. |
. |
EDITORIAL In a par excellence move with wide ramifications in troubled State of Jammu & Kashmir, Dr Farooq Abdullah Chief Minister has staged a political coup. This stands duly manifested in that he convened cabinet meeting to discuss Ansari's case vis-a-vis alleged kickbacks received by him and offer him an opportunity to explain his position to his cabinet colleagues. Ansari however abstained because explaining to the ......more External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has described Pak belligerency towards India as 'Compulsive hostility'. It implies that ever since partition Pakistan has not relented even for a day as regards hostile attitude. Be it the civilian democratic Government or the military dictators, they are consistent only in one aspect i.e. India remains......more |
|
Meeting the reform challenge By Sisir Basu Jack De Los who headed the UNESCO commission "Educa-tion for the 21st century" has rightly stated......more By M J
Akbar Kalyan
wants to From B L Kak |
 |
||
EDITORIAL In a par excellence move with wide ramifications in troubled State of Jammu & Kashmir, Dr Farooq Abdullah Chief Minister has staged a political coup. This stands duly manifested in that he convened cabinet meeting to discuss Ansari's case vis-a-vis alleged kickbacks received by him and offer him an opportunity to explain his position to his cabinet colleagues. Ansari however abstained because explaining to the cabinet members would have been very awkward exercise. It may be mentioned that Ansari has so far not submitted his resignation although Chief Minister had asked him to do so. By abstaining and remaining in Srinagar, Ansari failed to achieve his objective and instead provided good opportunity to Farooq to go ahead against him. Farooq not only obtained concurrence of all his colleagues to proceed against Ansari as per the law of the land but also lost not time in giving green signal to RV Raju Commission to proceed with fair and impartial investigation. The Commission has been empowered to investigate, interrogate or take any other action against Ansari, his staff or relatives. This has sealed the fate of Ansari who is left with no choice but to resign or be dismissed. Since all other ministers have tendered their resignation, Ansari can achieve nothing by delaying tactics. The second significant aspect of the political coup relates to obtaining resignations of all the ministers. Although ministers have been waiting for cabinet reshuffle, the manner in which their resignations have been obtained indicates that Farooq has indeed matured to time the things well. It indicates his full authority over the party since none dared defy his order and all ministers promptly put in their papers then and there. There is no denying the fact that Farooq was disillusioned with his team-mates for their bad performance and non-delivery which has brought the Government bad name. Barring some odd exception, it has been near total non-delivery on all fronts and Farooq was under pressure to put his house in order before setting others right. The team had also let him down very badly during recent Lok Sabha elections. Not only ministers avoided their constituencies for electioneering, some of them kept themselves confined to their abodes at a time when they should have been in the field to neutralise massive tirades let loose by pro-Pak elements in the State. In fact, Farooq had warned them all that he expected good show from their respective constituencies and those who failed him during trial at the husting would be shown the door. Immediately after the election process concluded, Farooq has been keeping them all on tenterhooks with frequent threats of shunting many heavy weights out by pruning the cabinet. The third noteworthy aspect of Farooq having emerged stronger than ever before relates to the fact that with resignations of entire cabinet in his pocket he is free to select a viable team. The fact that he has only obtained resignations and not forwarded the same to the Governor immediately gives him enough time to select good team. This means he keeps all options open and hates to face revolt as happened earlier. To that extent he is wiser by experience. It reflects maturity as he is able to assert himself convincingly as regards his control on the party and the ministers. Since the new cabinet formation is going to take another week or so, speculations on the new team are natural although it is likely to be slimmer and compact team. As soon as new cabinet is in place, massive reshuffle in bureaucracy and police hierarchy is on cards for regaining confidence of the people. All this and much more will be watched keenly by the hapless people which have suffered most under the impact of heavy-weights who could deliver nothing and remained busy in self-aggrandisement and corrupt practices galore in almost all fields, including recruitment process. Farooq having killed all birds with one stone definitely emerges stronger. One expects that the performance of the Government would be result-oriental henceforth. External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh has described Pak belligerency towards India as 'Compulsive hostility'. It implies that ever since partition Pakistan has not relented even for a day as regards hostile attitude. Be it the civilian democratic Government or the military dictators, they are consistent only in one aspect i.e. India remains their enemy number one. Although India has been magnanimous and benevolent towards the small neighbour all these 52 years, Pak response remains negative. It is well recorded how they fired the first salvo of belligerency in 1947 when tribals led by Pak forces invaded Jammu & Kashmir state thereby annexing one-third of the State. They defied the UN Resolutions of 1948-49 which had asked Pak to vacate areas occupied by it to restore status quo ante. Plebiscite was to be held only after composite character of the State had been restored. It was under Karachi Agreement that ceasefire line came into being. Pak refused to honour it and instead attacked once again in 1965. It then signed Tashkent declaration only to violate the same in letter and spirit as manifested by 1971 war that altered ceasefire line and LoC was born under Shimla Accord of 1972. Even this accord was sabotaged before the ink dried on it and it can best be remembered more for its violation than observing it. It is to be noted that each such agreement it was India that gave many concessions both in terms of area as also political deals like return of 95000 POWs, surrender of Hajipur and Chhamb etc. Yet Pakistan did not give up its hostility. Then came the Lahore Declaration. Here too it was on India's initiative for better relations. It is there for everyone to see that at the time this Declaration was being readied, Pak forces were busy occupying Kargil heights. It confirms their nasty mind-set that remains consistently hostile. The point to be noted relates to the fact that Kashmir has been used only as a ploy by Pakistan. If it were only Kashmir issue, then proxy war should have remained in J&K State only. The fact remains that Pak fuelled terrible insurgency in Punjab which lasted more than a decade. Its ISI has spread its tentacles not only in the north eastern states but also all over the country. This clearly implies that even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan on a platter, its hostility would never diminish. So, India has to stop them in J&K itself as manifested by massive military action in Kargil that compelled Pak forces to flee and vacate the captured heights. It thus follows that India now refuses to trust Pakistan. Jaswant Singh rightly links talks for solving all contentious issues to definite stoppage by Pakistan of all trans-border terrorism perpetrated in J&K and respecting LoC as also international border. Unless that happens talks are meaningless. It is so because talks lead to agreement and Pakistan is notorious for wriggling out of all international commitments and bilateral agreements. Jaswant Singh is right on course when he demands that Pakistan should begin from Shimla Accord and respect the Lahore Declaration rather than seek more dialogue and new accords. Compulsive hostility remains intact irrespective of Indian benevolence and magnanimity. |
||
|
||
|
By Sisir Basu The thirteenth Lok Sabha poll verdict may be a vote for sta-bility, but is it one for deepening of liberalisation? On the eve of the counting of votes, Vajpayee did express himself categorically in support of strong measures of reform. But the enhanced strength of political forces within the BJP-led alliance _ that are known to entertain serious reservations on core aspects of the liberalisation agenda _ warns against undue optimism on the new government taking up policies held in abeyance because of want of political consensus. The bitter memory of the defeat of the Vajpayee government by one vote and the plunging of the nation into an election it could ill-afford should, on paper, bind the ideologically disparate partners together and help avoid a rift on fulfilment of the unfinished part of the liberalisation programme. But, the fickle-mindedness displayed by the allies in the past should leave no one in doubt about the challenges facing Vajpayee in his third innings as Prime Minister. Business leaders have been somewhat ambitious in voicing expectations about reforms being pursued vigorously because of Vajpayee's continuance at the helm with an added mandate. The Prime Minister, no doubt, has consistently argued out for a stronger course of liberalisation. There is no exaggeration of his role in identifying him with a commitment to put the Indian economy within the competitive global environment. But, with so many allies and each one bent on getting its share of the flesh, competition-oriented opening up of the economy may become a casualty. One must recall in this context wooing by Promod Mahajan of Mamata Banerjee earlier and the assurance held out against closure of sick PSUs in West Bengal. For his part, the leader of the Biju Janata Dal in Orissa, Naveen Patnaik, has already spoken of his adopting a more aggressive posture and this could easily take the shape of an intransigence on eschewal of populist policies. The socialist forces in the coalition represented by the Janata Dal(U), Samata Party and Trinamool Congress might gang up to hinder steps towards subsidy reduction, liquidation of unviable public sector undertakings and further liberalisation of foreign investment. This Cassandra-like forecast is provoked largely by worry over the future of competitive reform and an anxiety to avoid making too much of the improved numbers at the command of the Prime Minister. If only a single party _ as against a grouping lacking ideological solidarity _ got these numbers, one could be very confident of the reform promises of the new government. But, given the reality of strong differences on economic policies, reformists have their job cut out. In this context, one must ask why the BJP had not bothered to push for a consensus on reform when it formed the NDA and had confined itself only to the exclusion of politically contentious issues such as abrogation of Article 370 and the Ram mandir. There is a view that the leadership's tactical retreat on the mandir plan has cost the BJP heavily in Uttar Pradesh. But, as for the future, the neglect of the compulsions of liberalisation in the course of pre-poll tie-ups could come in the way of the Prime Minister's efforts to push the economy deeper into reform. Already, the Haryana chief minister has given a hint of things to come by seeking a roll-back of diesel price hike. This is a pointer to the kind of problems Vajapyee will encounter when he broaches the issue of phased cuts in open and hidden subsidies. While an increase in prices of other petro goods is inevitable, a consensus within the alliance is certain to prove elusive. In retrospect, the CII may have achieved nothing by way of its bid after the dissolution of 12th Lok Sabha to promote an element of agreement among different parties on the nation's economic policies. No state leadership is willing to tackle an issue such as concessional pricing of electricity. Now, with their hands considerably strengthened, those who head the various parties belonging to the National Democratic Alliance are quite certain not to want to go along with the Prime Minister on any reform policy or programme that will hurt the farm sector. While Leftists do not count since they are in the opposite camp, their job of impeding reforms might be done by the satraps helping to keep the coalition intact. Earlier, Yashwant Sinha sought to hike the PDS prices of foodgrains, but the allies forced him to beat a retreat. The story of the new alliance, unfortunately, may not be any different. Business leaders as much as people like Sinha and Cheif Minister Prakash Singh Badal must understand the limitations of the government. Yet, it is possible to salvage the situation somewhat and keep reforms in place. The Prime Minister should waste no time in mooting a minimum reform programme and get it okayed by the parties supporting him. It must be remembered that under United Front, votaries of reform like P. Chidambaram and Murasoli Maran were able to make the best of what was known as a common minimum programme. It is a tribute to their initiative that it was the UF government which took such a momentous step as hiking domestic prices of petro goods to the level of those in the international market. UF's reform regard was impressive, given the Leftists' sustained opposition. There is a lesson in this for Vajpayee. Let him capitalise on the present euphoria to get the partners to agree on the basics of economic change _ and for the better. He can use a formal accord to give himself and his ministers a lot of flexibility on reform that would take care of the ideological resistance. INAV |
||
|
|
|
By M J Akbar Here is an easy electoral prediction that will go wrong for some unfortunate reasons. The real winners in the next Assembly elections of Uttar Pradesh and Orissa, surprising all the punters, will be the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and the Utkal Desam. One reason why I could be wrong is becaues these parties do not exist. The Utkal Desam might, sadly, remain a what-if idea. The facts of Orissa are not very complicated. The disillusionment of the voter with the Congress has turned into hatred. An impending defeat has become a coming catastrophe. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's chosen Chief Minister, Giridhar Gamang looked lost after a sudden cyclone destroyed half his state; his chief secretary went off on a jaunt to the United States, his officials vanished and his administration must now rank as the worst by far in Orissa's history. It is not his fault; he is out of his depth in his job. The fault lies in the judgement of those who sent him to become chief Minister. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's lack of understanding of men and matters is once again extracting a price from her party, a fact that is suppressed by the layers of sycophancy that play the role of cushions at a Congress working committee meeting. What Mr Gamang lacks in administrative skill he makes up in cunning. When Mrs Sonia Gandhi, within so many hours of declaring Mr Gamang safe in his job, sent the AICC general secretary in charge of Orissa, Madhavrao Scinidia, to change the Chief Minister, Gamang took his hand out of his pocket and blew a sharp raspberry. He left the high command sitting in a drawing room and flew off to Delhi in the state plane, without even bothering to offer the high command a lift. He called on Mrs Sonia Gandhi. We are not privy to what transpired, but at the moment of writing he is still the Chief Minister while I cannot be equally certain that Mr Scindia is the general secretary in charge of Orissa. Because Sonia Gandhi's next command was to send a delegation to Bhubaneswar with Motilal Vora in charge rather than Madhavrao Scindia. This must be the first instance when a general secretary has been divested of responsibility for a crucial decision in his state. Madhavrao has not resigned from his party post, but he was looking thoroughly disgusted on television when yet another of those internal camera crews thrust a microphone in front of his face in search of a soundbite. Ask the people of Orissa what they think of the Congress and they spit. While the people want relief and rehabilitation, Congress leaders indulge in the only game they know, how to seize power. It is musical chairs, with Mrs Sonia Gandhi sitting next to juke box, with no clue about when to start or stop the music. In the meanwhile, the man who will not leave his chair, Girdhar Gamang, continues to dig the knife whenever he gets the chance. He told a journalist that the only thing the Congress dissidents wanted was to get their hands on the relief funds so that they could steal. This is one thing the people will believe. The Congress Chief Minister is calling the Congress a gang of relief thieves. Mahatma Gandhi, would approve of such honesty; I don't know if Sonia Gandhi is ready or not. The BJP-Biju Janata Dal alliance could make the Congress a single -digit party in the Assembly polls, but it will be by default. There is a sense of betrayal in the state about the Centre. Orissa feels that it has a personal stake in the Vajpayee Government, because it punished Giridhar Gamang for being the one vote that defeated the Vajpayee Government. When his turn came to help Orissa, Vajpayee could not call the cyclone a "national calamity." His Government was tardy in its crisis-management. The Congrerss is hated, the BJP-BJD faces censure. The only politician whose image is on a bounce is Chandrababu Naidu, who sent help quickly and without fuss to his neighbour. Mr Naidu has savvy. He should find a few Orissa politicians who still have some credibility left, announce the launch of an Utkal Desam, and break the two-state-party system. If it does not happen, the loss will be his. If it does, remember you read it here first. Bharatiya Jana Sangh is a name which should be familiar to readers who took an interest in politics in the seventies. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh was born in 1951 because the RSS decided that it did not want to contest elections, and buried in 1977 because the Jana Sangh wanted to Join the post-Emergency Government. It has ever been thus in the Hindutva Parivar. The demands of ideology and the logic of power have lived within a tension that has not always been creative or sustainable. The Jana Sangh was created to win power; and its leaders have been imitating, through different avatars, a paradigm created by its first president, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, after the 1952 general elections. Although the Jana Sangh won only three Lok Sabha seats (two of them from Bengal) Mookerjee became leader of the opposition by creating the National Democratic Party, in alliance with the Dravida Kazhagam, forerunner of the DMK, and the Ganatantra Parishad, a feudal party of Orissa. The RSS cadre was not amused when the Jana Sangh leaders expected the RSS to serve the Sangh cause, for they were expecting the Sangh to serve the RSS cause. The tension did not create a fissure in the Fifties, because both the movement and the party were fringe realities in that decade. But the Jana Sangh became a force after the elections of 1967, when the politics of alliance took it to power in a number of State Governments. In 1977 the lure of power in Delhi persuaded the Jana Sangh to go so far from the RSS that it abandoned its identity. If the Janata experiment had succeeded that identity would have been lost. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani have taken that process forward in search of a higher prize. They have abandoned the ideology that brought them to power in exchange for leadership of a government that can retain office. Mookerjee's National Democratic Party has been renamed the National Democratic Front. The trimurti of temple construction, uniform personal law and abolition of Article 370 has been replaced by economic liberalisation, non-interference in minority rights and indifference to the Ram temple. Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani could be running a Congress Government in mufti. Moral of the story? Whenever the MPs of the Hindu Rashtra movement broaden their alliance for office they abandon the issues that brought them there. This policy works as along as no one is interested in poaching the space that has been abandoned while the BJP is busy saving the nation. Vajpayee and Advani kept the flock together through sustained strain between 1977 and 1980. But 1999 has become a slightly different story. A sacked BJP leader, who feels martyred, is threatening the BJP from the rear. A suggestion for Kalyan Singh. The Bharatiya Jana Singh name is available. That constituency is available. He can raise a simple slogan: Vajpayee abandoned the Ram temple; the Jana Sangh will construct it. He can set up candidates in all Uttar Pradesh constituencies on a single -point manifesto. He may not win; but that will end any lingering hope of a BJP revival in Uttar Pradesh. It was always a mistake to assume that Kalyan Singh and Mulayam Singh Yadav were partners in the same firm. They were temporary allies, which is another story. Like all politicians they are creatures of positions that they have taken. Mulayam Singh Yadav ordered police to open fire to stop mobs from destroying the Babri mosque. Kalyan Singh presided over the destruction of the mosque. Neither can change that. The clue to Kalyan Singh's future plans was offered to the world in broad daylight, on the day he reached his hometown Aligarh after resigning as chief minister. The slogans that welcomed him were heavily laced with promises of temple construction. Kalyan Singh has appealed to the RSS to save the BJP from Vajpayee, and he may have more people in agreement than would admit publicly. One thing is certain. He is not going to be meek; he will force the BJP to expel him, giving him the opportunity to launch the "real" party of Hindu Rashtra. Neither Kalyan Singh nor Giridhar Gamang is leaving obediently. Does this say something about them, or about their high commands? Kalyan Singh is exploiting a political contradiction. Giridhar Gamang is exploiting the absence of leadership. Both will extract sweet revenge. 21st Century Media |
|
Kalyan wants to rock the BJP boat From B L Kak "I shall strike when the iron is too hot", announced the ousted Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mr Kalyan Singh, when contacted on telephone for his answer to the much-discussed question: What is your future line of action ? He declined to elaborate on it; he simply said: "I want you to wait and watch". The BJP leaders, particularly those arrayed against Mr Kalyan Singh, are heard repeating the "hero-zero" mantra these days. The mantra is: Inside the party a hero, outside the party a zero. Mr Kalyan Singh, they say, will be a nobody in the next few days, now that he is out of the BJP. Mr Kalyan Singh’s popularity stemmed from his being a BJP man and not the other way round, as he is busy telling his people nowadays. Mr Kalyan Singh was out and out a creature of the BJP, they aver. Which other party would have brought him this stature, they ask. And anticipating the question, they come out with the answer that he had to be thrown out of the party because he grew too big for his boots and dared to challenge the authority of the Prime Minister himself. Well, Mr Kalyan Singh does not see himself fading away into a zero. Indeed, he seems to be full of plans for convincing the BJP leadership, particularly Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, that even outside the BJP he can remain a hero. There is no evidence of repentance in him, nor is there any expectation of staging a ‘home coming’ in the near or distant future. He does not seem serious about breaking the BJP legislature party in UP for toppling the Ram Prakash Gupta Ministry, though he claims that this exercise is not beyond him. His strategy seems deeper. He has his eyes focussed on the Assembly elections in March. It will be then that he proposes to avenge his humiliation. Now, regardless of the fate that is in store for Mr Kalyan Singh, it is the BJP that has to be worried about its future in Uttar Pradesh, regarded as its bastion after the eclipse of the Congress. Mr Kushabhau Thakre’s stand that Mr Kalyan Singh’s expulsion will not hurt the BJP is sheer bravado. Not all the senior BJP leaders share this optimism. In fact, there is an undercurrent of fear in the BJP ranks in regard to the future. Most leaders are saying something for public consumption and its opposite in private conversations. The party is also in a peculiar dilemma. It cannot condemn the pro-Backward Classes policies of Mr Kalyan Singh for fear of annoying these sections of society. It cannot praise the policies either, since that would annoy the upper castes. The party cannot launch an anti-Kalyan Singh campaign for the same reason. It has to keep its criticism of the former Chief Minister within manageable proportions. The caste-class configuration in UP is so delicately balanced that parties and leaders have to carefully weigh their utterances and actions. More so, when elections are just months away. The BJP cannot strike strident positions in relation to Mr Kalyan Singh for fear that he will retaliate by joining forces with the enemy. And, the truth is, after the 1999 Lok Sabha poll, the BJP does not have many friends in Uttar Pradesh. It is doubtful whether even Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee will be left with any charisma when the Assembly elections take place. What is more, the Congress has also grown in power in the State in the last 12 months. With Ms Sonia Gandhi retaining the Amethi seat, Mr Vajpayee will be constantly reminded that he faces competition in the charisma game. A study of the outcome of the 1999 Lok Sabha polls shows that the BJP has good reason to have jitters, now that Mr Kalyan Singh will be in the opposition camp. It is not heroes or zeroes which shape politics in UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These four States, in a way, shape and influence the electoral pulls and pressures in many northern and some southern States. Caste and class are important influences here. Mr Kalyan Singh symbolises the Backward Classes, which are bound to be antagonistic to the BJP for some time at least till the hurt implied in Mr Kalyan Singh’s ouster tapers off. Removing a Backward Class Chief Minister from office for no reason, other than he encouraged his own constituency and annoyed upper caste and the Brahmin politicians and bureaucrats can be quite hazardous in a State like UP. It can be hazardous these days in other States also. In the 1999 Lok Sabha polls, the Samajwadi Party led in 129 Assembly segments, the BJP in 125 and the Bahujan Samaj Party in 88. The Congress was a distant fourth within a 43-segment tally. The Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party together could have gobbled up with the BJP. In other words, the BJP won precisely because the Samajwadi Party and the BSP fought each other. If a situation arises where they could combine with ease and challenge both the BJP and the Congress, both these parties will have to watch out. With Mr Kalyan Singh available for an alliance with either of these forces, such a situation could well arise. The choice of a Bania to succeed Mr Kalyan Singh, and the inclusion in the Central Cabinet of Mr Rajnath Singh, a Rajput, will help Mr Kalyan Singh both in the short term and long run. The BJP would have done worse had the two Brahmin State leaders and Ministers Mr Laljee Tandon and Mr Kalraj Mishra had been brought to the Centre. They missed being inducted by inches. All this will be grist to Mr Kalyan Singh’s mill as it grinds swiftly after his coming expulsion. He can make political capital on the fact that the BJP is not comfortable with a Backward Classes Chief Minister, that it prefers the Brahmins and upper castes to Backward Classes, OBCs, Dalits and minorities. |
|
|
