It’s not Laloo, stupid

The Congress was supposed to discuss seat-sharing in Bihar today. That was before the tsunami made it politically necessary for half the All-India Congress Committee to be seen flying across southern India. Once this media exercise is over, however, it will be back to business, tomorrow if not today. Which, as far as Bihar is concerned, means a settling of accounts with its ‘‘partners’’ in the Rashtriya Janata Dal. (Don’t rush to condemn the politicians for their crocodile tears; E.P. Unny’s report in this newspaper on Tuesday suggests that fans of the Chennai ‘‘season’’ were no less reluctant to disturb their routine of hopping between Carnatic kutcheris.)

Congressmen feel they were cheated in Bihar during the general election. Laloo Prasad Yadav was given a free hand by the Congress High Command. He interpreted this to mean that he could satisfy other alliance partners — chiefly Ram Vilas Paswan — at the expense of the Congress. By the time the dust settled, stunned Congressmen found that they had been allotted a mere four seats of the 40 Lok Sabha constituencies in the state. (Does anyone remember that as late as New Year’s Day of 1990 there was a Congress chief minister in Patna?) The Congress should raise a statue in honour of the cameraman who taped Laloo Prasad Yadav distributing largesse, thereby invoking the wrath of the Election Commission. The Election Commissioners’ threat of derecognising the Rashtriya Janata Dal altogether has pushed that party’s boss into a corner where he needs the Congress more than ever before. He also needs the CPI and the CPI(M) on his side — and don’t forget that the Left Front too was not happy with seat distribution in the Lok Sabha polls. A weakened Laloo Prasad Yadav means more seats for everyone. But this temporary advantage for the Congress and the Left Front comes at a terrible cost for Bihar, in fact for the country at large.

I think that a reading of the affidavit filed by the Government of India, by a ministry working under the nominal leadership of the “Mr Clean” of the Congress, says it all. The Union Government was asked by the Supreme Court to explain its stand on tainted ministers. It responded with the argument that the appointment of ministers is within the complete discretion of the prime minister and that morality was not a criterion! But that is the price to be paid if the Congress wants to keep a weaker Laloo Prasad Yadav in its camp rather than have a defiant chieftain walk out of the United Progressive Alliance.

Perhaps Laloo Prasad Yadav is more a symptom rather than the disease. The actual cancer eating away at the bowels of good governance is the Congress High Command’s single-minded focus on short-term tactics at the expense of strategic thinking. Did anyone think of the consequences before filing that idiotic affidavit in the Supreme Court? Come to that, is there anyone in Delhi who is prepared to rein in ambitious regional bosses?

It has been several months since the Congress chief minister of Punjab proclaimed “sovereignty” for his state. Does anyone think that other states which dispute the distribution of river waters shall not be emboldened by Punjab’s example and the Union government’s inertia?

What was the Congress chief minister of Andhra Pradesh thinking about when he made his state a safe haven for Naxalites? He may not have thought about the fallout in Maharashtra, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal, but why is the Union home minister equally silent? Shivraj Patil speaks of the Naxalite menace as a mere law-and-order problem rather than see it as the pan-Indian threat which it is in actuality.

It suits the Congress to have a weak Rashtriya Janata Dal chief in Bihar. Does it also suit some in the party to have a weak prime minister and home minister in Delhi? I hope 2005 shall be better than 2004, but given the leadership on offer who can tell? Happy New Year! (I hope and pray!)