Ideology and India

Khurshid, speaking on ideology and politics, missed the point

Law Minister has insisted that his statements to The on the “rudderless” nature of the party have been “misinterpreted”. On the contrary, it appears that they were more than clear enough, and that they accurately reflect the views of a large and growing section of those within the ruling party. Mr Khurshid, speaking of the Congress, said that “we need a new to be given by our next-generation leader to move forward”, and that, so far, the had seen only “cameos of his thought and ideas”. He is quite right that Mr Gandhi, a general secretary of the party and widely viewed as its next leader, has been too reticent about his opinions and suggestions on specific policy proposals. However, the larger drift of his argument appears to be both mistaken and misdirected, not “misinterpreted”.

First, Mr Khurshid is mistaken: it is far from clear that the is in fact in need of a new ideology. The Congress’ historical continues, apparently, to be on offer: left-of-centre compromise. The “reformists”, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, push for growth that swells incomes and the exchequer; the “entitlers”, led by President Sonia Gandhi, push for the spread of rights and welfarist entitlements to India’s poor. Since 2004, it is clear that the policy programme the offers is a compromise between these two viewpoints — or what it chooses to call “inclusive growth”. That UPA-II has largely failed to deliver either inclusion or growth is a reflection of administrative and political failures, not of direction. It is inconceivable that Mr Gandhi will alter the “inclusive growth” approach — so what ideological intervention is expected of him? Which should take the debate to the second point: how Mr Khurshid’s suggestions are misdirected. Mr Gandhi continues to show no inclination whatsoever to take up a post in government or to usurp his mother’s role as leader of the party. Given that the failures of UPA-II have been failures of and administration – an inability to push reform, restore growth and tackle corruption, the collapse of the in Andhra Pradesh thanks to mismanagement of the Telangana issue, and an overall mishandling of its allies – Mr Khurshid’s complaints would have been better directed at the party’s current leader, Sonia Gandhi. Or, indeed, at all his fellow Congressmen, with Mr Gandhi just one among their number. Nothing stops the from conducting a lively internal debate on policy issues that can inform its future direction.

While the Congress’ confusions play out in public, however, it is notable that India’s other national formations may be even more ideologically adrift. The BJP, a party of nominal economic reformers, blocks essential reforms, like the goods and services tax, that it earlier supported. It is unclear whether it wants to be a party of hardline, authoritarian Hindutva – Narendra Modi’s party – or of softer, inclusive nationalism — Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s party. Meanwhile, the ideological divisions in India’s Communists are no longer concealed by their oaths of silence; student wings are rebelling against the “compromises” made by their parliamentarians, for example. India’s is not short of ideological conflict; it is just rarely seen clearly as such.

image
Business Standard
177 22
Business Standard

Ideology and India

Khurshid, speaking on ideology and politics, missed the point

Business Standard  |  New Delhi 

Law Minister has insisted that his statements to The on the “rudderless” nature of the party have been “misinterpreted”. On the contrary, it appears that they were more than clear enough, and that they accurately reflect the views of a large and growing section of those within the ruling party. Mr Khurshid, speaking of the Congress, said that “we need a new to be given by our next-generation leader to move forward”, and that, so far, the had seen only “cameos of his thought and ideas”. He is quite right that Mr Gandhi, a general secretary of the party and widely viewed as its next leader, has been too reticent about his opinions and suggestions on specific policy proposals. However, the larger drift of his argument appears to be both mistaken and misdirected, not “misinterpreted”.

First, Mr Khurshid is mistaken: it is far from clear that the is in fact in need of a new ideology. The Congress’ historical continues, apparently, to be on offer: left-of-centre compromise. The “reformists”, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, push for growth that swells incomes and the exchequer; the “entitlers”, led by President Sonia Gandhi, push for the spread of rights and welfarist entitlements to India’s poor. Since 2004, it is clear that the policy programme the offers is a compromise between these two viewpoints — or what it chooses to call “inclusive growth”. That UPA-II has largely failed to deliver either inclusion or growth is a reflection of administrative and political failures, not of direction. It is inconceivable that Mr Gandhi will alter the “inclusive growth” approach — so what ideological intervention is expected of him? Which should take the debate to the second point: how Mr Khurshid’s suggestions are misdirected. Mr Gandhi continues to show no inclination whatsoever to take up a post in government or to usurp his mother’s role as leader of the party. Given that the failures of UPA-II have been failures of and administration – an inability to push reform, restore growth and tackle corruption, the collapse of the in Andhra Pradesh thanks to mismanagement of the Telangana issue, and an overall mishandling of its allies – Mr Khurshid’s complaints would have been better directed at the party’s current leader, Sonia Gandhi. Or, indeed, at all his fellow Congressmen, with Mr Gandhi just one among their number. Nothing stops the from conducting a lively internal debate on policy issues that can inform its future direction.

While the Congress’ confusions play out in public, however, it is notable that India’s other national formations may be even more ideologically adrift. The BJP, a party of nominal economic reformers, blocks essential reforms, like the goods and services tax, that it earlier supported. It is unclear whether it wants to be a party of hardline, authoritarian Hindutva – Narendra Modi’s party – or of softer, inclusive nationalism — Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s party. Meanwhile, the ideological divisions in India’s Communists are no longer concealed by their oaths of silence; student wings are rebelling against the “compromises” made by their parliamentarians, for example. India’s is not short of ideological conflict; it is just rarely seen clearly as such.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Ideology and India

Khurshid, speaking on ideology and politics, missed the point

Law Minister Salman Khurshid has insisted that his statements to The Indian Express on the “rudderless” nature of the Congress party have been “misinterpreted”. On the contrary, it appears that they were more than clear enough, and that they accurately reflect the views of a large and growing section of those within the ruling party.

Law Minister has insisted that his statements to The on the “rudderless” nature of the party have been “misinterpreted”. On the contrary, it appears that they were more than clear enough, and that they accurately reflect the views of a large and growing section of those within the ruling party. Mr Khurshid, speaking of the Congress, said that “we need a new to be given by our next-generation leader to move forward”, and that, so far, the had seen only “cameos of his thought and ideas”. He is quite right that Mr Gandhi, a general secretary of the party and widely viewed as its next leader, has been too reticent about his opinions and suggestions on specific policy proposals. However, the larger drift of his argument appears to be both mistaken and misdirected, not “misinterpreted”.

First, Mr Khurshid is mistaken: it is far from clear that the is in fact in need of a new ideology. The Congress’ historical continues, apparently, to be on offer: left-of-centre compromise. The “reformists”, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, push for growth that swells incomes and the exchequer; the “entitlers”, led by President Sonia Gandhi, push for the spread of rights and welfarist entitlements to India’s poor. Since 2004, it is clear that the policy programme the offers is a compromise between these two viewpoints — or what it chooses to call “inclusive growth”. That UPA-II has largely failed to deliver either inclusion or growth is a reflection of administrative and political failures, not of direction. It is inconceivable that Mr Gandhi will alter the “inclusive growth” approach — so what ideological intervention is expected of him? Which should take the debate to the second point: how Mr Khurshid’s suggestions are misdirected. Mr Gandhi continues to show no inclination whatsoever to take up a post in government or to usurp his mother’s role as leader of the party. Given that the failures of UPA-II have been failures of and administration – an inability to push reform, restore growth and tackle corruption, the collapse of the in Andhra Pradesh thanks to mismanagement of the Telangana issue, and an overall mishandling of its allies – Mr Khurshid’s complaints would have been better directed at the party’s current leader, Sonia Gandhi. Or, indeed, at all his fellow Congressmen, with Mr Gandhi just one among their number. Nothing stops the from conducting a lively internal debate on policy issues that can inform its future direction.

While the Congress’ confusions play out in public, however, it is notable that India’s other national formations may be even more ideologically adrift. The BJP, a party of nominal economic reformers, blocks essential reforms, like the goods and services tax, that it earlier supported. It is unclear whether it wants to be a party of hardline, authoritarian Hindutva – Narendra Modi’s party – or of softer, inclusive nationalism — Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s party. Meanwhile, the ideological divisions in India’s Communists are no longer concealed by their oaths of silence; student wings are rebelling against the “compromises” made by their parliamentarians, for example. India’s is not short of ideological conflict; it is just rarely seen clearly as such.

image
Business Standard
177 22

Upgrade To Premium Services

Welcome User

Business Standard is happy to inform you of the launch of "Business Standard Premium Services"

As a premium subscriber you get an across device unfettered access to a range of services which include:

  • Access Exclusive content - articles, features & opinion pieces
  • Weekly Industry/Genre specific newsletters - Choose multiple industries/genres
  • Access to 17 plus years of content archives
  • Set Stock price alerts for your portfolio and watch list and get them delivered to your e-mail box
  • End of day news alerts on 5 companies (via email)
  • NEW: Get seamless access to WSJ.com at a great price. No additional sign-up required.
 

Premium Services

In Partnership with

 

Dear Guest,

 

Welcome to the premium services of Business Standard brought to you courtesy FIS.
Kindly visit the Manage my subscription page to discover the benefits of this programme.

Enjoy Reading!
Team Business Standard