The Political Scene

Parliament being the highest national forum in the country one would have thought that it would function effectively in shaping the country’s domestic and international policies. Unfortunately that has not been the case at least in recent years. It is not to say that parliamentary democracy has not grown strong roots. The several general elections have shown how strong the system is. With a large percentage of voters still illiterate and with symbols guiding them at the time of elections, it is still a fact that successive polls have shown how democratic the Constitution is. By-elections too are efficiently executed. The fact that in nearly all neighbouring countries parliamentary democracy has not been as efficient as it has been in this vast country is proof that the democratic system is going to stay more and more vibrant. Yet it should be the effort of the ruling party in New Delhi not to give an impression that the role of Parliament as such in national affairs is getting diminished.

For the first time the comprehensive budget session was divided into three phases and this did cause some dent on its effectiveness. There was no continuity and the demands’ of many ministries were guillotined which means funds were voted without scrutiny or even discussion. This is a dangerous development as the Ministers go scot free as they do not have to answer for their deeds. There is no opportunity for the members either, to review the performance of the ministries and sums are voted without even so much as a review. This naturally develops a certain sense of indifference among the Ministers. Their dependence on the bureaucrats will to that extent increase. Of course there are ministers who exercise undue influence on the officers manning the departments and this kind of politicisation is certainly harmful for the successful working of parliamentary democracy. There is also a big discrepancy between promise and performance which disappoints the people especially because this goes unchecked.

A stage might be reached when the people’s confidence in the present form of government, will be shaken. Surely this is not a very happy state of affairs and all those who are interested in the efficient functioning of Parliament should ponder over the developments. The system of standing committees for the ministries which has been introduced a couple of years ago is functioning well but its reports are not discussed in the full House so much so that persons who are not members of a particular committee do not know what is happening in regard to that ministry. The role of the entire House as an entity is thus seriously jeopardised. Standing Committees are intended to help and they cannot be a substituted for the House Itself. There have been suggestions that legislatures are everywhere losing their importance and in fact are declining. But this trend will have to be arrested which is possible only when members take greater interest in the proceedings. There have been occasions when the Lok Sabha, for instance, had to be adjourned for want of Quorum. This again shows that the importance of Parliament is diminishing. There are also occasions when important policy statements are made outside Parliament even when it is in session. Then again there is a tendency to wrangle over procedural issues. This is due mainly to the stand taken by certain members who wish to make points in whatever way they can but more often than not this leads to unruly scenes even as the points they want to make invariably get lost. Therefore it is time the ruling party in association with the Opposition parties devised some formula by which Parliament sits for a longer number of days. Of course they will have to take the Speaker into confidence. Ultimately the people will judge their representatives by the work they are turning out. It is also true that matters of public importance will have to be discussed in Parliament but in the process legislative work which is equally important should not suffer. There are bound to be differences and difficulties but avoidable acrimony will have to be shed and that is the only way Parliament could be made more effective than is the case now.

The country has witnessed some significant political events in the months under review, the most important of which is the fall of the Government headed by the Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party combine in the most populous state of Uttar Pradesh. A new Government has taken over under the chief ministership of Ms. Mayawati of the BSP. She was till recently an unknown figure comparatively speaking, and to become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh at the young age of 38 is indeed an achievement. But that does not necessarily mean that the change is for the better considering the record of the BSP as a political formation. It is supposed to be the spokesman (if this word could be used) of the Dalits and the party has been highly critical of the other parties vis-a-vis the underprivileged sections. Worse was the fact that Ms Mayawati has gone on record that Mahatma Gandhi was a hypocrite and practically did nothing for the Scheduled Castes whom he called Harijans. Ms. Mayawati even took objection to the word Harijans. Soon after she assumed office she assured the upper castes that she would do justice to them which, of course, conveys the impression that they were being sinned against all the while. While It is good to see a Dalit occupying a high post as that of a Chief Minister especially in a State which at one time was ruled by the country’s greatest politicians such as: Pandit Govind Vallabh, Pant; H. N. Bahuguna, S. Sampurnanand, C. B. Gupta and Sucheta Kriplani it is a pity that the quality of leadership has reached so low.

A few weeks earlier Mr. Narain Dutt Tiwari, one of the most respected Congress leaders of U.P. suggested that his party should withdraw support to the SP - BSP combine because of the misdeeds perpetrated by the Government. The Prime Minister did not heed his plea and a few days later he was replaced by another person as the President of the Uttar Pradesh Congress. If only his advice was accepted, the Government would have fallen and the spectacle of the BSP, a highly casteist organisation, ruling the State would not have arisen. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has gone out of the way to support the BSP although there was nothing common between them. Mr. L. K. advani, the BJP chief, was at pains to explain that their single aim was to ensure the downfall of the Chief Minister, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, and this they achieved. But it is known to everyone that the BSP which has only 69 members in a House of 425 totally depends on the support extended to it by the BJP and there is no guarantee either that this support is going to be beyond a few months, when Lok Sabha elections are due. In this entire bargain the Congress (I) is the worst sufferer. It has gained nothing and even as a matter of strategy, the party has failed to do the right thing. People like Mr. M. L. Fotedar who have no roots have been instigating Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. Tiwari to rebel and ultimately they were all thrown out of the Congress (I) after they had set up a Congress party of their own. There are no illusions that the new unit is going to gather much support but to the extent some prominent leaders have left the party, Mr. Narasimha Rao is weakened. Of course he had, very little choice since his own position in the party was being threatened. The Prime Minister is passing through a very difficult period and with elections to the Lok Sabha a few months away he has to work hard if the party should come to power.

Following the electoral debacle in the South, many within the party have not properly understood the profound ideological mutation that Mr. Narasimha Rao has brought about, that he is unlike any other Prime Minister that this country has had. The Nehru-Gandhi style of leadership relied heavily on individual charisma, populist measures and fanatic personal loyalty to the leader. The fact that some of them had ideas was ultimately of no political consequence. Socialism was often a convenient disguise for populism. Mr. Rao’s leadership, it must be recognised, is different in at least two crucial ways. He is the first Congress leader to have stated a truth that years of socialist profligacy had made obvious; resources are limited. A government cannot throw money away just to satisfy this or that segment of society. Mr. Rao made this clear when he said, “If I say I am going to do this, I will have to explain to the people how I am going to do this; where the money is going to come from, where are the other resources to come from.” Every penny has to be accounted for in terms of the development of the society as a whole.

In other words there is a Lakshmana Rekha for vote bank politics. The other distinctive feature is that he enjoys ‘almost’ no mass base. The two features are interdependent for Mr. Rao’s lack of mass base of which he is fully conscious enables him to pursue policies that are not election-oriented. It is Mr. Rao’s endeavour to make an electorate nourished for years on ad hoc populist illusions respond to a well defined ideology which makes sound economic sense. The view expressed by several parties that the Congress (I) failed in the elections because of Mr. Rao’s economic policies does not make much sense. On the other hand, Mr. Arjun Singh seems to suggest that the Congress (I) must regain its traditional vote banks and he is not too bothered if it meant compromising on economic reforms. His search for charisma had led him to Ms Sonia Gandhi and what he is seeking is a return to the old Nehru-Gandhi style of leadership which is not really possible. Mr. Rao has demonstrated that he could continue without the support of people like Mr. Arjun Singh but that is not to say that his task is easy. He has to devise ways and means of further strengthening his position without yielding much. It is a pity that the BJP on the other hand, has thrown all principles to the wind especially at a time when it was thought its legendary discipline would enable it to hammer together a platform in conformity with modernism just in time for the next election. Yet another matter that is of importance is the emergence of a cynical calculation that the Muslims have ceased to matter and the Hindu vote is more important to the Congress (I) to stage a come. Such thinking does undermine the cosmopolitan character of the nation, all for the sake of votes. The Muslim community too should ponder over the fact that there has been a retreat of the moderates among Muslims which seems to create an impression in the Congress (I) that even a reconciliation is not warranted.

In the quarter under review, events in Jammu and Kashmir have taken a new course. The burning of the 15th century Chrar-e-Sherif shrine by militants who had occupied it clandestinely having entered it as pilgrims has a grim story to tell. The small town too was occupied by the militants and the government was in no position to take the offensive for fear that the shrine would be set on fire. For several weeks it was under siege and in utter desperation the militants destroyed the holy place and tried to escape. This came at an awkward time for the Government with elections being considered in the coming weeks. President’s rule which was to end on July 18 had to be extended for yet another six months thus upsetting the calculations of the Government. There has no doubt been bitter criticism of the proposal for a poll as peace had not returned to the Valley in full measure. But the Government is working its plan on the assumption that even a low turnout poll is better than no election at all. After all the political process has to commence somewhere and elections with all the trappings are still the best starting point for the arduous tasks ahead. It is also important that the Government should not lose the momentum of events and do some thing dramatic.