NEW DELHI, 23 May 2004 — Twenty years ago this week the most powerful Sikh in India was Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Giani Zail Singh was the president of India but he was merely in a Delhi palace; Bhindranwale, seated on the roof of Langar Sri Guru Ram Das Sahib in the winter sun, or in the shade when it got warmer, with a durbar of devotees and flitting journalists, had the country on an edge.
I remember vividly the taunt in his eyes when he laughed and told me in February 1984 that if Prime Minister Indira Gandhi wanted to talk to him she could come to the Golden Temple. His guns had shaken the confidence of India, and journalists spoke helplessly of the Vietnam syndrome: If it was a dull day you could always count on a few corpses from Punjab to make the lead story.
From London Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, the self-styled “president of Khalistan” coordinated with Bhindranwale about when to announce a provisional government of Khalistan that would nominate a Sikh Parliament and collect taxes, while Chauhan would open a Khalistan House in London to work for international recognition of this state. On June 1 there was formal hostility between Bhindranwale’s armed men, firing from the roofs of the buildings in the temple complex and the police outside: 11 died. On the evening of June 2 Mrs. Indira Gandhi addressed the nation on Punjab. Her speech was preceded by Iqbal’s Saare jahan se achha, Hindustan hamara and the Saraswati Vandana.
Even while she was speaking two infantry divisions from Meerut and Secunderabad moved into Amritsar. The next morning Lt. Gen. Ranjit Singh Dayal, a Sikh and decorated war hero of 1965 and 1971, was made an adviser (security) to the governor of Punjab, B.D. Pande. On the night of June 3 a 36-hour curfew was imposed around the Golden Temple. On the morning of June 4 at 4.45 in the morning the battle to end the Bhindranwale threat to India began; it was only on the morning of June 7 that he died. The heavy price that Mrs. Gandhi herself paid, in martyrdom, is too well known to bear repetition. Who could have predicted in May 1984 that in May 2004 a Sikh would be sworn in as India’s prime minister? Could there be a more marvelous tribute to India, to Indian democracy and to the Indian people, the bedrock of both the nation and its leadership?
The most important aspect of this decision is that it has been made without any fuss. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi chose to make Dr. Manmohan Singh prime minister not because he was a Sikh, or from this caste or that, but simply because he was the best person for the job. It is an interesting fact that while electoral politics has been prey to caste and community considerations, the prime minister’s office has remained above such zero-sum games.
So to the obvious question: How uneasy will this head be? In theory, there is no reason why the government should not last five years. If the NDA could get along for more than five years with only an occasional flash of silliness from the likes of Mamata Banerjee, then there is no reason why Dr. Manmohan Singh cannot take what he wants with a reasonable amount of give.
Given the color that they bring to the environment, and the attendant media projection, it is perfectly understandable that we tend to confuse politics with politicians. But however temperamental they may be, it is not politicians who will be Dr. Singh’s problem but the larger play of politics. The allies will reconcile themselves to whatever they get because it would be suicide to rock a Manmohan Singh government even before it has been sworn in. One of the great strengths of this government is going to be Dr. Singh himself, since his integrity (not just financial but also political) is considered to be beyond reproach. The fact that he is not, and has never been, a politician could be his best asset.
The great liability he inherits is that this alliance was born out of compulsion rather than an allotment of shared space. Nothing was discussed, and much was assumed. The Congress did not inform Laloo Yadav before the elections that he could not become home minister, for instance. He has been a bit stunned to discover that he is being treated on par with Nitish Kumar. Ram Vilas Paswan had obvious problems with the portfolio assigned to him. Sharad Pawar kept his views to himself, but delight was not his first emotion yesterday. The allies have a point when they claim they propped up the Congress, for this election was a victory and defeat for partnerships. The most significant statistic is that both the BJP and the Congress lost two percent of their vote share: One alliance worked and the other did not. Check out another fact: Apart from Delhi-Haryana, and to an extent Gujarat and the Northeast, the Congress was decimated wherever it contested alone. The list of such states is a long one: Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, Bengal, UP, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Punjab. If anyone is doing any thinking amidst the euphoria of power, this should go into the category of sobering thoughts.
A single, passionate desire to defeat the BJP brought the allies together, but such glue is vulnerable to conflicting agendas. An obvious concern is the demand for a separate Telangana by one of the constituents of the alliance, Telangana Rashtra Samiti. Without the TRS the Congress could never have pulled off such a decisive victory in Andhra. But while UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh were divided by the mutual consent of all parties, there is no such consensus on Telangana. Chandrababu Naidu has fought an election against the division of Andhra Pradesh, and he could seek resurrection on the streets. The CPI (M) will be wary of concessions in Telangana, since it fought a difficult battle to spike the demand for Gorkhaland. The Congress itself will worry about the impact such a decision would have on Vidarbha and the rest of Maharashtra, where assembly elections are due in a few months.
Ironically, issues of governance never break up such a government. Politics does.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi made an important statement when she told the Congress Parliamentary Party that she did not consider 145 seats to be a mandate; she added that she would consider 250 seats a mandate. This is a legitimate ambition for a national party, and Mrs. Gandhi had every right to tell her MPs that they should trust her to take the party to that level.
But that leaves the allies with an uncomfortable question: When does Mrs Sonia Gandhi want those 250 seats? Is she willing to wait till the general elections of 2009?
This is the question that will control the politics of the alliance, because most of the partners in Delhi are competitors in the states. This is why the Marxists kept out of government. If the Congress wants to grow in Bihar, then it can only do so by displacing Laloo Yadav’s party, because Laloo has absorbed the space that once belonged to the Congress. The situation is absolutely the same in Maharashtra.
Alternatively, the Congress might offer its allies the option of a second strategy: Let us cash in on the rising popularity of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and the depression within the BJP by a second general election on the same terms, except that the Congress will try and increase its presence in the states where it does not have allies, or at least a significant one: The 180-odd seats of Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and UP. But to do so you must cash in early, before the sheen has rubbed off. The BJP won handsomely in MP, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh only because it did not wait for too long after its assembly victories. In power, sheen disappears very quickly.
The rational thing to do of course will be to let Dr. Manmohan Singh run a good government for its normal term. But that would leave the Congress static at 145 seats, with every chance of a large chunk of this disappearing in 2009. That does not seem very helpful, does it? For the Congress to gain any further ground, an election within a year is the only real option.
Would the allies be ready for another general election? The allies gain nothing by haste. There are too many imponderables, the most crucial being the assembly elections that are due in states like Maharashtra, Bihar and Tamil Nadu. Power in the states is vital for the allies.
Laloo Yadav may swallow a bit and accept what he gets in Delhi, but he is going to dictate terms in Bihar. So does the Congress remain content with its marginal role in Bihar? And if it wants more how much more? The interplay of such tensions will be a continuing headache.
Well, at least there is going to be more than one head to share that ache. Manmohan Singh is in office, but Sonia Gandhi is in power.
