08-23-2007, 07:21 PM
Punj is also saying what I was thinking <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>PM has failed his mentor </b>
Pioneer.com
Balbir K Punj
As the UPA Government faces crisis due to the threat by the Left parties to withdraw support if it "operationalises" the 123 Agreement, one recalls that the Congress had run a minority Government for the full-term of five years under the leadership of PV Narasimha Rao between 1991 and 1996. He could successfully run a minority Government without being dictated by his supporters unlike the Manmohan Singh Government, which has been pressured by the Left parties to withdraw from almost all its programmes.
Â
History bears testimony to the fact that the Left claims to work to further the national interest. But ultimately, it serves the interests of foreign powers: It worked for Moscow's interest in the Soviet era; now it fights for Beijing's interests.
In 1991, when Rao took over the reins of the Congress and the Government following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, the party was in a minority in the Lok Sabha. He was considered a weak Prime Minister initially, but he managed to survive by playing one party against the other.
<b>Narasimha Rao had completely sidelined the Nehru-Gandhi family when he was the Prime Minister. He used Mr Manmohan Singh, the then Finance Minister in the Congress Government, to virtually write the obituary of Nehruvian socialism that was marked by poverty, licence raj, scarcity of important commodities and all-pervasive corruption. Rao thus gave a new shape to the Congress's agenda. Though the party lost the 1996 general election, he had set the economic reforms process on an irreversible course. However, Congressmen accustomed to the dynasty went back to the Nehru-Gandhi family for inspiration instead of completing the unfinished work that Rao had started.</b>
<b>Compare the record of the minority Government led by Narasimha Rao with the record of the present UPA Government supported by the Left parties. Despite leading a minority Government, Rao had the courage to shed Nehruvian socialism and liberalise the economy. In fact, he did not refrain from taking tough decisions like ending Government's monopoly in telecommunications, power and other infrastructure areas.
On the other hand, the UPA Government headed by Mr Manmohan Singh, the economist-turned-politician, shied away from taking steps to intensify the reforms process in important sectors like insurance and disinvestment of PSUs for the fear of losing power under pressure from the anti-reforms Left. As the Finance Minister of the 1990-96 Congress Government, Mr Singh could easily carry on with his economic reforms, but the same person has failed to do so as the Prime Minister in the UPA Government.</b>
Mr Singh now finds himself caught between two divergent forces - a determined Left and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, unaffected by the plight of the Prime Minister. The main Opposition, the BJP, hasn't given him any breather either. Naturally, the widening of the rift between the UPA's allies serves the Opposition's purpose, as its job in a parliamentary democracy is to expose the follies of the ruling party.
<b>As things stand today, the UPA is likely to either dump the Prime Minister, who has dented its prestige by signing the India-US civil nuclear deal (as his personal agenda) to prevent the Government from falling, or go for a fresh mandate. It is unlikely that the Congress will take the risk of a mid-term election.</b>
So are we to live with a Government that will remain in power surrounded by controversies till it acquires the courage to face the people? The answer to the question is not very clear, <b>but the Prime Minister's dilemma is evident. He cannot dump the deal and lose face</b>. Nor can he convince his party to challenge the Left outright, keeping in mind the wavering support he gets from his own party colleagues.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Interestingly, some Congress MPs have been working for a change of guard at the Centre in order to save the Government. A new Prime Minister who might take over from Mr Singh could keep the Government off the India-US civil nuclear deal and keep it pending.</span> This could, in a way, meet the demand of the Left. Even if the Congress opts for a mid-term election, it will not make the nuclear deal an electoral plank. The UPA's dilemma is getting deeper as the nuclear deal has become a difficult issue to sail with.
As his difficulties mount, Mr Manmohan Singh vents his anguish by making irresponsible remarks. Mr George Fernandes' description of Mr Singh as a "traitor", the likes of whom the Chinese would have treated "with a bullet in the head", is debatable. After all, the level of political discourse has been deteriorating ever since the times of Mrs Indira Gandhi, when she transformed the Congress from a party believing in Mahatma Gandhi's ideals to a one-family party.
<b>Mrs Gandhi had a single- minded approach: Nail opponents of her misrule by calling them "foreign-inspired traitors". Rajiv Gandhi used the word "limpets" to describe the entire Opposition without ever regretting the statement later.</b>
And as Mr Fernandes has rightly pointed out, there was no Congressman ready to tell his own party leaders to stop the daily chanting of litanies during the NDA's rule, describing the then Defence Minister as a "coffin thief". At the worst, Mr Fernandes has paid the Congress back in its own coin.
While many would argue that despite his sense of personal pique, Mr Fernandes should have worded his opinion about the Prime Minister better, Mr Singh need not have sullied his own image by concocting a 'havan' done by the BJP praying for his death.
<b>The 'havan' story reveals the sense of desperation in the UPA Government</b>. Poor Mr Singh, the deal that he thought would be as historic as his 1991 economic reforms is fast turning out to be his worst political blunder.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rao brought stability, wisdom and confidence, what MMS did is converting into insanity, criminality and arrogance in governance.
This is a difference between Babu and Politicians, Babu are good for forming committee, chit-funds or collecting files or under desk deals. A politician knows how to stand when needed. Even I can trust Mulayam Singh Yadav or Lalu on Indiaâs security but not MMS.
MMS is saying Ekla Chalo re, Ekla Chalo re
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>PM has failed his mentor </b>
Pioneer.com
Balbir K Punj
As the UPA Government faces crisis due to the threat by the Left parties to withdraw support if it "operationalises" the 123 Agreement, one recalls that the Congress had run a minority Government for the full-term of five years under the leadership of PV Narasimha Rao between 1991 and 1996. He could successfully run a minority Government without being dictated by his supporters unlike the Manmohan Singh Government, which has been pressured by the Left parties to withdraw from almost all its programmes.
Â
History bears testimony to the fact that the Left claims to work to further the national interest. But ultimately, it serves the interests of foreign powers: It worked for Moscow's interest in the Soviet era; now it fights for Beijing's interests.
In 1991, when Rao took over the reins of the Congress and the Government following Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, the party was in a minority in the Lok Sabha. He was considered a weak Prime Minister initially, but he managed to survive by playing one party against the other.
<b>Narasimha Rao had completely sidelined the Nehru-Gandhi family when he was the Prime Minister. He used Mr Manmohan Singh, the then Finance Minister in the Congress Government, to virtually write the obituary of Nehruvian socialism that was marked by poverty, licence raj, scarcity of important commodities and all-pervasive corruption. Rao thus gave a new shape to the Congress's agenda. Though the party lost the 1996 general election, he had set the economic reforms process on an irreversible course. However, Congressmen accustomed to the dynasty went back to the Nehru-Gandhi family for inspiration instead of completing the unfinished work that Rao had started.</b>
<b>Compare the record of the minority Government led by Narasimha Rao with the record of the present UPA Government supported by the Left parties. Despite leading a minority Government, Rao had the courage to shed Nehruvian socialism and liberalise the economy. In fact, he did not refrain from taking tough decisions like ending Government's monopoly in telecommunications, power and other infrastructure areas.
On the other hand, the UPA Government headed by Mr Manmohan Singh, the economist-turned-politician, shied away from taking steps to intensify the reforms process in important sectors like insurance and disinvestment of PSUs for the fear of losing power under pressure from the anti-reforms Left. As the Finance Minister of the 1990-96 Congress Government, Mr Singh could easily carry on with his economic reforms, but the same person has failed to do so as the Prime Minister in the UPA Government.</b>
Mr Singh now finds himself caught between two divergent forces - a determined Left and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, unaffected by the plight of the Prime Minister. The main Opposition, the BJP, hasn't given him any breather either. Naturally, the widening of the rift between the UPA's allies serves the Opposition's purpose, as its job in a parliamentary democracy is to expose the follies of the ruling party.
<b>As things stand today, the UPA is likely to either dump the Prime Minister, who has dented its prestige by signing the India-US civil nuclear deal (as his personal agenda) to prevent the Government from falling, or go for a fresh mandate. It is unlikely that the Congress will take the risk of a mid-term election.</b>
So are we to live with a Government that will remain in power surrounded by controversies till it acquires the courage to face the people? The answer to the question is not very clear, <b>but the Prime Minister's dilemma is evident. He cannot dump the deal and lose face</b>. Nor can he convince his party to challenge the Left outright, keeping in mind the wavering support he gets from his own party colleagues.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Interestingly, some Congress MPs have been working for a change of guard at the Centre in order to save the Government. A new Prime Minister who might take over from Mr Singh could keep the Government off the India-US civil nuclear deal and keep it pending.</span> This could, in a way, meet the demand of the Left. Even if the Congress opts for a mid-term election, it will not make the nuclear deal an electoral plank. The UPA's dilemma is getting deeper as the nuclear deal has become a difficult issue to sail with.
As his difficulties mount, Mr Manmohan Singh vents his anguish by making irresponsible remarks. Mr George Fernandes' description of Mr Singh as a "traitor", the likes of whom the Chinese would have treated "with a bullet in the head", is debatable. After all, the level of political discourse has been deteriorating ever since the times of Mrs Indira Gandhi, when she transformed the Congress from a party believing in Mahatma Gandhi's ideals to a one-family party.
<b>Mrs Gandhi had a single- minded approach: Nail opponents of her misrule by calling them "foreign-inspired traitors". Rajiv Gandhi used the word "limpets" to describe the entire Opposition without ever regretting the statement later.</b>
And as Mr Fernandes has rightly pointed out, there was no Congressman ready to tell his own party leaders to stop the daily chanting of litanies during the NDA's rule, describing the then Defence Minister as a "coffin thief". At the worst, Mr Fernandes has paid the Congress back in its own coin.
While many would argue that despite his sense of personal pique, Mr Fernandes should have worded his opinion about the Prime Minister better, Mr Singh need not have sullied his own image by concocting a 'havan' done by the BJP praying for his death.
<b>The 'havan' story reveals the sense of desperation in the UPA Government</b>. Poor Mr Singh, the deal that he thought would be as historic as his 1991 economic reforms is fast turning out to be his worst political blunder.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rao brought stability, wisdom and confidence, what MMS did is converting into insanity, criminality and arrogance in governance.
This is a difference between Babu and Politicians, Babu are good for forming committee, chit-funds or collecting files or under desk deals. A politician knows how to stand when needed. Even I can trust Mulayam Singh Yadav or Lalu on Indiaâs security but not MMS.
MMS is saying Ekla Chalo re, Ekla Chalo re