Disinvestment is the one important issue that can become a bone of contention between Mamata Banerjee?s Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Congress, but chances are both parties will come to an understanding so their alliance is not hampered.

The TMC?s manifesto has opposed disinvestment in banking and insurance sectors but hasn?t come out clearly on disinvestment in other sectors. But in Parliament on Monday, TMC MPs Sudip Bandopadhyay and Saugata Roy clearly spoke against disinvestment of any profit-making public sector undertaking, and it seems that TMC is taking the Left route.

A TMC insider, on the condition of anonymity, said that when Mamata was with the NDA, she did not have much of an opinion on disinvestment and did not even come in the way when the rail wagon manufacturing unit, Jessop, was handed to Pawan Kumar Ruia.

The CPM was opposed to disinvestment and mobilised public opinion in favour of its anti-disinvestment stand. When fighting the 14th general election as an NDA partner, TMC faced dire defeat and Mamata went to Parliament as the sole representative of her party. ?She had a feeling that it was because of NDA policies, which were not well-accepted by the people in West Bengal, that she faced a drastic defeat and therefore she needs to take an altogether different line to remain a strong force in Bengal politics,? the insider said.

At that time, TMC was opposed to the Congress too for its understanding with the CPM. But Banerjee started distancing herself from the BJP. Today, TMC does not project itself as a rightwing party in Bengal but a party inclined to Left ideals, which Left parties like the CPM have allegedly discarded. She clearly says: ?I am not opposed to Left ideals but I am opposed to so-called Leftists like the CPM, which is anti-people.?

So, Mamata showing a red flag to Congress reforms measure conforms to her present party line, even as it reveals her as being no different from the CPM. In fact, TMC?s entire focus now is on ousting the Left Front government from the state, but that is not by projecting a different ideology or promising a different form of governance. She is instead eager to project herself as ultra-Left and encash on CPM measures that do not appear Leftist enough.

So, on issues like disinvestment, she has to oppose the Congress. After all, her current party line has fetched her 19 seats, a long jump from 1, which paves her way to Bengal?s secretariat. Fixed on that goal, Mamata cannot afford to be seen agreeing with policies like disinvestment.

But it?s unlikely that she will push this disagreement hard with the Congress, because that might cost her more. Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is like her mentor at present. He has, in a recent meeting, explained to her how fiscal management will be difficult without creating additional resources, without which the country will find it difficult to fund much-needed infrastructure projects. No wonder insiders believe that Mamata will gradually soften her stand on disinvestment.

Joseph Vackayil

When, at the fag end of her speech in Rajya Sabha on Monday, Kanimozhi said, ?We cannot think of disinvestment in the PSUs?, UPA II sensed trouble. Such scepticism haunted UPA I too, and got exorcised only with the jettisoning of the disinvestment idea itself. In 2009, the Congress was sure of carrying out this programme, earlier kept in abeyance for want of numerical strength. But Kanimozhi has spelt out the Dravidian party?s uncompromising attitude.

Opposition to disinvestment has been part of DMK?s political philosophy even in an earlier alliance with the BJP. It had opposed disinvestment in the then loss-making Salem Stainless Steel Plant or any other Steel Authority of India plants. Even the argument that disinvestment in loss-making PSUs would benefit ordinary taxpayers, as these white elephants are fed from the public kitty, did not convince the DMK or the Left. Kanimozhi said, disinvestment ?will not help, especially a country like India where the socialist model is very important?.

DMK threatened to quit UPA in 2006 over the decision to disinvest Tamil Nadu-based Neyveli Lignite Corporation. When PM Manmohan Singh realised that DMK meant business, he made a sudden retreat and dropped disinvestment plans altogether. The proposals for disinvestment in National Aluminium Company, National Mineral Development Corporation etc were all shelved.

The pragmatic political philosophy that guided DMK in 2006 is still relevant and active. Disinvestment in public sector units especially in Tamil Nadu may erode its popular base, stopping assured supply of electricity and other key industrial inputs at regulated prices. Plus, there is the possibility of loss of jobs for the less privileged through reservation, which is not mandatory in a private-dominated enterprises.

The most important political consideration is the attitude of the working class. Trade unions? central focus is protecting employment and attached benefits. Any support to disinvestment by DMK would create a rift,it is feared, in this proletarian commonality, and that divide may drain its vote bank. This ground reality forces DMK, as Kanimozhi said, to ?keep away from the temptation of generating revenue by disinvesting our PSUs??.

This is a sensitive issue even for the Congress as the opposing parties can easily whip up public sentiment against the government. So, the party has to tread cautiously even if it can add up numbers with other party members. It has to forge consensus at least among the alliance partners.

Another school of thought doing the rounds in Tamil Nadu?s political circles contends that the Left parties have left a vacuum at the Centre and DMK may like to fill it, at least to an extent. If it does not do that, the party would just become the Congress and UPA?s tail end and lose its credibility, compromising Dravidian pride before arch rival AIADMK. DMK cannot be seen as an ?aye? party in Parliament.