Premium
This is an archive article published on December 16, 2009
Premium

Opinion Disagreeable Congressman

What place for dissent in a high-commandist party?

December 16, 2009 02:44 AM IST First published on: Dec 16, 2009 at 02:44 AM IST

Last Friday,when Parliament corridors were full of agitated Congress MPs from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema scampering from one room to another to meet the prime minister,the finance minister and the home minister to register their protest against the Centre’s decision on Telangana,Sonia Gandhi was at a village market in Rae Bareli inquiring about the prices of tomatoes and potatoes. In his chamber in Parliament House,Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was all smiles as Mamata Banerjee with her troupe of MPs sang “Happy Birthday to You”. Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily,who is also AICC in-charge of Andhra Pradesh,looked on in amusement.

It was a relaxed atmosphere in New Delhi,even as tension was building up in Andhra Pradesh. These reactions from the state were apparently on expected lines. Why else was the Congress high command not intervening? Was the situation not considered serious enough to send an emissary to Hyderabad?

Advertisement

If 10 Janpath could ignore the groundswell of support for Jagan Mohan Reddy even in the emotionally charged aftermath of Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy’s death,surely it had many ways to rein in the seemingly defiant legislators from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema? How could Chief Minister K. Rosaiah,who is still tentative about his tenure,muster the courage to declare that he was “shocked,anguished and astonished” by Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s announcement? How could he defiantly announce that he had no instructions from the Centre about a Telangana

resolution in the assembly?

Inherent in these questions is the key to the Congress strategy on Telangana. The anti-Telangana campaign,though not orchestrated,was not undesirable either. Did the high command not know how Jagan loyalists were in the forefront of this campaign to destabilise Rosaiah?

The Congress under Sonia Gandhi is democratic but only to the extent that it suits the party in a given situation. In a culture in which the line between dissent and rebellion is not delineated,differences of opinion have surfaced once too

Advertisement

often in recent times. In fact,sometimes the party seemed to encourage dissent either to make painful decisions more palatable or to usurp the opposition viewpoint,or simply to get out of difficult situations like the one caused by

K. Chandrasekhar Rao’s fast.

Remember the nuclear deal? Some Congressmen were no less critical than the Left. Salman Khursheed and Mani Shankar

Aiyar even went public. But once Sonia Gandhi came out in its

support,everything and everybody fell in place.

The aftermath of the Batla House encounter witnessed similar equivocation on the part of the Congress. While the SP demanded a judicial probe into the incident,the Congress’s official party line was that it was “inappropriate” for a political party to take a stand on a police encounter. Some like Digvijay Singh,however,wanted the government to address the “questions” being raised about the police encounter. Parvez Hashmi,who also raised questions then,was nominated to the Rajya Sabha a few months later.

Then,before the general elections,even as Congress-SP alliance talks were on,Digvijay Singh and Satyavrat Chaturvedi took pot-shots at SP general secretary Amar Singh. Chaturvedi went to the extent of calling Singh a “mental case”. The party distanced itself — but,weeks later,they had the last laugh. At a function at the India Habitat Centre recently to felicitate Firozabad by-poll victor Raj Babbar,Chaturvedi was asked whether he had to face the wrath of the Congress president for those remarks. He took a long puff from his cigar before blurting out,“At no point did I get any instruction from the high command.”

There were similar conflicting voices on the controversial Indo-Pak joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh. Immediately after

returning to India,the PM had called on the Congress president to explain the statement; she was said to be convinced. For the next several days though,party spokespersons refused to endorse the joint statement,in a clear attempt to give an impression of disagreement with the government. The objective was to insulate the party against any adverse public reaction.

The projected split among party MPs from Telangana and non-Telangana regions of Andhra Pradesh has also achieved the

desired results. K. Chandrasekhar Rao,who had quit the UPA

cabinet,has again developed a faith in the Congress,as he is in regular touch with the Congress leadership after breaking his fast. Publicly also,he today sings paeans to Sonia Gandhi.

Those who were privy to the deliberations in the Congress core group meetings claim that everything has happened “as per the script”. But,had TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu waited a little longer before making yet another somersault on Telangana,the Congress would have found itself caught in its own trap. The party’s crisis managers were counting on Naidu and he did not disappoint them. Of course,if Naidu had supported the resolution,it would still be one among many others gathering dust at the Centre.

dk.singh@expressindia.com

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments