Few would quibble with the title of Mani Shankar Aiyar?s new book ?A Time of Transition: Rajiv Gandhi to the 21st Century?, for India and the world have undergone profound changes in the years between Rajiv Gandhi?s untimely demise in 1991 and the beginning of a new century. Still, many may find plenty to quibble about in Aiyar?s analysis of the transition, particularly his defence of socialism and stringent criticism of economic reform.
The book is largely a collection of columns that Aiyar wrote for The Indian Express between 1996 and 2004 and is divided into four grand themes: democracy, secularism, socialism and non-alignment: themes which Aiyar believes form the core of the transition between the world Rajiv Gandhi knew and the world as it is today.
Take democracy first. And this is an area where Mani Shankar Aiyar has played an important personal role in deepening the democratic structures of the country, through his passionate advocacy of panchayati raj, initially as joint secretary in Rajiv Gandhi?s PMO and now as union minister for Panchayati raj. Aiyar notes that Rajiv Gandhi always believed that India was the world?s largest but least representative democracy. But through Gandhi and Aiyar?s tireless advocacy of Panchayati raj institutions, the ground reality of a more representative India was changed for the better when the 73rd amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1993.
On secularism, Aiyar is a self-confessed fundamentalist and has absolutely no tolerance for the rise of religious fundamentalism particularly the rise of the BJP, which began in earnest in the years after Rajiv Gandhi?s assassination. His writings on the subject are, of course, full of passion and occasional vitriol, but he falls short by not analysing the role of the Congress in enabling the rise of the BJP and Hindu nationalism. While he does criticise those on his side of the fence who peddle soft-Hindutva, he avoids a deeper analysis of how the mainstream of the Congress, including Rajiv Gandhi, pandered to religious sentiments.
The book treads into more controversial, against-the-mainstream turf in the sections on socialism and nonalignment. Aiyar clearly believes that economic reforms have led to lopsided development outcomes ? 836 million Indians haven?t felt the benefits. By itself, the argument is powerful ? there are still an extraordinary number of poor people in India despite two decades of high growth and reform. Yet, it isn?t clear that a more socialist economy would have done any better ? it didn?t in the four decades up to 1991. Instead, some combination of Aiyar?s beloved Panchayati raj, and a concomitant devolution of public service delivery may be better at helping the poor escape their poverty. Aiyar perhaps misses a trick by harping on socialism, rather than introducing newer ideas to fill in the missing blanks of economic reform. Like socialism, nonalignment isn?t a fashionable idea anymore. But Aiyar puts up a strong defence of independent foreign policy in a world where countries do not seek to dominate others. It is an idea Gandhi believed in but he lived in a world before the collapse of the USSR. Even if one disagrees with Aiyar, he does make some important points about how superpowers tend to their own interests and why India should not rely on them to achieve its own foreign policy aims.
The book, on the whole, is a delightful read, written with passion, wit, intelligent argument and plenty of irreverence. Whether you find yourself agreeing with the author or disagreeing with the author, you will certainly find yourself completely immersed, involved and thinking.
