The Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Congress party Sonia Gandhi are in the same wavelength. Both are cool headed and no knee jerk reacting people/ Despite the attempts by opposition and party to drive between them Manmohan and Sonia have maintained their relationship. This is extremely good for the developing country like India which is deliberately looking for political stability. The compulsions of coalition politics are preventing both from weeding out corrupt elements from the government. Whatever the media writes or the opposition shouts, the pair is strong enough to let down the coolness and surrender to the noise.
Rajeev Deshpande writes in The Times of India (2 August 2009)
On his return from Egypt in the early hours of July 17, a day after meeting his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
received a low-profile but important visitor. It was Ahmed Patel, political secretary to Congress chief Sonia Gandhi. Patel came calling even as storm clouds were darkening Delhi's skyline.
By the time Singh's aircraft touched down, the morning papers had begun to shrill a growing sense of shock and disbelief at the PM's delinking of terrorism from the composite dialogue with Pakistan, as well as the shock insertion of Balochistan into India-Pak bilaterals. The big question was: Why had the PM done the unthinkable?
Patel possibly briefed Singh about the reaction generated by the India-Pakistan joint statement inked in Sharm el-Sheikh. He would certainly have noted Singh's take on developments. Even as the Congress leadership treaded gingerly over the political thin ice in the next few days, Singh reached Parliament where he responded to the Opposition's belligerence by baldly reiterating the delinking of terror from talks. Both Houses heard him out but it was a deceptive calm.
After the July 18-19 weekend — during which Sonia met Singh — curiosity grew about whether or not Congress would now endorse the Singh-Gilani statement. Congress pointedly refused to do so, arguing it was for the government to offer explanations. The pot really began to boil because the commentariat had already slammed the PM for being either too naive or simply letting his guard slip.
The Singh-Sonia power equation has worn well since Congress's shock win in 2004. During the release of the 2009 manifesto, she firmly quelled speculation over Rahul Gandhi being a prime ministerial hopeful. And when she welcomed Singh to her home, 10 Janpath, on May 16, after the poll results showed a big Congress win, it was as a proud guardian would greet a bright ward.
Singh has never lost sight of that essential dynamic. He knows that it is Sonia who powers the party and government. His success in delivering on welfare schemes, driven by Sonia's aam aadmi convictions, was seen to have helped Congress retain power. It cemented his position as Mr Reliable. The events at Sharm el-Sheikh are the first bump on the smooth path trod by these partners.
Just what was it that Singh tried in his talks with Gilani? Did he fail to anticipate a disjunct with his party on the issue? Those with access to Singh point to parallels with the saffron storm over BJP veteran L K Advani's "Jinnah-was-secular" remark. The Congress faithful, outraged that 26/11 is being "forgotten", led the revolt just as Advani was set upon by his own partymen. Efforts to break the mould are often seen as heretical.
The trouble began, sources admitted, with the Pakistani press at Sharm el-Sheikh swiftly telegraphing the de-bracketing of terror and inclusion of Balochistan as major victories for Gilani. The initial mood was set, only to gather momentum and result in a media frenzy that ended up obscuring the true nature of the initiative.
The philosophical choice that Singh presented: Could India and Pakistan break away from their hawkish stance? Could India shed its sense of victimhood, genuinely de-hyphenating itself from Pakistan? When the big powers were prepared to look at India in its own right, where was the profit in bringing up Pakistan at every turn? Singh also told the Lok Sabha on July 29 that in the absence of the option of war, dialogue was the only way out. His vision of a "shared future and common prosperity" is anchored in the belief that it is time to break out of mutually hostile silos.
It all sounded fine as a doctrine. But it left the Prime Minister's party cold mainly because the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement was seen to leave India's flanks exposed. Doubts lingered over Gilani's views. Did the Pakistan prime minister fully share Singh's genuine desire for peace? Or was he merely looking to ease ties with India because of Pakistan's reluctant offensive against the Taliban?
Congress leaders are unreconciled to the Balochistan reference even though the official camp argued this gave India as much leeway to comment on the Pakistani province as it did to Islamabad to rake up the "Indian hand". Party sceptics feel this gave BJP the upper hand and needlessly embarrassed India's security establishment. Like the "Pakistan-is-a-victim-of-terror" formulation, Balochistan is seen falsely to equate Islamabad's jihad policy in Kashmir with India's alleged interference.
As his subsequent clarification showed, when he virtually ruled out the quick resumption of talks, the PM has understood his moves might have been mistimed or at least poorly communicated. And Sonia's backing, this time round, has been carefully conditional. In saying Pakistan has to deliver on its pledges, she has drawn a clear red line — out-of-the-box thinking on Pakistan was a fraught project.
As Congressmen mulled over a confusing week, the big question remained. And it was not about whether Singh overstepped his brief. But did he forget his basic instincts as Congressman and member of Sonia's party?
________________________________________________________________________________
Chandan Mitra writes in The Times of India (2 August 2009)
It pays Sonia Gandhi to keep Manmohan Singh weak, while he benefits by happily staying weak. This ensures she can comfortably mother him, bail him
out of traps he frequently falls into but never remotely emerges as a political threat to the dynasty. At times, though, it is impossible not to wonder if Manmohan Singh consciously dons the "bechara" mantle. Apart from pleasing Sonia Gandhi, it also helps him garner unprecedented support from sections of the media and bleeding heart liberals who, unfortunately, constitute a powerful opinion-making class. But the Prime Minister's latest surrender at Sharm el-Sheikh doesn't fall into the category of calculated projection of weakness. It is proof, if proof were ever needed, that Manmohan Singh's capacity to withstand Washington's pressure or Islamabad's charm offensive is pathetically low.
This time though, Sonia Gandhi has been less than fulsome in her support to the man she depends upon to keep the seat warm for her son. Her speech at the Congress Parliamentary Party meeting last Thursday in which she defended his clarification on Sharm el-Sheikh in Parliament but stopped well short of endorsing the joint statement with Pakistan, suggested a subtle expression of displeasure. Manmohan's "weakness" is a virtue in domestic politics but not in the conduct of international diplomacy especially on a subject as sensitive as Pakistan. The Prime Minister's Hindi-Paki bhai-bhai approach at Sharm el-Sheikh was not only reminiscent of the naivete of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty's founder with regard to China, but yet another example of his abject surrender to American foreign policy goals in the sub-continent.
Possessing an astute political mind, comparable only to her mother-in-law's, Sonia Gandhi knows that Manmohan Singh is far from an instinctive politician. She, therefore, protects him from political and organisational complexities, depending instead on trusted associates like Ahmed Patel for strategic inputs and Pranab Mukherjee to run political as well as administrative matters. That has left the Prime Minister only one arena in which he can function with some measure of autonomy, namely, foreign policy. Admittedly, she has built a support system that is enviable by political standards because the Byzantine web of diffused responsibilities keeps her out of the line of fire. But only when she throws her weight behind Manmohan Singh's ardent desires does it become policy. For instance, she was initially unsure of going ahead with the nuclear deal and forced her handpicked Prime Minister to publicly declare that he was ready to live with disappointments. When she subsequently changed her mind, it was left to her political managers to sew up a deal with the Samajwadi Party before she came out in his defence thereby allowing Manmohan Singh to craft a maddeningly one-sided agreement. The deal, however, was sold most effectively as a panacea for India's energy crisis by the Congress's spin-doctors! Manmohan Singh was weak enough to first agree to drop it and then resurrect it once she decided to back him.
Among the Prime Minister's most defining characteristics is his unnatural absence of ego. This time too, when he discovered Sonia Gandhi was unhappy with his concessions to Pakistan on Balochistan and delinking cross-border terrorism from normalisation of relations, he quickly somersaulted. A junior minister was told to dismiss the joint statement as a mere "diplomatic paper" while the foreign secretary (who was elevated to this position by superseding 17 seniors) attributed it to "bad drafting". And in Parliament, he tried his best to pretend he had stuck to traditional policy parameters. Sonia Gandhi was mollified and rose to his defence next morning.
This sums up the sorry tale of India's power balance shifting out of South Block to the residence of the Congress president. And this is how a "weak" Manmohan Singh will ensure continuance in office — not at the pleasure of the President as the Constitution enjoins, but at the sufferance of his supreme leader.
