Striking sparks

The relationship between the Congress party and the government it leads has every appearance of being stretched taut,threatening to tear at key places. The tensions between individual leaders are now a matter of open speculation. The partys highly visible general secretary,Digvijaya Singh,doesnt disguise his antipathy for Home Minister P. Chidambaram. The disagreements between Jairam Ramesh and his colleagues Prithviraj Chavan and Kapil Sibal have been aired in full view. And in Parliament,K. Keshava Rao mounted a mini-insurrection against HRD Minister Kapil Sibal over the Educational Tribunals Bill.

But what prompts Congress leaders to throw away the playbook and write their own lines? All of these arguments have been pounced upon by the opposition as proof that the party is thoughtlessly staggering from issue to issue,and divided on the most vital matters of policy. The Congress,on the other hand,presents them as evidence of its free-thinking ways. Digivijaya Singh proudly claims to be the partys internal opposition,after undermining the home minister over the Maoist question first and now complaining loudly at his loose use of terms like saffron terror. And so far,there have been no consequences for indiscipline,or much of an attempt to smooth these divergent views and clarify the Congresss position on important policy matters. At best,the schisms could be carefully orchestrated,giving the party a chance to play good cop to its hard-nosed government. At worst,they reflect a power struggle within the party that could have grave implications for the governments functioning.

Whether it is transgenic food or coal policy or higher education,these are all matters that must be examined from different angles,and political parties are meant to amplify different voices in order to find their own. Debate is a fine thing,and to refine an issue through contestation and disagreement is the very core of deliberative democracy. However,the problem is that with the way the Congresss sparring is set up,it is difficult to determine whether these are substantive debates or strategic,self-interested bids for attention.