Dr Muzaffar Assadi,
prof, University of Mysore
Even after the Congress lost power in successive elections held in a few states, euphoria about the UPA has not eroded completely. Its desire to introduce reservation for other backward classes in higher education, measures to strengthen the panchayat system by entrusting the responsibility of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) to gram panchayats and its programmes for the welfare of aam admi have helped in continuing the euphoria.
I rate the UPA government better than the NDA. The latter went on screaming “India Shining”. But the UPA is not doing so. It speaks about welfare of the poor. The Left has done a commendable job. It has been successful in making the government take up welfare measures for the common man. We can see its presence in the UPA in the form of NREGS as well as special package for areas where incidents of farmers' suicides were more. I feel that had the Left not been part of the UPA, the government would have simply adopted economic policies of “big players” at the global level and neglected the needy.
Promotion of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) by the UPA deserves strong criticism. The UPA is following China in setting up more SEZs. In reality SEZs have failed in China. Why should the country follow a policy which has been proved a failure in a neighbouring country? In other words the government is widening the gap between the rich and the poor by promoting SEZs and IT related industries. Surprisingly, the UPA has forgotten the existence of the middle class in the country.
One more negative thing about the UPA is that it has done away with the Nehru ideology of secularism. The Congress is responsible for shrinking space for secularism in the country. It has been compromising with “rightists” and I am terribly upset with this attitude.

UPA has a mixed bag
Dr Manohar Yadav,
associate prof, ISEC, B’lore
The ruling UPA regime at the centre is a conglomeration of various forces driven by different ideological outlooks and corresponding commitments. It seems there is no unity of purpose. Under such circumstances, Congress, although is a major partner has a compulsion to balance its acts of commission so as to keep every other partner content. But at the same time there is an inner urge on the part of the Congress to maintain its own pledges specifically in respect of what it perceived as a liberalisation policy during the late P V Narasimha Rao’s period, which the Left parties have been strongly blocking. Hence at the moment what Congress has been forced to do is much against its own will.
Much of the Common Minimum Programme, which these parties agreed to execute, have also not been fully realised. The innovative programmes like “Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme” although were aimed to tackle situations created by drought etc were not met with expected success as indicated by several studies. The UPA government has totally failed to settle the issue of reservation for OBCs in higher echelons of learning. When the legislature proves to be too weak an entity it will have to submit to the impulses of the judiciary. Hence the UPA government’s performance at home has not been too satisfactory. Poverty, unemployment, caste and communal violence, farmers’ suicide and a host of such other issues are yet to find proper solace.
However, the UPA government has been to some extent genuine in its efforts to handle foreign relations and to protect India’s interest. Its careful handling of the nuclear deal with the USA, Pakistani relations, contribution to curtail international terrorism, managing SAARC relations etc are noteworthy.
(As told to Satish Shile, Bangalore)