Parties must allow criticism

The Congress has sought to underplay the criticism of the home minister's strategy to counter the Maoist rebellion and wants members to restrict their comments to party forums. This is going too far. Congress leader Digvijay Singh's views are not exceptional. Many public intellectuals have criticised the Union government's approach to Maoist insurgency. If Congress politicians find merit in the criticism and feel the government ought to listen to these views, what's wrong about it? The prime minister has described the Maoists as the gravest internal security threat facing the country.If a senior politician thinks there must be a public debate about the state policy to counter this threat, why should he restrict himself to party forums? A politician is not merely a party member, he's also a public figure. He's expected to debate state policy on public platforms.
Singh is not a minister in the UPA government. He is not beholden to a state policy formulated by the government. He must respect the party's political vision, of course. But does the Congress have a policy on how to tackle the Maoist rebellion? It's the home ministry that has crafted 'Operation Green Hunt' and, expectedly, the home minister is the public face of the government approach towards Maoists.
The party and the government are two different entities. The government's functioning is constricted by the norms and traditions of statecraft. The party is bound by its constitution and, unlike the government, has a direct link to the people. It is the intermediary between the people and the government and party workers are better placed to gauge public mood. So, it is in the best interest of the Congress that it gives space to leaders with views independent of the government and allows them to speak out without fear of a gag. Free and frank debate enriches the culture of democracy.
TIMES VEIW: Better ways to voice dissent