H. D. Deve Gowda’s biographer rates his “deep political engagement” as his greatest legacy and believes India was far more democratically engaged when Gowda was the prime minister.
Sugata Srinivasaraju, the author of Furrows in a Field: The Unexplored Life of H.D. Deve Gowda, says it might have been a noisy coalition with Gowda at the helm but it still had a grand inclusive plan, and unlike him, Manmohan Singh, who Congress thought was their master stroke, was a technocratic PM running the country like a CEO and did not politically engage but outsourced it to Sonia Gandhi, which diminished the highest chair.
As to why the Young Gen should read Gowda’s biography, Srinivasaraju says it would help them understand contemporary history. Also, Gowda’s triumph, he stresses, was the triumph of Indian democracy, “something we forgot to celebrate”.
When Gowda was the prime minister, the term “secularism” was not the anathema it became later, Srinivasaraju, a former colleague of this writer, reveals there is a deep lament in the former PM about what is happening now and he constantly thinks of a political solution.
Gowda’s biographer also blames “a prejudiced and ignorant media” for projecting him as some newbie that he wasn’t. The media, he says, saw him as an outsider and blindly pursued an agenda to discredit him. “Nobody ever said that he was India’s first engineer prime minister. By the time he became prime minister he was already acknowledged as one of the finest river basin planners. None of this got highlighted”.
When asked to comment on the current debate on Hindi as the National Language, Srinivasaraju, who has editorially led some of the leading print, television and digital news brands over the last decade, says someone like Gowda, being a federal champion, would obviously not subscribe to the Hindi idea and his party has already taken a firm stand on this.
Excerpts of a wide-ranging interview with the author of Furrows in a Field:
MEHRE ALAM: From the era when H. D. Deve Gowda was the prime minister of India to the current times, has our body politic become far more demanding and unforgiving? After all, the political landscape has metamorphosed so drastically from the time Deve Gowda managed to get at the helm of affairs?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: Times have certainly changed, politics and society has changed too in the last 25 years. It is quite a natural process. As they say, change is the only constant. But qualitatively speaking, I feel we were far more democratically engaged when Gowda was prime minister. Our leadership represented diversity of thought and identity. It was a noisy coalition but nevertheless had a grand inclusive plan. However, slowly, we allowed a homogenous technocratic imagination to take control of our society. The process started with [Atal Behari] Vajpayee but we saw it take full control under Manmohan Singh. There was also some kind of elite recapture of government. The result of this was the emergence of a strongman like Narendra Modi. Congress thought Manmohan Singh was their master stroke but he was a technocratic prime minister. He was an expert running the country like a CEO. He did not politically engage but outsourced it to Sonia Gandhi. That diminished the prime minister’s chair. People did not seem to like that. Gowda was not perfect but his political engagement was tremendous and deep. That came from his grassroots experience of four decades. The Delhi elite may not have tolerated him but people in different corners of India celebrated him, be it Kashmir, North East, Gujarat or Punjab. If he had continued in power longer and led his ruling coalition to a general election, I have reason to believe that the tally of the Janata Dal and the United Front government would have improved. Let us not forget that besides being politically engaged, he was a thorough and gifted administrator.
MEHRE ALAM: How would you define the principal legacies of Deve Gowda the politician?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: As a grassroots politician and chief minister, there are many. But his legacy as prime minister among other things would be: Restarting the democratic process in Kashmir where he went four times in 11 months. No PM had been there for nearly a decade. His North East package, which he announced after being the first PM to visit the region for six days, is what contributed to the eventual mainstreaming of the region. He was the first PM to monitor the region from the PMO. Also the Naga ceasefire agreement and of course the India-Bangladesh water treaty, popularly known as the Farakka Treaty. The budgets of 1996 and 1997 were remarkable for how it kept the balance between welfare and liberalisation. Delhi Metro too is Gowda legacy. He fought his cabinet colleagues to give it a financial closure. Above all this, I would rate his deep political engagement as his greatest legacy. As a PM he held Janata Darshan. Isn’t that incredible? He was always happy to be in the midst of people. After him PMs became somewhat distant figures, until Modi emerged. But Modi’s proximity to the people is of a different nature and for different reasons.
MEHRE ALAM: How do you view the native intelligence of Deve Gowda and how much of it came in handy when dealing with the big, sophisticated, national-level politicians, bureaucrats, intelligentsia and media?
Sugata Srinivasaraju: Gowda had enormous native intelligence and common sense. He was in the political system for many decades and was more experienced than many in the national space. We should not forget he was chief minister of a big and progressive state. He had been opposition leader to the mighty Devaraj Urs for nearly a decade. He had handled the cunning of a Ramakrishna Hegde. Not to forget, as a senior Janata Party leader he had wide national contact. In fact, he was mentored by Morarji Desai and Chandrashekar. But sadly, it was projected by a prejudiced, ignorant media that he was some newbie. He wasn’t. The media dominated by the upper castes, a section of the upper castes themselves, and the anglophone elite as well as the Hindi elite saw him as an outsider and blindly pursued an agenda to discredit him. He was India’s first Shudra prime minister and that did not go down well with entrenched interests, especially in Delhi. Nobody ever said that he was India’s first engineer prime minister. By the time he became prime minister he was already acknowledged as one of the finest river basin planners. None of this got highlighted.
As regards bureaucrats and technocrats, he had some of the finest and most credible officers like Satish Chandran, TSR Subramaniam, BN Yugandhar (Microsoft’s Satya Nadella’s father) SS Meenakshisundaram and APJ Abdul Kalam (the future President of India) among others working closely with him. He had a marvellous and a very diverse PMO.
MEHRE ALAM: Could Gowda have lasted longer if, say, he had been a bit more tactful? In other words, how do you view the political sagacity and acumen of Deve Gowda as a political realist?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: It was not about tact. There was more than enough tact. It was about the Congress and the conflicts and contradictions inside the party. If PV Narasimha Rao had continued as party president, Gowda would have lasted longer. Kesri’s collaborators like Pranab Mukherjee and some powerful people in the media and Kesri’s detractors like Rajesh Pilot and Sharad Pawar created an environment where things went bad. On the happenings in the Congress, Gowda had little control. But Gowda’s appointment of Joginder Singh as CBI chief was wrong. He went rogue. What happened inside the Congress in 1998-99 proved that instability was brewing in the party. Gowda was a victim of this instability. That was one big factor.
MEHRE ALAM: Is Gowda still relevant as a politician in India? Why should today’s generation read a book about him?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: Gowda has remained in active politics 25 years after he stepped down as PM. He lost the 2019 LS polls. He is an active Rajya Sabha member. His party, the Janata Dal Secular, has commanded 20 percent vote share consistently in Karnataka and has led coalition governments.
The younger generation has to read the book to understand contemporary history. It also has to read the book to understand the triumph and tribulations of an ordinary man with extraordinary perseverance and dedication like Gowda. Gowda’s triumph was also the triumph of Indian democracy. It is just that we forgot to celebrate.
MEHRE ALAM: How do you see the accession of a common “poor farmer”, as Gowda used to describe himself, to highest office of the country? Was it able to unleash dreams and aspirations of other “common” political leaders in the country?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: It was one of the finest moments of our democracy. They saw him as their own — a man without pelf, patronage or pedigree. He did not have social and cultural capital like other PMs before him. Manmohan Singh and [Narendra] Modi too came from very humble beginnings but they were backed by either a big party or an ideological apparatus. Gowda was self-made. Singh never won a popular election in his life and Modi never contested an election until he was made chief minister of Gujarat. Gowda has been contesting polls since the 1950s. He came from the co-operative and taluk-level and faced challenges at every bend before he rose to be a prominent politician.
MEHRE ALAM: When Gowda was the PM, the term “secularism” was still not anathema to the political discourse in the country. As you probed him deep in the course of writing your book, did you trace any sign/s of lament coming from him that “secularism” is indeed seen so abhorrent today by a section of people and politicians?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: Gowda is an organic secularist not the theoretical or activist or Twitter variety. He is religious and ritualistic. There is a deep lament in him about what is happening now and he constantly thinks of a political solution. His method is not making speeches but quietly constructing politics to a desired end.
MEHRE ALAM: Deve Gowda’s last speech in Parliament as prime minister, before he went on to tender his resignation, surprised many for its impact and for its forcefulness and is still seen by many as – arguably – his best oratory ever. Other than that famous speech, he’s generally been seen as a reticent speaker. Your comments:
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: Not really. He was a fiery speaker till the early-1980s. He could not sustain that style after he developed a major problem with his vocal chords. In fact, Morarji had constantly warned him about his speaking-style. He was operated then by Dr. LH Hiranandani in Bombay. Later, the same Dr. Hiranandani became his back channel to Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s prime minister.
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: My view is they deliberately bring up the Hindi issue from time to time. They know how different parts of India feels about it. Yet they do it because that is one way of keeping their ideological issues afloat. They try to dominate the public channels of communication with Hindutva ideas so that others do not present anything fresh but only react to the agenda they set. They have made liberals only react to the fears, anxieties and hate they generate periodically. So the language issue will be where it is but they keep using it to trigger new anxieties. Gowda being a federal champion would obviously not subscribe to the Hindi idea. His party has taken a firm stand on this. In fact, no leader in the South or East or West of India or the North East of India will subscribe to the idea. If all these parts are taken out of India, what is left of the Akhand Bharat idea? But the paradox is that Akhand Bharat needs the dominance of one language and one religion to move forward. So they know the paradox and they also know what is pragmatic.
MEHRE ALAM: Where do you see politics in Karnataka headed towards in course of the next decade or so?
SUGATA SRINIVASARAJU: Difficult to say. It will change for sure with all major political players of today in Karnataka having left the stage.
In North Karnataka like Bombay province ( Bombay Karnataka) & Hyderabad Karnataka party need to do lot of ground level work like other states the regional parties doing here it’s not seen measurely it should focus on North Karnataka more ,they are 13 dists 92 MLA’s come from north karnataka