I had the privilege of serving as Principal Secretary to Chandra Shekhar during his all-too-brief tenure as Prime Minister. It was the beginning of a remarkable experience with a remarkable man.
I soon found that Chandra Shekhar was not only a man with whom it was a pleasure to work, but one who could teach even a seasoned bureaucrat much about the art of governance. He had a tremendous grasp of issues, and the ability and the confidence to find a pragmatic solution to even the most complex problems.
We have perhaps forgotten the tenuous situation at the moment Chandra Shekhar assumed office. The situation in the Punjab was grave, and the problems resulting from Mandalization were spinning out of control. The new Prime Minister not only succeeded in dousing the flames and defusing the tensions, but soon began to demonstrate a deft hand in foreign affairs as well. In both foreign and domestic affairs, he consulted his professional advisors at great length, but took major decisions – and the responsibility for them – himself.
He once told me that if he were to go by either what the media was writing or what the MEA was thinking, no solution to the problems with Pakistan would ever be possible. His own approach combined a willingness to listen to all points of view, a pragmatism that was independent of ideology, maturity, and a basic sense of decency.
Except when it came to his total commitment to secularism, Chandra Shekhar kept an open mind on all issues. On the problems in Punjab, for instance, he felt that as Prime Minister it was his duty to try to understand all points of view. In fact, at one point he offered safe transit from Pakistan to several Sikh militant leaders, and held discussions in Delhi with them.
True to his word, these leaders, who had been actively working against India, were allowed to go back to Pakistan.
His ability to negotiate solutions was to a large extent, I think, based on his talent for developing personal relationships. He had an excellent equation with Nawaz Sharif, for instance, and they were constantly in touch during tense moments.
The rapport can perhaps be gauged from just one incident to which I was a witness. After some Swedish engineers had been kidnapped by militants in Kashmir, the Swedish Ambassador came to see Chandra Shekhar, requesting his help in the matter, but was told that, regretfully, there was very little that could be done from this side. After the Ambassador left, however, the Prime Minister remarked that it was unfortunate that innocent people should suffer.
On the spur of the moment, he decided to call Nawaz Sharif on the hotline. The conversation was in Urdu, but this is what transpired. Chandra Shekhar began by asking “Bhaijan, what mischief are you up to over there?” Nawaz Sharif, taken aback, asked what wrong he had done. Chandra Shekhar said that the kidnapping of Swedish engineers was just not right, and Nawaz Sharif protested that the Pakistan government was not involved. Chandra Shekhar retorted that both of them were well aware of the ground realities. He added that it was not his intention to go to the press, but that on humanitarian grounds, the engineers should be released. For good measure, and still in good humour, he said he was not going to take no for an answer.
The engineers were, in fact, released the next day, and not a word came out in the press. I happened to mention this to the Swedish Ambassador several years later, and he asked whether he had my permission to report it to his government. I told him to do so by all means, as I felt that in some quarter at least, credit should go where it was due.
It is more unfortunate that he was not allowed to fulfill his potential. If he has been permitted a longer term, he might very well have been able to avoid many of the problems that have since arisen. I am quite sure that he would have averted the Babri Masjid situation, and I suspect that he would have successfully initiated a peace dialogue with Pakistan, and been able to carry it forward to a great degree.
During Chandra Shekhar’s last days in office, increasing pressure was put on him, and unfair and inaccurate charges flung about. Warned that this would lead to his resignation, a senior Congress leader scoffed that no one would give up the Prime Ministership. The remark indicated a singular lack of knowledge of this man’s essential character. His dignified and moving resignation, which was a surprise even to those of us who had been with him just a few moments earlier, was surely one of the finest moments witnessed by our Parliament. Those of us who were fortunate to have worked with him will remember him with respect, gratitude and personal affection.
