 |
|
|
The genesis of the present controversy in Uttar Pradesh lies not in
the differences between Union Home Minister Indrajit Gupta and
Governor Romesh Bhandari, though the conflict has assumed that
shape. It originates from the differences of approach between Prime
Minister Deve Gowda and his Home Minister.
Gowda never wanted to give the Home portfolio to Gupta in the first
place. But he had no choice in the matter as this was the CPI's
publicly articulated pre-condition for joining the government.
Gowda too wanted to associate the Communist party in the government
for greater legitimacy.
Having had to accept Gupta as Home Minister, Gowda set about
sidelining him by establishing his own conduits for running the
Home Ministry.
Home Secretary K Padmanabhaiah was given extension, despite Gupta's
opposition. The home secretary is known to take his orders directly
from the prime minister. A Home Secretary dare not go against his
minister, if he knows that power flows from him. Nor, for that
matter, can any governor, not even Romesh Bhandari, take up cudgels
against the home minister if he enjoys the confidence of the prime
minister.
Bhandari let the cat out of the bag about his direct linkages with
Gowda when he disclosed that he had informed the prime minister
about the law and order situation and Gowda was satisfied with it.
Gowda's remark that a governor could not be changed because of one
murder was not so much a defence of Bhandari as a snub to Gupta.
For he made fight of the statement of the home minister, which in
Parliament should be the government's line on law and order in the
country.
Even if Gowda disagreed with Indrajit Gupta's radical assessment
about the UP situation, the controversy could have been handled
very differently had there been rapport between the two leaders.
Surely, the prime minister himself has made any number of gaffes,
which have caused embarrassment to the government. (A recent case
in point is his statement to Khaleej Times about the government's
willingness for "minor adjustments" on the border in the context of
the Kashmir solution, which had to be denied by the foreign
office.)
It now seems that having been lumped with Gupta, Gowda has tried to
create conditions to marginalise him, possibly in the hope that the
unpredictable communist would quit on his own.
In contrast Gowda, who is otherwise quite accommodating. has given
a free hand to P Chidambaram, I K Gujral and Murasoli Maran to run
their ministries.
But then, he agrees with Chidambaram and Maran on the opening up of
the economy, and does not care much for foreign affairs. There is
no doubt that he and Gupta are on a different wave length. But the
conflict between them is inherent in the situation. After the
initial tentativeness, Gowda is asserting as Prime Minister. Even
though we have a prime ministerial form of democracy, Gowda is
heading a government made up of 13 parties and regional chiefs,
which possibly calls for a different kind of treatment.
Until now, the PMO has called the shots and this is not possible
unless the prime minister can exercise control over the levers of
power which are with the home department. That is why prime
ministers, and for that matter chief ministers, have either kept
the home portfolio or given it to their nominees. Narsimha Rao
often ignored S B Chavan or even allowed Rajesh Pilot to take him
on. But Chavan, for a variety of reasons, put up with it.
Indrajit Gupta has found it very difficult to stomach the
humiliations that have come his way. He announced the move to
review the National Security Guards cover which is being enjoyed by
hordes of politicians and their kin, in many cases without
justification. But it was scotched as there was an outcry from the
affected. His suggestions for appointments of DGPs in the Cabinet's
appointments committee have been ignored.
Gupta is a misfit in the system not just because he has a way of
calling a spade a spade. But because he still harbours illusions
that power must be exercised to effect changes - like the
improvement of the law and order situation in UP. This is
unacceptable to the present state which is like a mafia and cannot
risk the likes of Indrajit Gupta, who are unpredictable and have a
different agenda.
In some ways, Gupta is also responsible for his own predicament.
He could have asserted much more than he has done instead of
lamenting that he was not being consulted by the prime minister. He
is after all the country's Home Minister. For all their
differences, could Gowda have treated Chandra Shekhar the way he
has dealt with Gupta? The Governors cannot be appointed without the
home minister initiating the process.
The prime minister can over rule the home minister on the file, but
this has apparently never happened in independent India.
That is why informal consultations between the prime minister and
home minister are considered a must before things get on the files.
Gupta has expressed the desire to party colleagues that there is no
point in his continuing in North Block since his writ does not run.
Normally resignation is the ultimate weapon that a minister wields
when he differs with the leader. But the CPI has not permitted him
to resign.
Though he has gone along to maintain party discipline, his
marginalisation has affected his standing. The erosion in the
stature of one of its senior-most and respected leaders cannot
surely be good for the image or morale of the CPI or of the Left.
The CPI and the CPM should have taken a firmer stand on ensuring
that Gupta was not sidelined. Gowda cannot afford to ignore the
Left, provided it takes a united stand. (The prime minister 'has
also managed to fine up individual CPI and CPM leaders on his side,
who have evolved a stake in his government.)
Just as Gupta is a prisoner of his party, the Left is a captive of
the present political situation. It is afraid that if it rocks the
boat, the BJP can come to power. Or that the prime minister may
join hands with the Congress.
The prime minister is exploiting this fear and Indrajit Gupta finds
himself trapped in an unenviable position.
|
|
|