Woes of diarchy

Let us not get bogged down in the dreary details of what the Economist rightly calls the “farce” into which Baba Ramdev’s “fast unto death” against black money and corruption turned. After being shifted to Hardwar, the tragicomedy has come to a halt with the end of the fast. The yoga guru’s threat to continue his satyagraha has yet to unfold itself.

However, hitherto the bumbling and bungling government has done itself huge damage. The blame for this rests squarely on the Congress that, since the ignominious collapse of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and Mamata Banerjee’s triumphant march from Delhi to Writers’ Building in Kolkata, has been running the show in Delhi.
A few pertinent points about the sordid goings-on need to be made, nevertheless. First, the Congress is evidently unable to comprehend that people’s anger against corruption is so intense that even when someone with dubious credentials takes up this issue, it is bound to evoke massive popular support. This failure is aggravated by the party’s demonstrably false claim of having acted against graft and venality more vigorously than any other party at any time. If so, why was former telecom minister A. Raja protected and pampered for over two years before being asked to resign and later imprisoned?
Also, would the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate have arrested Hasan Ali, who had been strutting around freely for over three years, without the higher judiciary’s stern directions?
Secondly, nothing could have been more bizarre than the four senior ministers first trotting to the airport to placate Baba Ramdev and then, in sheer panic, deciding to crack down savagely on Ramdev’s followers sleeping peacefully. Ironically, this brutality — now under the Supreme Court’s scanner — was unleashed at a time when the Baba’s agitation was losing steam. Home minister P. Chidambaram’s and human resources development minister Kapil Sibal’s belated, arrogant and threatening defence of the outrage has compounded the original sin. Particularly unbecoming is the home minister’s attempt to shift the blame to the Delhi police.
Thirdly, mini-Machiavellis of the Congress had planned to “drive a wedge” between Baba Ramdev and the more credible civil society leader, Anna Hazare, to whom the government had earlier surrendered over the Lokpal Bill. This has boomeranged, as witnessed in graphic detail. Now Mr Hazare has announced that he would again go on an indefinite fast on August 16 if the Lokpal Bill were not passed by then.
Fourthly, when driven to a tight corner, the Congress did what it does whenever in trouble. It converted the corruption issue into a no-holds-barred verbal war with the Bharatiya Janata Party and the head of the Sangh Parivar, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The senior Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh chief minister, Digvijay Singh, is in the lead in the vituperative campaign. There never was any doubt about the RSS’ total support to Baba Ramdev. That can surely be used to discredit him. But can that lend legitimacy to the scourge of corruption and black money? Meanwhile, Mr Hazare has protested strongly against the Congress’ attempt to tar him, too, with the RSS brush.
Fifthly, finally and most importantly the repeated swing from one folly to another in recent days has brought out in bold relief a debilitating disease that has been afflicting the core of the ruling coalition for some years: the astonishing lack of synergy between the Congress Party and its own government. The messy drama had begun with four ministers, headed by the most senior of them — Pranab Mukherjee — going to Indira Gandhi International Airport to pay court to the Baba, moved to cordial conversations between his aides and ministers over coffee in a five-star hotel, and ended with the brutal midnight swoop at Ramlila Grounds.
At every stage of the melancholy sequence, there was a chorus by several Congress leaders to the effect that the party “had nothing to do with this. It is a matter for the government”. Mr Digvijay Singh called on Mr Mukherjee to “protest” against the ministerial team going to the airport to receive the Baba. To which the finance minister’s reported reply was that he had to go because the Prime Minister wanted him to explain to the yoga guru what the government was doing about black money!
According to published reports, denied by no one, at a meeting at her residence at which the Prime Minister was not present, Congress president Sonia Gandhi expressed her displeasure over the whole affair. In any case, she hasn’t said a word in defence of governmental actions. This is not an aberration but part of a well-established pattern which brings me to my main point.
It is that the present ruling dispensation inaugurated in 2004, when Mrs Gandhi wisely decided not to accept the office of Prime Minister and assign it to Dr Manmohan Singh, seemed at that time both attractive and promising. The general expectation was that while ultimate power would surely reside at 10 Janpath, not at 7 Race Course Road, she would concentrate on building up the party and Dr Singh would be left free to lead the government, as every Prime Minister must.
Sadly, these expectations have been belied. The Congress president and the Prime Minister do have high mutual regard. But that’s about all. At no time has Mrs Gandhi done anything to discipline those in the party and even within the higher echelons of the Cabinet that have tried, with distressing frequency, to undermine the Prime Minister’s authority. For his part, Dr Singh has asserted himself only once — over the Indo-US nuclear deal — to great effect. Why hasn’t he done so ever again or exercised the option to quit remains a mystery.
No wonder a stage has been reached when a respected commentator has described the ruling trinity as “the Queen Mother, her dewan and the little prince”. In the latest bout of verbal warfare, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, called the government a “headless chicken”, adding: “The Prime Minister is only a chief executive officer; the owner of the company is someone else”.
Quite clearly, the diarchy established seven years ago has outlived its utility. Unless it is either mended or ended immediately, it would outlive its futility, too.