Uneasy Ties between Left and Cong / Dec 17, NavHind Times
From Indiapensions
Uneasy Ties between Left and Cong
by Inder Malhotra
YET again the country is facing the painful paradox that while coalitions have become absolutely unavoidable, there is an absolute lack of coalition culture. To expect the necessary culture to evolve in the foreseeable future would be a classic case of the triumph of hope over experience. The record during the six years of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was dismal enough; that during the nineteen months of the United progressive Alliance's reign is no better, to say the least.
The current shouting and screaming over the interest rates on the Employees' Provident Fund is the latest but by no means the last example of the way coalition partners, big and small, including supporters "from outside", try to hold the government to ransom, often enough successfully. Having failed to do so 12 months ago, this year the Labour Minister, Mr Chandrashekhar Rao, after consultations with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), announced a reduction by one percentage point in the 9.5 per cent rate in force up to now. A vigorous onslaught by the Left Front, heavily dominated by the CPI (M), instantly followed themselves under an awe of the trade unions, the Left parties are aggressively demanding the restoration of the nine and a half per cent interest rate for the EPF at a time when all other interest rates on savings have been slashed to 5 per cent or less.
At one stage it looked as if the government might backtrack on the EPF issue also, as it had earlier done on the completely harmless proposal to sell only 10 per cent of the equity of BHEL, which would still have left the undertaking firmly under public ownership and government control. For, at one stage, the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, had said that he would 'discuss' the matter with the Labour Minister and 'see' what could be done.
But in his remarks to the media party accompanying him to Kuala Lumpur, he has categorically stated that the EPFO can fix whatever interest rate it wants, provided it pays out from its own resources and does not ask for budgetary support (for which read subsidy) that already amounts to nearly a crore of rupees a day. Unfortunately, this might not be the end of the matter because the Left wants a cess to be imposed to make the higher EPF interest rate possible. In other words, all taxpayers must pay so that the trade unions that evidently hold the Left parties in their thrall can be pampered. Incidentally, the unionised workers total only 9 per cent of the working class.
Let the merits of the issue and the possible way in which the government and the Left Front might resolve it be set aside for the moment. The critically important question is whether any kind of governance is possible if the coalitions ruling the country continue to function, if that be the right word, as has been the case so far.
To go back no further than 1998 when Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee formed his first government (the 13-day wonder in May 1996 is totally irrelevant), Ms Jayalalithaa, with about 17 seats in the Lok Sabha, brought it down within a year. Why? Because Atalji was in no position to accept her persistent demand that the Union government should withdraw the criminal cases filed against her by the DMK government in Tamil Nadu, that had preceding hers.
When the BJP-led NDA government returned to power in October 1999, it had a larger majority and was therefore more stable. But at no stage was it allowed to function unhindered by the arbitrary demands and unseemly antics of the BJP's coalition partners of which there were no fewer than 24. Ms Mamata Banerji, even while being a cabinet minister, forced the Vajpayee government to roll back at least half a dozen decisions including those for an increase in petroleum prices. So much so that the then Finance Minister, Mr Yashwant Sinha, for no fault of his, got the nickname "Roll-Back Minister". Worse, Mr George Fernandes, forced to resign as the defence minister because of the Tehelka expose, virtually bamboozled the Prime Minister to bring him back into his old job while the judicial inquiry into the allegations against him was still on.
Absolutely in clover was Mr Chandrababu Naidu, the Telugu Desam Party leader and the then chief minister of Andhra. Though commanding 30 votes in the Lok Sabha, he was shrewd enough not to let his party join the Union government. This gave him personally a formidable clout and he used it virtually to dictate to the Centre to do whatever he wanted in Andhra's interest. Many are the crucial appointments made at the Centre at his behest. For this purpose, he did not have to travel to Delhi. The use of his satellite mobile phone was enough.
The UPA's - or more accurately Dr Manmohan Singh's - troubles have come primarily from the Left Front, which really means the CPI (M). Butthat has not been the only source. Before his deserved deflation in the latest assembly elections in Bihar, the redoubtable Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav also used to throw his considerable weight around. In fact, it was he who had practically compelled the good Doctor to dissolve the Bihar assembly elected last February improperly and in indecent haste. No wonder the Supreme Court has held it to be 'unconstitutional'. Why the apex court is taking an unduly long time to deliver its detailed judgment is a puzzle.
However, Laluji's wings are now clipped. But the constantly uneasy relationship between the Left Front and the Congress, the core of the UPA, remains a matter of concern. For, the tension and the tussle between the two sides holds up an uncomfortably large number of policy decisions, especially in the realm of economic reforms.
At first acrimony had arisen over the issue of the disinvestments in public sector undertakings in general and the sale of a fraction of BHEL equity in particular. There was disagreement between the two sides on whether any kind of sale of shares of PSU 'navratanas' was permissible under the ruling coalition's Common Minimum Programme. The CPI (M)'s new general secretary, Mr Prakash Karat, went to the extent of boycotting the UPA-Left Front Coordination Committee. The boycott was lifted long after Ms Sonia Gandhi and the Prime Minister had agreed to roll back the decision to sell 10 per cent of BHEL's equity.
Sadly, this did not end the problem. After India's perfectly understandable vote at Vienna on Iran's nuclear activities in September at the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Left went ballistic. It attacked the government for having 'succumbed to American pressure' and voted 'against Iran'. However, the vote had already been cast. The Left therefore threatened that it would 'not tolerate' a repetition of a vote against Iran, a 'friendly and non-aligned country'. As it happened no vote on Iran was needed at the November 24 meeting of the IAEA Board. None is likely in the near future, while the UPA and the Left Front are agreed that the Iran issue should be settled within the IAEA framework, without being referred to the UN Security Council. But what happens if Iran implements its threat to start enriching uranium that it had "suspended" as a result of negotiations with the European Union?
Of course, there is no danger, for the foreseeable future at least, of the Left Front bringing the UPA government down. But what good will this do if, in its determination to exact its pound of flesh on almost all major issues, the Left paralyzes the government?
