The Hindu : Opportunism, not ideology

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Jan 25, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Opportunism, not ideology

By K.K. Katyal

The political worthies who claimed, in TV discussions, that the alliances now in the making with an eye on the general elections were signs of maturity and not of the sidelining of ideology were being naive, taking inexcusably a dim view of the people's intelligence. Whether it was the move for an arrangement between the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party in Maharashtra, between the Congress and the DMK in Tamil Nadu, the return of the estranged Kalyan Singh to the BJP, or the National Democratic Alliance's bid to restore its ties with the AIADMK, the basis was electoral convenience, pure and simple, not ideology. The undeclared understanding between the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav and the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and the Congress bid for adjustment with Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party, too, lacks political respectability. Yet, their representatives project, in all seriousness, their deals as evolution of sound politics, intended to promote the cause of democracy.

A scrutiny of individual cases would help establish the charge of opportunism against the parties involved in negotiations now. A pre-poll alliance pre-supposes willingness of the partners to stay together, especially if they secure a majority and are called upon to form the new government. This job could be performed satisfactorily only if they have a common programme, minimum or otherwise, formulated before the elections. In the current discussions — over alliances or adjustments — the programme element is conspicuous either by its absence or because of its low priority. This, in situations where the parties concerned carry the heavy baggage of past contradictions.

The details need to be mentioned, even at the risk of sounding repetitive. The Maharashtra supremo, Sharad Pawar, might have had good reasons, some years ago, for breaking away from the Congress — he, perhaps, was upset that he was sought to be sidelined to prevent him from emerging as a reckonable force in the party. But the platform he chose for a new outfit, the NCP, was specific — opposition to the idea of projecting a person of foreign origin, Sonia Gandhi, as the shadow Prime Minister. There is nothing to suggest that the Congress has moved away from that position — it affirms its right to choose its leader and it is not prepared even to remotely entertain the thought of having anyone other than some Gandhi as the president of the Congress and in that capacity, as the next Prime Minister of a coalition led by the Congress. The only change is that the second part is not emphasised now in view of the sensitivities of others. Mr. Pawar could not be unaware of it and yet he is all set for an alliance with the Congress — and has already opened the channels of communications with her, starting with a well-publicised tea party which had all the attributes of a political rather than a social event. He has seized upon a fig leaf provided by her — that the leader of the alliance (government) would be chosen by its members after the elections. In it, he sees acceptance of the idea of collective leadership.

The Congress-DMK tie-up, too, is vulnerable on a similar count. About six years ago, the Congress wanted the DMK to be thrown out of the United Front Government headed by I.K. Gujral because of its supposed indictment by the Jain Commission that had inquired into the circumstances of Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. His refusal to oblige the Congress led to the withdrawal of support to the Government and its collapse. The same DMK is now wooed as a partner. The Congress argues that the final report of the Commission did not contain the indictment made in the interim document (which was the basis of the Congress demand for the DMK's ouster in December 1997). There is nothing to suggest that the interim findings were, in any way, modified later. The Congress, however, has no use for such niceties. Not long ago, the SP did not miss any opportunity to lambast the BJP for its communal politics. But now the two show understanding of each other's political compulsions in U.P. What else is the meaning of the present ruling combine tolerating the BJP's nominee as the Speaker, and refraining from poaching on the BJP turf for support and adopting a BJP-friendly line on legal cases relating to the Ayodhya demolition? Or is Mr. Mulayam Singh tilting towards the Congress?

On the other side of the fence, the NDA is keen to restore ties with the AIADMK which, in 1999, had walked out of an earlier alliance, leading to the collapse of the first Vajpayee Government and a fresh general election. Who would be brave enough to claim that the two have come together again because of the force of ideological and programmatic commonalities?

What is the net result of the rival bids for alliances? The two sides seem to have drawn even, with a slight edge for the Congress. The NDA's loss (of the DMK and others in Tamil Nadu) will be compensated by the support of the AIADMK but, in the process, the Congress gets a Dravidian party as an ally. Mr. Sharad Pawar's support to the Congress is a gain for it but another — though smaller — section of the NCP has swung to the NDA camp. In an internalised alliance-making exercise in U.P., the BJP has won back the former Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, thus neutralising his damage potential in eight to 10 Lok Sabha constituencies.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A new dawn in the Valley?

The dissenters remain defiant

NC for inclusive dialogue

A good beginning, says PDP

Opportunism, not ideology

Politics, siblings and dynasties