Sushma Swaraj’s Bangladesh Visit: A Good Start to “Neighbours First” Policy in Dhaka

Monish Gulati

Introduction

Termed as a “goodwill visit”, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj led her first international visit to Bangladesh on 25 June accompanied by Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh and other senior officials. The visit marked the first ministerial-level contact between the new government in New Delhi and the Bangladeshi leadership. The EAM, apart from meeting her Bangladeshi counterpart, Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, also called on the Bangladeshi President Abdul Hamid and PM Sheikh Hasina. Separate interactions were held by the EAM with Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) chief Khaleda Zia, former Bangladesh President Irshad’s wife Raushan Irshad and Prime Minister’s international affairs adviser Professor Gowher Rizvi. Her agenda included trade and investment, improving connectivity, better management of the borders, security, ratification of the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA), energy and people-to-people contacts. This article reviews the outcome of the visit and looks at the road ahead for the two countries as India gives shape to its “Neighbours First” policy.

The Visit

As India-Bangladesh relations in the past few years have been constrained by issues that have proved a test for the Centre- State relations, it was not therefore surprising that the EAM ahead of her two-day visit to Bangladesh, had a publicised talk with the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. The state of West Bengal has a position on the two main issues that were on the EAM’s agenda; sharing of Teesta river water and the LBA. This was a signal, perhaps, to state governments of the Modi government’s commitment to strengthen the federal structure of the country. It was also an indication to Bangladesh of the complicated, political and emotive nature of the two issues and that their settlement was a “work in progress”. The EAM assured Bangladesh that efforts were on to evolve a national consensus on these issues. At the same time, during the run-up to the visit, Bangladeshi High Commissioner Tariq Karim had met with Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Water Resources Minister Uma Bharti to discuss the LBA and Teesta agreement respectively underlining the importance of the two issues for Bangladesh.

During the visit, the Bangladeshi side was apprised of India’s decision to ease tourist visa norms for Bangladeshi nationals under the age of 13 and above 65 years. They will be now given multiple entry visas for five years instead of one year. India has also decided to give additional 100 megawatts power to Bangladesh from the gas-based power project at Palatana in Tripura. Swaraj also announced a grant of Rs 60 crore for implementation of various projects in Bangladesh in the current financial year. During her meeting with Hasina, the EAM presented a plan for setting up a ‘Bangladesh Bhawan’ at Shantiniketan in West Bengal.

The two countries have decided to increase the frequency of Maitree Express between Kolkata and Dhaka and the trial runs between Dhaka-Shillong bus service was also discussed at the meeting of two Foreign Ministers. The Bangladeshi Foreign Minister, in a separate press conference, said Bangladesh has decided to send 10,000 tonne foodgrains to Tripura and the consignments will start with small truckloads as the roads were not geared to take big trucks.

Despite the EAM being “satisfied” with the outcome of her current visit, it would be fair to say that both sides took that extra care to ensure that contentious issues were skirted and the atmospherics of the goodwill visit not disturbed. Some key milestones in the Indo-Bangladesh relations yet to be crossed involve issues such as trade, connectivity, illegal migration and security cooperation.

Trade & Commerce

The two-way trade between India and Bangladesh stands at $6.6 billion for 2013-14 with India’s exports at $6.1 billion and imports from Bangladesh at $462 million. Indian investment in Bangladesh amounted to $2.5 billion in 2013. The industry body, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) recently stated in a note that India-Bangladesh trade could double to $10 billion by 2018 if bottle-necks such as non-tariff barriers and infrastructure-related issues are resolved. Bangladesh is not happy with the balance of trade and would like India to increase the volume and the range of the items being imported from the country.

There is also a dire need to adopt a comprehensive approach to revamping not only the physical infrastructure of all modes of cargo transport (road, rail, air, inland waterways and maritime) but also non-physical soft infrastructure such as cross-border transit facilitation measures, customs clearance supported by appropriate policies and regulations not just between the two countries but for the entire subcontinent trading bloc. According to a report by CUTS International, the cost of doing trade in the region is among the highest in the world and the prime deterrent of trade among South Asian countries.

Another measure to strengthen bilateral trade relations is to adopt a regional perspective on movement of goods, which will increase trade volumes, decrease costs, increase competitiveness, and open up fresh areas for collaboration in manufacturing etc.¹ A CUTS International research points out that, currently, most regionally traded product categories are barely half their true potential. According to 2013 trade data, an estimated US$20 billion worth of regional trade is lost because of reasons other than transport inefficiencies. Asymmetries in market information, frequent complaints of defaults on trade-related payments and perceived risk factors have discouraged traders from exploring regional markets. Measures such as financial connectivity, business-to-business interactions within the region provide significant stimulus to trade.

Connectivity

The CUTS study estimates that potential savings on trade costs from transport reforms, both physical and non-physical, could be US$4.6 billion annually. This is roughly one-fifth of the total value of intra-regional trade.The connectivity between the two countries needs to exploit the multi-modal potential of rail, road and inland water transport to lower transportation costs and aid trade. Despite years of negotiations, use of rail both to trade with Bangladesh and transit trade to India’s NE is yet to take shape. NE-India is virtually a landlocked territory and traffic from NE-India is required to travel 1400-1650 km to reach Kolkata Port. If transit is allowed, distances would be around 450-700 km. At present, goods are transshipped at the border between trucks.

There is no inter-country freight train except a passenger train between Dhaka-Kolkata. Rail wagons are pulled by Indian Locos up to the border and Bangladesh Locos pull these to destinations inside. Ideally there should be rail corridors across Bangladesh and Nagaland and Manipur facilitating movement of goods between India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The Indian and Bangladeshi governments will start work early next year on a 15 km railway track linking Tripura's capital Agartala with Bangladesh's southeastern city of Akhaurah.² Lack of progress on the rail links has affected proposed regional rail links such as the Trans-Asian Railway (TAR).

There is also some apprehension in Bangladesh that India will not facilitate Bangladesh in its trade with Bhutan and Nepal (including transit trade) along the Asian Highway and the BCIM connectivity through Manipur maybe subject to conditions. Bangladesh also expects on basis of purely economic considerations 50% Nepalese (Kathmandu-Kakarvita/Banglabandha-Mongla) and 100% of Bhutanese (Thimpu-Phuentsholing/ Jaigaon- Burimari-Mongla) international traffic should be directed through Mongla Port; which has not happened. Accordingly, Bangladesh is desperate to develop connectivity to Myanmar and China through the Cox’s Bazar and Teknaf route (Teknaf-Maungdaw-Sittwe and Balukhali-Gundhum- Bawlibazar link road). These have not progressed as planned possibly due to the Rohingya issue in the area. The trust deficit in this regard would have to be overcome by the two countries.³

Figure: 1- Trans-Asian Railway (TAR)

Security

The BJP manifesto promised zero tolerance to cross-border terrorism, and also that it would take steps on illegal migration. These two issues will directly impinge on India's relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh. The EAM indicated New Delhi's willingness to extradite Nur Hossain, a serial-murder suspect who is currently in the custody of West Bengal police, considered as the first test for the extradition treaty signed between New Delhi and Dhaka last year. In a positive development, both nations reaffirmed their commitment not to allow their soil to be used for terror and disruptive activities directed against each other.

Just prior to the EAM’s visit, a Bangladesh court's order sentencing eight Islamic militants including Mufti Hannan, the Harkat-ul Jihad Islami (HuJI) head who is accused of terror attacks in India as well, was seen a signal from the Bangladeshi government to continue its cooperation on security and counter-terrorism. The militants were sentenced after the court found them guilty over deadly attacks during traditional celebrations of Bengali New Year in Dhaka in 2001.⁴

Illegal Migration

Given the policy position of the Modi government on the issue of illegal migration, it will be the most ticklish issue the two nations will have to negotiate as it has the potential to derail cooperation and mutual understanding. There is a requirement of great deal of pragmatism on the part of both the countries to resolve the issue amicably. Bangladesh would have to understand India’s politico-economic compulsion and urgency to check illegal migration from Bangladesh, while India would have to take into account the physical, political and social challenges the Bangladesh government faces on the issue.

The Bangladeshi stand on the issue in the public space is quite obtuse. Foreign Minister A H Mahmood Ali in an interview to an Indian newspaper said that during EAM’s visit there was no mention of illegal migrants and hence the issue is irrelevant. ⁵ In fact, he felt the Indian announcement of the visa liberalisation indicates that people from Bangladesh are welcome in India. The EAM in her speech at a think tank did talk about a legal and administrative regime to discourage illegal movement of people.

Analysts feel that Hasina is not keen that Modi lives up to his poll promise of "pushing out Bangladeshi illegals" because any such pushback, however symbolic, would complicate bilateral relations and put huge domestic pressure on the Awami League government to get tough with India.⁶ At the same time, an anti-Indian groundswell will be an opportunity for Khaleda Zia and could serve as a rallying point for her party and alliance, and get them back on the streets. Hasina's government discourages illegal migration and promotes legal labour exports to any country that is interested as legal migrants send back significant remittances which are Bangladesh's second-biggest source of foreign exchange after garment exports. It is this position that should serve as the starting point for a bilateral effort to manage the issue of illegal migration. Few pointers could be obtained in this regards from how US and Mexico have grappled with a problem of similar nature.

Defence Cooperation

Another issue that usually does not figure in the bilaterals but on which India could take a lesson from the Chinese is that of cooperation on arms supply and joint production China is a major arms provider to each of India’s neighbours with the exception of Bhutan. Bangladesh recently has made several arms purchases and has announced a defence budget of BTD164.6 billion (USD2.1 billion) for fiscal year (FY) 2014-15, a year-on-year increase of 8.4%. Pakistan has already sensed the opportunity and Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), Pakistan's state-owned tank and armoured vehicle manufacturing unit, has offered to modernise Bangladesh's ageing T-54/Type 59 and Type 69 main battle tanks (MBTs) to the Al-Zarrar configuration "as per Bangladeshi requirements".

Conclusion

Besides the more discussed issues of sharing of Teesta river water and the LBA, several related issues such as trade, connectivity, illegal migration, security cooperation need to be addressed, progressed and resolved to ensure that the Indo-Bangladesh relations are maintained on a positive trajectory. The EAM has provided a good start to India’s “neighbours first” policy in Dhaka, the challenge would be to sustain the goodwill.

Endnotes

1. Bipul Chatterjee and Joseph George. ‘We must improve trade connectivity in South Asia, CUTS International,’ June 26, 2014. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/06/26/we-must-improve-trade-connectivi...
2. ‘Work on new India-Bangladesh railway link from 2015,’ The Times of India, June 17, 2014. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Work-on-new-India-Bangladesh-ra...
3. Lt Col (Retd) AFM Khairul Basher. ‘BCIM Corridor: The gateway of South Asia,’ The Daily Sun, June 18, 2014
4. Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury. ‘Swaraj To Reach Bangladesh Today - HuJI Sentencing Comes at Right Time for New Delhi-Dhaka Ties,’ The Economic Times, June 25, 2014. http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31816&articlexml=SWA...
5. Shubhajit Roy. Interview of Bangladesh Foreign Minister A H Mahmood Ali , Indian Express, 28 June 2014. http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=n&nid=8431
6. Subir Bhaumik. ‘Narendra Modi sending back illegal immigrants, pushing water pacts hold key to Dhaka politics,’ The Economic Times, May 21, 2014. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/narendra-m...

(The author is an independent analyst based in New Delhi)

---

Published Date: 12^th August 2014, Image source: http://www.thedailystar.net

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

The Third Front in Indian Politics: An Assessment

K G Suresh, 

Senior Fellow & Editor, VIF

Introduction

One of the significant developments in the country’s fast changing political scenario has been the rather premature demise of the much hyped 11 party Third Front. After the Jayalalithaa-led AIADMK dumped the alliance with the Left parties in Tamil Nadu within days of its announcement, other key constituents the Samajwadi Party, JD(U) and Left parties decided to contest the elections on their own in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and other states sounding the death knell of the much-hyped initiative.

In the politically crucial Uttar Pradesh. differences arose between the SP and the CPI and CPM over seat sharing, with SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav rigidly stating that his party would contest 78 of the 80 seats in UP.

While the CPI decided to field candidates in eight Lok Sabha seats, the CPM announced plans to contest two seats.

Meanwhile, addressing the JD(U) state executive committee in Lucknow on March 5, the party’s national president, Sharad Yadav, told state leaders not to have much expectations from the Third Front. In fact, he exhorted party leaders to prepare for the Lok Sabha elections and highlight the failures of the incumbent SP government in the state.

Further, going against the spirit of the non-Congress and non-BJP stance of the alliance, the SP Chief, who took the initiative for stitching the rag tag alliance this time, also decided not to field any candidates against either UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi or Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi in Amethi and Rae Bareli respectively.

Thus, as of now, in UP alone, the members of the Front will be locking horns in more than 24 Lok Sabha seats.

In a major loss of face in far away Kerala, after decades of being a steadfast ally of the four-party Left Democratic Front, the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) left the CPM-led alliance to join the Congress-led United Democratic Front.

These developments prompted SP scion and UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav to state that if at all such a front materialises, it could only be after the election results are out on May 16.

Joining issues, former CPI General Secretary AB Bardhan also admitted in a recent television interview that it was a mistake for the Left front to attempt to forge a third front alliance before the polls.

The proposed joint rally of the 11 non-Congress, non-BJP parties, which was to be held in Bangalore, has also been called off.

It was only on February 25 that top leaders of the Left, AIADMK, Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (United) and JD(S) had met in Delhi to chalk out a common charter of programme. Speaking after the meeting, CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat had said 11 non-UPA, non-NDA parties will fight the upcoming Lok Sabha polls together to defeat the UPA and stop the BJP from coming to power.

Interestingly, the Third Front also did not have the support of either Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, BSP Supremo Mayawati or BJD Chief Naveen Patnaik, all of whom are powerful satraps in their home states. In fact, Mamata is said to be toying with the idea of a Federal Front or a Fourth Front.

What’s more, the most visible critic of both the UPA and NDA, the Arvind Kejriwal led Aam Aadmi Party (which too had taken the outside support of the Congress during its 49 day Government in Delhi), too is not part of either of these alliances.

Backgrounder

Ahead of the last general elections, one saw former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda taking the initiative for the formation of a Third Front with a massive rally in Karnataka, attended and addressed by several leaders including Prakash Karat, AB Bardhan, TDP Supremo Chandrababu Naidu and BSP’s Satish Chandra Mishra, besides representatives of the AIADMK and the Haryana Janhit Congress.

Ever an aspirant for the top post, the JD(S) supremo goaded all these parties to chalk out a ‘common minimum programme’ but failed to achieve any breakthrough. Mr Gowda was shocked to find that Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, who had become the rallying point for the new alternative, chose not to concede even a single seat in Uttar Pradesh for his close aide and party secretary general, Kunwar Danish Ali. What’s more, she decided to go it all alone in Karnataka, with her candidates contesting against several JD(S) nominees.

In Andhra Pradesh, the TRS rejected the former Prime Minister’s appeal to accommodate one of his party leaders. In Kerala too, where the Left and the JD(S) have had a historic relationship, the CPI(M) refused to yield important seats demanded by the latter, forcing senior party leader and veteran parliamentarian MP Veerendra Kumar to join forces with the Congress-led UDF.

But then, even as the results were trickling in, one saw the pathetic sight of Gowda’s son and former Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy entering 10, Janpath, with his face covered, to extend his party’s unconditional support to UPA2. It was not long before that he had deserted the Congress to form a coalition Government in Karnataka with the BJP and later backed out in the name of “secularism”, when he had to hand over the chief ministership of the State to the BJP under the 20-month rotation agreement.

In statements bordering on bravado, ahead of the elections, CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury had discounted the possibility of its allies in the so-called Third Front embracing the Congress or the BJP after the Lok Sabha polls.

Yechury had then boasted that regional parties such as the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu and the JD(S) in Karnataka had teamed up with the Left because of pressure from their support base. This, he argued, would not allow them to go over to the BJP or the Congress after the April-May election — unlike in the past.

With the BSP and the JD(S) switching loyalties to the UPA and the TRS walking over to the NDA within days of the poll verdict, an embittered Yechury had to eat his words and state that the post-poll developments have proved that the “cut and paste” alliance was a mistake.

“You are right about BSP, JD(S) and TRS and that is precisely the point that I am making. Our decision is that it was neither credible nor viable and this (deserting the pre-poll alliance) only confirmed that”, the CPI (M) Politburo member said in a television interview.

Subsequently, one also saw the Samajwadi Party along with its arch rival from Uttar Pradesh, the Bahujan Samaj Party led by Kum Mayawati, who had projected herself as the Third Front’s Prime Ministerial candidate in the 2009 polls, together serving as crutches for the outgoing UPA Government after its key allies TMC and DMK walked out of the alliance.

But pushed to oblivion in West Bengal and Kerala, their traditional strongholds, and thereby finding itself on the fringes of national polity, the CPI(M) did not think twice before jumping on to the new Third Front bandwagon, the moment the wily SP leader invited them with his dulcet calls for the revival of the so-called front.

It is but natural therefore that the idea of the Third Front, envisaging a non-UPA, non-NDA alternative at the Centre, has come to be ridiculed by critics as an Utopian concept or at worst a seasonal frog (Barsati Maindak) which appears only during the polls.

The Case Against Third Front

If anti-Congressism was the politically correct stand from the mid-60s to late 80s interspersed with the failed experiments of Janata Party and the National Front coalitions, anti-BJPism laid the foundations of a third alternative. It became fashionable to maintain equidistance from both the Congress and BJP.

Yet, Mulayam Singh Yadav, the present Centre of gravity of the elusive Front, much like his other regional counterparts such as the DMK’s M Karunanidhi and JD(S) supremo Gowda, has always been known for practising the politics of opportunism of the worst kind.

Whether it be taking the help of the BJP to become the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, entering into an alliance with Kalyan Singh (only to dump him later), opposing Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin and then bailing out the UPA when the Left parties pulled the rug from under the ruling party’s feet, the wrestler-turned-politician has always taken advantage of the most unfavourable situations to turn the tide in his favour. Ideology, principles, norms, conventions, coalition dharma etc have all been like tissue paper for him to be used and thrown.

Reflective of double standards, over the years, anyone, including those who had worked closely with the BJP in the past, became secular once they distanced themselves from the saffron party. This so-called non-Congress, non-BJP Front had no qualms about seeking outside support from the Congress as was the case with the Deve Gowda and the IK Gujral Governments, even as they unashamedly claimed to be the third alternative, losing credibility in the eyes of the electorate. Besides, these Third Front Governments also heralded an innings of instability not to talk about their disastrous performance on all fronts. Most of their time was spent on managing the messy coalition and trying to somehow stick on to power.

With both the national parties realising that they cannot form Governments on their own strength, smaller parties in their quest for a place under the sun and to extract their pound of flesh started gravitating towards them, leading to the formation of the UPA and the NDA.

Even the parties which tried to maintain some semblance of neutrality entered into alliances with the two national parties both at the State and the Centre from time to time. From the ‘compulsions’ of running a State to living up to people’s aspirations and escaping the Damocles sword called CBI, these opportunist regional outfits found alibis galore to defend their alliance with the national parties.

With Jyoti Basu missing the prime ministerial bus in 1996 and the CPI(M) repenting at leisure, the Left parties, which have been at the forefront of the Third Front experiments in the past, too could not resist the temptation of wielding clout over Raisina Hill, when they extended outside support to UPA1, under the garb of “keeping communal powers at bay”.

Thus, the Third Front has come to be viewed as the last refuge for desperate power hungry regional satraps wanting to share the spoils of office at the Centre and extract their pound of flesh with the threat of withdrawal of support as their weapon of blackmail.

Conclusion

Except for the Left parties, all others are purely dynastic or personal enterprises, with no inner party democracy whatsoever. They have no principles, ideology, programmes or vision to offer to the people except hollow slogans of secularism, federalism and farmers’ rights – a key reason for their failure to provide a stable Government at the Centre despite umpteen opportunities to prove themselves in the past. The Third Front constituents as also the other Satraps are expected to switch loyalties to one or the other national alliances, once the results are out.

In the past too, wrangling for power and opportunism have been the hall marks of the short-lived Third Front regimes, which carried the seed of instability in their womb itself.

If the 1996 experiment was a flop show and the 2009 attempt a farce, the proposed 2014 Third Front show would be nothing but a fraud on the people of India.

As a political commentator aptly put it, “In the context of India’s politics, a Third Front signifies a group that stands apart from the Congress and BJP. However, by bringing together any one and every one regardless of their history, ideology or even program, who, for various reasons, is opposed to the Congress or the BJP, the core parties of the Indian Left, CPI and CPI(M), might as well be named the Communist Party of India (Electionist), which sums up their ideological and political bases.”

Time to Restore Civility in Political Debate

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

For us Indians there are certain truths which we should take as immutable. The Constitution of India, the basic features of which have remained unchanged despite a number of amendments, is the document which prescribes how this country will be structured and governed. Article 1 categorically states that India is a Union of States, which means that it is a true federation in which the Union as an entity exists because of its constituent States. One without the other is incomplete and, therefore, whilst there can be debate on whether this federation needs a strong Central Government with viable and powerful States, or whether the States should enjoy the highest degree of autonomy with the Centre being the cementing force, India cannot convert itself into a Unitary State. The Qasi federal structure is here to stay.

The Preamble defines governance in this country in unambiguous terms. India is fully sovereign and this is non-negotiable. It is socialist in the sense that the Preamble itself mandates justice, liberty, equality and fraternity, which means that there is equality before law, there is freedom of thought and expression, every citizen has equality of status and opportunity and fraternity ensures that there will be a brotherhood of man in which no one is high and no one is low. The Preamble also states that India will be secular and, in the context of the partition in 1947, this was a very brave decision because whereas Pakistan chose the path of theocracy, we opted for a nation in which everyone was welcome, regardless of religion, caste and creed or, for that matter, place of birth. Secularism in this context is what makes all of us equal. The Preamble further states that India will be democratic and that it will be a republic. One has no alternative available whereby the republican form of government can be replaced by a hereditary monarchy, nor can the democratic process be replaced by authoritarian rule or totalitarianism.

The Constitution has adopted the Westminster form of democracy in which whilst there is separation of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, there is a coming together of the Executive and the Legislature through the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President, but because he has to enjoy the confidence of the House, to which he and his ministers are collectively responsible, obviously only that man would be appointed whose party or political group enjoys a majority in Parliament. This is an important point to be borne in mind because it determines the shape that our democracy will take in order to elect a government. Every five years a general election is called for electing members of the House of the People, that is, the Lower House of Parliament. Because India is a democracy in which Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and association, it is obvious that there will be different streams of political thought and ideology, ranging from the extreme left to the extreme right. The bounds within which these thoughts will be expressed and ideologies expressed, are that the fundamentals of our Constitution, our sovereignty, socialist ideal, secularism, democracy, republican status and the Union of States cannot be questioned, nor their overthrow advocated. However, within these limitations every group of persons, every individual and every political party has the right to not only express itself but to propagate and promote its ideology. When there are different schools of thought prevailing in politics and the objective of every political party is to win favour with the electorate and thus aspire for power, there is bound to be debate. There is also bound to be dissent, internally within a party and externally between parties. The objective of debate is to convince people that a particular party, its ideology, programmes and practices is best suited to governing the country. For example, a party may profess dogmatic socialism and nationalisation of all industry and business as the best way forward for India. Another party may advocate capitalism, free enterprise and laissez faire as the best policy for the country. In between there may be many shades and nuances of political policy which different parties may advocate. This is perfectly legitimate and in fact desirable. It is then for the people to choose which party they will accept as best suited for government.

At a time when the Congress Party under Jawaharlal Nehru was virtually the uncrowned king of India and the Opposition was numerically very small, we still had stalwarts like Ram Manohar Lohia, S.A. Dange, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Rajaji and other towering persons who were in political conflict with government and expressed views contrary to those held by Jawaharlal Nehru. However, they were heard with great respect and their words carried weight. There was a level of debate in Parliament and outside it which was so civilised, so serious, so ideology based that we could pride ourselves on traditions of parliamentary democracy perhaps not found even in Britain. Those were the golden days of Indian democracy and the Indian Parliament. Surprisingly this is also the period in which Nehru introduced the concept of planned economy, not of the Soviet model, but the uniquely Indian one in which justice and equality were more important than Marxian dialectics. The Indian model, recognising that capital formation through private enterprise was just not adequate to accelerate the Indian economy to a higher plane, decided to use the State and public enterprises for building the infrastructure and laying the base for a capital goods industry which could modernise the country. This was not a dictatorial decision but a democratic one in which critics and criticisms were heard, given due weightage and did influence decision making so that the planned economy did not transform itself into a bureaucratic dictatorship. The above example is given to support the thesis that civility of debate did exist in India, partly because of Gandhian traditions, partly because Nehru was a democrat, partly because his opponents were also democrats. Power was a means of service, not an instrument for self aggrandisement.

All that changed in 1967, when in some of the States outright bribery purchased Members of the State Legislature, defections were engineered and elected governments caused to fall through dubious means. Now power became a commodity which could be purchased, attaining of power became a goal in itself and the wholesale subversion of the State to convert it into a means of amassing wealth through which power could be purchased became a norm. All means, however foul and unfair, become legitimate in order to gain power and with this principles, ideology, consistent political thought, pragmatic programmes, all were thrown out of politics and the political process became totally corrupt, When a political system becomes corrupt there are evil consequences which flow from it. Corruption is not restricted to top levels, but soon permeates down to the lowest government functionary. If the guardians of democracy, the legislators and the ministers, become corrupt, they cannot occupy high moral ground when dealing with their subordinates, but they actually use their subordinates in order to garner money. The subordinates, in turn, have to prey upon the citizens to collect money and the rot sets in so deep that soon every point of contact between a citizen and a government functionary becomes a source of milking the citizen even for getting his legitimate work done. This is the state to which we have brought India and, perhaps, in a way the Anna Hazare movement was a citizen reaction to the systematic climate of corruption that we have created. Such a climate endangers democracy itself because if citizens lose faith in the system, then either there will be anarchy or there will be totalitarian rule and both would be highly undesirable.

One natural consequence of the loss of political innocence is that the level of political debate has hit rock bottom. The politicians, though having no specific ideology, philosophy or programme to offer, want to be elected so that they can enjoy power. They seem to have fine-tuned the old saying, “When in the right, fight like hell. When in the wrong, admit”. The new saying seems to be “Who says you have to be in the right. In any case, when in the wrong thump your opponents”. Carried further, the entire political scenario becomes one of just attacking one’s opponents, not for their policies, not for their performance but on totally personal grounds. The new form of debate is shrill, accusatory, perfectly comfortable with telling lies and happiest of all when heaping unprintable abuse on one’s opponent and accusing him of everything, including murder, sexual depravity and misbehaviour, corruption, even to question the legitimacy of his birth. However, under no circumstances tell the people what you have to offer them if you come to power because the fact is that you have nothing to offer and in any case you only consider them as a kind of voting machine which is to be milked in order to gain power. Ram Manohar Lohia was extremely critical of Nehru, but at no time did he intend to cause hurt and at no time did Nehru take umbrage at what Lohia was saying. There was never any intention to cause any bodily harm or any humiliation to one’s opponent and one admires how Morarji Desai ensured that Indira Gandhi was not victimized and Atal Bihari Vajpayee took care of the comfort and honour of Sonia Gandhi. There was at times acrimony but there was no vendetta. Certainly there was not the kind of churlishness exhibited by Mamata Banerjee towards the Left in West Bengal after she came to power. If one were to define the politics of those days one has to use the word “civilised”.

If one were to survey the political scene today what would one find? There is an enormous promotion of factors such as religion, caste, region, language, group animosities and hostilities, all in order to promote the narrow interests of a particular group or party. This inevitably leads to fuelling narrow religious considerations, generating communal animosity, promoting caste interests over national interests and regional interests over the wider interests of a State, violent manifestation of one’s prejudices, a weakening of the administration, thus endangering the safety of citizens and, perhaps, national security and certainly corruption on an unprecedented scale. All these are the antithesis of good government which, incidentally, has to be the objective of every political party. The Constitution gives them no alternative and the fact that they are doing the exact opposite shows that they have no respect for the Constitution.

May one suggest to all the political parties to read Part IV A of the Constitution which gives the fundamental duties of the citizens. Article 51 (A) states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women” and (j) “to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher level of endeavour and achievements”. Can this be done if the level of political debate is reduced to a public brawl in which, whereas nothing positive is offered, the opponent is attacked, with no holds barred? Therefore, if democracy is to be saved, if the Constitution is to be respected, if the nation is to rise to new heights, it is absolutely vital that civility be restored. The dictionary meaning of civility as per Chambers Twenty-first Dictionary is “politeness”. Civilised, according to the same dictionary means agreeably refined, sophisticated or comfortable; socially, politically and technologically advanced. Civility in debate and civilised debate leads to civilization, defined by the dictionary as “a stage of development in human society that is socially, politically, culturally and technologically advanced”. Remove these three words, civility, civilised and civilization from the dictionary and we would have a nation of morons at constant war with each other. A constitution which mandates fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual, gives to every citizen equality before law, calls upon him to strive towards excellence, has no place for lack of civility and civilised behaviour in the political process. The manner in which our politicians are behaving today shows that they not only have no respect for the Constitution, but rather that they hold it in contempt and are happy to violate it. More than good government, more than eradication of corruption, we need to restore to politics a standard of values and morality, we need to return to civilisational roots, we need to restore civility to debate.

UPA-II: Limping along with Uncertain Friends

A. Surya Prakash

The declining image of the United Progressive Alliance government in the context of mounting corruption charges, signs of non-governance and dramatic shifts in political allegiances have all added up to render the United Progressive Alliance Government headed by Mr. Manmohan Singh vulnerable and shaky at the resumption of the Budget Session of Parliament after a three-week recess.

In this milieu, the most worrying aspect is the growing backlog of legislation awaiting parliamentary clearance. Around 40 bills are pending consideration and passage in the two Houses of Parliament and another two dozen new bills are ready for introduction. Among the pending bills are the controversial Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill 2011, the Education Tribunals Bill, 2010, The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Amendment Bill, 2010 and The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Bill.

Although many important legislative measures are awaiting parliamentary approval, the ruling coalition is woefully short on confidence because of the poor showing of the Congress Party in the recent assembly elections in five states and the increasingly fractious nature of the coalition. In this atmosphere of uncertainty, the government should consider itself lucky if it can see through the budgetary process without a hitch. Although dozens of bills are pending parliamentary approval, law-making may become the biggest casualty in the current session and in the coming sessions of the present Lok Sabha, given the precarious numbers and the UPA’s woefully inadequate floor management. The Finance Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee will have to deploy all his PR skills to garner enough support in parliament to push through legislation critical to the continuance of the economic reform process. Among them are The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, 2011, The Insurance (Amendment) Bill and The Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2011. He has already extracted an assurance from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that it will support the pension bill, but this is small comfort for a government that is under attack from all sides.

As it turned out, the government was on tenterhooks even in the first part of the Budget Session from March 12 to 30, before the two Houses went into recess. During that phase, the government faced considerable embarrassment over the Railway Budget when Ms. Mamata Banerjee protested against the fare hike and forced the resignation of Mr. Dinesh Trivedi and the appointment of another MP from the Trinamul Congress as the Railway Minister. Although the Railway Budget had the approval of the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet, Dr. Manmohan Singh had to swallow his pride, sack Mr. Trivedi as per the dictates of Ms. Banerjee and roll back the marginal fare hikes announced by the Railway Minister in his budget speech. But all this happened before the state assembly election results came in on April 6. The humiliating performance of the Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh and Goa and its defeat in Punjab has rendered it much weaker.

Thus, when Parliament resumed last week, a weaker Congress Party had to face fresh threats and challenges from its coalition partners. Ms. Banerjee has already taken two initiatives which should be cause for worry for the UPA. The first of these is her willingness to enter into consultations with the Samajwadi Party in order to find a suitable candidate for the office of President. The Samajwadi Party has made it known that the two parties are thinking of Dr. Abdul Kalam for the office once again. This way the Trinamul Congress, which is inside the UPA and the Samajwadi Party, which is offering support from outside, have pre-empted the Congress and taken an initiative. Also joining them to give the Congress Party some anxious moments is Mr. Sharad Pawar, leader of the Nationalist Congress Party, who has been making some vague observations about the qualifications expected of the next President. Though the election of President is due in July, the politics surrounding this election is already begun and for the moment it has unsettled the Congress Party. As if this is not enough, Ms. Banerjee has also announced a 15-day deadline for a central “package” for West Bengal, failing which she may even threaten to unsettle the coalition.

Given the precarious strength of the ruling coalition in the Lok Sabha and the whimsical ways of some of its constituents, the UPA will have to go out of the way to appease the opposition in order to have its way in Parliament. The position of the ruling coalition in the Rajya Sabha is even more precarious. The Congress has 70 MPs in the 245-member House and the UPA is at least a dozen short of a majority. It can get bills passed in that House only if it reaches an honourable understanding with the opposition parties. Following the moves made by the Samajwadi Party and the Trinamul Congress vis-à-vis the election of President, there is even talk that the Congress Party may do the unthinkable - sound the BJP on a possible arrangement regarding election of President and Vice-President in July and August this year, is order to deal with its recalcitrant allies.

The government will also come under severe attack during the session on two counts. The first is the issue of establishing the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC). The union government unilaterally decided to set up the centre and arm it with powers of search and seizure all over the country. Several state governments starting with Odisha, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and even West Bengal cried foul and said it violated the spirit of federalism. Under the Constitution, police and maintenance of law and order is the prerogative of the state governments and this is zealously guarded by the states. The states complain that the Union Home Ministry is trying to usurp some of these powers in the garb of fighting terrorism. The Centre’s stand is that the powers of the states have not been compromised. However, following widespread protests from states including those run by UPA constituents, the Centre had to beat a hasty retreat. A special meeting of chief Ministers has now been called in the first week of May to resolve this issue. The other issue on which the union government will be pilloried by all and sundry is the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill. Though the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, it ran into rough weather in the Rajya Sabha. If the government wishes to redeem itself in the eyes of the people who want firm anti-corruption measures, it will have to convince its allies and other parties and get the bill passed in the Upper House. Otherwise, this will become yet another black mark as far as the UPA is concerned.

Finally, as if all this is not enough, things have begun to look gloomy on the economic front. The global ratings agency Standard & Poor's has revised the outlook on India's long term sovereign rating to 'negative' from 'stable'. The decline in the country’s growth figures, the high fiscal deficit, the slow down on the economic reforms front and the country’s growing debt burden are said to be reasons for the downgrade that could impact foreign direct investment and the general global view of India’s economic strength. While one section of the government is keeping up a brave front – like Mr. C. Rangarajan, Chairman, Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council – that Standard and Poor’s will soon reverse and even “upgrade” India’s long term credit outlook, there are others who are less optimistic.

The government’s Chief Economic Advisor, for example, has virtually spilled the beans by talking about the difficulties in continuing economic reforms in the present political environment. Although he has sought to repair the damage done by initial reports about his speech at an academic institution in the U.S, the word has gone around that the UPA suffers from policy paralysis. In order to prove critics wrong, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee will go all out to secure parliamentary approval for the bills pertaining to pensions, insurance and banking. Further, the government will have to take a call on some controversial decisions like partial decontrol of diesel price, review of subsidies and FDI in retail, which has been put on hold because of opposition from coalition partners.

By any reckoning, it is clear that the UPA will only wobble along from now on until a fresh Lok Sabha election is held. Given the signals from West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh and from constituents like Mr. Sharad Pawar, this could well happen ahead of May 2014 when it is actually due. We will have to wait and see.

Author is Senior Fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation