UPA146;s prime ministers

Doubtless the prime minister will accept A. Raja8217;s nomination for the enormously crucial job of communications minister in the same spirit as he accepted Dayanidhi Maran8217;s resignation. These columns pointed out yesterday that the usurpation of prime ministerial authority in coalition politics is not unique to the UPA8217;s term. Vajpayee8217;s NDA had to suffer that, too. The UPA experience, however, makes for a more worrisome reading. There are three broad reasons for this. First, the Telugu Desam never did to the NDA what the Left does to the UPA. Second, Vajpayee, his compromises notwithstanding, was a commanding political presence. Third, and related to the second, Vajpayee8217;s not infrequent run-ins with his party never went close to a stage where it appeared the BJP was actively undermining his authority. Whenever Vajpayee publicly lamented, the BJP rushed to make extravagant amends.

Manmohan Singh doesn8217;t have the advantage of these conditions. Of course, the prime minister of the day should be assessed in terms of the given political conditions of his job. No one should make excuses for him. But it would be both illogical and particularly ungenerous to not realise that Singh spends a lot of time battling those who are his allies but who seem to love nothing more than fundamentally weakening his office. Examples abound. Did the BJP ever use two-paragraph letters posted by the highest party offices to publicly interrogate a PMO policy position? Even the RSS and the SJM were more circumspect. But in the UPA-led Congress, the party boldly departing from the government, and creating policy paralysis in the bargain, has become a habit. Did Vajpayee8217;s ministers get away by persistently defying the PMO? In Singh8217;s cabinet, ministers write letters informing they are taking a different view from the government8217;s, ministers sit on PMO-cleared crucial appointments, ministers declaim that reforms are a cruel joke on the majority of the people. There is a feeling that is growing as if it has overdosed on hormones that this government is at best led ineffectually.

Congress politics is to blame. Particularly because the UPA is such a fragile political creature, lacking a majority of its own but not lacking regional chieftains who want to share the PM8217;s job, the Congress should have been four square behind the PM. The party leadership should have sent out the firm signal that taking on the PM is the same as taking on the party. Which Congress minister would have risked rebelliousness if the party made clear there would be no rewards? The Congress has spent three years doing this. It may find out in the next two years what the costs are.