08-18-2006, 01:28 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Divided Establishment</b>
<i>All parties must prevent the further weakening of the Centre.</i>
17 August 2006: On Monday, in an Independence Day-eve piece, we wrote about the vanishing of the Establishment as it was. This is taking on stranger dimensions. Sections of the Establishment are rebelling against other sections, and whether or not the rebellion is justified, it is weakening the Establishment as a whole, weakening the Centre, and weakening the office of the prime minister. This is not to the good.
Two constituents of the Establishment, the judiciary and the free press, have traditionally an adversarial role. How adversarial though they are changes with the situation and the ruling regime. A regime which has its moral lights clear and shining will face fewer adversaries than one guided by the basest instincts. This is fairly obvious.
But apart from the judiciary and the media, the rest of the executive Establishment works as a united whole. A combination of events though has weakened the forces that bind the Establishment, and produced differences within. The events are also fairly obvious. A general election produced a fractured verdict. The resultant coalition politics and a politically weak PM have crippled the powers of the Centre.
It is the differences within the executive, however, that are harder to reconcile. Earlier, for example, <b>the PMO had one view on Siachen, it was inching towards an agreement with Pakistan for troopsâ withdrawal. The NSA, M.K.Narayanan, was fairly keen, and the PMâs visit to Pakistan in mid-June was slated to conclude the agreement or progress it. The army said no. Its condition was unless the present Indian-held positions on the glacier were accepted by Pakistan, there would be no pullout. Since this would have constituted recognition of Indiaâs occupation of the glacier, Pakistan refused. </b>
<b>On this, the army was right. The PMO was forced to accept</b> it. Anyhow, relations with Pakistan rapidly deteriorated, and the PM finger-pointed Pakistani terrorism in his Independence Day speech. As an institution, the army had every reason to protect its interests. But the point is it got to a situation where it almost had to defy the PMO.
There is another more recent incident, as old as yesterdayâs.<b> The PMâs scientific advisor, C.N.R.Rao, was quoted to say any shifting of goalposts in the Indo-US nuclear deal was unacceptable.</b> Like with the Siachen withdrawal, one canât dispute Raoâs stand, but see the threat behind it, the stentorian tone<b>. Should one section of the Establishment battle another so publicly, so cussedly? </b>
Our position has been that it is to the good that institutions of the executive are safeguarding their interests and exercising freedom to protect themselves. That remains our view. But this process should not lead to a conflicted Establishment, where everyone is tearing into everyone else. <b>If the Central Establishment weakens, the country weakens</b>. There is no escape from that.
There is a breakdown of Establishment consensus, and this must be repaired. The stage is past for the blame game, that the PMO did not heed the armyâs position on Siachen until it took a rigid stand. <b>Or that on the nuke deal, the PMO went on a different course from what the nuclear scientists were urging</b>. On all these issues, a settled position has to be reached, and only then can Parliament reach a position on it.
Some things cannot be changed. We cannot hope for a change of PM. The Congress party is not going to oblige. And frankly, why should it, if it further weakens its position in the government? So Manmohan Singh, with all his political weaknesses, has to be accepted and permitted to function. <b>But the PM must also recognize that his position is weak, and that the Establishment is splintered</b>. Within the Establishment, therefore, there has to be give and take, and this must later spread to the political Establishment as a whole.
We are not taking any new position on the issues that have split the Establishment. Our positions are known. But we hold the further splintering of the Establishment must be contained. Democracy does not mean the Establishment speaks in different voices. That damages us, and hurts our international position and prestige.
<b>There are many who would blame the PM for a splintered Establishment and a weakened Centre, but the blame game has gone on too long. If un-repaired, the splits could grow, and become permanent, which would be destructive for future governments. While all the legitimate institutional interests should be protected, no entity must be permitted to hijack the Establishment. </b>
In a parliamentary democracy, the PM is the head of the government, the chief executive, as it were. He has to be trusted in the conduct of his official duties, and if he cannot be trusted, then he must either resign, or be removed. It has almost come to that situation, where the PM is no longer trusted on the nuclear deal, and parliamentary oversight is demanded. Worse for the PM, sections of the executive are opposing him on the deal.
As said earlier, this is an unprecedented situation. <b>This lack of trust is evident in another quarter. President Abdul Kalam has not moved on the office of profit bill even after the Union cabinet has reconsidered it and approved it. Nobody can fault the President for his reservations about the bill. The constitutional lawyer, Fali Nariman, calls it a âlawless lawâ</b>. A constitutional impasse is in the making there.
A round up of all the contentious issues suggests the PM must back down from some of his commitments. He cannot, for example, turn away from the demand for a sense of Parliament resolution on the nuclear deal. But equally, any resolution must not carry a sting that the PM is untrustworthy, or that his section of the Establishment has sold out. The nuclear controversy has carried on too long and gone too far. It must be brought to a closure before it divides the Establishment further. It devolves on the political Establishment not to weaken the executive and the Centre any more.
Give and take is the only solution. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>All parties must prevent the further weakening of the Centre.</i>
17 August 2006: On Monday, in an Independence Day-eve piece, we wrote about the vanishing of the Establishment as it was. This is taking on stranger dimensions. Sections of the Establishment are rebelling against other sections, and whether or not the rebellion is justified, it is weakening the Establishment as a whole, weakening the Centre, and weakening the office of the prime minister. This is not to the good.
Two constituents of the Establishment, the judiciary and the free press, have traditionally an adversarial role. How adversarial though they are changes with the situation and the ruling regime. A regime which has its moral lights clear and shining will face fewer adversaries than one guided by the basest instincts. This is fairly obvious.
But apart from the judiciary and the media, the rest of the executive Establishment works as a united whole. A combination of events though has weakened the forces that bind the Establishment, and produced differences within. The events are also fairly obvious. A general election produced a fractured verdict. The resultant coalition politics and a politically weak PM have crippled the powers of the Centre.
It is the differences within the executive, however, that are harder to reconcile. Earlier, for example, <b>the PMO had one view on Siachen, it was inching towards an agreement with Pakistan for troopsâ withdrawal. The NSA, M.K.Narayanan, was fairly keen, and the PMâs visit to Pakistan in mid-June was slated to conclude the agreement or progress it. The army said no. Its condition was unless the present Indian-held positions on the glacier were accepted by Pakistan, there would be no pullout. Since this would have constituted recognition of Indiaâs occupation of the glacier, Pakistan refused. </b>
<b>On this, the army was right. The PMO was forced to accept</b> it. Anyhow, relations with Pakistan rapidly deteriorated, and the PM finger-pointed Pakistani terrorism in his Independence Day speech. As an institution, the army had every reason to protect its interests. But the point is it got to a situation where it almost had to defy the PMO.
There is another more recent incident, as old as yesterdayâs.<b> The PMâs scientific advisor, C.N.R.Rao, was quoted to say any shifting of goalposts in the Indo-US nuclear deal was unacceptable.</b> Like with the Siachen withdrawal, one canât dispute Raoâs stand, but see the threat behind it, the stentorian tone<b>. Should one section of the Establishment battle another so publicly, so cussedly? </b>
Our position has been that it is to the good that institutions of the executive are safeguarding their interests and exercising freedom to protect themselves. That remains our view. But this process should not lead to a conflicted Establishment, where everyone is tearing into everyone else. <b>If the Central Establishment weakens, the country weakens</b>. There is no escape from that.
There is a breakdown of Establishment consensus, and this must be repaired. The stage is past for the blame game, that the PMO did not heed the armyâs position on Siachen until it took a rigid stand. <b>Or that on the nuke deal, the PMO went on a different course from what the nuclear scientists were urging</b>. On all these issues, a settled position has to be reached, and only then can Parliament reach a position on it.
Some things cannot be changed. We cannot hope for a change of PM. The Congress party is not going to oblige. And frankly, why should it, if it further weakens its position in the government? So Manmohan Singh, with all his political weaknesses, has to be accepted and permitted to function. <b>But the PM must also recognize that his position is weak, and that the Establishment is splintered</b>. Within the Establishment, therefore, there has to be give and take, and this must later spread to the political Establishment as a whole.
We are not taking any new position on the issues that have split the Establishment. Our positions are known. But we hold the further splintering of the Establishment must be contained. Democracy does not mean the Establishment speaks in different voices. That damages us, and hurts our international position and prestige.
<b>There are many who would blame the PM for a splintered Establishment and a weakened Centre, but the blame game has gone on too long. If un-repaired, the splits could grow, and become permanent, which would be destructive for future governments. While all the legitimate institutional interests should be protected, no entity must be permitted to hijack the Establishment. </b>
In a parliamentary democracy, the PM is the head of the government, the chief executive, as it were. He has to be trusted in the conduct of his official duties, and if he cannot be trusted, then he must either resign, or be removed. It has almost come to that situation, where the PM is no longer trusted on the nuclear deal, and parliamentary oversight is demanded. Worse for the PM, sections of the executive are opposing him on the deal.
As said earlier, this is an unprecedented situation. <b>This lack of trust is evident in another quarter. President Abdul Kalam has not moved on the office of profit bill even after the Union cabinet has reconsidered it and approved it. Nobody can fault the President for his reservations about the bill. The constitutional lawyer, Fali Nariman, calls it a âlawless lawâ</b>. A constitutional impasse is in the making there.
A round up of all the contentious issues suggests the PM must back down from some of his commitments. He cannot, for example, turn away from the demand for a sense of Parliament resolution on the nuclear deal. But equally, any resolution must not carry a sting that the PM is untrustworthy, or that his section of the Establishment has sold out. The nuclear controversy has carried on too long and gone too far. It must be brought to a closure before it divides the Establishment further. It devolves on the political Establishment not to weaken the executive and the Centre any more.
Give and take is the only solution. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->