FOR INDIA’S DOMINANT PARTY, ELECTORAL SETBACK STIRS SELF-DOUBT

[Congress Party leaders had hoped a good showing in the recent elections in five states would provide the party with a public endorsement and strengthen the national government by attracting new allies. But when the results were announced on March 6, the party fared poorly in the crucial states of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, and lost an opportunity in Goa, while winning power in the small states of Uttarakhand and Manipur.]

By Jim Yardley

NEW DELHI — After the policy paralysis and political acrimony of last year, India’s coalition national government had hoped this year would be different. Yet already the government is troubled by infighting among coalition allies. And the Indian National Congress Party, which leads the coalition, has been further weakened by lackluster showings in recent state elections.

For India, the prospect of another year of political stasis has deepened the sense of gloom among business leaders and others already frustrated by the government’s inability to tackle crucial reforms at a time when India’s economy is slowing down. Even as most economists are still confident about India’s long-term future, the optimistic mood that once prevailed is now tempered by growing doubts.

“The greatest single challenge the government faces is restoring confidence in the idea of high growth, that India is a high-growth country,” said Nitin Desai, a former chief economist to the Indian government.

Congress Party leaders had hoped a good showing in the recent elections in five states would provide the party with a public endorsement and strengthen the national government by attracting new allies. But when the results were announced on March 6, the party fared poorly in the crucial states of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, and lost an opportunity in Goa, while winning power in the small states of Uttarakhand and Manipur.

Many analysts and even some party insiders say the elections revealed the party’s organizational weaknesses and exposed the risks of depending too much on the appeal of the party’s ruling family, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Rahul Gandhi, who is often considered a prime minister-in-waiting, campaigned extensively in Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state, yet failed to achieve major gains there.

The mediocre showing in Uttar Pradesh has been portrayed as a personal comeuppance for Mr. Gandhi, but some party insiders say the deeper problem is the structural disconnect between party leaders — the so-called High Command led by Mr. Gandhi’s mother, the party president Sonia Gandhi — and grass-roots workers.

Like most Indian political parties, the Congress Party lacks much internal democracy; the High Command selects candidates for state and national elections rather than holding competitive primaries. Many analysts say primaries would help the party cultivate stronger organizations at state and local levels — and make it more competitive, as regional parties are presenting themselves as more attuned to local concerns.

“There is such concentration of power right at the top that the connection between the leaders and the workers is completely broken,” said Mani Shankar Aiyer, a Congress Party member of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament. He added, “That’s the kind of lesson that my party needs to learn.”

This top-down dispensation of positions has already marred what had been a bright spot for the Congress Party. In the state election in Uttarakhand, where the party won enough seats to form a government (though barely), the High Command overlooked a popular state leader and appointed someone else as chief minister, inspiring a rare insurrection from members of the state party.

Improving internal democracy is not a new idea within the Congress Party. Mrs. Gandhi’s husband, the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who was assassinated in 1991, had proposed creating primaries. Yet the party has never followed through, partly because of fears that it could be splintered into factions, partly because the Gandhis represent a unifying force. Yet investing so much in promoting the personalities and mystique of the Gandhi family bears risks, too.

“Now, the Congress Party realizes that the country is changing,” Mr. Desai said. “Voters are judging parties in terms of performance, instead of personalities. This is the message from the elections: Perform or perish.”

Digvijay Singh, a key party strategist and an architect of the failed campaign in Uttar Pradesh, predicted that voters would support the Congress Party in national elections and noted that the party did gain vote share in Uttar Pradesh, if not as much as leaders had hoped. He blamed the lack of a credible statewide leadership for the Uttar Pradesh results — in which the regional Samajwadi Party took power — and said the other national party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, had fared even worse.

“The national parties have to strengthen their political leadership at the state level,” Mr. Singh said. “We have tried, but there are some problems.”

In New Delhi, the Congress Party has been on the defensive since the election results were announced. Indian media outlets have speculated on whether the government will fall, meaning early elections, while some regional leaders have loosely discussed organizing a “third front” coalition of regional parties to contest national parliamentary elections in 2014.

Meanwhile, allies, more than enemies, have restricted the government’s ability to move forward on important economic reforms.

Mamata Banerjee, leader of the Trinamool Congress Party, whose support is critical to the survival of the government, has exercised de facto veto power on several issues. This week, she demanded the resignation of the railways minister, a member of her own party who bucked her wishes by presenting a budget that called for fee increases that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and others considered essential. Mr. Singh was forced to accept the minister’s resignation, even as he praised the minister and the railways budget proposal.

At the same time, with newspaper editorials calling for bold measures, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee last week presented a cautious budget plan — careful not to alienate allies like Ms. Banerjee — that drew some tepid praise alongside complaints that too little was done to address India’s fiscal deficit or to stimulate growth.

Mr. Desai, the former chief government economist, was less critical. He pointed to new financing for infrastructure projects and a commitment to reduce bloated subsidies on commodities like fuel, a huge drain on the budget.

“The main thing is they must deliver on the things they have promised,” he said. “Let’s see.”

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

@  The New York Times

PAKISTANI PARLIAMENT DEMANDS END TO U.S. DRONE STRIKES

[American hopes that the parliamentary review would conclude this week received a setback when the speaker adjourned the debate until Monday, ostensibly to allow the opposition to consider its position. There was another possible reason: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is locked in a bruising confrontation with the senior judiciary that is due to resume in the Supreme Court on Wednesday and that could, under one possible outcome, lead to his resignation by the weekend.] 

By Declan Walsh 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A major parliamentary review of relations with the United States opened on Tuesday with calls for an end to drone strikes and for an unconditional apology for an American attack that killed Pakistani soldiers last November.

The demands, read to Parliament by the chairman of a cross-party national security committee, set a tough tone for a long-awaited debate that the United States hopes will bring a resumption of full diplomatic relations and the reopening of NATO supply lines through Pakistan.

“The U.S. must review its footprints in Pakistan,” said the five-page document, which read like a laundry list of Pakistani requests to the Obama administration. “No overt or covert operations inside Pakistan shall be tolerated.”

American hopes that the parliamentary review would conclude this week received a setback when the speaker adjourned the debate until Monday, ostensibly to allow the opposition to consider its position. There was another possible reason: Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani is locked in a bruising confrontation with the senior judiciary that is due to resume in the Supreme Court on Wednesday and that could, under one possible outcome, lead to his resignation by the weekend.

Stressing that the United States should respect Pakistani “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,” the committee called on the Central Intelligence Agency to halt its drone strike campaign in the country’s tribal belt, which has resulted in at least 265 attacks since January 2008.

In the future, it added, there should be no American “hot pursuit or boots on Pakistani territory” — a possible reference to the raid that killed Osama bin Laden last May — and it recommended tighter controls on foreign security companies operating in the country.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders are hoping to leverage anger at the November shooting episode, in which American warplanes killed 24 soldiers in an exchange of fire along the northwestern border with Afghanistan, to gain concessions from the United States.

The committee called for a “thorough revision” of the agreement governing the 1,000-mile NATO supply route through Pakistan.

Pakistani officials say they intend to levy a transit tax on American military goods passing through their territory. The committee report suggested that half of all NATO traffic in the future be moved via the country’s dilapidated railway network. The supplies are now transported by road.

The recommendations of the parliamentary review are not binding. But they are the product of cross-party consensus and will shape the mood of next week’s debate, which is likely to last two or three days.

Some clauses acknowledged American concerns — the “elimination of terrorism and combating extremism,” promotion of peace talks with the Afghan Taliban and strengthening security along the notoriously porous Afghan border.

But others stressed ties with American strategic rivals, like China and Russia, and called on President Asif Ali Zardari’s government to “actively pursue” a planned gas pipeline from Iran — a project that Washington has strongly opposed.

“The recommendations are excellent,” said Imtiaz Safdar Warraich, a senior Pakistan Peoples Party lawmaker, outside Parliament. “Sovereignty and territorial integrity are the cornerstone of our foreign policy.”

Kamil Ali Agha, a senator from the Pakistan Muslim League-Q party, predicted a “very detailed and very lively” debate next week. “This is a very, very important issue for each and every Pakistani,” he said.

A resumption of full diplomatic relations with the Obama administration now looks unlikely before the middle of next month. American officials say they are ready to negotiate tariffs on NATO transit goods but will not consider an end to the C.I.A. drone campaign, which is viewed as a vital weapon against Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists operating from Pakistani soil.

The United States is also likely to offer a form of official apology, probably from the military, for the November airstrike. Plans to apologize earlier this month were shelved after controversy exploded in Afghanistan over the mistaken burning of Korans at Bagram Air Base.

Salman Masood contributed reporting.

@ The New York Times