Whose government?

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is scheduled to discuss in Parliament on Wednesday the India-Pakistan joint statement. He will,it is expected,reply to a range of questions that have seized the opposition primarily on the detail in de-bracketing terrorism from the composite dialogue and on the mention of Balochistan. The discussion should help nuance the political depth required for an attempt as bold and therefore as risky as Dr Singhs effort to win diplomatic flexibility in Indias engagement with Pakistan. After all,this quest for flexibility to broad-base Indias engagement so as to get as many stakeholders as possible to the peace process reaches back to the NDAs tenure,and the prime ministers current initiative builds on the successes and failures of earlier efforts. Thus,his indication of eagerness to clarify and reply to all questions is welcome. Out of the din of political posturing could emerge a clearer picture of the political will in this country to think big and forward,to weigh the phrases of a draft against the diplomatic reorientation it could bring.

This is why the silence in the Congress party mystifies. In the long week since the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting,an impression has been emitted or perhaps spun by sections of the party that there exists a buffer zone between the party and the government. Congress spokespersons persisted for too many days in refusing to comment on the joint statement,and drawing a line of separation with the argument that the party need not say anything on the joint statement. As one of them put it,If you need any further clarification,go to the Government of India. Can it be that simply put,even in the earliest days of a government initiative or announcement? In fact,does a political party even have the option of weighing and watching so that it could cut its losses if a risky government strategy eventually goes wrong?

UPA-II is in very substantial measure the Congresss government,its prime minister and key ministers are drawn from the party on the partys greater wisdom. They have not been imposed on the party from without. The government operates under negligible coalition pressure,and for the party to mark out distances from a government so early in its tenure is in and of itself a risky strategy. Were there to be unforeseen repercussions,that illusion of separation would be as unconvincing then as it is now. The Congress has to take political ownership of its government not by attempting to run the government,but by engaging in a political conversation that rises to the challenges of high-risk strategies responsive governments are routinely called upon to undertake.