Pranab Mukherjee may have fallen out with Rajiv Gandhi and gone his own way in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984, but he enjoyed cordial relations with Sonia Gandhi after his return to the Congress. However, their relationship is also known to have been guarded and sometimes interrupted by mutual suspicion.
In his latest book ‘The Coalition Years (1996 – 2012)’ — published by Rupa Publications and released on 13 October, Mukherjee recalls his interactions with Sonia fondly and says her contribution to strengthening the Congress party has not received the attention it deserves.
Edited Excerpts:
After assuming office as Congress president, Sonia decided to hold a brainstorming session of senior Congressmen on 4–6 September 1998. Around 300 delegates—members of the Working Committee, invitees, AICC office bearers, PCC presidents, CLP leaders, prominent members of Parliament and other senior state Congress and national leaders—participated.
With the assistance of Mani Shankar Aiyar and a couple of others, I compiled the conclusions into a Declaration for the approval of the general session on the concluding day. On that day, I was not only asked to explain the salient features of the Declaration to the delegates but also to interact with the media on the subject.
This conclave was significant for the political stand it took. In her concluding remarks, Sonia Gandhi said:
“The fact that we are going through a coalitional phase at national politics reflects in many ways the decline of the Congress. This is a passing phase and we will come back again with full force and on our own steam. But in the interim, coalitions may well be needed.”
Thus, she asserted that in the long run, the Congress would be able to govern on its own, but at the same time anticipated what was to happen in 2004.
Our relationship transformed from detachment to warmth, mutual respect
Following my active participation in the conclave, Sonia Gandhi started consulting me more frequently. A certain detachment which had earlier existed in our relationship gradually transformed into warmth and mutual respect.
I believe that this detachment and her decision of not being aligned with anybody in particular is her greatest strength. It reflects another important dimension in India’s political history. Like other illustrious members of her family, Sonia has adopted a truly pan-India approach. Her ability to reach out to the masses and their acceptance of her as their leader was the single most important qualifying factor for her to become India’s prime minister. She could have acquired other essential qualities for this office after assuming power.
Sonia’s positive contribution to strengthen Congress hasn’t got due attention
Looking back, I can say that as the longest serving Congress president, Sonia’s positive contribution to strengthen the Congress party has not received due attention in the analysis of contemporary political observers. The mere fact that the Congress party led the coalition of UPA-I and II from 2004–14, despite the lack of adequate numbers, speaks of her ability to forge an alliance with various parties including smaller entities like the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), apart from the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), DMK and CPI (M). As an astute and pragmatic political leader, she realized that ruling with an absolute majority in the Parliament may be a distant goal, but not an immediately achievable one.
Sonia firmly told us she would resign
It was during this time that a controversy erupted around Sonia Gandhi’s Italian origin. Three members of the CWC—Sharad Pawar, P.A. Sangma (nominated as a CWC member by Sonia Gandhi) and Tariq Anwar—made a statement that no person of foreign origin should be chosen as the president, the vice president or the prime minister of India. Ahead of the 1999 elections, there seemed to be an all-out rebellion against the possibility that Sonia Gandhi might be the Congres’s prime ministerial candidate.
Rasheed Kidwai, in his book on Sonia Gandhi, relates this controversy:
As recounted by those present at the meeting, Sangma slowly built a case for how the BJP campaign against Sonia’s foreign origins was seeping deep down to even remote villages. Then came the unkindest cut. ‘We know very little about you, about your parents,’ Sangma told her. Those present claim that Sonia was shocked by Sangma’s bluntness who was drafted into the CWC as her nominee. The third signatory, Sitaram Kesri’s protégé Tariq Anwar, too, had survived in the CWC even after his mentor’s departure, courtesy of Sonia.
Then the man she had made leader of the Opposition (until Sonia herself became a Lok Sabha member in September 1999) picked up from where Sangma left off. With opening remarks as deceptive as the smile signal, Pawar said Sonia Gandhi had done a great job as the party chief.
‘You brought unity in the party and revamped the organisation. However, the Congress has not succeeded in answering the BJP’s campaign about your foreign origins. Let us take a serious note of it.’
In my opinion, Sharad Pawar, as the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, expected the party to request him, instead of Sonia Gandhi, to stake claim to form the government. After Sonia’s elevation as the Congress president, she consulted P. Shiv Shankar on all important issues rather than Sharad Pawar. This sense of alienation and disenchantment may have been responsible for his statements on Sonia’s foreign origin, and his subsequent exit from the party in 1999.
Naturally, this statement by three senior leaders created a furore as it was a direct attack on Sonia Gandhi. She called some of us and told us firmly that she was going to resign.
At the CWC meeting on 17 May, Sonia Gandhi said:
“You are all well aware of the background of this meeting. I also received the same letter. The letter deals with matters directly concerning myself. I feel I should recuse myself and perhaps Pranabji could conduct the meeting… I have penned down a statement. I am also leaving a copy of the statement with Pranabji.”
She then left the meeting.
In her statement, Sonia Gandhi expressed her anguish that her sense of duty and loyalty to the party and nation, and indeed, the people of India, was being questioned. She maintained that India is her motherland and that is where her loyalties lie. With that, she tendered her resignation.
The CWC unanimously rejected her resignation, and a few of us rushed to her residence to get her to see reason. The crisis was averted when she withdrew her resignation a few days later.
I didn’t agree with Sonia on going back on Pachmarhi resolution to shun coalitions
(Shimla Conclave 7-9 July, 2003)
The issue of being open to forming a coalition was definitely a change of tack from the Pachmarhi Conclave where we had agreed that ‘Coalitions will be considered where absolutely necessary.’ At Shimla, inputs of all delegates were sought and heard. Most of them, including Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, seemed convinced that the Pachmarhi strategy had to change. I was the lone voice stating a contrarian view as I believed that sharing a platform and/or power with other parties would undermine our identity. I maintained that the party should not forsake that identity for the sake of forming a government; there was no harm in sitting in the opposition, should that happen. I remain consistent with that view even today.
It was expected I would be choice for PM after Sonia declined
I heard of this announcement (Sonia Gandhi declining prime ministership) from Ahmed Patel, following which I rushed to 10 Janpath along with Manmohan Singh and Ghulam Nabi Azad. We met Sonia Gandhi and insisted that she was the electorate’s choice for the post of prime minister. It was a responsibility that she could not shun. We impressed upon her the need to reconsider her decision and accept this responsibility. She told me that she did not want to be the reason for sharp divisions in society because of her elevation to the position of prime minister.
The prevalent expectation was that I would be the next choice for prime minister after Sonia Gandhi declined. This expectation was possibly based on the fact that I had extensive experience in government, while Singh’s vast experience was as a civil servant with five years as a reformist finance minister.
Sonia insisted I join UPA govt as I would be vital to running it
The media speculation and frenzy began. Some media commentators reported that I would not join the government because I could not work under Manmohan Singh, who had been my junior when I was the finance minister. The fact was that I was reluctant to join the government, and informed Sonia Gandhi accordingly. She, however, insisted that I should join the government since I would be vital to its functioning, and also be of support to Dr. Singh. As it turned out, Dr Singh would talk to me on all important issues and seemed to depend on me. We shared out a good working relationship.
Sonia suggested I take over as Home Minister after Shivraj Patil
I got a call from Dr Singh on the morning of 1 December and he suggested that I meet him as soon as possible. I left for Race Course Road immediately. As I was driving in, I noticed that Shivraj Patil was driving out, but at that time I had no inkling of what was to happen. As soon as I was ushered into Dr Singh’s office, he told me that Shivraj Patil had resigned, and that Sonia Gandhi had suggested that I take over as Home Minister. He went on to say that he advised Ms Gandhi against this as I was handling a war-like situation as the External Affairs Minister and that the ministry could not afford the change at this time. Hence, it was decided that P. Chidambaram would replace Shivraj Patil. It was at about this time that Chidambaram too joined the meeting, and we discussed the transition.
I told her I’d be happy with any portfolio but finance
When the UPA-I government was being formed I was absolutely clear that I did not want the finance portfolio since Manmohan Singh and I held differing views on economic issues. When Sonia Gandhi asked me my preference, all I said was that I would be happy with any portfolio other than finance. She agreed, and I was given the responsibility of defence, after which I shifted to external affairs.
Idea of NREGA was first proposed by Sonia
The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) of 2005 was hailed as a landmark legislation that created the largest social security net in the world, making all sections of the society equal partners in India’s growth story. Putting our experience in UPA-I together with the recommendations of the National Advisory Council (NAC), we developed it as a major social development and anti-poverty programme.
The idea of such a policy was first proposed by Sonia Gandhi. However, Manmohan Singh was not very enthused. Being true monetary economist he did not support what he believed were non-productive benevolent activities.
*****
(In May 2007, when decision about UPA presidential candidate was to be taken) Sonia Gandhi called me and said, ‘Your name is being suggested by some political parties as the presidential candidate, but it would be difficult for us to spare you as you are a strong pillar of the party in the government and in the Parliament.’ I told her that the decision was for her to take, and I would abide by it.
Sonia, Ahmed Patel were upset I met Bal Thackeray
I returned to Delhi, and the following morning Girija Vyas called on me. She informed me that Sonia Gandhi and Ahmed Patel were upset about my meeting with Thackeray. I understood the cause of their unhappiness but, as I have explained, I did what I believed was right. I had to keep in mind the sensitivity of the advice of Sharad Pawar—an important ally of UPA-II.
Pranabji, I’ll miss you, she said in a choked voice
I met Sonia Gandhi on the evening of 16 July to update her on my travels. It was a cordial but emotional meeting that lasted for an hour. I assured her that as per my assessment, of the total voting share of the presidential electoral college, I would receive about 70 per cent. At the end of the meeting, I told her, ‘Madam, this would perhaps be my last meeting with you at your residence, since after 25 July, it would not be possible for me to come and meet you. I have visited your residence since Rajiv shifted to this house in 1990. In the last two decades, we have met countless times, shared views and argued on numerous occasions.’
She was also visibly moved and told me almost in a choked voice, ‘Pranabji, I will miss you.’
‘This will remain a cherished memory for me.’ I said. Thereafter, I left.