 6, 30 image consciousness 194, 201–202, 207 Immelman, A. 7 India-China War of 1962 47 Indian landscape 12–14 Indian Muslims 43, 71 Indian politics 126, 129, 158 India Today 80, 81 Indira Gandhi, the Emergency and Indian Democracy 68 “Indira Gandhi: The Relationship Between Personality Profile and Leadership Style” 54 individuality 183, 184, 196, 197 Indo-Lanka Accord 92 Insider, The 102, 112 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 174 intimacy 36, 37 Iyer, Mani Shankar 77 Jain, Girilal 60 Jan Morcha 87 Jayakar, P. 25, 37, 53, 54, 64–66, 79, 90, 91 Jayal, Niraja Gopal 146 Joshi, Murli Manohar 129 Kafka, Franz 23 Kamaraj plan 55 Karanjia, Russi K. 55 Kesari, Sitaram 86 Khalil, E. L. 208 Khan, Yahya 60, 71 Kronstadt, K. Alan 136 Kulkarni, Sudheendra 129 Langkjaer, M. A. 22 Laxman, R.K. 58, 69, 85 Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World: The Psychology of Political Behavior 41 leadership 11–13, 26, 28, 30, 106, 111, 126, 128, 169, 186, 188 License Raj 47 Life of Truth in Politics, A 186 Los Angeles Times, The 89

214

Index

Machiavelli, Niccolo 11 Machiavellianism 10, 11, 16, 17, 26, 33, 102, 124, 160, 194, 195; in political leaders 12; see also individual entries Mahmud, Syed 36 Mainstream magazine 80 Malhotra, Inder 68 malignant narcissism 6 Manor, James 77 Marino, Andy 166 Masani, Minoo 42 Menon, K. 28, 42 mentor-protege relations 196–197 Michaelis, Arnold 24, 26, 31, 33, 36 Modern Review, The 23, 26 Modi, Narendra Damodardas 127, 158–179, 194; administrative style 170–172; collective narcissism 163–164; duo and distant others 168–169; early life and family 166–167; ethnocentrism and xenophobia 162–163; government 154, 163, 168, 174, 176, 177, 201; intellectual profile and critical decisions 172–173; interpersonal style 167–172; nationalism 163; notable decisions 173–177; psychographic profile 158–167; public outreach 160–161; rhetoric and optics 158–160; and RSS 169–170; with seniors 167–168; as Stanley would see 162; toward criticism 164–165; utilitarian alliances 161–162 Moraes, Frank 25 Mugabe, Robert 7 Mukherjee, Pranab 101 Mukherjee, Shyama Prasad 134 Mukherji, Pranab 26, 68 Mukti Bahini 71 Muslim Women Bill 175 Naidu, Padmaja 36 Naidu, Venkaiah 126, 151 Nanda, B.R. 39 Nanda, Guzarilal 68 Narasimha Rao, P.V. 89–90, 97–106, 108, 109, 112, 153; ambitions 100–101; ardent disciple 97–115; astutely articulate 103–104; covert suspicions 101–102; enhanced self-concept 99; humbly arrogant 98; independent decision making

100; intellectual profile and critical decisions 112–114; interpersonal relations 105; with Manmohan Singh 110; mentee 105–106; psychographic profile 98–105; rationalizing the rationales 104–105; selective dispositions 102–103; with Sonia Gandhi 108–110; symbioticism 110–112; upward submission 106–108 Narayan, Jayaprakash 59, 61, 68, 71 narcissism 5, 6, 10, 16, 17, 23, 26, 33, 40, 56, 84, 100, 102, 124, 146, 164, 194, 195; defined 10, 16; in political leaders 11–12; see also individual entries Narcissism and Politics 56 narcissistic leaders 182, 195 narcissistic tendencies 27, 56, 82, 112, 122, 137, 159, 161, 196, 200 narcissists 8, 11, 79, 80, 186 Narendra Modi: A Political Biography 166 nationalism 30–31, 33, 57, 124, 163, 164, 194, 200, 201, 207 Nayar, K. 183, 189, 190 Nehru, Arun 86–87, 89 Nehru, B.K. 63 Nehru, Jawaharlal 64, 194; and contemporaries 42–45; dynamically evolving public image 21–23; dynamic psychographic and dispositional profile 34; with family 34–37; and Gandhi 38–41; intellectual profile and critical decisions 45–49; international projection 30–32; leadership refined 28–30; mindful headmaster 21–51; and Motilal 37–38; parliamentary Nehru 32–34; personal relations 34–45; psychographic profile 21–34; reaction to public admiration 25–28; vulnerable narcissist 23–25 Nehru, Kamala 36, 54, 65, 69, 70 Nehru, Motilal 21, 37–38 Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate 37 “Nehru: Authority, intimacy and vocation in the life of a revolutionary” 37 nepotism 90 New York Times 82 Nijalingappa 69 NITI Aayog 174 Nixon 9

Index Noorani, A. G. 71 Norman, Dorothy 66 Obama, Barack 6 Oberdorf, Frank 65 One Life is Not Enough 109 opposition leaders 61, 77, 81 Panchsheela Agreement 44 Pandit, Vijayalakshmi 35, 36, 54, 63, 65, 78 Patel, Sardar Vallabhai 43, 46 personality 2, 6, 21, 32, 33, 54, 55, 63, 78, 117, 118, 127, 130, 147, 155, 166, 188, 195; prototype 6; traits 5, 6, 8–10, 12, 15–16, 144, 146, 149, 155, 158 Pillai, Shankar 28, 32, 33 Plato 1 Pokhran-2 nuclear tests 135 political ambition 195–196 political astuteness 205–207 political biography 66, 166 Politics 1 popularity, reaction 202–203 Post, Jerrold M. 6, 41, 56, 64, 78, 120 poverty 56, 71 poverty alleviation programs 70 power indigestion 207–210 Pradhan, R.D. 88 psychographic assessment 16 Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders, The 120 psychopathy 5, 8, 9, 162 Putin, Vladimir 6 racial prejudice 7 Ramesh, Jairam 99, 103 Rao, Narsimha 80 Ray, A.N. 58 Reader’s Digest 26 Reddy, Narsa 101 Reddy, Sanjeeva 57 Robinson, J. 207 RSS 125, 127–131, 134, 135, 162, 166, 167, 169, 170, 196, 197 Rushdie, Salman 85 Schoettli, Jivanta 44 self-astuteness 27 self-righteousness 123 Seshan, N.K. 58 Shah, Amit 168, 169 Shah Commission Report 62

215

Shankar, Kalyani 100 Shastri, Lal Bahadur 45, 56, 182, 187, 188; as administrator 186; ambitions 182–183; conciliatory and independent 183–185; intellectual profile and critical decisions 187–188; interpersonal relations 187; political acumen 185; pride 183; psychographic profile 182–186; towards criticism 185–186 Singh, Arun 80, 86, 89 Singh, Charan 147, 189, 191, 195 Singh, Daman 142 Singh, Manmohan 103, 110, 111, 141–153; intellectual profile and critical decisions 152–155; international focus and internal confrontation 147; and juniors 150; and opposition 151; in parliament 151; personal aspects 151–152; public appearances 144–145; Rahul and 150; Rajiv and 148; Rao and 147–148; reluctant administrator 141–155; reluctant politician and dissonant leader 145; self-deprecating humor, speeches 142; Sonia and 148–149; submission to seniority 147–150; submissive temperament 143; tokenism 146–147 Singh, Natwar 108–109, 111 Singh, Rajnath 168, 171 Singh, Sardar Swaran 68 Singh, V.P. 81, 82, 88–89 Sitapati, Vinay 89, 97, 106, 110, 111, 146 Smith, Adam 208 social media 13, 145, 159–162, 164, 165, 175, 203 social psychology 2 spiritual loneliness 24 Srivastava, C.P. 186 Stancati, Margherita 22 Stanley, Jason 1 Steinberg, Blema 54 Tagore, Rabindranath 69 Thapar, Romesh 57 theoretical apparatus 8–11 Tirtha, Ramanand 105 ‘Triple talaaq’ bill 175 Trump, Donald 5, 6, 9 Tully, Mark 141 Two Crucial Years: India under Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Stewardship 99, 103

216

Index

Ullekh, N.P. 125 ultra-nationalism 200–201 Untold Vajpayee, The 125, 132 Vaghela, Shankersingh 159 Vajpayee, Atal Bihari: administration and management 127–129; with Advani 133–134; intellectual profile and critical decisions 135–137; interpersonal relationships 130–131; with juniors 133; with mentors 134; with opposition 131–133; poetic creations, characteristic signs 120–124; popularity 126–127; power for self and self-promotion 124–126; psychographic profile

117; reaction to criticism 117–120; RSS role, formation years 129–130; silent assertive 117–138; sources of followership 120 Valenty, L. O. 4 Verma, A.N. 111 Wall Street Journal 22 Winter, D. G. 4 Wolfstein 38 Wood, Glynn L. 37, 38 work culture 171, 172 xenophobia 7 zamindari system, abolition 48