UPA's first year balance-sheet

UPA opponents made dark and dire predictions: the Congress, a bad and reluctant coalition partner, would destabilise the UPA; a second power-centre in 10-Janpath would create instability; the Left would walk out; being "weak," Dr Manmohan Singh won't be able to handle his colleagues.

Not only has the UPA endured, but it shows no signs of disintegrating. Its relations with the government have survived many strains. The Congress has been forced to do coalition politics, although some of its leaders dream of a return to "one-party dominance."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The Left is not happy with many UPA policies, especially its neo-liberal orientation. But it knows it can't call the shots. As CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat says: "If the Left takes a clear-cut position, the PM is willing to listen…

But once he makes up his mind, he goes ahead."

Yet, the Left isn't about to destabilise the UPA. It cannot risk the Hindu Right's return.

Dr Singh has emerged as a quietly assertive PM. Whether or not one agrees with his instincts and assessments, one must admit he's his own person. Friction between UPA constituents -- for example, over Mr Laloo Prasad's attack on the Election Commission --has not precipitated the kind of crises that erupted in the first weeks of the Janata or Janata Dal "experiments."

The UPA has revived faith in consensual, secular politics, which accepts India's multi-ethnic, multi-religious character. It has put the BJP on the defensive by exposing the Centaur Hotel and UTI scandals.

Revitalisation of secular politics is a worthy achievement, but it cannot be sustained without focused and energetic efforts to pro-actively promote secularism.

Even the urban elite's perception of the UPA is positive. A Times of India poll in 11 big cities says 60 percent rate Dr Singh's performance "excellent or "good".

However, the balance-sheet's negative side is no less important. Indeed, it's probably more important in determining the legitimacy and longevity of any government.

Dr Singh himself rates the government's performance at 6 on a 1-to-10 scale. His Office has compiled a report on the implementation of the National Common Minimum Programme. Of the 40-odd major promises, progress on more than 30 is unsatisfactory.

It describes progress on only four minor promises as satisfactory. That's just one-tenth of the total.

The UPA has failed to implement some of its greatest promises, which distinguish it from the NDA, and reflect the electorate's urge for redistributive justice within an increasingly dualistic economy, and for tolerance and secularism, especially after the deep wounds of the Gujarat violence.

The crucial promises pertain to the Employment Guarantee Act (which was to be passed in the first 100 days); doubling rural credit and relieving agrarian distress; SC/ST reservations in the private sector; reservations of one-third of Lok Sabha seats for women; and raising public spending on education to 6 percent of GDP.

The UPA's failure on the EGA is glaring. It robbed it of the concept of a guarantee: the right is granted or removed at the government's will. It reduced its coverage to under a fourth of India, without the minimum wage. It referred the watered-down bill to a Parliamentary committee headed by the BJP's Kalyan Singh. He has refused to convene it.

One year on, the promise to tackle the people's biggest economic problem -- unemployment -- remains unfulfilled. Contrast this with the UPA's alacrity in amending the Patents Act, raising foreign investment caps in telecom and insurance, and allowing private airlines to fly abroad, etc.

The difference speaks of the order of priority the UPA attaches to different objectives. This was confirmed by Dr Singh on May 16, when he again stressed "disinvestment in public enterprises." This sits ill with the NCMP promise not to privatise profit-making public enterprises.

The government has been collecting a 2 percent cess on central taxes to finance universal access to elementary education. The PMO's report-card blames the Ministry of Human Resource Development for not raising the education budget to the 6 percent target. This is unfair. It is the Cabinet's responsibility to direct Finance Minister Chidambaram to create an elementary education fund with the cessas with highways.

But Mr Chidambaram, backed by the Planning Commission's Mr M.S. Ahluwalia, has refused to establish such a fund. The Rs 13,000 crores cess collected is more than the Rs 12,537 crores budget allocation to elementary educationa shame!

The UPA's record on international relations is no better. The "strategic partnership" with Washington continues with all its inequality. At one point, the UPA considered sending troops to Iraq. India continues its close military relationship with Israel without pressing for an end to Palestine's occupation.

There has been a welcome improvement in relations with China, and especially Pakistan. But India's Nepal policy is embarrassing.

On multinational institutions like the WTO, World Bank, etc, India toes a pro-Western linewitness its support for Mr Pascal Lamy for the WTO, against a Third World candidate.

The UPA promised to update and campaign for the 1988 Rajiv Gandhi Plan for global nuclear disarmament. It hasn't. India is furiously stockpiling weapons-grade plutonium and building nuclear war-fighting capabilities.

Another grave disappointment is high defence spending. The UPA has raised it by 26 percent since June -- when there is an urgent need to cut it.

That India should be the world's largest arms importer while being among the lowest one-fourth of the globe's nations in human development is a shame. If the UPA doesn't change course right now, the people may not give it another chance. A score of 6/10 isn't good enough!

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.