By Swapan Dasgupta
The failure of the
Congress-led UPA Government to negotiate the passage of the Lokpal Bill in the
Rajya Sabha has been blamed on an obstructive BJP. Such an assessment is
needlessly flattering to the BJP which found itself out of sorts in the Lok
Sabha but managed to recover its composure in the Upper House. The question
therefore arises: what did the BJP do right in the Rajya Sabha what it didn’t
do in the Lower House?
The difference does not
merely lie in the behaviour of the SP and BSP which obliged the Government in
the Lok Sabha but demonstrated greater independence in the Rajya Sabha. The
Government was far more bothered by the obstreperous conduct of its ally
Trinamool Congress that wanted to press its amendments in the Rajya Sabha. The
TMC managed to secure endorsements from all the Opposition parties. And this
meant that the Government was bound to lose on the floor of the House had the
vote actually been taken.
This was the third time in
rapid succession that the TMC had scuttled the Government’s initiatives. It
negated the Teesta Waters Treaty that Manmohan Singh wanted to sign during his
visit to Bangladesh. The TMC chief Mamata Banerjee put her foot down on the
ground that she had not been properly consulted. This embarrassment was
followed by Mamata’s unbudging veto of the decision to allow foreign direct
investment in multi-brand retailing. The TMC was concerned about the impact
foreign investment would have on the millions of petty retailers who have few
other means of sustainable livelihood in the state. And now there is Mamata’s
unrelenting opposition to the Lokayukta proposals that have a direct bearing on
how the state government fights corruption.
Mamata has been painted by
the Government as a difficult customer and an incorrigible populist who is
unmindful of larger national concerns. It is being whispered that intra-Bengali
rivalries have prevented Mamata from obliging the otherwise obliging Pranab
Mukherjee who has a reputation of being a crafty consensus builder.
Is Mamata as bad as she is
made out to be by the Government’s spin doctors? That she is mercurial,
pugnacious and prone to flying off the handle are well known. In fact, it is
precisely these attributes that were well appreciated by the people of Bengal.
You had to be something a little out of the ordinary to persevere for three
decades—through many ups and downs—in the fight against a well-entrenched and
ruthless Left Front.
Yet, I think the Congress
has grievously miscalculated by imagining that Mamata is merely a spoilt child
who can best be placated by doling out lollipops in the form of Central grants
to her. Yes, Mamata does like the lollipops and is not averse to accepting
freebies and sops. But, at the same time, like the mercurial J. Jayalalithaa of
Tamil Nadu, her tantrums are not born out of impulsiveness alone. There is a
great deal of calculation behind each of Mamata’s moves. It is these
calculations that the Government has failed to understand when they view her as
a petulant child.
The most important of
Mamata’s objectives is her quest to establish a regional space for herself and
her party. The TMC was born out of Mamata’s revolt against the High Command
culture of the Congress. She could not countenance the fact that despite being
the united Congress’ main mass leader in West Bengal she was being constantly
stymied by rivals whose only claim to fame is that they had better connections
in Delhi. Having established herself as the main anti-Left party in West Bengal
and having overshadowed the Congress, her main thrust now is to transform a
regional party into a party that epitomises West Bengal. Despite operating
under the discipline of the Politburo, Jyoti Basu succeeded in positioning
himself as the great Bengal consensus. Now Mamata wants to fill the void by taking
up some of those issues.
Till the United Front
Governments of H.D. Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral gave the CPI(M) a stake at the
Centre, the Reds in West Bengal had fought long and hard to rectify the
imbalances in Centre-State relations. Fulminations against a discriminatory
Centre formed an important part and parcel of the Left’s armoury.
Mamata’s battles should be
rightly seen as an aspect of the battle to rectify federal distortions in the
polity. In the past few years, Narendra Modi had fought these battles. But Modi
was thwarted by both a political and image problem. Being in the BJP he did not
have the requisite strategic clout to influence decision-making in the UPA—a
problem that has plagued Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik as well. In addition, the
baggage of the 2002 riots made Modi a contentious figure and the UPA exploited
this cynically.
With a total of 23 MPs in
both Houses and representation in the Cabinet, Mamata has taken the battle
inside the government where it is heard loud and clear. She has consciously
abjured all patronage—she has not claimed a governership, any ambassadorships
or quango jobs for her favourites—to focus single-mindedly on the principle
that West Bengal must be consulted and its opinions taken on board on all matters
that touch West Bengal, including foreign policy. She has contested the notion
of an exclusive Central prerogative.
Sunday Pioneer, January 1, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment