There are two intriguing aspects. The first is the timing of the interaction? The second is what was the immediate provocation? No doubt his media interaction has become rare, except for a press conference in the past 15 months and it was high time he communicated his views through the media. Secondly, for the past few weeks there has been consistent orchestrated attack on the prime minister and naturally he was said to be quite upset with the negative publicity. What better way than to explain his part of the story by talking to the top editors?

For the Prime Minister the UPA 2 is not going well. For the past few months stories and articles have appeared in the media about the growing differences between the Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Singh. The revival of the NAC, Food Security draft and communal violence bill are some of the issues. Eyebrows were raised when the PM addressed the nation after the passage of the Right to Education bill and his omission of mention of Sonia Gandhi in his telecast speech. While intervening during the debate on the women reservation bill in Rajya Sabha, he even gave credit to Jayanthi Natarajan, chairperson of the women empowerment committee but did not mention Sonia Gandhi's name while the whole world knows that it was because of her determination the bill went through. The revival of the NAC as a super body now is also yet another indication.

Even during the UPA 1, it was the standard practice that the party distanced itself from any embarrassment and left the government to handle controversies while the credit for good performance of the government went to the party. It is also no secret that he holds the neo-liberal views while Congress chief Sonia Gandhi airs the pro-people views. Some even think that it was a neat agreement between the two to keep both right and the left happy. It worked well so far.

The Prime Minister holds certain views quite different from the party and would not budge on these. The first was the Indo-US nuclear deal for which the PM was even willing to resign. Initially there was a division but the party fell in line when Sonia and Rahul supported him. When the NREGA original draft came to the government from the NAC, he did not fully accept it and made certain changes suited to the government. On the ASEAN free trade agreement Sonia Gandhi wrote a letter to the PM arguing it may go against the interest of the Indian industry but the PM stuck to his decision to go ahead with the agreement. The PM, on his part, fell in line to go slow on the economic reforms during UPA 1 and left it to Sonia Gandhi to decide about the sacking of Natwar Singh or Shashi Tharoor.

Insiders say that the differences on various issues had been growing for some time and the revival of NAC was an indication. The NACs views on the Food security and the communal violence bill are not totally acceptable to the government. The recent example is the free distribution of rotting food grains to the poor and the PM has made it clear it is not possible to do so. While the PM used to discuss these things within his inner circle, this is for the first time he said it openly. That is why eyebrows are being raised.

Does this mean that the PM will assert further? He knows that no one can survive after antagonizing 10 Janpath. Sonia Gandhi too has been very careful in following the protocol and often drives down to 7, Race Course Road for meetings. In all probability, he may not but the message has been delivered through his interaction with the editors. What does he lose by doing so? After all he has been the third longest serving PM after the Nehru-Gandhi family? Secondly, Singh is very touchy when he is called a weak prime minister. He gave it back to BJP leader Advani before the 2009 elections with aggressive language.

The first message from his interaction is that he is not going to take it lying down beyond a point. His talking about the differences in Nehru cabinet shows that he is much bolder in defending himself. The second message is that he is not going to retire. This is to silence the rumors that he will be changed mid way. The third message is to the Congress leaders like Digvijay Singh, Keshav Rao and Jairam Ramesh who are openly attacking ministers like Chidambaram and Kapil Sibal with the apparent backing of Rahul Gandhi. Singh went out of the way in praising Chidambaram and Sibal, who were under attack form the party in the recent days. The fourth message is that he will reshuffle his cabinet with younger faces.

Singh knows he cannot be removed easily. If he is to be changed, he may be sent to Rashtrapathi Bhavan when Pratibha Patil retires. Singh may have thought that if he was to be effective he had to arrest this negative publicity and give an impression to the country and abroad that he is in charge. How could he deal with the US President Obama in November? With what face could he meet other leaders who are visiting India if the perception is that he is a weak and inefficient PM? The party should also realise that in the long run the government should not be discredited too much. 10 Janpath and Race Course Road have their own political compulsions and political understanding that neither would do anything to rock the boat. Both will ensure that despite some differences, the Congress Party led by Sonia Gandhi and the UPA 2 Government headed by Manmohan Singh work jointly to sustain the regime. (IPA Service)