Book Review: The Man in the Wooden Hat by Jane Gardam

BOOK REVIEW

THE MAN IN THE WOODEN HAT

Jane Gardam

Reviewed By MARTIN LEVIN

The Globe and Mail

Who knows what goes on inside a marriage. Perhaps not even the couple involved. I take that back. Jane Gardam knows and her wonderful new novel (but then, they all are), The Man in the Wooden Hat, could have as easily been called Scenes from a Marriage.

The marriage is that of Sir Edward Feathers, the titular Old Filth of Gardam's superb novel of that name, and Elizabeth, or Betty. That she is dead as the novel begins is, however, no impediment to the exploration of courtship and marriage that unfolds here, gracefully, wittily, profoundly. No impediment at all; Where Old Filth was Edward Feathers's story, this novel is decidedly Betty's.

Deceptively simple, even clipped, sentences accrete to mysteriously complex effect as Gardam guides her somewhat mismatched couple through a crisply developed life together (and sometimes apart; Filth, a distinguished jurist - his nickname stands for "Failed in London, try Hong Kong" - is forever fearful that she will leave him). It is, again deceptively, light as a feather and, while having no aspiration to, or interest in, apparent explorations of the full nuances of character, especially in its self-contemplation, she miraculously achieves that effect.

Even as we're immersed in the present moment, there's an unsentimental nostalgia at play, knowing the outcome as we do, knowing it from Old Filth to begin with. What we get is a lifetime commitment that begins in infidelity (I suppose one must call it that) and uncertainty, morphs quickly into love and then a worried companionability, always under the inevitable shadow of Filth's hated rival in law and love, Terry Veneering. (A scene in which Filth and Veneering meet as neighbours is a masterpiece of comic understatement.)

Gardam is, as always, highly attuned to the accidental nature of things, such as Betty's own meeting with Veneering, to whom she is instantly sexually drawn, far more than to the man to whom she's just committed. Characters happen upon one another in unlikely but believable circumstances, weave unpredictably in and out of lives. Contingency rules; things go one way, true, but they might so easily have gone another.

Ultimately, despite its wry humour, despite its forgiving delight in human infelicity, its sense of the absurd, its nuanced understanding of just how very difficult it is to arrange things well between human beings, this is, almost surprisingly, a very moving book. It's the portrait of a marriage that, against the odds, against temptation, against the contrasting characters of its pairing, against the great disappointment of childlessness, against time itself, against the greater attractions of another, somehow survives, perhaps even prevails.

One of the great pleasures of my job involves the chance to ruminate over assigning reviews (not always, I hasten to add, to the satisfaction of all). Occasionally there are even great coups: A.S. Byatt reviewing Alice Munro, Annie Proulx on Guy Vanderhaeghe, Oliver Sacks reviewing a biography of Glenn Gould. But once in a great while, there is a writer to whom I arrogate that pleasure myself. When it comes to Jane Gardam, I am not, as Shakespeare's Richard III tells an importuning Buckingham, in the giving vein today.

As I've written previously, I've come to Gardam rather late, but coming to her at all has become one of life's great pleasures. If you have not yet found her, I urge you to do so immediately. Perhaps, though, it would be wisest to read Old Filth before embarking on the almost equally wonderful The Man with the Wooden Hat.

I know of no fictional enterprise quite like this one. A masterful novel, followed by a collection of stories ( The People on Privilege Hill), one of which illuminates both the novel that preceded it and the one that follows, The Man in the Wooden Hat (the title reference I'll allow you to discover for yourselves, as well as the chorus-like figure of Filth's card-throwing Chinese dwarf friend, Albert Ross).

For its wit, its compassion, its tragicomic view of life, its deep staccato probings of human action, Jane Gardam's Filth series will rank as one of the great literary achievements of recent years.

Sanjaya Baru: 'My book is written partly with a sense of sadness'

'Prime Minister Manmohan Singh refused to allow us to project his real personality to let the people of India know exactly what he really was. He was always shying away from greater public exposure.'

'Since the last two years we have seen enormous criticism, ridiculing the prime minister. He has been made into an object of jokes. It certainly hurts. I think this man deserves lots of good reviews... His contribution to social policy, his contribution to the economy, his contribution to coalition management, his contribution to foreign policy.'

Dr Sanjaya Baru, Prime Minister Singh's former media advisor, who is in the eye of a storm over his book on the UPA under Dr Singh, talks to Rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's daughter Upinder Singh told the Indian Express that you have betrayed the prime minister's trust.

She also alleges that you were never close enough to him to know the secrets, but in your book you give the impression that you knew a lot.

Third, how can you quote-unquote Dr Singh when it is not double checked?

Honestly, I don't want to react to the criticism of the book. I want people to read the book and take a view on its contents.

Is my book fact or fiction, this question is raised. I believe it is fact based, obviously. If anybody says it is fiction, then there is nothing more I want to tell them. I had no reason to write fiction.

It is about distrust. They think it is back-stabbing. Dr Singh trusted you and now you are coming out with a book narrating all that went on inside the Prime Minister's Office.

Absolutely. If you read the book you will come to the conclusion that this is the strongest defence of Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh ever written till now. I would like to read any article or a book that offers a stronger defence of Dr Singh than what I have put in.

Two-thirds of the book is, in fact, a defence of Dr Singh, less than a third is criticism of the things he did or didn't do, what I call acts of omission and commission.

The readers of my book would not have found it fair if I had offered a one-sided view. They would have said it is a hagiography and all praise of my former boss. I have tried to give a balanced view. I have offered criticism which I think is legitimate criticism.

I don't regard it as back-stabbing. It's an honest book. I left the government five years back and I am no longer part of the system. I am at complete liberty to write this book. Those who have an issue can question my facts. I don't mind it.

You were merely a media advisor. Not the principal secretary, not even the personal assistant. How do you claim to know everything?

I know you are trying to get more out of me than what I have written in the book. Designations do not matter in offices like this. It is what you do, the role that you are asked to perform that is relevant.

There are several examples I have given in the book when Dr Singh asked me to do a certain job which was not the job of the media advisor.

If the facts that are given in the book are incorrect or untrue, and if I am saying more than what actually happened, then those facts should be denied.

I have mentioned that I was sent to talk to (Communist Party of India-Marxist leaders) Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury to check if they would support the Budget of 2004 or not.

I have given the example of how I was sent to convey a certain message to President George W Bush through Ashley Tellis.

I have restricted myself to give only those examples that would interest readers and show how Prime Minister Singh strengthened his prime ministership.

What about the ethical question? How can you quote-unquote the PM on what he told you in private?

There are only a couple of quotes in the entire book. And where I have quoted him while talking to others, I have taken those people's permission. Where I quoted him talking to me, it is my judgement.

As I have said earlier, the book is probably just 50 per cent of what all I know. I have been extremely careful in writing whatever I have written. I have deliberately not written what is not written.

I will not be drawn into public interviews, comments and debates to say more than what all I have said.

Did you mean to help Dr Singh with your book?

Not at all. That wasn't the purpose of the book. I have said in the introduction, it was to offer an account what has happened.

Since the last two years we have seen enormous criticism, ridiculing the prime minister. He has been made into an object of jokes. It certainly hurts.

I think this man deserves lots of good reviews which is what I have recorded in the book.

His contribution to social policy, his contribution to the economy, his contribution to coalition management, his contribution to foreign policy.

The United Progressive Alliance has been in power since 10 years. I have written an entire chapter on the Manmohan Singh doctrine.

In fact, many international policy-makers and reviewers have criticised me, saying what nonsense! What doctrine are you talking about? But the fact is these are the worldviews within which Dr Singh pursued his foreign policy initiatives.

The book is not to please him or hurt him; it is written to place on record both his contributions as prime minister and his deficiency, particularly his deficiency as the political leader.

The prime minister is not a Cabinet secretary; he is not the principal secretary, he is not a government official, he is the political leader and that is the failing of his that I have recorded.

I am saying what lots of others have been saying. I am saying it now.

You could have said it so much before the election or after the election. But you did it now so people are calling you an opportunist.

This is not opportunism. I am not passing the buck to the publisher. My intention was to publish after the election, but I was persuaded to publish it now.

I take responsibility, but you can check with my publisher Chiki Sarkar, that there were several rounds of discussions over it.

She argued that nobody would be interested in Manmohan Singh once the elections are over.

I do think that after June this book would have fallen into an abyss. I genuinely believe that the media would have forgotten Dr Singh after the election.

In fact, the Congress party had forgotten him in the election campaign till Mrs Gandhi suddenly said he should be campaigning, too.

Somewhere I have revived the public's interest in Dr Singh.

Don't you think his legacy will be marred?

I don't want to say anything more.

Did you speak with Dr Singh when were you writing the book?

I started writing the book on February 1, 2013. From that day to December 30, 2013, I didn't meet Dr Singh. He called me to thank me for drafting the speech that I had written.

Two, he wanted my help in drafting the statement that he was to make before the national media on January 3. I helped in preparing the statement.

In 2013, I didn't meet him till he asked me to see him on December 30. The funny thing is that some people in the PMO were telling journalists that I was seeking an appointment and Dr Singh was refusing it.

I had actually called the PM's personal secretary and told him about it.

I choose to not meet him because I was writing this book. On December 30 I did tell him about the book. I told him that I have largely written about UPA-1. He didn't ask me any question.

You have described how he was about to appoint you again in the PMO, but that offer could not materialise. Now, the Congress is saying that you are disgruntled, hence, this book.

First of all, I didn't seek the job. I was asked to come back from Singapore where I had a teaching assignment. I resigned from the job. I came at my own expense.

Of course, I was unhappy with what happened. But if I was disgruntled I could have usedBusiness Standard, as I was its editor for two years, to attack Dr Singh.

In fact, you can check with (Business Standard Editor-in-Chief) T N Ninan and my colleagues. There was an accusation that I was too soft on the PM, that I was always defending the PM, that I was refusing to criticise Dr Singh over the 2G scam.

In fact, they thought it was hurting the reputation of Business Standard.

I could have used the opportunity to settle scores. I didn/t do so. The whole argument that I am disgruntled is utter nonsense. I have written a fair and objective book.

Essentially you are not a Congress person. You are Manmohan Singh's friend. The idea of the book is to take on the Congress party.

Not at all!

You wrote the book to describe the two centres of powers.

That is nothing new. It is well-known. I am just confirming what people have said before. People in the government and retired officers are calling me and confirming what I have written.

You have straightaway served the interests of the BJP and Narendra Modi, due to the timing of the release of the book.

I don't see it that way. If it is a byproduct, then I leave it at that. I did it to get more readers for it than what I would have got three months from now.

What moved you most in the PMO?

I was certainly moved by the simplicity of Dr Singh. The way he conducted himself in his office was exemplary.

Then, in that case, why did he turn into an object of ridicule on social media?

That is what I am saying. I was very upset to see that.

What was the turning point? Why could his simplicity not turn into his strength?

Because, his real personality was not projected by his office, not even by me!

Why?

He refused to allow us to project his real personality to let the people of India know exactly what he really was. He was always shying away from greater public exposure.

Why?

For the reasons I have explained, which is that Sonia Gandhi was the leader and he wanted her to be in the forefront.

Whenever the opinion polls have come showing Sonia Gandhi ahead of him in popularity charts, he was happy with that. That is the reality.

Actually, this book is not about Dr Singh. It exposes Sonia Gandhi's role behind the scene.

Not at all! That is not the correct way to read the book. The book is about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I wish there was more discussion about the PM's foreign policy. I have written four solid chapters about it.

Digvijaya Singh has said the book is funded by Modi.

I don't want to comment on it. Digvijaya Singh is my friend. Even Dr Singh used to say 'Oh, your friend Digvijaya'.

When I was in the PMO, Digvijaya Singh used to call me whenever he wanted to see the PM. He used to go through me. He is under compulsion to criticise me, but I am under no compulsion to criticise him.

You have given interesting insights into the media too. Like, you have said how Dr Singh called up Prannoy Roy and scolded him.

Prannoy is a well-respected editor. But it is true that Dr Singh regards him as his former student, former colleague. It was not at all a negative comment on Prannoy. I wanted to show how Dr Singh thought about some people.

No politician prime minister would talk like that. Dr Singh didn't think like a politician and didn't react like a politician. A politician normally flatters you in your face and criticises you behind your back.

Dr Singh called Prannoy and complained about the story straightway.

Why has this tag of being a meek prime minister stuck to him?

See, whenever he wanted to be firm, he was firm. But, he was not always firm. He was not equally firm on many issues. I would say he may have his reasons, but I was not happy with that. I have lots of personal affection for him.

I have not written out of anger. It is written partly with a sense of sadness. I dislike him becoming the object of ridicule. That is why I wonder why his office has reacted so strongly.

You have written that Sonia and Manmohan Singh had cordial relations. On the other hand you say the PM could not assert his authority of being the PM. Why this contradiction?

There is no contradiction. They had a perfect relationship. But Dr Singh came to terms with the fact that on many issues the buck did not stop with him, the buck stopped with her. He came to terms with it, as he himself said to me.

There is no contradiction in having a good relationship with a person and accepting that that person will have the last word. That is my criticism.

I wish on some major policy issues, as he stood his ground on the India-US nuclear deal, he should have been more assertive. That is all I am saying.

Dr. Manmohan Singh had no control over his Cabinet colleagues

'Pranab Mukherjee would "forget" to brief the Prime Minister on his meetings'

Dr. Manmohan Singh had no control over his Cabinet colleagues

Pranab Mukherjee, now President of India, was never so transparent either in expressing his disagreement or support. After returning from an important visit to Washington DC, Pranab chose not to brief the PM for three days. He had gone to see Sonia Gandhi but had not sought an appointment with Dr Singh. On the third day, I asked Dr Singh what had transpired at Pranab's meetings with President (George W.) Bush and Condoleezza Rice. 'I don't know,' was his plaintive reply.

I was taken aback. How could the foreign minister not have briefed the PM immediately on return? I suggested to him that he should summon the foreign minister and demand a briefing. I am not aware if Pranab was actually summoned or himself found time to drop in, but in any event, he visited the PM the next day. Similarly, Pranab would 'forget' to brief the PM on his meetings with the Left.

- Sanjaya Baru in his book "The Accidental Prime Minister"

The Accidental Prime Minister - A Review by Mr. Siddharth Singh (Mint)

Book Review by Mr. Siddharth Singh Editor (Views) at Mint

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh once said he believed that history would be kinder to him than contemporary media. He does not have to wait for historians. His erstwhile media adviser Sanjaya Baru has written a book that is not only kind to Singh but is effusive in its praise for him. The Accidental Prime Minister: The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh is by design a book meant to salvage the reputation of India’s 13th Prime Minister. 

From economic policymaking to ending India’s nuclear apartheid, Baru can find no fault with Singh. In the author’s eyes, Singh’s first innings (2004-09) was outstanding; his second round, beginning 2009—by which time Baru had left the Prime Minister’s Office—was full of trouble for Singh. 

Unwittingly, however, the Manmohan Singh who emerges in the book is at a considerable remove from his perceived image of an apolitical and tactically naïve leader who landed the prime minister’s job accidentally. Baru does not say so directly but throws enough hints, scattered across his book, that show Singh in a different light. 

Two are worth noting: Singh’s attitude and response to corruption and his unwillingness or inability to quit as prime minister at the right time. Both proved fatal to his image. Consider corruption first. Singh’s reticence to tackle his erring colleagues is not a product of his political weaknesses but one of personal choice. 

“Dr Singh’s general attitude towards corruption in public life, which adopted through his career in government, seemed to me to be that he would himself maintain the highest standards of probity in public life, but would not impose this on others,” Baru writes in the book. (p84)

If this is true, it explains a lot about the nature of corruption in his government. The attitude that Baru ascribes to Singh is one suited to a civil servant—detached and aloof—but one that is unsuitable for a head of government. As later events showed, it was corruption that hit the United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) fortunes the most. Singh’s passivity was certainly a reason why the problem acquired such threatening proportions. 

The second personality trait, his inability to quit when he ran into rough political weather is equally complicated. In UPA-1, Singh successfully used the threat of resignation to get the India-US civil nuclear deal cleared past a sceptical Congress leadership. One reason why that threat worked was the absence of a next rung leader who could take over if Singh quit. By UPA-2, that problem had been obviated: Rahul Gandhi was on the horizon. At that moment, with one crisis after another hitting his government, Singh withdrew his hand. After the nuclear deal, he never threatened to resign. 

It is hard not to conclude that Singh used the threat to resign as a strategic device. But having used it once, he knew it would not work again.

Baru raises the question but chooses to defend his master. “Should he have resigned at the first whiff of scandal, owning moral responsibility for the corruption of others, instead of defending the government? Perhaps. Could he have resigned? Maybe not. The party would have hounded him for ‘letting it down’. It would have then accused him of trying to occupy the high moral ground and quitting in principle to avoid being sacked for not ‘delivering the goods’. When the horse you are riding becomes a tiger it is difficult to dismount,” Baru writes (p281). This is nothing more than an adroit defence. 

Had Singh quit when things began taking a turn for the worse, his party and its leadership would have been in trouble and not Singh. But he chose to linger on until his party came to believe that he was a liability. The writer of The Accidental Prime Minister highlights many such points when Singh could have taken the decision to go. Baru ends by showing how Singh willingly chose a different course. 

Know the Author - Mr. Sanjaya Baru

Mr. Sanjaya Baru - A Brief

Sanjaya Baru was born in 1954, at Hyderabad in India, Sanjaya Baru is an Indian political commentator and policy analyst, currently serving as Director for Geo-Economics and Strategy at the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

He graduated from Nizam college, & also done his PhD in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University. Was Professor at the India Council for Research in International Economic Relations. Dr Baru previously served as Editor of the leading Indian financial newspaper The Business Standard. He was a Member of India’s National Security Advisory Board in 1998-2001.From May 2004 until August 2008 he was the Official Spokesman and Media Advisor to the Prime Minister of India.

He was also Member of the Governing Body of the Centre for Policy Research as well as Member of the Indo-US Group, the CII Aspen Strategy Group.

Prior to his official appointment, he was the Chief Editor of The Financial Express. He has also been the Associate Editor of The Economic Times and The Times of India. He served as a Consulting Senior fellow of the IISS from September 2008. He is one of India’s most respected and influential commentators on political and economic issues.

Sanjaya Baru on Dr. Manmohan Singh in The Accidental Prime Minsiter

'Active morality for himself, but passive morality for others'

Dr. Manmohan Singh turned a blind eye to corruption by his colleagues

Dr Singh's general attitude towards corruption in public life, which he adopted through his career in government, seemed to me to be that he would himself maintain the highest standards of probity in public life, but would not impose this on others. In other words, he was himself incorruptible, and also ensured that no one in his immediate family ever did anything wrong, but he did not feel answerable for the misdemeanors of his colleagues and subordinates. In this instance, he felt even less because he was not the political authority that had appointed them to these ministerial positions. In practice, this meant that he turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of his ministers. He expected the Congress party leadership to deal with the black sheep in his government, just as he expected the allies to deal with their black sheep. While his conscience was always clear with respect to his own conduct, he believed everyone had to deal with their own conscience.

When a colleague got caught, as the DMK minister A. Raja finally was, he let the law take its course. Raja was arrested, placed in judicial custody at Delhi's Tihar Jail for fifteen months and is currently being prosecuted for his role in the 2G scam. Dr Singh's approach was a combination of active morality for himself and passive morality with respect to others. In UPA-1 public opinion did not turn against the PM for this moral ambivalence on his part, because the issue had not been prised out into the open. The media focus in the first term was very much on his policy initiatives.

But in UPA-2 when corruption scandals tumbled out, his public image and standing took a huge hit from which he was unable to recover because there was no parallel policy narrative in play that could have salvaged his reputation. In other words, there were no positive acts of commission that captured the public mind enough to compensate for the negative acts of omission for which he was being chastised.

द अॉक्सिडेंटल प्राइम मिनिस्टर

मी एकदा डॉ. मनमोहन सिंग यांना विनोदानं असंही म्हणालो होतो की, वाजपेयींच्या कारकिर्दीत त्यांचे मुख्य सचिव हे स्वत:च पंतप्रधान असल्याच्या थाटात वावरत असत आणि लोक तर डॉ. सिंग यांच्याबद्दल असं म्हणत की, पंतप्रधान स्वत:च मुख्य सचिव असल्यासारखे वागतात. अर्थात ही ‘प्रतिक्रिया’ डॉ. सिंग यांचा शिस्तप्रिय, काटेकोर स्वभाव, सर्व तपशिलांमध्ये जातीनं लक्ष घालणं, प्रशासकीय लहान-सहान बाबींमध्ये असलेला त्यांचा सहभाग, अधिकारी वर्गाबरोबरच्या त्यांच्या प्रदीर्घ, वंâटाळवाण्या बैठका या सर्वांमुळेच होती. वाजपेयी या अशा गोष्टी क्वचितच करत. अर्थातच या मल्लीनाथीकडे डॉ. सिंग नेहमीच दुर्लक्ष करत असत. प्रत्यक्षात राजकारणामध्ये सोनियाच वरिष्ठ आहेत, असं सुचित करणारं हे खोचक बोलणं आहे, याचीही डॉ. सिंग यांना पूर्ण कल्पना होती.

- संजय बारू  

   लेखक ( द अॉक्सिडेंटल प्राइम मिनिस्टर )