Which, if you go back to the heady days of May-June 2009, needn’t have come to this sorry pass. Why did it, is a question the presiding triumvirate in the establishment can best answer; hacks like me can at best read the portents and offer opinions. If Verdict 2004 was a surprise one, so was Choice 2004. Dr Singh, pulled out of relative obscurity and promoted to the top job in the country not for any stellar administrative quality but solely for his unflinching loyalty to the Family, had every reason to be beholden for the same. But Verdict 2009 was different. Was the Congress’s and UPA’s improved showing in the hustings solely due to the Family’s charisma, or did the administration provided and policies pursued by the prime minister – no doubt with a nod from his political boss – play a role in the victory? When you win unexpectedly for the first time, you can be magnanimous in sharing the credit. But a re-election is a different affair; the first could be the result of a negative vote against the existing regime. The second is a clear endorsement and a positive vote. Which is why the Indian voter has been so miserly about voting in the incumbent, because there is so little around him for him to be positive about. The crisis in the UPA II goes back to its inception, Verdict 2009. And it will end only when this issue – whose victory was it, the party’s or the government’s? — is settled. Tied to this question is the prime ministership of In a democracy there will always be friction between the government and the ruling party and the bosses are expected to paper over the differences, smoothe things out. When Indira Gandhi fashioned her own version of the Congress party from the one that led to If she who grew up in the lap of the Founding Fathers that lived and breathed democracy could shrink the tradition to personal hagiography, it hasn’t been a difficult transformation for her followers. Sonia Gandhi’s Congress party is caught in this dilemma. It believes that she who led the party to electoral triumph should also be the prime minister. If not, one of her children. Sensing disquiet over her ascension to the top job, she has chosen to rule by proxy. But the crisis for the Congress party is that neither does her son Rahul, who has been leading a party revival campaign, show any inclination to replace the incumbent prime minister. In effect, how this percolates down to the rank and file is that there is a disconnect between the party’s programmes and the government’s, because they are led by two different people. In effect, how this percolates down to the public is that there is a governance paralysis, manifesting itself in different ways – from inability to control inflation to drift in economy to indecisiveness on policy matters to unwillingness to curb corruption. Popular disenchantment from all this could still have been kept under check but for humongous corruption which, if not in truth then at least in public perception has left hardly anyone untouched in the Union Cabinet. Corollary flowing from this: Of what use is an honest prime minister who cannot do anything about his corrupt ministers? Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is not a political animal – which is why he does not fight the Lok Sabha elections. Unfortunately for him, the prime ministership of And, it seems under UPA II, political solutions are not the Congress party bosses’ forte either. The popular disenchantment against UPA II, which denied it its customary honeymoon period with the voters, could have been better and easily handled but wasn’t. Drowned in their own smugness about winning a re-election, and beguiled by the disarray in its principal opposition the Bharatiya Janata Party, both the Congress party and the government slept, unaware of the ground shifting under their feet. It’s happened before in this ancient land. The British didn’t take the challenge of a ‘half-naked fakir’ seriously till it was too late. The politically astute Indira Gandhi, blinded by maternal love, saw in the Jayaprakash Narayan whirlwind a benign summer breeze. And Anna Hazare, whose worldview extends to all of a remote village in Faced with a challenge to their existence, one would expect the government and party to act as one. But the disconnect between the two shows no sign of ending. The government thinks it can deflect the challenge by diversionary tactics. So you have a political hot potato decision like foreign direct investment in retail trade taken when Parliament is in session, a decision which may benefit the government but not the party which stayed put in the barracks during the battle over it. As the FDI in retail trade showed, the government finds not just the Opposition ranged against it, not just its own party – but also its allies. Dr Manmohan Singh is thus besieged on all sides. His biggest misstep has been on FDI in retail. To break the perception that his government was paralysed, he chose an explosive issue – just as he did in his first term with the India-United States nuclear deal. As then, he expected to come out guns blazing in Parliament once again. Unfortunately for him, the script didn’t play out that way. If he was a Bollywood buff – which he isn’t – he would know that sequels work only in films, not in life – and certainly not in politics. Retreat 2011 has finally settled the question over Verdict 2011. If there are doubts still lingering in the mind of the prime minister, he should make way for someone more in tune with his party boss.
When governments feel the ground shifting under their feet, they resort to diversionary tactics. Dr Manmohan Singh’s government is faced with a groundswell against it – and not all of it is online. In fact, the vituperation against it online – which has forced Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal to advocate curbs on it – is but a reflection of the popular disenchantment with the United Progressive Alliance II.
Posts Tagged ‘government’
Dr Singh: What next?
December 8th, 2011We the feeble
August 17th, 2011The economy, touted as the toast of the world (or at least that part of the world that matters to the articulate, middle class, affluent Indian), is not on a roll anymore it seems. It is no coincidence that social activist Anna Hazare’s campaign targets, and in turn appeals to, this burgeoning section of India that is concerned as much with the decimal points in the GDP growth and the dollar-rupee tango as by the aam aadmi’s railway coach being left behind by the chugging engine of growth. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his statement in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, too directly appealed to this segment of the population, perhaps knowing well its fickleness. Why else would he slip in this paragraph in a speech devoted to Hazare’s campaign: ‘ This middle class beast everyone courts is a strange one. Its prosperity since 1991, when the Pearly Gates to prosperity were thrown open by Finance Minister Manmohan Singh, is accompanied by a gnawing sense of guilt over the ones left behind. It seeks affirmation it is neither responsible for nor unconcerned about the mind-numbing poverty around its towers of wealth. Twenty years later, in a cruel twist of irony combined with fate, the chicken from that liberalisation have come home to roost when its chief architect has been elevated to the post of prime minister. The middle class that benefited from 1991 is very different from the one that existed previously. Then the Indian felt himself to be in a position of disadvantage vis-à-vis the world outside and was happier looking inside. Heck, even But the Indian since then is a different creature. Thanks to the freeing up of controls across the board he has seen the world (if not entirely, at least the parts of it that matter to him), he follows international events across media, and realises that with purchasing power the world is indeed flat. Thanks to his global perspective, or looking outside, it has not taken him long to realise that he has been short-changed, the miasma of prosperity that is around him has lulled him as the elected representatives were on a looting spree. It can be no one’s case, least of all mine, that corruption is an offshoot of 1991. And it certainly is not my case that corruption can be eradicated. It can be contained, yes. So I am all in agreement with Prime Minister Dr Singh when he says there is no magic wand to deal with the issue. The only problem I have with that statement is, just what were you up to, Mr Prime Minister, for seven years in office? Did it need an old man in a not-in-use-anymore Gandhi cap for your government to realise that middle The Congress party, that grand old party of India’s freedom movement spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi, has moved so far away from the Father of the Nation’s ideals that anyone laying claim to Gandhiji’s legacy strikes terror deep in its heart, petrifying it, rendering it incapable of coherent thought and action. It happened in the mid-1970s when a zephyr called Jayaprakash Narayan turned into the tempest for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Against brute State force, Loknayak crystallised the change that Indians then sought: true democracy. With the benefit of hindsight we now know that the Congress could have dealt with him differently, but power often robs you of one critical faculty needed to retain it: clarity of thought. More than a generation has passed since then, and kids who grew up in the shadow of that revolution, probably watching their parents wax eloquent about JP (mine did, for sure), are at the forefront of a new revolution. The Congress government then had unleashed its howitzers against people’s power, and paid the price in the elections that followed. As of Wednesday, there has been little evidence that this Congress government has learnt from history – its leading lights of today all had a ringside view of events as they unfolded then, surely they know better? Critics argue that Hazare is no JP, and they are probably right. But even they cannot deny that a raging conflagration is set off by a trifling spark. Unlike JP’s revolution, Hazare doesn’t enjoy the undivided Opposition’s trust, nor is he a unifying force behind the non-UPA political spectrum. But what he lacks in numbers, Hazare has made up in terms of reach thanks to media, social and otherwise. But Hazare is not the issue, and the government should not make him into one. Rather, it should focus on the issue he has voiced: corruption that is depriving people of the mind-boggling welfare funds but for which You can argue that a mere few thousands are chanting Hazare’s mantra of change, and be right. But ignore it, dismiss it, brush it aside as inconsequential – as this government’s spokespersons have been doing all along, just as they belittled JP all those years ago — and you will be guilty of turning a blind eye to an incendiary spark.
At the best of times
Reshuffle reflects PM’s style: subtlety, not noise
January 20th, 2011Social networking sites have their use. They give you a sense of public sentiment over any hot topic. But being majoritarian in nature, the debate often swings the way of those who speak the loudest. Listen to them, but not necessarily to take them as the vox populi.
If you don’t do that, on hearing the internet chatter you will tend to believe that the United Progressive Alliance government is rudderless, even clueless that it is rudderless, and lacks a strategy — all of which is proven by the reshuffle, inasmuch as that word applies to Wednesday’s portfolio reallocation exercise by the prime minister.
It can be no one’s case that UPA II is going about its task bright as a button, and it certainly isn’t mine either. The thumb of rule for governments is that their honeymoon phase lasts for one or two years, after which it descends into a holding operation till the next election is called or forced on it. The UPA II is unique in that it almost never had a honeymoon period with the electorate – which is a tragedy, considering the enormous goodwill that propelled it into office.
To know a government is to know its political compulsions. To know a cabinet shakeup is to know the prime minister.
We have known the UPA II for one and a half years now, and its political compulsions were sought to be given a sheen recently by Rahul Gandhi, the Congress general secretary who is anything but that. Coalition governments have their limitations, he said, in a sorry attempt at deflection of the all-round criticism UPA II has been subject to. For instance, following the Supreme Court’s observations on various issues involving the government, which have become a sort of a daily sermon, are an eye-opener. Never before has a government in India been lectured and harangued by the apex court in so regular a manner, which makes you wonder, just who is in charge?
That, in my opinion, is the problem behind UPA II. Things were okay with UPA I, because it was a surprise victory even for the Congress. The prime minister and his political superior, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, hit upon a modus vivendi that didn’t cut too much into each other’s space. So while he could focus on governance, she could focus on the party.
But things seem to have changed with the 2009 electoral victory. The Congress, surprise surprise, improved on its previous Lok Sabha tally, and the party bosses suddenly seem to have woken up to the fact that maybe, just maybe, it could improve further and reach a position where it would form the government on its own.
Inherent in that belief is that it would see the return of the Gandhi family to the top political job in the country.
The problems of UPA II, then, stem from the classic case of party vs government. It was all hunky-dory when the party had less numbers and therefore was less assertive. This doesn’t apply only to the government — it applies in equal measure to the Congress’s relations with its allies too. Hence the uneasy equations with its various partners, from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to the Nationalist Congress Party to the Trinamool Congress.
Indira Gandhi foresaw this and wore two hats, of prime minister and party president. So far Sonia Gandhi has resisted the impulse, choosing to be the power behind the throne instead. The irony cannot escape her, the prime minister or us: power can have only one source. When there are more, as it does now, it causes confusion at best and demoralisation at worst.
And the UPA II is at its worst phase now. If it does well, Sonia Gandhi gets the credit; if it fails, it will be laid at Manmohan Singh’s door. The soft-spoken prime minister was aware of this when he agreed to take up the job which had no other claimant. And Wednesday’s reallocation of portfolio reflects his style of operation.
I am not one of those fortunate enough to be on familiar terms with the prime minister or his office, that’s a privilege reserved for a few for whom the downside was revealed recently in tapped telephone conversations. I have encountered the incumbent only twice, both on overseas visits he made. During these visits, contrary to public perception that the media gets to wine and dine with the high and mighty, all you get are a few minutes of interacting up close with the prime minister.
But these are precious minutes, where you get to observe, and even confirm your perceptions. From what I believe and know, this prime minister is not given to pomp and show — not because he knows his job was given to him — but because that is simply not his style. So no overt displays of either style, or authority. Why use a howitzer when a kirpan is enough, that could easily be his motto.
So all those castigating the government for a feeble reshuffle are missing the point. Which is that the exercise was not meant to be anything more than a message. And the recipients for whom it was intended, have all got it. Just a few examples will suffice:
Sharad Pawar has retained agriculture, but has lost the crucial civil supplies ministry. Plus, his foe Vilasrao Deshmukh is now in his trajectory with rural development portfolio.
His party colleague Praful Patel has been given a leg up, but only after paying the price: civil aviation.
Kamal Nath has been moved out of highways to urban development.
Murli Deora gives up petroleum, gains corporate affairs.
MS Gill loses sports, turns number cruncher with statistics and programme implementation.
The Congress party’s interests have been kept in mind, too, with Sriprakash Jaiswal and Salman Khursheed, both from Uttar Pradesh, getting promoted to Cabinet rank.
You can always ask why did the prime minister not go the whole hog if his intention was to clean up his administration? Why have laggards and looters been allowed to remain?
It is for those who refuse to read the signs that Manmohan Singh issued a statement later that a more expansive exercise will be done after the Budget session of Parliament.
Why after the Budget session?
For the government, clearly, the first imperative is to tide over that period – already facing the combined Opposition ire and the threat of Jagan Reddy’s MPs pulling out and endangering the government, neither wisdom nor survival instinct advise the opening of a third front of disgruntled ministers by sacking them.
This, to me, fits in with the prime minister’s style. Another leader from another era I think said it better: Speak softly and carry a big stick. That’s what I think Dr Singh has done.
