Everybody’s man

Prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral has a firm handle on the demands of coalition politics. As much has been proven by his remarkable ability ...

Prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral has a firm handle on the demands of coalition politics. As much has been proven by his remarkable ability throughout his short tenure to bend whichever way his friends with the most potential for making trouble insisted.

But, on his last leg as Prime Minister, he is showing a remarkably poor understanding of the notion of responsibility for his own policies and, indeed, a lack of grip. What else can be said about a Janata Dal man who barely campaigned for his party? Not just that, Gujral campaigned in Bihar for CPI candidate and union agriculture minister Chaturanan Mishra, but failed to do so for Sharad Yadav in Madhepura for that would have affected his dear friend Laloo Yadav. Gujral is fast heading to become a unique Prime Minister in the annals of Indian politics, for all the wrong reasons. His claims to fame are worth recounting. A Prime Minister who needs the support of the Akalis, allies of his party’s arch foe, the BJP, to contest the Lok Sabha election. To top itall, a Prime Minister who, when provocatively asked by a journalist which party he belongs to, can say “No comment” in reply. Is the country to conclude that it is free to attribute whatever loyalties to him that it chooses? This must rank as the most outlandish example of V.P. Singh’s consensual and I.K. Gujral’s coalition politics. His party, which is at least nominally his party, should take note.

If Gujral’s party politics fascinates, his sense of responsibility for his own failings seems non-existent. For starters, his claim that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is responsible for pre-election terrorism in various places is too reminiscent of Indira Gandhi’s infamous foreign hand. Not that the ISI is to be viewed as the injured party. Its proven hand in so many disturbances makes it hardly unlikely that it would fish for trouble at election time. It can also be understood that in the interests of the investigation, the government may find it difficult to publicise what proof it has of the ISI’sinvolvement. But it is hardly too much to ask that the Prime Minister, no less, should get a handle on his facts. Gujral has alleged that the conspiracy in Jalandhar and the blasts in Kashmir and Kerala, where a factory was blown up, was part of an ISI conspiracy. And yet police sources are reported as saying there was no factory blast. If his reference was to an explosion in a warehouse in Thrissur, police deny suspecting sabotage and have no proof of it. Loose talk will not make the investigation any easier. Periodic outbursts against the ISI are no substitute for curbing its hyperactivity. And they do not detract from his government’s responsibility for repeatedly failing to fight terrorism.Most importantly, if at last Gujral has seen the folly of his “doctrine” for the conduct of relations with Pakistan, he should be honest enough to acknowledge this. He marketed it successfully at home, but Pakistan has yielded not an inch in return for misplaced Indian warmth. Gujral would have been better advised tosay he would like this policy to be abandoned by the next government instead of trying to win cheap points at election time.