Double Trouble

Setbacks in assembly polls. Subversion of the popular mandate in Goa and Jharkhand. Bad vibes with allies and blundering strategies. Is Sonia Gandhi losing the shine?

By Bhavdeep Kang

10 Janpath. The one address in Delhi where the buck never stops. As chairperson of the UPA and president of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi was expected to take responsibility when the party committed fouls in Jharkhand and Goa and fumbled in Bihar. Always credited with successes and never held accountable for setbacks, she sought to distance herself from the mess. On the firing line were party strategists and the governors. A short distance away on Raisina Hill, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's aides too were frantically absolving him of any role in the debacle. The official line from both the Congress headquarters and the Prime Minister's Office, to quote AICC General Secretary Ambika Soni and Minister of State Prithviraj Chauhan, was: "It is the governor who is best placed to assess the situation on the ground. And that is what the governors have done."

As the two sets of aides vainly sought to ensure that Sonia's well-starched pallu and Manmohan's immaculate kurta remained unbesmirched, on display was more than the unique dynamic of the least political prime minister with limited power and an all-powerful party president with limited accountability. The country's chief executive and his political boss work in tandem for the subversion of electoral mandate and constitutional proprieties, no matter what the damage controllers say in defence of their masters-the Holy Mother and the Holier Ruler. Now the Supreme Court has to intervene and bring back some constitutional sanity into Jharkhand. It wanted the floor test in the Assembly to be held on March 11, not March 15 as planned; and it also ruled against the nomination of an Anglo-Indian before the floor test. This judicial intervention only highlights the magnitude of what went wrong in Jharkhand.

Today the spin doctors are overworking to convince the Opposition that the hands of both Sonia and Manmohan are clean, that they were not part of the coups in Jharkhand or Goa. The truth is it is impossible to keep either the prime minister or the home minister out while a governor takes decisions about imposing President's rule or inviting any political group to form a government. Under constitutional provisions and convention, it is mandatory for the governor to file his report on political developments to the President through the Home Ministry. All such reports are sent to the home minister for his comments before they are sent to the prime minister and the President.

In all likelihood, the governors of both Goa and Jharkhand did keep the Central Government fully informed about what was happening in their states. They have to do so because they need Central intervention in case a serious law-and-order problem erupts. The IB, on its part, watches every development and it feeds the information to both the prime minister and the home minister on a daily basis. The presence of cabinet ministers in Goa and Jharkhand during the coup meant they were reporting to their boss-the prime minister. Anyway, an Assembly can't be kept under suspended animation (as in Goa) unless the Home Ministry approves the step. And it is the Cabinet that finally imposes President's rule.

In spite of all this, if the prime minister and the home minister claim that they were kept in the dark, it means that the constitutional framework has broken down-a charge BJP President L.K. Advani has made. It is perhaps the first time since Independence that the ruling party has dismissed its own government (in Goa) even after winning a vote of confidence. And a cabinet minister (Lalu Prasad Yadav) has openly defied the Cabinet by opposing the imposition of President's rule in his state. Another first: cabinet ministers like Lalu and Ram Vilas Paswan are speaking against each other on policy matters while retaining their cabinet posts. There is more: the DMK demands an apology for an alleged insult by a Union minister; and the Left frowns over Jharkhand and economic issues.

Maybe this is Manmohan's way of encouraging freedom of expression, though it will be much rewarding if he talks about what he knows and is party to. Maybe "keeping himself in the dark" suits his own as well as his boss' purpose. Maybe that is what he is instructed to do by powers larger than him. Maybe that is what the partnership is all about: not only a division of power, there is a division of truth as well. The method of the partnership is now clearer. The manufactured sainthood is unravelling. The quiet dignity conceals more than it reveals.

Still more revealing is the Sonia make-over. In retrospect, the much ballyhooed renunciation was a joke. Anyway, the show only denied her the chair of prime minister, not power. It was maximum empowerment by other means. The halo of the leader who said "no" is vanishing. Maybe it was never there. Maybe it was the creation of the flashlights. Today, she is fast emerging as a leader deficient in democratic instincts. The Sonia after Goa and Jharkhand is a leader impatient with the demands of democracy. It is now power anyhow, no matter how many seats the party has won-or lost.

The Congress spin doctors, though, would like to present an image of a "misguided" Sonia-a Sonia who was kept in ignorance of the ground realities in Bihar and Jharkhand during the elections. Sonia was never told the real strength of the Congress and the LJP in Bihar and the seat adjustments in Jharkhand, claims a senior aide. Purveyors of the infallible Sonia in the party paint a picture so remote from reality: On Goa, she was reluctant to go along with the state-in-charge Margaret Alva's advice of dismissal but eventually gave in; on Jharkhand, she was misled by both Soren and Governor Syed Sibtey Razi on the number of MLAs supporting the UPA. HRD Minister Arjun Singh and senior leader M.L. Fotedar, Bihar-in-charge Harikesh Bahadur and Water Resources Minister Priyaranjan Das Munshi, former Chhattisgarh chief minister Ajit Jogi and former MP R.K. Anand are the bad boys who "misguided madam". Says a cabinet minister: "Both the Congress president and the prime minister need to change their advisors." It is some spin.

The evolutionary story of Sonia after E-2004 tells a different story.

From the moment the UPA was installed nine months ago, Sonia has had her way. It was she who selected Shivraj Patil as home minister, despite opposition from within the party, and would not hear a word against him. Many questions have been raised about his handling of the Northeast, the Naxal problem, Jammu and Kashmir and the Goa and Jharkhand crises, but he remains secure in her patronage.

Post-Lok Sabha polls, Sonia has proved a poor election strategist. Her first challenge was Maharashtra, where the Congress contested 157 seats to the NCP's 122 but ended up with fewer seats. She did not play to the Maratha pride after the trashing of Veer Savarkar by Union Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar. NCP chief Sharad Pawar's social arithmetic worked better than Sonia's charisma and Maharashtra joined the long list of states where the Congress is marginalised or dependent on a partner. Her next challenge was the assembly polls in Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana. Anti-incumbency and the lack of a third alternative carried the Congress to victory in Haryana, rather than any sound strategy. In Bihar, which called for clever management, Team Sonia bungled. The strategy basically amounted to running with the hares and hunting with the hounds-aligning with Paswan and half-heartedly taking on the RJD in Bihar; aligning with the JMM and giving the RJD the cold shoulder in Jharkhand. Again, Sonia's development mantra did not prove as effective as caste mathematics. The Congress ended up losing Jharkhand and lowering its already abysmal tally in Bihar.

Four BJP governors summarily got the sack after the UPA takeover, with only Madan Lal Khurana spared the axe (he quit voluntarily later). This went against the precedent of the Centre waiting for the governor's term to end.

When the NCP bested the Congress in the Maharashtra polls, Sonia annoyed Pawar by insisting on a Congress chief minister. Not just that, she replaced Sushil Kumar Shinde with Pawar-baiter Vilasrao Deshmukh. A miffed Pawar set about forming a pressure group within the UPA.

In Bihar, Sonia's not-so-hidden agenda of scripting the Congress revival in north India took precedence over coalition dharma. Ending Lalu raj could put the Congress on a comeback trail in the state, her advisers said. So she opted to tie up with Paswan, giving the NDA a fillip in both Jharkhand and Bihar. In Uttar Pradesh, where another Yadav stands between the Congress and 272, she has taken on the Samajwadi Party openly. The Left laments the division of secular forces but has no real stakes in either state.

Sonia approved the setting up of an informal panel intended to dig dirt on NDA leaders-in fact, each ministry was asked to review the decisions taken during the NDA years. So far, the Government has sought to revive the Ayodhya case against Advani, opened investigations against a senior BJP leader and indicted the NDA for land allotments in Delhi.

The flak over Jharkhand and Goa and the discontent among the UPA allies, notably DMK chief M. Karunanidhi, may prompt a rethink of the Congress strategy and the Sonia-Manmohan dynamic. "From the Congress perspective, Lalu's setback is not a bad thing. But the party and Government will have to work together to keep him on his best behaviour," observes a Union minister. Likewise, the demands of the UPA allies over the spoils of power can only be addressed jointly. "Right now, he doesn't decide anything, so the allies don't go to him," he adds.

Sonia may also have to go slow on Uttar Pradesh even if the Allahabad High Court judgement on the 40 BSP MLAs leaves Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav scrabbling around for numbers. With Bihar and Goa already under President's rule and Jharkhand's future uncertain, the sp may well have a respite from Congress aggression. Congressmen who were hopeful that the legal process would give Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeshwar the opportunity to oust Mulayam have changed their tune: "We need time to build up a movement against the state Government, which we cannot under President's rule."

Some Congress chief ministers who had attracted Sonia's ire for a variety of reasons are also heaving a sigh of relief. The buzz that the Delhi and Punjab chief ministers were likely to walk the plank has died down. Party elections, due from April this year, are not expected to result in any sweeping changes in the organisational setup-although pressure is mounting on Sonia to acquire a new set of advisers. A change of personnel, however, is unlikely to solve the two basic conundrums, of power versus responsibility and coalition dharma versus the Congress revival. As Sonia and Manmohan set off to re-enact Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March on March 12, they will have plenty to contemplate.

There are many in the party and Government who would like to see the prime minister play a more political role. After all, he heads a coalition that only a consummate politician can keep together. The prime minister-by-nomination was expected to perform a dual role: deliver massive doses of development upfront and lend credibility to the UPA. He was not expected to deal with the nitty-gritty of running either the party or the coalition. The disconnect between Government and party, however, resulted in him becoming a lightning rod, getting flak from the Opposition and the UPA for political decisions over which he has no control. The Left targets the PMO on economic policy while lauding 10 Janpath for its pro-social sector outlook.

In terms of credibility, Manmohan has suffered several setbacks, starting with the controversy over the induction of tainted ministers into his council-a coalition compulsion which he perforce defended. Says CPI(M) Central Committee member Mohammed Salim: "Within nine months of coming to power, the Congress is handling UPA allies in Jharkhand and Bihar in an amateurish way." CPI General Secretary A.B. Bardhan agrees: "It could have been handled better. What kind of attitude is this when a governor gives a chief minister three weeks to prove his majority?"

The BJP strategically concentrated its assault on the prime minister, knowing fully well he had no role to play in political decisions like the ones taken in Goa and Jharkhand. Leader of the Opposition Advani called him repeatedly to ask why Razi was playing foul. The beleaguered prime minister had no answer except to say he would speak with Patil. That he has virtually no control over Patil is an open secret. Later, in a letter to Manmohan, Advani accused him of "avoiding accountability to Parliament" on the issue.

BJP Lok Sabha chief whip V.K. Malhotra says if Sonia Gandhi has been revealed as dictatorial, the prime minister has been exposed as powerless: "The governors and chief ministers take their orders from the Congress chief, so Sonia is to be held responsible for Goa and Jharkhand. But Manmohan's office demands that he own responsibility. If he has not asserted himself, it is his fault." Some Congressmen say the prime minister has only himself to blame because he has shied away from a political role. "It is not that Manmohan is not political. He understands everything, but chooses to stay away as he does not want to upset the Congress president," says a senior party leader. Manmohan has to be pushed into addressing public meetings and dealing with party workers and office-bearers, he adds, pointing out that the chui-mui (touch-me-not) approach results in him not being consulted on crucial matters. Many party leaders feel the Government and party have to work in tandem and the purpose of the former is to strengthen the latter, but that has not happened.

And whatever has happened has done little to redeem the much indulged odd couple of Indian politics. Their endorsement to anti-constitutional politics may not have yet made them a rogue couple but it certainly has made them a troublesome pair as far as democratic norms are concerned. Ideally, there should be a national debate on what happened in Jharkhand and Goa. But the atmospherics favoured the saboteurs: the economy is on the fast track; the law and order situation is not alarming; the Indo-Pak thaw prevails. The feel-good factor is at work, and it has let Sonia and Manmohan go unscarred by public anger. It still doesn't make the spirit of Indian democracy feel good.