Redefining the coalition

No doubt, all-India parties have got weakened over the years. Local organisations have come up. But it does not mean that the genius of India lies in the politics of coalition. Many intellectuals in the country and abroad have advanced the thesis of periphery states getting stronger than the mainland. This may be partially true, but it does not follow that coalitions have come about because of such factors.

Had this been the case, ruling regional parties like the Asom Gana Parishad AGP, the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar and the Samajwadi Party in UP should have been part of the Vajpayee-led coalition. They have not been. Instead, some rump parties joined the government. This was not peculiar to the BJP-led government. Such has been the pattern of coalitions all along. The assertion of regional aspirations has little to do with coalitions.What does Om Parkash Chautala8217;s Indian National Lok Dal INDL in Haryana, which changed sides one day before the vote of confidence, reflect except opportunism? The DMK revised its attitude towards the BJP, once shunned as a communal party, because of the AI-ADMK, the DMK8217;s rival in the state, which went to the Opposition. Similarly, most of those who forged an understanding to throw out the BJP-led coalition, were motivated by the same desire: power. Their action was, in no way, guided by principles. Nor is there anything altruistic about regional forces. They too want their share in the booty at the Centre. In fact, the worst part is the horse-trading. It happens whenever a coalition faces a collapse.

Coalitions in India primarily owe their existence to a set of determined people, who combine to govern for personal and party ends. The unifying force is power. It is the pooling of ambitions. That regional parties are sharing power at the Centre and helping in the pro-cess of consensus is not true. They do not necessarily participate in the governance of the country. They stay parochial in their outlook. Popu-lism is their method to gather support. And th-ey demand the pound of flesh, as Mamata Bane-rjee of the Trinamool Congress from West Bengal and the Telugu Desam from Andhra Pradesh did.

There is no reason why a country with diverse communities should have a coalition government. America is a land of different peoples. Their two-party system has given the country a firm, cohesive, government. Men and women, coming from different lands, go through a crucible, which make them Americans. We lack that. We have yet to develop the spirit of Indian-ness. If the BJP were to dissociate itself from the RSS and shed its Hindu chauvinism, it could develop into an alternative. Then India could also have two political parties, claiming the loyalty of the electorate.

Still, political situations, however irrational, are themselves the product of something more fundamental. I wish the basis was economic forces, but that is not the case. Communal, caste and criminal elements have come together to enjoy the fruits of power and to make money. They pounce upon the intellectuals who expose their methods. A typical example is the attack by former Bihar chief minister Laloo Prasad Yadav on buddhijivis intellectuals in Parliament during the debate on the vote of confidence motion. Su-ch attacks are going to increase. This is one me-thod to silence the critics. The Congress tried it during the Emerge-ncy. The RSS has its own methods to attack people through vilification.

The intellectuals, who keep their distance from roughnecks, have very little influence. Yet, if society is to make progress economically, culturally or otherwise, it has to respect their say. They are the ones who come up with new ideas. It is they who make the nation tick. But very few political parties tolerate the thinking person. Those who are there have to sing the master8217;s tune. Party discipline has become important.

Dissent is neither encouraged nor tolerated. Both Communists as well as anti-Communists seem to imagine that a principle can only be stoutly defended by condemning those who do not accept it. For both of them, there are no shades, there is only black and white. This is the old approach of the bigoted. It is not the approach of tolerance, of feeling that perhaps others may also have some share of the truth. I can see the distances developing in the student community, the faculty, bureaucrats and, of course, MPs. This will hurt the country in the long run.

If India is to stay a pluralistic society, it cannot but encourage pluralistic thinking. Different points of view have to be recognised and respected. To coalesce them without destroying their individuality or entity is necessary so that the mosaic of cultures that India represents remains intact. A coalition of such people, who think differently but work within the larger frame of India, is the real coalition. It will also bring understanding, without which no coalition can work.

In a country of our size, one-party rule does not represent the democratic ethos of the people. The Congress suffered because it became undemocratic in an effort to stay undivided. The recent debate on the confidence vote motion has shown how petty and parochial members can be. Their attention is focussed on power. Very few rise above party or political consideration.It will be a tragedy if we leave matters at that. Pulling down a government is not a crime. But is the purpose to replace one set of bad rulers with another? Do principles come in anywhere? Some norms in public life are important because they alone provide sinews to any democratic system. If different parties could agree to pass a Budget unanimously, why can8217;t they agree to do something more basic in the interest of the nation?

The proposal for a national government has been discussed many a time before. Were the BJP to give up its communal agenda and some other parties their caste obsession, India can have a government backed by all parties.

Top