 |
||
|
||
|
||
Bearing either a miracle or an unexpected development along the
lines of what happened in Uttar Pradesh last week, the fall of the
H. D. Deve Gowda Government seems inevitable. As is proper, the
funeral rites must he performed in the Lok Sabha, and the sooner
the better. There is absolutely no justification for a Government
which appears to have lost its majority to prolong its life through
some Constitutional sleight of hand. Common sense, propriety and
established conventions demand that the Lok Sabha be convened as
early as possible to debate and vote on the motion of confidence.
The President has set April 11 as the date by which Gowda should
prove his majority, and the Prime Minister must accept this with
grace. The country cannot afford to persist with a lame-duck
Government for any length of time.
As yet, there is no reason to believe that the collapse of the
United Front experiment will lead to something more durable. Apart
from wanting in numbers, the Congress lacks an element that is
crucial for purposeful governance: credibility. Its reason for
extending support to the UF Government was based on negative
considerations - to keep the BJP out; its real reason for
withdrawing support to Gowda is equally negative - to prevent the
long arm of the law from catching up with Congressmen. Any
Government formed on the basis of such questionable premises cannot
hope to acquire legitimacy even if, for the sake of argument, it
manages to cobble together a majority in the Lok Sabha. Indeed,
the frightening aspect of the Congress coup is that it is based on
a determination to use the administrative machinery to subvert the
rule of law. Gowda was not the most inspiring of Prime Ministers
and the performance of some of his ministers was clearly not up to
the mark. But at least that coalition was forged on a political
principle - anti-BJPism - not the law of the jungle. If the UF had
to be removed, the rationale behind its downfall should have been
politics and principles. Kesri's letter to the President is
unconvincing on both these counts.
In a sense, Kesri's dramatic Sunday morning move has underlined the
magnitude of the political crisis that confronts India. The end of
one-party dominance has made coalition politics inevitable.
Neither the Congress, nor, for that matter, the BJP - which hopes
to step into the shoes of the Congress as a pan-Indian phenomenon -
can avoid facing up to this reality. Coalition politics is not by
definition unwholesome. There are examples of many democracies
making a success of power-sharing. What has made the experience of
coalitions sordid in India is the fact that there are enough
politicians willing to use their strategic clout to feather their
own nest. Consequently, disagreements arise over share of the
spoils. The cracks in the Deve Gowda Government have not merely
been on account of personalised pressures from Congressmen, but the
political blackmail of leaders such as Laloo Prasad Yadav and
Mulayam Singh Yadav who are not very selective about the company
they keep. For every Chidambaram who tries to operate along
responsible and non-partisan lines, there are many C. M. Ibrahims
and Ram Vilas Paswans who are unabashed in their use of the
official machinery for narrow ends.
To suggest that coalitions necessarily entail restraint and
responsibility is akin to preaching the Sermon on the Mount to
Phoolan Devi. It is likely to have the least effect and may, in
fact, be greeted with bewilderment and incomprehension. Politics
has by and large ceased to be a noble profession in India, and the
character of politicians reflects this slide. In recent months,
judicial activism and the public-spiritedness of individual civil
servants have prevented matters from deteriorating. Moreover, an
exasperated civil society has carved out its own niche which is
unconcerned with either government or politics. But the process
has been uneven. The state still occupies a pivotal role in the
everyday life of the citizen to warrant total disinterest and
apathy. If the Budget fails through - and there is every chance of
that happening - it is not the politician, but the productive
citizen who will have to pay the price of uncertainty. If
Government money is squandered in unproductive schemes and
leakages, the burden will have to be borne by the consumers and
taxpayers in the form of higher taxes. If Moody's gives India an
indifferent rating, it is not the indignant politicians who will
face the consequences, but the entrepreneur who is looking for
capital and technology on attractive terms.
It is because the average citizen cannot afford to turn his face
away from politics that the issue of governance is relevant. The
politicians may wish to avert another election because they are
unprepared in terms of funding. But that is not an issue which
should concern the average citizen. The Deve Gowda Government was
formed and quietly welcomed on the assumption that it would pursue
a line of least damage. As the Government crumbles it is pertinent
to ask the same question: will a new dispensation in this Lok Sabha
manage likewise? Or will it subvert institutions, encourage
greater cynicism and add to India's grim international reputation?
The answers do not seem particularly encouraging.
Which is why it has become essential to search for innovative
damage-containment methods. Well-meaning proposals for an
all-party National Government may sound good in the seminar
circuit, but will cut no ice among politicians who are too set in
their likes and dislikes. At best, it can be a temporary respite
from elections, but no respite from uncertainty. India needs a
measure of targeted, purposeful governance. This can only happen
if the politicians realise that the price of recklessness is
returning to the people to account for their conduct. The
electorate may have tired of repeated attempts at government
formation. But it should realise that its weariness is nothing
compared to the dread among politicians at the prospect of facing
up to the collective will of the people.
A fresh general election, less than a year after the previous one,
may not yield a decisive outcome. With minor differences, the 12th
Lok Sabha could turn out to be equally fractured. That is not the
point. What is important is that the sheer mortification of having
to return to the people could prompt a sense of restraint and
responsibility. Most important, it could inform those who have
shown wanton disregard for national interests that they are
unwanted. A general election is imperative not merely to elect a
government, but to punish those who have contributed to India's
national degeneration. This is not the time to despair. It is the
moment of bloodless, unsparing retribution.
|
||
|
||
|
||