The Hindu : National consensus

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 08, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

National consensus

By K.K. Katyal

Has it occurred to the politicians on the two sides of the political fence that they owe it to the country to work unitedly in matters related to the safety and security of the people?

AT TIMES, clichés say a lot. Like this one: national consensus is essential on matters of crucial importance to the country. Simply because this expression has been over-used, its relevance has not waned. The convention of consensus on foreign affairs stood the country in good stead during the formative period after Independence. Regrettably, it has weakened now, just when it needed to be strengthened and extended so as to cover domestic issues such as internal security, to cite one case. Who is responsible, the Government or the Opposition? The blame game could go on interminably. But at some point, this vicious circle has to be broken and, for this, the responsibility of the ruling side is far greater than those outside the power structure.

The consensus on foreign policy was a logical corollary of two historical factors — one, the dominance of its architect, Jawaharlal Nehru, and two, the political scenario, in the first two decades, with the ruling party, the Congress, occupying the centre-stage and others hovering in the periphery. All that has drastically changed. In particular, the earlier automaticity about the foreign policy consensus has gone. To sustain it, conscious efforts are needed, which, however, are not forthcoming. Nehru laid strong, sound foundations both in the conduct of external relations and the functioning of parliamentary institutions. His actions and decisions on these matters were questioned but rarely. Once, in the Lok Sabha, the Opposition, agitated over a foreign policy matter, inquired, "we want to know how such decisions are taken." Nehru quipped: "The Prime Minister consults the Minister of External Affairs" and the bitterness was dissolved in peals of laughter. Such situations are unthinkable now. In the absence of proper explanations or consultation with the Opposition, governmental actions now smack of unilateralism — at times, of partisan assertiveness.

Not that dissent was unknown in the Nehru-Indira Gandhi period. The erstwhile Swatantra Party used to chide the Government for its Tibet policy or its proximity to the Soviet Union, while the Jana Sangh was unhappy with what was described as an obsession with the Non-aligned Movement. In 1972, A.B. Vajpayee, then an Opposition leader, led a torchlight procession in New Delhi in protest against the signing of the Shimla Agreement. The Janata Party Government, during the brief non-Congress interlude at the Centre, coined a new phrase, "genuine non-alignment". However, the Opposition remained supportive of the foreign policy premises, by and large.

Ironically, the conduct of the BJP, while in the Opposition, displayed a measure of responsibility, which is absent now that it is in power. The BJP in its earlier avatar as the Jana Sangh, Mr. Vajpayee in particular, paid glowing tributes to Indira Gandhi for her role in the Bangladesh-related developments in 1971-72 and, two years later, for the first Pokhran nuclear test. On its part, the Government, during the United Front days in 1996-97, closely consulted the BJP while taking important decisions — against the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — so much so that important statements by India's Representative at Geneva were whetted by Mr. Vajpayee and his colleagues in the Opposition.

What happened under the present BJP-led dispensation presented a sharp contrast. During the protracted security dialogue with the U.S. after the 1998 nuclear tests — between the then External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, and the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott — the Opposition was not taken into confidence at any stage. The "consensus" exercise took the form of intimating decisions already taken.

The Government carried further its unilateralism in its dealings with Israel, culminating in the first prime ministerial visit — to be made soon by Ariel Sharon. There was not even a semblance of consultations with the Opposition at any stage of the warming up with Israel. On the other hand, Mr. Jaswant Singh, during his visit to Tel Aviv as External Affairs Minister, ascribed, in so many words, the delay in New Delhi's recognition of Israel to the policy of the Congress Governments in the past to preserve the Muslim vote bank.

Recently, Brajesh Mishra, the Prime Minister's National Security Adviser, while addressing the American Jewish Committee in Washington, unfolded New Delhi's plans for a trilateral cooperation — with the U.S. and Israel — in the fight against terrorism in these words: "India, the United States and Israel have some fundamental similarities. We are all democracies, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity, stronger India-U.S. relations and India-Israel relations have a natural logic. The U.S., India and Israel have all been prime targets of terrorism. They have to jointly face the same ugly face of modern-day terrorism." The Opposition was taken aback by this sudden twist to Israel policy. No wonder, the Congress and the Left parties have made known their strong reservations to the visit and all that it signifies.

The only case where the Government consulted the Opposition related to the U.S. request for troops to Iraq as part of the "stabilisation" programme. The issue was too combustible to be handled by the official side alone. Apart from other things, it was certain to have adverse political repercussions for the BJP. The Government, therefore, made a virtue of a compulsion and allowed itself to be influenced by the Opposition viewpoint. There was little evidence of a stable change in the official approach. Strong pressures continue to thwart consensus.

In the domestic field, the outlook is equally bleak, a couple of refreshing exceptions notwithstanding. First the exceptions: one, some aspects of the Kashmir policy and, two, the use of Article 356 of the Constitution by the Centre (to take over the administration of a State). As regards Kashmir, there is a shared vested interest of the two main parties, the BJP and the Congress, after the recent Assembly elections — the former is in power at the Centre, the latter in the State — in resolving the external and internal aspects of the problem. This was not the case before the Assembly elections when the Congress was in the Opposition in both the places. The new spirit is evident in the day-to-day handling of the administrative matters. It is certain to be reflected when a serious attempt is made to grapple with the long-term issues. The message, sent by the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, to a recent India-Pakistan conference, organised by the South Asia Free Media Association, reflected a bipartisan approach. "The Congress Party," she said, "welcomed the initiative of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to resume talks with the Government of Pakistan. However, for a conducive atmosphere for having meaningful talks or negotiations, it is essential that cross-border terror must cease." The post-election statements by the BJP and the Congress on Kashmir have been free of shrill partisan overtones.

The recent consensus on the nature of safeguards on the use of Article 356 was in the nature of fresh air in the choked confrontationist atmosphere. The Chief Ministers of the Congress, which had crossed all limits in the arbitrary use of the provision in the past, were as willing to have a protective shield as the BJP, which was frustrated in its bid to misuse it for political ends. It was agreed to have an amendment, incorporating the dos and don'ts laid down by the Supreme Court and the Sarkaria Commission.

Otherwise, it has been confrontation, confrontation all the way. It is perfectly legitimate for the Government and the Opposition to pursue their respective agendas and for the latter to expose the acts of omission and commission of the former. The Opposition cannot be blamed for seeking, through constitutional means, to block the return to power of the ruling party. But has it occurred to the politicians on the two sides of the political fence that they owe it to the country to work unitedly in matters related to the safety and security of the people?

Internal security, of late, has been subjected to grave threats. The social fabric could be torn asunder, with devastating consequences. The main parties are, however, engaged in the cynical game of seeking political mileage out of the country's misfortunes. India is bigger than any political party, howsoever big it may fancy itself to be. This thought needs to sink into the politicians' psyche.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Blossoming of India-ASEAN ties

Registering marriages