On this was constructed another thesis: that the regional forces were on the decline. The ruling party's spin doctors augmented this theory on the basis of what was described as the post-reform tectonic changes in Indian society. Benefits of liberalisation are now percolating to the lower middle classes and the vast rural India. A new generation of voters, it was argued, is swiftly emerging as decision makers within the families and in mohallas. These aspiring classes have no use for old 'divisive' ideas like caste, communal or class divide.

These sections are now opting for the PM's development agenda and Rahul's inspiring ideas. As per this theory, a stronger Congress meant less voice for its coalition partners and the regional parties. Didn't a distraught Lalu, Paswan and Mulayam unilaterally offer support to the UPA government even after they were kept off the government? Yet, sadly, all this initial euphoria proved to be very short-lived. Instead, what we see today is a diametrically opposite trend.

The BJP could tighten its grip on allies when it had emerged numerically stronger after the 1999 Lok Sabha polls. This has not happened in the case of UPA2. Instead of being timid and obedient, the UPA allies seem to have become more brazen and aggressive. This has been the case with the NCP, nonchalant Mamata Banerjee and the DMK with its family interests. None of them misses any opportunity to assert their clout.

Last time a triumphant NCP was more generous to hand the post of chief minister to the Congress. Now a badly mauled NCP had the temerity to hold out for over a fortnight before agreeing to a patch-up formula. The junior ally had even threatened to support the government from outside. Reverses have only made the allies more obstinate. If one needs any more proof, look at Mamata's nonchalance.

Each of her antics - her scorn for the cabinet in which she is a member, her open misuse of the Railway Ministry for her party's electoral gains, defiance of the principle of collective responsibility - defies the PM's commitment to good governance, his honesty of purpose and sense of integrity. Her performance index has been much better under the NDA. She chased out the Tatas's Nano project just to spite the Left government. PM is forced to put up with all her anti-industry, anti-growth outbursts. She is as bad as Left in the matter of privatisation of PSUs.

Mamata had challenged the PM's land acquisition bill and walked out of the cabinet meeting while he watched helplessly. She does not believe in collective responsibility of the cabinet and refused to attend most of its meetings (about three-fourths). No sensible PM can ever tolerate her brand of instant populism - impromptu announcement of new trains, Bengal-centric distribution of Golden Passes, filling the former with rail panels. She makes it clear that all this was needed to defeat the Left in Bengal.

No cabinet minister in independent India has so unabashedly defied the concept of collective responsibility and no PM has been so weak to watch the decline so helplessly. Not even Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral. The tragedy has been that no one has the courage to talk to her about the way she is riding roughshod over the cabinet practices and coalition dharma. Divide and rule has often been a fairly successful political strategy. But using one devil against the other had always ended in disaster - from the old Bhasmasura to the Taliban (to the US) and Shiv Sena and Bhindranwale (to the Congress). This will prove to be an unpleasant sub-text for the Congress.

Let us admit. The quality of Indian coalitions is on the decline. The era of ideological coalitions has ended long ago.. Even the NDA and UPA line-up was founded more on state-level political antagonism rather than its secular veneer. Instead of CMP, allies seek better money-making options. Wresting power has always been the core of coalition politics. But now the ugly display of power, trading of voting power for administrative control, and through that, more partisan acquisition - political, personal and business. V.P. Singh had quit on BJP's Babri challenge and reservation and the Left on nuclear deal. As against this, the Congress and BJP are becoming prisoners of the business interests of the Kodas, the Reddys and the Rajas.

This is a scary phenomenon. Unlike Lalu and Shoren, the present scams flourish under their PM and CMs. Both the BJP and Congress knowingly compromised on Koda, in spite of their ongoing war of words as to who had helped more. When a farm labourer's son amasses Rs. 4000 crores in three years, no one can feign ignorance. In 2007, the Congress' Jharkhand unit had submitted a 19-point complaint to the high command. AICC in-charge Ajay Maken also had alerted the party about Koda. Yet the leadership chose to compromise for the sake of power.

The shift from the relatively benign coalition to a malign one has been more telling in the case of the Rs. 60,000 crore Spectrum2 scandal. Besides Sitaram Yechury, several concerned citizens had warned the PM in writing in advance about the impropriety. Did Karunanidhi and Kanimozhi personally lobby for the deal with Congress leadership during their Delhi visit? Has Raja got PM's personal consent as he claims? Was this part of a desperate move to shore up support in view of the Left's impending exit as is being speculated in some sections? All this begs answers.

The BJP's Karnataka crisis is by far the worst manifestation of the malignant coalition. The Bellary mining mafia's revolt was against Chief Minister Yeddyurappa's move to impose toll on mineral-laden trucks, curbs on mining and filing cases against the violaters of rule. Reddys' demands include ouster of the minister 'interfering' with their activities, return of the pro-mafia officials to their posts, withdrawal of cases against them and giving environment and forest ministries to their nominees in cabinet. All this amounts to an autonomous 'Reddistan' within Karnataka. This is where the post-ideology coalitions have taken us to. (IPA Service)