A history of irresponsibility

So what have the Congress leaders been reading of late? Judging by their actions, I would lay odds that they have been gathering pearls of wisdom from a famous Italian. No, not the one you are probably thinking of, but a gentleman called Benito Mussolini.

In Mussolini’s day, Italy’s walls were covered with a neat summation of the Fascist creed. Note too that the Duce advocated direct action and violence. He was openly contemptuous of parliamentary democracy and its practitioners. Which of these statements does not apply equally well to the Congress of today?

`Believe, obey, fight’ effectively sums up the Congress’s behaviour in Parliament. Its MPs believed that Sonia Gandhi wanted them to scream. They obeyed, sheep-like. And millions of disgusted TV viewers can testify that they fought to prevent Parliament from doing any work whatsoever.

Congressmen can’t get away by pleading that these were emotional outbursts.

Mrityunjay Naik, the Congress Parliamentary Party secretary, had the temerity to declare that the Congress would not allow Parliament to function.

“Little worms” was a dictator’s description of those who accepted the discipline of democracy. On the general principle that the early bird gets the worms, the Congress ravens took the initiative in creating a racket.

India’s oldest political party has lost all hope of achieving power by democratic means. Shutting down Parliament was not an aberration, it was merely the latest disgusting act in a long series of such.

In October, everyone was talking about the violence in the UP Assembly. How many noted the fact — clearly visible on TV — that it began with the Congress’s Pramod Tewari? Whether in Lucknow or in Delhi, the ultimate aim was the same — to paralyse the Houses. And the Congress clearly didn’t give a damn if its actions went against the will of the House.

On the specific issue of the Jain Commission’s findings, the Congress repeatedly rejected every move to initiate a debate. The United Front, especially the DMK, was willing to do so. The BJP and its allies demanded a discussion. But the Congress would have none of it.

Congressmen apparently believe that India’s highest forum isn’t a fit body to discuss an issue of national importance. In any case they wanted execution, not discussion — all in the finest traditions of fascism.

Two constables from Haryana were enough excuse for Rajiv Gandhi to undermine the Chandra Shekhar ministry in 1991. Six years on, the presence of three DMK ministers was enough to bring both Houses of Parliament to a halt.A word on the Congress as a “supporter from outside”. The party has a tradition of being unreliable, whether it was Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda, Gujral, or Janaki Ramachandran who was offered its votes. I recall the shabby manner in which Indira Gandhi treated Charan Singh in 1979. The Lok Sabha was scheduled to meet at 11 o’clock. At 10:55 a.m. the Congress suddenly declared that it was giving Charan Singh the heave-ho!

The United Front is quite right in complaining that Congressmen act as if they, and they alone, have a divine right to rule. But the current Congress tactics betray desperation. Never before has the party been forced to resort to such open hooliganism. Of course, on previous occasions the Congress held the levers of power and could, therefore, act with somewhat greater subtlety.Thirty years ago, the united anti-Congress forces came to power in several states. In Rajasthan, however, the Governor didn’t even give them the chance to prove their majority. That tactic was used again and again. That way, at least part of the popular anger was deflected towards the Raj Bhawans.

But the Congress isn’t in a position any longer to appoint a compliant Governor or two. Party legislators must perforce act as stormtroopers.

The Congress seeks to convince the electorate that it alone can be trusted to provide a stable government. But its record suggests otherwise. It is, quite simply, an utterly irresponsible party.

And not just irresponsible, but insecure too. The Chandra Shekhar and Deve Gowda ministries were pulled down just as they showed signs of putting down roots.

So far from being the sole guarantor of stability, the Congress is the single largest force destabilising Indian democracy. How long will this go on, and where shall it all end? The answer to the first is that the Congress strategy will continue as long as the old men who lead it lack any new ideas. After the debacle of 1996, the party desperately needed introspection. Instead, all we heard was the parrot-cry of “Sonia, help us!”.

That isn’t much of a slogan! At least Indira Gandhi had “Garibi hatao!” for a battle-cry. I am not sure “Sonia lao, desh bachao!” is an adequate substitute. (Even if it is supplemented with “DMK hatao!”)

Now to the second query — where the Congress’s obstructionist tactics will leave us. By way of answer, I point yet again to Italy. In the half-century since World War II, Rome has seen 56 ministries. Left to itself, the Congress could usher in the era of revolving-door governments in India too.Of course, this assumes that Kesri’s merry band shall continue to have the numbers to disrupt parliamentary life. But that situation may not last forever.

Barbara Tuchman pointed out that it was the policy of every German statesman since Bismarck to prevent a war on two fronts. Lacking the Iron Chancellor’s moderation, his successors antagonised both Russia and France.

A Congress chained to the dynastic principle is committing the same error made by imperial Germany. It has picked a quarrel with both the BJP and the UF.

Will this war on two fronts end any more happily for the Congress than other wars of prestige did for Wilhelmine Germany or fascist Italy?