Yet a sort of tug of war has been going on ever since the UPA returned to power in May, 2009. It is more like cold war hedged by clever one-upmanship bordering intrigues. The two Blocs on Raisina Hill know Sonia Gandhi is unassailable and invincible. Still they have never ceased trying outsmarting the party establishment by pushing measures they know the latter disapproves. At times they do so boldly, at times stealthily. Clearly, few anymore deny the existence two parallel power centres. It is not that the reform camp does not know the party chief is Upanishadic Brahman, and all powers grow from her. She is the Supreme Self. Yet they sidetrack her.

This had continued through the past ten months. The first pull in the tug of war with the PM camp claiming that the UPA's victory was an endorsement of his bold initiatives. Hereafter PM will be free to chose his own team and go ahead with his liberalisation and foreign policy initiatives. Media named Montek Singh as finance minister and some retired bureaucrats and corporate experts for other posts. But the party establishment instantly retaliated by pushing Pranab Mukherjee for finance and Jairam Ramesh for environment and refusing to shift A.K. Antony from defence. For a few months, things seemed normal with no known moves by the government side to defy the party mandate.

However, beneath this lull there has been unexpressed uneasiness within the party over the ministerial defiance. The CWC had to warn the government twice formally and later by party chief herself. As against this, the reform camp was too preoccupied with GDP predictions and FDI hopes. An impression was gaining ground within Congress that those in authority were taking party's concerns too casually. Sugar ordinance in October was the one such brinkmanship. It had irritated large sections of sugarcane farmers. Again, the party retaliated, and got it scuttled. Then came the Indo-Pakistani statement and flip-flop on Baluchistan. The party, again, publicly disapproved its PM's action.

Conflicts between the two arms of the UPA on crucial policy matters erupted almost throughout. In many ways, February had marked a watershed. The organizational wing has every reason to get perturbed over what seemed deliberate attempts to scuttle or dilute almost all welfare programmes of Sonia Gandhi. The Right to Information Act that had enhanced the party chief's halo, was sought to be diluted through amendments. The party had never expected this, and had to seek explanation from the government. Nutrition-based subsidy scheme was another unpopular move that had hurt the party. Then came Bt brinjal which Jairam Ramesh blocked, reportedly on signals from the party. There was also an unsuccessful move to push the fishing bill that had enraged the party's fisher folk vote bank.

Nuclear liability bill, which had evoked huge middle class ire, and Food Security Act were viewed among sections as most headstrong. The reform camp had not taken the Congress into confidence before announcing them. More irksome were the sweeping liberalization measures the finance minister announced in the budget. Many of these were controversial and hence needed prior internal discussions, especially when the UPA does not enjoy a comfortable majority in Parliament. Moreover, most of these had hurt the Congress vote banks. The budget itself had given an elitist image to the Congress, some thing succinctly anti-aam aadmi. As a result, grassroots workers of the Congress have nothing much to show to the ordinary voters.

What seems to have hurt the Congress establishment most was the utter disregard to its concern over the price rise. Instead of taking effective measures, sweeping budget proposals had only added to the price spiral. Thus the measures that came one after another throughout February were seen as last straw. This meant even sharp signals sent from the party to the government side have ineffective. Therefore, Sonia Gandhi took two decisive steps in February as a clear warning shot. The first was to express displeasure over the dilution of her food security proposal through a formal letter to PM. The government move was seen as a clear challenge to the party chief who had on many occasions expressed her interest in a genuine food security act.

The second was a formal request to PM to revive her National Advisory Council. Both served as a stern warning to the reform camp not to take things too far. To what extent she can use her NAC to bring round the reform camp will depend on its composition. Efforts are on to prevent Mani Shankar Aiyar becoming its member. The PM already has an economic advisory panel of corporates and pro-reform economists. We still do not know whether Sonia's NAC will confine itself to her flagship welfare programmes or act as a watchdog on all policy distortions by the government. That apart, the move itself shows the party establishment's disappointment with the government side and the need to use NAC as a balancing power centre.

Another interesting side effect of Sonia Gandhi's two warning shots has been the outpourings of suppressed indignation against those defying her vision. Within the party establishment there is great disappointment over the Pranab Mukherjee's 'defection' to the other side. At this week's group of ministers meeting to reconsider the food security act, A.K. Antony had firmly stood by the party's political line. However, the finance minister learnt to have approved of Montek Singh Ahluwalia when he had dismissed Antony's views as 'economic disaster'. C.P. Joshi, however, defended Antony.

All this has led to a hushed debate in Congress circles. How the reform camp has got emboldened to repeatedly defy Sonia Gandhi's cherished vision and push their own agenda parallel to the party manifesto? Will the extraneous interest groups and lobbyists that sustain the group of ministers, try to wean away more sections in the Congress party and thus weaken Sonia Gandhi? Is there really a move to subvert the party chief's welfare programmes and reduce her appeal among the masses so that it will give strategic advantage to the reform camp? If nothing else, such talk reveal the gravity of the ongoing clash of agenda. (IPA Service)