Now that the committee formed by the UPA and the Left to work towards resolving their differences on the nuclear deal has broken up in bitterness and rancour, it will be tempting to start counting down to hypothetical election dates. This might be practicable for those who merely observe politics, and perhaps even for the opposition; but for the government and its constituent parties, it is an unaffordable luxury. There is absolutely no doubt now that an election is fast approaching — but one would have been rapidly approaching even if the nuclear deal’s timetable had differed. The governing coalition needs to remember that it still has a mandate to govern: it must avoid at all costs a situation in which prolonged paralysis, while attempts are made to keep a majority in Parliament, is replaced instantaneously with continued paralysis as every major centre of power swings into electioneering mode. The NDA government paid a heavy price in 2004 for, towards the end of its term, replacing the substance of government with soundbites meant to bolster its support; the UPA is hardly free from such adventurism, but it would do well to learn from the NDA’s experience.It is good news that the Congress’s core group has found itself unanimous in backing the prime minister in his stand on the benefits of ending India’s nuclear isolation. If the party feels that it can unite behind its perception of the national interest, so much the better: there are many other policies which are of great importance, require overhauling and speedy implementation, and where the government can demonstrate that it is not willing to waste whatever time is left to it. For instance, 126 highway projects have been delayed awaiting approval; the vulnerable housing sector needs attention, which can be provided by pushing clearances through the ministry of environment and forests. Below, we explore the international implications of allowing the national government to appear weak. As the domestic political consequences might be no less severe, the UPA should view the approaching end as liberating rather than restrictive. That, combined with the new-found internal consensus engendered by the Left’s intransigence, means that it at last has the opportunity to provide itself with evidence to present before the electorate that it knows where the national interest lies, and is capable of working to advance it.
