Now 15 months into its second term, the UPA2 shows no such self-confidence. Instead its own best friends feel concerned about the way things have been drifting. Even the senior Congress leaders, habitually non-emotional and never outspoken, now freely lament about the government's inaction and lack of focus. Forget about Digvijay Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar. Even the ministers of this government have begun murmour campaigns as to how sheer inaction at higher levels harms their initiatives. For them, coordination and guidance from the top seem casual and follow-up on their requests nil. Occasionally a Kamal Nath may hit out at the 'armchair' experts.

'Non-performance' has been a grievance every government in India has to put up with. The government side always countered such charges with complaints of the ruling party's failure to take the good work to people. The charge against this government is that it is non-responsive. Well-meaning party functionaries freely air out instances when lack of prompt response had aggravated anti-government feelings on different occasions. These covered administrative neglect and endless scandals. Take the issue of the government's responses to the steep price rise and the popular anger over UPA's inaction. What hurts the critics within the party is the government leaders' abiding faith in elite ideas that the GDP rise and Sensex will eventually take care of all such adverse factors.

More worrisome has been the institutionalized inaction and non-response to challenges. This has now been perfected as a tactical tool, first by the party establishment and now the PM himself. Neither the party establishment nor the PM side wants to take 'responsibility' on issues other than their respective core interests. The Sonia establishment avoids issues outside its welfare programmes. The PM has his reform schedule and core foreign policy objectives like Obama's November visit.

Consider the way the government tackled the monsoon session that had encountered troubles after troubles. Every day brought fresh scandals on Commonwealth games. Then came the Kashmir violence and Mamata Banerjee's open support to the Maoist insurgents whom the PM had described as the biggest threat to internal security. Opposition blocked proceedings insisting PM should come to the house and explain the government's position on such sensitive issues. Had the PM promptly come to the House and given a solemn assurance to punish those responsible for game scandals, it might have imparted a new self-confidence.

Instead things were left to a beleaguered Suresh Kalmadi and reluctant M.S. Gill. In the process the government's credibility and image suffered. In the case of Mamata's murder charge against her own government, the opposition challenged the PM and asked him not to 'run away' from the responsibilities. They obstructed the proceedings. He could have accepted the challenge, and what Chidambaram said the next day could have been done by the PM with more authority. Sadly, this has what been happening in every case. Pawan Bansal or Prithviraj Chavan apparently cannot command the authority vested in PM. It is futile to expect the deputy chairman of the planning commission, whatever his informally delegated authority, acting on behalf of the PM in the matter of economic coordination with the same power and weight.

The result has been endless murmours of defiance. When asked about the worsening law and order situation, Chandra Shekhar, during his brief stint as PM, had said he was not a thanedaar (SHO). Under cabinet system the PM must exercise the right authority and leadership whenever necessary. Homilies on good governance or seeking reports from the ministries alone cannot be a substitute to meaningful leadership. In the case of UPA, the dilution of prime ministerial functioning is more as part of a convenient strategy. Those who subscribe to this theory argue that leaving delicate tasks to others will insulate the PM from the blame in case things misfire (as in the case of Shrm-el-Sheikh fiasco).

Otherwise, why Pranab Mukherjee is asked to negotiate on the nuclear liability bill, some thing totally unrelated to his ministry? Mukherjee may be an 'operating PM', as some rightly describe him. But then that also underlines the acute scarcity of able political operators in this government. Bane of the UPA2 has been that its both wings show similar kind of symptoms. The party establishment which has been more activist during UPA1 and had tried to sort out the PM's differences with the Left, acts now as a total recluse. As a serious political analyst points out, the Sonia establishment has been keeping 'studiously cultivated distance' from the government decisions to insulate its core leaders from unpopular decisions or that may backfire later. But if the head of state, who has now emerged as the third longest survived PM, adopts a similar kind of reclusion, that is bound to end up in a miserable administrative and policy vacuum.

The mismatch is telling on the system. Unlike in the early days when it had come up with novel ideas like UID, the government is losing initiatives. Earlier the main opposition used to search for issues to hit at the government. Now every morning in Parliament comes with new controversies and scandals. On every issue, the government is seen as defensive and struggling to avoid debates. Senior party leaders talk of the utter helplessness caused by the lack of any focused peer oversight. True, there is no disunity and defiance. But the cumulative effect of the 'cultivated distance', aversion to taking policy risks and demise of the unified command system has been disastrous.

Two years back, the PM felt 'liberated' from the Left. But now the UPA2 finds itself a prisoner of those like a whimsical Mamata Banerjee and scandal-ridden A. Raja. Every now and then, PM is being forced to defend all such wayward allies. In 2008, a brawny PM had the full admiration of the emerging middle classes for his bold initiatives and inspiring leadership. Now the failure of the government to check the scandals and cleanse the system is costing him the sympathy of such sections. It is naïve to take shelter under the notion that such fall in the quality of governance will not affect the UPA's core image. (IPA Service)