Quote:Win-win politics



Shikha Mukerjee



Left sheds a lot of its ideological baggage



Consistency is the hallmark of the small-minded; therefore, the large-minded leaders of Indian politics have abandoned the convention of pursuing tense binary positions at all costs and adopted with enthusiasm and creativity more flexible strategies with the purpose of being permanently in win-win games.



Unsurprisingly, therefore, the cut motions moved by anti-Congress parties in the Lok Sabha produced an array of responses. Complicated as the dynamics of these alignments are, these reveal the shedding of a lot of baggage by the Left. To jump to the conclusion that a new politics is emerging that produces combines based on issues rather than ideology, history and principles would be hasty and possibly incorrect.



The Communist Party of India(Marxist) and the BJP are on the same side because they have a common foe — the Congress. That is familiar history; but what is new is that increasingly they are willing to vote together, coordinating moves rather than contradicting and undermining each other. This does not amount to camaraderie; it does point to calculated complicity.



Thirty odd years ago, the Left would not have been caught in the uncomfortable position of voting on a motion moved by the BJP. Nor would it have agreed to allow the cut motions to be clubbed together and moved en bloc. Because it would not vote alongside the Jana Sangh, the CPI(M) pulled the rug on the Morarji Desai Government in 1979. In 1991, even though it rescued the minority Narasimha Rao Government by abstaining from the vote of confidence and bailed it out once more by staging a walkout on a Budget vote, it remained officially in denial about these moves.



In 2004, the CPI(M) shed more of its inhibitions and became less squeamish by extending outside support to a Congress-led UPA. It sat at the same table and negotiated over policy, taking credit, however hotly disputed by the Congress, for the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme among other things.



Post 2008, the CPI(M) set out to establish new ties with regional parties and produced embarrassing failures. In Uttar Pradesh, the deal with the entirely whimsical Bahujan Samaj Party leader, Ms Mayawati unravelled. The Congress benefited. The realignment paid off on April 27; Ms Mayawati declared her principled opposition to the Congress’s failure to curb price rise and then in a magnificent gesture extended support to keep the communal forces at bay. Fussier than Ms Mayawati, both Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav distanced themselves from the Congress as well as the BJP even as they promised to vote with the Left but were not given a chance to make good on it.



Even though these permutations and combinations mean the CPI(M) can and does willingly sup with its enemy, the BJP, because both are united in their anti-Congress politics, there is a remarkable absence of fuss. However, fastidious some may be in the CPI(M), the significant change is that it has abandoned its position that there are pariahs and there are others within the political space.



Untouchability, however, is not a practical guide to 21st century politics. Nursing grudges too is not practical any more. Even though the Congress and the Trinamool Congress have been at loggerheads over seat distribution in the forthcoming municipal elections, Ms Mamata Banerjee jumped into save the UPA on Tuesday. She did so without once registering her protest over the Congress failure to curb the rise in prices of food.



Her unconditional support is intriguing. She could have done what Ms Mayawati did; she chose not to. By voting without a fuss with the Congress on the cut motions, the Trinamool Congress has signalled that it needs the parent party to cement its victory run in West Bengal. Therefore the failure to arrive at a formula for seat-sharing, especially for the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, has been partly compensated by Ms Banerjee’s support on April 27.



In Kolkata, the alliance between the Congress and the Trinamool Congress is elastic; it is stretched to accommodate Ms Banerjee’s claims. To the extent the partnership is between two parties, there are few complexities, unlike the tortuous alignments that are unfolding between the Congress and its supporters on the one hand and the anti-Congress left and the anti-Congress right and communal parties on the other.



For, to win is all. The cost of faltering now would be the equivalent of sudden death in a tense tennis match.

Quote:OPED | Friday, May 21, 2010 | Email | Print |





Sonia takes charge of policy



Kalyani Shankar



With UPA completing the first year of its second term in office, real authority has clearly shifted away from the Prime Minister to the Congress president



In May 2005, one year after he took over, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave himself six out of 10 marks for his Government’s performance. How would he rate his second innings? How does the country rate his one year in office? Before judging the UPA 2.0’s performance, one has to bear in mind the circumstances under which the Congress came to power in 2004 and 2009. The UPA 1.0 was formed when the Congress was weak. It was Congress president Sonia Gandhi who took the initiative for building up a coalition. When the time came to occupy the throne, she declined to become the Prime Minister, choosing Mr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister.



The Sonia-Singh duo shared power and worked in tandem during the UPA 1.0 but the remote control was in Ms Gandhi’s hands. It was the Congress president who managed the allies and kept the coalition going even after the Left parties parted ways. While everyone expected her son Rahul Gandhi to take over after 2009 elections, both mother and son pitched for Mr Singh once again.



The composition of the UPA 2.0 is slightly different from the UPA 1.0. It was minus Left parties and plus Trinamool Congress. The NC also joined the coalition. The DMK continued while the JMM was out. One important thing was that the Congress performed better crossing the 200 mark.



It may be too soon to judge the performance of the UPA 2.0 as its mandate is for five years but, by and large, it has not done badly. Credit should be given for getting the Women’s Reservation Bill passed in Rajya Sabha as also the Right to Education Bill. Introduction of the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill also needs mention. The Food Security Bill is the next important pro-poor legislation. Some measures for economic reforms have been taken up. The handling of Maoists is a serious concern. On the economic front, price rise and inflation are two serious problems and the Government is not very successful in containing them.



The perception is that the Prime Minister is not in command over his Cabinet colleagues or in checking corruption. Cohesiveness is lacking in the Cabinet with Ministers speaking in different voices on various issues. There is a kind of drifting away from the pro-poor programmes.



The Congress has to improve its relationship with allies. The stability with which the UPA 2.0 came to power has eroded somewhat with the Government struggling to mobilise the numbers to pass the Bills. There is no trust between the Congress and its allies — the NCP, the Trinamool, and the DMK. The allies complain they are not consulted. Strangely enough, a common minimum programme, which was the bible of the UPA 1.0, does not exist now.



There is a perceptible change in the Congress-Government relationship with the party asserting itself over the Government. The UPA 2.0 Cabinet bore the stamp of 10 Janpath. This was evident in the case of Mr Shashi Tharoor, Mr Jairam Ramesh and Mr A Raja.



The Congress president has also asserted herself on certain issues. The party is concerned that the Government was not doing enough on pro-poor programmes. It distanced itself from the India-Pakistan joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh. On the Women’s Reservation Bill, it was evident that it was Ms Gandhi who overruled the Prime Minister and got it passed in Rajya Sabha. While the Prime Minister is in favour of diluting the Right to Information Act, it is Ms Gandhi who is not in favour of any amendments. Mr Singh is cautious about the Food Security Bill, which will cost about Rs 40,000 crore but Ms Gandhi is very keen to bring it. Even the caste Census bears the stamp of Ms Gandhi while the Government is reluctant. Above all, the revival of the National Advisory Council which functions as a super-body under the chairmanship of Ms Gandhi shows that she wants to run the party and the Government from the front and not through remote control any more.

Quote:During the press conference held to mark the first anniversary of the second

term of the United Progressive Alliance, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh faced

a barrage of questions about the various scams, controversies and

allegations faced by his Cabinet members.



Though the PM cautiously parried most such queries, the fact remains that

several ministers in his Cabinet continue to march to their own beat,

irrespective of the consequences. The soft-spoken Dr Singh appears

increasingly like a helpless film producer who has to put up with the mood

swings and tantrums of his hero, heroine and supporting actors to keep the

film afloat.



Take a look at illustrious ministers who believe in saying, doing, and

implementing whatever they fancy, accountability and collective

responsibility be damned.



Telecom Minister A Raja



The scale of the corruption charges levelled against Telecom Minister A Raja

would probably make even fraudster Bernie Madoff (sentenced to 150 years in

jail for orchestrating a $65 billion Ponzi Scheme) weep.



The minister has the dubious distinction of being at the centre of

independent India's largest financial scam worth Rs 60,000 crore, which may

even go up to Rs 100,000 crore (Rs 1 trillion), according to some experts.

He is accused of allocating scarce 2G spectrum to certain favoured bidders

at throwaway prices.



Dr Singh reportedly had reservations about allotting the telecom ministry --

perceived as a 'lucrative' one for greedy politicians -- to Raja again. But

he had to bow down to the pressures of coalition politics, as Raja's party

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam made it clear that the support of its 18 MPs was

subject to the party being granted the lucrative ministry.



The PM and the Congress have no doubt regretted that decision since. Raja's

massive spectrum scandal has overshadowed any achievement by UPA-2, and the

PM has been forced to spend much time and effort answering for theminister's

alleged wrongdoings.



In spite of facing an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation, an

unrepentant Raja has refused to step down, claiming that he had simply

followed the government's then existing policy and opting for a 'first come,

first serve' criterion in spectrum allocation.



Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh



Jairam Ramesh, an engineering graduate from IIT Bombay, was once known as an

articulate, erudite speaker and a strategic planner. But that was till he

took over as theminister of environment and decided to take himself and his

job too seriously.



A perennial patient of the foot-in-the-mouth disease, Ramesh has had a

problem with almost everything and everybody. He has a point to make about

every topic under the sun and unfortunately for DrSingh, goes ahead and does

so, loud and clear.



Ramesh has probably been the busiest minister in the UPA-2 Cabinet. He

famously stated that 'India will get the Nobel Prize for filth'. He pledged

that India will try to match China's carbon emission standards. He called

convocation gowns 'barbaric'. He shouted at opponents of Bt Brinjal. He

questioned the working of the road transport ministry. He questioned the

working of the home ministry, while on Chinese soil.



Many political experts are surprised that he has not been given the boot

yet. That may be because of his closeness to 10 Janpath and his role in

strategisingthe Congress campaign that brought the party back to power last

year.



But tired of covering up for Ramesh's utterances, an irritated PM recently

rapped the environment minister, and none too gently at that. A mollified

Ramesh apologised to Home Minister P Chidambaram and promised to hold his

tongue in the future. On how long he will be able to keep his opinions to

himself, only time will tell.



Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee



She is the undisputed queen of tantrums and the champion of political

stunts.



Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee is in charge of one of the most important

ministries in UPA-2 -- or at least supposed to be. Didi is rarely found at

Railway Bhavan inNew Delhi. She continues her Houdini act in Cabinet

meetings and Parliament sessions.



It is easier to find Banerjee in Kolkata, where she is busy organising

mammoth rallies that throw the city out of gear, accusing West Bengal

ChiefMinister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and his party of murder and mayhem, and

scouting for 'pro-people' issues now that the Singur and Nandigram

agitations have died down.



Banerjee didn't think issues like the motormen's strike in Mumbai, which

affected 65 lakh commuters in the metropolis, or the stampede at Delhi

railway station were worthy of her attention. When questions were raised

about her indifference, she claimed that it was a ploy by arch-rival

Communist Party of India-Marxist to 'send her back to Delhi'.



The minister, who had once accused a top police official of biting her

during a rally, didn't clarify if it was the stampede or the strike that was

orchestrated by the CPI-M.



The Opposition has dubbed her the 'absentee' minister. While Dr Singh has

refused to answer queries about the number of Cabinet meetings attended by

Banerjee or her performance, she has not bothered to return the courtesy.



A firm believer in the 'sulk-and-accuse' school of thought, Banerjee has

accused the Congress of colluding with the CPI-M in Bengal and of cheating

her party Trinamool Congress over the Women's Reservation Bill. To drive

home her displeasure with the ruling party, Banerjee refused to attend a

function in Kolkata with DrSingh, in spite of a special invitation from the

PM.



Chemical and Fertiliser Minister M K Alagiri



When DMK leader M K Alagiri was elected to the Parliament in 2009, political

watchers were worried about how he will follow the House proceedings, as he

speaks only Tamil and is not conversant in either Hindi or English. Little

did they know that the chemical and fertiliser minister had already devised

a fool-proof plan to rise to this challenge: he never attends Parliament.



Critics say that the minister dashes off to his hometown Chennai or his

constituency Madurai at every opportunity. But they are wrong. Apart from

flying to Tamil Nadu every three days, the 'frequent flyer'minister also

went for a holiday in Maldives and then to the US to meet his family within

a month.



He even decided to skip the crucial vote on cut motion in Parliament, when

Dr Singh and Congress MPs were desperately trying to shore up numbers to

survive the motion. Alagiri's absence was also noted during Question Hour in

the Parliament.



He has been pulled up by Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar for his lack of

'courtesy and decorum' and blasted by the Opposition. But theminister seems

unfazed by the rebukes, and is trying to prove that his love for Tamil Nadu

is no less than his colleague Banerjee's affinity for Bengal.



Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel



Aviation minister Praful Patel is one of the richest MPs in Parliament. A

fact that he was forced to point out when reports about his involvement in

the multi-crore IPL scam began doing the rounds.



The member of Parliament from Maharashtra, who is considered to be the

crisis manager of his party, has ironically faced a host of crisesin his

stint in UPA-2. He has faced flak for his inability to revive Air India,

which is losing Rs 200 crore (Rs 2 billion) a month and faces myriad

problems including pilot strikes, inefficiency and delays.



Fingers have been pointed at Patel on several decisions in his last five

years as minister that allegedly damaged the struggling airline's

competitive position.



And while Patel was trying to absolve himself of the blame for putting

India's national carrier on its deathbed, reports about his role in the IPL

scam surfaced.



Though Patel went to town claiming he had no stake in the IPL fiasco, it was

revealed that his daughter Poorna was the IPL hospitality manager, and had

allegedly leaked a confidential e-mail from the league's COO Sundar Raman's

office.



Patel was accused of forwarding a mail to then minister of state for

external affairs Shashi Tharoor, who backed the Rendezvous Sports World's

bid for the Kochi franchise, days before the IPL bidding, with a document

containing projections of new franchisee valuations.



Dr Singh has already lost a minister to the IPL brouhaha. Political

observers are now wondering if Patel will be the second sacrificial lamb of

UPA-2.



Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar



Instead of attempting to rein in the spiralling prices of food items,

Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has been busy trying to pass on the blame

to the prime minister. During his second stint in the ministry, India found

itself in an ironical quagmire of rising food prices, tones of rotting food

grains and lakhs of Indians going hungry.



Instead of taking responsibility for the issue and initiating corrective

measures, Pawar went on record to say that he alone was not responsible for

the price rise, but the entire Cabinet and the prime minister were also

culpable. He even famously said he was not an astrologer to predict when

prices will come down!



To make matters worse, his irresponsible statements, speculating about the

possible rise in prices of certain commodities, are widely believed to have

actually pushed prices upwards. He was told by the Cabinet, in no uncertain

terms, to zip it and desist from such speculative statements.



The wily politician from Baramati was also dragged into the IPL controversy,

after reports indicated the involvement of his daughter and MP Supriya Sule,

and his own links with the Kochi team.



While both Pawar and Sule denied the reports, the NCP chief also defended

then IPL Commissioner Lalit Modi, claiming there was nothing wrong in making

public the names of the stakeholders of the Kochi franchise.



Home Minister P Chidambaram



To be fair, this lawyer-turned-politician is the most sensible of the lot.

In spite of being attacked by his own colleagues, including Jairam Ramesh

and senior Congress leader Digvijay Singh, over his manner of functioning,

Chidambaram had maintained a dignified silence. He had, however, expressed

his displeasure to the prime minister, who made Ramesh publicly apologise to

the home minister.



But the pressure of constantly being questioned on the Maoist menace, which

has assumed dangerous proportions in the last one year, finally managed to

ruffle Chidambaram. During an interview with a TV channel, in the wake of

yet another attack in Maoist-infested Dantewada, Chidambaram admitted that

he was operating with a 'limited mandate'. He wisely refused to elaborate.



But the damage had been done. The Opposition, which had so far stood by the

home minister in his fight against Maoists, immediately pounced on the

statement. Chidamabaram's answer indicated the lack of will on the

government's part to tackle Maoists, they claimed.



The media also questioned the usually politically correct minister's

controversial statement, demanding to know what exactly he meant by it. When

queried about it, Finance Minister and UPA troubleshooter Pranab Mukherjee

tersely observed that "There cannot be a public debate on the problem. These

are issues that we will have to discuss in the Cabinet."



Even Dr Singh, who had turned down Chidambaram's resignation in the wake of

the Dantewada massacre, said ministers should express opposing views inside

the Cabinet, and not in public. Will his advice be heeded by his pack of

ministers?

Quote:the party in power is supposed to follow the correct path for good governance.

Quote:It needs a complex analysis with a lot of detail with all aspect. I see Jagan will break the back of AP INC. See the following link

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/06/03/stories/2010060361410100.htm



MIM is in leauge with Jagan so mullahs may go with Jagan unless INC comes out openly for United AP. MIM does not want Telanagana seperation at this time. INC is at cross roads and there will be a lot of destructive elements coming out.

Quote:Slip of the tongue? - Suman K. Jha





Politics

Congress sources say that Rahul Gandhi only meant Bangladesh's liberation



"India being a big country, it needs a massive push to start it rolling, but once it starts to roll, it takes a massive push to stop it. If you look 30 to 50 years ahead, which is where one should look, I am pretty certain India will be one of the top five powers. The issue is whether we will be among top three or not.... That will make a big difference to how we impact poverty. Equally important is how we'll behave in that position. Will we be a complete bully, or will we be a power that is more accepting...?"



Rahul Gandhi in an interview (late 2004)



Rahul Gandhi sought to tread a hitherto uncharted path during his fourth leg of Uttar Pradesh jan sampark abhiyan (public contact programme). The Congress heir had focused exclusively on development ("Has your lot improved one bit in the last 15 years, when several parties tried to divide you on the lines of caste and religion?"), the youth ("The youth, who comprise 70 per cent of the state's population, will take the state forward to its past glory"), and the state ("Elections or no elections, I'm here to stay") in the first three legs of his roadshows. Save for a response to a question by THE WEEK that triggered a political storm in Uttar Pradesh ("Had anyone from my family been active, the Babri demolition would not have taken place"), Rahul had consciously avoided raking up any contentious issue.



In the fourth leg of his Uttar Pradesh foray which began on April 13, he added the 'first family' to his three-point agenda, described as a "tactical shift" by a senior Congress leader. "My job doesn't end with the elections. I'm here till we have a Congress government in the state. Other parties should know that I come from a family that matches its actions with deeds," he said in almost all the 10 public meetings he addressed in three days. While the entire opposition cited this as yet another expression of how the Congress had become subservient to the Gandhi family, Congress strategists felt that the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv genealogy would strike a chord with the party's traditional support base.



It was his speech at Badayun and at Bareilly that, besides inviting Pakistan's wrath, had party honchos scurrying for cover. "I come from a family that doesn't shy away from its responsibilities, whether it is the freedom struggle, breaking up of Pakistan, or ushering in a new era of technology and IT," he said.



The after-tremors could be felt from far and wide. Pakistan foreign office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam said that Rahul's remarks proved allegations that India interfered in Pakistan's affairs and tried to destabilise it. "India took advantage of the circumstances to dismember Pakistan, and the scion of Nehru family has accepted the real Indian motives for the intervention," she said. Some peaceniks in Delhi even accused the Congress leader "of derailing the Indo-Pak peace talks".



While this sounded a little far-fetched, and the cacophony died down in a couple of days, as expected, the entire political class spent countless hours deciphering the text and context of Rahul's "breaking up Pakistan" intervention.



"Who is advising him on matters like these?" one of the tallest Muslim leaders in the Congress thundered. "Are we trying to be one up on the Bharatiya Janata Party?" asked another senior Muslim Congress leader, and said the reference was avoidable. A leader known for his proximity to Rahul tried to reason that he was probably trying to match the "BJP's nationalist rhetoric in one of their strongholds". While the Congress has been known for its old trick of playing community cards selectively, one is not sure if Rahul would find the analogy flattering. There were even voices against the "corporate types" advising Rahul on political matters.



Those who know Rahul said that while he was open to various viewpoints, he was known to speak his mind. Hence, the "breaking up of Pakistan" marked a clear and disturbing departure from what Rahul has sought to symbolise so far.



While an Akhand Bharat votary might tom-tom this as "an achievement", how is the "breaking up of Pakistan" relevant to Rahul's espousal of Gandhian nationalism? Congress spokesperson Devendra Dwivedi countered that he was speaking "at an election campaign and not at a seminar". Another top Congress leader argued that Rahul only meant "liberation of Bangladesh," as distinctly different from the "breaking up of Pakistan". A plausible explanation, but are the future prime ministers allowed the luxury of retakes in their public pronouncements? And, how does this idea fit into Rahul's idea of India "as one of the top three powers that is more accepting"?



In the earlier legs of his Uttar Pradesh foray, Rahul had talked about "opening the doors of the Congress for the state youth," something that many thought signalled a welcome democratisation of a dynasty-obsessed Congress. It was back to the dynasty in his fourth leg, so much so that Congress spokespersons were not unanimous on how to defend the move. While Satyavrat Chaturvedi wanted to put other parties under the scanner, Dwivedi argued that the Gandhis' political lives were coterminous with the life of the republic. BJP leader L.K. Advani blasted the Congress: "This shows a mindset that one family alone is fit to rule the country."



"While the BJP is the polar opposite of the Congress, is there any fundamental difference between the Samajwadi Party or the Bahujan Samaj Party and our party? Our failure to produce a Mayawati or a Mulayam Singh Yadav reflects how the party has become entirely dynasty-centred," said a senior Congress leader. In one of his works, political observer Pratap Bhanu Mehta describes the phenomenon as "the decline of the very institution of political party".



Even with a section of the Congress convinced that the dynasty alone keeps this disparate organisation together, many thought Rahul would be keen to make the party relevant by democratising it. If Rahul had a blueprint for the same, one didn't get to hear about it amid the talk of the dynasty and the party in UP.