IIPM ranks No 1 in International Exposure in the 'Third Mail Today B-School Survey'
A weakened PMO and indisciplined coalition partners are creating problems for UPA-II
Manmohan Singh is one of the most successful politicians of our times. As the Prime Minister of India, he has been able to bring stability to the country’s politics and economy. And I am talking through experience, having seen Manmohan Singh from close quarters in the Upper House of Parliament. He is a person of impeccable personal integrity. Many people may regard Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi as more successful Prime Ministers. Nehru was functioning in a very turbulent time and amid difficult situations. He laid down the foundation of the secular Indian democracy but failed to establish a welfare state of socialist principles.
Indira Gandhi was extremely powerful as a politician but she failed to take the Opposition along with her at any point of time. P. V. Narasimha Rao, with the help from Manmohan Singh, succeeded in ushering in some fundamental changes in the Indian economic system. His undoing was his failure to bring about social stability in times of communal turmoil.
In 2004, when the UPA came to power for the first time, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi evolved a system of governance which may not exactly be called a Cabinet form of government. Here was a leader who didn’t hold the reins of the political process but was accountable to Parliament and to the nation for every act of his government. And there was a leader who held real political power without accountability to Parliament or to the nation. This system worked perfectly in the first five years of the UPA. In fact, it allowed Manmohan Singh — not very well-versed in political machinations — to focus on governance and revamping of the Indian economy. It also allowed a coalition system to evolve in a way that it did not hinder the functioning of the government. Congress president Sonia Gandhi managed the pulls and pressures of a coalition and allowed Manmohan Singh a free hand in governance.
Any new experiment has its pitfalls and limitations. The system evolved during UPA-I could work only up to a point. The problems which were brushed under the carpet during the UPA’s first term started surfacing in its second term. That is the undoing of UPA in its second term. First, the successes of the first term of UPA were attributed mainly to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The Congress party never gave any credit to Manmohan Singh nor did he ever seek any.
During the first term, the coalition partners and ministers were not very sure of themselves but the second victory gave them much confidence. So, most of Manmohan Singh’s Cabinet colleagues, whether from the Congress or from other parties, started behaving as if they were not functioning as a part of a Cabinet system but were independently controlling their own ministries. Most of them think that in all probability, Manmohan Singh would not be around the next time and so they are looking more towards Sonia Gandhi. They go directly to the UPA chairperson if they have to discuss anything important. They do not look up to Manmohan Singh for guidance any more.
Manmohan Singh was not given a free hand in choosing his Cabinet. He was held to ransom by the whims and fancies of coalition partners. It has weakened the PMO and the department today is even less powerful than it used to be under the weak leaderships of V. P. Singh or P. V. Narasimha Rao. Now there are three centres of power in the government — Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi — and sometimes waves and instructions emanating from these centres are not in sync but rather at cross. The Prime Minister has not been able to assert himself.
Rising inflation results not only from pursuing wrong economic policies, it’s because of wrong decisions taken at wrong times or in other words because of not taking some tough decisions at the right time. UPA in its first term was more successful because circumstances, both globally and nationally, were conducive. The coalition partners were not very aggressive. There were not many upheavals and hiccups.
The UPA uses the aam aadmi plank in every election. But, they are taking the aam aadmi for a ride. Apart from the launch of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and a few other similar programmes, little has been done to benefit the common man or the rural poor. And the benefits of even those few small gestures have failed to percolate down to the needy. The credit goes to corruption. The real beneficiaries of the government policies of late have been the rich. I think it’s not necessary to elaborate the term “rich” here as we all know who they are.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Arindam Chaudhuri bags Delhi team of i1 Super Series
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri Dean Business School IIPM
IIPM Excom Prof Rajita Chaudhuri
IIPM: What is E-PAT?
IIPM RANKED NO.1 in MAIL TODAY B-SCHOOL RANKINGS
'Thorns to Competition' - You can order your copy online from here
IIPM Mumbai Campus
A weakened PMO and indisciplined coalition partners are creating problems for UPA-II
Manmohan Singh is one of the most successful politicians of our times. As the Prime Minister of India, he has been able to bring stability to the country’s politics and economy. And I am talking through experience, having seen Manmohan Singh from close quarters in the Upper House of Parliament. He is a person of impeccable personal integrity. Many people may regard Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi as more successful Prime Ministers. Nehru was functioning in a very turbulent time and amid difficult situations. He laid down the foundation of the secular Indian democracy but failed to establish a welfare state of socialist principles.
Indira Gandhi was extremely powerful as a politician but she failed to take the Opposition along with her at any point of time. P. V. Narasimha Rao, with the help from Manmohan Singh, succeeded in ushering in some fundamental changes in the Indian economic system. His undoing was his failure to bring about social stability in times of communal turmoil.
In 2004, when the UPA came to power for the first time, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi evolved a system of governance which may not exactly be called a Cabinet form of government. Here was a leader who didn’t hold the reins of the political process but was accountable to Parliament and to the nation for every act of his government. And there was a leader who held real political power without accountability to Parliament or to the nation. This system worked perfectly in the first five years of the UPA. In fact, it allowed Manmohan Singh — not very well-versed in political machinations — to focus on governance and revamping of the Indian economy. It also allowed a coalition system to evolve in a way that it did not hinder the functioning of the government. Congress president Sonia Gandhi managed the pulls and pressures of a coalition and allowed Manmohan Singh a free hand in governance.
Any new experiment has its pitfalls and limitations. The system evolved during UPA-I could work only up to a point. The problems which were brushed under the carpet during the UPA’s first term started surfacing in its second term. That is the undoing of UPA in its second term. First, the successes of the first term of UPA were attributed mainly to Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. The Congress party never gave any credit to Manmohan Singh nor did he ever seek any.
During the first term, the coalition partners and ministers were not very sure of themselves but the second victory gave them much confidence. So, most of Manmohan Singh’s Cabinet colleagues, whether from the Congress or from other parties, started behaving as if they were not functioning as a part of a Cabinet system but were independently controlling their own ministries. Most of them think that in all probability, Manmohan Singh would not be around the next time and so they are looking more towards Sonia Gandhi. They go directly to the UPA chairperson if they have to discuss anything important. They do not look up to Manmohan Singh for guidance any more.
Manmohan Singh was not given a free hand in choosing his Cabinet. He was held to ransom by the whims and fancies of coalition partners. It has weakened the PMO and the department today is even less powerful than it used to be under the weak leaderships of V. P. Singh or P. V. Narasimha Rao. Now there are three centres of power in the government — Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi — and sometimes waves and instructions emanating from these centres are not in sync but rather at cross. The Prime Minister has not been able to assert himself.
Rising inflation results not only from pursuing wrong economic policies, it’s because of wrong decisions taken at wrong times or in other words because of not taking some tough decisions at the right time. UPA in its first term was more successful because circumstances, both globally and nationally, were conducive. The coalition partners were not very aggressive. There were not many upheavals and hiccups.
The UPA uses the aam aadmi plank in every election. But, they are taking the aam aadmi for a ride. Apart from the launch of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and a few other similar programmes, little has been done to benefit the common man or the rural poor. And the benefits of even those few small gestures have failed to percolate down to the needy. The credit goes to corruption. The real beneficiaries of the government policies of late have been the rich. I think it’s not necessary to elaborate the term “rich” here as we all know who they are.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.
Arindam Chaudhuri bags Delhi team of i1 Super Series
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri Dean Business School IIPM
IIPM Excom Prof Rajita Chaudhuri
IIPM: What is E-PAT?
IIPM RANKED NO.1 in MAIL TODAY B-SCHOOL RANKINGS
'Thorns to Competition' - You can order your copy online from here
IIPM Mumbai Campus
No comments:
Post a Comment