HVK Archives: Gowda's options : Catch the crooks or lose your job
Gowda's options : Catch the crooks or lose your job - The Times of India
M D Nalapat
()
20 February 1997
Title : Gowda's options : Catch the crooks or lose your job
Author : M D Nalapat
Publication : The Times of India
Date : February 20, 1997
Sunday's resolution of Congress Working Committee changing the
nature of support to the United Front from "unconditional" to
"issue-based" is a reflection of the Congress Party's frustration
at its current plight. While the United Front is enjoying the
benefits of being in government, the BJP is garnering the harvest
of being the Opposition. Indeed, the Congress is getting the worst
of both worlds, getting identified with the deficiencies of the UF
regime without managing to present a credible alternative to it.
The Sharad Pawar line would attempt to resolve this dilemma by
getting the Congress inducted into the UF ministry at the Centre.
However, this strategy ignores the ground-level enmity between the
party and the UF constituents in most states. In Kerala, Tripura
and Bengal, the CPM is the Congress's principal adversary, as is
the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, the DMK in Tamil Nadu and the AGP in
Assam. As for the Janata Dal, the Congress is its primary
challenger in the prime minister's home state of Karnataka, though
in Bihar the latter has become almost non-existent.
It is no accident that the two CWC members who are keen on a formal
alliance with the UF -Rajesh Pilot and Sharad Pawar -are from the
BJP-dominated states of Rajasthan and Maharashtra. It is only in
such states that the political chemistry exists for the two to work
together. In the rest of the country -including states such as
Uttar Pradesh where the BJP has riot yet become the dominating
force -the bulk of the Congress cadre arc hostile to the proposal
for a formal alliance with the United Front, though they may
endorse local alliances with an individual UF constituent. Thus the
Sharad, Pawar strategy would be unacceptable except if the
government were to be dominated by the Congress, that, is, the
UF-Congress government should be headed by a Congressman and most
of the key portfolios should vest in that party.
However, such a government would demolish the credibility of most
of the UF constituents at the state level, which is where elections
are won these days. In most places where the UF is enjoying strong
support, one important plank is anti-Congressism. A formal tie-up
with that party would diminish the appeal of the UF constituent, to
the benefit of either the Congress or the BJP. Thus it appears
unlikely that either the Sharad Pawar formula -of the Congress
joining the UF -or the Karunakaran plan -of the Congress dominating
the coalition -will take off.
It is this basic contradiction between the interests of the
Congress and that of the UF constituents that is responsible for
the tension between the two. So long as P.V. Narasimha Rao was the
Congress supremo, the problem was finessed by Mr Rao's agreeing to
the assumption of junior status. Sitaram Kesri would like the
roles to be reversed and the Congress to take the driver's scat.
If Mr Deve Gowda agrees to this, it would go against the interest
of the 13 parties that have elected him as their leader.
Even if the Congress were to get involved in drafting a new Common
Minimum Programme, the fact would remain that the party is in
conflict with the UF at the state level. Unless the Congress
abandons its interest in once again emerging as a strong all-India
party and remains content with the status of a regional player
(much like the UF constituents are), a national alliance of that
party with the UF. is not a practicable proposition. The tensions
between the two will thus continue and lead to an open break one
day. The question is not whether, but when.
For, Mr Deve Gowda, the options are clear. One is to adopt the
Gowda-Rao scenario, but in reverse. This time, unlike in the past
when Mr Rao made all the concessions, it would be Mr Gowda who
would thus be pacifying Mr Kesri. This may keep the AICC president
in good humour, but would soon lead to rebellion among the UF
parties, just as Mr Rao's concessions led to the revolt against
him. The other option is to follow a strategy that focuses
exclusively on developing the base of the UF, in effect daring the
Congress Party to precipitate an election in which it may do worse
than in 1996.
The problem with such a strategy is less Mr Kesri's reaction than
that of individuals within the UF such as Mulayam Singh Yadav and
Laloo Yadav. Like the AICC leadership, which must be hoping that
the Bofors and other enquiries will sputter on uselessly without
ensnaring anyone, both Laloo and Mulayam will oppose any great zeal
on the part of the investigative agencies. Yet only such a zeal can
expand the appeal of the UF. It is no accident that the BJP has
done well in the latest clutch of elections. That party has adopted
the most unambiguous line in defence of the process of
accountability initiated by the judiciary. The latest example is
the BJP's attacks on reported efforts to give the government a
greater say in the appointment of judges.
Mr Deve Gowda has, in deference both to the AICC and to colleagues
such as Laloo and Mulayam, adopted an approach that downplays the
need for accountability. In this he is following the views of the
former prime minister, Chandrashekhar, who has made no secret of
his dismay over the way in which important people have been made to
even go to jail on such 'trivial' charges as collecting large
amounts of cash.
Interestingly, it is the unelected judges who appear much closer to
the public mood than many of the politicians. However, presumably
these latter, while realising the popularity of the accountability
process, are condemning it so as to save themselves or their
associates from jail. Should Mr Deve Gowda follow their counsel
and seek to rein in the investigative agencies under the command of
his government, the loss of public support to his government will
be severe. On the other hand, vigorous pursuit of the
accountability process may give him enough public goodwill to
prevent an angry Congress from dislodging him.
Ironically, such a policy may also benefit the Congress. For the
past two decades at least, a large number of individuals have
monopolised its higher echelons thanks to servitude to the Nehru
dynasty rather than to any other virtue.
Should the prosecution of seams result in many such people being
made ineligible for office, the resulting cleanup may set the
Congress on the road to recovery.
For Mr Deve Gowda, the choice is stark: slow poisoning by being
conciliatory toward his tormentors or a chance at viability by
putting himself up front in implanting a historical necessity.
Back
Top
|
