HVK Archives: Politics versus politicking
Politics versus politicking - The Hindu
Sitaram Yechury
()
12 May 1997
Title : Politics versus politicking
Author : Sitaram Yechury
Publication : The Hindu
Date : May 12, 1997
It was indeed a remarkable coincidence that during the recent weeks of political
uncertainty, the Royal Shakespearean Company came to India, for the first time, to
celebrate 50 years of our independence with a performance of "The Comedy of
Errors"!
A high voltage drama unfolded in the capital after the Congress chief, Mr. Sitaram
Kesri, wrote to the President withdrawing his party's support to the Deve Gowda
Government. The hectic confabulations that followed and the permutations and
combinations that were suggested reminded one of the devil's dictionary in which
Ambrose Bierce defined politics as "a strife of interests masquerading as a
contest of principles".
Barring a few, notably the Left, all parties, for the time being appeared to have
bid goodbye to politics - principles, ideology and commitment. Instead,
arithmetic came up front stage with various combinations worked out sans politics.
The major players - Congress and BJP - were entertaining dreams of leading their
own coalition governments. The former under Mr. Kesri's leadership and the latter
through a National Democratic Front! Politics and ideology were replaced by the
politics of management. Looking at it the other way round, by the management of
politics. For a while it appeared that opportunism and partisan interests
superseded the interests of the country and the people.
Through all these bizarre developments, the principled positions of the CPI(M) and
the rest of the Left stand out. And precisely for this reason, they are under
severe attack by all shades of opportunists and their pen-pushers in the media.
As the dust appears to have settled with the settling down of the Gujral Ministry.
one can now venture an appraisal of these weeks' developments.
The Congress president was rightly criticised for what was seen as an act of
impetuosity. It would. however, be an error to dismiss this as an act of
idiosyncrasy. Various catalytic factors such as impending court cases might have
determined the timing but there was a design behind the act. One may agree or
disagree with the reasoning but there were at least two compelling factors that
propelled the Congress president into doing what he did. First, there was a great
unease among the rank and file and State-level leadership at the growing
marginalisation of the party. Secondly, the Congress president. having recently
assumed office, had to establish his personal authority. By withdrawing support
to the United Front Government, he gambled on three options. The best was a
coalition government under his leadership. The next best was a coalition under a
non-Congress leadership. The worst was a change in the U.F. Government leadership
with the Congress role remaining what it was.
Eventually, the Congress had to settle for the worst option. Worse still, with
the entire old Cabinet having been sworn in, a clear message was conveyed to the
country that everything except the leader remained the same with the U.F. -
policies, programme and personnel. The Congress, in its letter to the President,
raised a series of issues listing the "failures" of the Gowda Government.
Eventually, it forsook all those for its obdurate stand on changing the U.F.
government leader. On its part, the U.F. agreed to the leadership change in order
to maintain its unity. This unity was not threatened by differences over
personalities.
The basic question was whether to impose another election, within one year, on the
country and the people. While the Left took the position that it was the Congress
which was imposing the elections, the other U.F. constituents wanted to avoid such
a situation. Hence the decision to change the leader.
That the Congress finally had to settle for what it did was due, for good measure.
to the firmness of the CPI(M). The U.F. was formed in response to the post-1996
mandate which was clearly for a non-Congress secular combination. The CPI(M)'s
role in the formation and continuation of the U.F. is based on an appreciation of
the present political situation. In order to strengthen the secular, democratic,
federal and self-reliant foundations of modern India, it is necessary that a
non-Congress secular formation be strengthened. The unity of the U.F. at the
present juncture and its strengthening in the future are thus central to the
CPI(M)'s understanding. It is precisely the CPI(M)'s pursuit of this objective -
and to that extent, checkmating of both the Congress and BJP designs - that has
irked many who have heaped calumny on the party.
If the country has to be saved from communal forces, why not join with the
Congress in a coalition, we are asked. Give up blind anti-Congressism and keep the
interests of the country above that of the party, we are told. The CPI(M)'s
so-called anti-Congressism stems not from labels or aversion to personalities. It
stems from opposition to policies. Under public pressure and due to infighting
and factionalism, the Congress may have changed its leadership. But till date, it
has not come out with any analysis of the mauling it received in the 1996
elections. It has neither reviewed the policies that led to its alienation from
the people nor taken an outright position against corruption of its leaders. As
long as the Congress adheres to the ruinous policies it imposed on the country and
the people and as long as it protects the corrupt, it will continue to be opposed.
And this opposition comes because the interests of the country are placed above
the interests of the party. In fact, for the CPI(M), there is no divergence
between these interests.
Hence, any arithmetic of realignment which includes the Congress and leaves out
the Left is just not politically feasible. For, it is not only the Left but many
other U.F. constituents who have won the people's support and are running State
governments by opposing the Congress policies.
Some others suggest that a Congress-U.F. coalition would provide stability and
hence must be brought about. Once again numerical calculations seem to take
precedence. The 1996 election mandate, for all its complexities, was a clear
rejection of the Congress. Its results were the worst since independence. The
Congress Working Committee itself accepted the mandate and declined to consider
forming a government then. Now, in less than a year, without reconsidering its
policies or reviewing its performance, it is seeking a share in governance. Does
this not constitute a betrayal of the people's mandate, Does this not represent an
attempt to stage a backdoor entry bypassing the verdict? The ire against the
CPI(M) is that it opposed such manoeuvres and upheld political principles
Back
Top
|
