Comparing performance of PM with CM: How appropriate?

By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,

The media, especially the private television channels, have set an unhealthy precedent by initiating comparison between the performance of a particular state government with that of the Union government.


Support TwoCircles

The fact is that the achievement, or failure, of any state government––take for example of Gujarat––can be made with other state governments, and not with the Centre. One can say that the Gujarat government may be better, or worse, than the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra or Punjab government, but it can not be compared with the Manmohan Singh rule in New Delhi.

As per our Constitution the responsibilities and duties of Union government are much larger than that of the state, which does not have to deal with crucial issues like defence, foreign affairs, international trade etc.

The performance of the UPA government can only be compared with the six years of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government (1998-2004). Be it on foreign affairs, security issues, corruption, development, price rise, growth rate, central schemes or any other field one can draw paralled between the two central governments.

So if Sonia Gandhi is being accused of ruling from behind one can only ask whether the Sangh Parivar was allowing the Vajpayee government to function freely or not. If it was so than it is all right, but if he was really a Makhauta (mask)––as it was then said––than it means that the previous government was also plagued with the same problem.

Similarly, the Commonwealth Games, Coalgate, 2G scams etc can be compared with the Coffingate scam or tehelka expose which showed the then BJP president, Bangaru Laxman, accepting money from a fictitious arms dealer. The then defence minister George Fernandes was even compelled to resign.

If the growth rate was faster in the Vajpayee era than the UPA-II––and not UPA-I––it needs to be examined why and how was it possible. However, many economists are of the view that the performance of the UPA-II should be appreciated rather than criticized as India at least managed to do better during this period of global recession, when even the US was hit hard.

On the issue of security the Kargil intrusion, Parliament and Kashmir Assembly attacks and Akshardham temple killings can be compared with the 26/11 mayhem in Mumbai, blasts in Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Pune, Delhi, Ajmer Dargah, Makkah Masjid in Hyderabad etc, which took place during the UPA era.

On foreign policy and nuclear issue a comparison needs to be drawn between the present government’s low-profile and Vajpayee’s inaugural bus trip to Lahore and invitation to President Musharraf even after Kargil and Parliament attack.

Besides, whether the UPA performed better than the Vajpayee government on other foreign policy issues? What about relationship with China, the United States, the European Union, ASEAN members and Middle East countries during the two govenments.

All these issues need to be debated objectively in the media so that the voters, especially the youths, can make a judgement and get enlightened too. But regretfully many of these TV debates hardly rose above the level of tea-corner verbal duel over relatively smaller issues.

Yes the Manmohan Singh government failed to get Dawood Ibrahim extradited, but so did the Vajpayee government in its six years. In fact it even released three dreaded terrorists, including Masood Azhar, from the Indian jail in exchange of the released of hijacked Indian Airlines passengers.

Not only the Manmohan government all the past governments failed to bring back black money from abroad though various parties make big promises to do so on the election eve.
In the same way one can make comparison of various central government schemes for poor launched by two successive Union governments. Which one did more?

If the Vajpayee government launched the Golden Quadrilateral, East-West and North-South Corridors the Manmohan Singh government initiated Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana and the railways launched freight corridors.

While the central government can certainly take credit for the development of state or states, no state government can claim that India is progressing just because of it.

True, agriculturally Punjab and Haryana and industrially Maharashtra and Gujarat are developed states, but no one can deny the role the Centre has played in them.

Thanks to the mess caused by the media’s non-stop disinformation campaign chief ministers––not just Narendra Modi or Nitish Kumar, but many others too––have become too big for their boots. During Indira-Rajeev era Prime Miinster used to be all powerful and CMs had no say. But in the last couple of decades the office of prime minister has become somewhat weak and several state governments are walking away with all the credit, which otherwise should have gone to the Centre.

No doubt the administrative skill of any chief minister can be appreciated or criticized; more so if he is in the race for the post of prime minister.
For example, George Bush-II was the former governor of Texas and during the run-up to his presidential election campaign in 2000 his talent and ability as the governor (1995-2000) was taken into account and debated.

But never was his governorship compared with the performance of President Bill Clinton (1993-2001). In fact Clinton era was compared with the four years rule of President George Bush-I (1989-93), Bush-II’s father.

But regretfully, the Indian electronic media in particular, have largely failed to generate any point-by-point discussion between the two central governments. It would have been more appropriate for the objective experts and journalists to discuss them, rather than leave the issues just for the leaders to quarrel on TV shows.

Most of the time are consumed by 24×7 channels in highlighting the allegations by Team Modi against the UPA government and the Congress leaders’ sheepish defence.

While the media is bombarded with the tall claims that India would emerge as a strong and powerful country after Modi comes to power no discussion has ever been organized on whether India was really a decisive and firm country during the NDA rule or not. It seems that it was hardly any different from the UPA government.

SUPPORT TWOCIRCLES HELP SUPPORT INDEPENDENT AND NON-PROFIT MEDIA. DONATE HERE