This is not a farfetched surmise. Consider the tense days after the Shram-el-Sheikh fiasco and the way the Congress president kept the PM in suspense until the middle of the session. Now a stage has reached when the Congress party's floor managers have to first get its own establishment's informal okay before working strategies or bringing forth bills in the two houses. Bills and schemes announced with fanfare had to undergo drastic revision at the instance of the Sonia establishment. At times the party had to reluctantly save its government from embarrassment. The UPA's is not a coalitional problem but solely due to the gaping disconnect between the party establishment and the government side.

What is more worrisome, no genuine efforts have been made by either side to work out an arrangement for the harmonious engagement to sort out recurring differences. Look at the unenviable plight of this government on different issues. There have been an opposition bandh and continuous protests over the price rise and petroleum hike. The ruling party, to this date, has refused to come out on the street to defend its government. Finally, the opposition had to force a trial of strength on the floor to make the party come to government's rescue. Why did it wait so long after making a vague defence? Why does the party establishment maintain silence when its senior general secretary criticizes its government's Naxal policy and reiterates it again and again?

Those like Mani Shankar Aiyar and Jairam Ramesh get a shot in the arm even when they discomfit the government. The S.M. Krishna remarks about the home secretary on the foreign soil might not have occurred in an atmosphere of healthy party-government cohesion and coordination. The tendency of the ministers and Congress functionaries speaking in discordant voices is taking epidemic proportions. Some of ministers valiantly announce policies to be sharply criticized by the other side.

Now there is another disconcerting trend. Senior party leaders show not qualm to declare that the party was 'yet to take a view' on particular government pronouncements or schemes. What does it mean? The message is very clear. If government takes a decision without taking the party on board, its endorsement will not be automatic. Or the PM cannot take the party's support for granted on every initiative he makes. Conversely, the government must hold pre-decision consultations if it wants the party's active support. Despite such open warnings why the government side persistently ignores the signals?

For this one has to go into the highly complex nature of the government's relationship with the party establishment. Sonia Gandhi has high respects, at least in her pronouncements, for the PM. From his side, the latter should know that the Sonia establishment is the real power house. Yet the ruptured communication is apparent. The PM could have honestly placed the facts about all controversial issues before the party chief. Pooled wisdom and joint decision will have more weight while countering the UPA allies and opposition. The government decisions so arrived at will have more authority and will evoke total compliance by the allies. Why then the government side is so reluctant to hold even informal interaction with the party leadership?

Those in party establishment cite two reasons. First is the obsession with the prime ministerial prerogative. Linked with this is the misplaced notion that a 'strong' PM or his 'prerogatives' meant total power. Even an all-powerful Indira Gandhi had an elaborate, multi-level consultation machinery to wet decisions politically. Consultations were never seen as weakness. The second is the fear that seeking the party's views on government policies will invariably lead to obstructions and delay. This is especially so when a big section in the party will use the opportunity to block the PM's reform agenda. Hence the PM side wanted to avoid others scrutinizing what is considered infallible prescriptions.

On the other, leading lights in the party establishment would like to have a perfect institutional arrangement for regular policy coordination so that it could support the government programmes. Yet the party shies away from insisting on such liaison even while the PM side deliberately avoids it, This is the root cause of the party-government disconnect. The resultant turf wars take different forms. The UPA's is a curious working model with multiple command centres pushing their own ideas and agenda and working at cross-purposes. It has been the lack of cooperation that makes the Sonia establishment function itself an independent authority, a watchdog bent on intervening to check the drift.

A different set of dynamics had worked under UPA1 when the main policy conflict was between the PM and the Left. After May, 2009, Sonia Gandhi herself had to assume the balancing role to correct the reformist extremism. As the sole custodian of the Congress party and the only vote catcher, she must herself caution against the one-sided drift. To her credit, she has managed the reformist pressures so well that the Congress party was spared of the ignominious fate suffered by Tony Blair, PMs of Japan and Australia and desi idols like Chandrababu Naidu, S.M. Krishna and now the ill-fated Marxist reformer Buddhadeb Bhattacharya. During the 'weak PM' days, she had to sustain the 'PM's authority' by refusing to entertain the aggrieved ministers. Now she can well send subtle signals of patronage to A.K. Antony, Jairam Ramesh, Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar.

In the absence of collective decision making and accountability, multiple power centres thrive. Finance and defence are out of bound. Jairam Ramesh, now rewarded with NAC tag, is not that amenable to arms twisting. This apart, institution of calibrated decision making is giving way to lobby power. Every move, from nuclear liability bill to foreign retail and law firms, is driven by embedded lobbyists. They do even the necessary coordination with concerned ministries. Finally, why the legitimate authority under cabinet system should cede its oversight role to those like the plan panel chief, NSA and GoMs? An explanation to this, rightly or wrongly, is that this way the PM could avoid being the direct target of criticism in the event of party's displeasure. Let us hope that is too farfetched an idea. (IPA Service)