The Great Indian Political Debate - 2

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Op-Ed   Deccan Chronilce. 22 Aug.,2006
<b>India’s elusive consensus </b>
Back to Forward: By Inder Malhotra

Manmohan Singh’s third Independence Day speech from the ramparts of the Red Fort was also the 59th prime ministerial oration from that august rostrum in celebration of the magic day when, in Jawaharlal Nehru’s memorable words, India had its “tryst with destiny.” The first 17 of these were delivered by Nehru himself — a record that is unlikely to be equalled, given the increasing fragmentation of the polity and the decreasing stature of most of those plunging into politics.

Indira Gandhi was close on the heels of her “pappu” but with a crucial difference; the 16 Red Fort speeches she made were in two separate instalments of 11 and five. Having spoken from the same hallowed spot during six sequential years, Atal Behari Vajpayee comes next to her. Rajiv Gandhi spoke on five occasions, as did P.V. Narasimha Rao. Nehru’s successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Morarji Desai, who replaced IG, each addressed the nation twice. Charan Singh, Deve Gowda and Inder Gujral did so only once each. The luckless Chandrashekhar never got the opportunity.

Without further remembrance of things past, let me return to the good doctor’s rather longish discourse that was better delivered than on the last two I-Days, but was nothing to write home about. His subsequent reply to the Rajya Sabha debate on the Indo-US nuclear deal was far, far superior and has won him deserved approbation. Indeed, it was his first performance that was truly prime ministerial, hopefully to be continued.

However, my focus is on a short but significant paragraph in the Prime Minister’s Red Fort speech appealing for national consensus, of which, predictably, little notice has been taken. <b>He exhorted “all political parties” to recognise the need for “broad consensus” on all issues involving national interest. The sentiment is unexceptionable, indeed imperative</b>. With its immense diversities and complexities, India’s need for consensus is acute. But paradoxically nothing seems more difficult to achieve than consensus even on vital issues of national security.

This is so because, with the possible exception of Bangladesh,<b> no country is so hopelessly polarised as India</b>. Every matter, including the most trivial, is under disputation, so relentless and raucous, that governance of the vast country is becoming well nigh impossible. There are exceptions even to this rigorous rule. On occasions the entire political class suspends its fierce infighting and unites for blatantly self-serving reasons.

For instance, not very long ago, all political parties in Parliament had unanimously rejected the Election Commission’s demand, endorsed by the Supreme Court, that candidates in every election must declare their assets as well as the criminal cases they might be embroiled in. Eventually, these parties were shamed into accepting the sound principle.

But this did not prevent them from proclaiming — with unanimity — that embezzling money from the MPs’ local areas development funds was but a “minor misdemeanour” and therefore the guilty ones need not be expelled from the House, as those accepting cash for asking parliamentary questions had earlier been. And now, unanimity prevails yet again as MPs are giving themselves a substantial raise in pay and perks. They alone are blessed enough to be able to do so!

For the rest, can there be a more telling proof of the chaos — resulting from not only the lack of consensus but also from the violation of the most elementary norms of democracy — that at the time of writing, 200 “working hours” of Parliament in the ongoing monsoon session have been “wasted” in the almost daily disruption of proceedings by screaming MPs that are verbally abusive of each other and embarrassingly close to physical violence? But there is no point just lamenting this alarming state of affairs. Something has got to be done about it. Sadly, this is precisely where the rub lies.

In the first place, both sides — the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), with the Congress as its core and the Left Front as its supporter “from outside” — share the responsibility for the current confrontation accompanied by the flouting of every rule of the game of democracy. In all fairness, the culpability of the BJP may be greater, if only because to this day it has not come to terms fully with its 2004 defeat, resulting in an egregiously negative approach.

Whatever the merits and demerits of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the BJP’s total rejection of it is surely odd, considering that it was even prepared to concede the American demand for the signing of the CTBT, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.<b> But then, the Congress, in the driving seat for the last 27 months, has done precious little to salvage the situation</b>. On the contrary, the Assembly election in UP, still six months away, has so aggravated the polarisation that even the fight against the scourge of terrorism has been made hostage to crassly partisan politics.

An older and bigger malaise is the utterly flawed concept of consensus in this country. This became obvious when the Vajpayee government needed the support of parties opposed to it for both the Kargil War (1999) and its Iraq policy (2003). <b>It is no secret that many BJP stalwarts were raring to send Indian troops to the Iraqi abattoir. L.K. Advani had indeed assured the Bush administration of that. Only Atalji put his foot down and stopped that folly, helped perhaps by the Congress’ categorical opposition to the move</b>.

<b>But what exactly did Vajpayee do on the two occasions? He held meetings of 36 leaders of 28 parties, explained the broad official policy, and let the assembled leaders hold forth and then adjourn. Inder Gujral was absolutely right in complaining that this was an essay “not in consensus building but in information sharing.” Even this kind of exercise hasn’t taken place under the present dispensation. </b>

<b>In established democracies, consensus is built through private consultations between the government and Opposition leaders, accompanied by public debates, often extremely sharp, on the floor of the House. The Leader of the Opposition is usually briefed even on the most sensitive matters almost as frequently as the Prime Minister is. When, oh when, will Indian politicians learn that the Treasury and Opposition benches are partners in making the democratic system work? </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->