Remembering Rao

October 24, 2016 12:22 am | Updated December 02, 2016 11:11 am IST

It is a pity that the article, “Questions about Narasimha Rao” (Oct.22), was totally biased, with the writer targeting “PV” for the 1984 and 1992 incidents while robbing him of credit for ushering in economic reforms. I was in New Delhi on October 31, 1984, to attend a police officers’ conference. Just before the Lt. Governor of Delhi was to inaugurate the meet, a DIG by my side told me that there had been an an attempt on the Prime Minister’s life and that the conference was being cancelled. Delhi was in a state of chaos. The next day I had to travel back to Calcutta and asked my driver to be in uniform in order to pass though areas under curfew on the way to the station. Later, while passing through Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal, I noticed that there was no change in the situation despite the deployment of forces. Short of shooting at civilians, the security forces did everything in their power to bring the situation under control. Did the writer want there to be shooting of civilians? In 1992, U.P. was under BJP rule. Last minute Central intervention would have resulted in great bloodshed.

Y.V. Subba Rao,Hyderabad

As far as 1984 is concerned, the writer has chosen to blame Rao, while ignoring the role of Rajiv Gandhi who openly suggested that “when a big tree falls, earth shakes”. He again blames Rao for 1992 while exonerating the then Home Minister S.B. Chavan. There should be some rationale in the arguments. The writer’s views appear to be more like the official views of the Congress party, where the first family should not be blamed for any negatives but credited with all the positives instead.

Duggaraju Srinivasa Rao,Vijayawada

The article was totally biased. The writer fixes responsibility on Narasimha Rao for the events of 1984 and 1992 but refuses to give him due credit as a leader for reforms. He then waits for “scholarly work” to defame him even further, years after his exit from this world. This is simply unacceptable.

S. Venkataraman,Chennai

Some of the arguments weren’t convincing. To suggest that Rao being Prime Minister was incidental when the liberalisation process got under way is like discounting the role of Mahatma Gandhi in getting us independence by arguing that India would have won Independence anyway since World War II had severely crippled Britain, making it difficult for it to maintain a colony of India’s size. P.V. Narasimha Rao was not on a politically strong wicket when he permitted his Finance Minister to script the change from licence raj and usher in reforms. It is difficult to believe that most politicians would have attempted such daring while on a sticky wicket. Rao’s political sins, as discussed in the article, may not be off the mark but in the economic realm at least he proved to be a realist.

P. Prasand Thampy,Thiruvalla, Kerala

Narasimha Rao’s inaction during 1984 is nothing but the worst kind of passive compliance in the history of India. His “responsibility” for introducing economic reforms is not such a great thing to be celebrated. One needs to read Arundhati Roy’s Broken Republic to understand this. Today the poor, the Adivasis and the environment are suffering its worst consequences.

Sukumaran C.V.,Palakkad

History is always about processes and less about personalities. But still, one cannot ignore the decisions taken and choices made by people who define the path of history. As mentioned by Gurcharan Das in his book India Unbound , the crisis of 1991 would have been solved with the usual steps, but as a visionary, Narasimha Rao chose a long-term solution over short-term political mileage. It is a pity that he was unable to handle 1984 and 1992.

Gampa Saidatta,Mumbai

I would like to cite the concluding sentence of the Editorial, “Unlikely helmsman” (Dec.25, 2004), in this daily which came after his passing on December 23: “However, for all his flaws, history will judge him as one of India’s most accomplished and important Prime Ministers”. This is one of the finest descriptions of the leader who was ignored by even the “tall leaders” in his own Congress party.

S. Nallasivan,Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.