BANKRUPTCY OF LEADERSHIP

The reason that Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram advanced for the overnight decision on Telangana was the worsening health condition of TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao. If anything untoward were to happen to him the situation would have gone out of control. That was his unstated fear. Hence, he was prepared to vivisect the state of Andhra Pradesh armed with the hasty decision of a few fire-fighting heads coming together to bail out the state chief minister from a difficult situation. What he did not also say was that the Left extremists and people within his own party would have played havoc in the state in case of such an eventuality.

The same Home Minister, however, while replying to the debate on the dud report of Liberhan, found fault with the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh and by implication his own former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao for the failure to deploy forces available in the vicinity of Ayodhya to prevent the demolition of the disputed structure. Had the security forces entered the scene, consequences would have been as disastrous as it would have been on 10th Dec in Hyderabad. The dilapidated and disused structure could have been saved only at the cost of hundreds of lives on the spot. Such was the volatility of the situation both on Dec. 6 1992 and now, as Chidambaram feared, on December 9, 2009 at Hyderabad.

When it comes to a State where his party had high stakes, he would like to yield to political blackmail and in the case of a state ruled by his political rival, he has different set of standards and does not want them to respect the popular sentiments and avoid bloodshed. Ah, Talking of popular sentiments, the usual question that emanates from the “seculars” is that “does the Sangh Parivar represent the will of the entire majority community?” If TRS (which was routed in the elections this year in Telangana itself) represents the popular sentiments of people of Telangana, why should there be reservations when it comes to Sangh Parivar and Hindu sentiments?
Keeping aside the historical aberrations, let’s come to the ongoing crisis in the state.

The crisis brings to light very significant realities which the political class will ignore only at the cost of their credibility and relevance.

The President of the Indian National Congress and chairperson of the UPA is simply not a political animal and has no clue about political management. It is only the adulation of her spineless partymen that keeps her in the place that she is now. Electoral success in 2004 and 2009 is due to combination of various complex political realities and certainly not that of the political sagacity of the leadership.

There is complete disconnect between the central leadership of the party and the grass root level leaders that became evident in the last couple of days. The leadership is interested in imposing its will on the people with complete disregard for their genuine aspirations. Atlast Legislators had to choose between their electors and the dictates of the High Command. How long this will last is a different story; atleast they had a taste of the emerging trend which they will ignore at their own peril.

The “high command” culture that has taken deep roots in the party and infected other parties as well like virus, is completely destroying the basic tenets of democracy. Had the legislators elected their leader of the CLP, he would have emerged as a strong leader whose political legitimacy would have stood by him to tackle difficult situations. There would have been no political vacuum in the state which is responsible for the current mess-up. It has become a “policy” of the Congress not to allow leaders to grow on their own strength at the regional level.

Tendency to have “weak” state satraps who will be looking forward to the High Command’s nod even if they have to visit the rest room, might have ensured pliable CMs, but it has annoyed the people and that is what we are witnessing in the state today.

The High Command is unable to shed its love for sycophants whose vested interests influence the decision making process. It never allows the elected representatives to have their say quite frankly. The omnibus resolutions, or should we say one-line resolutions, entrusting with the high command the decision making power is antithesis of democracy.

Combination of these factors is creating a situation in the state which would be a repeat of early eighties in the state. The Congress leadership in Delhi does not seem to have learnt any lesson from the past.

Legal experts feel that it is a travesty of the letter and spirit of Constitution for the legislators to ask Congress party chief to decide on a vital issue like division of a State. The jurisdiction is that of Parliament and the Union Cabinet and of course the consent of the people concerned, that is, if the legislators are allowed to express their views. What is the legal status of a Core Committee? It is more for the convenience of the government in the decision making process and ultimately it has to be approved by the Cabinet. Did the statement that Chidambaram read out on the midnight of 9th December have the approval of the cabinet?

Obviously, Sonia Gandhi wanted to bail out her appointee chief minister K Rosaiah from a difficult situation. Had there been a complete break-down of law and order in the state in the wake of KCR’s health, people would have faulted her for imposing a weak leader, who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the state. And to protect her “ego” she was prepared to divide the state. There are also unconfirmed reports that her son wanted a dress rehearsal in Telangana for his proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh.

True, there was no acceptable leader after the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene, and there was crisis of leadership in the grand old party. In such a situation, she should have allowed the Congress Legislature Party to elect a leader in a democratic manner. On the contrary, she treated the elected representatives something like robotic heads and hands to nod their heads and to raise their hands completely disregarding the pulse of their electors. Electors are now sending a message that they cannot be taken for granted. This must come as a wake up call for the high command to change its style of functioning.