Author: P Raman
Publication: Sify News
Date:
URL: http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14316718
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was rather blunt
when he had cautioned his listeners in the UK about the 'constraints' imposed
by his coalition allies on further liberalisation in India. Every one knew
what and whom he had in mind. But what perhaps went unnoticed was that it
applied equally to his own party establishment as much as the supporting Left.
The latter's responses are measured and well predictable. But the slap from
the Sonia establishment can come when it is least expected.
And when the veto comes, none can question
it. All defences, foreign or domestic, crumble and prompt compliance follows.
This was what had happened in the case of SEZs. A couple of sentences from
Sonia Gandhi at Nainital, the whole government put a sudden break on the seizures
under the Land Acquisition Act. Even the chambers and business bodies went
silent. If the Left or regional allies make a point, you can lampoon it and
push it forward through the back door (as in the case of Neyveli Lignite).
But not when the party establishment strikes.
Read more hard-hitting columns
This political phenomenon of post-2004 India
has not come in for proper dissection. If the UPA arrangement is working,
it is partly due to the Left pledge to keep it going and equally due to Sonia
establishment's skillful balancing act. The other aspect of this intricate
arrangement has been that while 10 Janpath has a very cordial relationship
with the Prime Minister, it also has had all reservations about many aspects
of his reform agenda. To draw a parallel, Narasimha Rao had given a totally
free hand to finance minister Manmohan Singh. He desired minor adjustments
only after the party's poll routs in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
It is not so under the present Congress dispensation.
The present leadership displays a highly pragmatic approach to politics, economics
and statecraft. It is committed to reform and globalisation but if any aspects
of their implementation go against its political (vested) interests, that
alone will weigh high for the party. This crucial difference between the doctrinaire
mindset of the PM camp and practical approach of the party establishment was
emphasized to this writer by an important party manager.
The argument is simple. Coalitions under democracy
survive on compromises. To sustain a government, the ruling party should keep
on cultivating the popular support. Any strategy, economic or political, that
ignores the voter interest and falls for the elite's praise, will eventually
fall into another `shine-India' trap. The party is ever conscious of this
harsh political truth. This is the basis of all its responses from the flagship
programmes like the NREP, NRHM and Bharat Nirman and now the 20-programme.
This motive acted when the Sonia establishment
had deftly put its weight with the Left on certain points while drafting of
the NCMP. This was to make it more palatable to the voting masses. Every intervention
by Sonia Gandhi from the resource guzzler rural programmes and PSU sales to
silent disapproval of workers' `hire and fire' have this `aam aadmi' syndrome
in mind. If they can have `French exception' and 'Blairism,' why not the middle
path of Soniaism'?
Truth of such claims apart, a sort of `Soniaism'
is clearly at work. The resuscitation of Indira Gandhi's 20-pont programme
is a case in point. Even if it may not have any major additional financial
commitment, this is not the kind of development the GDP-obsessed liberalisers
desire. Branded as populism, the reform establishment took it as a distraction
from the productive path. In classical reform lexicon, many heads under the
new programme like garibi hatao, housing, drinking water, health and education
for all, social security and labour welfare fall under the category of populist
profligacy. In this case all resistance waned only when the source of the
move came to be known.
The 20-point programme belonged to the genre
of national rural schemes in which the Congress establishment puts heavy political
stake. These are aimed at countering both 2003's `bijli-sadak-paani' missile
against the Congress state governments and to improve the party's pro-poor
image. A new set of ministers and leaders close to both the PM's reform establishment
and the party leadership seems to have emerged to do the work. Apparently,
20-point plan is another image enhancer for Sonia Gandhi.
Many see such invisible hands in the appointment
of Dr M S Swaminathan, who has never been a darling of the reform lobby, as
chairman of the National Commission on Farmers (NCF). His recommendations
are perfectly in tune with Sonia Gandhi's three prestigious rural programmes.
and the new 20-point programme. Incidentally, both were revealed the same
week with much glee in the Sonia camp. Swaminathan's remedies will go well
with the farmers, and are expected to help the ruling party in rural areas.
As for reform lobby in the government, Swaminathan
has already become an embarrassment. His recommendations go contrary to the
government's official policy for rural growth. A few months ago, the PM had
prescribed his own prescriptions for rural India's what he had described 'second
green revolution' in which he had provided multinational seed producers an
important role. Some of these firms were to be on important official panels.
Contract farming for the retail chains and huge corporate farms were the other
ingredients of the second green revolution.
The NCF does not visualise any such role for
the corporates. On the contrary, it strongly objects to the UPA policy of
reduced procurement by the government agencies and privatisation of food grain
purchases. The government had recently introduced the system of futures trading
in agricultural produces which has badly contributed to the price rise. The
Swaminathan panel wants remunerative prices for agricultural products by way
of higher minimum support price, prompt procurement and a greater state intervention
in favour of the farmers. In the coming days, this is going to be another
bone of contention between the government side and party establishment.
The question now is not whether the Sonia
establishment will impose its ideas on the government. That is a settled matter.
The issue is the kind of instrument it uses for the purpose through a curt
remark by the party chief or using its invisible hands within the government.
For the party, the main criterion is voter friendliness. If the FDI in retail
displeases a numerically powerful section, you can expect a sudden slap from
the party establishment. Another interesting trend, yet to be confirmed, is
that the PM himself is trying to adjust to the new reality. His private-public
participation programme, though not wholly welcomed by the chamber bodies,
and his `inclusive globalisation' remarks at Cambridge are straws in the wind.
- Free Press Journal