India News Online » News Analysis » Indian Politics » 

UPA-NDA impasse continues

	September 06, 2004

Concerned over the repeated boycott of Parliament and unruly behaviour of BJP-led opposition Members of Parliament, Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has convened a meeting of leaders of the UPA and the Opposition in both Houses to evolve a code of conduct for the smooth functioning of Parliament.

Though the Speaker wanted to hold the meeting early, it was finally scheduled for November 18, keeping in view the Maharashtra poll where top leaders of all parties would be fully involved.

The confrontation between the UPA and the NDA had resulted in premature adjournment of the Budget session. The Lok Sabha, which was scheduled to have 30 sittings spread over 180 hours, could sit for only for 24 days. Of these 24 days, the House lost over 47 hours because of disorderly scenes that prompted abrupt adjournment.

The Speaker, in his concluding remarks before Parliament was adjourned sine die, had said, “My humble efforts have proved to be inadequate and it is my great sorrow that all attempts of the Chair to see that the House functions normally and that important businesses before the House are transacted after debate and participation by the members have not had the desired result.”



Another Godhra probe on Gujarat riots

Meanwhile, the UPA-NDA divide is likely to grow wider with the Government deciding on setting up a panel under Justice V.C. Banerjee to probe the Godhra tragedy. Senior BJP leaders said that an anomalous situation of two probes working simultaneously had been created. It is also being pointed out that if the two inquiries reach varying conclusions another odd precedent would be set.

But was a new committee or a panel required for the Godhra fire incident when already Nanavati Commission was inquiring into the matter ?

Briefing the media soon after the Cabinet approval, Railway Minister Lalu Prasad blamed the Railway Commissioner Safety for not inquiring into the incident although the official was duty-bound to do so. “The RCS did not act for eight months on the lame plea that the Nanavati Commission was already inquiring into the matter,” Lalu said. He put the blame on Nitish Kumar for not taking any action against the RCS.

On February 27, 2002, fifty-eight people were killed when the train carrying Hindu activists was allegedly torched by a mob in the town of Godhra in Gujarat. The Hindu activists called Kar Sevaks (volunteers) were returning from the disputed religious site of Ayodhya in northern India, where a mosque was demolished in 1992. The Godhra fire incident led to riots in Gujarat in which more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed.

For long there have been debates over the cause of the fire in the railway compartment. A commission comprising Justice (retd) G.T. Nanavati and Justice (retd) K.G. Shah was formed to investigate into the matter. Now the Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav had secured the approval of the Cabinet for holding a fresh inquiry into the February, 2002, Godhra train fire by a retired Supreme Court Judge.

According to the eight point terms of reference, the committee would ascertain the precise cause of fire in coach S-6 of the 9166 Sabarmati Express on February 27 and to recommend suitable measures to prevent such incidents. The committee would ascertain the events, developments and circumstances that took place after the train left Muzaffarpur on February 25, 2002, and before it reached Godhra and beyond (including the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) and if those causes, individually or conjointly, contributed to the fire.

It would also ascertain why the said train, including the S-6 coach, was overcrowded with passengers, many of whom were without reservation, and if their behaviour in any manner contributed to the fire. It would also find out if there was any wrongful act, neglect or default on part of the officials and workmen of the railway administration and its security staff. The committee would examine if any other probable internal and external factors or aggravating circumstances that might have led to the tragedy.

Since he took over as Railway Minister, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader, Laloo Prasad Yadav has been saying that there was confusion in the minds of the people about what led to the fire in Sabarmati Express. According to him, the Gujarat State Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) had rebutted outrightly the stand of the BJP government in Gujarat, which maintained that the fire was set by a mob belonging to the minority community in Gujarat. He said the CFSL said it was not scientifically possible to set the train on fire from outside and if petroleum inflammables were thrown from outside, the fire would have spread to other coaches also.

Reacting strongly, the BJP has termed as illegal and unconstitutional the decision of the Cabinet to appoint a second judicial commission to probe the Godhra massacre. The BJP spokesman Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi said that it was politically motivated and illegal as a commission headed by Justice Nanavati was doing the job. This was an irresponsible decision and would create tension in the country, Naqvi said.

Political analysts believe that whether Yadav’s decision to hold a fresh enquiry is a geniune concern or a populist move, there is no doubt that the move would bring pressure on chief minister Narendra Modi.

Meanwhile, former State Intelligence Chief of Gujarat, R.B. Sreekumar, deposing before the Nanvati-Shah Inquiry Commission, has said that the police was under “severe pressure” from the Sangh Parivar (RSS family of Hindu fundamentalist organisations like BJP, VHP Bajrang Dal etc.) outfits not to take any action against the Hindu attackers. He claimed that he had found many of the police officers taking orders not from their own superiors but “directly from the political leaders of the ruling party.” He, however, declined to reveal the names of the “political bosses” and said these had been given to him by his “sources” in confidence and would not be willing to jeopardise their career by revealing the names.

The enquiry on Gujarat riots once again shows the influence that regional leaders have on the Government of the day. Speaking on the release of a book last week, former Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke on coalition politics and its importance. Refuting former President R. Venkatraman’s comment that “there should be only two parties”, he stressed that coalition era was here to stay. Coalitions should not be seen as an inferior form of government or something borne out of circumstances (“majboori”) but as a positive phenomenon (“mazbooti”) that strengthens India’s democracy, he said. Pointing out how the Congress, which had always been against coalitions, was now heading one, Vajpayee said in a country like India, it was essential to accommodate different shades of opinion. He agreed with Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani that “political untouchability” should be eschewed, but made no comment against the present dispensation.

In sharp contrast, Advani took swipes at the Manmohan Singh Government. Quoting a Deutsche Bank analysis of the 2004 elections, Advani said the UPA was “a fragile coalition” for unlike the NDA, it comprised parties which were bitter rivals in the states. This government would not last beyond 18 months, he said.

There are many who share this opinion. But whether the Government survives or not, will depend more on its internal support systems, rather than on the Opposition. It is here that the role of the Left becomes crucial.



Left sends warning signals

Shaken by the news that a Cabinet note is being prepared to hike FDI in telecom, the Left Front have already warned the government not to go back on the promise of considering the Left’s concerns. But Left leaders - CPM’s Prakash Karat, CPI’s D Raja and RSP’s Abani Roy - reiterated that Left-UPA government relationship has not yet reached the “crossroads”.

They did not reveal their future action if the government goes ahead with its move. Karat only said: “CMP (common minimum programme) is a compromise for us. It is not our programme.” The Left Front admitted that it did not “feel strongly” about the proposal to hike FDI in civil aviation from 40 per cent to 49 per cent. Karat said a distinction should be made between modernisation of airports and FDI in civil aviation.

“While we oppose the government’s move to give modernisation work to private companies, we do not have strong reservations about FDI. But we would send a note to government on this issue before the next meeting of the Left-UPA coordination committee,” he said.

Since the FDI in telecom could be hiked by an executive order, the Left Front, to whip up public opinion in its favour, also released the notes on the issue and on FDI in insurance it had sent to the government before the last coordination committee meeting with the government. Even UPA partners have been sent a copy of the note.

“We have marshalled all facts and given international norms of telecom policy. Be it US, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Malaysia, or Indonesia, all maintain FDI caps. Since, we are always told to imitate China’s example, a separate section deals with that country’s telecom policy. Telecom is not another industry.

Even the security issue is involved. The NDA government could not proceed with the hike since both IB and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had insisted that FDI should not go beyond 49 per cent,” Karat said.

Giving the instance of Project Echelon, a global electronic surveillance network designed and coordinated by the US’ National Security Agency, the Left Front has shown how it has become an issue of concern for EU countries.

Karat also rejected government’s argument that India’s slow growth is due to lack of capital. The note shows that all Indian telecom companies have good revenue reserves and surplus. “Moreover, banks are flush with funds,” Karat said. He said hiking FDI in insurance from 26 per cent to 49 per cent would be a tough task since “the government would have to seek Parliament’s nod which is not easy”.