BALCO, Congress and Parliament

By V. Krishna Ananth

THE EVENTS leading to the Lok Sabha ``approving'' the Union Government's decision to transfer the Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO) to a private bidder have revealed again absurdities in the contemporary political discourse. For example, the view that the outcome of the Lok Sabha debate on the issue (under Rule 184) meant an approval of the Executive's decision.

The procedure does not call for any such approval by Parliament and the Executive is well within its rights to effect such a transfer. The transfer of BALCO was not contingent upon any approval by the two Houses of Parliament. It is another matter that what was ``achieved'' in this case cannot be described as approval by Parliament; for the Rajya Sabha had only debated the issue. Hence, it will be factually incorrect to conclude that the transfer has been ``approved'' by Parliament.

This aspect, however, pales into insignificance, if one looks at the voting figures in the Lok Sabha and the contents of the debate. The motion was defeated with the Opposition managing only 119 votes ``against'' the administrative decision. In other words, the transfer would have had the ``approval'' of the Lok Sabha even if some of those in the ruling combine had opposed the motion. The floor leaders of the Opposition parties - the Congress in particular - did nothing to ensure that their were present even when they knew that the motion on the BALCO transfer, after it was admitted under Rule 184, was going to be put to vote that day. The high command (Ms. Sonia Gandhi) did not care to instruct Mr. P. R. Dasmunshi (the chief whip) to ensure that the party MPs were present in the House and voted against the motion. This indeed is a pointer to the seriousness with which the Congress had taken the sale of BALCO.

It makes sense to single out the Congress in this context for more than one reason. In the first place, the high command seemed to have decided to leave its vassal in Chhatisgarh to fight the battle for BALCO alone. Second, it was the Congress that had insisted in the Lok Sabha that the discussion be under Rule 184. And, lastly, the fact that the idea of disinvestment of the Government's shares in public sector undertakings was initiated by the Congress.

And as for the ``needle of suspicion'' that the Congress' members in the two Houses were referring to and the charge by Mr. Ajit Jogi outside (of a few hundred crores changing hands), it is no different from similar charges against those in the Government when the 11-B mines in Madhya Pradesh's Bastar district, explored and developed by the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), were transferred to NipponDenro, a Japanese corporation. The Congress was in power both in New Delhi and in Bhopal then. This happened in 1995. The Opposition, particularly the Left party MPs, had raised similar doubts even at that time; it is another matter that the BJP and its present allies had also joined the chorus.

The point here, to cut a long story short, is that transfer of the Government's stake in the industrial and mining sectors continues to be mired in controversies; and the focus has been on money changing hands. In other words, the same story as it was with the deal between the Union Government and Bofors. And such charges, even if they are made without any substantive evidence, tend to stick and contribute in a big way to the construction of a popular perception about the political class.

And, it is no longer one political party or any one formation against whom such charges are made. Instead, parties cutting across the spectrum are being placed in the same boat. After all, the people (and particularly the intelligentsia) cannot be blamed for the building of such a perception.

Take for instance the present case, and the charges against the Congress in the past - of having ``sold'' the nation's assets in Bailadilla; of having played a role in letting Harshad Mehta rig the stock market; that Mr. Sukh Ram, then in the Congress Cabinet, made a lot of money while opening up of basic telecom services to private entrepreneurs. Or the Dabhol Power Project (Enron), where the negotiations were carried out by not just the leaders of the Congress but several others including Mr. Bal Thackeray's own men. The outcome is there for all to see; this project, held out at one stage as the model for India's march into the new century, has now become an albatross around the people's neck.

What was striking in all these deals was that the state (and by extension the people) was taken for a ride by a set of political leaders and members of the civil administration. And in all these instances, the representative institutions - Parliament and the State Legislatures - were left to ``discuss'' the deals and stop with that. And even those who raised some valid doubts (based on technical facts) were derided as forces opposed to the nation's ``development'' not just by the organisations of employers but also by MPs of the ruling side; it is another matter that the rulers today are those who were on the other side a couple of years ago.

Looking at the BALCO affair in this larger context, one is led to conclude that Parliament as an institution is being reduced to a talking shop. It is this aspect of the sequence of events involving BALCO that strikes at the roots of the democratic set- up. Given that the Government is determined to transfer more and more PSUs to private entrepreneurs in the days to come, the imperative for the Opposition, particularly the Congress, is to press for a debate on what Parliament's role should be in the disinvestment process. In other words, to formulate an alternative to the disinvestment mechanism where the representative institutions are allowed to play a substantive role rather than merely raise a din. Ms. Sonia Gandhi, not to blame for the Congress' ommissions and commissions of the past, is better placed today to initiate a serious debate on such issues. Instead, she seems to have allowed herself to be persuaded by sections in the party that it is sufficient for the Opposition to merely raise a lot of dust over every move by the Executive and wait for the next elections.

The imperative for the Congress now is to reopen a debate within the party on what its position should be on disinvestment. The party's position on the issue, as it is, hardly provides any scope for meaningful debate. By putting off any serious debate within the party on this and other aspects of the economic policy, the Congress high command will only help push the party further to the margins of the political discourse. And this could further the distortion of the democratic set-up. But then, such concerns for the Congress have to compete with the desire of its leaders to somehow manage to remain in the reckoning; take for instance the developments in West Bengal where a number of the party's MLAs have crossed over to the Trinamool Congress or the common cause that Mr. Vilasrao Deshmukh is now seen making with Mr. Sharad Pawar and Mr. Bal Thackeray on the Enron affair in Maharashtra.

And this indeed is the tragedy. After all, the loser in this context is not merely one or other party. Instead, it is the very basis of the democratic set-up - Parliament as an institution - that is being exposed to ridicule. The manner in which the representatives of the various corporate groups reacted when the BALCO transfer was debated in Parliament - describing those who wanted a debate on the issue as disruptors - is only a pointer to what lies in store.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Race and caste
Next     : Politicising the deal