Retributions  

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The damaging consequences of wishful resignation – for a large section of India’s political and intellectual elite, talks with Pakistan are an end in itself. Unfortunately, that’s hardly enough.

In our article in the June issue of Pragati—The Indian National Interest Review, Sushant K. Singh and I argue that talks with Pakistan must be part of a well thought out strategy backed by credible military capacity,

It appears that for a large section of India’s political and intellectual elite, talks with Pakistan are an end in itself, and not an instrument to secure India’s long-term interests. Now, peace with Pakistan is surely desirable but if the past two decades of dialogue—always accompanied by terrorist attacks and proxy war against India—are any indicator, talks have singularly failed to ensure peace. In any case, even the oft-cited “peace dividend”—accelerated economic growth as a direct offshoot of détente —while theoretically sound, fails the empirical test as India’s growth has been fastest in the period of the worst terror attacks from Pakistan.

Indeed, the template of bilateral dialogue over the years has remained depressingly the same: after every major terror attack, India withdraws from talks; backchannel diplomacy resumes in a few months followed by full-fledged talks despite little change in the ground situation.

But what is the alternative, cry the commentariat: War? [link]

Download the June issue of Pragati to read this and much more.

A serious long-term security challenge. And redefining development

-Search for greater mandate-

As the Telegraph demonstrates, the initial comment by home minister Mr. P Chidambaram seeking a “greater mandate” from the cabinet has been spun as an acknowledgment that under constitutional provisions, the role of the centre in matters of internal security is limited while the primary responsibility lies with the concerned states. This is disingenuous at best as the Cabinet cannot override explicit constitutional provisions; what then was the mandate Mr. Chidambaram seeking?

Clearly, the followers of the Digvijay line have decided that instead of attacking the home minister directly, the better political alternative is to limit his role in meeting the Maoist threat. Instead, they shift the onus on the state and blame them for failures on the security front and for lack of development. It helps of course that none of the states facing the Maoist threat, whether it is Orissa or Chhattisgarh are ruled by the Congress party. Certainly, with the virtual open endorsement of the Digvijay line by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi with her reference to “root causes,” the central government is likely to take an increasingly limited role in the struggle against Maoists. This is not very different from the days of Mr. Shivraj Patil when the Maoists were described as “misguided brothers.” While such rhetorical flourishes may not be possible due to recent incidents of grotesque violence, the endgame remains the same: A refusal to understand and tackle Maoists as the “gravest internal security threat” despite words to the contrary from no less a figure than the Prime Minister himself.
(more…)

Twitter is a medium. And just that.

Vir Sanghvi, it appears, is one MSM columnist who has anointed himself as the bridge between the old and new media. He has previously offered his analysis of bloggers, and now has written a column in the Outlook magazine on Twitter.

Mr. Sanghvi starts by tracing the history of Shashi Tharoor and Twitter and the attendant controversies—most of them created by the media it self—remember Cattle-class anyone? He then argues that Mr. Tharoor wanted to remove the filter between the politician Tharoor  and the common man and create a new constituency for himself. And asserts that twitter propelled Mr. Tharoor’s rise.

It is a ridiculous claim. Mr. Tharoor’s follower count has increased only in recent months after he took over as minister in the UPA government and attracted media attention as the “twitter-minister.” In any case, a few lakh people spread all over the globe hardly matter in terms of Indian politics. More likely than not, Mr. Tharoor’s political rise and the media circus around his every tweet has attracted curious on-lookers. Following someone on twitter requires little effort—it is merely a matter of a simple click.  It is possible that Mr. Tharoor saw twitter as a medium where he would no longer have to rely on journalists to make a his point—prima facie, this seems to bother Mr. Sanghvi and many of his ilk—but surely Mr. Tharoor could not be so daft to believe that Twitter would make his political career.

But that is a minor quibble. What follows is nonsensical to say the least,

As we now know, it hasn’t quite worked out that way. In fact, Twitter has actually led directly to Tharoor’s downfall. It was on Twitter that Lalit Modi (a much less popular tweeter than Tharoor) provided details of Sunanda Pushkar’s shareholding in the Kochi consortium and set off the events that resulted in Tharoor’s resignation.

Nor has Modi been a Twitter winner. As far as I can tell, he hoped to create a controversy about the owners of the Kochi team, embarrass Tharoor (who was ‘mentoring’ the consortium) and then use the furore as an excuse to take away the franchise and give it to somebody else.

Twitter did not cause Mr. Tharoor’s downfall. Mr. Tharoor had to resign because he had taken an inordinate interest in an IPL franchise where his close associate got a sweetheart deal. Ditto for Mr. Modi who may have started with the express purpose of causing Mr. Tharoor’s downfall but had forgotten his own sleazy past. To blame or credit the medium for action of actors is patently ridiculous. What if Mr. Modi had made similar accusations in a print interview, or indeed, in an interview with Mr. Sanghvi?

Instead of virtually advising  public figures to maintain silence, Mr. Sanghvi should reflect on the role of the media. Why did the media hail Mr. Modi as a visionary for so long? And how did it happen that virtually overnight media discovered curious facts about IPL ownership or the conflict of interest associated with Mr. Modi’s role in the entire affair? Instead of offering a pseudo-sociological take on Twitter, perhaps Mr. Sanghvi should pen a column about media’s dubious role and its acquiescence  in IPL’s crony capitalism. And he can  start with his own newspaper which after sleeping for years suddenly exposed Mr. Modi in blazing headlines in a matter of hours.

Mr. Sanghvi closes by offering some teachable moments from this entire episode which include such gems as “no matter how much action you generate on Twitter, it really makes no difference to how you are perceived by the country as a whole.” And pray why would it be different? Does using twitter confer one with some occult powers which should sway the entire mass of India? Of course, you should be judged by your actions! And then there is the one about not confusing your followers on twitter with your supporters.  As if that needs to be said!

Finally,

And finally, the events of the last fortnight have reminded us of the wisdom of that old cliché of Indian politics: the worst constituency to have is the middle class. As much as they like supporting you, they love sitting in judgement over you even more. It makes them feel powerful and important. So yes, the middle class can be vocal. But it can also be fickle.

Worse for whom? Politicians? The Indian middle class has its myriad faults but it could do much worse than fickleness. Why should not the middle class sit in judgment over elected public officials? It is its right to do so! What is unfortunate is that it does not do it often enough.

Mr. Sanghvi’s comments flow from a thinly veiled feudal mentality where leaders of the country should not be judged by the Hoi Polloi. The middle class, or for that matter the voter does not owe  public figures its permanent support; he has to earn it every day. And if he fails, then it is not the voter’s fault if he turns against him. India’s polity would be strengthened if the Indian voter  is more assertive about his rights, and indeed, more judgmental. In fact, that is exactly what the new media does by injecting a degree of accountability in our polity and social discourse.

Twitter did not cause the downfall of Messers Tharoor and Modi. But if it did, it would be a matter of celebration. And not trepidation, as Mr. Sanghvi obliquely suggests.

Mr. Tharoor’s departure is welcome news

The post on Tharoor saga has come in for some trenchant criticism from a fellow INI blogger, Pragmatic, who argues thusly,

If unsubstantiated charges by a crook + manufactured media outrage = minister’s sacking, then no government  survives in India

The first argument is what credibility does Lalit Modi have? The man is known to be a wheeler-dealer—his role in the Rajasthan government run by Vasundhara Raje has been well documented as has been his rather colorful history—should allegations of such a man given much importance?

(more…)

Why Shashi Tharoor needs to go

Legally speaking, the case against Shashi Tharoor is rather weak. While it may be argued that his associate Sunanda Pushkar has got a rather sweet deal in the Kochi consortium, sweat equity deals are not illegal per se. The involvement of Mr. Tharoor remains indirect at best—after all, for a politician still finding his feet in the rough and tumble of Indian politics, a IPL team for his state is no small coup. And if a certain associate of his benefited from the deal—well, it is one those cases sitting on the hazy boundary dividing ethics and law.

But as Greatbong points out nothing has been proven against Mayawati too. Reasonable minds may well argue that the cash-for-garlands is merely the reflection of her people’s affection for her. And the hard reality of politics is that money is essential for party operations. Mayawati clearly has monetarily benefited from her political success—her income tax returns are evidence enough—-but in a country where parties and governments are handed down generations as hereditary Jagirs, it is hardly the worst case of political opportunism.

(more…)

Congress leadership must back Mr. Chidambaram

If Congress was a democratic party then Mr. Digvijay Singh’s op-ed against home minister P. Chidambaram could be dismissed as a genuine intellectual and policy difference. A debate between a grassroots old-style Congress politician advocating a healing-touch approach vs. a stern outlook favored by a technocratic minister.

However, Congress is anything but a democratic set up; a revolt against a serving high-ranking cabinet minister by the senior-most party general secretary who clearly has the ear of Rahul Gandhi is hardly conceivable without the blessing of the First Family of Indian polity. Now, both the Prime Minister  Dr. Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Mrs. Sonia Gandhi have ostensibly backed the beleaguered  home minister.

Nevertheless, the fact that Mr. Singh has received no rebuke—-his comments have been dismissed as a personal opinion; imagine the fate of someone holding similar views on the First Family!—even more interestingly, in a NDTV debate on Maoism, Keshava Rao was fielded by the Congress party. Even in the Rajya Sabha (PDF link), Mr. Rao had defended the Digvijay line which he carried forward in the NDTV debate arguing that development must come first. This is clearly the opposite of the clear-hold-build strategy of the home minister who favors an initial security thrust followed by development.

So what gives? Well, it appears that the Congress party and its leadership is playing the usual game of running with the hounds and hunting with the hares. While Mr. Chidambaram has not been directly reprimanded, it is clear that his wings have been clipped. The home minister is on notice; another Dantewada and the party may be ready to throw him to the wolves.

Admittedly, this is an approach which has yielded rich electoral dividends for the party because it can be something to everyone. Nevertheless, in this case, when India is engaged in a war with Maoists, it is unlikely that a muddled approach will be particularly beneficial. Either the Congress party should back Mr. Chidambaram to the hilt or invite Digvijay Singh to take over as the home minister. It can’t have it both ways.

One additional point: Those with short memories need to be reminded that the soft approach favored by the likes of Mr. Digvijay Singh is precisely what the Indian government tried during UPA1. Mr. Shivraj Patil repeatedly described the Maoists as misguided youths who could be brought in the mainstream by talks and such like. Well, for four years, while the government slept, the Maoists spread their tentacles across much of central India and utilized the breather to emerge as a formidable military force. Mr. Chidambaram, for all his perceived hubris and flamboyance, is paying for the sins of his predecessor.

Mr Kumar needs to remember his responsibilities to India and her constitutional order.

Well, the Nitish fever has struck even the venerable The New York Times which carries an extremely positive story on Bihar’s transformation from a lawless jungle to a state delivering good governance under Nitish Kumar’s watch.  This is consistent with what the Indian media has been reporting lately: adulatory stories on Mr. Kumar hailing his record on governance.

Unfortunately, the praise Mr. Kumar has lately received seems to have inflated his ego. This is precisely what Retributions had warned against. It appears that Mr. Kumar is completely convinced that he is the new messiah who knows all the answers.

Witness his latest spat with the Union home ministry. Taking umbrage to Union home secretary G.K Pillai’s comments that Bihar has adopted a soft attitude towards the Maoist terror, Mr. Kumar has advised Mr. Chidambaram to talk less and work more. He has also offered his solution to tackling the Maoist menace,

“Naxalism cannot be tackled by operations alone. Certain pockets are demolished in police action but they spring up again. When the situation demands, operations are needed. It happened in Bihar and we recovered large caches of arms. At the same time, you should bring development with justice at the grassroots. Development is not about putting up big factories and projects but about ensuring that the benefits reach the poorest of the poor and the delivery mechanisms are in place,” he said

Prima facie, this statement is unexceptionable. All observers recognize that good governance must be provided in the Maoist affected areas. Nevertheless, two issues need to be considered. First, Maoism has acquired such dangerous proportions that the argument that merely development is the solution with police operations reduced to a perfunctory afterthought is plainly illusory. Yes, development must happen but it is simply not possible in absence of security. Maoists have posed a direct challenge to the authority of Indian state and they must be answered: resolutely and firmly. Till their challenge is quelled, it is plainly disingenuous to believe that large scale development is possible.

Second, the Maoists operate across state borders with their highly mobile hit squads. It follows naturally that they would set up their more permanent infrastructure in states which are perceived to be soft in their attitude towards Maoist terror.  Indeed, with their ability to swing votes in their areas of influence—witness Shibu Soren openly seeking their support in the recently concluded Jharkhand elections—politicians have a perverse incentive to tacitly condone their activities. With Maoists returning the favor—why should they attack states which harbor them?—it is win-win for both sides. It is not a win for India, though.

It is not Retributions argument that Mr. Kumar is driven by such cynical political considerations. Perhaps, he genuinely believes in his messianic abilities. Whatever may be the reason, his attitude weakens the anti-Maoist offensive and worse, adversely affects the developing national consensus  that Maoist challenge must be strongly countered.

Yes, it is tempting to overlook Mr.  Kumar’s weaknesses because he represents the best hope for resurrection of one of India’s poorest states. After all, even Mr. Kumar’s fiercest critic is likely to give him a free pass when the only alternative is Laloo Prasad Yadav. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that it is precisely this attitude which turned Mr Yadav in to what he eventually became: A self-absorbed leader—darling of the Delhi based media who happily brought his state to complete ruination.

It is important to hold Mr. Kumar’s feet to fire. On the issue of Maoism, Mr. Kumar is clearly wrong. He needs to be reminded of it till he understands the seriousness of the challenge Maoists pose to the Indian state and her citizens. And his constitutional responsibilities and obligations to the Indian state.

A well calibrated strategy and not brute force is the way forward

In an op-ed in Mint, Sushant K Singh and I argue that the proper response to the Dantewada tragedy must include capacity building —political and administrative—and long-term reforms rather than reliance on brute power,

Unfortunately, the first response—indiscriminate use of brute force—has been the state’s favoured response, simply because there is little political incentive for the government to undertake a long-term, resource-intensive overhaul, when public pressure—momentary and whimsical as it is—is satisfied with “strong” action. And in a sharply divided discourse, there is little likelihood of any influential political or intellectual figure opposing such a course—except those who have willy-nilly aligned themselves with the Maoist cause.

However, it is obvious that if Maoism is to be extinguished, the state needs to choose the rational, smart longer-term strategy. But for that to happen, constraints imposed by the Indian state’s lack of capacity—political, security and administrative—must be immediately tackled. [Link]

Are secularists damaging secularism?

Writes R Jagganathn in DNA,

India’s humbug secularists have personalised the definition of secularism for narrow political ends. It corresponds to no dictionary meaning of the word. Secularism is defined as the opposite of what the Sangh parivar stands for. Like Pakistan defining itself as “not India,” secularists define themselves as “not the Sangh parivar”. The Sangh is the unspeakable “other”, the demon they are trying to exorcise in themselves. And in Modi they have found the perfect personification of all that they hate in themselves.

Modi has often been accused — and legitimately — of equating his state’s interests with his own. But his detractors are playing into his hands. When Amitabh Bachchan is asked to be the state’s brand ambassador for tourism, he is pilloried for his impertinence. Modi may have had his own agenda in inviting him to promote Gujarat’s cause, but isn’t that what politicians do anyway? Why is anyone who promotes Gujarat an instant target for secularists? This is ideological tyranny.

If Modi is wrapping himself in the state’s colours, the secularists are helping him do so through sheer stupidity. By blasting anyone who is hired by the state, they are effectively saying that working for Gujarat is the same as working for Modi. So when Modi says the secularists are trampling on Gujarati asmita, it is entirely believable. [link]

Jagganathan’s argument brings us back to what Retributions has always argued: Both the “secularists” and Modi need each other.

Nitish Kumar must eschew politics of personality and strengthen institutions—Bihar still has a long way to go

In my article in April 2010 issue of Pragati—the Indian National Interest Review, I argue that Bihar under Nitish Kumar must move from personality driven politics to institutional reforms,

More importantly, it is essential that Mr Kumar set into motion the process of long term institutional reforms so that Bihar’s journey is no longer held captive by caprices and whims of its leaders. Instead of appearing to make himself indispensable, the greatest contribution Mr Kumar can make to Bihar’s regeneration to make himself incidental to the process. Mr Kumar must also remember that he has hitherto benefited from low expectations of the people of Bihar. But if the Nitish revolution rolls on, expectations will increase dramatically and he will be required to provide much more than the minimal level of governance. At that stage, providing the tools for his people to compete in the economy of new India, and creating economic opportunities—not merely by government schemes—by unshackling the latent entrepreneurial spirit of Bihar will be imperative for him. If he wins the assembly elections scheduled for November 2010 then that should be Mr Kumar’s agenda for next five years.[link]

Download the April 2010 issue of Pragati for the complete article and much more.