Round The States

New Delhi, 9 December 2023

Cong Results & INDIA Bloc

WB, BIHAR EYE OPPORTUNITY

By Insaf 

The losses in four States, especially in Hindi heartland of Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh for the Congress should not only make it but the INDIA bloc partners to think and think seriously and aloud. For there’s no time for bickering or blame game as heard soon after the results were out. Some parties had their knives pointed at Congress, though not openly. Importantly, two Chief Ministers, West Bengal’s Mamata Banerjee and Bihar’s Nitish Kumar seem to have seen an opportunity. The two appear to have gone into top gear and consider themselves now steering the Opposition ship. Working on seat-sharing agreements must be the top of the agenda for the bloc is what Mamata has insisted upon for the next meeting to be held later this month. Recently, Congress President Kharge’s invite for the 4^th bloc meeting this week had few takers. Seat-sharing formula must be top priority and it must be a 1:1 fight with the BJP, it has insisted. Besides, candidates must be given sufficient time for campaigning and gauging the situation on the ground for battle 2024 ahead, only months away. 

The TMC’s opinion was shared at a meeting of Opposition leaders this week to work out strategy for the ongoing Parliament winter session. Upset about the halt of meetings due to Congress being preoccupied and partners fighting against each other in these polls, sending a wrong message, the party has also sought ‘establishing a collective narrative and finalising the manifesto to mount a credible challenge against BJP’. Likewise, the JD(U) is seeking to gain importance with Congress debacle. The party is suggesting that Nitish Kumar be made the ‘convenor’ of the INDIA bloc as his image makes him ‘the best fit.’ And more so as he would match up to Modi! The Congress is upset and out alright but certainly not down. It argues that though it was defeated in these three states its vote share has been intact. Well, the bloc must weigh the option ahead: should it cry over spilt milk or rather should it be safe than sorry! 

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Telangana Challenge

Telangana has the Congress finally in and BRS out. With the “people’s mandate” going the former’s way, on Thursday last it installed its state party chief, A Revanth Reddy, as its first Chief Minister, with Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka as Deputy. Ousted CM and BRS chief, KCR was not only stopped him from hitting a hat trick but his plans too of becoming a national leader by changing the party name from TRS. While he becomes history, the going is tough for Revanth Reddy as the burden of fulfilling the party’s ‘six guarantees’, is far too heavy with the state said to be reeling under a debt of Rs 5 lakh crore. The guarantees, having got the go-ahead include, free travel for women in state run buses (under Rs 6000 crore losses) which will cost Rs 2,500 crore annually; Rs 2 lakh farm loan waiver will cost at least Rs 35,000 lakh crore for next five years for 42 lakh farmers; Rs 15,000 to farmers and Rs 12,000 to farm workers under Rythu Bharosa guarantee scheme per acre annually will cost Rs 1 lakh crore! Will Prime Minister Modi’s X post “…I assure all possible support to further progress of the state and citizens welfare” give some hope? The answer needs no guessing. 

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Rajasthan Drama

Nagging suspense lingers in the three Hindi heartland States over who will be their BJP chief ministers. Amidst this wait and watch, intriguing attempts are being made for the hot seat in Rajasthan particularly, with senior BJP leader and two-time Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje camping in Delhi. While she claimed she came ‘to visit my daughter-in-law,’ over 60 of the newly elected MLAs have met her at her residence in past 48 hours. Guess, a show of strength is the message, but efforts in Jaipur may turn out controversial. Such as father of an MLA Lalit Meena has claimed his son along with four others had been ‘confined in a resort’ by Raje's son MP Dushyant Singh on Thursday last, after h had brought them to meet Raje. However, he managed to get all five to leave the resort after party organisational secretary and others were informed. Raje is among the frontrunners for the CM post, with names of Diya Kumari, Mahat Balak Nath, and Rajyavarardhan Singh Rathore doing the rounds. Raje would be well versed with the saying there can be many a slip between the cup and the lip.

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Mizo Clean Slate

It’s not just a clean sweep victory but wiping out the Mizo National Front (MNF) and the Congress which ruled the border state of Mizoram for four decades. The Zoram People’s Movement (ZPM) with chief Lalduhoma, former police officer, who served as in-charge of former prime minister Indira Gandhi’s security, took over the reins of power on Friday last, winning 27 of the 40-seat Assembly. The ZPM’s USP: young voters (62%), promising a corruption-free alternative and a “new system” of “administrative reforms, land reforms, economic reforms”. Incumbent Chief Minister Zoramthanga submitted his resignation to not just the Governor but also the party as its president after a 33-year-long stint on Tuesday last, taking moral responsibility for the debacle. The MNF, in existence for over 60 years, which won only 10 seats now, refused to accept his resignation. The Congress, which had ruled the State for 25 years, managed to win only one seat and the BJP just two. Importantly, 9 of the 11 MNF ministers who contested the polls lost. Jubilation in the ZPM camp alright, but will it able to deliver is a million dollar question. 

*                                               *                                               *                                               *

Southern Cyclone

Cyclone Michuang has played havoc with Tamil Nadu’s capital, Chennai and suburbs in adjoining districts. Other than death and destruction, sadly it opened the floodgates for the Opposition to hit out at ruling DMK, accusing it of poor relief work. The AIADMK particularly questioned Stalin government’s claim of implementing a Rs 4,000 crore storm water drain project in the city as ‘of 35,000 key interior roads under the city corporation, 20,000 were still inundated.’ It demanded a white paper be released, but the denial mode came into play. “Relief work was expedited; efforts to pump out stagnant water were on; drinking water, milk, milk powder, bedsheets and food were dispatched to affected areas,’ claimed the government. Importantly, it sought interim relief of Rs 5,060 crore from Centre, detailing the damage caused ‘in northern districts of Chennai, Tiruvallur, Kancheepuram and Chengalpet viz roads, bridges, public buildings and livelihood of lakhs of people affected. A detailed report will follow and additional funds would be sought, said Stalin’s letter to Prime Minister Modi on Tuesday last. It further sought a central team be sent to assess the damage. Will New Delhi oblige?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 8 December 2023

India’s Foreign Policy

FROM NON TO MULTI-ALINGMENT!

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

The erudite and articulate foreign affairs minister S Jaishankar has of late been stressing the multi-polarity in world politics that requires a multi-alignment approach. Probably he means that configuration of world powers has drastically changed causing a few global powers emerging on the scene. So non-alignment between two blocks in a bipolar world as it was, should give way to engaging with various power centres. This certainly merits a deeper evaluation. Interestingly, the foreign policy for the first in recent years, such as the success of G-20 in New Delhi, became a campaign point in the recent State elections.   

Foreign policy of any country is essentially a manifestation of its national imperatives. They are defined by international political observers, commentators, academics and diplomats as determinants, objectives, principles and national interests. India’s foreign policy, likewise, has been shaped by and has evolved as reflection of such priorities, and more important, in response to the prevalent world order. 

The evolution of India’s foreign policy since 1947 till date could be divided into several phases in various ways. Let us take two formats for segmenting India’s foreign policy. One is to divide it into six phases. The first phase (1947-62) could be described as optimistic Non-Alignment. India got independence in 1947, two years after the end of Second World War when international politics got divided into two camps – one led by the US and the other by the former Soviet Union. India was wary of the Western powers which were colonisers and wanted to stay away from them. 

Strategically also, India did not wish to belong to any camp. The independent stance stemmed from its long and gruelling freedom struggle. Thus, India founded the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) in 1961, which, in a way, was the zenith of solidarity in the Third World which was getting decolonised. However, the 1962 war with China changed that position as India had to seek military help from US and Britain. 

The unexpected war with China and its consequence led to the second phase of Realism and Reorganising (1962-71). New Delhi had to look beyond Non-Alignment in the interest of national security, concluding a now largely forgotten defence agreement with the US in 1964. Later, India faced pressures from the US and UK on Kashmir. At the same time, Pakistan was becoming an ally of the United States. New Delhi then perforce had to tilt towards the Soviet Union which led to the third phase. 

The third phase (1971-91) consisted of India’s assertion as a regional power based on self-reliance. India showed remarkable strategic autonomy and use of hard power in liberating East Pakistan (Bangladesh) in 1971 war against Pakistan. The emergence of US-China-Pakistan axis posed multiple challenges for India. Recognising the security risks, New Delhi signed a Peace and Friendship Treaty with Soviet Union. Geo-political and domestic upheavals in 1990s necessitated a strategic shift in India’s foreign policy. The Gulf War (1991-91), the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991) and the economic stagnation at home causing a balance of payment crisis led India to rethink its foreign policy. 

The fourth phase, safeguarding the strategic autonomy (1991-98) came into play. The strategic autonomy manifested conspicuously in exercising its nuclear option (Pokhran-II) in 1998. The emergence of the US as a sole super power also prompted India to change its course. India reached out to engage with the US, Israel and Asean countries. 

In the fifth phase (1998-2013), India acquired the attributes of a balancing power and began to be seen as the counterweight to China, a new economic power. This recognition could be reflected in India-US Nuclear Agreement in 2008. At the same time, India maintained its traditional ties with Russia and made ‘common cause’ with China in BRICS and SCO. 

The sixth phase turned India to multi-alignment (2013-till now). This current strategy emanates from India’s self-realisation of its capabilities and geo-political significance in the existing world politics influenced largely by rise and threat of China. To name a few of India’s power-indicators; it is one of the major world economies (fifth largest), a big technology power (software), global player in certain major issues like climate change (Paris Agreement), anti-terrorism (peace-broker) and a regional power – SAGAR, Act East, BIMSTEC, QUAD, and so on. 

The second format phasing India’s foreign policy consists of three strategies. Nehruvian idealism (1947-62); during this period, India regarded ethics and rule-based order as the guiding principles enshrined in the international institutions. That is why perhaps India took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations, signed the Panchsheel Agreement with China (remember Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai mood sweeping across the country), built NAM which was marked by anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti-racism. 

The war with China changed dramatically India’s foreign policy. New Delhi shifted to strategic realism (1962-1991). In this phase, India gave shelter to Dalai Lama to the chagrin of China; India was critical of US action in Vietnam, India liberated Bangladesh in 1971, sent troops to Sri Lanka (IPKF) to quell the Tamil separatist movement, although on hindsight, it was a strategic mistake. 

In the third phase following the foreign currency crisis in 1991, India embraced the policy of economic pragmatism, which primarily meant focussing on India’s growth and development. Following such strategy, India did business with China despite the lingering border disputes, continued arms trade and other imports from Russia despite latter’s decline as a world power and falling out with US, carried on trade even with Pakistan although to a less volume than before. New Delhi negotiated both with Israel and adversarial Arab States. 

From the historical overview of India’s foreign policy, I would like to draw two broad distinct phases in terms of strategy, one non-alignment and the other, multi-alignment. It is to be noted that non-alignment was sought to be worked into “genuine Non-Alignment for a brief period, two-and-half years under Janata Party rule (1977-79)”. It is also worth noting that the Latin American countries seem to be emulating India’s non-aligned strategy re-christening it as “active Non-Alignment” which partly shaped their reactions to the war in Ukraine. 

This policy emerged in 2019 and is still being laid out as a framework of their foreign policy in response to the challenges posed by US-China competition. It means not accepting a priori position of any of great power in conflict. The term ‘active’ refers to a foreign policy in constant search of opportunities, a kind of nimble approach. 

In India’s journey from non-alignment to multi-alignment, is there any room for re-alignment? Recognising the popular aphorism, “people become wiser after the event”, non-alignment was a flawed policy from the word go. If Nehru wanted to stay away from Western powers, why did he stay in the Commonwealth which was created and headed by Britain? In a world, in which countries are inter-dependent as well as antagonistic, it was not feasible to be non-aligned. The non-viability of the strategy was exposed many times in India’s conduct of its foreign policy – 1956 (invasion of Hungary), 1962 (China war), 1968 (attack on Czechoslovakia), 1971 (post-Bangladesh war) and so on. 

Multi-alignment is stating the obvious. No country can function in isolation. Politics is global although strategies in actions are national. Multi-alignment as a strategy seems nebulous; it needs to be clearly defined. Going with everyone conceptually appears to be confusing two potential allies, actual friends and partners. What is therefore needed is re-alignment in India’s foreign policy in keeping with its long-term national interests. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 6 December 2023

Regional Imbalance

WILL FINANCE PANEL BRIDGE GAP?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The BJP’s victory in three states appears to suggest the promise of development via ‘double engine’ sarkar has takers. And the timing should make the task of the 16^th Finance Commission, recently recommended by the Union Cabinet to be set up, easier. It is to decide on sharing of taxes between the states and Centre. States are entitled to 41% share of the divisible pool, which comprises all taxes, excluding the cesses and surcharges. However, they have been demanding a larger share of the pie, arguing they are burdened by many schemes announced by the Centre. On its part, the Centre believes it’s funding several schemes, such as health and education is part of the States’ mandate. The difference of opinion may steadily disappear now.    

The existence of regional imbalance in India cannot be denied as there has not been balanced development. As in the case of literacy and educational attainment, where the states of southern India are far ahead than others, similarly in financial matters, states in the western part as well as Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the south are stronger than their counterparts. The pace of growth in the two southern states and in Maharashtra and Gujarat has been phenomenal in recent years and experts believe their performance may be even better in the coming years. 

The per head income of states such as West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand and Odisha is far below the national average. In fact, the per head income of Bengal has been one of the lowest in the country in 2022-23 at Rs 141,373 whereas in Telangana, Karnataka and Haryana it’s more than double. These are indicative of regional imbalances in economic development. The Centre’s strategy of tackling this has not been successful enough and India suffers from a strategy of balanced economic development. 

Prior to liberalisation, the Centre’s efforts yielded some results with the economic emergence of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh (undivided), and Haryana and helped the hilly and smaller states to stand on their own. But presently, the government has hardly any means of restricting regional imbalances. If is left on the market forces and in all likelihoodimbalances in the standard of living of people in different states shall reach a crisis proportion. By 2047, some states will be as prosperous as some East European nations while most others will be comparable to some central African nations. 

According to the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) estimate, the average GDP per head in India, based on purchasing power parity, was $9,073 in 2023 which came to around Rs 213,215. It is indeed distressing to note that an emerging country like India ranks 127^th and is in the league of small and virtually unnoticed nations like Laos (125), Cape Verde (126) and Bangladesh (128). 

Undeniably, in the coming years some parts of the country will be more equal than others due to the uneven nature of development. An aver­age person in Telangana, Kar­na­ta­ka or Goa will be having more or less a similar standard like those living in the west, comparable to say today’s Hungary or Croatia. Thus, the relative diffe­rences in the economic condi­tions of different states will be more differential than what it is today. 

The present determination to make India the third largest economy of the world after the US and China is obviously a positive development. India’s per capita GDP increased from $442 in 2000 to $2389 in 2022, which is considered quite impressive. But what has been of great concern is the widening inequality in incomes along with regional, spatial and gender disparities. Unless the laggard states can increase their incomes, even if the achievement becomes a reality, the development would not be balanced. 

India’s human development index, which is a composite of incomes, health and education, has been falling rapidly. The nation’s current rank is 132 among 191 countries, which indeed is quite shameful since India is aspiring to be among the top nations of the world. A recent UNDP report found that India’s economic inequalities in wealth and income to be among the highest in the world, which obviously goes against the concept of inclusive growth. Regionally, states comprising 45 percent of the population contain 62 percent of the poor. 

Thus, the importance of the 16^th Finance Commission comes into play. Obviously, the poorer states would be given a larger chunk of funds compared to the performing ones but this strategy, adopted by the earlier Finance Commission, hasn’t yielded expected results. The high growth states continue to make rapid strides in their incomes while only Odisha has shown some promise among the poor states. 

Economic justice demands that the Finance Commission allocate tax proceeds in such a way that the rich states subsidise the poor. Then there is the Backward Region Grant Fund (BRGF) which is implemented in 272 identified backward districts in all states to redress regional development imbalances. Besides, there’s the Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana (PMKKKY), launched in September 2015 for the welfare of tribals and tribal areas and others affected by mining. But all these have not had any significant impact in boosting up the said incomes. 

India’s geographical diversity and different levels of development across regions mean that location specific targeted action would be required in less prosperous regions to ensure a minimum acceptable level of prosperity. The NITI Aayog has aThree-Year Action Agenda which underlined specific action for north Himalayan states, North-Eastern states, coastal regions and islands, desert and drought prone areas. There is obviously the need for implementing this action plan in a diligent and judicious manner. 

The belief that giving more funds to the poor states would result in a shift in the composition of India’s GDP away from agriculture has not become a reality as movement of labour from agriculture and from rural to urban areas has not taken shape. Thus, the inequality among states remains a big challenge, which needs to be seriously looked into and, it would be better, if the responsibility is given to the Finance Commission to suggest ways of improving the per capita income of the laggard states.     

Making agriculture more lucrative through value-addition and setting up agro-based industries may need to be considered. Though there may not be much scope for large-scale industrialisation and thrust on manufacturing in some states, they could concentrate on agro-based and cottage industries as also various types of ancillary products which may have a lucrative export market. Additionally, the electronics and IT sector could set up small hubs in various states as well small pharma manufacturing centres to meet regional demands. 

Economists and financial analysts are unanimous that merely providing funds will not help, unlessit’s supported by a plan, which the laggard states may be advised to follow. Accordingly, there’s anurgent need to frame some mechanism to boost incomes of the non-performing states and bridge the gap.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 5 December 2023

WANTED: OPPOSITION THAT WORKS

By Inder Jit

(Released on 23 June 1981) 

The Opposition has none but itself to blame for coming to grief once again. It seems to have learnt nothing and unlearnt nothing from its bitter experience. The final results of the recent by-elections show that the Opposition parties could have done a lot better if only these had come to some understanding between themselves. In UP alone, the Opposition together polled more votes than the Congress (I) in three Lok Sabha seats: Allahabad, Bareilly and Mirzapur. But it had lost the battle even before the first shot was fired. Mrs. Gandhi need not have taken the trouble she took to campaign for her party candidates. But as India’s shrewdest politician she understood the importance of the by-elections and went all out to win them. Psychologically, triumph at the polls was vital for her. Prices have spurted all round since she returned to power. Law and order situation has deteriorated. Unemployment has continued to mount. It was, therefore, imperative for her to prove that the people still have faith in her. And, there is no viable alternative to the Congress (I) yet. 

The Opposition’s latest poll debacle has brought together the leaders of the Lok Dal, Congress (U), Bharatiya Janata Party and Janata Party --- at least in issuing a joint statement. Mr. Charan Singh, Mr. Devaraj Urs, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. Madhu Dandwate have asserted that “the age of free democratic elections is over” and it was time for all those committed to the democratic process to sit up and take serious note. “Unlimited and unimaginable amounts of money,” according to them, had been distributed in the by-elections which were also marked by “blatant misuse of government machinery and police, wholesale rigging, booth capturing and unabashed violence.” Further, for the first time in free India, the Prime Minister had canvassed in the by-elections, broken a convention and “intimidated” the electorate. All in all, the Congress (I) had “gone to any extent” to ensure its victory and thereby sown the “seeds of anarchy” and made a “mockery of parliamentary democracy.” 

The charges are grave and unprecedented. Significantly, the CPI General Secretary, Mr. Rajeswara Rao, too, has accused the Congress (I) of “blatant misuse of official machinery, violation of all democratic norms and values, use of money power and goondaism.” Many of these charges will require to be checked for veracity. One thing alone is established. Mrs. Gandhi violated what she herself described as a convention by campaigning in the by-elections. Some apologists for the ruling party have argued that it was not realistic to expect the Congress (I) to go to the polls without its star vote-catcher canvassing for votes. Yet, the fact remains that the Prime Minister’s campaign at a time when the Congress (I) is enjoying a big majority at the Centre and in UP and elsewhere amounted to telling the voters: Vote for the Congress (I) or else. The convention ensures what the Constitution provides: a poll which is not only free and fair but also without fear! Nehru upheld it boldly and refrained from campaigning, for instance, in the Lok Sabha by-elections from Amroha, Kannauj and Rajkot in 1963 even though he wanted to keep Acharya Kripalani, Dr. Lohia and Mr. Masani out. 

Nevertheless, a question that needs to be put to Mr. Charan Singh, Mr. Urs, Mr. Vajpayee, Mr. Dandwate and Mr. Rajeswara Rao and their parties is: why could they not see what was possibly coming and take appropriate, advance measures to prevent blatant misuse of machinery and much else that is alleged? Why could they not act in time --- and why must they only react? The post-event statements of the five leaders appear to have been issued mainly on the basis of many grave allegations made by Mr. H.N. Bahuguna in regard to the by-election in Pauri-Garhwal. Yet one fact stands out. Mr. Bahuguna had warned the country days before the poll of what might happen in his constituency. Sadly enough, no one took any serious notice of these warnings --- notice which could surely have been taken by the Opposition parties singly or unitedly irrespective of their personal attitude towards the controversial Mr. Bahuguna. 

What could the Opposition have done? The answer is not far to seek, as shown by a pre-poll consensus among some thinking people anxious to strengthen our young democracy. The Opposition, it was agreed, could have responded meaningfully to Mr. Bahuguna’s virtual S.O.S. by dispatching a top-level team of observers representing various parties to see things for themselves in Pauri-Garhwal prior to the polling and on the poll day itself. In addition, the parties could have associated with such a team non-party and non-power seeking organizations such as Citizens for Democracy, Voters’ Council, Gandhi Peace Foundation and Lok Sevak Sangh. The other words, the principal Opposition parties now wailing over the alleged happenings in Pauri-Garhwal could have ensured that the vote was free and fair irrespective of their attitude towards Mr. Bahuguna. It was clearly for these proclaimed democrats to show what they stood for: an equal chance at the polls to even one’s worst opponent. 

The Opposition’s characteristic failure to respond in time to the developing situation in Pauri-Garhwal goes to the heart of the matter. (Mr. Bahuguna’s statements and the alleged threat to his life are only one part of the story. Pauri-Garhwal witnessed before the poll an incredible star-spangled show by the Congress (I): Six State Chief Ministers and two score and more of other Ministers were campaigning at one time in addition to Mrs. Gandhi). The Opposition must realize that its approach to the public, by and large, leaves a great deal to be desired. First things are not being tackled first. The Opposition today lacks the people’s confidence as never before. In 1977, the common man asserted his power and gave the Opposition a chance to prove its mettle. But this opportunity was recklessly thrown away. Worse, the lesson of 1980 has not been learnt. Its leaders have done little to rebuild their credibility and show they are now putting the country before self. 

Annual party sessions, occasional public meetings and press conferences have their importance. Unfortunately, however, most Opposition leaders, like those of the Government, often read more into the crowds at their meetings than is justified. The common man turns up at these meetings mainly to give himself a break from his normal dreary existence. The public meeting is for him essentially in the nature of a mela or a tamasha, depending upon the weather and his mood --- and no index of his commitment. (A veteran recalls Nehru once asking Bakshi Ghulam Mohd about his following in Kashmir. Pat came the reply: “25 lakhs.” Nehru “What about Sheikh Sahib?” The Bakshi replied “25 lakhs.” Puzzled, Nehru remarked: “I don’t understand.” The Bakshi replied: “Our people flock to listen to whosoever is on the platform!”) A question which thus arises is: Is the Opposition doing enough to build its credibility and offer itself as a viable alternative to the Congress (I)? 

The answer on both scores is regrettably a big “no”. True, the Opposition leaders swear by various democratic norms and ideals. However, they seldom follow up their proclaimed commitments through convincing deeds, as shown, for instance, by the case of the CPM Ministries in West Bengal and Kerala. As everyone knows, the Jyoti and the Nayanar Ministries are under attack. New Delhi could, if it so willed, carry out the threat held out by some Central ministers on visits to Calcutta and Trivandrum and topple the two Governments. But the Opposition leaders, barring an exception or two, have done little to stand up for the basic principles that must guide Centre-State relations ---- and make it clear that they would oppose tooth and nail any unconstitutional attempt to cut short a lawfully elected Government. The Opposition parties may have their differences with the CPM. But these could be agitated separately. The important thing for the Opposition is to carry conviction among the masses that it means what it says and, if necessary, is even willing to shed blood for the other man’s right to disagree. 

The Opposition parties could easily take a leaf out of the British book once again and prove that it means business as shown by its newly formed Socialist Democratic Party. Although born yesterday, the SDP has decided to put up one of its leading lights from Warrington in a bye-election to the Commons on July 16. The constituency is known to be a Labour stronghold and, according to Mrs. Shirley Williams, it would be “a miracle if the SDP wins.” Nevertheless the party has put up the well-known Mr. Roy Jenkins for the poll to prove, according to the London Times, “the seriousness of its challenge to the Labour and the Conservative parties.” Adds the Times: And, Mr. Jenkins took no persuading that the honour of appearing as the first standard-bearer properly fell to him.” Mr. Jenkins, for his part, underlined the importance of the fight when he said: “our sights as a party are very high. We want to show a way out from the old debilitating politics of outdated dogmatism, remote from the thoughts of ordinary people and encouragement of false class confrontation which have bedeviled this country”.

In sharp contrast, the Opposition in India is not only failing itself but also the country. Like the SDP in the UK, it should have moved heaven and earth to put up prestige fights at least in some seats to carry conviction among the people about their serious intent to challenge the Congress (I). The BJP, which seems to be viewed as an emerging alternative, could have surely come forward with some top-level candidates just to register a point, even if the other parties were unwilling to oblige. The Janata, too, has allowed its case to go by default. But all this need not cause despair. As the saying goes, there is always another day. The Metropolitan Council elections in Delhi, which are already overdue, offer another opportunity to the Opposition. Again, the Opposition parties could come together in Parliament and help restore their credibility through coordinated functioning on major issues. In the final analysis, there is a crying need today for an Opposition which not only stands for parliamentary democracy but also an Opposition that works.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)