Commentary/ Saisuresh Sivaswamy

The Bihar crisis has shown that Gujral is incapable of applying his mind

All those who hailed the era of consensus ushered in by Prime Minister I K Gujral when he took over must be wondering where to bury their heads in shame at the turn of things. A suitable venue would be the Bihar chief minister's bungalow, for isn't that where all the current troubles plaguing the ruling formation originated?

It is not easy running a complex country like India, and if former prime ministers did not appear to have over-exerted themselves with administration, it is as much a credit to their aptitude as much to the system they presided over. So when an administrator like Gujral comes along determined to march to his own beat, it makes for good music for some time -- till the effort sets in.

Having done away with the established practices, the incumbent is forced to look for means and ways, and that is when the complexity of something like running India hits you between the eyes. I think that is what is happening to Gujral now.

There are other factors at play here. It is not really Gujral's fault that he chose the path of consensus over decisiveness, for apart from his own personal conviction, the subject would even be a personal article of faith with him. The circumstances in which he was chosen leader of the United Front dictated to him the need for taking everyone along. His predecessor led the combination to a collapse with his brusque manner, and Gujral, no doubt, was impressed with the need for a healing touch.

So far so good. But there is only so far that consensus would take you. After all, when you are the prime minister, you are expected to take tough decisions. Fine, discuss issues till the cows come home, but the final decision always rests with the chief executive. Not with the alliance partners. Not with the regional satraps. And certainly not with supporting parties.

Gujral's fault, it seems, is that he has over-simplified primeministership. And it is not the correct thing to do in a country like India with contrary pulls and pressures. If Gujral is convinced of the need for hiking the price of petroleum products, then all he needs to do is to go ahead and hike it. If he begins waiting for the Left front to come around to his line of thinking, it is going to be a long long time before the oil pool deficit is addressed. By which time the gap will only widen.

Whether it is the petrol hike or any of the numerous issues he seems to have vacillated, none of them has robbed him of his moral stature the way Bihar developments and his response to them have.

In the final analysis, it is not a question merely of a corrupt chief minister stepping down from office; it is a question of the prime minister tackling the crisis on two fronts: political, as well as at the party-level.

Ignoring the fact the prime minister and the renegade chief minister belong to the same party, or at least did before the latter decided to hive off, what is apparent in the Bihar turmoil is that Gujral was shown up to be incapable of exerting his mind.

For, the prime minister is not only the ultimate administrator of the nation, it is also his duty to ensure the Constitution is not violated in any part of the country, either in letter or in spirit. And where such a violation has occurred, it is for him to make his mind known to the President who has been vested with necessary powers. Calling such action a violation of the people's mandate in a state would be simplistic, especially in a situation like in Bihar where the mandate has been well and truly forfeited.

Through the crisis that buffeted the polity, Gujral did not speak his mind. Being a decent human being himself, he left it to the sense of decency of the other person to do the right thing. Such a course may have spared him of blood on his hands, but it has not done his prime ministership any good.

That was at the administrative level. Even at the political level, he has been found wanting. For weeks his party has been shaken to its core over a simple question of intra-party elections, but the prime minister did not as much lift a finger to resolve the crisis.

And finally, when the party does break up, again there is nothing from the prime minister!

Confounding his follies, he has even refused to drop three ministers who are now officially part of the breakaway section -- the first instance perhaps of the PM showing some steel, but he could not have chosen a worse time to demonstrate his resolve. The result is that the Left, which has been watching the goings-on with some trepidation is not sure if the alliance is on the right track. For that matter, most of the constituents themselves must be wondering if this was what they came together for.

It is not as if India has not seen indecisive prime ministers. Why, it was not very long ago that P V Narasimha Rao brought new meaning and clarity to the term 'vacillation'. But his non-action was a studied response to a given situation, and often was used with tremendous success against his political foes.

Gujral's, on the other hand, appears to be the indecision of a man who, caught on the yellow line during peak hour, does not know whether to go ahead and cross the road or come back. He may appear unruffled, but that's of no help.

Not when there are almost one billion people watching to see his next step.

Tell us what you think of this column