NEW DELHI, 6 June 2004 — There is no single issue that determines victory and defeat in as complex an event as a general election, particularly in as complicated a nation as ours. Governance is akin to a gradual accretion of negatives, until at some point of time you cross the tipping point, and the glow of victory slips almost inadvertently into the fade of retreat. The problem of “feel-good” as a catch-all slogan is that for every person who feels good, there are two who do not feel as good, even if they are indeed slightly better than they were before. It is a claim that invites comparison and either jealousy or anger. For every one person using a mobile, there are a thousand who don’t. The only politician who rode to re-election on such a slogan was Ronald Reagan, but that was because he took a concept a step ahead with his line, “Good Morning, America”.
Ironically, success tempts a government into such a slogan; a static or failed government sticks to the emotive power of political issues (Narendra Modi and communalism in Gujarat; Laloo Yadav and casteism in Bihar). Rajiv Gandhi tried a variation in 1989, with “Mera Bharat Mahaan”. There were solid economic achievements behind that claim. The reforms of Dr. Manmohan Singh in 1991 could not have succeeded without the effective management of the Indian economy in the Congress decade of 1980 to 1989, launched with Mrs. Indira Gandhi as prime minister and Pranab Mukherjee as finance minister.
Hype about reforms has obscured the fact that the Indian economy grew at exactly the same pace between 1980 and 1989 that it did in the ten years after 1991: At 5.8 percent in the ‘80s and 5.9 percent in the ‘90s. The best of the first phase came when the seeds planted by Rajiv Gandhi’s innovative thinking offered fruit: Between 1988 and 1991 the economy grew at 7.6 percent a year. Rajiv Gandhi therefore had every right to believe that India was finally coming into its own, and there was enough in the foreign press, which had no reason to be subjective, to confirm such a view. Ironically, Rajiv Gandhi got 191 seats in the 1989 elections, almost the same as the NDA’s 190.
Why does success become its own enemy?
When British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was asked what worried him most during his halcyon days in office, he answered gravely, “Events, dear boy, events.” Events are both imponderable and ponderable. You can ponder over those that can be seen ahead. The Supreme Court judgment on the criminal cases against Laloo Yadav, for instance, is visible in the near distance. While there can be no assurance of a specific date in such matters, there is general agreement that the court cannot delay a decision much longer. Perhaps it is now only a matter of weeks. This is one reason why the opposition is stoking up a fire beneath those newly-appointed central ministers who have been charged with various crimes. There is Laloo Yadav himself, along with two of his nominees to ministerial positions, and there is Shibu Soren, the tribal leader from Jharkhand who has been given the mines portfolio with Cabinet rank. Laloo Yadav might imagine that the persuasive power of power will influence the decision, but the higher judiciary has consistently displayed admirable integrity. Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee, in an interview published in The Asian Age, has left no doubts about Congress thinking: If there is conviction, Laloo Yadav will have to leave the Cabinet. There will be a political consequence to Laloo’s resignation, if it comes to that. It might not be dramatic, and it might not be immediate, but it is certain.
The Indo-Pak peace process lies in the category of imponderables. I think it was Winston Churchill who once described consistency as the virtue of an ass. Well, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh is no fool. He tossed out an idea from the standard reference book of hard hats when he suggested that the Indo-Pak dialogue should proceed on the Sino-Indian model. For the uninitiated, this means, essentially, that core differences should not disrupt improvement on other fronts. Translated further, it means that differences over Kashmir should not prevent growth in trade and other items on India’s wish-list. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal made precisely this point when he got an opportunity to ask President Pervez Musharraf a question during the India Today conclave a few weeks ago, and was applauded by many in the audience. The Pakistan president, not known for silence under pressure, responded emphatically that if such was the thinking in Delhi, then everyone could forget about success in the forthcoming dialogue. The president rattled off “Kashmir” a few times for emphasis. That approach is a non-starter, and indeed in contradiction to the line taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his 20-minute courtesy conversation with President Musharraf.
It is understandable that a new government should seek some change of course in as sensitive a matter as Indo-Pak relations. The new men in charge of foreign policy also believe that they were preceded by a bunch of amateurs who did not know the difference between policy and diplomacy. The simpler fact is that the peace initiative with Pakistan had gathered substantial popular support, and any disruption will become one of those negatives that begin to add up. Three constituencies are beginning to get affected: Those voters who do not want to see accused politicians in office; investors in stocks and shares, whose volatility is making them queasy; and the much larger peace-constituency which wants to build on the joy of the cricket series in Pakistan. Either singly or together, they are not yet sufficient to disturb the equanimity of the government; but the point is that when the NDA lost the elections they did not exist. Events, dear boy, events.
The decisive events on the political calendar are of course the assembly elections. More often than not, the partners in Delhi will be in competition, creating its own set of tensions. One of the most relevant observations made by Mukherjee in the interview was that the central party in a ruling alliance needs at least 200 seats for comfortable governance. That is manifestly obvious. It links with Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s point that an effective mandate for the Congress is 250 seats, not 145 seats. That is the circle that must be squared, or the square that must be circled. A timetable for the future will start to get formulated after the first of the assembly elections, in Maharashtra in September. The advantage of the ruling alliance is that the partners are not in conflict there. The Congress and the NCP have worked out their equations, and Sharad Pawar, wisely, will get his way if he wants it. There is a perceptible Congress bounce, which could swing the undecided vote toward the Congress alliance. Maharashtra could offer the opportunity to build on a national level. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s own reputation is high. Her mission statement is Caesarian: Twice was I offered the crown, twice I refused it. That sort of thing gets votes. Mrs. Gandhi is also in a position to preserve most of the alliance and there is no reason why the DMK should change sides. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Congress has begun to reassert itself. That is how the stage is set. But will there be any drama?
