Confronting the UPA

George W Bush’s visit can trigger reaction, but the Third Front is not such an easy option

John Philip Delhi

Interacting with a group of mediapersons a few days after the formation of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, former prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh presented a political formulation for the country's future. Central to the theformulation was the exhortation to make use of the defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the rise of the UPA to power in such a manner that the both the ruling space and the opposition space in the country's political firmament remains with secular forces. The 2004 General Elections, he pointed out, had essentially been a fight between the forces of secularism broadly led by the Congress and the forces of communalism led by the BJP and its cohorts in the Sangh Parivar. The fight, the former prime minister contended, needs to be carried forward by marginalising the communal forces in the country's legitimate electoral and political space.

The projection obviously entailed the revival of the concept of the Third Front, but the former National Front prime minister did not specify what practical steps, devices and mechanisms secular forces could use to put his formulation into effect. However, it was broadly indicated that the evolution of the plan in order that secular forces occupy both the ruling as well as the opposition space would be a calibrated exercise that did not jeopardise the UPA government and help the main opposition BJP to bounce back into political prominence.

Singh — the man who had virtually changed the contours of Indian politics and the socio-political balance of power in vast tracts of the country through the advancement of " Mandal politics " in the late 1980s — was apparently working in tandem at that juncture with Harkishan Singh Surjit , veteran leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The manoeuvres of the Congress, the leader of the UPA, and the CPI(M)-led left parties, on whose "outside  support” the UPA government was dependant for survival, over the next few months gave a broad indication of this association and the tactics developed by it. The Left parties questioned the actions of the government in public forums so strongly that they were acknowledged as the "real opposition". The fact that BJP and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by it were seen to be increasingly ineffective, partly because of the manifold ideological, political and organisational muddles that the BJP got into from time to time, also contributed to this perception.

For the first six months of the UPA government, this thrust and parry exercise seemed to work well, but that was mainly at the level of addressing the concerns of day-to-day governance. But evolving concrete political, organisational shape to the retention of both the ruling and opposition space by secular forces needed to move forward such "day to day issues" and get into macro-dimensions. This, the last 12 months of the UPA have proved, is easier visualised than implemented. Happenings over this period have helped to impart a more tangible shape to a new Third Front but at the same time the earlier premise that this should be developed without passing on political advantage to the BJP has also taken some beatings.

A variety of contentious factors relating to ideology, government policy, perceptions on strategy and above all political ambitions and their pursuit have come up in this period raising doubts about the efficacy of Vishwanath Pratap Singh's formulation. And, developments in the last two months, especially the immediate run-up to the 2006 Budget session of Parliament, even suggested that not only the former prime minister's grand vision but also the UPA government itself would come tumbling down.

The issues of immediate concern were, of course, the Left's vociferous opposition to the UPA government's vote in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against Iran and the manner in which the Indo-US nuclear agreement was being advanced. The Left had perceived not merely a clear pro-US tilt in these actions but also a barefaced subjugation to the diktats of the Bush administration. It went on to categorise these as blatant violations of the commitment in the UPA's Common Minimum Programme (CMP) to "follow an independent foreign policy". Left leaders including CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat travelled to different parts of the country and campaigned on these issues.

Sections of the Congress and the UPA did think that all this was in keeping with the overall framework of the "thrust and parry" between the UPA and Left, but there were also developments beyond this framework. A factor of great importance was that the Samajwadi Party (SP) had seen the Indo-US questions as good campaign issues to mobilise Muslim minority public opinion in its favour, especially in Uttar Pradesh, where the party has been facing the travails of incumbency. The SP had tied up with the Left in its urge to make maximum political capital out of the situation. But there was an added qualitative dimension to the association that manifested as a concrete threat to the UPA government.

This was in the form of repeated statements about bringing a no-confidence motion against the government on the Iran issue.

The no-confidence motion idea held out the biggest threat to the government's existence in the run-up to the Budget session. The idea was formally supported by the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), which is not technically a part of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The NDA, on its part, did not make any formal statement but there were indications that significant sections of the BJP, especially those close to former deputy prime minister and former party president Lal Krishna Advani saw it as an excellent opportunity to see the back of the UPA government. These sections of the BJP, at that time, calculated that the Left will have to support the SP's move, especially because it cannot backtrack on its anti-US rhetoric, after having come this far.

In such a context, the advocates of this line held, all that the BJP needed to do was to downplay its own pro-US foreign policy a little — by emphasising on national interests and how they were being sacrificed by the UPA, go along with the no-confidence motion and ensure the defeat of the government on the floor of the Parliament. In the resulting confusion the BJP, this line argued, could either prop up a weak centrist government or create an impasse to enforce mid-term polls.

These calculations, however, did not materialise, essentially on account of a forceful pro-US, anti-Iran intervention from Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the leader of the Sangh Parivar and the ideological fountainhead of the BJP, which said that the Manmohan Singh government was right in voting against the Islamic Iran at the IAEA. But the threat in the run-up to the Budget session was real. More importantly, the threat can indeed become a reality in the future owing to a number of factors.  

The most important of these is of course the Left's growing disenchantment with the government. In the last six months the Left has repeatedly made it clear that it is unhappy with the government's direction not only on foreign policy but also on its economic policy initiatives. Steps like the introduction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in retail trade and the privatisation of airports have come in for specific criticism. At the ministerial level too, the Left is of the view that portfolio reshuffles have been carried out in order to help US interests. The removal of Mani Shankar Aiyar from the Petroleum and Natural Gas ministry and the induction of "pro-US" Murli Deora as replacement have been cited as a striking case in point. In terms of political manoeuvres too, the Left has stated formally that the "Congress is not pursuing a line committed to marginalising the communal BJP". On the contrary, the Left leadership points out, the Congress is helping the BJP capture power in state after state. 

The blame for the election reverses in Bihar and Jharkhand as well as the coup in Karnataka that resulted in the alliance between the BJP and the breakaway faction of the Janata Dal (S) and the formation of a new coalition government in the state have all been put at the doorstep of the Congress by the Left parties. In simple terms the Left's contention is that the Congress still carries the burden of its "single party rule" percept and is not following coalition dharma. Many of the Congress' allies in the UPA such as the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) would see much merit in this contention. The Left has also made it clear that it sees no merit in the coordination committee manoeuvres with the UPA and that it will launch sustained efforts against the government on a number of issues inside the Parliament and outside.

The visit of US President George W  Bush could well be the starting point of this sustained agitation. The presentation of the Budget and the allocation that the pro-liberalisation Finance Minister P Chidambaram would provide to areas of Left concern, including its pet project, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) will also play a part. The SP has already decided to stand firmly with the Left on these issues.

Even so, there is a singular difference between the anti-UPA initiatives of the Left and SP. The latter is not too concerned that the drive should not ultimately benefit the BJP. The SP's perception does not say that a "secular " Congress-led government should be protected merely to prevent the BJP from making gains. The Left, on the other hand, is basically clear that the reverses to the UPA should not benefit the BJP. The no-confidence motion move of the SP makes this difference in perception amply clear.

As things stand at the beginning of the Budget session, the upper hand in the anti-UPA drive is with the Left. And hence, the direction, tone and tenor of the initiative is tempered with a larger concern; that of denying the BJP and the NDA any opportunity to bounce back at the national level. But that may not remain so, given the SP's mass following in Uttar Pradesh, its sizable presence in the Lok Sabha and the tendency of its leadership to embark on and advance volatile agitations and political programmes. The growing fondness between the SP, the TDP and the Tamil Nadu-based All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) could all become contributing factors to the hasty creation of an unplanned Third Front. More importantly, the RSS may come to save the government on an anti-Muslim, pro-US foreign policy issue but will not take a similar posture when it comes to economic policy issues that go against its thrust of swadeshi promotion.

Beyond all this, the single most important contributing factor is the tendencies that have reflected in the governmental and political actions of the Congress. These actions, clearly, are steadily pushing the Left to a point of no return. In the midst of all this, the BJP is positioning itself for a re-emergence although its own internal problems have not been satisfactorily solved. Where does this situation put Vishwanath Pratap Singh's pet idea of a secular government—opposition combine? Not on a winning wicket, as things stand now.