The Congress Manifesto reads like a post-election invitation card.

The most heartening aspect of this year's Congress election manifesto is that socialist rhetoric and spurious populism have been finally given a go by. In staking its claim to lead India for the next five years, the Congress has packaged itself as an uncompromising champion of the free market. That in itself is an advance from the days when even liberalisation was tempered by the reckless use of discretionary powers -- a phenomenon that contributed directly to the rampant corruption witnessed during the government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. But it is only a hesitant step forward. The Congress manifesto remains woefully short on commitments to reducing wasteful government expenditure, trimming public sector fat and dispensing with India's formidable array of bureaucratic controls. As such, the manifesto reflects an adroit compromise between those who see the Congress as a rejuvenated mechanism for economic reforms and those who are most at ease with the old, discredited licence-permit-quota raj, laced with gratuitous concern for the underprivileged.

The reason for this ambiguity is apparent. From the tone of the manifesto, it is clear that the Congress does not believe it will win the 1998 election outright. Stability, says the manifesto, "comes not just from numbers". The battle, it adds, is "not for forming a government" but for "running a government". This is an explicit recognition that the manifesto is not a set of promises to the people but a base document for the formulation of another post-election Common Minimum Programme. Hence the contrived genuflection at the altar of arthik swaraj (economic freedom) and garib ka raj (government of the poor) -- slogans calculated to appeal to sections of the United Front. Manifestos were always regarded as trivial pursuits in the election game. In today's age of coalitions they have acquired an added dimension -- as instruments of futures trading.

INDIA VOTES

End Cricket's Control Raj

If the team is freed from over-interfering selectors, victory will be a way of life.

Victory is the best medicine for defeatism. In winning the Independence Cup in Dhaka -- with triumph against Pakistan in the final and a world record to boot -- Mohammed Azharuddin's beleaguered team may have surprised even itself. In the past year, the team has reached its nadir in more ways than one. There have been the crushing defeats on the field, notably in the recent tournament in Sharjah. Less visible but more pernicious has been the psychological battering the cricketers have taken. Hopefully, the low morale is now a thing of the past -- and, post-Dhaka, Azharuddin will chalk out a bold new path for Indian cricket. This is a beautiful thought. It would be even better if it were believable. Indian cricket's essential problem remains unaddressed: a whimsical cricket board. The selection committee is a case in point -- and must remain so despite the success in Bangladesh.

True, the selectors' decision to replace Sachin Tendulkar as captain has worked. Nevertheless, they have much to answer for -- primarily, the exclusion of Rahul Dravid and B.V. Venkatesh Prasad. The first is perhaps the country's most technically accomplished batsman, the other unquestionably its most clever bowler. In the ecstasy of triumph, the selectors may seek to congratulate themselves. Shouldn't they also shoulder the blame for equipping Azharuddin with a bowling attack that gave away 314 runs in less than 50 overs? Victory did not come because of the selectors; it came in spite of them. Their cardinal sin is gross interference with match strategies. For instance, the selectors had no business asking Tendulkar not to open the batting. This is a decision which should be left to the captain. Indeed, the captain's word on the choice of team members must carry more weight than it is currently allowed to. In cricket as in the economy, the control raj must end.

© Living Media India Ltd