05-23-2006, 11:44 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Congress 'Hand' in UPA miseries </b>
Pioneer.com
Sanjay K Jha | New Delhi
The first year was laden with prospects. The second year spelt dangerous slump. The promise of big economic strides, radical welfare measures and a credible administration evaporated all of a sudden and stepped in political intrigues, scandals and strategic blunders.
<b>The second year doubtless took Manmohan Singh Government on a journey downhill and, what is worse, it happened despite a booming economy and landmark achievements like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. And it is the Congress party, neither the ruling allies nor the Opposition, which is primarily responsible for this tragic turnaround</b>.
<b>What blotted the copybook of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the second year are the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, Supreme Court's negative verdict on the Bihar Assembly dissolution, controversy over Quattrocchi decision and finally the quota storm. Even Congress leaders won't blame L K Advani or Prakash Karat for these mishaps. They were ruthlessly planned and executed by the Congressmen and that's the most worrying aspect of the second year in office.</b>
<b>Apart from hurting the image of the Government, certain developments even eroded the authority of the Prime Minister. Be it Natwar Singh's brazen defiance, Mani Shankar Aiyar's ego-trip or Arjun Singh's quota crush, every story looked like a commentary of the Prime Minister's diminishing control. Insiders know Sonia Gandhi didn't pray for this and took care to maintain a healthy relation with Manmohan Singh but the very existence of dual power centres - a fact of life in this ruling dispensation - encouraged these maverick characters to play their own little games</b>.
While the effects of other misadventures might have died down, what Arjun Singh has managed with his irresponsible posturing on reservations for the OBC will haunt the Congress for a long time. The urban middle class, a gift to the Congress by Manmohan Singh in the first year, has walked out of its lap in the second year. The Government could have explained the petrol price hike and other inflationary burden on this section of the society but extension of quota ambit is one thing they hate most.
On the other hand, backward classes too would vent their anger on the Congress for the dithering on what was indicated initially by Arjun Singh in the wake of the constitutional amendment. The OBCs, never part of the Congress vote-bank, won't have changed their loyalty even if the Government toed Arjun Singh's line.
The Congress, with its elitist leadership, can't match those who are products of caste politics. It looked like developing a national voter who was above caste and religion by setting the development agenda on top of everything in the first year, it faltered badly in the second.
The Congress has reasons to worry as the decline came even as neither the Prime Minister nor the party president performed badly. While Sonia Gandhi salvaged her pride in the fag end of the year by turning the office-of-profit row to her advantage, Manmohan Singh's grit and determination in handling the Iran issue and the energy deal with the United States raised his stature both within and outside India. By mustering the courage to clearly pronounce that a nuclear Iran was not in India's interests, he demonstrated the courage to free India's foreign policy from the clutches of domestic compulsions.
In fact, Manmohan Singh's performance should be assessed only in the context of constraints within which he works. In addition to being the first Congress Prime Minister heading such a diverse coalition, he wasn't allowed to form the Cabinet himself, doesn't enjoy full governmental authority and has scarcely any say in political matters. It is to his credit that no UPA ally has raised fingers at him so far and he has even succeeded in keeping the volatile Left in control up to a great extent. Given the sharp differences on economic and foreign policies, the strife with the Left has been managed remarkably well.
<b>There has been no major scandal either and had Natwar Singh been dealt with firmly from the word go, even Volcker report wouldn't have caused so much damage. </b>With better political management and greater communication skills, the Government could have minimised damages on these fronts. But the real area of concern is agrarian distress, worsened by rising prices of essential commodities.
The loud talk of giving rural India a new deal hasn't materialised so far. <b>Despite substantial increase in investments in agriculture and reduction of farm loan interests to 7 %, suicides have not come down at all. This, coupled with rising prices of commodities and petrol, make an alarmist scenario. As if these are not enough, wild swings in stock market have come as a new shock. The Government would certainly have dreamt of a better beginning of its third year in office</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second term was pretty bad for UPA.
Pioneer.com
Sanjay K Jha | New Delhi
The first year was laden with prospects. The second year spelt dangerous slump. The promise of big economic strides, radical welfare measures and a credible administration evaporated all of a sudden and stepped in political intrigues, scandals and strategic blunders.
<b>The second year doubtless took Manmohan Singh Government on a journey downhill and, what is worse, it happened despite a booming economy and landmark achievements like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. And it is the Congress party, neither the ruling allies nor the Opposition, which is primarily responsible for this tragic turnaround</b>.
<b>What blotted the copybook of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) in the second year are the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, Supreme Court's negative verdict on the Bihar Assembly dissolution, controversy over Quattrocchi decision and finally the quota storm. Even Congress leaders won't blame L K Advani or Prakash Karat for these mishaps. They were ruthlessly planned and executed by the Congressmen and that's the most worrying aspect of the second year in office.</b>
<b>Apart from hurting the image of the Government, certain developments even eroded the authority of the Prime Minister. Be it Natwar Singh's brazen defiance, Mani Shankar Aiyar's ego-trip or Arjun Singh's quota crush, every story looked like a commentary of the Prime Minister's diminishing control. Insiders know Sonia Gandhi didn't pray for this and took care to maintain a healthy relation with Manmohan Singh but the very existence of dual power centres - a fact of life in this ruling dispensation - encouraged these maverick characters to play their own little games</b>.
While the effects of other misadventures might have died down, what Arjun Singh has managed with his irresponsible posturing on reservations for the OBC will haunt the Congress for a long time. The urban middle class, a gift to the Congress by Manmohan Singh in the first year, has walked out of its lap in the second year. The Government could have explained the petrol price hike and other inflationary burden on this section of the society but extension of quota ambit is one thing they hate most.
On the other hand, backward classes too would vent their anger on the Congress for the dithering on what was indicated initially by Arjun Singh in the wake of the constitutional amendment. The OBCs, never part of the Congress vote-bank, won't have changed their loyalty even if the Government toed Arjun Singh's line.
The Congress, with its elitist leadership, can't match those who are products of caste politics. It looked like developing a national voter who was above caste and religion by setting the development agenda on top of everything in the first year, it faltered badly in the second.
The Congress has reasons to worry as the decline came even as neither the Prime Minister nor the party president performed badly. While Sonia Gandhi salvaged her pride in the fag end of the year by turning the office-of-profit row to her advantage, Manmohan Singh's grit and determination in handling the Iran issue and the energy deal with the United States raised his stature both within and outside India. By mustering the courage to clearly pronounce that a nuclear Iran was not in India's interests, he demonstrated the courage to free India's foreign policy from the clutches of domestic compulsions.
In fact, Manmohan Singh's performance should be assessed only in the context of constraints within which he works. In addition to being the first Congress Prime Minister heading such a diverse coalition, he wasn't allowed to form the Cabinet himself, doesn't enjoy full governmental authority and has scarcely any say in political matters. It is to his credit that no UPA ally has raised fingers at him so far and he has even succeeded in keeping the volatile Left in control up to a great extent. Given the sharp differences on economic and foreign policies, the strife with the Left has been managed remarkably well.
<b>There has been no major scandal either and had Natwar Singh been dealt with firmly from the word go, even Volcker report wouldn't have caused so much damage. </b>With better political management and greater communication skills, the Government could have minimised damages on these fronts. But the real area of concern is agrarian distress, worsened by rising prices of essential commodities.
The loud talk of giving rural India a new deal hasn't materialised so far. <b>Despite substantial increase in investments in agriculture and reduction of farm loan interests to 7 %, suicides have not come down at all. This, coupled with rising prices of commodities and petrol, make an alarmist scenario. As if these are not enough, wild swings in stock market have come as a new shock. The Government would certainly have dreamt of a better beginning of its third year in office</b>.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Second term was pretty bad for UPA.