The national agenda for governance ... is more remarkable for what it does not say than for what it does. For the nation as a whole this is welcome because the BJP minus the programmes for building a temple at Ayodhya, the abolition of Article 370 and the imposition  of a uniform civil code cannot be accused of running a government on the basis of Hindutva. The omissions are not sins. The commissions ... are also sinless. How far they are practicable and implementable is a matter for speculation ... The agenda's "first commitment" to the nation is to give "a stable, honest, transparent and efficient government". Of these four adjectives, one seems impossible (stability); one (honesty) is inexpedient and the third (efficiency) is dubious leaving transparency as the only achievable one, that too because of modern technology. The claim that a nation of nearly 100 crore people cannot be governed by the arithmetical division of majority and minority is unexceptionable ... The promise of governance by consensus can become a benchmark for the future. Perhaps, it is ... an unavoidable condition of existence ... that the Vajpayee Government should involve "the opposition parties and all sections of society in dialogue" find solutions to major issues.

The agenda speaks of the appointment of a commission to review the Constitution of India and make suitable recommendations. The delicious vagueness of this can mean either not doing anything to the Constitution or just starting a national debate to assess the experience of the past 50 years to decide whether the system needs change ... All in all, the national agenda is broadly acceptable ... But then, the bone of contention is not the substance of governance but who governs. That fact is contentious enough.