India's Taliban - Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

Today, despite all the media blitz against them, it cannot be

denied that 'lower-caste' politicians such as Annadurai, Laloo

Yadav and Kanshi Ram have exploded the feeling of caste

superiority over much of India, just as one of the world's greatest

sages, Sri Narayana Guru, did in Kerala a century ago. Thanks

to the democratic model that we imported from the West, more

than 80 per cent of the population is now free of caste oppression.

Religious persecution too is becoming unfeasible in a society in

which the overwhelming majority favour a moderate and secular

polity where all religious groups are made to feel secure. As the

recent Maharashtra election results have shown, the electorate

does not take kindly to attempts by so-called 'Hindu'

organisations to adopt the methods of Lahore’s Maulana Fazlur

Rehman or Kabul's Mullah Omar.

Indeed, despite their self-affixed 'Hindu' tag, there is nothing

in common between the desecrators of Maqbool Fida Husain’s

Mumbai home, and Sanatana Dharma, which is one of this

civilisation’s greatest contributions to humanity. A true sanatani

will recognise as a kindred soul any individual (whether called

a Muslim, Jain, Sikh, Buddhist or Christian) who adopts the

creed of Himsa Dooyathe, or moderation, in his or her life. An

Abdul Kalam or an M. F. Husain (whatever one may think about

his paintings) is much, much more a sunaztani than the Taliban-like

individuals who are trying to convert Mumbai into another

Kabul. By adopting an ISI-type view of society, and thus

promoting polarisation between the two biggest religious groups

in India, Pakistan’s plot of dividing India comes closer to

realisation.

No Difference

As Balasaheb Thackeray once remembered, Hindus can be safe

only in a country where all other religions feel the same sense of

security. Should a community feel itself to be under threat (as

happened with the Sikhs after the 1984 Delhi pogrom and the

Muslims after the 1992 destruction of the Babri Masjid), its

elements will be more easily enticed by the efforts of China and

Pakistan to recruit them for insurgency.

Apart from following the Taliban's example in social policy,

some ‘Hindu’ organisations are also emulating its example in

economics. Today, there is virtually no difference between the

ISI fanatics (who seek to drive away foreign investment from

India), the Chinese agents (who seek the same goal) and a section

of the Swadeshi brigade, which rants against the "dangers"

posed to the Hindu way of life by, say, Coca Cola or Kentucky

Fried Chicken. Such individuals are allied to the eco-fanatics,

who have been using legal means to stop new enterprises from

being set up in India. These days, in the US or the European

Union, Indian food is everywhere. In far away Lubeck in

northem Germany, this writer tucked into a sumptuous meal of

mm and alu sabzi, while the best idlis he has ever tasted were

from a tiny South Indian restaurant in Atlanta—capital of the

home state of India’s friend, Newt Gingrich, speaker of the US

House of Representatives. Fortunately, although the US still has

a Ku Klux Klan, it has not yet discovered that idlis and dosas are

fatal to the American way of life.

Communist China has in the years since the 1985 Deng

reforms attracted over $ 400 billion in foreign investment. This

has enabled the Red regime to stamp out dissent and to quietly

work towards making Communist China the world’s dominant

power. If democratic India is to checkmate this, it needs to attract

at least $ 200 billion of foreign investment in the next 10 years.

This is not possible if projects get halted on flimsy legal or

political grounds, or if foreigners are regarded as unwelcome.

Many of these ’aliens’ are the sons and daughters of our own

people, who migrated abroad to escape the tyranny of Nehruvian

socialism. As the warm reception to Sonia Gandhi shows, the

Indian people are not inherently xenophobic the way some other

peoples are. There may be differences over Gandhi's style of

functioning, but this is unrelated to the accident of her origin.

The Clinton White House is the most pro-Communist China

government in the democratic world, as subservient to Beijing's

security interests as the Chamberlain-Daladier governments

were to Hitler’s in the 1930s. Germany and Japan have joined the

US in seeking to actualise the China-Pakistan plan of crippling

the Indian economy, so that New Delhi cannot challenge Beijing's

hegemonic drive in Asia, However, it must not be forgotten that

all three of the former are democracies, and there should be no

identification of the German, Japanese and US administrations

with the peoples of these three countries.

Emerging Threat

While counter-action against those harming India's interests

must be swift, this should be matched by a welcome mat for

foreign investment, as well as the putting into place of policies

that are friendly to local taxpayers. Corporates should be enticed

to invest in facilities within India through a combination of

higher customs duties and lower domestic taxes. There should

be minimal curbs on the creation of production and other

facilities in India, whatever be the ownership of these units. As

one of the world’s major powers, India need not be afraid of a

new East India Company. Provided, of course, that it can

confront the Taliban-like enemy within as effectively as it has

thus far countered the external threat from Pakistan and China.

Today, post-Pokhran II, the emerging threat to India's security

comes from the intolerance and bigotry practised by some of the

self-appointed defenders of Bharat Mata.

Return of Nehruism or Keeping down Those Shifty Natives

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

Colonisers cannot be blamed for suspecting that the victims of
their loot are anxious to make them quit. Beginning with the
Mughals 1,000 years ago, and continuing with the British, the
population of India was seen as a threatening horde that needed 
to be kept divided and intimidated. Those who advanced such
an agenda were rewarded, and the others punished.

State Control
The richest reward—a new country—went to M. A. Jinnah, who
succeeded in turning the anger of millions away from the
colonisers to their own fellow Indians. But for this division in the
national movement, the British would have found it untenable ·
to cling on to the country till after World War II, when even 
Jinnah could not save them from irrelevance. However, even
after formal independence in 1947, the superstructure of Mughal-
British rule remained.

As attitudes get concretised during adolescence, Jawaharlal 
Nehru—with his Harrow background—could not be blamed for
seeing Indians not as a resource but as a seething mass that
needed to be controlled by the same state apparatus as was there
duri.ng the colonial days. Not only were the various penal and
restrictive provisions not removed during the Nehru dynasty
period (1947-89, with the 1977-79 break), but they were added on
to. Punitive taxes became the norm, and companies that were
effective in the utilisation of their assets were punished for
"exceeding their capacities".

V. P. Singh, who was groomed in the Nehru stable, cannot
be blamed for remaining in love with a cumbersome state 
structure. After all, under the dynasty thousands of crores of 
rupees were funnelled to non-productive uses to create a parasitic
class that identified the family with its prosperity. Even today,
this class is the buttress of the Sonia Gandhi brigade that has
once more taken over the Congress party. It was the much-
reviled P. V. Narasimha Rao who first launched the process of
de-colonising the Indian people, by freeing industry of several of
the Mughal-British-Nehru shackles. However, it was Manmohan
Singh — who gave benefits to foreign rather than to domestic
interests — who got the credit for the spurt in growth.

Nehruism means the taxing of productive groups for
subsidising parasites. It means retaining huge discretionary
power with state agencies so as to collect bribes through, for
example, exemptions to the urban land ceiling laws. It implies a
contempt for Indian culture as religious kitsch, so that local epics
become unworthy of being taught in schools or shown on
television. While it spews verbal abuse on outside powers, in
effect it adopts an ambivalent posture towards Pakistan and
China, countries that are aiding insurgencies in India. 

Those who sought to do away with Nehruism came under
attack from precisely those politicians whose constituencies had
in the past received largess from the collections made in
dynamic regions. They came under attack from individuals
whose family incomes had multiplied spectacularly thanks to
political patronage. Thus, in a universe of free-spending
politicians, the post-Nehru family school was singled out for
sustained attack. In contrast, the "free press" has devoted only
inches to the many foreign travels, the sudden enrichment of
relatives and the lifestyles of the Nehru core.

Post-dynasty Period
Manmohan Singh and Palaniappan Chidambaram exemplify the
Nehru era and the post-dynasty period. Singh was generous to
l foreign producers and to MNCs, allowing alien companies to
import freely into India, and to cheaply increase their stakes in
local outfits. Taxes on the natives remained high, as did interest
rates and the mess in infrastructure. Even the Russians benefited.
The rupee-rouble pact has made impoverished India one of the
biggest aid donors to Moscow. Chidambaram, on the other hand,
gave benefits not only to aliens but to Indians. For this he was
viciously attacked by the Nehru school, which believes that the 
uncouth natives of this country should be given only the stick
and never the carrot.

The VDIS scheme—which was pushed through by the present
Finance Minister over the objections of the "dollar pension
brigade" — is an example of how Indian-friendly policies can be
effective. Its critics snarled that it "promoted dishonesty", and
that "tax-evaders should not be rewarded". In other words, what
they wanted was an all-India "drive" to catch evaders. Wonderful
in principle but foolish in practice, for two reasons. The first is
the impossible scale of operations needed, and the second is the
fact that bribes will surely be used to get evaders off the hook.
In the ancient regime the bribes went to politicians and officials,
which is why many among these groups want to see Nehruism
back.

It is no accident that the same Manmohan Singh who
drastically reduced import duties and has driven several domestic ‘
producers out of business has opposed the lower taxes set by
Chidambaram. This is in line with the Nehru philosophy that the
natives should be given nothing except circuses. Instead of lower
taxes, they should be given scenes of a smiling Priyanka or a
radiant Sonia Gandhi waving to die natives from behind antiseptic
screens. Very soon, if the calculations of the 10 Janpath election
managers work out, India will re-enter the Nehru era.
Should the Congress get 200 or more seats, then the Sonia Luo
refrain will drown out the rest, and the Left and other groups
will be told to make the choice between Sonia Gandhi and the
BJP. Should it get between 150-199 seats, then Sonia Gandhi can
impose Manmohan Singh as the Congress CPP leader, and again
confront the United Front with a difficult choice. Their weak
response to the re-entry into active politics of the Gandhi parivar
indicates that the United Front may accept the return of the
dynasty to keep away the BJP.

Even should the Congress get below 150 seats, Sonia Gandhi
can ensure her election as AICC president, and make a loyal
follower the CPP leader. She will have significant influence over
in the next Parliament, where she can seek to prevent any further
dilution of Nehruism. As this is a philosophy that enriches the
political class, there will be many allies for such a course. With
all his faults, Sitaram Kesri tried to fashion a structure in which 
the local units played a key role. Today the Congress has
returned to the autocracy of the dynasty.

Sonia's Attitude
To her credit, Sonia Gandhi has never disguised her feelings
about the people of her adopted country. She has minimal
interaction with them, shutting out even the media. She has
made clear her intention to return to the ways of the dynasty,
when a family and its followers ruled over a populace fettered
by restrictive legislation and high taxes. Rather than move to the
era of inner-party democracy, the Congress has returned to the
period when any individual not "loyal" to the dynasty had no
role in it. Should the Sonia card work, tomorrow India too may
return to its past.

Congress: A Split that was Waiting to Happen

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

A period of rapid economic progress. Damping down of social

tensions despite the implementation of Mandal. Crafting of a

stable majority that looks set to run a full term. Breaking of

militancy in Punjab and battling it to the ground in Kashmir.

These are not small achievements. Indeed, a case may be made

out that the past four years have seen greater positive change

than any previous four-year period since 1947.

This is the reality. And yet, what is the perception? Like the

Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland that slowly vanished,

leaving behind only a grin, there has been a steady blurring of

the achievements of the Narasimha Rao government, leaving

behind a residue of confusion as to what exactly these are. Partly,

this is due to the differences in emphases articulated by individual

leaders. N.K.P. Salve is MNC-friendly while A.K. Antony sounds

pro-poor, Mallikarjun would destroy the Prithvi, while Jaffar

Sharief would go to war (hopefully with it). Pranab Mukherjee

would place greater reliance on Indian business houses, while

Manmohan Singh appears to have a soft corner for the foreign

kind. But such differences have been there in every period, and

in every system save that of Stalin. Then why the negative vibes?

In a democracy, a leader needs not just to be effective, he has

to show to the people that he is so, that he fights very strongly

for values and objectives with which they relate. Despite the

egalitarianism of the ballot box, voters want an individual who

leads on horseback. Who speaks in equivocal tones about his

priorities, and who does not appear defensive or inarticulate. In

short, not just a good manager, but a good communicator.

Franklin Roosevelt would never have succeeded in stemming

social tension during the Depression had he not, through his

fireside chats and the warmth of his public personality,

transmitted optimism even to the jobless. Britain may have lost

heart in 1940-41 but for the pugnacity of Winston Churchill, who

refused to accept that the Germans had whipped his nation

almost to the ground.

Revolutions are made not just in conference rooms peopled

by efficient officers calling forth facts on a computer, or giving

orders to subordinates through the telephone. 

They are made in fields and workshops, homes and offices,

through an organic bonding between voter and leader, a sense

of identification of each with the other. The idiom has to be

simple, not talk of a billion dollars in Rayalaseema or televiews

of sleek foreign delegations arriving in their limousines. And the

instruments of communication: the political party organisation.

The media, the ground-level administration, needs to be kept in

constant contact with. A direct contact that alone can provide the

vehicle for them to transmit the leader's vision to his flock. The

Congress party is no exception to this rule of political life.

Today interaction between the Prime Minister and the print

media, for example, is usually confined to airport exchanges. The

frequent exchange of ideas and views (on what the reality is),

with journalists that characterised a John Fitzgerald Kennedy or

a Lal Bahadur Shastri, is absent. journalists are to be kept a Black

Cat-length away. Whether it is the ministries or the General

Secretaries of the AICC, not a scintilla of information is to be

provided unless there is sanction from the top. Which means that

information very seldom gets disclosed, with the result that

rumour takes its place. Although much takes place, public

communiques about this are absent. One is made to wait for a

'final and definitive' statement of policy at an 'appropriate

forum' that almost never occurs.

Used as one may be to a P.N. Haksar or even P.L.N. Dhar —

individuals who welcomed views totally different from what

they or their bureaucratic colleagues were saying and made sure

that the heretics were given access to the top-it is difficult to

generate enthusiasm for those whose attitude is that interaction

with the media is a chore best avoided. It is difficult to appreciate

a home ministry that stores away rather than reveals mountains

of evidence about Pakistan's complicity in terrorist acts. It is not

possible to feel enthusiastic about a defense ministry that appears

to regard Abdul Kalam and his brilliant team of scientists as

morons to be kept out of public view, or to feel kindly towards

a group that bestirs itself publicly only to rebut the allegations

of an Arjun Singh, while till then there was mostly silence about

actual achievements.

However, one should not blame the bureaucracy overmuch.

Those within it are trained to feel suspicious about public affairs.

Which is why there is a parallel political channel to the top,

manned by individuals presumably more attuned to grassroots

needs. However, in today’s Delhi this too is manned by

individuals who have taken the indirect route to power rather

than by facing an electorate. Predictably, their approach to

filtering up ideas and individuals is little different from more

obvious bureaucrats. The result is a system that allows tainted

ministers to continue till they are heckled out by public clamour.

That gives sheep like signals on core issues of concern such as

national defence, making a minister admit that vital programmes

such as Agni and Prithvi may be scuttled. That brings in

perceived deadwood—and worse—in the name of change. That

gives an impression of fawning surrender to external pressure.

None of this may be the reality, but this is the perception.

That perception today has the Congress party on the

defensive. Indira Gandhi’s elephant ride to Belchi, or Jawaharlal

Nehru’s leaping into a crowd with a cane to shoo away rioters,

may not have won approval in schools of etiquette, but they

played well in the minds of the emotional people that Indians

are. A scholarly mien may excite university dons, but few others.

An individual who leads has the responsibility not just to

achieve, but to simultaneously put into effect a policy that will

imprint such deeds into the public consciousness. If such a policy

exists, it has never been put into operation.

The present Prime Minister is probably the best in the

country's history in many respects. But if matters go on as they

are now, his party may secure barely 150 seats in the next Lok

Sabha polls. Is there an individual responsible for this apparent

dichotomy of which the split in the Congress party is only a

minor symptom? There is, and he is the reticent, restrained

Pamulaparthy Venkata Narasimha Rao.

Two to Tango - A Partnership with China

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

While Gandhi’s teachings were ignored in India, there has

been no repudiation of his concepts. Despite first socialism

and then liberalisation, the armed liberation of Goa and then

Pokhran, this country still professes to take Gandhism seriously,

so much so that "liberals" worked overtime to ban a play that

gave a politically incorrect view of India’s greatest 20th century

son.

The Chinese, however, seem less hypocritical. Since the

1980s, the name of Communist China’s founder, Mao Zedong,

has become increasingly less acceptable. In particular, Mao is

faulted for having instigated the Great Proletarian Cultural

Revolution in the 1960s, that led to the humiliation of many

senior leaders at the hands of teenagers. The conventional

wisdom in Beijing is that the Cultural Revolution period

represented a "lost decade" during which China could more

usefully have embarked on economic modernisation rather than

the social and political engineering its leader attempted.

A contrary argument can be made, which is that the Maoist

tactic of “Bombard the Headquarters” resulted in a collapse of

the Confucian ethic that had held back progress for centuries

because of an unquestioning obedience to authority. During the

period of the movement, all (italics) dogmas became subject to

re-examination, and the effect was to free the Chinese people

from the tendency to unquestioningly accept received doctrine.

It can be argued that but for the shifts in mindset generated by

the Cultural Revolution, the moderniser of China—Deng

Xiaoping—would not have been able to rally his party behind a

total overthrow of Marxist orthodoxy in the economic sphere.

Geopolitical Realities

Unlike India, which has often been half-hearted about pursuing

its interests, the Chinese government has been clear about the

course that it needs to take in order to retain the social compact

between the Han people and the Chinese Communist party. In

the 1970s, Mao himself welcomed President Richard Nixon to

Beijing. Thus, there are grounds for optimism that the Communist

Chinese government will adjust to the geopolitical realities

demonstrated by Pokhran II, and seek to build a friendly

relationship with India in the 21st century. On the Indian side,

there needs to be a re-examination of the paradigms that will

underpin such a partnership.

The bottomline will naturally be an acceptance by Beijing

that India is a strategic power. Second, that no future efforts will

be made, whether directly or through surrogates, to develop

strategic capability in third countries. It is not in China's interests

to export nuclear and missile technology outside its borders.

However, should Beijing continue to do so, New Delhi may be

tempted to follow suit. Thus, India can play the same game as

the Chinese have been with Pakistan, unless Beijing restrains

both itself and its satellites from transferring strategic technology

and material to countries hostile to India.

Papal Status

On New Delhi’s side, it can be made explicit that political

changes within China are matters solely for the Chinese people

to decide. Unlike Washington, New Delhi has worked closely

with members of the Communist parties in several countries,

and, therefore, does not share a commitment towards eradicating

this philosophy. Indeed, in Central Asia, for example, former

Communists are playing a positive role in holding back the

growth of religious fundamentalism. In China and Vietnam, the

Communist party has itself taken several bold initiatives towards

encouraging private enterprise.

New Delhi has always accepted Tibet as a part of China, and

it will not be a reversal of policy to state explicitly that there is

a difference between cultural and political autonomy. There

cannot be a reversion to the pre-1950 system in which the Dalai

Lama exercised both spiritual and temporal power over Tibetans.

Hopefully, there will be an agreement between Beijing and the

Dalai Lama, in which His Holiness can return to Potala Palace.

However, this will have to be as a purely spiritual head, akin to

the Pope of today, rather than the Popes of yore, who were in

effect heads of states and not merely religious figures.

It would be unreasonable to expect the Chinese to interpret

"autonomy" as control by the Dalai Lama over the administration

in Tibet, and New Delhi needs to make this stand clear, especially

when a contrary view is being expressed in other major

democracies. Simultaneously, India needs to continue to ensure

that no element within the Tibetan refugee community in this

country gets trained in violence or prepares an attempt at armed

rebellion within Tibet. As for demonstration and agitations, as

long as these are non-violent, they need not be banned. Regarding

Taiwan, there needs to be a reiteration of the One China policy,

and also that future unification should be peaceful. Meanwhile,

New Delhi needs vigorously to conduct business with Taipei

that does not have military connotations.

The India-China border has remained quiet since 1986, and

care needs to be taken by both sides to prevent incursions across

the line of control. The deployment of troops on both sides needs

to be of a defensive nature, and over time must be thinned to

insignificant numbers, with frontier police replacing soldiers.

The goal should be an eventual settlement of the Sino-Indian

border dispute on the basis of existing ground realities, analogous

to the one informally suggested to Pakistan over Kashmir: We

keep that we control, you retain the rest. However, it will require

a cooling period before such a solution becomes politically

feasible. This process must be begun now.

Asia’s Stability

Within the Chinese Communist party, as with any other large

organisation, there are differing points of view. While some

aspects of policy appear moderate, others—such as the transfer

of strategic technology to Pakistan—appear to be the handiwork

of hardliners with an ultra-nationalistic perspective that seeks to

block India from emerging as another Asian giant. This group

needs to be kept in check by the moderates, and this is possible

only if it is clear that hardline policies will not pay. Thus,

together with an imaginative policy of engaging China, New

Delhi needs to develop cooperation with Japan, South Korea,

Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia so that closer economic and

other linkages are formed along this arc. Myanmar too needs to

be engaged more intensively, as part of a plan of developing the

North-east through cooperation between Yangon, Bangkok and

New Delhi. Friendly cooperation between the world’s two most

populous countries are essential for stability in Asia, but for this

both hands need to clap.

'Masterly Inactivity' no Longer an Option for PM

(Originally appeared in the 1990s in the Times of India, as published in M. D. Nalapat's book "Indutva", Har-Anand Publications, 1999)

Soon after the declaration of results of the assembly polls in

Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Goa and Sikkim eight days hence,

the Congress Working Committee is expected to meet and

review the performance of the party. During the past year, the

CWC meetings have been perfunctory, with usually the only

'decisions' being taken to "leave it to the Prime Minister".

According to the CWC members, however, should the Congress

fare badly in the polls — especially in Andhra Pradesh and

Karnataka — the coming meeting is unlikely to be tame.

The Congress has for long been a party both federal and

feudal. Whenever there is a leadership change, regional leaders

meet to select an individual whom they expect will respect their

autonomy. Although her subsequent conduct makes this hard to

believe, Indira Gandhi was preferred over Morarji Desai in 1966

because she was regarded as more tractable. The relative youth

of Rajiv Gandhi encouraged a similar view in 1984, while in the

case of P.V. Narasimha Rao seven years later, it was age and poor

health that generated the belief that he would be docile leader,

far more so than his challenger, Sharad Pawar.

So much for the federal aspect. Once ensconced, however,

the feudal strain takes over, the primary reason being that the

clutch of "central" leaders that form around the Prime Minister

cannot resist intervening in their territories of interest, and can

only do so under cover of the authority of the party leader. In a

reversal of the saying that "togetherness breeds contempt’ the

”central" leaders usually displace the regional chieftains influence,

often by casting doubts on the latter's "loyalty" to the leader

selected by them just a short while ago. Thus, in each state a

faction opposed to the regional chieftain springs up, that is given

(sometimes not very hidden) encouragement by individuals

close to the party leader. S. B. Chavan has played this role in

Maharashtra and Janardhan Poojary in Karnataka, to name just

two. So long as the party leader fulfils her or his function of

delivering votes, the regional chieftains accept these irritations

as a part of the "Congress culture". However, should the flow of

votes dry up they begin to demand greater autonomy. It is this

process that is expected to begin should the poll results indicate

an anti-Congress sweep.

There have been three distinct periods in the style of

functioning of the present Prime Minister. For around the first

year and a half since assuming office in 1991, he re-introduced

inner-party democracy into the Congress party through

membership drives and elections. Just when the process seemed

on the brink of introducing changes, in the composition of the

regional party leadership as significant as those that occurred

between 1969, (when Indira Gandhi broke away from the

"Syndicate") and 1973 (when the victories of Mavericks such as

Chandra Shekhar and Vayalar Ravi in inner—party elections

diminished her interest in giving grassroots workers control

over selection of their leaders and led her to introduce the

practice of nomination from Delhi), the Prime Minister abruptly

put the entire process on hold by 1993. The reason given for this

was that "the party leaders wanted it so". They, it seemed, did

not want a break from the culture of "Leave it to the leader", and

bowing to this democratic wish, Rao obliged. Whatever one may

make of this rationale, the fact is that from 1993 onwards the

nomination system made a complete comeback, thus once more

establishing the power to select local leaders at the central rather

than at the grassroot level. Senior party leaders claim that this

return to the "centralised" system of party management was

followed by a third stage, which has gone on since mid-1994,

around the time of Rao's return from the US tour and subsequent

bout of indifferent health (a bout that lasted for a month after the

tour). This is the period of a "near-total freeze on political

decisions" whether it is reshuffling the Cabinet or announcing

major policy changes. However, this has not been followed up

by any grant of autonomy to the regional units, with the result

that centrally backed individuals such as the Shukla brothers in

Madhya Pradesh or Karnataka PCC president Krishna Rao enjoy

an influence out of all proportion to their grassroots support.

Attempts to prise out such individuals from authority have

foundered on the rock of the central leadership’s stoic reluctance

to agree to any changes. At the same time, the dissidents have

not been able to get top·level support for their operations to

further destabilise the existing regional leaders, especially i.n

Maharashtra, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Andhra

Pradesh. Thus the intra-Congress situation in these states — two

of which are going to the polls in the current round — is one of

an uneasy stalemate that in turn has led to a significant lessening

of political activity within the party organisation.

Even if the more pessimistic forecasts come true and the

Congress loses control of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka,

Cabinet-level sources say that there is almost no possibility of an

immediate challenge to the Prime Minister’s authority. In fact,

should Rao get back to the political and administrative activism

of his first 18 months in office, he could find his position

reinforced by the time the next round of state polls are held in

February 1995. This would, according to them, involve giving a

greater say to state units in making high-level personnel changes

going in for a thorough Cabinet reshuffle and making policy 

changes, such as a budget, friendly to the Indian middle class,

the worker and the domestic manufacturer than has been the

case for the past three years. Such activism would defuse

attempts to held him to account for any December'94, they claim.

Going by Rao’s track record, the odds favour such a return

of activism. However, should the current phase of a freeze on

activism continue, followed by reverses in February 1995, there

is likely to be a take-off of dissidence to levels that could lead to

a 1979 situation by mid-1995. In such an eventuality, groups

within the Congress party could break away to join the National

Front-Left Front parties or even the BJP, thus hastening the

timetable for the parliamentary poll. Alternatively, within the

Congress party there could be pressure for a leadership change.

While Rao’s present rivals may find themselves out of the

reckoning, so might his more obvious supporters, such as

S. B. Chavan, as they may not be able to carry the rest of the team

with them. What scenario will ultimately unfold is as yet not

clear. However, it is clear that the Prime Minister cannot any

longer consider masterly inactivity as a winning option.