Advani’s grand vision
HOME Minister L.K. Advani, the ideas man in the BJP, has a grand vision which his detractors are certain to criticise as flawed. He wants to erect an “effective” state to replace the present soft one.

Religious segregation
THE post-Independence generation of Indians may find it difficult to believe that the British had actually encouraged the system of serving "Hindu paani-Muslim paani" at public places as part of the devious policy of divide and rule.

Unsafe to drink
WE are eating and inhaling poison, in many cases, voluntarily. We have a choice in selecting the items of food we consume unless, of course, we are, say, marooned in a luckless village beyond Paradip in Orissa and the air-dropped food packets are the only visual source of survival.

APPOINTMENT & TRANSFER OF JUDGES
Question of judicial accountability
by S. Sahay
UNLIKE Parliament, the Supreme Court has taken due note of November 26, for that was the day it formally came into being, though the Constitution as a whole came into force on January 26, 1950. The court’s celebrations begin on November 26. On the whole there are good reasons for it. The court, perhaps, is the most powerful apex judicial body in the world; also the most overworked.

Playing the OBC card to advantage
by P. Raman
SO MUCH has been said about the significance of the successful return of the National Democratic Alliance to power. In India, one Congress alone had the record of a ruling group at the Centre retaining majority after a general election. Equally notable has been the ability of the NDA partners to go for elections almost intact after the defeat on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Normally, a rout on the floor precedes or follows defections and realignment among the ruling parties.

Gulf opening up for FDI
by S. Sethuraman
THE economic outlook is brightening up in the oil-rich Gulf region with the rebound in international crude prices during 1999 and the revival of the demand in crisis-hit Asian countries, now on recovery path.

75 Years Ago

November 23, 1924
Mr Sastri and the Ordinance
AS we anticipated in a recent issue, the Rt Hon Srinivasa Sastri, like all other prominent nationalist leaders, unreservedly condemns the Bengal Ordinance, and refuses his countenance or support to investing the executive with extraordinary powers. This is what he says in the course of a signed article in the Servants of India:-

Advani’s grand vision

HOME Minister L.K. Advani, the ideas man in the BJP, has a grand vision which his detractors are certain to criticise as flawed. He wants to erect an “effective” state to replace the present soft one. What he means is a strong state and that is how he defines his project. That would make many people uneasy for two reasons. His big job right now is to fight the separatist militants and he is not making much progress. This is despite his determination to adopt a “proactive policy”. Does he then want to add to the policing muscle of the Central Government? The “strong” adjective points to that possibility. The second point is that the state has to be efficient, equitous and responsive and not be merely effective. It should also be vigilant against the vested interests which often hijack the system. All this needs painstaking institution building and that will take time and the participation of the entire nation, the poor and the deprived who are the proposed beneficiaries, in the main. Rather to make the state meet the aspirations of all the people it is imperative to revive and rejuvenate the democratic institutions which have fallen on bad and creaky days, thanks to years of neglect or gross abuse. It is possible that Mr Advani has the government in mind when he talks of an effective state. His repeated reference to the economic policies since independence supports this assumption. Actually, state is a larger concept and government is a constituent, an important constituent no doubt. In a democracy the government represents the will of the people and will stand to lose its legitimacy gained through the voting process, if it blatantly violates the will of the people. That is the lesson from Mr Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan.

Mr Advani’s critical appraisal of the economic and social policies of the successive governments is feeble on two counts. India has indeed made progress in both areas but the effect is not striking because the creamy layer has scooped much of the benefits and the uncontrolled population growth has neutralised the rest. This is not to say that bureaucratic capitalism has not led to a huge waste of resources or gross distortion in both generation and distribution of wealth. India could have done better but it did not do badly either. The Home Minister was addressing the FICCI session and his real audience consisted of those a majority of whom have leapfrogged into the capitalist league during the years of the now discredited command economy. He complained that the social sector had been ignored in the past decades; actually what got a short shrift were social services like education and health services in the rural sector. There is a big difference between the two. Further, liberalisation as a policy is alluring but in practice it may — just may — aggravate some of the adverse fallouts of the state-controlled economy. One does not have to look farther for proof than the difficulties the government faces in its disinvestment programme.

Religious segregation

THE post-Independence generation of Indians may find it difficult to believe that the British had actually encouraged the system of serving "Hindu paani-Muslim paani" at public places as part of the devious policy of divide and rule. The Presidency College episode in Calcutta should help them understand what religious apartheid was all about. The surfacing of what should presumably be the last remnants of a practice which strikes at the very roots of the secular values of the country is both surprising and embarrassing. It is surprising that the practice survived in what is undoubtedly one of the premier educational institutions of the country. Embarrassing, because it has taken the country well over 50 years since Independence and the Left Front Government in West Bengal close to 25 years to wake up to the ugly reality that until yesterday Muslim students were refused admission in the Hindu Hostel of the state-run Presidency College. It is doubly embarrassing because Calcutta is a thriving "City of Joy" and not a remote and backward area of the country cut off from civilisation. The hostel was established 103 years ago with funds provided by the family of the Raja of Midnapore. Buddhist, Jain and Christian students are allowed to live in the hostel. Nevertheless, under the 1896 agreement between the management and the government the Hindu Hostel was to remain out of bound for Muslim students of the Presidency College. The credit for the demolition of the wall of religious apartheid should go to Asghar Ali, a first year student of the Presidency College and other students who supported his stand. They said that refusing him admission in the hostel violated the secular principles of the country and the spirit of the Constitution.

The doors of the hostel were thrown open to students of all faiths last week following a letter from the state government to the college management. But Asghar and other students of the Presidency College have won only half the battle against what was perhaps indirect and inadvertent promotion of communal values. The "Muslim part of the wall" of religious segregation in Calcutta's prestigious educational institutions remains to be brought down. Under the terms of the 1896 agreement it was decided that Muslim students of the Presidency College would be given hostel accommodation in the nearby state-run Maulana Azad College and vice versa. The arrangement amounted to promoting limited religious apartheid because the two colleges, otherwise, follow what can be called a secular policy of admission to various courses of study. Unless a similar order is issued to Maulana Azad College, its management may continue to follow the earlier policy of refusing admission to non-Muslim students in Baker and Carmichael hostels run by it. In fact, by way of abundant precaution the Centre should issue a general notification against the continuation of such a policy in any organisation or institution, whether public or private, in the country as was being followed by the Presidency College (and has not yet been officially abandoned by Maulana Azad College). In a country as big as India there may still be pockets of resistance to accepting the principles of secularism and socialism enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Unsafe to drink

WE are eating and inhaling poison, in many cases, voluntarily. We have a choice in selecting the items of food we consume unless, of course, we are, say, marooned in a luckless village beyond Paradip in Orissa and the air-dropped food packets are the only visual source of survival. We can avoid bidis and cigarettes and clean up our neighbourhood even in Ludhiana. But there seems to be no way to avoid poisonous drinking water. Water-pollution, discussed at length at a seminar on "Hazardous Waste Management" in Chandigarh on Saturday, leaves one horrified — and almost without hope. Punjab's Secretary for Science, Technology and Environment, Mr Rajan Kashyap, spoke frankly about garbage-generation and non-disposal. About 700 tonnes of filth was generated everyday of which only 450 tonnes could be moved to "land refills". So, 250 tonnes were added to the existing polluting bulk daily. He made a particular reference to Ludhiana. What about Amritsar, Jalandhar, Faridkot, Patiala, Sangrur and Ropar? Or, for that matter, other parts of the region? The Chairman of the Punjab Pollution Control Board gave the filth-accumulation story a wider context. The Secretary was candid in his observations. Poor financial management was one of the major reasons for the proliferation of the malaise. Under the jurisdiction of one of the corporations in Punjab, the development charges were fixed at Rs 15 per square yard; in reality the municipal body had to spend almost Rs 300 per square yard to provide the basic amenities. Why was such a mockery of official dispensation tolerated? The government knows precisely what the public knows while suffering.

The remedies suggested at the seminar included this: The people were not averse to paying taxes but they were suspicious about "judicious spending by the State or the civic bodies". The solution: "Once the bureaucrats and the elected councillors, including the Mayors, became liable to prosecution for their failure to provide clean environs and potable water, they would not hesitate to generate resources from the public to take care of these problems". Well said, indeed! But who prevents the really concerned and conscientious senior officers from taking action

against the erring bureaucrats or civic body members? Administrators don't often change with the change of politicians enjoying power and pelf at public cost. Jaundice or hepatitis, gastroenteritis and cholera are among the common water-borne diseases. They take a heavy toll of life. These scourges used to visit the people with a certain relieving periodicity. Now these are diseases for all seasons for obvious reasons. But who cares? From factories to callously used kitchens and toilets, the sources of water pollution are many. The umbrella words — environment and ecology — should be kept out of discussion for the present. If the availability of safe drinking water is made the primary criterion for the continuance of governments — or of civic bodies — hardly a few would escape the axe. There is no remedy except summary trial and adequate punishment for those who run the decrepit water-supply systems in State capitals or small-town municipalities.

APPOINTMENT & TRANSFER OF JUDGES
Question of judicial accountability
by S. Sahay

UNLIKE Parliament, the Supreme Court has taken due note of November 26, for that was the day it formally came into being, though the Constitution as a whole came into force on January 26, 1950. The court’s celebrations begin on November 26. On the whole there are good reasons for it. The court, perhaps, is the most powerful apex judicial body in the world; also the most overworked.

Its strength and its weaknesses have occupied the attention of the experts and laymen as well. Without distracting from the great contribution of the court to the sustenance of constitutional values, the focus in this article is on the assumption by it of almost exclusive powers to appoint and transfer judges of the higher courts.

Was this the constitutional scheme? And has it improved matters?

To begin from the beginning, the Constitution-makers, who adopted the Westminster model, provided that the Supreme Court and High Court judges shall hold office during good behaviour and could be removed only for proven misconduct, by a process analogous to impeachment. Their salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Their appointment is made by the President, after following the procedure prescribed in the Constitution for the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges. The Directive Principles have ensured the separation of the judiciary from the executive.

Before 1947, High Court judges were appointed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 220 of the Government of India Act, which provided that “every judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the Governor-General and shall hold office until he attains the age of 60 years.”

After Independence, the same provision was followed in the Adaptation Order of 1947, except that the Governor, now a constitutional Governor, had to act on the advice of his Ministers.

In November 1947, the Home Ministry issued a memo which laid down that the Chief Minister of the state had to act in consultation with the state Home Minister and the Union Home Minister. The Chief Justice of Madras, Sir Frederick Gentle, made this one of the reasons for his resignation. He had the support of the Governor, Sir Archibald Nye. Both felt that this would lead to political jobbery and affect the independence of the judiciary. But the Chief Justice of India agreed to the procedure!

It was only in February, 1950, that a revised memorandum was issued which stated that the Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts were to be appointed by the President, in the manner laid down in Article 217 (read with Article 238).

It might be said, without any fear of exaggeration, that, as far as the Centre was concerned, with Nehru as Prime Minister and Dr Rajendra Prasad as President, there was full and frank exchange of views among the two and only the very best were chosen for judgeship.

There was a sharp decline in the regard and consideration shown by the political executive to the judges of the superior courts during the Indira Gandhi regime. The then Minister of Steel, Mr Mohan Kumaramangalam, propounded the theory of a “committed” judiciary, obviously “committed” to the government of the day, led by Mrs Gandhi. The government was not amused when the Supreme Court invalidated the Bank Nationalisation and Privy Purse Acts. It revalidated the Bank Nationalisation Act through an ordinance.

The main area of conflict between the government and the judiciary was over Parliament’s right to amend any and every part of the Constitution. It made even the extreme claim that it was free to abrogate the Constitution.

As is well known, the judicial decisions on the issue went through three phases. In the Shankar Prasad case, the Supreme Court held in 1952 that Parliament was free to amend any and every part of the Constitution; in the Golak Nath case, the court took, in 1963, by a majority of six to five, the opposite view that no part of the Fundamental Rights could be touched by Parliament.

The government then got adopted by Parliament the 24th Amendment, which sought to nullify the Golak Nath ruling by clarifying that Parliament was free to amend any part of the Constitution. The 25th Amendment sought to nullify the Supreme Court ruling on the bank nationalisation case.

Both these Acts were challenged in the Keshvananda Bharati case. The court decided by a majority of 7:6 that the basic structure of the Constitution could not be amended by Parliament.

Mr Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, who was one of the 13 judges who heard the Keshvananda Bharati case, has dealt in detail with the lengths to which the government went in ensuring that the Golak Nath ruling was overturned by the court. (see “We have a republic, can we keep it?”) He has revealed that of the eight judges appointed to the court before the Keshvananda case was heard, two were said to be the nominees of the Law Minister, Mr H.R. Gokhale, two of Mr Kumaramangalam, though only one of them got through during his lifetime, two of Mr Siddartha Shankar Ray and two were nominees of the Prime Minister. In only one appointment Chief Justice Sikri had a hand.

Of the eight of the appointees, five decided in favour of the government in the Keshvananda Bharati case, two were partly with the government and partly with the majority of the judges; only one sided with the majority.

It was Mr Justice H.R. Khanna’s views on the basic structure that tilted the scale in favour of the majority.

Three of the seniormost judges who decided the case against the government were superseded. And later Mr Justice Khanna too was superseded by Mr Justice Beg.

Things were not very different during the Rajiv Gandhi regime. The then Law Minister, Mr Shankaranand, believed in the “marriage of lists,” which implied give and take in superior judicial appointments between the government and the Chief Justice of India. He proposed twice to Chief Justice R.S. Pathak that Mr V. Ramaswamy should be elevated to the Supreme Court. On both occasions the Chief Justice turned it down on the grounds that he needed to consult his two senior colleagues on the matter. Chief Justice Venkatramiah was not as firm as his predecessor, with the result that Mr Justice V. Ramaswamy was brought to the Supreme Court, if not with his consent then certainly with his knowledge that he figured in the government list.

If the wound inflicted by the political executive on the judiciary was deep the self-inflicted wound has been no less traumatic.

During the 1975-77 Emergency the Supreme Court was called upon to examine the constitutionality of the suspension of the Fundamental Rights in what is known as habeas corpus case (or the ADM Jabalpur case). By a majority of four to one the court held in effect, if not in intent, that all laws concerning life and personal liberty stood abrogated during the Emergency.

In 1981, the Supreme Court further devalued itself when it held in the S.P. Gupta case by a majority that the freedom of the judiciary began with the appointment of a judge, not before it, that consultation with the Chief Justice did not mean that final authority of appointing judges rested with the executive. It was only when people’s representatives appointed judges could the latter be called “people’s judges”.

The judgement completely ignored the Constitution-makers objective of appointing fearless and independent judges, not popular ones.

The judgement caused a good deal of outrage among the experts, even among ordinary people, and there were repeated suggestions for a review of the judgement, which came but nearly a decade later.

The second judges’ case swung to the extreme and, in fact, rewrote the Constitution by laying down that, in the appointment of the judges to the superior courts, the Chief Justice of India, as the symbol of the judiciary, must have the final say; that the Union Council of Ministers was bound to give the same advice to the President as had been determined by the Chief Justice of India, not as an individual but as the symbol of the judiciary, which implied after consultations with such judges as had been suggested in the majority ruling.

Mr Justice Punchhi, who along with Mr Justice Ahmedi, had delivered minority judgements in the case remained unreconciled to the majority ruling and felt that the Chief Justice was free to consult or not to consult brother judges. Not unexpectedly sparks flew between him and the Law Minister when he became the CJI over the question whether he had acted in terms of majority ruling in the second judges case while making recommendations. The controversy became so sharp that the Union Cabinet advised the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on some of the grey areas in the majority judgement in the second judges case.

The case was heard by a Bench comprising the nine seniormost puisne judges of the Supreme Court. It unanimously decided that consultation by the CJI had to be with a plurality of judges, that the transfer of judges was judicially reviewable only to the extent that the CJI’s recommendation had not been made in consultation with the four seniormost puisne judges of the Supreme Court and or that the views of the Chief Justice of the High Court to which a judge was being transferred had not been obtained.

The Chief Justice, it was laid down, must make a recommendation to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court and to transfer a Chief Justice or a puisne judge of a High Court in consultation with the four seniormost puisne judges of the Supreme Court. In so far as an appointment to the High Court was concerned, the recommendation must be made in consultation with the two seniormost puisne judges of the Supreme Court.

The requirement of consultation by the Chief Justice of India with his colleagues who were likely to be conversant with the affairs of the High Court did not refer to only those judges who had served that High Court as a parent court but also included the judges who had occupied the office of a judge as Chief Justice of the High Court on transfer.

Strong and cogent reasons did not have to be recorded as justification for a departure from the order of seniority in respect of each senior judge who has been passed over. What had to be recorded was the positive reason for the recommendation.

The views of the other judges consulted should be in writing and should be conveyed to the Government of India by the Chief Justice of India along with his views to the extent sent out in the body of the opinion.

The Chief Justice of India was obliged to comply with the norms and the requirement of the consultation process, in making recommendations to the Government of India.

Recommendations made by him without complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation process were not binding upon the Government of India.

It needs to be emphasised that, in course of the hearing of the President reference, the Attorney-General assured the court that the government was not seeking a review or reconsideration of the judgement in the second judges’ case and that it would fully accept and implement the advisory opinion of the court.

This implies that, ordinarily, the judiciary should live happily ever after. Unfortunately, this is not so. Neither the experts nor the political parties are happy over the court arrogating the exclusive power of appointments to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

The sharpest criticism of the majority judgement in the second judges case came Mr H.M. Seervai; unfortunately, he did not live long enough to scrutinise the advisory opinion. One can assume that he would not have been amused by it either and would have continued to hold that the judiciary has rewritten the Constitution for its self-serving ends.

While the Ramaswamy affair was still fresh in people’s mind, Mr Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer wrote in The Hindu that, in recent years, appointments of judges had become controversial enough and an exaggerated measure of insinuations of politicisations, communisation and even criminalisation had been made. This was too grave to be ignored, too urgent to brook delay in national debate, too sensitive to be left to the martial place of rumour, gossip and newspaper politics.

He added: “To say that if the power of appointment is removed from the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister and deposited with the Chief Justice, judicial behaviour pollution will be eliminated is an illusion. For one the Chief Justice and office itself is fast becoming politicised and corrupted. For one they have their own secretive politics, communal perceptions, favouritism and patronage factors and wheeler-dealer cooperation with political elements.”

Mr Justice Krishna Iyer favoured the evolution of a collective process with wider consultative access with even dissenting sections of Indians having a voice. “The finest principle of natural justice, to which vicarious homage must be paid, is that “whatever touches us all should be decided by all.”

This seems to be the dominant view today.

Gulf opening up for FDI
by S. Sethuraman

THE economic outlook is brightening up in the oil-rich Gulf region with the rebound in international crude prices during 1999 and the revival of the demand in crisis-hit Asian countries, now on recovery path. Arab oil-exporting countries expect a turnaround in their finances to be able to bridge fiscal deficits this year and balance budgets in 2000. This would give them leeway in increased development spending.

International oil prices have remained well above $ 20 a barrel for several months and the production cuts agreed upon by OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), to stabilise the volatile oil market, remain in force till March, 2000, when there will be a review. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil producer, advocates output restraint beyond March, 2000, until global stocks get reduced. Oil producers consider the price average realisation for one barrel is still low in relation to the latter half of the 1970s, if indexed for inflation.

Notwithstanding the current levels in the prices, Gulf producers are unlikely to take chances with market conditions and are determined to go ahead with their plans to diversify their economies, reducing the present degree of dependence on oil incomes. It is in this context that they look for large private investments. A major decision by Gulf countries recently was to start opening up their economies for foreign direct investment (FDI) in both oil and non-oil sectors.

There is growing realisation that the region can no longer insulate itself from globalisation, and that they cannot find their way into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) without lowering tariffs and undertaking other obligations implicit in the WTO membership. Saudi Arabia and Oman are likely to be among the first batch of countries to gain admission to the WTO, possibly by the beginning of 2000.

The Sultanate of Oman has entered the final phase of negotiations on market access and signed agreements with the European Union, Japan and India, according to a Ministry of Commerce and Industry spokesman. Oman has submitted draft laws on patents and other requirements to the WTO, and these will be implemented by year-end, he said. Oman is hopeful the accession issue would be sorted out by the time the Third Ministerial Meeting of the WTO is held at Seattle (November 30-December 4).

Oman has a low tariff regime and has no quota restrictions on imports into the Sultanate and is committed to binding its domestic agricultural support at the minimum level. Jordan, under its new ruler, is another country preparing itself to join the WTO after undertaking some reforms.

Gulf countries are also moving in tandem to accord a greater role to the private sector in promoting industrialisation. Oman’s dynamic ruler, H.M. Sultan Qaboos, has set the pace by involving the private sector in several major ongoing projects like the LNG project, one of the largest in the world, which is to be commissioned at Sur, north of Muscat, by March next. Oman has a contract with Enron for the supply of LNG to the Dabhol power plant in Maharashtra. A number of other projects under way include petroleum refining, petrochemicals, aluminium and copper while an Indo-Omani joint venture has been entrusted with the fertiliser project at Sur.

Oman can boast of a well-developed infrastructure, which is being expanded to support the new industrial strategy for a highly diversified economy but essentially based on the locally extracted raw materials — oil, gas and other minerals.

Oman has been the first country to attract foreign investment in its securities market with liberalised norms for foreign shareholders. The first stock market regulatory body in the Arab world — the Capital Market Authority — has been created under the Muscat Securities Law, 1998, which seeks to develop the Muscat Securities Market (MSM) in line with international standards.

Sultan Qaboos has directed his government to speed up the facilitation of investment procedures and removal of obstacles impeding investment. Foreign investors will have a grace period of three to five years in bringing funds into the country and making investments profitable. The current thrust at accelerated industrial development through joint participation of public and private sectors, it is hoped, will generate plenty of jobs and meet the objective of Omanisation of the workforce in the country.

Saudi Arabia has decided to relax its current curbs on foreign investment. As a first step, it has announced that foreign investments in the Saudi stock market through mutual funds would be allowed. Non-Saudis can now invest in mutual funds in local shares managed by Saudi banks, and this is designed to improve the local investment climate.

However, foreign portfolio investment directly in the Saudi stock market is not permitted, the exception being investment by Gulf citizens. There are indications from Riyadh that Saudi Arabia is working on a new foreign investment law, which will allow foreigners to own property.

Saudi Arabia has invited the private sector, domestic and foreign, to invest in infrastructure projects such as electricity. Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz told the Supreme Economic Council that privatisation of the economy had become a strategic option. Balancing the budget and developing new income sources were the key priorities for the kingdom.

Reform of the Saudi economy has become urgent in connection with the country’s bid to join the WTO. The US Commerce Secretary, Mr William Daley, during his mid-October visit to the kingdom, called for the lowering of barriers to trade and investment by Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Mr Daley also urged the six countries of the GCC to protect intellectual property rights (patents) which would accord with the WTO agreement in order to qualify for the membership of the organisation.

The GCC countries have so far failed to establish a common tariff with some of them keen to protect domestic industry. The forthcoming GCC summit in Riyadh is expected to address itself to the issue of common tariff, especially in the context of its negotiations with the 15-member European Union on a free trade agreement. The GCC has set March 1, 2001, as a target date for a customs union. But a Gulf common market is still a long way off.

Qatar has also joined the chorus for more foreign investments, and its Finance Minister Y.H. Kamal said in Doha that a new law was being proposed to allow 100 per cent foreign ownership in certain areas.

Playing the OBC card to advantage

by P. Raman

SO MUCH has been said about the significance of the successful return of the National Democratic Alliance to power. In India, one Congress alone had the record of a ruling group at the Centre retaining majority after a general election. Equally notable has been the ability of the NDA partners to go for elections almost intact after the defeat on the floor of the Lok Sabha. Normally, a rout on the floor precedes or follows defections and realignment among the ruling parties.

Not only this. The new Vajpayee Government has overcome all its minor hurdles and gives the impression of being firmly in the saddle. There is no sign of an immediate threat or any serious mistrust or bitterness among its partners. Every one seems to be fairly happy over the sharing of the spoils and the joys of power and position. This bonhomie is due to two factors. First. power itself is a strong binding force, especially when there is no alternative in sight. Normally, those preaching high ideology seek to explain the opportunism by way of clever rationalism. But in the contemporary Indian context absence of ideology and lack of any well-defined programme and policies make it rather smooth. Most often the ministers concerned have little difficulty in pushing the decisions at the cabinet meetings as few colleagues bother even to go through the agenda papers.

A crisis can develop only when the issue happens to invite the wrath of public opinion in the course of its implementation. Protests on moral ground or policy differences are passe. Compromise and opportunism are the political password. This has been the case with many controversial issues, including the decision to form new states of Uttarakhand, Vananchal and Chhatisgarh. Policy differences can hardly be an issue for a walkout by the coalition partner. It can be a fight on power-sharing, pressures for a particular favour from a powerful interest group or a clash of interests from down below in the respective states. Had the truckers been able to pressurise a couple of influential coalition partners, the Vajpayee Government might have readily conceded their demands. Everything depends on the power of lobbying.

The allies’ indifference to the policy commitment has been the secret of successful running a government of two dozen parties without any serious mutual consultations or without calling a meeting of the coordination panel. The second reason has been the rather premature fall of the last Vajpayee Government. Due to a series of political crises in quick succession there was hardly any time for the coalition partners to assess their individual interests and develop a mature relationship on that basis. Everything had to be viewed to ensure the day-to-day survival of the government. Though such constant pressures did strengthen solidarity these failed to define the more intricate problems of inter-relationship.

This explains so much of political churning encompassing the entire spectrum of the political elite so soon after the elections. The tendency is to dismiss this subterranean process at different stages and levels as of no consequence. But one should realise that it is an unfinished process delayed by the compulsions of survival pressures of the previous Lok Sabha and accelerated by election results. The implications of the elections on individual parties and the developments since then have touched off a rethinking. Relationships within and between the parties are sought to be redefined. This is accompanied by review of the positions on various issues. It may be a slow process but it is very much in progress.

Virtues are being suddenly discovered in OBC reservation not by the much-maligned “Mandal messiah,” but by those parties which had sought to crucify him for the crime. The BJP and the Congress vied with each other to please the Rajasthan Jats after the election as a new political readjustment. It was based on the assumption that the Congress in the state suffered due to the Jat ire. The new “Mandalisation” by old anti-Mandalites is having a severe backlash from other communities elsewhere.

A social justice front has been formed to launch an agitation on behalf of major castes like Brahmins, Kayasths, Sainis, Kumhars, Jangirs and Dakhars. Some Rajputs have held a state-level convention in Rajasthan. In UP, the cunning Mulayam Singh Yadav has launched an agitation to double the ceiling of reservation to 54 per cent from 27 per cent.With BSP support, the issue is bound to cause new tension in the post-election BJP which is already reeling under the OBC-upper caste conflict. Vajpayee will have to pay a heavy price for playing realpolitik just to spite the Congress in Rajasthan.

Another aftermath of the election has been an all-out bid to emulate the Naidu mantra of quick technology-driven and investment-based growth. The Chief Ministers hardly bother about the real reasons for Chandrababu Naidu’s electoral miracle and effects of various other measures he had pursued. “Silicon valley is the latest craze. Karnataka and Delhi Chief Ministers are making frantic efforts to outdo Naidu in his own field.

Such policy readjustments apart, even political parties at the national level are finding the need for a serious reappraisal and course correction. For the first time the BJP finds that its politics of cooption has begun backfiring. After its isolation in 1996, the party has been trying to woo every available outfit, big or small, without little consideration for their background. In the 1998 election, every such tie-up had brought it rich dividends. The party had even successfully tried bilateral seat adjustments with two rival outfits in the same state.

At the next stage of its alliance strategy, the BJP discovered that in single-minded pursuit of vote grabbing, honest dealings and trustworthiness have no place. If Bansi Lal is on the rise, it will have to hitch itself with him otherwise, it can desert him for a more promising Om Parkash Chautala. Apparently, after last month’s results, the BJP has begun redrafting its alliance dharma. It is now realising that mere addition of parties into alliances would not necessarily add to the numbers in an assembly or Lok Sabha. The quality of the alliance is equally crucial.

Danger signals came from the Janata-dominated Bihar and Karnataka. The local BJP leaders squarely blame Vajpayee for forcing a tieup with the J.H. Patel faction of the Janata Dal and suffering a rout. Vajpayee had ignored the plea by the Karnataka BJP leaders that the voters would not pardon the party if it tried to defend the “misrule” of Patel. This also led to increased internal tussles within the Karnataka BJP. Senior leader Shivappa has been suspended during the physical fights after the polls. Now the Bihar BJP is also being forced to sup with Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, a local version of Patel. Within just one month, the BJP has begun grappling with the complexities of alliance politics. Mere seat-sharing would not bring results. It should also be prepared to share the partner’s past “misdeeds”.

The Congress response to the post-election challenges has been really pathetic. All that it has done so far was to fall in line with local political compulsions. It has entered into a shaky coalition with Sharad Pawar’s party in Maharashtra, called off its unnatural alliance with Laloo Prasad Yadav and joined hands with Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu. None of these could be put off. The party is still waiting for A.K. Antony’s introspection report for what its leaders call a thorough shakeup. Despite Sonia Gandhi’s firm defence, demand for Gamang’s ouster has been gaining ground. This week’s UP Congress leaders’ meeting ended in chaos with the two factions clashing over leadership. Even certain senior Congress leaders wonder whether the high command would ever be able to enforce the introspection panel’s report on the recalcitrant state factions.

Among the states, electoral after-shocks are most discernible in Bihar and Tamil Nadu. The BJP has to worry much about the way its three Janata parivar allies have been indulging in their inherent faction wars. An unceremoniously-dumped Ramakrishna Hegde is licking his wounds while Sharad Yadav is going about his job without caring for senior Janata or Samata leaders. A silent Fernandes is always dangerous. He has already instigated his men in Bihar to confront Sharad Yadav on the issue of Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav’s admission. The loss of four seats in repolls have heightened the tussles within the BJP alliance. Not only Nitish Kumar and Sushil Kumar Modi but the latter’s hitherto colleague has joined race for Chief Ministership.

Tamil Nadu is one state where the process of post-poll realignment has been quick and sweeping. The Tamil Maanila Congress, which had suffered badly in the elections due to its principled politics, has not yet decided to join the AIADMK front. But it has participated in the former’s agitations against the Central and state governments along with the Congress, Left, IUML, INL and various Dalit outfits. It displayed its new aggressiveness by funding a Rs 700 crore bitumen and bridge construction scandal against the DMK. The TMC is in no hurry to join the AIADMK front because the assembly elections are scheduled only in May, 2001. Before this, the party expects to wean some parties away from the DMK front.

The spectacle of a seeming calm at the Centre and intense churning in states need not be a political puzzle. It only truthfully reflects the dynamics of India’s contemporary power structure. The political establishment in Delhi draws its strength and sustenance from a number of state-level outfits. The way to Delhi is through Hyderabad, Chennai and Patna. Therefore, any threat to the Delhi establishment, of whatever hue, should come from those powerful subedars. This is the real significance of the present churning process.

75 YEARS AGO

November 23, 1924
Mr Sastri and the Ordinance

AS we anticipated in a recent issue, the Rt Hon Srinivasa Sastri, like all other prominent nationalist leaders, unreservedly condemns the Bengal Ordinance, and refuses his countenance or support to investing the executive with extraordinary powers. This is what he says in the course of a signed article in the Servants of India:-

To ask the people of this country to trust either in the self-restraint of the executive officials in times of panic, or in the capacity of members of the Government to keep them in order is to treat them as angles or idiots. That the drastic powers of the Ordinance will be urged to stifle legitimate agitation and find the administration a short cut through its difficulty is only too probable. But even with such changes as may be subsequently introduced by the Legislative Council, the public of India will not be reconciled to its being placed on the statute book temporarily or permanently and many loyal subjects of His Majesty will find themselves unable, with the best will in the world, to give Viceroy and his Government that support and co-operation which he expects.