SEARCH

Opinion » Lead

Updated: June 29, 2012 00:50 IST

Politics without policy

André Béteille
Comment (35)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
The Hindu

The acrimony between the government and the opposition has worsened to such an extent that it has subverted attempts to reach workable solutions to practical problems

The French sociologist and columnist Raymond Aron had pointed out that in English, there are two different terms, “politics” and “policy” whereas in his own language there is only one single term, “La politique,” to cover both. It is the same in German as in French, for the same German word, “politik,” covers both policy and politics. We should make use of the resources of the English language to reflect on a distinction that has acquired crucial importance in the present phase of our democratic system.

The central concern of politics, as I understand it, is the pursuit of power. In a democracy the contest for power is never free from uncertainty and anxiety, and Indian politics is now marked by increasing turmoil. Those who make politics their career become accustomed to its turbulence and some even take a peculiar pleasure in it.

Policy, on the other hand, is a matter of setting clear goals and working methodically towards their attainment. It is, in Max Weber’s famous phrase, “a slow boring of hard boards.” Policymaking requires a calm and settled environment, and a clear and even temper in the policymaker. Politicians are expected to play to the galleries and to gather public applause for their eloquence. Policy cannot be made under continuous public gaze, although it can hardly be effective without passing the test of political approval.

Although politics and policy follow distinct compulsions and have different orientations, they need not act against each other. In the last 10 to 15 years politics has taken such a turn in India that it not only unsettles the environment required for making viable policies but openly subverts attempts to reach workable solutions to difficult practical problems.

Kind of duumvirate

The relations between government and opposition have become increasingly acrimonious over the years. Even where there is broad agreement over, let us say, foreign policy or economic policy, each side maintains an adversarial relationship with the other, fearing that there will be a loss of face if not a loss of support from its constituents if it appears conciliatory. The habitually confrontationist conduct of both government and opposition is complicated by the fact that neither the one nor the other speaks in a single voice. This may be a good thing where it serves to defuse tension but it is not conducive to deliberations on policy.

The present system in India has settled into operating as a kind of duumvirate with its own distinctive features. It has done so without starting with any clear plan to be what it has become. A division of responsibility and power has emerged between the Prime Minister and the head of the ruling party who is also the head of the ruling coalition. It corresponds neither to the Westminster model nor to the Leninist model favoured by Communist parties throughout the world. In the former the prime minister enjoys clear pre-eminence while in the latter power rests with the head of the party. Should we be disheartened that Indian democracy is following a path of its own?

The general belief among both allies and opponents is that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the head of the Congress party is an unequal relationship in which the former has to act at the behest of the latter, which would make it closer to the Leninist than the Westminster model. This, I think, is a mistaken belief. Whatever may have been the equation between Ms Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh in 2004, that equation has changed with the passage of time. It is true that Dr. Singh cannot do without Ms Gandhi, but it is equally true that Ms Gandhi cannot do without Dr. Singh. This truth becomes more and more evident as we recognise that both the Prime Minister and the head of the Congress party have to contend with alliance partners whose sudden demands can unsettle the most reasonable agreements on policy.

Distinctive party system

The political party has emerged as an important institution in modern democratic nations. India has developed its own distinctive party system. It is neither a two-party system nor a multi-party system with three, four or even half-a-dozen parties of the kind commonly found in continental Europe. It is a system with a multiplicity of parties. This multiplicity is a reflection of the size and diversity of our social and political order. Attention to the demands of coalition partners requires accommodation of the claims of patronage as well as of personal vanity. Any action that may be construed as an affront or a slight by the leader of even a minor ally can cause a major political upheaval. The demands of this kind of political management deflect attention away from the long-term requirements of policy. In the 21st century devising effective policy calls for technical skills for which sound political instincts cannot be a substitute.

The government that Dr. Singh heads would not work if the Congress party and the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) did not hold together. For all his intelligence, hard work and probity, it is doubtful that he would be able to hold the alliance and even his own party together all by himself.

To say that the relationship between the head of the government and the head of the UPA has acquired a kind of stability is not to maintain that it can be made permanent or given an institutional form. Indian democracy has moved a long way since the country became independent and adopted a republican constitution more than 60 years ago. It has created new political arrangements as it has faced new political challenges. It has shown considerable resilience and in some ways strengthened itself even while setting aside old arrangements and established ways of thought and action.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India took charge of both politics and policy. His pre-eminence within the Congress party, particularly after the passing of Sardar Patel and the withdrawal of Rajaji, was widely, if not universally acknowledged. But his mastery of policy was also widely acknowledged, at least within his own party. It would be unrealistic to expect the present head of the Congress party to have the kind of grasp of policy matters that Nehru had or Dr. Singh has. It would be equally unrealistic to expect the present Prime Minister to deal with party matters with Nehru’s self-assurance.

We cannot go back to Nehru’s age, or to the dawn of independence which began with great, some would now say unrealistic expectations from our leaders of government and politics. Nor should we be beguiled by the hope that a new leader will soon emerge, a true statesman who will combine in himself all the virtues that we expected in our political leaders at the time when the new republic came into being. We have to make the best of what we have achieved and what we have which is not inconsiderable. Indian democracy may be disorderly but it is also vibrant and, like any living system it undergoes continuous change. It is easy to lose heart in the face of so much disorder, but democracy advances by facing disorder, not turning its back on it.

(André Béteille is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Delhi University, and National Research Professor.)

More In: Lead | Opinion

@Vijay: Reading the comments in The Hindu over the past year or so, it seems to me that the citizens are engaging in national affairs, worrying about where their country is going and are thoughtfully expressing their constructive ideas. It is the politicians whether in Govt or in Opposition (and their yes-men), that have not woken up to the change in voters' patriotic attitude, and continue with their brutish ways of misinformation, obfuscation, bluster, usurpation and abuse of power for private gain, to remain in control - legally or illegally, *to turn the privilege of serving one's country into a dynastic family business to rule the country as absolute monarchs - without any questioning, with slavish deference, in perpetuity with/without ability as if by 'divine right'(as in medieval feudal or aristocratic regimes)*. They are naturally opposed to the Jan Lokpal Bill, which aims to prevent a few privileged families from plundering the nation and ruining the country for all.

from:  D Mahapatra
Posted on: Jun 29, 2012 at 13:30 IST

It is true that in a country like India, regional aspirations have to be given proper weight. Unfortunately, the only party which had pan india presence for more than six decades failed to to do this and they have been reduced to depend upon regional parties for their survival. the other one is yet to make their presence felt in most of the regions. Given the circumstances, it is better for both the national parties to acknowledge this and go for alliances with like minded regional parties and with a common agenda. Post poll alliances for just grabbing power and no common agenda should be avoided at all cost. It is also equally the responsibility of the ruling coalition leadership to have a good working relationship with both partners and opposition to take the country forward. They should shed their big brother attitude and acknowledge that they are no longer the party which Nehru/Indira Gandhi headed. Will they put country 'First' is the big question.

from:  Sundaram Chellappa
Posted on: Jun 29, 2012 at 13:26 IST

From the comments it feels that people have stopped listening. Agreed that many bills have been scuttled. But should they have been allowed to pass. People are hearing only to the final stands of opposition. But have forgotten to ask and find out WHY. Every opposition to bill, be it FDI or lokpal the opposition has had justified reasons to oppose. It used to be media's role to bring us this why, but instead with articles like these media is trying to cover up the WHY. Alas, people without realizing this are made to forget this with attractions like language, sophistication, liberal ideas etc, esp taking advantage of our respect for old educated people.

from:  Vijay
Posted on: Jun 29, 2012 at 10:32 IST

An interesting Article The ruling party, when it was in the Opposition during the Janata Party regime, was the first to set an example for acrimonious behaviour in Parliament preventing legislative business. Having tasted power for a pretty long time they could never reconcile themselves to be in the Opposition. Their sole aim was to bring about the fall of the Janata Government through resort to Machiavellian tactics and thus came back to power.This unhealthy tradition is still in vogue in some form or the other. With a view to capture power they have no hesitation in cobbling up parties with scant regard for scruples or norms and as a bait allow them the choice of their portfolio which is the sole privilege of the PM. This has resulted in scams like 2G Spectrum resulting in the siphoning of crores and crores by unscrupulous politicians and consequent loss to the State Exchequer. The day dynastic culture comes to an end there is hope for real democracy to take shape..

from:  T.S.SREENIIVASAN
Posted on: Jun 29, 2012 at 05:15 IST

well written and logically conceived article portraying deep crisis resulting due to unethical pulls and pressures of coalition politics.parliamentary democracy has virtually turned into theatre of absurdity.

from:  anil kumar singh
Posted on: Jun 29, 2012 at 00:45 IST

A truly remarkable and forward looking opinion.

from:  Ramakrishna Manne
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 23:58 IST

The author admits 'Indian democracy may be disorderly' (the understatement of the decade?), and recognises that "democracy advances by facing disorder, not turning its back on it". [Does any Indian want the British Raj back, or to give up on democracy?] Yet, he recommends status quo as a fait accompli - "We have to make the best of what we have achieved" and injects a dose of despondency for good measure - "Nor should we be beguiled by the hope that a new leader will soon emerge"! As the author does not offer reasons for his hopelessness/complacency, we cannot debate with him. This leads one to wonder, could he be subtly promoting 'continuation of the present deficiencies in governance, probity and democracy' REGARDLESS of their adverse effects on the prosperity and social/moral health of the nation, and welfare of the masses? If so, what motivated the learned Professor - once a champion of social justice - to advocate such obviously unjust and defeatist democratic propositions?

from:  D Mahapatra
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 22:58 IST

The Congress party has over the years degenerated virtually into a inherited property of the descendents of Nehru including the spouse of one of them. Unfortunately the opinion makers of the country have taken this for granted. No questions have ever been asked by them about this totally undemocratic system of political management in the country. They seem to have no qualms about the lack of political and administrative experience of a scion of the family who is being projected as possibly the next Prime Minister of the country. Whither Indian democracy, one may well ask.

from:  K.Vijayakumar
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 21:55 IST

People in their thinking about future of India,should not link Sonia or Rahul.They are like any other indians.India,though 67 years old,but not matured enough. Still slavish mentality persist with the Indians.Being a colonial country,Indians want to copy their old masters and treat others as their subjects.Fault lies with the people,as India failed to get its freedom through revolution. Had this been happened ,atleast,most of the selfish leaders could have been eliminated in the freedom process.No leader is care to emulate the old leaders.Cricket,Film,permanance of Reservation policy, ,secularism ,dynastic tendency, spoiling the country. Leaders in every party are all below average men without skill and talent.,thanks to ignorance of their supporters..India can never emerge as super power even in Asia under the present type of leadership.Periodical conduct of election in India is another bane which keeps the Country poor.Voting rights of the people help elect only unworthy people.

from:  B.Viswakarman
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 21:36 IST

We have a technocrat as PM and a politician as the head of his party. The remedy is to have the charismatic politician as the PM and a seasoned politician as the head of the party. In the Indian context, it should not be left to the PM to make policy since the country is too diverse and polity too divided. Policy has to evolve involving all the state CMs. The technocrat should serve as the advisor with free access to the PM and as the face of the government at the economic global meets.

from:  RAMAKRISHNAN
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 21:02 IST

In this kind of article that deals with the situation in the country in a general way, there could understandably be no place for discussing any specifics pointing to the ills afflicting the system.A discussion totally divorced from the specific even by way of a passing reference will not help appreciate the caption of the article. Auctioning 2G was Dr.Manmohan Singh' policy but when politics (coalition Dharma) blocked it politics prevailed.That exactly is politics without policy. Like the author, let us also nurture our wish that though beset with disorders our democracy advances!

from:  G.Jagannathan
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 18:45 IST

I think what the author is trying to convey is that in the midst of political turbulence policy making is suffering. A good political leader should have the charisma of doing politics with good policy making.The author has in my views highlighted a good dimension of leadership which Indian politicians are lacking these days.'Policy Paralysis' by which India is suffering is because of lack of qualities a true leader must have.

from:  Divya Prakash
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 18:36 IST

A well written article. The author is correct to conclude that the
opposition is always at loggerheads with the Government even when there
is alignment of policies.
The author is also correct to conclude that there is now greater
sharing of power between the Prime Minister and the president of the
Congress Party.
However, he fails to trace the origins of this development in recent
times. This did not take place immediately after the demise of Nehru or
his immediate successors. In fact during Indira Gandhi's regime the
Congress President became a mere rubber stamp. The current situation is
the result of the fact that Ms Sonia Gandhi is a foreigner and the
Indians would not have her as the Prime Minister. But the Indians do
love a monarch. If you have any doubts, ask anyone in the street who is
likely to be the next Prime Minister. If Rahul Gandhi wins the next
elections and becomes PM this will change. The Party President will
again become a rubber stamp. Watch this space.

from:  dr.r.venkataraman
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 17:33 IST

Only a miracle can help us if we are to get anywhere in the next 5 years. Neither the UPA not the NDA have it in them to take us forward at a good pace, if it happens, it has to be by sheer luck, which I think we may have just run out of.

from:  naveen
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 16:49 IST

Indians, it seems are busy with who and which caste the candidate belongs to than if the
person or the party he/she belongs has any positive vision or policies to take the country
forward. It is a sad reflection of an immature democracy struggling to make sense of it all.
Many take to politics not because they have a passion for the country but because they
entertain the thought of power and a chance for amassing some ill gotten wealth. It may be
few generations, before India would emerge as a democracy of some normalcy and
decency,we hope!

from:  Saratchandran
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 15:55 IST

It was never in the history of India, a Prime Minister behaving like a President and the credit should go to Dr Manmohan Singh. It is preposterous to say he is discharging his duties as PM. Instead Ms Sonia acts as the real PM and taking credit for whatever little good happens and poor Dr Singh accepts complete responsibility for all the misdeeds. Ms Sonia has cleverly successfully trivialised all the constitutional positions and one such institution today is the office of the PM. It is really surprising how one can blame the opposition for all these. It has become a habit for the Media indirectly promoting the interest of the ruling congress party and this article is one more such attempt only.

from:  Balamurugan Gangadharan
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 15:55 IST

The central concern of this article (see last para) is about *maintaining status quo and retaining power for the ruling parties* - untenable given the current crisis in Indian governance and democracy?? Politicians assisted by advisers should be able to draft policies "in the national interest and not to promote plunder", which must then be approved or rejected by the court of public opinion (including the media) - as is routine in the Western democracies. The Opposition parties' current guerrilla-political-warfare may indicate their ineffectiveness, disunity and disarray, as well as the serious fault lines in Indian electoral system. For the good of the nation and for their own survival they should re-group around vision, strategy, policy and probity in public life. Without change India will continue to be ruled by an unholy alliance of dynastic parties to enrich their family businesses - which is ruling India in perpetuity. Citizens beware - eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

from:  D Mahapatra
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 14:19 IST

Sir, There may be 100 demerits in the current UPA2 regime. But, please answer 1 question. Is the PM to be blamed 100% for this situation? Whether the Opposition has done its duty? Whether there is any better leader as of now? Please be assured. There will not be another Nehru. For that matter, there will not be another Vajpayee also. So, be satisfied with what we are having. After all, it is we who elected this UPA2. Let us put up with that at least till 2014. Thereafter, if we feel that so and so party/leader will give better administration, let us rally behind them. Now a days, Narendra Modi's name is being peddled as the best alternative. Let us see whether after 2014, he will be elected as leader of BJP. And, even if he is elected as leader of BJP, can he expect other parties to rally behind him. For all the cheers he is getting, let us not forget that he is not Vajpayee.

from:  raghavan
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 14:08 IST

We keep talking about Government paralysis and the comments suggests the
problems lies within Congress party itself. When we "peel the onion" of paralysis to
the root cause, it will clear show the coalition partners and opposition trying to
scuttle anything and everything the Government does. Whether we take nuclear
power agreement with US or FDI in multi brand retail, the opposition party when it
was in power was in favor. Now sitting in the opposition, it is opposing for the
sake of opposing. The coalition partners have taken a life of their own
disproportionate to their representing.
We are no more fighting for independence, but we are using the same methods of
sitting on hunger strikes, disrupting transportation, bunds etc. for no meaningful
reasons.
It is time for economic transformation. Here we need people who can analyze,
create jobs, take longer term view. Politicians on rhetoric is not what we need.

from:  raja manickam
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 13:58 IST

I agree that the split of power between the head of government led by the Prime Minister and the head of the majority party in the governing coalition is dysfunctional, it need only be so if the two political players cannot agree with each other. It is for that reason, the leader of the majority party in a governing coalition is usually the Prime Minister under the Whitehall system of parliamentary democracy. Mrs Gandhi appointed her Prime Minister, as is her right to choose her cabinet, to placate India's xenophobia. Given that fact, the dysfunction in Indian politics stems from deep rooted issues within the Indian psyche.
Parliamentary democracy with a multiplicity of political groupings/parties can function under the Whitehall system as evidenced elsewhere but continental Europe is not the place to look since the latter does not really support a Whitehall system. It requires plenty of accommodation, horse trading and backroom deals that can only be conducted when there is no separation of responsibility from power.
It is commonplace for the Parliamentary Opposition to be unco-operative in the governance of the country. This certainly not a uniquely Indian phenomenon. What is uniquely Indian is the Opposition tendency to carp about the split between the Parliamentary leadership and party leadership. How would the Opposition have reacted if Mrs Gandhi had assumed her rightful role of Prime Minister? I would hazard that its reactions would have been tinged with a great deal of xenophobia.

from:  sona
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 12:50 IST

We cant blame fully congress of present situation. its due to coalition
partners. whenever government wants to take any decision or pass any
bill, either opposition or allies stand against it for their own
benefits. for example, at the time of rail budget, TMC chief Ms. Mamta
changed the whole budget as well as minister without giving single thought on the purpose of increasing the fares.

from:  Anil kumar
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 11:56 IST

The implication of this piece if writing is that Manmohan Singh has dexterity to frame policies that will reform the country's economic predicament, but he lacks the political knack, prerequisite for an astute politician to operate in a complex democratic system like India. I agree that this is certainly true as the PM could not put the house in order despite his impeccable reputation for financial knowledge and integrity. May be in India you have to learn the tricks of the crooks to beat the crooks in their game.

from:  David Muthukumar S
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 11:27 IST

After such along a precise, analytical and balanced piece of writing on
a political issue which is bound to be marked by biasness.i am getting
addicted to 'The Hindu'.

from:  mukesh
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 11:12 IST

An impartial and intellectual analysis of power sharing in Indian politics at this juncture I personally liked the view that Dr Manmohan Singh cant work without Smt.Sonia Gandhi and even Smt Gandhi can't manage without Dr Singh.

from:  Dattaprasad Shirgurkar
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 10:37 IST

This is a question to the learned author of this essay. He has stated "Indian democracy may be disorderly but it is also vibrant and, like any living system it undergoes continuous change." My questions are 1. Did not the Indian Constitution makers visualize this sort of disorderliness in our democratic politics? If they did why the Governments of the day feel helpless in running the coalitions? 2. Is the present time not appropriate to have a re-look at our Constitution and make thorough changes in it to effectively face the coalition politics as the author feels every living system undergoes continuous change? 3. Are the coalition politics coming in the way of the country's economic development despite everybody claiming to work for alleviation of poverty levels? If so, what is the remedy to overcome the problem? The author's and other readers' response is welcome.

from:  T.N.Sethumadhavan
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 10:35 IST

The paralysis of governance by UPA is being justified by blaming on
the opposition. Typical, media mislead. And the point about division
of power, has the author read india's constitution or is he
interested only in the French and German manifestos. And as a PM
being too busy to handle politics, havent you heard of PVN or ABV.
The reason India is in this state today is bcz of Nehru, no amount of
icing will sweeten the path he led us into.

The present state of affairs of economy, finance, HRD etc is the
byproduct of UPA and no body else.

from:  Vijay
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 10:00 IST


The UPA governance in current status of nation does not seems to have
any hope of making any change in the political system. The political
constitution, as appears to be, very much in the hands of politicians.
Since it was all started to bring the nation together, it modified
itself in the same way, as per the need. But when it comes to the time
after 65 years of independence, when the things have gone in wrong
direction, it is definitely in a need of having some constructive
change.
Regarding the leadership in the governing political party, a strong PM
can only emerge from a strong citizen support. It is up to the citizens
who are voting to politicians, to make sure that the right person
reaches the right place in politics and hence, in parliament. As said,
during the presidential elections of USA, ‘change is utmost necessary’.
Be it in the policy of government, or be it in the government itself!

from:  vivek patil
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 09:58 IST

The writer has been a leading thinker and has been in the forefront of many schemes in India to help the weaker sectio9ns. His analysis of the role of the opposition on policy matters based on country's interest rather than for narrow political gain is a very serious point worthy considering. The opposition also seem to make it as their policy to attack the role of the PM and the leader of the UPA as though they are working on different pages. This is also well analysed as a member of the NAC. But who will heed good advice from an independent thinker?

from:  S.N.Iyer
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 09:45 IST

The article reflects the reality in India. We have only politicians
,no statesman.So many local chieftains with great ego &fully self
centered interest have sprouted to disturb the equilibirium of the
nation.These chieftains take turns &always fight for their own
interest totally turning blind eyes to nation:s interest.Sadly there
is no national level leader is in our midst.Almost all parties in
India are dynasty based with great family interest like family held
business.At the national level the party which has a semblance of many
seats embraces these business chieftains to survive &propagate with a
hood of some respectability by USP of Dr,Singh.Averygood economist
with blindfolded eyes &tied hands heading these business chieftains is
the present state of our nation.

from:  Ramalingam.V
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 09:34 IST

This article is very much practical. The author has rightly pointed out the disadvantages or the havoc that is being created due to multiparty system. In an atmosphere where competition for power is more, it is very difficult even for a good statesman to concentrate on making policies. So, in the current state where India is in, it is too much to expect more from our politicians.

A feasible solution may be to have a two part system like that of in US which builds a sort of confidence for their (political leaders) power and position in the party and at the same time helps to have a better policy making.

from:  Chakravarthi
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 09:09 IST

In UPA none is accountable to the people of India. UPA has come to power and likes to continue in power without delivering the results. It is high time now to rewrite country's constitution as also election system comprehensively drawing lessons from country's experiences as also other countries viz, Germany, USA, UK and Canada. It is most unfortunate and sad that so-called intelligent persons with wisdom, knowledge and rich experience in Congress and BJP in particular do not place country before their party and particularly dynasty in the congress. I trust Almighty will take care of the country at the right time.

from:  Dr Amrit Patel
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 08:24 IST

UPA1 supported by Communists parties opened the doors for Globalization giving opportunity for world merchants to exploit Indian market. policies are demanded by these companies directly or indirectly. For example if the multinationals withdraw their money from India the whole economy will be in problem just like how it is today. Then make demands for FDI in retail etc. Thus the policy making is now not in the hands of government. What
we need is a government that can call shots like Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1970, who
called all MNC and local drug manufacturers asked them to reduce their prices or
closed down operations. The prices of tablet that sold for rupee one came down to a
quarter.

from:  B. P. Kamalkumar
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 07:55 IST

The post of prime ministership of India is a very powerful position. When you are the Indian PM, you are holding the highest position of office in the world's largest democracy of 110 crore people. How can then power be allowed to reside in some other person, whether it is the party chief or party poster boy.

Instead of trying to project it as yet another "model", those hijacking power should be deterred by suitable legislation.
The opposition is not in anyway responsible for the current crisis in the Manmohan government. its the internal squabble within the Congress that caused the policy paralysis.

from:  Swarna
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 07:26 IST

Hmm... I'm lost, what the author intends to convey to his readers?

from:  Bharat
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 05:11 IST

The specific anomaly within the congress is being presented by the respected columnist as a kind of pre-cursor of how all ruling governments are going to be. Quite misleading."division of responsibility and power" in the congress party is a baneful debilitation that is hurting the country and the economy. It is this division in the congress that is cauing the policy paralysis and does not have much to do with the opposition.
Manmohan has more than once expressed his displeasure at being obstructed by Sonia. Quite an unconvincing attempt to show the Congress in a good light.

from:  Devi
Posted on: Jun 28, 2012 at 04:49 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in Lead

In Australia’s pain, lessons for all

It is hard to think of more vivid proof of the futility and failure of terrorism than the resilience and rallying together of Australians from many backgrounds, and a far more powerful image to show the world than any sterile propaganda of hate »