P A G E
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
spotlighttoday's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Tuesday, October 19, 1999 |
| weather spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Ominous
martial game
CABINET
FORMATION & THE RUMBLINGS |
 |
‘Aya Ram’ culture gains
respectability
I
don’t know, sweetheart
October 19, 1924 |
||||||||
 |
|
Ominous martial game GENERAL Parvez Musharraf has spoken once again to his nation — and to the world at large — after his self-coronation. "The whole of Pakistan will come under the control of the Armed Forces", he said after his major act — the proclamation of a state of emergency on Friday (October 15). His diktat has been effected. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been put in the doghouse. The Chief Executive of Musharraf and Co has illusively tried to give some futuristic civil legitimacy to his military regime by announcing a plan to set up a six-member National Security Council which will conduct the affairs of the State; the chiefs of the Air Force and the Navy will be its main decision-makers. The other "experts" will be handpicked. All will owe allegiance to the Chief Executive who does not "intend to stay in power indefinitely." But the man who sacked the Prime Minister after being dismissed by him does not specify any time-frame for the promised restoration of democracy. A few things are clear. General Musharraf has decided to follow his role models in uniform. The first adventist came in 1958. The jackboot of Field Marshal Mohammad Ayub Khan went on its trampling spree until 1969. Major-Gen A.M. Yahya Khan hit the east and the west of his country right and left and virtually ended up in the total loss of East Pakistan. Civil war broke out. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto saw the General humbled. Bhutto created his Frankenstein — General Zia-ul-Haq who hanged him after his experiments with international intrigue and national subjugation. His burial took place in fiery midair. Little changed, though! Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz
Sharif were the creations of the notorious mix of the
autocratic and theocratic systems. Fundamentalist
cauldrons began to simmer more ominously. The reactionary
clergy was no better than the military dictator or the
autocratic "democrat". Nawaz Sharif supported
Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and Kashmir as
vigorously as General Jehangir Karamat did. He struck at
the effective institutions of the Presidency, the Army
and the Judiciary. General Musharraf has hit him where it
hurts most. Remember the coup attempt of September, 1995,
after which General Karamat, most of the corps
commanders, Benazir Bhutto and Farooq Leghari escaped
death? What was General Musharraf's role in it? The Chief
Executive is the executioner of democracy masquerading as
the Saviour. He has made it known to India that he would
tread on his familiar road to Kargil and beyond. The
reaction of the Vajpayee government is pragmatic and
proper. The troop-withdrawal offer is a ruse. The talk of
"result-oriented dialogue" is to be seen in the
perspective of the following statement: "Pakistan
would continue its support to the Kashmiri people for
their right to self-determination.... India must honour
all UN resolutions on Kashmir, which New Delhi considers
outdated." His reading of the domestic scene
portends civil war which will affect India because of its
status as a neighbour: "Today we have reached a
stage where our economy has crumbled, our credibility is
lost, institutions lie demolished, provincial disharmony
has caused cracks in the federation and people, who were
once brothers, are at each other's throat". General
Musharraf has too many scores to settle before paying
attention to the settlement of bilateral problems. For
New Delhi there is no authority to talk to in Islamabad.
Not yet! Meanwhile, let there be no let-up in vigilance. |
Politics of compulsion POLITICAL actors and their sidekicks in Maharashtra are acting out a script thrust on them by expediency. A badly fragmented electoral mandate has stripped the parties of elbow room and the prolonged haggling is unedifying evidence of this. Even after a new government is in place, jockeying for Cabinet berths and portfolios is very much on. Then there is the post of Speaker of the Assembly, which the Congress wants to give to one of the small supporting parties, which together have 18 MLAs who are crucial for the two big allies to claim a majority, but the Nationalist Congress is reluctant to give it up. Until the last minute of swearing-in at Raj Bhavan, there had apparently been no firm agreement on the distribution of ministries. This hiccup is unexpected since the two allies, originally from the same political stable, have decided to accept the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance formula on sharing power, even to the extent of allocation of ministries to the senior and the junior partners. During the days following the announcement of the election result, there was much posturing, angry accusations and bold assertions of sitting in opposition. As a comical interlude, somebody planted a rumour with Sena pramukh Bal Thackeray that the BJP was about to bolt and join hands with the Sharad Pawar-led NCP and then lure defectors and footloose independents to form a government. He threw up a tantrum, pledged destruction of betrayers, and a chastised alliance partner scotched the rumour. The same baseless report brought out the worst in the Congress, provoking it to dub Mr Pawar as a two-timing politician. Eager to return to power after a gap of nearly four and a half years, the party found its dreams suddenly fading. Maharashtra is key to keep up the impression of the party being firmly on the come-back trail. Even the neo-converts to
coalition theology will feel dismayed at the health of
the two rival formations. The Shiv Sena is no more the
bunch of disciplined footsoldiers marching stiffly to the
orders of their pramukh. There have been revolts,
defections and sabotage. Deputy Chief Minister and state
NCP chief Chhagan Bhujbal is a prime example. If the new
government runs smoothly, there is sure to be a depletion
in the ranks of the Sena. The BJP will stay intact but
has more or less lost the warmth of the erstwhile ally.
The handful of independents who promised to support the
outgoing arrangement will gravitate towards the new one.
It requires extraordinary political courage and mass base
for an independent to stay away from the ruling party.
Above all, the four political players have teamed with
this or that party not influenced by any coalition dharma
but out of sheer compulsion. The Congress would have
withered away if denied power this time. The NCP would
have been swallowed by the BJP if it moves closer or rigs
up a coalition. The BJP’s freedom in the state has
been circumscribed by the need to keep the 15 Sena MPs on
the right side. Never has politics of compulsion been so
decisive as this month in Maharashtra. |
Kesri’s outburst MR Sitaram Kesri’s television interview has caused the expected ripple in Congress circles. What he said may have caused a political storm had he still been Congress President and had the target of his political barbs, Mr Arjun Singh, not become politically irrelevant for the party. They both owe a debt of gratitude to the host for providing them the opening politicians thrive on. A politician who is reviled can live on the hope of seeing better days. But a politician who is ignored by the party and the media ends up chasing his shadow to beat political isolation. The interview may not help revive Mr Kesri’s flagging political career. But it did provide him the opportunity to let off steam. The veteran Congressman blamed the coterie for the party’s poor performance in the Lok Sabha elections. However, if he is angry at the growth of coterie culture in the Congress, he needs to be reminded that he remained a mute spectator when Indira Gandhi was systematically destroying the basic character of the party. The coterie culture is a post-Lal Bahadur Shastri legacy which the Congress has done little to destroy. It is not that what Mr Kesri has said is wrong. But it is too late in the day for him to be complaining about the baneful effect of coterie raj — of which he is not a part—on the political health of the Congress. It is a bit of a mystery why the former Congress President singled out Mr Arjun Singh for special mention in the interview. He said that “people like Mr Arjun Singh, who have no link with workers, are calling the shots in the party”. Congress workers? One
reason why the party which helped India win freedom from
British rule, is on the decline is that it ignored the
need to build a cadre of dedicated workers. At the height
of its political glory the “workers” it
attracted to its fold were actually no better than fair
weather friends. They have now found a more lucrative
future in other political outfits. In any case, while
holding Mr Arjun Singh responsible for the worst ever
performance by the Congress he evidently forgot that
unlike him the latter was once a successful grassroot
politician. If Mr Kesri had mentioned the names of Mr
Pranab Mukherjee and Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad, his analysis of
the factors responsible for the Congress debacle would
have made more sense. Neither of them has any worthwhile
experience of grassroot politics and yet enjoy the
confidence of Congress President Sonia Gandhi. In fact,
Mr Azad played the role of “the enemy within”
during the election campaign. The tasteless remarks
against Mrs Sonia Gandhi by some BJP leaders had begun to
tilt the scales in favour of the Congress. That was
before Mr Azad and Mr Rajesh Khanna made equally
revolting remarks against Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee. BJP
leaders must have said “thank you” to the two
Congressmen for neutralising the effect of the
thoughtless remarks of Mr Pramod Mahajan and others
against Mrs Sonia Gandhi. A sincere analysis of the
factors responsible for the Congress debacle in the Lok
Sabha elections would have made Mr Kesri realise the
limitations of Mrs Sonia Gandhi in reviving a party. It
must learn to live and grow outside the Nehru-Gandhi
shadow. Mr Kesri may no longer be the “old man in a
hurry”. But he still has political ambitions which
made him praise the role of the lady who was made to take
over the reins of leadership of the party from him.The
member of the coterie he named in the interview played a
leading role in his unceremonious exit. The former
Congress President evidently needs to be reminded that
sycophancy has, perhaps, caused more harm to the party
than the coterie culture he despises. |
CABINET FORMATION & THE
RUMBLINGS THE figure 13 is considered unlucky by Westerners, but apparently holds no terror for Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee. He chose to be sworn in as Prime Minister on October 13, and the indications are that the coalition government that he leads would certainly last longer than 13 days when he became Prime Minister in the first instance and 13 months in the second. Given the spirit of accommodation and wisdom, his third term could last full five years. Incidentally, Parliament too is starting its 13th term. Thanks to the NDA’s comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha, the President, Mr K.R. Narayanan, had no hesitation in appointing Mr Vajpayee as Prime Minister, without the usual rider of asking him to prove his majority in the House within a specified date, as had been the lot of all those who had led coalition or minority governments. The circumstances in which Chaudhary Charan Singh became the Prime Minister are well known. The Janata Dal split and Morarji Desai chose to resign but staked his claim to forming the government as the leader of the single largest party. Only when the list he submitted to the President, Mr Sanjeeva Reddy, was found to be exaggerated did he resign the leadership of his party. In a controversial decision Mr Reddy chose to ask Charan Singh to form the government because he had been promised support by the Congress, rather than give a chance to Jagjivan Ram. But he also asked Charan Singh to prove his majority in the House. Indira Gandhi was playing her own game of destroying the Janata Dal and had no qualms about withdrawing, within weeks, support to Charan Singh, who resigned rather than face the Lok Sabha. He was asked to continue to be in office till the results of the elections, also ordered, were out. Thus it came about that Charan Singh had the distinction of being Prime Minister without endorsement by the Lok Sabha. Also it was during his tenure that the practice of the President asking the Prime Minister to prove his majority in the House was started. This applied to the V.P. Singh government too. The National Front, which Mr Singh led, had secured only 196 seats. But it had been promised support from the outside by the BJP which had 86 MPs and the Leftists who had 52. President Venkataraman’s task was made easy by Rajiv Gandhi who declined to form the government even though the Congress was the single largest party. Mr Singh won the vote of confidence but later the BJP withdrew support and Mr Singh resigned. Meanwhile, Mr Chandra Shekhar had deserted the National Front and formed a party of his own. He was promised support by the Congress and it is on this assurance that Mr Venkataraman asked Mr Chandra Shekhar to form the government with the rider that he prove his majority in the House by a certain date. Later Rajiv Gandhi made it known to the President that he was unhappy over the way Mr Chandra Shekhar was running the government. He was incensed over the fact that the Haryana police was keeping a watch on his house. Mr Chandra Shekhar had to resign. Mr Narasimha Rao led a minority government but was able to complete, through allegedly devious means used in acquiring the necessary majority, the full term of five years. The fate of the governments led by Mr Deve Gowda, Mr Inder Kumar Gujral and even Mr Vajpayee in the two terms he had as Prime Minister is still fresh in people’s memory. The only fact that needs to be stressed is that each was asked by the President to prove his majority in the Lok Sabha. Mr Deve Gowda and Mr Gujral were able to do so but later the Congress withdrew support and both had to go. In his first term, Mr Vajpayee knew from the start that he did not have the necessary support but chose to have a confidence debate which was televised. However, when the moment of vote taking arrived he declared with a flourish of his hand that he was proceeding to Rashtrapati Bhavan to submit his resignation. In his second term as Prime Minister, Mr Vajpayee had difficulty from the start in dealing with Ms Jayalalitha and it was ultimately she who brought about the downfall of the government by withdrawing support to him. The President asked Mr Vajpayee to prove his support a second time in the House. It caused a lot of criticism by the experts as well as the media. It was argued then that it would have been wiser for the President to leave it to the House to decide the matter. Instead of the Prime Minister being asked to prove his majority, the opposition parties should have been allowed to defeat the government through a no-confidence motion if they could. And the chances were that the opposition parties, because of differences among them, would not have had their way. I have discussed the issue in some detail in order to make the point that, thanks to the comfortable majority of the National Democratic Alliance in the Lok Sabha and written support provided to the President, it is for the first time that a coalition government has not been asked to prove its majority in the House by a certain date. The earlier coalitions had collapsed because the support from outside promised to the President had proved transitory. Not that all those who have promised support to the NDA government this time have joined it. The Telugu Desam party, has not joined the government even though it has 29 MPs in the Lok Sabha, but Mr Chandrababu Naidu has promised support to the NDA government. And he is not Ms Jayalalitha. The formation of the new Cabinet has led to rumblings, which will be the case with the formation of any new Cabinet. But then the President, it is to be fervently hoped, will not repeat his earlier decision to ask Mr Vajpayee to prove his majority in the House, should some party choose to withdraw support. He should leave the House free to decide the fate of the Vajpayee government if and when it becomes necessary. This observation is
being made as a matter of abundant caution. I expect the
coalition to last, at least a year or two, possibly its
full term because the nation has become weary of frequent
and untimely elections. Our MPs presumably know their
self-interests. The decision of the Shiromani Akali Dal
to keep out of the ministry, of Mr Thackeray to ask Sena
ministers in the NDA not immediately to charge, or the
sulking of Mr Ramakrishna Hegde for not being consulted
about Cabinet formation, are manageable problems and pose
no real threat to the Cabinet. |
Stability: can piecemeal remedies
help? IT is the fourth government in four years, but how stable will it prove? The coalitions have had to be expanded to the point that the members can be counted in dozens. The interests of these partners are, at best, regional, at worst personal, with in-between categories like sectoral parties. After the demise of three governments and parliaments in three years, there is talk of legislating to make Parliament last out its full five-year term. Other remedies suggested are that no government should fall unless those who vote it down can offer a viable alternative within the same Parliament. Will this bring stability? An earlier ad-hoc remedy for defections — the anti-defection law — only succeeded in creating more defections than before, because the lure of office, which was the essential motive force, was still there. It even gave us a Prime Minister whose party had only five members in Parliament. The lure of office will still remain if a five-year mandatory term is laid down for Parliament. What is there to prevent opposition parties from conspiring and manoeuvring to pull the government down, all the more so since the many MPs who might be unwilling to risk an election with the possible loss of their seats would now be freed from that fear? The essence of the problem is that the stability of the government depends on a standing majority of the MPs (or of the MLAs, in the states). The perceptions of the parties and their members, of their prospects of winning power, are shifting and unpredictable. The matter is complicated by unstable party equations in the states, which can affect the situation at the Centre. The same party can have different interests in the states and at the Centre. Hung Parliaments and hung Assemblies are an inherent part of our system, because governments are formed by parties, and individual members see parties as vehicles for attaining ministerial power and perks. The ad hoc remedy of a mandatory five-year term for Parliament (or state legislatures) cannot alter these facts. The legislature should have the role of accepting or rejecting individual policies of the government by a majority; then they also participate in policy making and the business of governance. What we now have is a politicians’ government. What we need is a people’s government. Stability cannot be seen as a separate issue. It has to be remembered that for most of the past 52 years we have had so-called stable governments, but at the end of this long period, we still have dehumanising poverty, illiteracy and backwardness and inadequate national strength that tempts our enemies to attack us in the belief that they can get away with it, and hostile forces to pressurise us to follow polices against our national interests. So long as the lure of political power and perks are accessible to the politicians, with no matching responsibility or accountability, the pursuit of these objectives will remain their prime concern, to the detriment of national interests. The remedy is to remove the motive force and to increase accountability by transferring power to the people. In recent times some of our politicians have begun to discover that the people know what they want, and can work for it if allowed to do so. It has been reported that the Madhya Pradesh government has decided that the State Ministry of Education will be a facilitator and that the decision to have a school, and the hiring and firing of the school staff, will be done at the gram panchayat level. So the teachers will no longer go to school once a month to sign a register and take their salaries and thumb their noses at the villagers and their children. The idea seems to have caught on elsewhere, including the Centre. The logic of this should be applied to other areas too. There ought to be decentralisation of power down the line so that there is autonomy at the village and district levels within their geographical boundaries and designated areas of competence. It would harness the people’s energies and initiative to the process of development and cut down the powers of MLAs and MPs to interfere with the normal process of administration. Local autonomy at every level would empower the people and give them a truly democratic role in their own governance; the power to directly elect heads of government at every level, right up to the top, would also give them a say in the formation of the government. The current pattern of party-based Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers giving representation to various regions, various communities, and potential dissidents, all within their own parties or coalitions, ending up in outsize ministries that impose a burden on the state and the tax payer, ministries in which competence and expertise are a lesser concern, would be at an end. This practice of so-called representation to the diverse elements in this country is no substitute for a direct participation by all sections of the people in the formation of their government. The head of the government would then be in a position to appoint a small, compact, expert ministry which would form a disciplined team, rather than try to please two dozen coalition members. Under this dispensation, politicians will have no scope for pursuing personal power, and the parties will have no reason for spending crores on their candidates, as there will be no party power. The politicians will need to please their electorate, not their parties. We might then have some peace, some decorum in public life, and meaningful national progress. — IPA The writer is a former
Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, and has been
ambassador to several countries. |
I
don’t know, sweetheart “I am
confused!” declared my 10-year-old niece. “Am I
a fish?” “That’s easy. In the West an owl is considered the symbol of wisdom. You must have heard the adage — as wise as an owl. Similarly, in Indian mythology the owl is Goddess Laxmi’s mount. Thus, an owl is a harbinger of both wisdom and wealth.” I was now at my pompous best, pontificating on the oriental and occidental concepts of an owl, wagging my finger all the while. “So uncle, when a politician calls another one ‘Ullu ka patha’, does he pay him a compliment?” “I don’t know,
sweetheart.” My ego deflated, I sagged back on the
sofa concentrating hard on what a netaji was saying the
other day on the television. |
‘Aya Ram’ culture gains respectability
IF THE election results had reflected the nation’s state of politics, the development since then should provide a deeper insight into the likely shape of its future health. The Congress is admittedly very much in a mess, and in struggling to keep itself intact. But then the malaise is not confined to the old ruling party alone. Most political outfits are facing similar problems. The Cabinet formation by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and a series of other post-election developments have highlighted the volatility of our system. It is certainly an unusual situation. In our preoccupation with micro-politics, most of us fail to realise the full blooming of the “aya Ram” culture at high levels. What was detested before as pernicious political practice has now acquired high respectability. Bargaining for positions, threats and switching sides are being looked upon as legitimate political activity. Even senior politicians like Ramakrishna Hegde no more need the veneer of ideological or political differences to walk out of an alliance. The business of politics is settled purely in terms of ministerial posts and division of other perks without the least regard for policies and programmes to be followed. Even the government decisions are assessed in terms of benefiting ‘our’ party or ‘your’ lobby, What is more said, no one finds any thing wrong in such naked political deals. Every party, even the smaller ones, has its own agenda and axe to grind. They pushed all this with abandon this week, notwithstanding the media myth of “smooth” Cabinet formation. Intensity of the bargain, ability to damage each other and the sheer utility of a particular party have been the only factors that decide things. Ramakrishna Hegde, the model ally who has been so loyal to the BJP, was dumped not to ‘punish’ him, as has been made out. He is now just dispensable for the BJP, both in terms of numbers and as a respectable face. Sikander Bakht, a minority econ of the BJP since its inception in 1980, has been dropped as the party no more needed any such symbol after it broke what its leaders call political untouchability. With their diminishing stock in Punjab, the Akalis, too, have lost their utility at a time when the NDA enjoys a more comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha. This utilitarian approach to political parties — hire and fire as the situation demands — should come as a warning to all BJP allies. You are wanted only if you have enough strength. Your respectability and acceptance depend solely on your worth in terms of MPs and MLAs under your command. How illustrative has been the situation when the Prime Minister posed for photographs at the first meeting of a victorious NDA. Prakash Singh Badal was found relegated to the back as against the pride of place he had enjoyed in March, 1998. After all, Badal could contribute only a couple of MPs to the kitty. DMK’s M. Karunanidhi, the most wanted at present, was placed closest to the Prime Minister. Earlier, Jayalalitha had the pride of place, as much as the Prime Minister himself, in such gatherings. Unlike in March, a now unwanted Hegde has been pushed to one end in picture. When contacted an angry Hegde commented that Nitish Kumar and Fernandes would face a similar fate if the JD(U) in Bihar failed to make the mark in the forthcoming assembly elections. At least three Bihar JD(U) MPs had violently protested against their non-inclusion in the Union Council of Ministers. “I will teach them a lesson,” Prabhunath Singh, JD(U) MP, shouted at a specially called press briefing. He wanted Hegde to lead them and vowed to take his ‘battle’ to the people of Bihar. The BJP unit of Jammu and Kashmir publicly objected to the inclusion of the National Conference in the ministry. It would be more disastrous than the electoral alliance with J.H. Patel in Karnataka, they warned. Apparently, Vajpayee has his own calculations. Soon after the list came out, the disappointed Delhi BJP rivals — Madanlal Khurana, Saheb Singh Verma and Vijay Kumar Malhotra — had a “tea party” to lament their predicament. Verma, who had quit his library job, briefly went into hiding due to grief. True, such protests by party MPs have been quite common even under one-party governments. As in the case of Yogendra Makwana in 1980s, one BJP MP was this time asked to be ready for the swearing in but was soon left high and dry. At least three suffered heartburns as they were given ranks lower than what they had once held. Now almost every fourth NDA Lok Sabha member is a minister. All this is to emphasise the point that the present arrangement is neither more stable nor looks more durable as made out. The fact is that there had been far more unity and camaraderie in the BJP alliance in the 12th Lok Sabha than the present one. The bond was certainly stronger. Even the occasional Jayalalitha tantrums had come in for unanimous condemnation by all allies. This time so many “Jayalalithas” tried to make a noise but they failed due to lack of numerical clout. The philosophy of Vajpayee’s Cabinet formation is in tune with the BJP’s emerging utilitarian approach to political alignments. The party was with Bansi Lal when he was the rising sun of Haryana. Bansi Lal had come to the rescue of the BJP whenever the government at the Centre faced a crisis. But when the BJP realised he was losing popular support and Chautala could give it more seats in the next election, it switched over to the latter. Similarly, the party had made subtle use of the Jayalalitha ghost to win over the more useful DMK even at the peak of its fight with the former. The same theory can, at least in principle, encourage the BJP to cultivate the Tohra group in case it perceives a better showing by the latter. Nothing is improbable in this era of political opportunism. Until six months back, no one had even dreamt of a Sharad Yadav joining the BJP bandwagon. This pick-and-choose politics provides unlimited scope for indiscriminate realignment and dealignment of political parties even for short-term gains. Old enmities may fade if a new tieup holds out political profits, however, temporary it may turn out to be. Pushed to the corner, Hegde can look to the Congress for solace unless the NDA managers wisely offer him some respectable consolation posts. BJP leaders already allege that he had met CPM general secretary Harkishen Singh Surjeet. When it comes to the worst, one cannot even rule out the possibility of old Karnataka Janata rivals, dejected as they are, once again coming together to try their luck. Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party exemplifies the emerging philosophy of political expediency. They NCP was formed on election-eve with the sole purpose of striking bargains when political uncertainty was expected to grip the Centre. After such calculations went awry, the NCP tried to get the maximum leverage in Maharashtra and Meghalaya, where it is in a position to do so. On the one hand, the NCP has aligned with the BJP in Meghalaya against the Congress. Simultaneously, it is set to have coalition with the same Congress in Maharashtra. To add to its rank opportunism, it opened channels of communication with both Congress and the BJP. Even the Shiv Sena displayed more political honesty by threatening to snap the decade-old alliance with the BJP in Maharashtra if it decided to sit with the NCP against which it had fought the recent elections. The NCP’s sole aim is to share power at whatever cost. In Delhi, the other NCP leader was busy talking to senior BJP leader for a package deal in Meghalaya, Maharashtra and at the Centre. If one goes by the BJP version, both Pawar and Sangma were to be accommodated in respectable positions at the Centre. It was even agreed to leave the posts vacant for the two senior leaders. However, the Shiv Sena scuttled the whole process. The latter was so furious that it ordered its ministers not to join duty. Watch the array of collapsed marriages of convenience. The Rashtriya Loktantrik Morcha of Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Prasad Yadav was once hailed as a formidable combine. But the inherent clash of political interests of the two Yadavs led to its premature death. Even the Congress-RJD ties are now uncertain. Some of Kalyan Singh’s allies in UP are on the way out even if the coalition survives the internal crisis in the UP BJP. The JD(U), which was formed just before the election by the former Janata elements, has had its death with the Karnataka unit snapping ties with the Bihar group. Thus every party or its faction is looking ahead for its own short-term gains. The existing tieups are being seen as purely temporary. The JD(U) and BJP in Bihar are bothered only about the imminent assembly polls. Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav are already busy with their campaign for a new UP election. The Left is alerting itself for West Bengal and Kerala polls a year ahead. Chandrababu Naidu, by far the shrewdest politician, has set his eyes on the local bodies election. Everyone, therefore,
wants to play safe, without long-term commitment and
keeping the options open. We never had so many parties
and groups working at will at so many levels. This sort
of cool casualness in intra-party relationship without
commitment or involvement poses the biggest danger to the
very institution of coalition. It is a phenomenon brought
about by the new political culture. The provincialisation
of politics has aided this process. |
October
19, 1924 STEPS to be taken to undo the wrong done at Kohat should be commensurate with the magnitude of the wrong. Most condign punishment should be inflicted upon the offenders, and the good Muhammedans themselves should see that they are adequately punished. The deliberate loot and wanton destruction of property have been on such a big scale that even the doings of an invading army could not have gone further. It is the duty of both the Government and the Muslim leaders to rise equal to the occasion. The prestige of the Government is at stake. Mere expressions of sympathy will not do. The Kohat case is the fittest case for full compensation and rehabilitation of all those who have been rendered homeless. We are quite sure that
if the offenders are not brought to justice and the
Government sacrifice justice at the altar of some game of
policy and the Muslim leaders of India should prove as
indifferent as on former occasions, things in the N.W.
Frontier will reach a state of acute crisis, compared
with which even the present tension is a trifle. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
