HVK Archives: Who is responsible for present crisis?
Who is responsible for present crisis? - The Free Press Journal
Mohit Sen
()
14 April 1997
Title : Who is responsible for present crisis?
Author : Mohit Sen
Publication : The Free Press Journal
Date : April 14, 1997
Congress president Sitaram Kesri took friends and foes alike by complete
surprise on March 30. If one is going to make the move that he did on that
day, it has to be done like that. Besides, he was not the only leader who
was planning to spring surprises around the same time. It was a question of
who was going to surprise whom. It is not as if everybody else was sitting
around like a group of innocents, while Kesri was preparing to strike.
Besides what happened on March 30 was the climax of a process. The Congress
leadership had already served the United Front a notice that its support
should not be taken for granted. It was not going to be unconditional. Then
it was stated that it was going to be from issue to issue. Still later, it
was made clear that unless matters improved the Congress president was
authorised to take appropriate steps.
The United Front leadership, especially the Prime Minister, took all this
very lightly. It went on harping that the Congress leadership had no option
but to keep on supporting the United Front. To an extent this was an
unintended compliment. Of all the political parties, it was the Congress
alone which had never cooperated with the BJP. This testified to its
principled and consistent secularism. All the other parties, including the
Communist parties, have at one time or another, cooperated with the BJP or
the Jana Sangh which was its earlier incarnation.
The UF leadership, however, did not intend it as a compliment. It was
intended as an insult. In its view the Congress was in such desperate
electoral straits that it would never dare to face another election and
would, therefore, hang on to the United Front come what may. According to
it, the Congress for its very survival needed to support the United Front.
It is true that the Congress is not in good shape electorally or otherwise.
It still, however, continues to be the only party with an all-India reach and
with a rockbottom thirty per cent support from the electorate.
What is one-sided and false about the assertion of the UF leadership on this
point is its assumption that it is the Congress alone which might face
problems, if it had to face the electorate. The reality is that no party
feels at all sure how it would fare had it to face elections in the immediate
future. This is true of the BJP as well, despite all its public relations
bravado. It is, certainly true of the CPI(M) even in West Bengal, to say
nothing of the CPI.
Another false accusation made against the Congress is that it always lets
down parties whom it has extended support to. The examples cited are of
Indira Gandhi's withdrawal of support to Charan Singh and Rajiv Gandhi's
withdrawal of support to Chandrasekhar. But it is conveniently forgotten that
in both these cases the incumbent Prime Minister came to occupy the post that
he did because of the jockeying and jostling for position in the coalitions
which had been headed by persons other than them.
In the case of Charan Singh it had been Morarji Desai and in the case of
Chandrashekhar it had been Morarji Desai. The inherent instability of the
anti-Congress or non-Congress coalitions had been clearly demonstrated prior
to any action of the Congress.
This is the point that is relevant and often missed, i.e., that opposition to
or exclusion of the Congress as the basis of an all-India coalition and
government is not only in a wrong position, but an inherently unstable one.
On the basis of such a position, it has been shown to be possible to form and
run governments in the States. This is because at that level the specifics
of our rational situation often become the dominant element. Once we move on
to the national level, it is the rational; common elements that are uppermost
and the generally determining elements. It is the Congress that then becomes
the representative and unifying embodiment of these elements.
There has been a change in the past decade or so. The all-India or pan-India
intelligentsia, which formed the backbone of the Congress leadership, has
itself dispersed into different kinds of occupations and finds politics no
longer attractive. At the same time, because of the onward march of
development, the particular intelligentsia has emerged in much larger numbers
than in the past. It competes with the all-India intelligentsia, including
in the sphere of politics. It bases itself on fragmented and the said forces
and interests such as community, caste and region.
It finds it easier to do so in the political sphere than elsewhere.
Reservations to help it to secure employment but, generally speaking,
predominance still depends on excellence, established backgrounds and
relations and what can be termed as. generations, Advantages also go against
it. This narrow-based intelligentsia can be brought round and has to be
brought round. But this would take some time. Till then there would be a
measure of instability at the Centre.
The reason for such instability is also the failure of the Congress
leadership to firmly base itself on its history, traditions and have a firm
understanding of the only and indispensable role that it can play. Sections
of this leadership belittle the Gandhi-Nehru heritage. These sections also
imagine that the Congress can identify itself now with this section and now
with that. While the Congress has to take care of all sections, it has to do
more. It was to come forward as the unifier and to stress the factors that
are common to all sections.
What has to be realised is that in relation to Charan Singh, Chandrashekhar
and Deve Gowda the Congress acted in the way it has out of its perception of
the national interest. This perception has proved to be correct in the past.
It will be so proved in the present case.
Particularly dangerous was the stress on weakening the role of the Centre in
the economy and encouraging the role of the states at the expense of the
Centre.
In foreign affairs, I. K. Gujral had achievements to his credit, especially
with regard to Bangladesh. But this had been made possible because of the
positive change in Bangladesh itself and the highly constructive role of
Jyoti Basu. With China the normalisation of relations has proceeded further,
but there has been complacency regarding the continuing hegemonistic
ambitions of the leadership of that country.
The agreement with South Africa is a positive development, but it has not
been given its due prominence and importance. With Russia the strengthening
of relations is to be welcomed but nothing much can be expected from that
country with the Yeltsin regime occupying the commanding positions.
The biggest weakness is the failure of the government to alert the nation to
the new aggressiveness of US neocolonialism. This is reflected in the
overoptimism about the possibilities of improvement of understanding with
Pakistan.
Whatever may be the immediate outcome and whatever may be the public
postures, the fact is that the Congress leadership has gone out of its way to
contact important leaders of the CPI(M) and CPI. What has been demonstrated
is that the Left does not regard' the Congress and the BJP as equal enemies,
though it still refuses to give up its anti-Congress postures and theory.
This can only gladden those in the Congress, and in the Communist movement
who have advocated the cause of patriotic unity with the Congress-Communist
unity as its core. They would redouble their efforts in the future. - CNF
Back
Top
|
