UPA146;s power-sharing dilemma

The fact that the prime minister did not know that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill, 2004, was in the offing raises serious questio...

The fact that the prime minister did not know that the Punjab Termination of Agreements Bill, 2004, was in the offing raises serious questions about how the government is functioning. This is not like any other bill passed by a state assembly. Water-sharing is such an emotive issue that it could become a festering sore like the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid standoff, forcing the executive to shoot off the shoulders of the judiciary, and the courts unable to decide. It could lead to negation of agreements sanctified by governments, be it agreements on Cauvery or the Punjab and Assam accords. The implications of the water bill are far reaching for federalism and the country8217;s unity. And yet the prime minister was not informed about it.

Even if Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh failed to inform the PM and Sonia Gandhi, and he8217;s admitted this openly, a special session of the assembly is not a secret meeting held away from the public glare. Punjab8217;s not Arunachal Pradesh tucked away in a corner. The Congress is in power there. It has a general secretary in charge of Punjab. There are factions in the Punjab Congress in touch with the AICC on a daily basis. There are Congress MPs from Punjab in Parliament which was in session. There are other agencies which are supposed to keep the PM informed. The director of the IB and head of RAW are supposed to brief the PM every day. They are supposed to be briefed by their joint directors in the state. There are two security chiefs in the PMO, J.N. Dixit and M.K. Narayanan. To say the PM and the Congress president were kept in the dark is not good enough. This is a shocking commentary on governance.

The problem, it8217;s said, lies in the confusion over who exercises authority in this government. Ministers, secretaries, ambassadors do not know whether they should call on Manmohan Singh or on Sonia Gandhi. Let8217;s be clear. The two power centres are a reality of this coalition and emanate from the nature of the 2004 mandate. It is not possible to wish away Sonia. She is bound to be a decisive factor. She took the party from 114 to 145 seats, and stitched up pre-poll alliances and the post-poll coalition. When prime ministership was within her grasp and no one could have stopped her, she declined to take it. This increased her moral and political clout, it is that which gives her the authority she exercises today.

The UPA is a more complex coalition than any preceding arrangement. Every coalit-ion PM has had to face curtailment of his prerogative to appoint his team. Party chiefs, not the PM, have decided who will join the cabinet, and in recent years which portfolios they will get. Barring V.P. Singh and Chandra Shekhar, other coalition PMs 8212; H.D. Deve Gowda, I.K. Gujral, Atal Bihari Vajpayee 8212; did not head their own parties. Like Manmohan Singh, they also had to contend with another power centre. But that centre was not as powerful as Sonia, a Nehru-Gandhi as Congress president. Though he faced problems from his party and the RSS from time to time, Vajpayee was chosen as PM because he was a mass leader. Gujral and Gowda owed their PMship to regional bosses. But Manmohan Singh owes his PMship solely to Sonia. He is also more retiring, and sensitive, than his predecessors. His ministers run their ministries as independent fiefdoms. It8217;s doubtful whether Laloo Yadav took him into confidence about the Godhra inquiry. Amarinder transferred a host of officials the day after he wrote to chief ministers urging them against frequent transfers. Andhra Pradesh CM Y.S.R. Reddy reportedly did not take him into confidence about the reservation for Muslims. The examples are only illustrative.

Now that he has been appointed PM, Manmohan Singh has to get on with being prime minister without looking over his shoulder all the time. He has bent over backwards to keep a low profile, so that he is not misunderstood. He has left all 8220;political8221; decisions to Sonia. Congressmen may whisper in Sonia8217;s ears that a powerful PM may sideline her and cite the example of Narasimha Rao. But the situation is qualitatively different from what it was in 1991. Manmohan Singh is not Rao, and Sonia has established that she can take the party to power. In the given situation, Sonia has everything to gain by building up Manmohan Singh as PM. His success will be her success, his failure will be seen as her failure. The Congress will revive only if the government is seen to perform. This can happen only if Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh move in step. Else, it will become a case of 8220;bechara Manmohan8221; hemmed in by her and the Left, leading to more Punjab-type adventurism. And the Congress may lose its ultimate political weapon 8212; that it is the only party which knows how to govern.