People's Democracy

         CMP Is The Only Guarantee For Stability

  Sitaram Yechury

THE media reaction to the CPI(M) reassertion of its positions on fundamental aspects of economic reform was totally on predictable lines. There are two aspects of this reaction that must be noted. The minor one is the distorted and twisted manner in which certain parts of a long interview were reported and projected to convey an impression of a deep discord in the UPA coalition and Left support. This was sought to be extended to create an impression of grave instability for this government. We characterise this as minor because this is entirely on the expected lines. For, after all, it was the same media led by its electronic arm that continuously projected during the long election campaign the inevitability of the NDA’s return to power under the “invincible” Mr. Vajpayee. There has been no other occasion in recent memory that has so sharply brought out the media’s total alienation from the people, their concerns and their opinions. The hangover of their anxiety over the fact that what they had spoken and projected had not happened during the elections pushes them to look through a magnifying glass at the possibility of discord that can destabilise the present government. Just as all their opinion and exit polls were rubbished by the final people’s verdict, such motivated distortions and propaganda will also be.

The major aspect of the media campaign confirms what we have said in these columns last week viz. now that elections have come and gone the government must continue its business as usual. The business as usual means that the government must carry forward the reform process irrespective of the fact that an important component of the people’s mandate in election 2004 was a vote against the severe hardships that these policies have imposed on their livelihood during the last five-six years. In other words, the media urges the present government not merely to disregard the people’s mandate but to negate it. That such efforts of theirs are thwarted by the Left’s strengthened presence in the parliament without whose support this government can neither survive nor function is naturally the target of their anger and frustration.

The main issue in this entire controversy revolves around the increase in the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) caps in the crucial sectors of telecommunication, civil aviation and insurance. Through these columns we had stated our reasons for opposition to this increase in the FDI caps in these three sectors particularly (see PD editorial last week). These need not be repeated here.

The crucial point is that the increases in the FDI cap are an executive decision which need not have the parliament’s approval. This procedure, which we consider as anti-democratic, was introduced deliberately by the Vajpayee government to escape from both accountability and transparency on crucial economic decisions. However, in this case, the increase in the FDI cap in the insurance sector can only be made with the specific approval of parliament. This is so because the existing Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act (IRDA) stipulates the FDI in this sector cannot be more than 26 per cent. If this has to be increased to 49 per cent the government will have to bring an amendment before the parliament to this effect.

If the government chooses to adopt this course then the CPI(M) has publicly declared its intention to vote against this amendment. This is what causes ire to the media who by and large have been the cheerleaders of the economic reforms package that seeks to further mortgage India’s economic sovereignty.

Now, this decision of the CPI(M) and the Left is nothing new. When the same finance minister under the United Front government, which was crucially supported by the Left, brought the bill to privatise the insurance sector in 1997, the CPI(M) and the Left opposed it. On that occasion the finance minister had to withdraw the bill from the parliament. It was later adopted when the NDA government moved the bill with the support of the Congress. On this occasion as well the CPI(M) and the Left voted against this bill. This is precisely what the CPI(M) and the Left will do when and if an amendment to this bill to increase the FDI cap is brought before parliament. If anything there is a principled consistency in the stand of the CPI(M) and the Left.

It is this consistency that the venerable editors of our national dailies and electronic media channels want the CPI(M) to discard. Since elections are over and the people wanted a change in government it is the CPI(M)’s responsibility, they would argue, to not create obstacles in the functioning of the government. No matter if the government proposes policies or prescriptions that go against the very grain of the people’s mandate which in the first place brought this government to office.  Such is their desperation and frustration that one of the national dailies editorial states that by opposing these measures that the government proposes the CPI(M) is being “anti-democratic” apart from being against the “country’s interests” (The Indian Express, July 18). This is the very same daily that was “informing” the Indian people till the day the results were announced that the NDA is going to come back to power. This was the very paper that unambiguously stated that there is no leader worth the stature to lead the country other than Mr. Vajpayee. “Atal Behari Nehru” were its screaming headlines, asserting that Vajpayee has risen above Nehruvian proportions.

This is the media which claims to be reflecting the people’s opinion and safeguarding the country’s interests! Very clearly their interest lies in advancing this set of economic reforms which on the one hand undermines India’s economic sovereignty and on the other hand imposes burdens on the people.

The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) worked out by the UPA and by and large endorsed by the Left (excepting certain measures that were publicly declared at that time) reflects this component of the people’s verdict. This found expression in the various measures outlined in the CMP aimed at improving the people’s welfare. The CPI(M) has reiterated its public commitment to support the implementation of many of these measures. Likewise it has reiterated that it shall oppose any measure that contradicts the content and spirit of the CMP. The expression of such a role for the CPI(M) and the Left was found in the term “watchdog”. But then our critics and the media would argue that since the CPI(M) is the most consistent champion of India’s secular democratic order (inadvertently they seem to be paying the CPI(M) and the Left a compliment), the Left will only “bark” but will not “bite”. In other words, the Left’s support to this government must be taken for granted and many editorials (Economic Times, Hindustan Times etc) have asked the UPA government to call the “Left’s bluff”.

The strategy, though having a simple objective of forcing the Left to accept what it disagrees with and what the people have rejected, evolves in a complex manner. On the one hand, it suggests that the Left can never withdraw support and on the other it seeks to force the Left to accept policies that negate the people’s mandate. The singular fallacy of this strategy is the deliberate refusal to recognise that the stability of the UPA government is determined by its sincere conviction in implementing the Common Minimum Programme. By forcing the government to implement measures that are contrary to the CMP, (like privatisation of profit making public sector units as done in this budget in the case of the NTPC etc) it is the liberalisation drumbeaters in the media who are emerging as the source of potential destabilisation for this government.

The CPI(M) reiterates its commitment to ensure not merely the survival of this government but to push it in the direction of being more vibrant and responsive to people’s needs and aspirations. It must be recollected that this is not the first time that the CPI(M) has extended support to a government from the outside in the interests of India and its people. The support to the Morarji Desai Janata government in 1977, the V P Singh government in 1989, the Deve Gowda and Gujaral governments in 1996 and 1998 remained consistent till the end. None of these governments fell because of any vacillations in the CPI(M)’s support, leave alone the withdrawal of support.

Likewise with this government the CPI(M) has very clearly stated that it shall make all efforts to keep this government going for its full term. But that will depend on this government’s sincerity in implementing the CMP that it itself has authored. Therefore in the final analysis, stability of this government depends upon the policies that it pursues. As long as these are in consonance with the CMP there is absolutely no threat to this government’s stability. Whenever the government may falter (which we hope it does not), putting back its policies on the CMP rails is a task that the CPI(M) and the Left will discharge. This is the meaning of being the watchdog of this government.

If the media is sincere in its claims to reflect the interests of the country and the people and show a respect for the decisive mandate then the least that it can do is to encourage this government to govern on the basis of the CMP and not to egg on the government to violate the CMP to further the interests of international finance capital to the detriment of India and its people. This is the true test of patriotism in the present context.