As we get closer to the general elections, we have polls and surveys identifying that the UPA is unsurprisingly in palliative care, while the NDA - primarily the BJP - is likely to improve on the vital statistics of vote share and constituencies won. Yet, the NDA's gains are unlikely to restore it to power in Delhi, unless it can address one more vital statistic: the number of its allies, preferably ones likely to emerge victorious and take the NDA over the majority mark. The catch, though, is that most of these victors-to-be are regional potentates, who cannot align with a Narendra Modi-led alliance without risking their "secular" credentials that have largely helped them gain prominence in their states. The Congress' scanty catch in the electoral pool does not augur a UPA-3 with even more partners and an even heavier encumbrance of "coalition dharma." For, mathematically speaking, if the regional parties were to come together discarding their distrust about one another, they could form their own coalition - one rid of the pacifier palm and the unnaturally ever-in-full-bloom lotus. Such a motley gathering - called a Third/Federal Front - is held to be feasible by some analysts. A better name for the assortment, I believe, would be Catch 22 - inadvertently revealing an approximate count of the political parties in pact!
I also chose the name, needless to say, because of how ineffectual such a coalition would be.
First, statesmanship would acquire a new connotation as each party, or its power personified as its supreme leader, would want to fortify further its hold in its state. A tree can only have more branches once its roots are firmly entrenched. With this aim, the parties will, or will pretend to, to pay primary attention to the interests of their own constituents - be it the Bengalis or the Kannadigas. In fairness to the parties, that is what they have done since thier inception, and to expect them to have pan-Indian welfare at heart would be to wish for a principled prescience on their part that they have never really nurtured in lieu of the parochial pragmatism that has informed their rhetoric. Furthermore, with the central coalition opportunely cobbled together, it is always in danger of disintegrating as soon as someone decides to drag their feet.
Consider for example a border dispute or a conflict over the sharing of river water between two states. Given that the parties with most votes from both sides are now part of the same regime at the Centre, can we truly hope that a dialogue will ensue, and then an amicable settlement that would be beneficial to the nation? The best outcome would be that sentiments on either side would be left smoldering through blusters in public addresses and filibusters in Parliament! A bird in hand, goes the old proverb, is better than two in the bush. And when the bird is capable of laying the golden egg of electoral victory, all the more better.
Equally, think of India's foreign policy. As was recently seen in the matter of the CHOGM, when TN leaders across parties urged the Prime Minister to not go to Colombo, narrow interests may well dictate the agenda, instead of the broad national view. A similar populist flourish scuppered the Teesta agreement with Bangladesh, when the WB CM chose to excuse herself from the delegation that accompanied the PM on his visit to Dhaka. And, we already know the disagreement among parties vis-a-vis the United States of America. The only consistent line of foreign policy is likely to be the posturing against Pakistan!
Then there is the significant matter of economic reforms at a time when a crisis seems to be gaining critical mass. From varying views on FDI in retail, banking and pension, and the aviation sectors, to pretending to protect the employment opportunities for the locals by seeking reservations even in the private sector based on one's domicile, and passing voter appeasing bills likely to make land acquisition and infrastructure development even more difficult, the policy paralysis of today may seem preferable to the coma to come.
Yes, a democracy is vibrant only when views vary. Yet, the views must be underpinned by an appreciation of the needs of an entire nation, which would need not only a knowledge of one's neighbours, but also understanding of the predicaments and aspirations of corners of the country that most functionaries of provincial outfits may not be able to locate on a map. Worse still, they may not want to.
Comments