Congress’ rumble within

Going by the statements of its leaders, there seems to be a free-for-all in the Congress, with senior ministers disagreeing with colleagues publicly on policy issues. First it was Digvijay Singh taking on the Union home minister as “intellectually arrogant” and critiquing the Chidambaram line on  Maoism in a signed newspaper article. It kicked off dust in the Congress, and when it seemed to be settling down, the unruffled former chief minister raked up the issue again by asserting that he stood by what he had written, and that what he had said reflected the Congress line. In other words, the Chidambaram line was at variance with Congress policy.

Singh defended his statement even after the ‘gag order’ by the party directing party leaders to stick to statements which concerned their area of responsibility. Earlier the cabinet secretary had issued a directive, obviously at the instance of the PM, urging ministers to be restrained in their speech.

Last week saw a home ministry versus ministry of external affairs war, and what made it worse was that it involved another country, Pakistan. The timing of the home secretary’s statement to a newspaper that the ISI had been “controlling and coordinating” the 26/11 attack, on the eve of the external affairs minister’s visit to Islamabad, put the fat in the fire. Pakistan used Pillai’s statement to scuttle the talks, even before S M Krishna reached Islamabad.

(This should have been clear to South Block mandarins when the Pakistan high commissioner in India received Krishna at the airport, and not his counterpart in Pakistan. When Chidambaram had gone to Pakistan only a couple of weeks earlier to meet his counterpart, he was received by the Pakistan interior minister, and the two held a cordial meeting, even though Chidambaram had handed him a dossier which sought action against the three ISI men David Headley had referred to in his interrogation.)

It is difficult to believe that G K Pillai would articulate an opinion not shared by his minister, though Chidambaram said later by way of an explanation that the interview was supposed to have been published after the foreign ministers’ meet.

S M Krishna did one better which only compounded the confusion. First, he did not react when his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi equated Pillai with LeT founder and JUD chief Hafiz Saeed. On his return to India, he decided to come to Pillai’s defence. And then, he did yet another turnabout, when he called the timing of Pillai’s statement unfortunate. This came on his return from Afghanistan, where the Americans — US secretary of state Hillary Clinton was present — reportedly rapped the Indians on the knuckles, expressing their unhappiness about the way Delhi had used Headley’s disclosures for political purposes. It is hard to imagine that Krishna, who owes his foreign ministership to Manmohan Singh, would mount a public attack on Pillai without the clearance of the PM.

There have been other side shows going on, like the war of words between Kamal Nath and Planning Commission deputy chairperson Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Environment minister Jairam Ramesh has locked horns with many ministers. These statements go to show that the Congress has lowered its guard in the absence of a serious, viable and united opposition — despite the July 5 successful Bharat bandh against rising prices — and that could be one explanation for the free display of opinions by its ministers, pursuing their agendas.

The recent cacophony in the Congress also underscores the existence of hawks and doves inside the party — on vital issues like countering the Maoist challenge or the timing and content of the dialogue with Pakistan. Chidambaram and A K Antony are the hawks, Krishna is the dove, the PM the super dove, and Pranab Mukherjee, the middle-roader.

While this is neither surprising nor undesirable, the fact that senior leaders should give vent to their views publicly — and speak with different voices even when it involves a neighbouring country — shows that there has not been enough of a discussion within the party — and the government — to synthesise the varying  views and evolve an agreed and viable policy, with different ministries being on the same page.

It also heralds the emergence of two new wannabes — P Chidambaram and Digvijay Singh — on the political horizon, and both are known to be politically savvy. Chidambaram is clearly emerging as a hawk, pursuing a tough line against the Maoists and Pakistan, a stance favoured by a large section of the middle class. An underscoring of differences with other ministries reinforces the impression of a home minister who has his hands tied in very difficult circumstances. Chidambaram is increasingly coming to occupy the right of centre space, catering to the sentiment of the urban Indians, many of whom had viewed with favour — or backed — the BJP, particularly in north India.

Whenever there was discussion on Chidambaram as a possible prime ministerial candidate, his lack of familiarity with Hindi was seen as a big minus. Given that handicap, winning over urban, north Indian, Hindu opinion would be the next best thing he could hope for.

The second wannabe, Digvijay Singh, seems to be  positioning himself in the left of centre mould, contra-distinct from the niche that Chidambaram is carving out for himself. By espousing the cause of Muslims (visit to the families of the Batla House accused in Azamgarh), tribals and poor (the Naxal problem cannot be handled with just a law and order approach), he is trying to come across as a representative of the old and traditional Congress line (representing upper castes, minorities and SC/STs). Digvijay Singh’s political sanyas ends in 2013 and he has already made it clear that he would be willing to contest for the Lok Sabha if his party were to give him a ticket.

It goes without saying that positioning by Congress leaders would have relevance, if there was a vacancy at the top. For some reason, the buzz in the party refuses to die down that Manmohan Singh may throw in the towel in 2012, either to walk into the sunset for health reasons or to move into Rashtrapati Bhavan. And that   Rahul Gandhi may decide not to take over the reins of power after the UP elections, even if the Congress does well. Or he may decide even in 2014 to play the role of Sonia Gandhi, at least for some more time.

Chidambaram and Digvijay Singh are both realist enough to know that mere wishful thinking is not good enough. And yet at another level, politicians are incorrigible optimists and they are always preparing for multi-possibility options. The Indian situation being what it is, anything can happen at any time. Intended or otherwise, it is also a good way to counter the opposition and retain and widen the Congress space