AHC: save Rajiv Gandhi's premiership, 1989

Disclaimer: This may be used for a future TL, so I'd like some feedback from Indian experts. IOTL Rajiv lost in '89 for 3 reasons: 1) caving to Muslim fundies on the Shah Bano case, 2) Bofors 3) flip-flopping as soon as criticism was offered of his essentially cosmetic Thatcherite economic reforms instead of going full-throttle on the fundamentals as Singh and Rao did from the 1990s onward. Objective: win a second majority government in 1989, ideally retaining a two-party system capable of forming single-party majority governments rather than the minority coalitions since then.

Here are my ideas...

Shah Bano: uphold the Supreme Court no matter what the Muslim fundies say. The lost Muslim fundie votes will go to the BJP or Janata anyways, and they'll be more than compensated with non-fundie and liberal Muslims along with secularists of all faiths.

Bofors: take the lower bid instead of Bofors. Also, fire VP Singh, clearly a Heseltine-wannabe, and replace Singh with someone else. Put PVN Rao as DPM and Home Minister, or DPM and government leader in the Lok Sabha- Rajiv's Willie Whitelaw, in essence.

Economy: Singh goes from the Reserve Bank to Finance, Rao stiffens Rajiv's backbone and brings him around to conclude that economic reform should be the defining issue of his premiership.
 
Bumping. No thoughts? IMO what Rajiv really needed was to paraphrase Thatcher in '81: TINA to create a First World economy and create a middle class. To be psephologically cynical, said middle class could come in handy as one of Congress' many bases. From what limited sources I've read (trying to get more books) he didn't govern by polls but caved at the slightest hint of policy criticism, which explains 2/3 of those problems. The other third was just naivete/mind-boggling lapse in judgment of others.
 
I'm thinking of writing a TL along these lines for either '84 or more likely '91. Until the books are back in stock on Amazon, all I can do is ask Board India experts for help.
 
When I did a poll most seemed to want 1991 instead. But a coalition minority government, even if close to a majority, is not the same mandate as holding 80% of the seats in the Lok Sabha as was the case in '84. Rao and Singh did it of course, but the task is somewhat easier with an irrelevant opposition. The real opposition, of course, are all the lefties and out-and-out socialists within the parliamentary caucus. Shah Bano should be a one-line statement: "We unreservedly support the Supreme Court decision." Bofors- just accept the other bid, as I said earlier. It was quite unfortunate that it took 15 years, and 11 years after his assassination, for a judicial inquiry to conclude that Rajiv was not personally implicated in the Bofors graft.
 
Top