Retributions  

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

As usual, it is a contestation for power

In an excellent post, fellow INI blogger Pragmatic provides the historical perspective on the centre-state relationship in India and aptly describes it as ‘bargained federalism.’  Indeed, that description is perhaps appropriate for even mature democracies like US where constitutionally and historically states have enjoyed a much greater degree of independence. Witness the hullabaloo in US over the recently introduced federal health reforms.

Despite its historical roots, it is interesting to examine why this debate has suddenly captured the political imagination. Perhaps the most important reason is the recent tendency of the Congress party to outperform in the general elections. It is simply unprecedented for a party which has over 200 seats in the Lok Sabha to rule merely one major state on its own steam: Andhra Pradesh. The Indian voter continues to repose her faith in the Congress party at the central level but is rewarding regional satraps in state elections. And with UP and Bihar increasingly resembling Tamil Nadu where the national parties are little more than an after thought, the marginalization of the Congress party at the state level is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. If the Congress was able to provide a countervailing force in state elections , it could have hoped to keep its allies in check. Unfortunately for the party, regional leaders while still willing to forge locall alliance no longer depend on the Congress’ support for survival of their government. This has created a peculiar situation where a Mamta Bannerjee  or Akhilesh Yadav who are essential to the survival of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government can virtually function as independent contractors.  Naturally, rent extraction is now their favorite modus operandi. These leaders are also well aware of the Congress party’s unitary tendencies. If the Congress is reluctant to tolerate its own strong regional leaders, how long can it be expected to countenance the likes of Mamta Banerjee who are inclined to follow their agenda. They could have hardly forgotten the sorry spectacle of Laloo Yadav—Congress’ strongest supporter during UPA’s first term—who is now almost completely marginalized and cannot manage a cabinet position despite a slavish devotion to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and her family.

Nevertheless, despite the apparent friction and the constant hand wringing, the debate over federalism benefits all parties. Take the proposed National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) for instance. With the states having virtually torpedoed the central government’s plans of launching the NCTC, the Singh-Chidambaram duo get a perfect opportunity to play the victim card. If the states will not allow an effective anti-terror mechanism, what can the central government do? The NCTC fiasco may have been a setback for India’s anti-terror agenda but politically it strengthens the Congress’ claim of being the only responsible party of governance. After all, in the 2009 elections, despite all the charges of weak government, it was the bully who was punished by the Indian voter while Congress rode to a decisive victory. On the other hand, for regional leaders who have always chafed against New Delhi’s domineering role,  it is an opportunity to raise their profile at the national level as well as strengthen their credentials as guardians of  state interests.

Different chief ministers may be using federalism for their own disparate ends. For Narendra Modi who still remains in the political doghouse because of the 2002 Gujarat riots, it offers an opportunity to gather some political acceptability. No wonder, he has written multiple letters to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and is attempting to strike alliances with regional satraps like Naveen Patnaik and Jayalalitha. It is to be seen how successful he is as political leaders remain wary of the Muslim backlash but at least it allows him to shift the larger political narrative. It also ties nicely with Modi’s constant invocation of Gujarat’s asmita which apparently has been tarnished by the New Delhi Establishment. On the other hand, for firebrands like Mamta Bannerjee who preside over states which are virtually bankrupt, and who urgently need resources to fund their populist giveaways, fighting the central government can potentially deflect attention away from their own misgovernance. Unsurprisingly, the Akhilesh Yadav government is now demanding a 93000 crore special package from the central government. Expect more of these outlandish demands as states’ financial condition remains poor.

Among the most interesting aspects of this entire debate is the role of the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). BJP is now a collection of strong regional chieftains who owe nominal allegiance to a weak central leadership which in any case is usually too busy fighting to become the next leader of opposition. The party’s natural inclinations are towards a stronger central government especially as it relates to nationalism and its stand against terrorism. The party would be also be expected to intercede in confrontations between  states in case of terror attacks–for instance, the Karnataka police recently arrested a Bihar resident on terror charges without apparently informing the local police thereby infuriating chief minister Nitish Kumar. These conflicts are only likely to grow as states like Bihar and UP take an increasingly soft line on terrorism. What would be the party’s stand in such cases especially if its involves important allies like Nitish Kumar?

However, BJP’s hand is being forced by strong chief ministers like Narendra Modi; it is unlikely the party opposes NCTC as a matter of principle. Its future approach towards federalism is likely to be dictated by its own performance in the national elections; if it falters again in 2014, expect the pro-federalism voices within the BJP to become more strident.

Finally, as Pragmatic points out, those speaking the loudest in favor of federalism remain dictators at home who are unwilling to devolve power to local bodies preferring to concentrate it entirely in their own capitals. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future as the majority of Indian parties now are mini-replicas of the Congress arrangement where a single leader—preferably a family scion—runs the party as a private fiefdom. True federalism would require the democratization of Indian polity; on all evidences, the opposite appears to be true with virtually all regional parties now family owned enterprises. Even in case of parties like the BSP or the Trinamool Congress where the family’s role is minimal, no dissent is tolerated. Therefore, while federalism would continue to serve as a convenient figleaf for naked power play and rent extraction, little can be expected to change on the ground.

P.S. As an aside, and this is topic for another day, what would happen to strong regional parties when the elderly leaders finally kick the bucket? Both Parkash Singh Badal and Karunanidhi are pushing 90 while Mualyam Singh Yadav is said to keep indifferent health. While they have attempted to anoint successors within their lifetimes, it remains to be seen whether the likes of Sukhbir Badal and Akhilesh Yadav can command the same degree of absolute loyalty and obedience. DMK of course is another story where a family war is all but guaranteed. Will that provide an opportunity for the national parties to reclaim their turf? Or these parties would simply be replaced by other strong regional leaders and alliances?

Who will defend free speech?

Looking at the cartoon for which a Jadavpur University professor had to face assault, multiple criminal cases, and even arrest, one immediately begins to suspect some sort of a conspiracy. (Just to be clear: professor Mahapatra is only accused of circulating the cartoons.) Surely this cartoon couldn’t possibly offend anyone even mildly sane. It is completely innocuous! However it has offended the Bengal government so much that it has set its goons/police after professor Mahapatra.  He has been charged with multiple offenses including—believe it or not—outraging the modesty of a woman. In Mamta’s Bengal, it appears, a rape may not be  a rape but criticizing the chief minister is akin to a collective assault on Bengal’s women. Once India was Indira; now Bengal is Mamta.  And if this was not enough, Mamta Bannerjee has strongly defended her government’s actions promising that her relentless pursuit of ‘criminals’ cannot be thwarted by protests from interested parties.

Even in a country where free speech has to be defended ‘book by book’, Mamta Banerjee’s  actions mark a new low. Hindi heartland politicians like Laloo Yadav and Mulayam Singh who were never shy of flaunting their friendship with criminals never went after a mere cartoon like this. Hell! Even Thackerays are not this contemptuous of criticism.

There is no need to mince words here. Mamta Banerjee is either completely delusional or power has gone to her head to the extent that she simply does not care two hoots for even minimal democratic norms. What is even more worrying is that she surely realized that her government’s actions would be widely criticized. Yet, she had no qualms in going after professor Mahapatra.. With Mamta it appears that everyone is a conspiring against her government—women are prepared to be raped merely to besmirch her good name.  It is clear that Mamta and her band of merry followers believe intrinsically in her divinity and their actions only betray their totalitarian mindset. Indeed that is the real worry: Mamta’s actions are not mere posturings; she appears to believe in her own conspiracies.

Or maybe she just believes that those who march for free speech are such a tiny minority that their voices can easily be muzzled or simply ignored. Her pro-people credentials are already secured by her actions like vetoing the railway budget; why should she bother about largely inconsequential  critics ranting on social media?

Democracy thrives on a system of checks and balances. If India was a truly developed democracy, then Mamta’s actions would have been resisted at multiple levels. Perhaps it is too much to expect the police to ignore the wishes of their political bosses, but what about the courts? The local court in which  professor Mahapatra  was produced could have applied its mind; did the charges pass the smell taste? Retributions is no fan of judicial activism but surely this is a fit case for the Calcutta High Court to take suo moto cognizance and summon the police officers responsible for this brazen assault on the law. And what about the governor who’s entire role is to ensure that the constitutional process is followed in his state?

Unfortunately, the institutions of the Indian state are increasingly compromised with even the ones which have historically enjoyed the highest credibility—armed forces and the courts—beginning to resemble the political class. There is no simple solution to this and it would take years—if not decades—before India can rebuild her institutional credibility. The political and intellectual discourse in India tends to focus mainly on individuals—it should instead emphasize the role of the institutions. If they are compromised and weak then it matters little whether the Communists are ruling in Bengal or Mamta comes to power. They would both behave in exactly the same manner.

In this environment, if Mamta is allowed to get away with her  actions, then it is only likely to embolden her further. Watch out for assaults on intrepid journalists or on  newspapers who are even mildly critical of her. Or may be the citizens of Bengal will suddenly discover that their access to social media has suddenly disappeared.  In that light, it is certainly heartening that many newspapers have published the impugned cartoons.  Clearly, the cartoons are so inoffensive that even the usual pliant media is prepared to take a stand.

But that’s precisely how we have reached this sad state. Newspapers may publish opinion columns supporting free speech but the slightest whiff of controversy—especially if it offends the perpetually offended religious folks—and they are scampering for cover.  Only recently, The Telegraph published an apology for mentioning a completely innocent picture which offended some Muslim groups; at that time too the Bengal government was quickly off the blocks in threatening the newspaper. And that was hardly the only case.

Now, it is understandable that the media does not wish to risk mob violence. Ordinarily, it would expect the instruments of the state to protect it but in a country where victims of an assault are frequently the first to be  arrested, it is difficult to retain that faith. Nevertheless,  if free speech is to be defended then someone will have to take a stand. That someone may even pay a severe personal or professional price for his intransigence.

Perhaps, India awaits her 21st century Ramnath Goenka.

Can Modi do an Advani?

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) report on Narendra Modi’s alleged role in the Gulbarg massacre held no particular surprises. As widely discussed previously, the SIT report held that there was no ‘prosecutable evidence’ to proceed against Modi and his fellow co-accused in this particular case. Naturally, the much-anticipated report has set off a political maelstrom in the media: His supporters see it as the final vindication of Modi’s innocence while his opponents have sworn to pursue the legal case against the Gujarat chief minister to its logical conclusion.

(more…)

There is Broad Consensus Across the Political Firmament on Ignoring India’s Dead

It’s that time of the year again. As Sushant Singh so succinctly puts it in Mid day: Time to eat, pray and love in the latest iteration of the never ending Indo-Pak soap opera. The visit of President Asif Ali Zardari on an ostensibly private visit to India has raised the hopes of detente  between the two traditional rivals and gladdened the hearts of professional peaceniks. The media has lovingly described the menu for the luncheon meeting between President Zardari and Prime Minister Singh and the security arrangements have been thoroughly dissected. And of course, it has facilitated a heartwarming meeting between the two yuvrajs: Angry Rahul meet crazy Bilawal .  Hope is in the air. Again.

In this air thick with optimism, cursed are those who remind of inconvenient terror attacks or demand accountability. What about the Mumbai attacks of 2008, squeaky voices ask? What about Hafiz Saeed the mastermind of Mumbai who restoring our collective faith in the transformative power of love and redemption is currently engaged in ‘de-radicalizing’ extremists—and that too gratis. (As an aside, this truly marks the high point of sophistry since its halcyon days when Goebbels ruled the airwaves).  Perhaps, all that remained to provide this soap opera a true Ekta Kapoor touch was for Saeed to make a dramatic entry, red rose in hand, while Singh and Zardari were engaged in lunch diplomacy.

But wait a minute. Despite indications to the contrary, Prime Minister Singh did raise the issue of Saeed during the luncheon meeting. President Zardari apparently replied that this required a separate long discussion. (On what exactly? Saeed’s fail-safe 10 point formula for turning hardened extremists into doves of love?). It can be safely construed that Dr. Singh did not press the issue considering the guest was engaged in a far more important task—partaking the multitudes of delicacies lined up for him. Now the perfunctory mention is done, we can all apparently move on to talking peace.

But these hawks just want war—love-wrought hearts would say. They have no idea about our shared history and entwined futures. No. All the ‘hawks’ ask for is the very minimal degree of accountability. And no, this isn’t about trade or trains or even Kashmir. In all countries, domestic political compulsions often force governments to make decisions which adversely affect relationship with friendly neighbors: Sample the brouhaha over the Keystone pipeline proposal even though US and Canada share a long peaceful history and open borders. So whether Pakistan maintains the most favored nation (MFN) status for India is a relatively minor pinprick. Pakistan can even continue its ‘diplomatic and moral’ support to the Kashmiri separatists as long as it does not train and equip Jihadi groups active in Kashmir.

The question here is of punishing the perpetuators of the worse terror attack on India. And let’s be charitable here and define punishment loosely: How about pushing Saeed and company out of national television? How about putting some curbs on his movement? If the Pakistani government cannot even deliver on even these very basic demands, what is the use of talking to them?

Apologists—and really these peaceniks are mostly just that—would argue that the Pakistan government is no shape to take on the Jihadists as they are protected by the all powerful military. But if they are so weak what purpose is to be served by inviting them for lunches masquerading as summits? Let’s just talk to the Army then as the Americans mostly do. Oh! but by talking to the civilian government, we are strengthening their hands. But we have been hearing the same argument for the last two decades. If it is another two decades before the Pakistani government is strong enough to take on the Jihadists, then how many more Mumbais are we prepared to tolerate and forgive? Indeed, many in India are now even embarrassed to mention the Mumbai attacks in a discussion on Indo-Pak relationship. If only the bastards in Mumbai had not managed to get themselves killed, we could be having ‘breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul.’

What is particularly disconcerting that who leads the Indian government matters little in this equation: It’s conduct remains virtually the same. If, for instance, Vajpayee or Advani were leading this country, would they have fawned any less on the visiting dignitary? Has anyone forgotten Vajpayee’s repeated attempts to forge peace with Pakistan despite being ‘repeatedly stabbed in the back.’  Even then the dead were ignored and no accountability was demanded in the fond hope that things would be different henceforth. But hope is no policy has India discovered to its chagrin multiple times. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

It is often said that sustainable peace in the subcontinent is not achievable till the partition generation is around. They have witnessed too much bloodshed and pain to forgive and forget. Perhaps, this truism needs a slight modification. Till the partition generation is in power in India, no dispassionate appraisal of Pakistan is possible and a romanticized vision would continue to dominate our political and intellectual discoursse. Inder Kumar Gujral shuts down India’s counter-intelligence capabilities for a ‘jaddu ki jhappi‘; Vajpayee marches across the border on a lark; and Manmohan Singh is perpetually in search of his native village. Perhaps, its time for wait for the next generation in India to take over.

Horror of horrors! Here’s looking at you, Rahul Gandhi, with hope!

If General V. K Singh has lost the government’s confidence, he should go

The Indian Express story about the ‘curious’ movement of two military formations has set at least one rumor to rest:  It is possible indeed to elicit a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh—all you have to do is to mention the ‘C’ word. But in all seriousness, the entire episode is rather troubling—not just as an indicator of the breakdown of the civil-military relationship but also how this public drama is causing immense damage to the authority of the civilian government and long-vaued institutional relationships.

As The Acorn points out, given its national security implications and its perceived closeness to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), it is implausible that a story of this nature could have released without the approval of the highest echelons of the Indian government. Now, there is nothing malfeasant about the newspapes report per se: Even if it was a simple case of lack of  communication, the very fact that the government was allegedly spooked enough to summon the defense secretary urgently makes its newsworthy.  However, the truth is likely to be less savory.

In recent months the media has been a willing accomplice to the constant sniping between Army chief General V.K. Singh and the defense ministry. General Singh is hardly blameless in this case as he has adroitly exploited the media oxygen to strengthen his case against the government (Vinod Mehta of the Outlook magazine recently claimed that General Singh has been calling up top journalists promising masala). As Kanchan Gupta explains in this excellent op-ed, the media is now a player in the lucrative defense acquisition business.

So here’s what may have happened: The Army establishment permitted troop movements in a sensitive area without following the proper procedures probably as an act of simple defiance ( Let’s show the civilians their place!).  Considering the strained relationship between the government and the army chief, the government was genuinely worried at that time but now it is exploiting this issue to show the army establishment in poor light. Leaking this story may simply then be a case of the government getting back at General Singh. After all, in the Indian context, even the very thought of military takeover is an absolute anathema and completely unacceptable

If this account is true—-and its certainly possible that the actual explanation is far less dramatic—then it does no credit either to the government or the army. Irrespective of the nature of General Singh’s complaints against the defense ministry, he serves at the pleasure of the President. If he has lost the confidence of the government—and it clearly appears to be the case—then it should ease him out or at least ensure that he is sent on compulsory  leave: Converting it into a full-fledged public spectacle has surely done the government little credit. Even if General Singh was genuinely victimized over his date of birth, he simply cannot serve a government whose confidence he clearly lacks.  The NDA government’s action against Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat established a strong precedent in conflicts of this nature.

However, little can be expected from either Mr. Antony or Dr. Singh—weak, vacillating men who are more concerned with their personal reputation than institutional integrity. Unfortunately, the situation is only likely to worsen in an era of weak central governments. The Supreme Court already dictates policy and if the government remains dysfunctional, it is likely to face more institutional crises like its current stand off with the army chief.

Final point: It is not clear why  the nameless and faceless Indian soldier is dragged into every discussion on civil-military relationship and homage paid to his sacrifice and valor. Let’s be clear: The conflict here is a turf war between the civil and military bureaucracies. Conflicts of this nature are common in every democracy; what is troubling is the utter failure of the government and the army to establish and articulate a new civil-military order.  Merely because one side sports uniforms does not make it inherently superior.  The Army establishment has been shielded from scrutiny by the sacrifices its jawans and young officers make.   For instance, General Singh happily extrapolated his izzat to that of the army merely on a matter of administrative detail—how ridiculous is that? There are many upright officers in the government who deliver yeoman service to the Indian people often in the remotest parts of the country. Surely their performance and sacrifice should not stop us from asking tough questions of the civilian establishment. The same yardstick needs  to be applied to the army.

If there is no decline in poverty, what does it suggest?

Much debate has recently happened over the poverty line with a lot of anger directed against the Planning Commission for allegedly fixing the poverty level at a deliberately low level. The technical issues have been discussed quite well elsewhere, so let’s think about the larger debate here.

Those most vehemently criticizing the Planning Commission poverty line are essentially arguing that India has seen little decrease in actual poverty since 2004-2005 contrary to what the government has been arguing.  (The timeline is important as it corresponds with the two terms of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.)  Therefore, the Planning Commission has ‘fixed’ the poverty line in order to to strengthen its argument that poverty in India is decreasing.

Now, one may wonder, why would some people who have no apparent stake in the political game be so opposed to any reduction in poverty? After all, it should be a celebratory event. The answer is fairly simple: The larger argument here is about the efficiency of economic reforms and growth in reducing poverty. These critics simply don’t believe that growth matters enamoured as they are with redistribution and statism.

But here’s the problem with this argument: The last 7-8 years have been the era of ‘inclusive grwoth’ where massive amounts of money has been expended in social sector schemes like the NREGA. And  the amounts are really massive: In the 2011-2012 for instance, the government spend close to 160000 crores on social sector spending.  In fact, many of these critics are the biggest cheerleaders of increased social sector spending constantly arguing for confiscatory policies to fund these large government schemes. Forget economic reforms, they have consistently opposed even minor innovations in subsidy management including pilot cash transfer agreements. And yet, by their own argument, apparently poverty has not decreased in India over the last few years. Of what use is the massive government spending then? It should also be categorically stated that statists have consistently dominated and won almost all economic policy arguments over the tenure of the UPA government and yet, it has apparently failed to helped the poor. The whole idea of a reformist lobby is little else than a convenient marker and has limited credence outside op-ed columns and some think tanks.

But does this negate what economic liberalizers have been arguing? No. As Montek Singh Ahluwalia has stated, whatever metric one may choose, poverty has actually declined in the last few years and India has grown consistently in the same time frame. The argument against UPA government is that because it has not properly pursued the reforms agenda and has not managed public finances responsibly, the growth agenda is not sustainable in the medium term. Simply put, it has failed to utilize the favorable economic and fiscal environment and that failure endangers India’s growth story. In addition, because of the lack of reforms in important sectors of the economy—notably agriculture—a lot of the poor are unable to participate in India’s growth story. And that is the real tragedy of India’s poor.

A Tale of Two Countries

After launching a virtual diplomatic war against Norway over the last few months, the Indian government has landed with egg all over its face. It turns out that Norway’s actions were not necessarily dictated by racism or cultural misunderstanding but because of existing issues within the Bhattacharya family. Not bothering to ascertain even minimum facts, the Indian government has repeatedly issued demarches and official statements and was threatening to march a senior official to Norway before better sense dawned. Now the government is belatedly realizing that it should not interfere in a family affair.

Unfortunately, Norway is hardly an isolated case. Whether it is violence against Indian students in Australia or isolated incidents against Indians in UK, the government—egged on by a loud and jingoistic media—is ready to go to war or declare an entire country racist.  There is no consideration for that country’s legal process; punishment must be meted out immediately, preferably before the prime time news cycle. Nor is any consideration given to that country’s strategic importance to India or history of good diplomatic relations. One wishes that the Indian government acted with similar alacrity when incidents happen right under its nose in the national capital.

Now everyone will blame the media including—funnily enough—the media it self. Of course, no one will acknowledge the culpability of their own publication or TV channel. Nor will anyone remember the lessons of the Norway fiasco, and when the next such unfortunate incident happens, the media will behave exactly in the same manner. The outrage machinery will immediately spring into action and a relatively trivial incident will dominate the headline for days.

But let’s leave aside Norway and think about another country with which India has had historically poor relations: Pakistan. The laundry list of crimes the Pakistani state has committed against India and her people need not be recounted here. Suffice to say that there is incontrovertible evidence that the Pakistani state has long waged war against India from horrific incidents like the Mumbai attack of 2008 to fostering terrorism in J & K and Punjab. And yet, why does the same media find it so difficult to summon outrage against Pakistan? Sure, there is a anger for a few days but soon op-ed columnists and ‘serious’ journalists  start emphasizing how the Indian government has no option but to pursue peaceful relationship with Pakistan despite constant provocations. In fact,the truly ‘independent’ voices even seek moral equivalency between India and Pakistan. Each and every meeting of the Indian and Pakistani leaders is cheered wildly and the candles of hope are lit anew. Till the next attack happens.

What happens to the media outrage machinery when it comes to Pakistan? Indeed, the media would happily label anyone who is not sold on the idea of India-Pakistan bhaichara as jingoistic and a RSS plant!  It would appear that for the Indian state and its media, placing a child temporarily in foster care is a bigger crime than letting mass murderers walk free. Or perhaps beating little Norway is simply easier than tackling the military-jihadi complex.

How Mamta is making Congress look good

It is rather amusing to watch the New Delhi Establishment in uproar over railways minister Dinesh Trivedi’s forced departure from the union cabinet. Those who have cheered the squandering of thousands of crores in ‘social sector’ spending by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government are suddenly enthralled with fiscal prudence and are praising Mr. Trivedi for refusing to bow to populism and putting country first.  Well, this train long left the station and sans a massive crisis, restrained spending and prudent fiscal management are unlikely to be practiced in New Delhi in the near term.  Or for that matter in state capitals.

Nevertheless, the brouhaha over Mr. Trivedi may still have important economic and political implications. Trifling as the amount of Rs. 4000 crores may be, the unsavory episode further strengthens the narrative of a weak and dysfunctional government held hostage by its own populist inclinations and belligerent allies.  With the world economy still in a crisis mode and the ongoing policy paralysis in New Delhi, India’s growth story is in serious danger of being derailed. Despite the government’s stated confidence that India will regain the high growth trajectory, it is highly unlikely that a weakened central government would be able to push forward any meaningful reforms before the 2014 elections. Worse, there is hardly any talk of economic growth in Indian polity with almost exclusive attention to redistributnist schemes across all political parties.

The political picture is a little more murky. If India was a normal democracy, then, Dr. Manmohan Singh would have been heavily criticized for running a government over which he appears to exercise little control. Others would point out that Dr. Singh is hardly in a position to blame Mamta Banerjee for practicing populism when he has done little else over his term.  But Indian politics operates by its very own rules where weakness—as BJP discovered to its horror in the 2009 elections—can often be one’s strength. Despite its enormous economic mismanagement, in a single stroke, Mamta Bannerjee has allowed the Congress party to project it self as the only responsible national formation willing to sacrifice short term popularity to secure India’s future. With no party in a position to support the hike in railway fares, by default, the Congress party benefits especially since any voter backlash is likely to be directed against Dinesh Trivedi and the party he represents.  Congress managers and its profligate leadership must be utterly shocked to discover their new identity as guardians of India’s fiscal future. If Dr. Singh can summon the same courage which motivated him to push the Indo-US nuclear deal against strident opposition, then  Congress’ hand is only likely to be further strengthened. Admittedly, that possibility is remote—nevertheless, Congress will probably escape politically unscathed from the railway budget fiasco.

It is less clear if Mamta Banerjee will benefit from sending Dinesh Trivedi packing and holding the central government hostage over the last few months. Mrs. Banerjee clearly sees herself as a firebrand populist and nothing short of an electoral debacle is likely to make a difference to her policy agenda. She simply cannot compromise as she has fallen for the old trap: Belief in her own sainthood.  Indeed, if possible, Mamta Banerjee would happily stage weekly marches against her own government in Kolkota demanding that it roll back its ‘anti-people’ policies. Nevertheless, as the communist parties discovered in 2009, blatant arm twisting and ‘dadagiri‘ does not equal electoral performance. Already, there are reports that the Bengal electorate is beginning to be disillusioned with Mrs. Banerjee and it is possible that if she destabilizes the central government or simply makes it impossible for it to function, she may suffer electoral reverses.  Mamta Banerjee would hardly be the first revolutionary to be consumed by the same tactics which brought her success in the first place.

Even if she realizes the potential pitfalls, Mamta Banerjee simply cannot step back. Compromise is not her style and while it may have worked wonders in the opposition, she may yet discover that her no prisoners taken approach is unlikely to be as successful in government. In any case, unstable allies will ensure a turbulent future for the UPA government though it is unlikely that the government would fall.

Tailpiece: On another note, it did not take Akhilesh Yadav even a week to go back on his party’s promise of turning a new leaf. Now, all parties harbor the criminal and the corrupt and you cannot expect any party to give up power merely because it needs to accommodate a few goondas. But that’s exactly what is troubling here: There was no need  for Akhilesh Yadav to include Raja bhaiya in his cabinet. The SP government enjoys a clear majority and Raja Bhaiya is at best a local leader with limited state wide influence. Why was he rewarded then?

And the Futile Search for a Grand Narrative

Much has already been said about the rather unexpected UP election results. The Samajwadi Party (SP) has romped to a comprehensive victory leaving the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) far behind. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has continued its slide in UP while the media cheerleaders of the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi are surprised that the party has not performed as well as they thought. Naturally, Akhilesh Yadav is the new flavor of the season while Rahul Gandhi is now, suddenly, the failed prince.

Tempting as it is to search for a grand narrative—the UP electorate has voted for development or for the politics of empowerment—a closer analysis would suggest that the results merely have affirmed the 2007 elections. SP and BSP are now the principal adversaries in the Hindi heartland with BJP and Congress fighting for the wooden spoon. In short, nothing has really changed.

In a first-past-the-post system with multi cornered contests, looking solely at the number of seats scored by individual parties is likely to yield distorted findings. What may be more useful is  to examine the respective vote shares of individual parties. Despite its huge victory, the SP has failed to touch even 30%  while despite the shellacking it took, the BSP vote share remains at a highly respectable 26%. If anything, it is the congress which has shown signs of improvement by increasing its vote share to 11% from 8% in 2007. It is not much of an improvement but at least it is moving in the right direction unlike BJP which has seen continuous fall in its vote share over the last decade.

The likes of Yogendra Yadav are much better placed to figure out which caste combination has voted for which party but what remains true is the societies don’t change in 5 years. Or 10 for that matter. Yes, the hindi heartland is changing slowly and surely ‘development’ with its very specific heartland connotation has arrived in the popular consciousness. A voter in Bihar and UP may have voted largely on the basis of caste a decade back but now she expects the government to maintain law & order and deliver some goodies as well.  This is exactly where Nitish Kumar has scored in Bihar. But even in Bihar, as Retributions wrote after the 2010 assembly elections, despite the encomiums showered on Nitish Kumar, the JD(U)-BJP alliance won only 40% vote share. Or to put it another way, even a the height of his popularity when he was being hailed as a transformational leader in Delhi studios, 60% of Bihar’s population voted against Nitish Kumar. Once again, societies don’t fundamentally transform in a matter of years. Indeed, if the recent brazen acts of violence in UP are any indication, even parties and their supporters can’t change drastically in  a short period of time.

But what ails the national parties in UP? Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s analysis:

The implications of elections are not cast in stone; they depend on the lessons parties draw from them. But both national parties have to do a lot of rethink. It is often argued that national parties are giving way to regional agendas. The truth is the opposite. National parties are giving way because they don’t have a national agenda; it is the regional parties that have become the carriers of a future dream. Their organisational bases are fragile and their political imaginations ossified.

Dr. Mehta makes an important point. Both Congress and BJP had no overarching theme in UP—they were merely competing in the promised distribution of goodies with the regional parties. Naturally, the votes are likely to trust those who have the organization on the ground and whose leaders are locally accessible and not occassionaly airdropped from Delhi.

The lack of a national vision is not fatal in it self if it can be supplemented by strong local leadership. Congress, of course, cannot encourage regional leaders lest they challenge the ruling family while the BJP has been so comprehensively decimated in UP that it was forced to import an Uma Bharti from Madhya Pradesh. Little wonder, then, the two national parties have fared so poorly in UP.

Finally, little should be read in the results of other state elections. Goa and Uttarakhand are minor prizes while Punjab has merely affirmed the UPA model at the state level: Massive corruption and maladministration can be still be offset by populism and an opposition which is bitterly divided and too hubristic to even bother fighting the election.

(In the next part, the national implications of the UP results)

Preserving India’s constitutional democracy is more important than a feel-good agitations

In my article in the September issue of Pragati-The Indian National interest Review, I argue that while Anna Hazare’s agitation has rightly focused the nation’s attention on the issue of corruption, its adoption of blatantly  unconstitutional means ultimately undermines Indian democracy and would only be counter-productive in the long-term,

Nevertheless, the methods adopted by Mr. Hazare must give pause to every Indian who retains faith in India’s constitutional democracy. As many other commentators have enumerated, his so-called Jan Lokpal bill itself suffers from many lacunae and is hardly the panacea to the ills of corruption. Worse, it appears to violate the constitutionally mandated division of power between different pillars of the state. In any case, no single body—howsoever constitutionally well-protected—can single-handedly tackle corruption which pervades virtually every aspect of Indian society.

But forget what may be wrong with Mr. Hazare’s bill for a moment. After all, the government’s proposed Lokpal bill is hardly perfect in itself and suffers from serious deficiencies which may severely handicap its functioning. What is truly troubling though is Mr. Hazare’s reliance on blatantly unconstitutional means to push forward his legislation. Instead of attempting to reform the system, he has harnessed populist disgust and attempted to hijack the entire political process. What is particularly offensive is his gimmickry resort to repeated bouts of fasting [link]

Download the latest issue of Pragati to read the rest.