





|
Tom and
Jerry in Punjab If unchecked, the
Badal-Tohra bickering could re-create the political vacuum in the '80s.
Political analysts in Punjab often make the carping observation that
Akalis simply can't cope with power. When in opposition they appear united. When in
government they begin bickering immediately after they're sworn in, earlier if possible.
Given such a track record, there is a sense of deja vu to the current factionalism in the
Akali Dal. Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and religio-political leader Gurcharan Singh
Tohra have renewed their Tom and Jerry show less than two years after the Akali-bjp
combine swept the assembly elections. While some things may never change, public patience
is certainly becoming thinner by the day. An augury of what could be in store for a
quarrelsome Akali-led regime came in the recent Adampur byelection: the Congress defied
predictions by winning there. The Akali-bjp coalition came to power claiming to be not
just an electoral friendship but a larger social coalition between Hindus and Sikhs. In
the aftermath of Punjab's blood-splattered decade, this was seen as the formula for peace
and the antidote to insurrection. If the Badal Government now commits political harakiri
it will be betraying not just its voters but the nationalist mandate.
Overstated as such concerns may seem, they are borne out by
the history of Akali skulduggery. When the terrorist menace first surfaced,
"moderate" Akalis surpassed each other in ingratiating themselves with the
"boys". Tohra and Badal fled the political scene -- sometimes literally. Having
learnt no lessons, Tohra is again resorting to extreme rhetoric, calculated to rekindle
old fires. Not that Badal is doing much better by encouraging a war of words which could
go out of control. In sum, Tohra is the perfect Raj Narain to Badal's Morarji Desai.
Together they may well destroy the Government in as ignominious a manner as the Janata
regime fell in 1979. The problem is they may also re-create the political space for
militants.
Taint on the Uniform
Only a streamlined Defence Ministry can tackle the
military appointments mess.
Civil supremacy over the military is
the cornerstone of any democratic political system, even though communist entities like
China and the Soviet Union, when it existed, have applied this principle equally
vigorously. But all militaries, by their very nature, function within an authoritarian
structure which is inherently undemocratic. For this reason, managing the armed forces
requires considerable skill and perspicacity. Sadly, these seem to be lacking in the
conflict that has emerged between the Ministry of Defence and Naval Headquarters. The
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) may not have applied its mind adequately in
appointing to the position of deputy chief of naval staff (operations) an officer who
lacks the trust of the service chief. Indeed, the two have even traded insults through the
avoidable media of writ petitions.
Even though he cites statutes to back his claim, the naval
chief's rejection of the ACC's recommendation has caused a standoff which can only be
detrimental to the larger interests of the nation. A spate of cases in the courts,
including an unprecedented judgment quashing the appointment of the general officer
commanding-in-chief of the Eastern Command and his replacement with another officer, point
to a deeper malaise. The solution requires a broader reform in the way the Ministry of
Defence is run. The principle of civilian control, as the armed forces have been pointing
out in recent years, should not and cannot be taken to mean bureaucratic supremacy.
Rather, it means the supremacy of the civil government of which the prime minister is the
head. Defence Minister George Fernandes says he is examining proposals for restructuring
the ministry. But for the present, the prime minister and his senior colleagues must knock
a few heads and retrieve the situation. |