Column

One of the big developments of 2008-09 is the rise and rise of brand Manmohan. The brand is probably as big as brand Vajpayee was in 1999 after the Kargil war and rivals that of brand Sonia — at least in urban India. In fact, we have seen two things happen simultaneously: the old brand Manmohan, reformer of the 1990s, has been quietly demarketed, and a new brand, a touchy-feely-honest-to-god Manmohan, has arisen in its place.

The new brand is androgynous, not macho. It appeals across the gender barrier, and that is probably the prime reason for its success. In a sense, the new Manmohan is a throwback to the old, pre-reform socialist Manmohan and hence not merely an invented identity.

The brand is a creature of current circumstances, and works because everybody can see that he was a reformer only by accident in the 1990s. On the other hand, he is an advocate of moderation and pro-poor policies by choice, not a stone-hard capitalist.

The transformation of brand Manmohan did not, however, happen entirely by choice. It started with the rise of Sonia soon after the 2004 elections, and the soft and pliable Manmohan was the obvious choice of a party president who wanted to hold on to the reins of power — albeit indirectly. She was the hard decision-maker; he stayed the soft yes-man.

It took a while for brand Manmohan to metamorphose into a new persona and initially even he fought against it. The prime minister — aided by macho finance minister P Chidambaram — spent his first four years in power trying to live up to a part of his reformist credentials. He failed miserably when Sonia and the party overruled him repeatedly.

Towards the end of UPA-1, he abandoned any pretence of reform, and instead acquiesced in wholesale populism. The shift of Chidambaram from finance to home symbolised this final abandonment of Manmohanomics. Manmohan, the capitalist reformer, was buried, and reincarnated in his place was Manmohan, the social savant. He almost didn’t have an option to be anything else.

Events lent a helping hand. First, we had the Indo-US nuclear deal, something the George W Bush administration wanted very badly. Manmohan Singh signed on, and suddenly his fortunes soared. After spending a few months trying to neutralise the Communists, a favourable turn in political events — and Manmohan’s own stubborn loyalty to the nuke deal — forced Sonia to bail him out.

In the process, she and Manmohan created the new Congress party — a party that finally got tired of kowtowing to allies and decided that if it had to lose, it might as well do so with dignity. It is easy to assume that the Congress party’s recent run of successes was entirely the result of great strategy. This is highly unlikely. Both the party and Manmohan discovered their spunk only towards the end of their first term, when both knew that the only thing they had to lose was their timidity.

Fate continued to help them all through the election campaign. Macho Advani thought he had the upper hand and taunted Manmohan on his weakness; macho Modi cut no ice with the Uttar Pradesh audiences whenever he took potshots at the dynasty and Manmohan.

The soft-spoken prime minister unleashed a quiet viciousness that destroyed Advani. To Advani’s repeated taunts, Manmohan replied with quiet anger and a sharp twist of the verbal knife. It ended Advani’s pretence of being the hard man of Indian politics.

Manmohan — and Sonia — also received help from their allies. First Lalu, and then Mulayam, both decided to do their Brutus acts. They dumped “weak” Congress and Sonia. Like Advani before them, the electorate did not appreciate their macho tactics. A feminised electorate, and a growing middle-class that had no need for violent words or heroics, saw Manmohan as the honest, sincere politician.

The urban electorate, whatever its formal political affiliation, felt protective towards “weak” Manmohan. We may all be self-centred and self-serving, but we don’t like honest people being savaged. Manmohan Singh, by being what he was, appealed to our yearning for that goodness we wanted to see in ourselves, but seldom managed to live up to. That is the key to the rise of brand Manmohan.

In many ways, brand Manmohan is now as big, if not bigger, than brand Sonia because it touches us at a deeper human level. It works with middle class India and women; it may also work abroad. In the emerging global power scenario, China represents the much-feared macho power; India, as represented by Manmohan and Sonia, represents soft power. It looks sane in a world marred by extremist violence. This image of outward softness helps us since it can enable us to take hard decisions based on realpolitik and still appearreasonable on the world stage.

Manmohan Singh has the same opportunity that Vajpayee had to take India to the world stage. He should know his own strength and use it wisely.