HVK Archives: TOI: "Marching to UF's Tune Left in the Lurch"
TOI: "Marching to UF's Tune Left in the Lurch" - The Times of India
Praful Bidwai
()
8 October 1996
Title : Marching to UF's Tune Left in the Lurch
Author : Praful Bidwai
Publication : The Times of India
Date : October 8, 1996
If Mr Deve Gowda had deliberately planned to discredit the United Front
government and make it forfeit half its moral prestige and political
goodwill in a single day, he couldn't have done it more efficiently than
he did on September 30. The wholly indefensible manner. in which he
rushed to rescue Mr Narasimha Rao by subverting every norm of political
decency and good governance, by bla- tantly interfering with the CBI and
ordering it not to oppose bail for Mr Rao, and bypassing the home ministry
while politically compromising the Delhi police, is the single biggest
black mark in the UF's record-book so far. The fact that the temporary
reprieve granted to Mr Rao on dubious legal grounds was preceded by Mr
Gowda's highly controversial midnight meeting with the Chief Justice of
India, and then with Mr Rao and his own law minister, further compounds
this grave impropriety.
By engineering this collusion with Mr Gowda, Mr Rao - gravely indicted by
India's premier police organisation - inflicted yet another blow upon the
credibility of the political system. It is another matter that his gain,
a mere postponement of court appearance, was unworthy of a senior
politician. Earlier, he had managed to get the Pathak case transferred
for no valid reason from Mr Prem Kumar's court to Mr Ajit Bharihoke's.
The public is bound to be appalled not just because Mr Rao is being
granted undeserved preferential treatment at each stage by the executive
and the judiciary, but also because this should happen just when hopes run
high that those respon- sible for defrauding the public exchequer and
other malfeasance will at last be held accountable and punished under the
UF dispensation.
Sordid Episode
This sordid episode, followed by some Congressmen's audacious demand for a
special Parliament session to discuss relations among the executive,
Parliament and the judiciary, signifies a retreat into the kind of
politics of manipulation and favour seeking, without accountabili- ty or
checks and balances, which so disgusts the public. It represents a
betrayal in four months of the hope that the UF would usher in a new kind
of politics. In this regard, the UF's performance has been somewhat worse
than the more fractious Janata Dal government's, barring the
extraordinarily ugly Devi Lal episode. This puts the Left, a critical UF
component, in a worse position than in 1989-90 when it supported Mr V.P.
Singh from the outside. The Left is earning all the opprobrium through
association, while making few gains.
September 30 was not the first time that Mr Gowda put the Left in such a
predicament. He has done so all along, whether on relations within the
UF, issues of economic policy, vital political decisions, or high-level
appoint- ments. Consider this. Mr Gowda made major appointments,
including Mr Romesh Bhandari's, and in the PMO without consulting his
cabinet or the UF steering committee. The decision to impose President's
rule on Gujarat was made similarly, in violation of the UF's promise on
Article 356. Mr Gowda first sent Mr C. M. Ibrahim to hold
'political-co-operation' talks with the Naib Imam of the Jama Masjid and
then himself held a controversial but pro- longed meeting with Mr Bal
Thackeray, to widespread secular criticism and the UF's embarrassment. On
other political reform issues too, the UF's performance has been
unimpressive - witness the Lok Pal Bill, political autonomy for Jammu and
Kashmir, electoral reform and the fiasco over reservations for women.
Little Respect
On economic policy the UF has failed to distinguish itself from the
Congress. Indeed, in some respects it has caused serious embarrassment to
the Left: some of its ministers' ardent advocacy of $10 billion in foreign
direct investment (FDI) at any cost, announcement of a disinvestment
commission while altogether bypassing public sector reform, and uncritical
support to neo- liberal policies on the infrastructure and the environ-
ment. Mr Gowda has championed Cogentrix in the manner of the smalltime
politician. Mr Chidambaram has shown little respect for the UF Common
Minimum Programme in his budget or his frequent policy pronouncements. Mr
Mura- soli Maran has emerged as the new guru of indiscriminate
deregulation and a cola-and-chewing-gum FDI strategy. If these ministers
have their way, all power projects under 250 MW - i.e., with large
environmental, foreign exchange and natural resources consequences - will
be "freed" of environmental scrutiny and clearance. Nothing could be
more disastrous. Similarly, the UF has promised - with- out even the
pretence of cabinet or steering committee consultation - to amend the
Patents Act although this is not necessary to conform to minimal WTO
requirements.
Mr Gowda has made little effort to build a consensus on these issues.
Indeed, he tends to bypass the steering committee, relying instead on
clandestine consultations with Mr Narasimha Rao whom he has met 27 times.
The Left has had to beat a retreat on several important policy issues. It
has also accommodated itself to a far more conservative, near jingoistic,
position on the CTBT, rather. than the ambiguous stand it originally
favoured. None of this redounds to the Left's credit. Meanwhile, the
Janata Dal, the most important component of the pre- UF National Front
which it was allied with, is in disar- ray, and has all but collapsed as
the UF's centre of gravity. This too leaves the Left with little leverage
or room for maneuver.
There is simply no reason why the Left should attract opprobrium on the
UF's behalf when it does not determine the Front's conduct or policies.
The opprobrium is undeserved: the Left is the most stable, reliable,
endur- ing representative within the UF of plebeian interests. It vests
it with considerable moral and political cred- ibility. The Left is the
cleanest, most principled, part of the Indian political spectrum, with the
least stake in manipulative politics, and hence can guide the UF in a
positive way. But if the UF goes wayward, the Left will he less and less
able to play this function. Worse, its own greatest asset, viz.
moral-political authority, could be undermined. The Left cannot afford to
lose this. If it does, it will no longer just mark time, but go into
decline despite having gracefully survived the collapse of the USSR and
Eastern Europe. "Tailism," or following, rather than leading, a more
conservative partner, is the worst thing that could happen to the CPI
and-the CPM.
Issuing Ultimatum
This means the time has come for the Left to begin dis- tancing itself
politically from the UF on issues of policy and principle, indeed to issue
an ultimatum to Mr Deve Gowda: if he thinks he can outmaneuver it by
making an alliance with the Rao Congress, and through tactics aimed to
manipulate or bypass judicial and political accountability, then the Left
too can walk out of the UF. It will have no choice but to do so if the
rightward economic policy drift continues and the CMP is selective- ly
interpreted and implemented. It cannot stay in the UF unless the Steering
Committee is properly institutiona- lised, and consulted at each critical
step, on all major policies. Mr Gowda simply has no moral-political
author- ity to behave as if he were a "normal" Prime Minister with a
single-party-dominated majority government. If it is not to sound empty,
such an ultimatum must be backed by action: open public debate, trenchant
criticism, cadre education, mobilisation in the streets.
This is a hard decision, but the Left has few options. If it does not
begin distancing itself from an increasingly compromised, Congressised,
UF, it will risk getting discredited something it has successfully avoided
doing in spite of historic adversities. And that is the path to ignominy,
if not oblivion.
Back
Top
|
