Disarming candour

Lal Krishna Advani has said in a TV interview that the government8217;s performance after a hundred days in office has been less than satisfactory, perhaps due to its 8220;inexperience8221;. This may amount to stating the obvious but his statement deserves to be appreciated because governments are not known for candour, especially about their own failings. Style is as important in democracies as substance and if Advani8217;s admission is an indication of openness, that is all to the good. It would have been infinitely preferable if he had been able to say, with complete honesty, that given its constraints the government had done quite well in its first hundred days. Unfortunately, that claim cannot be made except, debatably, on the nuclear question. Yet this government has time on its side. This is so not in terms of assured longevity but in that a hundred days is not a long enough time in which to write off a government, and certainly not one so hamstrung by its allies. Another hundred days and the merit of honesty wouldpale in comparison to the embarrassment of having to admit to failure.

The necessary concomitant to forthrightness is for the government to learn quickly on the job and not let its coalition problems drag it down. The BJP has, in the past, shown itself to be a good learner. Indeed the government has given a good account of itself in handling the diplomatic fallout of the nuclear tests. But the greatest test of its skill now lies in not letting the nuclear issue overwhelm its tenure and agenda and to get on with providing the good governance that it so loudly promised before forming the government. The only way for the leader of a coalition of demanding partners to keep its head above the water is to set about implementing the government8217;s agenda with fierce energy. Otherwise, the inevitable problems of coalition will keep receiving disproportionate attention and further hobble the government, completing the proverbial vicious circle. It would help if it could set as priorities universally welcome parts ofthe National Agenda and start by pushing individual policies with which none of its allies had a quarrel.

The openness thing itself has little meaning unless extended to ventilating the government8217;s agenda and encouraging debate on the more contentious of its ideas. For all its generally more open approach than that of preceding governments, the BJP has shown a desire to hurry through some of its ideas, such as those on poll reforms not all of which in fact constitute reform. And while many welcome its keenness to at least address changes to the Constitution, such an ambitious idea certainly deserves the participation of the whole political establishment and the public. The trouble with the BJP probably is that it has too many big ideas on national culture, national identity, national sovereignty, national security and what not. Many are fine ideas, though some clearly are not. But they cannot be allowed to swallow the more mundane ideas that are at least as much the job of government and that moreimmediately improve the lives of Indians. Everyday economic pragmatism, the supply of utilities and health and education, all these must take precedence. Fine ideas are fine, but India has waited too long for basic things that much of the world takes for granted.