Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 06, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
Opinion
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Opinion - Editorials Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Winners all, losers none

IN MAKING NOMINAL changes in the organisational reshuffle, the AICC president, Sonia Gandhi, seems to have decided to operate in the safe mode in the crucial phase leading to the Lok Sabha election. Apparently, Ms. Gandhi thought it unwise to take up any course correction so close to the general election, and chose to maintain a balance between the young and the old without upsetting the factional equilibrium in the Congress. Consolidation, and not trial-and-error experimentation, looks like the rationale behind the reshuffle. The changes have also been bifocal with the States going to the polls later this year receiving added attention. Winning the elections to these States, especially those in which the party is already in power, would be an essential step forward in facing the parliamentary poll next year. Obviously, between the Assembly elections and the Lok Sabha poll, there is no time for another shake-up. The present team would therefore have a reasonably long tenure.

The most important change, no doubt, is the revival of the political affairs committee which was active during the Rajiv Gandhi period. The committee, headed by Ms. Gandhi herself, comprises several of the stalwarts thus fuelling speculation that it would function like a super-Congress Working Committee. The PAC is expected to hold regular interactions on developing situations, but if the real powers remain with the CWC, it might not rise above a discussion forum. But whatever role the PAC takes up, it has already served the important purpose of accommodating 12 senior leaders, some of whom have otherwise lost out in the current reshuffle. At the individual level, the most interesting change concerns Ambika Soni, who was asked to relinquish charge as the political secretary to the Congress president. She also lost Kerala and Chhattisgarh from her charge. But another glance at the responsibilities she still holds — general secretary in charge of Congress president's office and chairperson of the media department — suggests that Ms. Soni has not fallen out of favour. The change seems a lessening of burden and not a mode of punishment. Other interesting changes involve Ghulam Nabi Azad and Pranab Mukherjee who have been given national-level responsibilities without their being relieved of their State unit posts. There seems to be a deliberate policy of creating "regional strongmen". The return of veterans, R. K. Dhawan and Nawal Kishore Sharma, might mollify the old guard. Election time is no time to displease anyone, and certainly not the older leaders. Of the younger lot, Jairam Ramesh has been elevated as an AICC secretary, and Jyotiraditya Scindia enters the economic affairs department.

However, the real evidence of the balancing act that went into the reshuffle is the failure of any one faction to gain the upper hand. For years, the biggest problem of the Congress has been the absence of space for dissent at the top, and the free play for factionalism at the middle and lower levels. Rather than let different factions dominate at different points, Ms. Gandhi seems to be striving for some sort of a dynamic equilibrium. Care has been taken to show that no faction is particularly close to her. At the same time, in a State like Delhi, where the tussle between the Chief Minister, Sheila Dixit, and the leader in charge of the State, Kamal Nath, was becoming counterproductive, the AICC president effected an organisational change. But, the basis for the entire reshuffle was the need to accommodate all the second rung leaders, and not isolate any one group. Apart from giving posts to senior leaders in the PAC and other key committees, Ms. Gandhi expanded the CWC and increased the number of general secretaries and secretaries. This explains why there have been more winners than losers in the reshuffle. And, also why the losers did not lose everything in this please-all exercise.

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

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu