NATIONAL POLITICS

Congress: Withdrawal of Support to UF Government

Congress: CWC Resolution on Support to U.F. Government

This meeting of the CWC reviewed the current political situation at its meeting held on 16.2.1997.

In May 1996, after the general election, CWC extended its support to the combination of secular forces to form government at Centre in order to contain the communal forces in the country. CWC is constrained to note that the UF has failed to provide the leadership necessary to consolidate the forces of secularism and to confront the forces of communalism. In U.P., Punjab and in a series of by-elections the UF failed to work together with the Congress to contain the forces communalism. On the other hand, the anti-Congressism which was the main objective of non-Congress political parties is still dominant in the constituent units of the UF. They have not come out of their old mooring.  This meeting of the CWC urges the UF to introspect and critically review its performance. They should not forget that Congress support to UF is not in isolation and absolute but with the objective of consolidating the forces of secularism. Therefore, there cannot by a compromise on this issue. The CWC resolves that the Congress support to UF henceforth would be based on issues and not unconditional. The Congress president is authorised to talk to the leaders of the UF and thereafter take appropriate steps.

Kesri's Letter to the President on Withdrawal of Support to UF Govt.

The Congress Working Committee extended its support to the 13-party coalition UF to form a government at the Centre by a resolution dated May 12, 1996. The CWC reviewed its decision on two subsequent occasions on November 4, 1996, and February 16, 1997.

In these two meetings, the CWC reviewed the performance of the UF Government headed by H.D. Deve Gowda. The CWC expressed its concern over the deteriorating law and order situation, drift in the economy leading to rising prices and unemployment, growing ommunal menace and lack of cohesive functioning of the government. The very basis of the support of the Congress party to the UF Government was to contain the communal forces and consolidate the secular forces. The objective was reiterated in the resolution of the CWC dated February 16, 1997. It appealed to the UF Government to critically review its own performance.

I, myself, expressed our concern to constituent parties of the UF and requested to take corrective measures but unfortunately nothing happened.

In view of the changed situation, the Congress party is compelled to withdraw its support from the UF Government.

Kishore Gandhi On Kesri's Game-Plan

The survival and renewal of the 112-year-old Congress party under the leadership of Sitaram Kesri is beset with a battery of questions.  On December 25, 1996, in an address to his partymen at his Purana Qila Road residence in New Delhi, Kesri candidly expressed that the party was neither in power nor in the Opposition. He admitted that the party faces a crisis of identity and the time had come for them to decide what the Congressman wants to be. Kesri is not a thinker, but a pragmatic politician. This is not the place to discuss in depth about the capabilities of Kesri in transforming the monolithic structure of the Congress and making it once again a vibrant movement for the cultural resurgence of the country. Politics, like m y other walks of life, has changed form. What matters in. a fluid situation today is the capability to mobilise new forces for building up fresh equations with various political parties and groups for achieving the magical figure to power.

It is a game of numbers. And when one looks at the total strength of the Congress in the Lok Sabha - which is 145 members - one would like to raise an obvious question as to how the party can cobble up the support of at least 128 additional members.

For the functional viability of parliamentary democracy what needed is a stable coalition and not just a short-term alliance. The United Front, a conglomeration of 14 political parties, has formed the Government yet it lacks an ideological commitment.

Rao is undoubtedly a master craftsman and his manipulations did help him survive for five years. But in the process, he lost moral ground and credibility to rule. It is the inglorious exist of Rao that is replete with moral lessons both for the Congress and other political players.

What is most astonishing shift in economy, Rao is alleged to have liberalised morality and ethical values. The succession of scams, swindles, cheating and forgery are today attributed to his reign. Here is an insight from APJ Taylor who once said that "he aspired to power instead of influence, and as a result forfeited both." Quoting Rao's famous line to him., "the law will take its own course," Karunakaran cracked a cruel joke on the string of charges bringing the former Prime Minister to the court of law - St. Kitts, Lakhubhai Pathak, Hawala and JMM pay off. Rao failed to learn that "corruption and rule by coterie is a potent that will eventually destroy its own patrons". Corruption remains high on the public agenda and unless politicians learn to be transparent and accountable in their life-styles, they would be soon discredited. What is needed is a high degree of intellectual and moral integrity for sheer survival in the politics of today.

Sitaram Kesri spoke of taking a pledge to fight against corruption that has become widely pervasive. he has asked his party workers to mobilise their inner and outer resources and put the party back on the paths shown by the outstanding stalwarts of the freedom movement. But party nominations have been given to hawala-tainted persons who were earlier denied party tickets.

Kesri knows that the Congress can no longer claim its predominant position in the national life. A certain degree of resilience has entered in the political process and consequently the determining variables of party fortunes in the electoral battle have changed in the past few years. If the electorate is not prepared to give their mandate to any single party why should the party not explore the possibility of alternative models of governance? Is it possible to switch on to the presidential form of government for the viability of democracy.

(Source: The Pioneer, 30.1.1997)

Prem Shankar Jha On Deve Gowda's Record

Nine months ago, when the United Front was hastily forged and when it staked its claim to form the government, most people were appalled at the prospect. The 13 parties at its core had nothing in common except keeping the BJP out of power. Even to stay in power they needed the support of the Congress. As a result, no one seriously expected such a government to last.

The Government of Mr. Deve Gowda has not only not lived up to expectations but has, over nine months, shown fairly conclusively that it is not fit to govern. Three factors have conspired to deprive it of the moral right to govern. The first is the purely destructive role played by the three members of the Left Front placed on the so-called Steering Committee of the UF. The second is the unprincipled politics of Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, and the third, the personality of the Prime Minister and his failure to ensure that is it is his writ that runs with his motley crew.

The sorriest figure in the entire UF saga is Mr. Gowda, who has been unable o stand up to the Left ideologues on economic matters and to a ruthlessly manipulative Mr. Yadav on political issues. The two have stripped him of all moral ascendancy, and turned him into a figure of fun. And yet only a small part of the blame actually belongs to him. As Mr. V.P. Singh divined when he was literally thrust into the post of Prime Minister on November 28, 1990, it is the fate of minority Prime Ministers to wear the crown of thorns for the wrongdoing of others. Mr. Gowda's problem is that he has come to head the government at a time the transition from dominant party democracy to bipolar democracy is far from complete.

The Congress cannot rule, but it can prevent anyone else from ruling. Had Mr. Narasimha Rao continued as the leader of Congress, Mr. Gowda would have been assured the principled support that might have enabled him to put up a better showing at least on economic policy. But once he went and Mr. Sitaram Kesri suddenly developed prime ministerial ambitions, Mr. Gowda became a prisoner of both the Left and the Mr. Yadav.

What he should have realised was that neither the Left, the Samajwadi party nor the Congress stood to gain anything from another election. He could therefore have ignored them and followed the dictates of his conscience without fear of losing office. In the end he would have lost it anyway, but it would have been better to go out with a string of achievements to his credit than to go out with his reputation in tatters and nothing to show for his time in South Block.                                                                             

(Source: The Hindu, 23 March, 1997)

Neerja Chowdhury On Need for Positive Secular Agenda

It is time that the United Front and Congress found an agenda which goes beyond "keeping the BJP out" The fear of a saffron upsurge may be a good glue to get 14 parties to hang together but it is giving a new momentum to the BJP.

There is nothing wrong in non-BJP parties wanting to keep the BJP out. It is a natural political goal. Secularism has been an article of faith with the Left; the Congress still pays lip-service to it, and it has turned out to be good politics for Mulayam Singh Yadav.

But is it possible to govern the country around one issue, and that too a negative one? Should everything else - crime, extortion, corruption, governance, the health of institutions - subserve to this one objective?

Pakistan is criticised as an anti-State because of its one-point raison d'etre.

The United Front and the Congress are guilty of espousing what is an anti-agenda today. What is more, it is proving to be counterproductive.

Keeping the BJP out at all costs has placed the Congress in a no-win situation.

It is neither in Government nor in Opposition. Rejuvenation of the party seems a distant dream now in the Ganga heartland and its rank and file will increasingly be compelled to find new allies in UP and Bihar in the weeks to come.

The danger for the Congress is not just the continuing erosion of its base, but its fragmentation in Stats where its state leaders cannot reconcile to the reality of playing second-fiddle to UF constituents. They may float regional parties in the coming months which may join hands with the BJP to occupy the Opposition space.

The BJP, whose national ambitions depend on the success of its experiment in UP, would want to force a mid-term poll in the country "to strike while the iron is hot" and before things begin to go awry in Lucknow. This would reduce the options of the Congress further, leading to greater decimation of the party.

A commitment to secularism and taking along people of all religions is very different from the quick fix solution of keeping the BJP out. Had the non-BJP parties been really serious about keeping out the BJP, they would have sunk their differences in Punjab and in UP.

The Left may have problems with the BJP philosophically, but it has to fight the Congress politically.

The non-BJP parties have yet to find a cogent common programme.                                                               

(Source: The Indian Express, 24 March, 1997)