Assam was taken for granted because his party, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), was not part of the BJP-led alliance, he alleged. ``In fact, the Centre does not take states into confidence whatever the situation.'' He came to know from newspapers that the forces had been moved from the state in view of the hostilities in Kashmir. Why couldn't Delhi talk to him, he asked. Assam, he argued, was important for the integrity of the North-East. ``See how they treat us,'' hesaid, adding, ``from where do I bring the force to protect my people from the ULFA, which is basking under the protection of the Bhutanese government?''

Still, his bigger complaint is that neither the Prime Minister, nor the Defence Minister nor anyone else in authority, has communicated even a word about Pakistan's incursions in Kargil. He says he follows events through the Press or the TV as the public does. But as a Chief Minister he expected more information. He feels he has to mobilise public opinion but he is neither privy to the Central government's thinking nor to its future plans.

What Mahanta says holds good for all non-BJP governments. They do not know anything beyond what the media puts across. The Home Ministry convened a meeting of chief secretaries and directors-general of police a few days ago.

It was confined to a briefing on the domestic situation. There was hardly any discussion on Kargil. Nor was there any behind-the-scene information on the situation. The BJP chief ministers areexceptions because they are in constant touch with their leadership.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was different. He stayed in contact with chief ministers through a letter he wrote to them every fortnight to explain the significance of developments in India and abroad. For example, first he wrote to them in detail about China's incursions and then about the full-fledged attack in October 1962. In one of his letters, he told them that ``it is a little naive to think that the trouble with China was essentially due to a dispute over some territory. It had deeper reasons.

Two of the largest countries in Asia confronted each other over a vast border. They differed in many ways. And the test was as to whether either of them would have a more dominating position than the other on the border and in Asia itself...''

That Nehru was taller than Atal Behari Vajpayee goes without saying. But Vajpayee could have kept chief ministers informed about the happenings in Kargil. They too represent the nation. This taskcould have been entrusted to the Defence Minister, who has all the time to give interviews to the Press and TV and say things which he should not. And, there is no secrecy involved. If the Chief of Army Staff can brief the BJP executive, he can surely tell chief ministers all if they are gathered in Delhi. They will come to appreciate the situation far better than they do now.

The nation is in the midst of a war-like situation which is escalating. True, the BJP believes in a strong Centre. But India is a federal structure, which does not mean that states should be kept in the dark. There is no reason why the party should keep all the cards close to its chest. Even the briefing to political parties, which the BJP-led coalition has started, is restricted and rather late in the day.

Political parties should have been associated from the time the government began receiving reports on infiltration. Granted the government is doing its best, but the involvement of the opposition parties would have given them asense of participation and the policies a stamp of consensus.

It is unfortunate that the country faces polls and hostilities at the same time. In one form or the other, Kargil will come before the voters. If the infiltrators are cleared by the polling time, the BJP-led coalition would take the credit for having adopted a tough line. If it does not happen, the coalition would come under fire. Elections are divisive while a war demands unity. It is the nation which is facing a mini-war. It should not look as if the BJP-led government alone is fighting.

There has to be some institutional arrangement, a standing committee of political parties and a few others, to conduct affairs of war and peace. For example, briefing parties after the departure of Pakistan Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz was important as well as useful. But they should have been associated with the formulation of response to Aziz. During the 1962 hostilities with China, Nehru constituted a people's committee to associate political parties withwar efforts. Though the government in power at that time was not a caretaker one, it sought the participation of all in the task of facing a serious national situation.

Some Rajya Sabha MPs met the President a fortnight ago to impress upon him the need for an advisory committee associated with the government. I, as a Rajya Sabha member, followed it up with a letter to the President: ``....An advisory committee, associated with the government, may give political parties a feeling of participating, which is lacking at this time.

Political parties outside the government and the Rajya Sabha members come to know about developments from the Press or TV news bulletins. This is neither fair to them, nor to the people they represent.''

The ideal thing would have been a composite government. Political parties have proposed a national government under Vajpayee. But the President has reportedly pointed out that such an attempt made by one of his predecessors did not fructify. Maybe, time was not opportune then.Now it is. In any case, the situation developing on the border may demand such decisions as only a national government would be in a position to take.

Postscript: Our cricket team couldn't make four runs off seven balls against Zimbabwe. And, Indians across the world still worry about their performance....The least the team can do is to send all their rewards and match fees to the Army Relief Fund.

(Message from an Indian abroad)