Sonia's choice

The Native Americans (or, as they used to be called, the Red Indians) had a pithy saying: beware the White Man for he speaks with a forked tongue.

That's because the invading whites were in the habit of saying one thing while doing the opposite. The Congress party can also be accused of having such a forked tongue.

It says one thing and does the opposite. Thus it has allowed the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh to reserve 5 per cent of government jobs for Muslims.

It has allowed Arjun Singh, the Union minister for human resources development, to reserve a certain percentage of the seats for Muslims in Aligarh Muslim University.

All this while crying itself hoarse from the rooftops that it is a "secular" party by which, presumably, it means that it does not discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion.

True, unlike the BJP it does not organise pogroms against them. But discrimination does not consist of organising communal riots alone.

Reservations on grounds of religion are also discriminatory, period.

The party forgets that it was precisely such demands by Mohammad Ali Jinnah that it had fought""and lost. Then there has been the series of sorry episodes involving Governors and Speakers.

The party is guilty of doublespeak in economic matters also. While it claims an unwavering faith in economic reforms, it allows its chief ministers to do things that are totally anti-reform.

The most visible example of this comes from the electricity sector under state governments' control. In state after state where it has come to power, the party has permitted the chief ministers to give power away free to farmers or write off their power dues.

The latest to do so is Haryana, which has written off around Rs 1,600 crore owed by the state's farmers. Earlier, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, and Punjab had done the same thing, only to find that such policies are fiscally unsustainable.

The party has been guilty of anti-reform measures in other ways as well. This can be seen from its quick re-introduction of the policy templates of the 1970s and 1980s in a host of areas.

This, even as the Prime Minister and the finance minister have been saying that the only thing that they want is reform which, for them, means economic policies not aimed at garnering votes.

In short, the party seems to be at variance not just with its stated aims but also with its topmost functionaries.

So who is responsible? To the extent that nothing important by way of policy happens without the consent of the party president, Sonia Gandhi, the buck must stop with her.

It has always been known that she does not regard market-friendly reform as being particularly helpful to the poor. In the short run, this is surely true.

But, as surely, the alternative is not a reversion to the disastrous policies of the past. However, Mrs Gandhi appears unable to consider other alternatives.

As a result, state after state ruled by her party is following retrograde policies. It is up to her to stem the rot.