ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Interview/ Praful Patel

'Sharad Pawar is not the party. He does not even represent its sentiments nation-wide'

The grapevine is abuzz with rumours that Praful Patel, the biggest loyalist in Sharad Pawar's camp, is all set to fly the coop. The show cause notice served on him by the Congress president in the wake of the recent Rajya Sabha debacle in Maharashtra, where the official Congress candidate was defeated, sent shock waves through the party. For it was seen as open war against Pawar by Sonia's loyalists. In this frank interview to Pritish Nandy, Patel explains exactly where he stands.

The impression is gaining ground that you have jumped off the Pawar bandwagon and joined the Sonia loyalists. Is there a reason for this?

We, in the Congress, must now redefine our role. For far too long we have been working at cross purposes and the impression has gained ground that Sharad is always working against the ruling hierarchy, whoever it may be. Rajiv Gandhi or Narasimha Rao or Sitaram Kesri. Or, now, Sonia Gandhi.

Is this impression correct or is it an attempt to politically isolate him?

I have known Sharad for years. Personally. But I was never part of his Congress-S. I am a Congressman. I have always been part of the mainstream Congress. When he came back to the Congress, and for a few years preceding that, when Rajiv was in power, I would often ask him what he saw his role as. Was he anti-Congress? Was he against the party's leadership? What were his political objectives? How did he intend to fulfill them? These were the questions we discussed together. And he would say: Look, Praful, I am always a Congressman. We may have had our differences and I may have left the party but, wherever I was, I always kept alive its ideology.

Do you think he was speaking the truth?

Everyone kept saying: He is too ambitious, he is trying to break the party; he wants to have his own way and sideline everyone else. But, if you ask me, I have never seen Sharad take anyone on. He did not take Rajiv head on. He did not even take Kesri head on...

But he did take on Narasimha Rao, for the prime minister's job? He pitched in his claim knowing fully well that Narasimha Rao had the fullest backing of the party.

You are right, he did. But in what way? Rajiv had died. There was a power vacuum. Chief ministers of the three or four states where the Congress was in power egged him on, saying India needed a younger leader, a more capable leader and he should step in and stake his claim. I differed openly on that issue. In fact, I cautioned Sharad before he made the bid. I said: Look, I don't think the time is right for you. You have been a regional player for far too long. You have no feel for Delhi. Go there first. Understand the complexity of national politics, learn the ropes, and then make a bid for power. This is far too premature.

Unfortunately, he did not listen to me.

Do you think he has, since, learnt the ropes?

Frankly, that is difficult for me to answer. I feel he should concentrate more on getting a grip on Delhi politics. After that, he should go around the country and try to understand the needs of the states. Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Mizoram. You cannot make a bid for power unless you know first hand what the nation feels. That is why he is unsure of himself.

His politics, people say, is like a monkey on a greasepole. Three steps up and two steps down and, sometimes, two steps up and three steps down. Why does he back off after every step?

You are right. That is the exact perception. However, let me tell you one thing, Pritish. As far as Sharad goes, he believes that there is no other party that can stand centrestage in Indian politics. The Congress alone can deliver. Whatever we lost during Narasimha Rao's time or Kesri's can be easily regained if we once again focus on the poor of the country. That is what Indira Gandhi did. That is what Rajiv did. That is why the Gandhis had such a powerful appeal to the poor of India. Sonia Gandhi's ascendancy has once again brought them back to the Congress.

In that case, why is Pawar so hostile to her? Why is he seen in direct confrontation with Sonia?

Yes, that is the unfortunate impression gaining ground. Everyone is talking about it.

It was the same during Narasimha Rao's time. There were always rumours that he would break away with his own Congressmen. During Deve Gowda's time, people speculated that he would break Kesri's flock and join Deve Gowda. Now there are rumours that he will break away and join the BJP. Why is he seen as always in a hurry to break the Congress -- for an alternative option where he gets into power?

Let me answer the first, Pritish. I do not think Sharad has any alternative option. If he wanted to pursue a political career outside the Congress, he would not have rejoined the party in 1987. There was no real compulsion for him to do so. I think he wanted to be in the Congress. He feels comfortable only here. It is his natural habitat.

But the problem is that within the Congress there are many people who want to keep him under constant pressure. That is why these rumours start. It is their way of isolating him. And Sharad too keeps making mistakes. He never really dispels these rumours. That is the problem.

May be that is a political tactic. To keep the leadership under pressure.

If so, that is a bad tactic. It hurts him more than it hurts anyone else. It even hurts me because everyone knows I am very close to him.

Have you replied to the show cause notice served on you? Have you explained why you guys got an independent candidate elected to the Rajya Sabha at the cost of the official Congress nominee?

That was a genuine mistake and, yes, I met my party president and told her exactly what happened. I do not think it was a deliberate strategy. It was a goof up, an error of judgement. Nothing more should be read into it.

Why does Pawar say that the leadership issue is still wide open when most Congressmen are saying that Sonia Gandhi is your leader? Is he against her?

He has clarified that he was misreported. I have seen the interview and nowhere does he actually say this. In fact, he says that the initiative for forming a Congress government must come from the Congress president. So I don't think there is any ambiguity over this.

The problem with Sharad is that he speaks in a peculiar way. Anybody else would have said: Everything is left to Sonia Gandhi. She is our natural choice for the prime minister's job. But he does not speak like that. Giving others the opportunity to misinterpret him.

Do you think it makes sense for Pawar to subjugate his personal ambitions to the needs of a party that does not want him as its supreme leader?

Sharad Pawar is not the party. He does not even represent its sentiments nation-wide. Like all of us, he too has to go by what everyone wants. And, as far as I know, Sonia Gandhi is what everyone wants. She is the one factor that holds together the Congress today.

So you are not under pressure to choose between the two -- Sonia Gandhi and Sharad Pawar?

Soniaji is my leader. Sharad is my friend. There's no doubt in my mind as to who has my support.

The Rediff Interviews