05-08-2005, 10:37 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Attitude is a problem</b>
Unrepentant traditionalists will attribute it to the unfavourable constellation of stars and planets and more conventional analysts will cite human failure. Whatever be the final judgment on the decision-making process, few can deny that the Opposition NDA has painted itself into a hideous corner by persisting in its boycott of Parliament.
It is not that the NDA leadership had no valid reason to be angry with the Government. Despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's protestations of innocence and his sense of feigned injury, there is enough evidence to suggest that the Government reneged on an agreement to resolve the parliamentary stalemate. Individual Ministers may have wanted to meet the Opposition half-way but the invisible hands that actually control the Government were bent on provoking the NDA into adventurism. If Opposition participation was a priority for the Government, was it necessary for AICC General Secretary Ambika Soni to demand an apology from the NDA leaders? Why was the Prime Minister's media adviser instructed to say that his boss would take further steps to break the deadlock after Manmohan Singh had agreed to sit with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, LK Advani and Jaswant Singh to thrash out the matter once and for all?
Politics, unfortunately, is not only about reality. A democracy runs on the strength of perceptions. In the battle of communications, it is the NDA that has come out second-best. It has failed to convince even its own supporters that the boycott decision was grounded in either good sense or good politics. What began as a ritual protest against Lalu Prasad Yadav and "tainted" Ministers was extended into a war against the "attitude" of the Government and the insincerity of the Prime Minister. The decision left all those who don't have privileged access to the Central Hall of Parliament completely mystified. It is possible to take political positions against Lalu and other disreputable worthies who are Ministers. But how do you explain your anger against something as abstract as the Government's "attitude"? No wonder it is the NDA that has ended up looking irresponsible and petulant.
It all boils down to impulsiveness prevailing over calculation. Fully aware of the public disquiet over the unending disruption of Parliament, the Government carefully orchestrated the NDA boycott. It calculated that it would be politically prudent to ensure that the NDA stayed out rather than the Speaker being ultimately compelled to take action against Lalu's boisterous brigade. The Government dug a ditch, offered sufficient provocation. The NDA rose to the bait and fell headlong into a trap.
The Government has driven home its advantage by projecting the Prime Minister as a gentleman who has been at the receiving end of a campaign of calumny. It has used a captive Parliament to launch a major political onslaught aimed at puncturing the integrity of the earlier NDA Government. It has watched with glee as a disoriented NDA has had its internal unity compromised and the Telugu Desam Party opting to go its own way.
It is unlikely that the Government will offer the NDA a face-saving way out of its present predicament. The Opposition will have to sit out the rest of the session without having derived any mileage from the boycott. Logic dictates that it now swallows its pride, effects a tactical retreat and lives to fight another day.
It would be instructive for the NDA to consider how such miscalculations can be avoided in future. Neither will the Government's "attitude" change and nor will Somnath Chatterjee be cured of his saffron allergy. The NDA must learn to operate in Parliament within these constraints.
It must first free itself from the wishful belief that the collapse of the UPA Government is imminent and can be triggered by engineering a political crisis. It is this adventurism that was responsible for the coalition taking such an extreme, but ultimately counter-productive, step. The NDA must reconcile itself to a long haul. It must prepare for a slow war of attrition. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unrepentant traditionalists will attribute it to the unfavourable constellation of stars and planets and more conventional analysts will cite human failure. Whatever be the final judgment on the decision-making process, few can deny that the Opposition NDA has painted itself into a hideous corner by persisting in its boycott of Parliament.
It is not that the NDA leadership had no valid reason to be angry with the Government. Despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's protestations of innocence and his sense of feigned injury, there is enough evidence to suggest that the Government reneged on an agreement to resolve the parliamentary stalemate. Individual Ministers may have wanted to meet the Opposition half-way but the invisible hands that actually control the Government were bent on provoking the NDA into adventurism. If Opposition participation was a priority for the Government, was it necessary for AICC General Secretary Ambika Soni to demand an apology from the NDA leaders? Why was the Prime Minister's media adviser instructed to say that his boss would take further steps to break the deadlock after Manmohan Singh had agreed to sit with Atal Bihari Vajpayee, LK Advani and Jaswant Singh to thrash out the matter once and for all?
Politics, unfortunately, is not only about reality. A democracy runs on the strength of perceptions. In the battle of communications, it is the NDA that has come out second-best. It has failed to convince even its own supporters that the boycott decision was grounded in either good sense or good politics. What began as a ritual protest against Lalu Prasad Yadav and "tainted" Ministers was extended into a war against the "attitude" of the Government and the insincerity of the Prime Minister. The decision left all those who don't have privileged access to the Central Hall of Parliament completely mystified. It is possible to take political positions against Lalu and other disreputable worthies who are Ministers. But how do you explain your anger against something as abstract as the Government's "attitude"? No wonder it is the NDA that has ended up looking irresponsible and petulant.
It all boils down to impulsiveness prevailing over calculation. Fully aware of the public disquiet over the unending disruption of Parliament, the Government carefully orchestrated the NDA boycott. It calculated that it would be politically prudent to ensure that the NDA stayed out rather than the Speaker being ultimately compelled to take action against Lalu's boisterous brigade. The Government dug a ditch, offered sufficient provocation. The NDA rose to the bait and fell headlong into a trap.
The Government has driven home its advantage by projecting the Prime Minister as a gentleman who has been at the receiving end of a campaign of calumny. It has used a captive Parliament to launch a major political onslaught aimed at puncturing the integrity of the earlier NDA Government. It has watched with glee as a disoriented NDA has had its internal unity compromised and the Telugu Desam Party opting to go its own way.
It is unlikely that the Government will offer the NDA a face-saving way out of its present predicament. The Opposition will have to sit out the rest of the session without having derived any mileage from the boycott. Logic dictates that it now swallows its pride, effects a tactical retreat and lives to fight another day.
It would be instructive for the NDA to consider how such miscalculations can be avoided in future. Neither will the Government's "attitude" change and nor will Somnath Chatterjee be cured of his saffron allergy. The NDA must learn to operate in Parliament within these constraints.
It must first free itself from the wishful belief that the collapse of the UPA Government is imminent and can be triggered by engineering a political crisis. It is this adventurism that was responsible for the coalition taking such an extreme, but ultimately counter-productive, step. The NDA must reconcile itself to a long haul. It must prepare for a slow war of attrition. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->