The politics of dithering

The politics of dithering
Neerja Chowdhury

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had a field day in the Lok Sabha the other day, when he asked Sonia Gandhi to clarify her party's stand on her supposed words to Bill Clinton making a case for a ``minimum nuclear deterrent''. Sonia kept silent. Neither did anyone else from the party speak. Nor, for that matter, did any Congress leader try and turn the tables on Vajpayee. After all, it was he who was supposed to answer questions, not them, while replying to the Motion of Thanks on the President's address.

Ajit Jogi's refutation of Pranab Mukherji's briefing to the press (that Sonia had expressed the need for a minimum nuclear deterrent) was strange. Mukherji is no spring chicken. Nor has he admitted that he had made a mistake. Partymen are convinced that he knew what he was talking about. The PM seems to know what Sonia Gandhi said, and is apparently armed with a transcript of it. That is why he has repeatedly urged her to clarify her position. The Americans know what she said. Normally, at meetings like this, a verbatim account of what transpires is kept, particularly as Clinton was assisted by aides. Going back on what she told Clinton does not do much for her position as Leader of the Opposition. Few will believe her the next time. Either way she should put the record straight.

It is an open secret that it is at Sonia's instance that Jogi distanced the Congress from the Pranab formulation after Mani Shankar Aiyer convinced her that Mukherji's words we-nt against what Rajiv Gandhi had stood for.

Unless the Congress favours unilateral disarmament once it comes to power and this was not the position held by Rajiv Gandhi a mi-nimum nuclear deterrent, even though the wor-ds are borrowed from the BJP, is not an unnatural position for the party to take today. Nor is it a position that need be at variance with the Congress' commitment to bring about timebo-und universal disarmament, or peace with neighbours.

India is already a nuclear weapons state. The Congress cannot undo that. So is Pakistan. So is China. India may not use a nuclear device against any countryand the government has promised no first usebut it has to be mindful of its security and safeguard its interests if attacked.

Rajiv Gandhi had presented his action plan for a nuclear weapons free world by the year 2010 before the Un-ited Nations General Assembly in 1988. It was when he received little response from other nations and got incontrovertible proof that Pakistan had the bomb, that Rajiv gave the go ahead for acquiring the capability to make bombs in sufficient numbers and perfecting the delivery systems. Major stri-des were made during Rajiv's premiership.

Indira Gandhi had set the ball ro-lling in 1974. Narasi-mha Rao came close to conducting a test in 1995. Even Neh-ru, who was opposed to atomic we-apons, sanctioned the plans for setting up the infrastructure to make them. Recent literature, the latest being Raj Chengappa's Weapons of Peace, makes this amply clear.

Pokharan I and II were events.The process began after independence. Indira Gandhi and Atal Behari Vajpayee decided to go in for tests, but every prime minister in free India had taken the decision to sanction the programme, allocate the requisite funds to keep it going and to keep the nuclear option open.

Yet, the Congress feels immobilised about taking a position.

Pulled in two directions on the issue of how far to support the economic reforms programme, the Congress' difficulty stems not just from the fact that it authored the programme. Even Narasimha Rao has criticised the haste with which the BJP is moving. The reforms have given the Congress a pro-rich image and there is a growing feeling in the party that its defeat at the hustings in the last few elections had everything to do with the Congress losing its pro-poor moorings. There was a time last year when Vyalar Ravi, a lone voice against the pening up of the insurance sector or other such measures, would be dismissed in party fora. Today, there is a demand that the party review the stand it took at Tirupati eight years ago.

Again, Sonia has not been able to take a position on the issue. All she has said is that the party will not go back on the economic reforms programme but at the same time will fight for the rights of the poor.

This is easier said than done. A globalising world is a reality and India has to negotiate through it. So are the poor in India. And they have the vote. There is a consensus on reforms at the top, involving the political class, industry and the middle class. But these sections do not determine the outcome of elections. The benefits of reforms have not trickled down to the poor. They are reeling under spiralling prices, subsidy cuts and growing hardships. It is cyclone tod-ay,and drought tomorrow.

The Congress' inability to formulate a coherent position on the nuclear question and on economic reforms highlights both a crisis of identity about what it stands for and of leadership. That the major opposition party cannot take advantage of the government's failure today shows that having a leader does not necessarily mean having leadership.