The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

A successor to YSR
A huge challenge ahead for party

THE Congress high command deserves to be commended for the manner in which it has handled the clamour for the appointment of the late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy’s son Jagan Mohan Reddy as chief minister. The unseemly haste with which Mr Jagan Mohan’s supporters went about their agenda of having him installed as YSR’s successor was clearly in poor taste. While ministers and legislators scrambled in support of Mr Jagan Mohan even before the charismatic YSR’s body was laid to rest, the noisy demonstration by Congress activists in his support at a condolence meeting organised by the state Congress committee detracted from the solemnity of the occasion and was revolting.

An element of enforced sanity returned when the high command made it clear through its emissaries that it would not brook dissent. That all the members of the erstwhile council of ministers fell in line on the high command’s dictat and took oath as members of K. Rosaiah’s caretaker administration was heartening. The selection of a successor can and should wait until the seven-day state mourning is over.

At this stage, Mr Jagan Mohan’s supporters have relented, but there is a strong possibility that once the state mourning is over the power game would start again. It would be in the fitness of things for the high command not to buckle under pressure. Giving in to fast-growing regional satraps could well open a Pandora’s box and lead to repercussions in other states as well. At the same time, it never pays for the central command to impose an unpopular decision. Mr Jagan Mohan is yet very young and inexperienced and his proximity to some business interests does not inspire confidence as of now. He could well be a future leader but for now he needs to be counselled. A suitable incumbent must be found who evokes widespread respect and has the right credentials for governance. It would take all the tact on the part of central leaders to accomplish it with minimum heartburning and rancour.

A gentleman in politics
Brar stood up when required

MR Harcharan Singh Brar, who died on Sunday, aged 87, had been Punjab’s Chief Minister for barely 15 months. Within this short period he brought down the political temperature in the militancy-infested Punjab by shunning the politics of confrontation that his predecessor, Mr Beant Singh, had engaged in to corner the Akalis and terrorists. The soft-spoken and mild-mannered Mr Brar was temperamentally incapable of playing political games or hurting anyone. His aristocratic lifestyle separated him from scheming commoners in politics. Mr Brar was more suited for the office of Governor (which he held in Haryana and Orissa) than for chief ministership, which requires skills to manage and manipulate supporters with unbridled ambitions.

It came as no surprise, therefore, when Mr Harcharan Singh Brar was ousted from the office of Chief Minister in an undignified way in November, 1996, after some 40 MLAs revolted against his style of functioning. They were led by a more aggressive and pragmatic leader, Mrs Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, who was sworn in as the next Chief Minister. Two months later, Mr Brar was expelled from the Congress as he had unilaterally decided to pull out of the electoral contest from Muktsar. Mr Brar cited heart trouble as the reason. A few months later, he was booked on the charge of taking a bribe of Rs 25 lakh. Mr Brar must have left politics a disillusioned man.

Punjab’s Malwa region has produced two major political families — the Badals and the Brars. Mr Parkash Singh Badal is a shrewd, calculating politician, a master of politics — quite the opposite of Mr Harcharan Singh Brar. Yet when locked in a direct contest in Gidderbaha in 1967, Mr Brar defeated Mr Badal by 57 votes. They never faced each other again. As a minister, Mr Brar challenged the formidable Chief Minister Beant Singh on the water and power tariff issues. He could be polite but firm, when needed.

Thought for the Day

Night has a thousand eyes.

— John Lyly

ARTICLE

The Reddy phenomenon
He found an autonomous role for himself
by S. Nihal Singh

MR Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy’s death is a reminder of the evolving and changing pattern of relationship between state leaders and their national leaderships. In the halcyon Jawaharlal Nehru days, a man like West Bengal’s Dr B.C. Roy was a power to reckon with even in an age of tall leaders. In later years, the same state produced powerhouses such as Atulya Ghosh. Kamaraj Nadar of Tamil Nadu was a formidable force and men of the ilk of Govind Ballabh Pant were leaders in their own right before moving to the Centre.

The diminution of regional leaders belonging to national parties — in effect the Congress before the Bharatiya Janata Party joined its ranks - came about with the advent of Indira Gandhi after she had decisively won the intra-party battle. The national Congress leadership had always influenced the choice of regional leaders but the phrase “we leave it to her” took on a life of its own. The state leader remained chief minister at her pleasure; he was not merely the choice of the legislature party or the wishes of the larger voting constituency.

The Indira legacy has been kept alive to an extent by Ms Sonia Gandhi, once she assumed charge. To an extent, it is a question of balancing the various constituencies in the party and the state but a regional leader’s equation with the national Congress leader tips the scale for or against an aspirant. The remarkable aspect about Mr Reddy was that while remaining loyal to the First Family, he had carved out a unique autonomous role for himself. He won a second term in his state and, even more impressively, delivered in the 2009 Lok Sabha election.

One lesson of the Reddy phenomenon is that a leader’s clout in the party’s central leadership is dependent upon his vote-getting prowess. Traditionally, it has been true at the national level that the Congress party forgives its leader many of his or her sins provided he or she fulfils the all-important task of pulling in the votes. And in an era of more competitive politics, it also holds true for regional leaders as long as they do not display the ambition of carving out a totally autonomous role for themselves.

This is also the case with the BJP in the limited period it has been in power at the Centre although the rise of Mr Narendra Modi, given his hold on the Gujarat electorate, is a pointer to his oversized ambitions. The party has not been required to come to grips with this phenomenon, in view of its successive losses in two general elections. Some BJP leaders raised the slogan of Mr Modi being fit for the Prime Minister’s office in the general election campaign for their own ends. Mavericks apart, in seeking to discipline regional leaders, the overarching central leadership of the BJP must share power with its mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

In the Congress party, those who aspire to break the glass ceiling of the top job being reserved for the First Family — the Manmohan Singh experiment being the exception – must break away to form their own parties, as was the case with Mr Sharad Pawar and his Nationalist Congress venture, now living in an uneasy compact with the parent organisation.

Others who have rebelled have drifted into the political wilderness. Provincial or state parties are immune to this virus because their ken is limited and the question of passing on the leadership baton to the progeny is a relatively simple operation. Witness the gumption of Mr Parkash Singh Badal in Punjab in pre-empting the future by making his son Deputy Chief Minister, and there are other examples, as in the case of Tamil Nadu.

Mr Rajasekhara Reddy’s uniqueness was in relating himself to the largest rural community while balancing it with programmes of urban renewal and development. Like other strong leaders, he brooked no dissent, was often arbitrary in his actions and apparently favoured some realty firms over others. His ultimate recipe of success was that he delivered. He delivered votes for the Congress, he delivered succour to the farmer and he delivered development to the urban dweller, apparently on his own terms.

Mr Reddy’s untimely death left his son Jagan Mohan Reddy somewhat unprepared for succeeding his father, having only just being minted as a member of Parliament, leaving the central Congress leadership with the difficult task of facing local clamour for his immediate induction into office while making the right choice. The clamour is part emotional and part fuelled by vested interests, but the embarrassment for the national leadership is that Rajiv Gandhi was relatively inexperienced when he was catapulted into the Prime Minister’s chair and Mr Rahul Gandhi is apparently serving his apprenticeship for the same office. In Reddy Junior’s case, however, he is yet to earn his spurs and his business and media ventures have been controversial.

This generational change by heredity is not exceptional to India. Look at Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party, which has just lost power after its half-century of almost uninterrupted rule and its long line of sons and grandsons, including the next Prime Minister belonging to the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, inheriting office. But the institution of building leadership families complicates the task of the national Congress in choosing state leaders. Does Ms Sonia Gandhi give the post of Chief Minister to one obviously unprepared for the high office merely by virtue of his birth?

The complaint of Congressmen at the local level is that the princely heirs to political dynasties leave them less room to make their mark. But an able and intelligent leader can still shine if he or she can demonstrate effectiveness in governance and, what is often more important, in relating to the majority of his people. Indira Gandhi’s penchant for promoting her son Sanjay and a tribe of wheeler-dealers starved the Congress at the roots. Mr Rajasekhara Reddy proved that these roots could be revived and revitalised with hard work and political savvy. This will remain his most telling epitaph.

MIDDLE

Milkman and the Assembly
by Ehsan Fazili

EVERY morning my milkman has something to say while he pours in litres of milk from his huge can that he holds firmly in his left armpit. If there is nothing important happening around, he would talk about the day’s weather.

He is familiar with the news around, for his routine job is in the cluster of houses and residences of over two dozen newsmen and their offices. In fact, his clientele is spread over a area where he reaches everyone without fail. Even if one is not available he would definitely try to reach again during his second and third rounds.

I know him for the past about two decades now, during which period he has hardly missed any day of his duty. I do not remember if he had been able to deliver when the Lal Chowk was under siege when BJP top brass led by Murli Manohar Joshi had to unfurl the Tricolour at the Clock Tower on January 26, 1992.

The milkman, whose name I have never known though I tried to find it occasionally, did fail in August last year. He was stopped from entering the area by policemen posted to prevent “Lal Chowk Chalo” for four or five days in the aftermath of the Amarnath land agitation. Many of his customers in dire need, including me, had to drive to his place to fetch milk while everything else was closed.

Over the past few days he happened to miss me during his first morning round, since I had been getting ready for reaching the State Assembly in session. Or he had to wait for a few minutes till I got ready, while other family members were out to their schools. Thus, he had a piece of advice for me: “Change your timing”.

How could I do that since the timing of Assembly was rescheduled to begin an hour earlier at 9 a.m? So I rescheduled my time with him, after which he had no complaints.

Next day, he had a new piece of advice for me: “Be careful inside the Assembly”. He also sought to know whether the newsmen were sitting close to the members. I assured him that it was a “safe distance” in the new Assembly complex which had come up 27 years after its foundation stone had been laid but asked him what was wrong there. “Chairs are being hurled there. You might get hurt,” he said with genuine concern.

I smiled away saying that it was not going to happen as there was a good distance and no detachable chairs were there to get thrown. There was, however, the Speaker’s odd old type mike that was wrenched on the first day of this session.

OPED

Truth of Partition
Neither Jinnah nor Patel responsible
by N.K. Singh

THE present controversy on Jinnah and Patel is raging because neither politicians nor many in media have a flair for history or literature. When I asked some top leaders if they had read Azad or Albinia, they feigned ignorance.

The result is that the positions are being stated for and against Jaswant Singh without reading his voluminous book and research for five years as he claims.

My purpose is not to review his book nor fan the controversy but to unveil some aspects of truth which may sound weird but have authentic historical evidence.

On the basis of my reading of various documents, which I will quote briefly, I can say that the real man behind Partition of India was no other than the Governor General of India Lord Mountbatten. It was neither Jinnah nor Patel as is claimed by different warring groups.

First of all, let us clear Jinnah from this controversy. Alice Albinia in her research in “Empires of Indus” writes “Suave Loius Mountbatten, eager to assure himself a dashing role in history, had accepted the job of Indian Viceroy in February 1947 on one condition that by June following year Britain would be out of India. Mountbatten arrived in India in March. In June he made the startling announcement that India was to be divided — not next year as he had agreed in London, but in ten weeks time.”

Jinnah was taken by surprise when British conceded his demand for a separate state for Muslims – was he using the idea of a separate Muslim homeland as apolitical leverage, a bargaining tool? Jinnah, a Congressman, was disillusioned with Gandhi’s support to the Khilafit movement to win support of Muslim clergy Jinnah felt “he was inciting and encouraging religious frenzy.”

Despite his political success and national renown, Jinnah renounced politics and retired to London. He was persuaded to return in 1934 by which time the idea was mooted. “ Even three days before the declaration of Independence he declared in a speech “You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosque… you may belong to any religion or caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens in one state”.

Jinnah was not a secular but irreligious man. “He refused to whip up religious passions, continued to drink whisky, eat ham sandwiches and dress like a Brit.” A more authentic version of events is available in “India Wins freedom,” a precious book by one who contributed immensely to the national freedom movement. It was published after 30 years and kept under seal in archives as Azad did not want to hurt his colleagues in writing his side of the truth, which to a large extent is undisputed.

He has written “Lord Mountbatten took full advantage of the situation. Because of the dissensions among the members, he slowly and gradually assumed full powers. He still kept up the form of a constitutional Governor General but in fact he started to mediate between the Congress and the League to get his own way. He also began to give a new turn to the political problem and tried to impress on both the Congress and Muslim League the inevitability of Pakistan. He pleaded in favour of Pakistan and sowed the seeds of the idea in the minds of the Congress members of the Executive Council”.

Here I feel he interpreted the facts a little uncharitably in regard to Patel by squarely blaming him for falling for this ploy. He felt that Patel fell for this idea when Mountbatten initiated it while it had been given up even by the Muslim League and the Congress was dead against it.

Patel had a very frustrating experience in working with Liaqt Ali, who was heading Finance when he himself was the Home Minister. The idea of the Governor General that under the joint plan evolved by the Cabinet Mission to have state autonomy and joint management at the centre, eventually states will become strong and a weak centre is fatal to a large country like India. There was, therefore, no other alternative but to accept partition and unified central authority.

Patel, who was already committed to build a strong India, therefore, found this logic in tune with his thinking, especially in the background of his hatred for the Muslim League. He thought that Pakistan will be economically unviable and will wither away in due course.

He wished for a strong India and thought that the country could be built only with a strong centre and later on, by integrating the states, he showed his mettle and proof of his commitment.

Seeds of partition were sown by the British and, no doubt, finally everyone accepted it as they found no other alternative feasible to gain freedom from the British Raj.

Gandhi too acquiesced in this unwillingly. As Albinia sums up, “In August loath to spoil a good party, Mountbatten delayed the announcement of the noxious new borders until two day after Independence was declared. Only once he had made his speeches, had his photo taken and received his thanks, could killing begin”.

‘Public service reform costs money’
by Steve Richards

Instead of those silly pledge cards paraded by New Labour figures in advance of the 1997 election, every leading politician should carry a leaflet with ‘Public-service reform costs money. Reform cannot save money in the short term and may never do so’.

Once this message is accepted it will be possible to have a grown-up debate about how much we are willing to pay for public services and what shape they should take. Until then, we are stuck in a fantasy world in which public services are supposed to magically improve while saving the taxpayer billions of pounds.

Take the case of the NHS. As The Independent’s Ian Birrell has argued persuasively on these pages in recent weeks, the NHS is often inefficient, poorly managed and treats some patients with complacent disdain. His solution is more choice, competition from private providers, the scrapping of targets, a less “statist” approach and a cut in public spending. He also argues that treatment should still be free at the point of use, with a more market-based approach addressing inefficiencies and creating substantial savings.

But his support for a system in which treatment is free at the point of use has massive consequences which his free-market solutions do not address. A relationship between provider and patient in which there is no cash transaction means the government is still responsible for raising the overall level of spending that is available and the policy framework in which healthcare is delivered.

Ultimately, therefore, the government must answer for a service available to more than 60 million people who could fall ill at any time, and which, with an ageing population, will make increasingly high demands on any system.

There is no bigger responsibility and the decisions a government takes on our behalf in relation to the level of health funding are highly sensitive politically. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took a huge risk when they raise taxes in 2003 to pay for higher investment in the NHS. Blair briefly feared it would cost Labour the following election. Similarly, although it is the least risky option for David Cameron he will come under immense pressure if he wins the next election as a result of his pledge to increase NHS spending.

Many on the right will call on him to cut spending on health, along with the other cuts he is vaguely pledging to make. In government Cameron will, therefore, need to prove that his decision to increase investment in this one area is vindicated by improvements in the service. As a politician wary of the state he might wish to stand back from the institution, but as a leader who has already taken a controversial spending decision he will not be able to do so.

I am fine about this. It is called accountability. In the end national politicians must be held accountable for the decisions they take about how they are planning to spend our money. But those who loathe the state want politicians to keep out of the way while expecting them to put their necks on the line by raising the cash to maintain a system that is free at the point of use.

Obviously, a Prime Minister and his Chancellor cannot keep their eyes on how every penny is being spent. That means others must do so. They are called bureaucrats. There are too many of them in the NHS and other public bodies with a guaranteed income. I know the dangers I worked at the BBC for many years. But some bureaucrats are necessary to monitor how the money is spent. There are no cash transactions between patient and provider.

Therefore, there must be other intermediaries. Without them, even more money would be blown unaccountably.

If the health market is opened up fully to private providers a hundred thousand new bureaucrats would rub their hands with glee. New companies would be established to advise the private bidders on how to get the best deal from normally gullible Whitehall negotiators. Armies of lawyers would be involved in the negotiation of contracts, seeking the deals with the most profitable treatments. Accountants would have a field day. In order to establish genuine choice for patients a surplus of decent places in hospitals and GP surgeries must be available. There is no point in having a theoretical choice only to discover that the decent hospital is full.

The free market reformers argue that competition will raise standards and save costs. Perhaps it will over time, although the evidence in other fields does not suggest this will automatically be the case.

After the privatisation of the railways the costs for the taxpayer soared, partly because so many more outsiders were involved, often making the delivery of the service much worse. What is certain is that such drastic reforms would cost a lot of additional money in the short term and the government would still be heavily involved because it is responsible for raising the cash.

At least there is a fragile political consensus about the need for real-term increases on health. Of more immediate interest is how the Conservatives plan to fund their reforms of schools. The Conservatives propose to allow the establishment of so-called free schools based on the Swedish model, set up by parents or other providers. They would be funded entirely by the state. The proposal raises many issues n one of them is cost. In the short term at least there would be a surplus of schools, as free schools would be funded in new buildings with a full staff.

Existing schools would continue to function, presumably becoming sink schools fairly quickly, dealing with the troublemakers who would not be welcome in the new free schools.

The proposal is well intended and over time perhaps standards would be raised across the board, although I would not bet on it. If it is done properly I would gamble a fortune on it costing more than the current spending on schools.

Those who claim “reform” will save money immediately and improve public services have learnt nothing from the experiences of the past thirty years here and from other countries, including Sweden, which are more used to accepting that improvements cost money.

— By arrangement with The Independent

Delhi Durbar
Chidambaram monitored media briefing

AS the helicopter of the late Andhra Chief Minister YSR Reddy crashed last week, it was time for some tough talking in Delhi by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram. First, the Home Minister ensured that no wrong or erroneous information was disseminated through the media in Delhi or Hyderabad.

A state government official who said the chopper had landed safely was questioned by the Home Ministry officials about his source of information. He could not reply properly and was asked to keep quiet.

The same happened in Delhi when Civil Aviation Ministry officials were quoted saying the chopper had landed safely. The Home Minister made sure that the Civil Aviation Ministry did not speak out of turn.

Chidambaram cancelled all his appointments as the ministry’s control room in the North Block was used to direct one of the largest search operations in the history of India.

BJP may have to deliver twins

The media is full of news about problems in the BJP and how RSS leader Mohanrao Bhagwat, acting as an arbiter, has devised a succession plan for the party, whereby Leader of Opposition L.K. Advani will finally bow out and make way for a GenNext leader to become the LoP.

Simultaneously, BJP president Rajnath Singh too is under notice to vacate his chair since his tenure is coming to an end this December. But there is no unanimity in the BJP about the successors.

Everyone is banking on the RSS to solve this tangle, leading one BJP watcher to comment lightly that the party is undergoing birth pangs and the pregnancy is prolonging because it is to deliver twins—the party president and the LoP.

Finally, it may be a ceasarian delivery to be performed by Dr Mohan Bhagwat. Incidentally, Bhagwat is a qualified vet.

Secularism on display in Supreme Court

Secular credentials of the Supreme Court came to the fore time and again last week. A Bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju cautioned a lawyer against trying to equate the judges to any god.

The judge made it clear that the apex court stood for upholding secularism. The Bench made the remark after the lawyer said judges were like Lord Krishna for the legal fraternity.

A day or two later, the Chief Justice’s court was quick in directing the Uttar Pradesh government not to demolish three temples inside the Lucknow Central Jail.

The same day, another Bench of Justices DK Jain and RM Lodha upheld the Kerala High Court verdict that had set aside the election of PC Thomas to the Lok Sabha in 2004. Thomas had resorted to corrupt practices during the election by seeking support in the name of religion, besides committing other irregularities.

Contributed: by Ajay Banerjee, Faraz Ahmad and R. Sedhuraman