India still learning to cope with coalition culture: PM

A: The situation is interesting. The positive side is that I have never seen a Cabinet functioning more smoothly than this and I have also been a member of a single-party Government. The discussions on the Cabinet table are very wholesome and yet there is not a single opinion – and I am emphasizing, not a single opinion – which is ultimately not unanimous.

Q: Then how do the dissensions appear when the same leaders participate in parliamentary debates?

A: Ultimately the character and anatomy of a coalition is bound to be different from that of a single party. We are still in the process of learning the coalition culture. The other point to remember is that we haven’t merged. We are coalescing. And when you are coalescing, every party has also to take care of its own identity.

Q: Parliament seems to have become polarized in three different camps with the Congress and the Left tugging at the United Front in different directions.

A: This is inevitable in democratic politics. Every political party has a right to aspire to be in power. There is nothing wrong with it and it does not upset me. Since 1989, we have come to a stage when no political party is able to get a clear mandate. And I think this trend is likely to continue.

Q: But the strain of heading a government of disparate factions has been showing. You lost your temper once or twice.

A: I usually do not lose my temper. Normally I do not get provoked. But, sometimes…

Q: This only means the UF needs to have better floor management in Parliament. Do you agree this has been a shortcoming?

A: It could be. This has happened on one or two occasions, particularly with the insurance bill. The understanding between the Finance Minister and the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party was that they would support it. The Finance Minister tells me that the assurance was given to him by the leader of the Opposition and Jaswant Singh. But due to their internal compulsions the BJP at the last moment decided not to support it. Obviously, the party could not carry their own rank and file with them. If the BJP had not given the assurance, we would have waited till the Congress MPs came back, since they were supporting the Bill. As far as the Left party MPs are concerned, that thing can always happen. Nobody can guarantee they will support us on every issue.

Q: Will the other bills proposed for this session be introduced?

A: They will come up whenever they have to. We are in a comfortable majority, remember that (smiles).

Q: How is the coordination committee between the UF and the Congress functioning?

A: It was to be coordination and not a coordination committee. Now the Congress president and I are able to talk to each other as often as we want. That helps. There is no lack of communication. I find the Congress playing a constructive role.

Q: There have been reports about the Congress proposing to share power with the UF. At what stage is it?A: Nobody has ever talked to me about this. Nobody has talked to me from either side.

Q: In your Bombay speech you spoke about the stature of politicians greatly diminishing. The Maharashtra Governor, Dr P C Alexander said people are becoming cynical about politicians as a whole. Does all this worry you?

A: Cynicism is there, which I regret. But I think the media has contributed a lot in bringing about this cynicism. The media looks at things in a very negative fashion and this is not a healthy trend.

Q: Could you elaborate? After all we have a free press…

A: Free yes, that is why I never spell out on what I think should be the role of the media. I think the media has to have new norms of professionalism. I feel the reverse of the dictum that `news is sacrosanct and views are free’ is happening in India. Sometimes I feel both (views and news) are tailored. There is also a change since the role of the Editor has diminished over the years. The owners have taken over. The Editor as an institution has vanished.

Politics is passing through a very difficult phase. What is causing concern is things like corruption. The nexus between criminals and politicians. Two years ago, I wrote to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to set up an ethics committee. I had suggested that before being sworn in every MP should be asked to file details of his assets and liabilities, as well as his bio-data which will include details about how many times he has been prosecuted on what charges etc.

Then the ethics committee would decide on whether he is fit to occupy a seat in this temple of democracy or not.

Now I see we have found a very safe alibi in Parliament by saying this matter and that matter is `sub-judice’. Once a woman was murdered in the house of an MP and the husband made an allegation about the MP being involved.

No action was taken because the case was `sub-judice’. Another MP forged the passport of his wife and sold it. No action. Sub-judice.

That is how things are ignored. Unless we set up some norms we will never be able to eradicate corruption and criminalisation in politics.

Q: Now that you are Prime Minister, why don’t you revive the ethics committee?

A: An ethics committee was set up three months ago. But if the general approach of the committee is that a criminal of my party is all right, but the criminal of another party is bad, then where is the consensus?

Q: You have earlier held the view that activism of the judiciary had gone too far and that the investigating agencies were being over-zealous in prosecuting politicians. Do you still maintain this view?

A: Over-zealousness is not so dangerous as under-zealousness, though of course, ultimately it will all settle down to something. But one of the reasons why the judiciary has become active or an activist is because the executive has been failing. So I do not blame the judiciary entirely.

Q: Is the political class nervous about the so-called rampant judicial activism?

A: Why should I be nervous? And by and large what is wrong? It is, after all in the judiciary’s interest not to transcend its area of functioning. More involvement in the day-to-day administration is not good for the judiciary itself. They have their own problems. There are huge arrears of cases.

Q: You have said you want transparency to be the keyword of your tenure. What about transparency in the functioning of investigating agencies like the CBI?

A: Transparency in investigation sometimes prejudices the investigation itself because you may pre-judge a person before he is convicted. Look at the Jain hawala case. Many people were damaged and even their political careers were damaged.

Ultimately, they got acquitted. A trial by the media is not in the overall interest of the country. The reputation of people should not be damaged on bits of information.