But it's no less satisfying for the religious majority, most of whose members have never had any sympathy for retrograde Hindutva politics.

The new coalition's name, referring to progress (people's empowerment) and social cohesion, is a pleasant departure from the NDA's divisive politics. It's also a reminder that the UPA's mandate is based on the self-assertion of India's poor.

The Indian voter put distributive justice firmly on the agenda. She pronounced an unambiguous verdict against managerial-style politics based upon economic elitism and pitiless disregard for the underprivileged. And she rebuffed the inciters of hatred.

The UPA's mandate is for equitable growth and people-centred development. It is equally for "detoxification" or cleansing of Hindutva-corrupted institutions, and for healing India's severely damaged secular fabric. It is for reintegrating the values of humanity and decency into the very core of Indian politics and for reasserting popular sovereignty.

Regrettably, Mr Singh's allocation of portfolios does not adequately reflect the UPA's progressive nature. The ministers are a mixed bag.

First, however, look at the upside. Mr Natwar Singh's appointment as Foreign Minister and the allocation of Human Resource Development to Mr Arjun Singh, Information and Broadcasting to Mr S. Jaipal Reddy, and Petroleum and Panchayati Raj to Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar are all very welcome.

Mr Natwar Singh will hopefully bring his non-aligned perspective to bear upon India's foreign policy. Under the NDA, this policy became slavishly pro-US to the point that India almost sent troops to Iraq. Under Mr Singh, slow but steady progress can be expected in improved relations with Pakistan, China and other neighbours.

Mr Reddy will hopefully make a sincere, purposive effort to establish Prasar Bharati as a genuinely autonomous corporation. Mr Arjun Singh will doubtless try to purge the education system, communalised textbooks, etc., of toxic Hindutva influences. This is a subject close to his heart. Mr Aiyar will undoubtedly end pernicious attempts to sell off India's cash-rich public oil companies.

Equally significant are second-rung appointments such as those of Mr Dayanidhi Maran (IT & Communications), the Northeast's P.R. Kyndiah (Tribal Affairs), Mr Shibu Soren (Coal), Dalit leaders Ms Meira Kumar and Selja (Social Justice & Empowerment, and Urban Employment & Poverty Alleviation) and Mr Prithviraj Chavan (PMO).

However, Messrs Laloo Prasad Yadav and Kapil Sibal have been given lighter portfolios than they deserve. By contrast, a poorly known leader like Mr A Ramdoss has been given Health and Family Welfare.

Mr Kamal Nath has been rewarded with Commerce and Industry. Mr Nath certainly didn't distinguish himself as a Minister in the 1990s. He diverted a whole river to raise the value of a hotel he owns in Himachal!

The Commerce Minister will be called upon to play a crucial role in the coming round of WTO negotiations, in which India's stand, like that of the least developed countries', will determine if there's unrestricted trade in services, which will irreparably harm Third World peoples. Successful negotiations will need high integrity and acute comprehension.

Consider the appointment of Messrs P. Chidambaram (Finance), Pranab Mukherjee (Defence) and Shivraj Patil (Home). Mr Chidambaram is an ideologically-driven neoliberal, who like many other Harvard Business School graduates, especially in Latin America, remains dedicated to "free-market" dogma.

These policies increased poverty and disparities in India. They were resoundingly rejected by the electorate.

There is a difference in Mr Chidambaram's and Mr Manmohan Singh's "reforms". Mr Singh triggered India's neoliberal turn in 1991. He believed that in the post-Soviet era, there was no alternative. But he is not a "free-market" zealot. He opposes dismantling the public sector "for ideological reasons"; he says it should be "allowed to grow if [it] can compete with [the] private sector". Mr Singh would be far more responsive to people's needs.

Mr Chidambaram's appointment seems to be a panic response to the recent stockmarket crisis, which was deliberately rigged to promote pro-business policies.

Neither Mr Mukherjee nor Mr Patil can be accused of being imaginative and firm on principles. That is badly needed today in Defence, which cries out for streamlining, deep cuts in wasteful budgets and action against corruption.

Similarly, Home holds the key to punishing the culprits of the Babri demolition, resolving the Ayodhya dispute through a temple-plus-mosque formula, abolishing the draconian POTA, and outlawing Togadia-style hate-speech and Bajrang Dal-style hate-acts.

Mr Mukherjee has been close to manipulative business houses. In the past, he was hawkish on the nuclear issue and Pakistan.

The present moment offers Mr Singh a unique opportunity for historic reconciliation with Pakistan. The two countries' peoples have invested great energies -- and hope -- in the peace process. Mr Singh must personally take the initiative here. An India-Pakistan peace will improve both countries' security, and free resources for investment in public services. It will remove a major plank from the communalists' demonology.

Mr Singh has a big challenge on his hands. His government's actions will largely determine the direction of India's own evolution in the coming years: Will India become a subordinate, passive component of an unequal, unjust global order and further enlarge domestic cesspools of grievances while keeping its poor insecure and wretched? Or will India move towards liberating its people from poverty, ill-health and multiple injustices so that it can contribute to making the world a better place?

Mr Singh can turn the challenge into opportunity -- if he resolutely favours high principle and the public good over parochial considerations. But as of now, we must greet his team with two cheers only.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.