What has plagued economists worries political scientists now, as they try and decipher the political goings-on at 10 Janpath and the Congress party.
Under the leadership of Ms Sonia Gandhi, the UPA government has undertaken several political initiatives. Some quickly come to mind: the extra-constitutional Bihar bungle where a UPA governor, Mr Buta Singh, disallowed a constitutionally held election; the extra-legal freeing up of frozen funds of a friend of the Congress party, Mr Quattorochi; the extra-international law violation by the Congress party and its foreign minister, Mr Natwar Singh, as alleged by the UN-sponsored Mr Volcker's report on the food for oil scam; the near extra-constitutional (?) introduction of an Ordinance to "pardon" Ms Sonia Gandhi (and several members of Parliament) in the office-for-profit imbroglio.
None of these initiatives was pleasant, and in terms of numbers, they far exceed, especially given the short period of two years, anything that a non-Congress government has ever done, at the Centre or in the states. The identification problem here: several. First, did Ms Gandhi know about these activities? If not, why? How can she be the pre-eminent leader of the oldest political party in India, a party not known for inner democracy, and not know of the major political acts of her government? If she did know, can we presume that she agreed? And if she did agree, did she authorise these acts undertaken by her government? Greater chance of pigs flying than .
There are two major social engineering initiatives of the UPA government: guaranteed employment for the poor and the downtrodden, and the expansion of quotas to the poor and the backward. The first is proudly claimed (by both Ms Gandhi and the UPA) to be the "flagship" of the soul of this government. No identification problem here. Though it should be noted that at the time of introduction of the law in December 2004, the UPA government had just published the result that employment growth in India (under the NDA rule) between 2000 and 2003 had been a very high 2.9 per cent per annum; and almost triple the anemic employment growth rate experienced between 1993 and 1999.
In 2003, the unemployment rate was also among the lowest ever recorded in India. But the Sonia Gandhi-led UPA felt compelled to introduce this "much-needed" Act to help the "poor", even though there really wasn't any economic need. So there is an identification problem after all: Was the Act introduced for social justice, or to increase corruption and benefit the not so poor?
Also worth noting is that versions of the employment guarantee scheme have been in existence since 1972; so there have been nearly ten governments that could have introduced this populist law in Parliament and have been assured that it would pass, and that they would get political credit for it. Can you imagine Indian politicians voting against populism, let alone responsible lawmakers? But no government did; that took leadership.
Just recently, Sonia Gandhi's minister for education, Mr Arjun Singh, proudly announced that higher education quotas would now be extended to the backward castes (not necessarily the backward classes). This, possibly extra-constitutional policy, came as a shock to many, including ministers in the UPA government. Since the partial implementation of the Mandal Commission report in 1990, there have been four governments that could have extended Mandal but refused to do so. Again, they would have got Parliament to agree. But they didn't. Possibly because they did not want to sacrifice long-term national interests for highly uncertain short-term political gains.
The key question, of course, is where Ms Gandhi stands on Mandalisation. Is her stand based on ideology or opportunism? Several state elections are happening: identification problem - social justice or crass politics? Ideology or votes? The co-incidence of political populism and elections suggests that it is good old-fashioned Congress politics - win at any cost. I disagree - I believe it is ideology.
Ms Gandhi openly admits to admiring the style and politics of Mrs Indira Gandhi - and the senior Mrs G was the classic leftist ideologue. It is worth recalling that the Communist Party of India supported Mrs G in the imposition of the Emergency just like they would have gone along a few weeks back on the office of profit Ordinance. The senior Mrs G invented populism - how different are Garibi hatao slogans from employment guarantee schemes or education quotas? Ironically, and somewhat surprisingly, what Rajiv Gandhi said in 1989 amounted to lambasting both the poverty schemes of his mother (by asserting that only 15 per cent of garibi hatao schemes ever reached the poor) and the quota schemes of his wife (in 2006). In 1990, he strongly objected to the implementation of the Mandal announcement, even in its then limited form.
So we are left with zero identification problems. If there is disagreement and tension within the Congress party, the fights should be seen as those between the senior-most leader Ms Gandhi and her leftist followers, and the liberal, progressive, and modern elements. Given her pre-eminent position, Mrs Sonia Gandhi is likely to win her battles - which is why I would much rather have preferred that she was acting out of crass opportunism. That can be defeated. Alas, ideology is a lot more dangerous, and destructive for the economy and the polity. Remember Mrs Indira Gandhi.