The Congress is in need of a stiff dose of growth hormones. Going by its utterly juvenile response to the economic agenda of the government, it seems to be determined to destroy what remains of its public image in the shortest possible time. Its contribution to the second round of liberalisation can only be termed reprehensible. It may legitimately argue its case for removing Rajiv Gandhi's name from the CBI's chargesheet, but its decision to link it with support for economic liberalisation cannot be supported by any Indian, irrespective of political affiliation. Only one adjective can correctly represent the current Congress stand: anti-national. The party is the originator of the whole process of liberalisation. It has always been for the opening up of the insurance sector. To change its stance now, and to use its support as a bargaining counter to secure Rajiv Gandhi's good name, amounts to blackmailing the nation. A liberalised insurance sector will make pensions more productive, illness easier to dealwith and loans easier to secure and pay back. These are the benefits that the Congress, a party which has always claimed to represent the less privileged, would like to deny to the people.The two issues before the Congress have absolutely nothing in common and by linking them, it is only proving if further evidence is required on this count that it is out of touch. The electorate is not as naive as it used to be and while the Congress may be trying to improve its electoral chances with this gambit, it will end up achieving precisely the opposite. Instead, the party should have supported the move and used it to project itself as the prime mover of liberalisation. The stand of the usual suspects the Left and the socialists was only expected, but the denial of Congress support has made all the difference. The Congress may be concerned about keeping up its image as the main opposition party, but it seems to have forgotten that only a constructive opposition calls forth public admiration. A pointlesslyadversarial opposition cannot possibly be taken seriously.Another prime candidate for the administration of growth hormones is the trade union movement. Even the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, the ruling party's workers' outfit, has joined in the stir, speaking volumes for the much-vaunted discipline of the BJP. Trade unionists should have realised by now that liberalisation has acquired an irresistible logic of its own. It will happen in most sectors sooner rather than later, and unionists will simply have to adjust. They will not be able to ensure the sort of employment protection that the public sector has become used to, and nor will they be able to prevent more wings of the government from being opened up. If they really had their members' interests at heart, they would have helped to bring professionalism to the government services. Had they done that, they would have been able to counter the argument for liberalisation to some extent. But they have helped to institutionalise the systemic failure that isevident throughout government, and the manner of their opposition to liberalisation clearly shows the extent to which their interest coincides with the national interest.
