Even Digvijaya gets it right on why UPA-2 isn't working

Digvijaya Singh, the Congress party’s loquacious general secretary, occasionally stumbles on a truth that would have been obvious ages ago to everyone else. His recent statement, that the power arrangement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi has not worked satisfactorily, explains almost all the failures of the UPA government, from the 2G, Commonwealth Games scams to the current issue of bullying by Tamil Nadu politicians which may end up ruining relationships with a neighbouring country. Foreign policy has gone for a toss. Of which, more later. But let’s begin with what Digvijaya Singh said about the PM-Sonia arrangement to News X: “Personally, I feel that this model hasn’t worked very well. Because…there should not be two power centres. And I think whoever is the Prime Minister must have the authority to function, although Sonia Gandhi has really never interfered in the functioning of the government."[caption id=“attachment_677544” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. PTI[/caption] It is worth recalling that the Congress party raised a big ruckus last year when rating agency Standard and Poor’s (S&P) flagged much the same issue. In June 2012, S&P, in a report headlined “ Will India be the first BRIC fallen angel?”, wrote: “The division of roles between a politically powerful Congress party President (Sonia Gandhi), who can take credit for the party’s two recent national election victories, and an appointed Prime Minister (Manmohan Singh), has weakened the framework for making economic policy, in our view.” To which an enraged Congress replied through spokesman Rashid Alvi, “It is baseless to make such comments about the Prime Minister, who is an elected member of the Upper House.” And yet, even S&P was only reflecting what was common knowledge in the India media. We all know that the PM did not have the power to stop an A Raja in his tracks in the 2G scam. We know that Pranab Mukherjee did his own thing with the Union budget, including the retrospective Vodafone tax, till he was kicked upstairs. We know that our economist PM allowed the economy to slide into a slowdown with high inflation, when he knew policy-making was suffering. We know that P Chidambaram, despite being called a reformer, allowed two breaches of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act in UPA-1, when tax revenues were actually buoyant enough to allow for social spending without busting the budget. Still, Digvijaya Singh was speaking only a half-truth. When he says that “Sonia Gandhi has never really interfered in the functioning of the government”, the real fact is she never “interfered” when she needed to help the government’s functioning. She did so only when her political interests were being threatened. Sonia Gandhi did not intervene in UPA-1 to keep the Left’s backward-looking policies at bay till Manmohan Singh seemed to be on the verge of quitting over the India-US nuclear deal. In UPA-2, she never gave Singh the backing needed to rescue the Indian economy till the exit of Mamata Banerjee, which threatened the survival of the government itself. In the recent cabinet meeting, even though the finance minister was not in favour of a Food Security Bill with such wide ambit, Sonia intervened to ensure that 67 percent of the population gets super-subsidised food at Rs 1-3 a kg. India can afford to subsidise the poor, but not two-thirds of the population – over 800 million people. In fact, Digvijaya Singh’s comment lies at the core of all of UPA-2’s failures. When the prime minister has no power or even moral authority over his cabinet, the entire process of democratic decision-making gets subverted and hijacked by vested interests. Consider the following cases: Foreign policy is supposed to be the Centre’s prerogative. But Mamata Banerjee successfully thwarted an accord on Teesta waters, endangering the improving relationship with Bangladesh. Narendra Modi raised the Sir Creek issue during the Gujarat elections, and the Congress ran away from a confrontation. And now, both the DMK and the AIADMK are making a mess of our Sri Lanka policy by forcing the Indian government to vote against a friendly neighbour at the UN Human Rights Commission, driving Sri Lanka into the waiting arms of the Chinese. Nor does this outsourcing of foreign policy end with humouring skittish allies and political opponents. The Italian marines issue is being decided by Kerala politics, not national interests and the law. The Bangladesh immigration issue is being decided by Assamese electoral compulsions. And the Pakistan policy is being driven by the PM’s Punjabi sentimentalism and not hard-headed realities, where we should be confronting the world’s biggest sponsor of terror with a clear strategy. National investment policies have now been hijacked b y the courts and states. Thanks to the Sonia-Manmohan inability to stop Raja’s scam, the Supreme Court took its own call on how spectrum should be priced, and how it should be allocated. This is a clear transgression into executive terrain, and any government should have fought it tooth and nail. But Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi have little moral capital to fight this war. Net result: telecom companies are in the doldrums, and going downhill. The mining sector is also in trouble, with the courts now deciding which mines will produce ores, and which ones won’t. Should the courts be deciding environment policy and mine allocations and production? But then, UPA has been in abdication mode long. The aviation sector is a mess, for the civil aviation ministry has its own ideas on how to allow foreign investment in. While the PM and the finance minister want to throw it open for players like Etihad or AirAsia, Ajit Singh wants the policy to focus on existing dead ducks like Kingfisher. The country’s foreign investment policy – again a central prerogative – is also being dictated by state-level nay-sayers. A case in point is the decision to open up foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retailing. Now any state can say no. Who will come in, if only a few states will allow retailers, when supply chains have to be national and international. Can Wal-Mart import from China just for distribution in a few states? Can domestic supply chains be built if some states don’t allow the process to happen? Consider what would happen if the new bank licensing policy is one where any state can say no to a private bank opening a branch on its territory. It would be a disaster – and one waiting to happen. Then we have the Unique ID Authority of India (UIDAI), a pet project of the PM. A nationwide plan to provide one ID for residents was first scuttled by—of all people—Chidambaram when he was home minister, and even now there is no law to allow the UIDAI headed by Nandan Nilekani to collect sensitive personal data. The whole project lacks legal backing, and could be struck down by the Supreme Court any day for this reason. There are simply no legal safeguards on the privacy of this data. Effectively, the one act of executive intent (Aadhaar) is now dangling in the twilight zone bordering legality and illegality. We can go on and on, but the core issue is this: when the executive lacks political authority, the resultant power vacuum will be filled by someone else. Initially it was only the courts. Now, every state politician can say “no” and Manmohan Singh has to like it or lump it. This is not to suggest that states should have no say in foreign policy or investment policy formulation, but the consultation processes need to be institutionalised and cannot be arbitrary. A corollary: all coalitions will make compromises. But the UPA has made even simple compromises impossible by divorcing power from responsibility, legitimacy from illegitimacy. Digvijaya is right to point out the obvious. Maybe, he should speak to his boss about it instead of the media. Who knows, if the next election puts Rahul in the same space as Sonia today, he may repeat the same mistake of shirking responsibility while retaining power.