Instead, veiled moves are made to frustrate each other's initiatives which often take the form of a bitter cold war among ministerial colleagues. Still worse, all this takes place in full public glare.

The most obnoxious has been the ongoing Bt. brinjal war which has crossed all limits of joint responsibility of cabinet. At least four ministers have been mudslinging almost daily, some thing unthinkable even under the 'Janata' governments. Two prominent ministers, Kapil Sibal and Prithviraj Chavan, both considered close to PM, went on record assailing their own ministerial colleague Jairam Ramesh's decision to put on hold the commercial cultivation of Bt. brinjal. It went on for days, each day bringing new accusations against the colleague.

Chavan has been a trusted MoS in the PMO, and had undertaken many sensitive missions on the latter's behalf. So his outbursts against the ministerial colleagues cannot be presumed as without PM's nod, if not active prodding. In either case, it goes against principles of joint responsibility. A word of caution by PM to his aide might have promptly halted the fratricide. Instead, Chavan even directed his department's 'scientists and officials' to gather more evidence to counter the colleague's claims. Merits of the Bt. brinjal controversy apart, this one episode reflects the present dispensation's messy functioning.

Conversely, if Jairam Ramesh has really transgressed limits or gone against policy, it is incumbent on the PM to set things right. He could have quietly cautioned the erring colleague. Neither has happened. There may not be substance in the idle talk that Shyam Saran, a high-profile official under Jairam's ministry, was promoted to the same MoS rank as part of petty politicking. Yet this itself indicates the sharp schism with the party over the brinjal issue. Jairam might not have acted against such a formidable multinational giant with all their mighty lobbies without some signal from the party establishment. Before elections, Jairam had resigned as minister to take charge as the party's chief election planner.

A similar thing happened right this month on the issue of technocrats and management gurus supervising union ministers. Under this corporate-style project, outsider experts who have not taken oath of secrecy, will set targets for each ministry and record their internal performance. At least three cabinet ministers and MoS Jairam Ramesh had come out in the open to challenge the PMO project. These are the high-profile Ambika Soni, Ghulam Nabi Azad and Kamal Nath. “As a minister in a democracy, I am answerable to the people, Parliament, PM and Sonia Gandhi. Not to bureaucrats and outsiders,' Azad put it on record to the media.

Soni, who had worked as Congress chief's aide for years, openly protested against the PM move and ridiculed the idea of the minister and his secretary signing MoUs. Both Jairam and Kamal Nath said they had refused to sign it. For obvious reasons, the big two, Pranab Mukherjee and A.K. Antony, as also Chidambaram and S.M. Krishna, have not even been approached. Without going into the virtues of quarterly report cards for the ministers, it is the open defiance of the PMO by the ministers that merits consideration. It amounts to a virtual challenge of authority. Instead of seeking explanations from the ministers, the PM simply asked the Cabinet Secretary to 'explain' things to them.

It may yet be naïve to describe it as part of a proxy war. Yet it certainly reflects the kind of inter-personal relationship within the UPA system and the growing disconnect between the government wing and party establishment. Began with the ministry formation May last, neither side wanted to recognise it as such. It works at two levels. At structural level, the party establishment rightly expects the PM to take it on board on all crucial initiatives. This does not happen now. Instead, the party is often forced to disapprove government decisions as in the case of the Indo-Pak joint statement last year. This is not an ideal situation.

The PM side, on the other, is wary of surrendering all of its prerogatives. Pre-decision consultation or consent, it fears, will invariably restrict the otherwise legitimate manoeuvrability in handling delicate policy matters. Once this sensitive issue is resolved, perfect harmony could be restored. Unfortunately, neither side would admit this unpleasant fact and try to resolve it. At policy level, there exists parallel if not conflicting strategic perceptions on a wide range of issues. It covers development strategy to foreign policy perceptive. While the PM side genuinely believes in the efficacy of the GDP rise and corporate-led development in winning popular support, the party concedes this as just one contributing factor.

Its emphasis is on massive welfare programmes which alone can win over the aam aadmi. If 'feel-good' and corporate kudos could win elections, the NDA could not have lost in 2004. Therefore, the party wants to showcase its flag-ship programmes and use it to give its president an enduring Indira-like aura as aam aadmi's sole hope. While the PM accolades had repeatedly claimed the 2009 victory as popular endorsement of the GDP rise and his other bold policies, the party establishment attributes it to schemes like NREGS, RTI, rural health mission, Indira Awas Yojana and loan waver. PM still relies on the pre-meltdown reform measures and trusts more in his economic advisory council, numerous 'missions' and monitoring.

As against this, now we are told the party is set to revive the UPA's own national advisory council with a mandate to do parallel monitoring of its flagship programmes. Then there are suspicions of deliberate moves to dilute the party chief's flag-ship programmes which had made a mark during the elections. Seven amendments are proposed to dissipate the RTI that had earned the middle class acclaim. NREGS is being diluted by eligibility restrictions, technocratic oversight and 'privatisation'. The party chief's much-hailed food security and food-for-all are weakened by exempting the 'not-so-poor'. Thus goes the allegations.

Some of these are effected in the name of cost cutting and others to make it purportedly more efficient. Akbar Road and Janpath fear all this will bring bad name to Sonia Gandhi. Parallel perspectives and pushing personal agenda, however deeply one committed to it may be, will only heighten the disconnect. The government side will have to settle for some kind of a pre-decision dialogue with the party establishment to ward off the disharmony. (IPA Service)