An ideological tussle

Speaking to a group of editors earlier this week, it seemed as if the prime minister was giving vent to his pent-up unhappiness of months, in his gentle, inimitable style. Ironically his words went to underline the very thing he chose to deny — differences between the government and the ruling party.

This was the second time in three months that Manmohan Singh made clear that he did not intend to throw in the towel. This was a strange thing for the PM to do, particularly since he happens to be a PM who enjoyed the goodwill of Sonia Gandhi and was the only non-Nehru-Gandhi to be projected as the Congress’ prime ministerial choice before the election, in 2009. And if you look at the situation dispassionately, he continues to be the best bet for her. His words showed that either some wanted him to step down — there has been a buzz that he might quit either after the Commonwealth Games or after US President Barack Obama’s visit or after the UP elections in 2012 to make way for Rahul Gandhi — or that he was himself contemplating it.

Manmohan Singh obviously felt the time had come to assert his authority as prime minister, and that he had nothing to lose by doing so. So, apart from ruling out his exit, he rebutted the criticism of a drift in his government and defended the cohesiveness of his ministry, going to the extent of saying that it was more cohesive than that of Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi.

It is true that Jawaharlal Nehru had a Vallabhbhai Patel, as the PM pointed out to the editors. Patel used to shoot off letters to Nehru on a host of issues and this makes for fascinating reading. This exchange of correspondence reflects the detailed thought that senior leaders gave to issues of the day, the schools of thought they represented, the ease with which they differed and yet the respect they had for each other.

The point however is that these letters were never made public. In fact, there is an exchange of letters between Nehru and Patel about an instance when something penned by one of them had made its way to the press and both men had felt agitated about it.

It is also true that Indira Gandhi had a Morarji Desai and the differences between her and him and the old guard in the party had led to a split. But she had ridden storm after storm to worst her enemies and emerge invincible.

Every prime minister has had his or her trail of woes, and obdurate and difficult colleagues to contend with. But Singh chose to focus on the Nehru-Gandhi PMs to make his point — that his accommodating ways should not be viewed as a sign of weakness.

He also chose to come to the defence of some of his senior ministerial colleagues who have been targeted by senior Congress leaders. He was all praise for Union home minister P Chidambaram whose line on the Maoist challenge was criticised by none other than AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh.

The PM’s words that environment concerns were fine but the government should guard against ‘perpetuating poverty’ or going back to the ‘licence permit raj’ was a gentle message to environment minister Jairam Ramesh — he is believed to have the support of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi and his ministry recently brought out a book compiling the sayings of Indira Gandhi on environment — not to be as proactive as he has been. Rahul Gandhi’s espousal of the rights of the tribals in Niyamgiri in Orissa went side by side the refusal of licence to Vedanta to go in for bauxite mining in the state.

Expressing the view the Supreme Court should not get into matters of ‘policy formulation’, the PM asserted on behalf of the executive vis-à-vis the judiciary. But in stating that the government could not distribute the rotting grain free of cost, Singh also chose to stand by his agriculture and food minister Sharad Pawar, who had been pulled up by the apex court a few days ago for not heeding its advice to distribute the grain wasting away in the open.

The PM’s endorsement of his HRD minister is well-known. But the Education Tribunal Bill that Kapil Sibal was so keen to get passed could not go through Parliament, more because of the opposition to it by Congressmen than because of the Opposition.

All these are straws in the wind that point to a divide in the government between what is coming to be known as the PM’s group and those who are with Sonia Gandhi, though at one level this is a false division because she calls the shots in the party. This is more a sign of an ideological tussle that is going on inside the party on what the Congress should stand for.

Sonia Gandhi, and now Rahul Gandhi, want to position the party in such a way that it retains its traditional image of being partial to the tribals, Dalits, minorities, women and youth, in fact the ‘oppressed’, as Sonia Gandhi put it in her acceptance speech after being elected as Congress president for the fourth time. The PM on the other hand is seen by many in the party as being pro-America and interested only in the growth story.

That she wanted to nudge the government in a particular direction was evident in her decision to reconstitute the National Advisory Council, which would give her an opportunity to shoot off its shoulders, instead of taking on the government directly. There are differences between the NAC and the government over the Food Security Bill which is her baby in UPA-II, as also an ace up her sleeve which she is expected to play at an appropriate moment.

These differences centre on whether the distribution of 35 kg of grain at Rs 3 a kg should be universalised, the actual figure of BPL families who should benefit from the disbursement of cheap grain, whether the legislation should have a nutritional component built into it for women and children and the vulnerable and so on.

The so-called Left versus Right debate is not new in the Congress. But coming as it does, it is contributing to a lack of grip at the top, evident both in the party and in the government — at a time when there is a challenge to the authority of the Indian State and the very idea of India as we have known it. It comes at a time when the prime minister and Sonia Gandhi need to be on the same page even more than in the past.

neerja_chowdhury@yahoo.com