The drama of a manufactured political crisis has gone on for well over a week now. When it began, given the initial firmness of the Congress' tone, it had promised to be over in no time at all. Uncertainty would have persisted, but the country could then still look forward to getting on with life, and a caretaker or new government could have got down to the humdrum if crucial job of governance. That promise stands belied. This government, if ever it worked or was allowed to work, can no longer make even a bow in the direction of the imperative to govern. The Lok Sabha's sine die adjournment means that no legislative transaction can be forecast for the near future, poll or no poll. The rupee can go into free fall if it has a mind to do so. The world may be sick with worry about the possible impact of the South-East Asian crisis: India's politicians do not have the time. The Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill must wait a little longer yet to see the light of day, as must the move to reserve seats in Parliament and state legislatures for women. It goes without saying that a government on its deathbed can hardly do anything about this. But surely Indians have the right to know whether governance must grind to a dead halt each time a political crisis strikes, when one does strike every six months or so? Political uncertainty of a chronic nature is one thing; an extended time-out for government, as it were, is quite another. Even as things stand, government in India is all too often at a standstill. The number of government holidays is probably next only to that of Sri Lanka, which has the dubious distinction of having more public holidays than working days. The country at large is gearing up for the year-end vacation. With the politicians also on mass leave as far as running the country is concerned, India might as well shut shop for the remainder of the year. When bank strikes bring the economy to a halt in a one- or two-day strike, the cost is calculated in billions of rupees. The statisticians should now gainfully employ themselves to calculate the costs of this enforced government holiday for the benefit of the Indian public.

If the direct political players will do nothing about this crisis of governance -- and they have their reason to drag it out -- perhaps it is time that some authority above them stepped in to demand a deadline for the deadlock to be resolved one way or another. Such an authority can only be the President. There will be valid doubts about the propriety of such a proactive presidential stance even if K.R. Narayanan himself were inclined to intervene -- which he is unlikely to be. But the current political milieu makes it necessary for the President to play a proactive role. The Constitution is inevitably silent on what is to be done in a host of contingencies, and its constructive interpretation is not so much desirable as unavoidable in the sort of situation in which India finds itself. Initiative not restraint is the quality most desirable in India's head of state just at present. That such initiative is safe in President Narayanan's hands is not in doubt after his intervention on Uttar Pradesh. Let him act again.