By writing to Chief Ministers on administrative systems, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has revived a process that probably died with Jawaharlal Nehru. As Prime Minister, Vajpayee had his year-end Musings, which like Nehru's letters covered a wide range of subjects, including foreign policy and security issues. In an era when regional politics has a cumulative say at the national-level, it would serve the nation well if Manmohan Singh took the initiative for a broader exchange of views with Chief Ministers even on security and neighbourhood diplomacy, where States have as much role as responsibility. <br /> <br /> This is the first time that the nation has got a technocrat for President, and a bureaucrat for Prime Minister, and at the same time. Kalam has been expressing his well-received views on varied issues with a visionary's views and a missionary's zeal. In Manmohan Singh, he may have a partner who can turn his visions into specific missions, with goals and courses of his own. Yet, at the ground-level, this requires the involvement of the State Chief Ministers and their respective Governments. <br /> <br /> Not as tall a leader as Nehru, or even Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh does have a vision like the other two. Not having to play the political mascot has helped him apply mid-course correctives to the economic reforms process standing in his name. Yet, if and when his letters to the Chief Ministers became as institutionalised as those of Jawaharlal Nehru, he can expect diverse responses to the issues raised, with some of them going into politically-embarrassing specifics. <br /> <br /> Some Chief Ministers might start off a letter-writing campaign of their own, as Tamil Nadu's Jayalalithaa twice last year. On both occasions, Tamil Nadu charged the Centre with infringing upon the State's powers under the Constitution. Jayalalithaa received some positive responses, independent of the evolving political equations of the times. Today, the Punjab law against water-sharing could provide the basis. The Centre and the State having Governments run by the same party would not help matters, either. <br /> <br /> This should not discourage a learned and continuing debate on national issues at the level of Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister. Instead, for progress to be achieved in a diversified polity -- as different from a divided polity -- discussion-based decisions alone would help. But such a consensus should not be confused with a homogenous approach to policy-making and programme-implementation. Communist Soviet Union tried and failed on this course. Though democratic West has managed limited to substantive successes, they are rooted in circumstances and cultures that had made those nations work in the first place. <br /> <br /> The 'all-American' success story, for instance, has more to do with the economic prosperity of a migrant population that strived hard to make it good in a new and prosperous land, and less with polity per se. Stories of the kind, though limited by circumstances and environment, are many in contemporary India. To mention only two, the post-Independent prosperity of the violently-displaced Punjabi and Marwari community are only pointers. In Kerala, you have had the migrant Christian community in the forgotten Idukki highlands, making it rich in our times, through industry and dedication. <br /> <br /> Be it in the US, Punjab, or central Kerala, economy has been the tool, and politics a product - if not the goal. Thus in the uni-polar world, a prosperous US has been forced to seek a new goal, but has met with only a limited success. Up to a point, consensus had become possible in this country, on economy and foreign policy. Though politics sought to re-set the 'national agenda' through Ayodhya-centric Hindutva issues, it has had only limited success. Yet, the integrated commonality of a cultural identity with inherent diversity needs to be acknowledged. Such diversity cannot be confused with divisiveness, either. <br /> <br /> As Elections-2004 proved, there is more to consensus even on the economic front, than market capitalism. As practised in the country, it had kept most of the stake-holders out of its purview, or even its view. Thus, Elections-2004 was a vote against the ruling polity than the ruling party of the time. In this, the urban population - possibly barring an elite beneficiary section - did not behave differently. This in turn has caused a mid-course corrective in the form of a 'human face' now attaching to the economic reforms process. <br /> <br /> It's in this background that questions on a homogenous polity need to be addressed. It's also not without reason or understanding that Jawaharlal Nehru under-scored India's "unity in diversity". It is this that has been the touchstone and bedrock of India's existence and continuance as a nation-State. Diversity entails consensus to achieve the unity. Homogeny is alien in character and context. <br /> <br /> <em>* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Observer Research Foundation.</em>
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
