A future in jeopardy

Ramachandra Guha has long been saying across the world and in India, that we are not going to be the next superpower, for many reasons. One of the reasons he has always quoted, has been the lack of a strong centre which is free from ideological bankruptcy of both the right and the left in India. A centre which would be liberal, democratic and have a sense of political morality. A centre which would realize how to deal with issues in a frank and transparent way. A centre, which would accept what K. Kamaraj, the former CM of Tamil Nadu had once advised : "Take a problem head on."

Sadly, India can keep dreaming about the centre to come ever. For the Congress is not that centrist party any more. And this is not just about demise of the Congress. This is the demise of us, the Indians. Not because the Congress is India. But because it's history is a fundamental reflection of what happened to us as Indians.

Since the beginning of May, when Osama was shot in Abbottabad, debates have been occurring across the entire spectrum of Pakistani society on everything, including the foundations of the Pakistani state itself, as to whether it is right or wrong. It was time we also recognized that we needed to have a debate on almost similar issues across our nation, so as to ensure our foundations as a nation, as a people, as a society were also strong, since they had been weakened in part by things which have shamed us for long. Sadly, in this entire crisis, one can only say these needs have not been even attended to, and instead a political football is on course with all sides having a free-for-all.

Long back, the father of the Indian Constitution (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar) had said that after adopting the Indian Constitution, we would have to give up methods of protest which would hold the government to ransom. Yet, an Irom Sharmila had to go for fast-unto-death to get AFSPA removed from her home state. Yet, an Anna Hazare had to go for the same to get a Lokpal Bill, the contents of which are being fought upon. Yet a Mamata had to go for the same on Singur. Why? Was it not a failure of the working of our democracy that when a government was not willing to listen to any other form of political protest whatsoever (with no elections in sight), that people had to sit on a fast. Who all were responsible for destroying the ideals Dr. Ambedkar had asked all of us to live up to? Dharnas and political rallies were acceptable as protests even to Ambedkar ji, but how come we went to such low levels in our public life?

The father of our nation had been talking about transparency and probity in public life virtually from the very beginning. His autobiography was in itself a shining example in this direction. He chose khadi as the cloth to connect to the common man of India who wore the same cloth. And he chose white as the color in public life on account of simplicity. Yet, the very men who represent public life and politics in India shamed it in all possible ways. They turned politics into a business where corruption and rent-seeking have become the norms to survive. And we all allowed them to, while we watched, either helplessly, or learnt from them, to ourselves turn to corruption. We abused A.Raja, Ashok Chavan, Narasimha Rao, Shibu Soren, and even B.S. Yeddiyurappa but had no issues with the corporates and normal individuals involved in the public scams. We were not bothered with corporate interference in political affairs to the limits where lobbyists were ensuring that policies which favored them were being made, MPs were being bought, elections were being won on account of using black money with all election rules thrown to the dustbin, and a culture of secrecy, corruptibility and nepotism was being spread across our politicians, corporates and bureaucrats, and really in turn, amongst our own families, our brothers and sisters, amongst ourselves, ingratiated as values. What were we doing then?

The first prime minister of this nation, had a penchant for building institutions. He even ensured that these institutions were made to work properly, as much as possible, without his interference, even though the amount of trust the Indian people placed in him was such that even if he interfered, they would not have protested. When we look at the Election Commission, when we look at the Planning Commission, when we look at the Supreme Court, the IITs and the IIMs, our civil service, we can point at him as the person who ensured democratic and norm-based functioning of our institutions, at least in his time. But then we saw a change. A change which saw our courts (at least at lower and sometimes even at High court levels) crawl when asked to bend by the rulers. A change which saw ridiculous policies prepared by so-called eminent economists and bureaucrats of Planning Commission who had no idea of what these were doing at the ground. A change which saw autonomy of the IITs and the IIMs being toyed around with by incompetent politicians and more incompetent administrations of these institutes. A change which saw our civil service becoming nepotist and corrupt to the tune of exasperation.

A change which saw us becoming a conscience-less society.

In the 50s, the Congress represented each and every political spectrum of India, from the Left to the Right, from the ultra-religious to the ultra-Marxist. Today, it just represents two sections: thugs and those who have adjusted to living with those thugs. Because that's what we are, and what we have become.

Welcome to the Indian society!

Lack of political judgement - Congress and UPA

The UPA-II was celebrating its second year of completion of its tenure at the centre, and self-congratulations were evidently seen in the Congress and among its allies, considering the election results also. Of course, everyone was in surprise as to why the self-congratulatory mood had to be there itself. But of course, it had to be there, simply because this govt. itself lacks what Yogendra Yadav had said long back in one of his articles: political judgement.

Let's take a look at all the issues starting from UPA-I itself. Kashmir has been an important issue for any government at the centre. The Vajpayee government had actually turned around the situation significantly through free and fair elections (certainly with the help of Election Commission) and an improved political climate (through the outcome and the then PDP govt.), and the UPA could have just built over it. Yet, the only march the UPA has made, in its two avatars, with regard to Kashmir, has been towards disaster. The progress on the peace talks with Pakistan slowed down; so did discussions with separatists in Kashmir. When Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Yasin Malik were ready to engage with India, our UPA govt. was only interested in sleeping over, hoping that its problems would go away. The end results were quite disastrous. Congress forced PDP to give chief ministership to itself, did massive turnarounds on the Amarnath land issue, and at the end, ensured that the valley has burnt every summer for the past 3 years. And chances are that in 2011, again the valley may simmer over some issue, thanks to no progress made on the Kashmir front. And when its own army men and police may be crying for a political solution, the UPA may just be found lacking again in political judgement to solve the problem.

Let's go straight then to the second problem: Bihar. In February 2005, when Bihar elections gave a hung assembly, it was required for the Congress to arrive at an agreement between Lalu Prasad and Ramvilas Paswan. This was a moment when the Congress could have taken a lead in resolving issues between the two leaders rather than allowing the Opposition to get away with the state. But what did the Congress do? Nothing. It just slept over the matter. Later in October 2005, elections were won over by Nitish-BJP alliance. The end result is that Congress has wiped itself out (along with Lalu of course) in Bihar. And its hopes of Nitish crossing over at some stage to it may also dash, since Nitish would have realized by now how opportune the Congress is, considering the latter's treatment to DMK and Lalu.

The lack of political judgement could be seen in a comparison over what is important electorally and what is not. To do so, let's look at two things: the Indo-US nuclear deal and Right to Food. It's the comparison between these things which tell us what exactly is lacking.

When UPA astonishingly came to power (yes it was astonishing for most of us including myself), I had been against Sonia Gandhi being made the PM, but for a reason different to what most people thought (her foreign origin). My concerns were with the agenda or the ideas she would have as PM. I have always felt that a PM should be clear about what his/her goals are, what he/she is trying to achieve and accordingly set a time frame of when hopefully can these be achieved. For this a lot of things are required, be it understanding of Indian bureaucracy, historical performance of various indicators of development, or even understanding policy framework and its impact on Indians at large. Sonia never explained her own stand in terms of what she believed in, on even one single area, be it industry, agriculture, defense or anything else. And when she never did so, I doubted why should she be made the PM of this country.

When Manmohan was made the PM, I felt this may lead to a further disaster. And that could now be clearly seen. Manmohan, who has never even won a Lok Sabha election, could never have the sense of political judgement to solve issues. And that has been seen regularly each and every time. He has the time to talk about fiscal reforms, not having learnt the fact that govts. which talked about fiscal reforms (Narasimha Rao, S.M. Krishna and Chandrababu Naidu) face a disaster at the hustings. Nor does he have the time to meet even the common people, and this for a government which supposedly represents the 'aam aadmi'. The big failure has been his stand on the issues I mentioned above: the nuclear deal and the Right to Food (RTF) law.

One of the factors which people believe got the UPA back in power was the MGNREGA, a social rights-based program. By this logic, it would have made good sense electorally for the UPA to introduce Right to Food law at the earliest and win more votes. Moreover, in states where the Opposition parties were in power, non-implementation or badly implemented RTF would have quite easily helped Congress in coming back to power on account of ensuring a well functioning RTF. If cheaper rice could lead to BJP coming back to power in Chhattisgarh in 2008, there was no reason why a RTF could not do the same for Congress in power when elections were around in 2014. Instead, the PM is bothered only about fiscal deficits and listening to Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Perhaps this is because the PM is not affected electorally, for an electorally elected PM would have realized the immense importance of such a law. The result is that while the Congress continues to make noises about the aam aadmi, it has done virtually nothing to ensure passage of an act which could benefit the aam aadmi in a way no other law may have done.

Manmohan Singh was however seen to fight for another law which he calls as 'game changer', but which brings nothing on the electoral table: the nuclear deal. One would wonder what was the need to endanger a government on an issue which could not even fetch 100 votes at the Panchayat level in even Gujarat (where crackers were burst on the passage of the deal). Infact, Manmohan wanted to prove he was not a weak PM through such an initiative! The ideal thing would have been to take Advani on and bring a Right to Food law himself as a MP. But then, the former was done very late, and the latter he can't even think of and bring.

The political judgement seems to be lacking in other areas as well. Be it tackling price rise, Telangana, Gorkhaland or Naxalism, the government seems to be completely lacking any political ideas or sense of political judgement to tackle the problem. One day, Mr. Chidambaram announces Telangana, only to withdraw it the very next day. On one hand, he calls for talks with Naxals, and on the other, says Naxals won't talk and hence he has to pursue his operations. How come Naxals' view point was known without giving them an offer of talks? And who could think of raising petrol and diesel prices when it was known that it will lead to further inflation and resentment against the Congress and the Central Government? Not to forget of course, the scams and the muck created by the very same group.

All of this makes one realize that the UPA and in particular the Congress has lost the sense of political judgement. All it can think of is opposing or supporting for the sake of it, without any critique or any reasoning of why it did or why it does so. The only sector which does well in India is the economy and that is because it doesn't function necessarily on the sense of political judgement (or lack of it) in our country. It is as if this government is following in Narasimha Rao's foodsteps ('Inaction is also an action'), except that while Mr. Rao didn't follow this philosophy with regard to survival of his govt. and himself, the Congress is ready to follow it even with respect to itself and its own survival. So much so that ministers keep shouting and expressing their divergent views while nobody does anything. It's as if ministers are actually belonging to opposition parties rather than being a part of the government!

Of course, the Congress may still win the 2014 elections, considering that the BJP and the Left lack political judgement too, but for the country and its citizens, the coming days could be extremely troublesome.

2014 General Elections: Rahul v/s Modi??

Political commentators across the country had in 2009, termed the then general elections as the semi-final to be contested between two rulers (Manmohan Singh and L.K. Advani) who were supposed to be regents (or night-watchmen, to use the BJP term) for the kings to follow (Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi respectively). And with every assembly election, the same commentators now wish to draw attention to the 2014 elections as a contest between the two leaders, notwithstanding the highly diverse and plural electorate of this country which can't be captured by just two persons, and other reasons also. Want to understand? Here it is.

Firstly, any general election in India today is no longer about the centre or mood of the people against the central govt. only. In reality, it never would have been. After all, every election involves a contest between candidates where every single voter decides his voting decision based on a no. of factors, ranging from caste, creed, sex and even religion to other indicators such as performance in terms of development, law and order and sometimes even protection from religious riots and prevalence of peace, in addition to the candidate's personal record, the party he/she belongs to and others. In such a condition, to say that people vote only based on Modi or Rahul Gandhi (or for that matter just a person) is a completely naive view of Indian politics.

The second major issue is the way any general election can be summarized: as a sum of state elections. And if we look at states, there is no reason why the general election should be termed a battle between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. When one looks at the states which contain a dominant share of Lok Sabha seats, one can certainly come to this conclusion. Be it Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Bihar or Andhra Pradesh, one can safely say that the condition of both the parties in these states is not necessarily good on their own. Both the parties can never win any of these states in any assembly election on their own.

What saves them therefore, or can save them, is the nature of their alliances. The Congress won the 2004 and even the 2009 elections not only because it did well (at least in 2009) but also because it had alliances which performed. On the other hand, the BJP suffered a terrible defeat on account of either a lack of the alliance (West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh) or a lack of a performing alliance (Maharashtra). Only Bihar showed a spark, and that too may be a product of social engineering moves played by Nitish Kumar combined with the resentment to the Lalu regime, though it can't be said for certain too. And no Rahul or Modi can change these ground realities in just a few days. It takes enormous amount of ground work on a consistent basis to change the fortunes of a political party, and both seem quite uncapable of undertaking it, since both are personality-based leaders who want votes based on their charisma (more true for Modi outside Gujarat as opposed to inside Gujarat, while for Rahul its entirely true).

The third issue however goes even beyond the alliances. One of the most common characteristics for both Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi could be authoritarian nature, with the only discernible difference being that Modi would show more of it compared to Rahul in public. But in an alliance govt., autocratic or authoritative behavior may not be really an advantage; in fact it may very well lead to a break up of govt. sooner or later. More over, both Rahul and Modi would not like to be perceived either as weak leaders or prime ministers heading a corrupt regime (ala Manmohan Singh) which could be very much the norm now that alliances are formed based on short-term rent seeking as opposed to long term ideological or policy based measures. And both have not shown any ability or skill to manage coalition govts. like say Vajpayee. Therefore, it may be very much possible that both may not even wish to be prime ministers, considering it to be a path full of thorns.

So to state that the next elections would be a battle between two men would be injustice to the extremely diverse polity of our country. The next election would be decided by the same factors which have worked in 2004 and 2009 and therefore, it would be the states which would decide elections, not so much Modi or Rahul. Moreover, whether they themselves would like to be prime ministers of an alliance govt. would be something to answer about considering allies would think about pliable leaders and not necessarily larger-than-life figures as prime ministers.

And there could lie the difference.