Emerging from the shadows, darkly

When Dr Manmohan Singh was sworn-in as India's Prime Minister 16 months ago, many regarded him as a political lightweight who got that job entirely because of his proximity and loyalty to Ms Sonia Gandhi. They predicted he would remain under her shadow, and consult her on every issue forever.

Many pundits forecast duopoly: two centres of power, one (Ms Gandhi's) greater than the other; or separation between political and economic decision-making. Ms Gandhi would retain primacy in the first; Dr Singh would dominate the second.

This theory started looking shaky early on. Dr Singh hand-picked his team, including Mr Pranab Mukherjee, a known hawk, and Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, a committed neo-liberal, with a strong International Monetary Fund-World Bank background.

Dr Singh wanted Mr Ahluwalia to be at least as important as Finance Minister P. Chidambaram. As Planning Commission deputy chair, he would influence economic priorities and distribution of Central expenditure. Mr Chidambaram, at the end of the day, is a politician, who cannot ignore his constituency. Mr Ahluwalia has no popular constituency.

However, Dr Singh soon dealt another blow to the duopoly hypothesis. He followed Mr Vajpayee in creating a strong Prime Minister's Office. He had definite ideas about who would be in the Planning Commission or head the Indian Council of Social Science Research. In his first three months as PM, he vetoed more appoint-ments than he approved.

Soon, Dr Singh quietly started asserting himself in areas such as foreign policy. His style was never confrontational, but beneath the polite exterior lay a hard-nosed, shrewd persona.

Today, Dr Singh has emerged from Ms Gandhi's shadow as his own man, with definite ideas, policies, and preferences. This in part follows the power of his office.

It cannot be otherwise in a Westminster-style democracy. The exercise of power through the Cabinet and its institutions favours the PM. The PMO multiplies the effect, through its managers, fire-fighters, and spin-doctors.

So far, this is pretty straightforward. But Dr Singh is attempting a miracle: he leads a party with no more than 145 seats in the 545-strong Lok Sabha and yet rules as if he commanded a single-party majority!

This is partly explained by the ideologically disparate, fragmented nature of the Congress's United Progressive Alliance partners (mostly regional or Mandal-inspired OBC parties) and "outside" supporters (especially the Left).

Dr Singh has left a good deal of party-level political negotiation to others, including Ms Gandhi, while concentrating on government. Thus, Ms Gandhi as UPA chairperson "handles" the Con-gress's allies, but is finessed from many areas of policy-making. And Dr Singh extends his influence to areas to which he is relatively new.

This peculiar balance-of-power and division of labour has allowed the PM to exercise disproportionate influence and become increasingly autonomous of Ms Gandhi and the Congress apparatus. His own political personality is becoming clear.

Regrettably, that personality has its angularities and a dark, conservative, side. Dr Singh came to power on a broad Left-of-Centre platform. But his preferred policies are Right-of-Centre. This is not a pejorative description. Evidence for it comes from a number of decisions attributable to Dr Singh and his confidants.

Take economics. Dr Singh has been content to follow the "free-market," pro-liberalisation orientation of the National Democratic Alliance -- barring on the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the UPA's single greatest achievement. He has continued with the NDA's macro-economic approach, taxation policies, funds allocation priorities, emphasis on foreign investment, commitment to globalisation, and public sector divestment.

Three of Dr Singh's top priorities are labour "reform" (read, removal of worker protection through hire-and-fire policies), opening up the retail sector to foreign investment (which could ruin millions of small traders and street-vendors), and unequal trade-related agreements on agriculture and services with the OECD.

India compromised on this last at the Geneva ministerial of the World Trade Organisation by breaking ranks with the developing countries' G-20 -- in contrast to its firm position at Cancun. India's stand at the coming crucial Hong Kong meeting will substantially impact its economy.

Last year, Dr Singh talked of empowering the underprivileged. Now, he only talks of growth. Thus, in his Independence Day address he said: "If we maintain this momentum of growth (approximately 7 percent) for the next 5-10 years, then it would be possible for us to eradicate poverty, ignorance, hunger and disease. This is not a dream but something that is possible in our times."

This regurgitates the notorious trickle-down theory, which stands belied by India's own experience.

However, it's in the foreign and security policy areas that Dr Singh's conservative influence is starkest. These are precisely the domains from which Ms Gandhi has reclused herself, because she has been so advised thanks to her "foreign origins."

Thus, the decision to sign the June 28 defence cooperation and the July 18 nuclear deals with the US was very much Singh's. As was the September 24 vote accusing Iran of "non-compliance" with the NPT.

By all accounts, Dr Singh was greatly impressed by President Bush's interest in India as an emerging power and "partner." But Dr Singh weighed this so much higher than principle or self-interest -- in energy security via Iran and Central Asia, and the larger issue of Asian economic integration. Dr Singh's major Right-ward turn could cost India dearly.

It's hard to fault Dr Singh's policy of befriending China or talking peace with Pakistan. But he has often left its actual implementation to dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats. Dr Singh has failed to engage Nepal and Bangladesh by taking a secular, pro-democracy approach.

All in all, Dr Singh's policy record is conservative. He has pushed this through so far without a confrontation with the Left or the Congress, except on BHEL divestment. But this may well change with the Iran-US-India triangle.

In that case, Dr Singh may have to clip his ambitions and learn to respect coalitional consensus.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.