When will Election Debates make a debut in India

Last week, Britain made history when for the first time, the leaders from the three mainstream political parties debated in front of a studio audience and was also televised live. Such debates have become a regular feature in the US where this tradition started with the historic debate between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon way back in 1960. Other countries to have tried this include France, New Zealand, Australia and Iran (Source).

Importance of these Debates
The importance of such cannot be overstated. Firstly, these debates provide a direct platform to leaders to directly reach out their target audience. These leaders otherwise usually spend crores on traveling around the country and in organizing rallies which is mainly attended by party loyalists and not ordinary people.

The present spending limit for candidates is Rs 25 lakhs in Parliamentary elections and Rs 10 lakhs in Assembly elections. How many Indians can spare such large sums of money. More importantly, once they get elected, wouldn't they be motivated to get return on investment. India does not have open and clean system to raise funds for political parties like that of the US. Thus such debates can create a level playing field by reducing the role of money power in elections.

Secondly, such televised debates can lower the power of media-houses. Media houses and Journalists are universally known to have their own biases and often cover stories favorably. For e.g., in UK media has largely ignored the Liberal Democrats in the past. However, last week their leader comprehensively dominated the first Election debate in UK. Thus, the debate created a level playing field and allowed real talent to flourish.

Additionally, a major issue plaguing Indian media today is the rising phenomenon of paid news. It has been widely reported in the international media and it includes the big media houses as well. For e.g., a 2004 article in Asia Times Online claims that even Times of India sells its space for paid coverage (I can't comment on its authenticity). Another more recent article (2009) on Wall Street Journal says,

Ajay Goyal is a serious, independent candidate contesting for a Lok Sabha seat in Chandigarh. Never heard of him? Neither, probably, have a lot of people in Chandigarh because when it came to getting press coverage for his campaign he was faced with a simple message: If you want press, you have to pay.

So far, he says, he's been approached by about 10 people – some brokers and public relations managers acting on behalf of newspaper owners, some reporters and editors – with the message that he'll only get written about in the news pages for a fee. We're not talking advertising; we're talking news. One broker offered three weeks of coverage in four newspapers for 10 lakh rupees ($20,000). A reporter and a photographer from a Chandigarh newspaper told him that for 1.5 lakh rupees ($3,000) for them and a further 3 lakh rupees ($6,000) for other reporters, they could guarantee coverage in up to five newspapers for two weeks.

In the recent Maharashtra elections, three newspapers that compete with each other, Lokmat, Pudhari and Maharashtra Times, carried the same piece, with the same picture and headline on Ashok Chavan. There are people on record saying that representatives of the Dainik Jagran, Dainik Bhaskar, Punjab Kesri, Eenadu asked for money. (Source)

In such a corrupt environment, it is important to reduce money power and create a level playing field which is exactly what these debates tend to do.

Disadvantages
Some people might question the efficacy of such debates. Televised Debates is not everyone's cup of tea. However, such debates only judge the articulation and fluency of the candidates which has no relation to their ability to Govern. Such debates would effectively rule out the likes of ManMohan Singh any chance of becoming the Prime Ministerial Candidates. But isn't fair enough. Aren't leaders expected to articulate and inspire.

And is it too high price to pay, considering if such a system is in place, it would force the likes of Mayawati to come out and face the music and answer questions from the audience. Mayawati has conveniently and continuously ignored the media since the dalits to read or bother newspapers and English new channels. Such debates will not allow candidates to make false promises as they will be cross-questioned. The likes of ManMohan Singh can continue to hold other important positions like Finance Minster or in the Planning Commision.

Another important aspect is that, the party which is ahead has little to gain from a debate in which the leader might slip up, and forfeit their advantage. This has been evident in Britain where there has been a tradition that at every general election the leader of the Opposition challenges the Prime Minister to a televised debate (on the grounds they have nothing to lose) only to be turned down by the Prime Minister (on the grounds they have everything to lose). LK Advani too had challenged ManMohan Singh for televised debate on the eve of the elections which was rejected by the Prime Minister.

Conducting such debates in India
Conducting debates in far more linguistically homogeneous societies like UK or US is far more easy. The obvious question is in which language would you have such a debate. India is far too diverse linguistically. Hindi is unsuitable in the south or the north-east while English is restricted to the urban and elite class. Secondly, India has a multi-party system and any meaningful televised debate can occur with such a large number of participants.

In such an environment, it is difficult to imagine conducting election debates in National Elections atleast in the foreseeable future. But why can't we have such debates in Assembly Elections. States in India were created linguistically and every state has a state language. These debates can be conducted in the state language. Furthermore, each state typically has just two or three major political parties or groups. So an effective debate can be conducted under the aegis of the Election Commission of India.

Final Words
We proudly call ourselves the World's Largest Democracy. But there others like Arundhati Roy who call India's democracy a fake democracy. The reality is somewhere in the middle. We only have pockets of Democracy. Even after 62 years of independence, democracy has not reached every part of the country.

We must bring democracy to every doorstep and Election Debates are a great way to achieve this because it gives a voice to everyone.

If we strengthen our democracy, development will follow. This new democracy can take on anyone including Naxals. Democracy is for the people,  by the people and of the people.Our forefathers fought hard so that we enjoy basic rights. It is now our  turn to fight their unfinished battles. It is now time that the Indian Civil Society shun its ignorance and demand a level playing field. It is time that our leader must face the music.

Would love to see a debate between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi in 2014. And if you still haven't watched the UK Election Debate, you may do so on Youtube.

Mayawati: Is she really destined for a larger role in Indian Politics

Mayawati, a hindi speaking dalit woman managed to secure a simple majority to become a Chief Minister of UP the largest state of India, a state that has produced most number of Prime Ministers of India. She is now eyeing a larger role and had reportedly demanded to be declared the Prime Ministerial Candidate of the Third Front. She could still end up on the Prime Ministers Chair given that the country is heading for fractured verdict. Her party the BSP has risen phenomenonly and is now trying to expand its reach beyond UP. It recently one a couple of assembly seats in Delhi, but remains largely a marginal player. Given its rise, many political commentators are predicting that BSP is soon going to be a dominant force through the country.
I beg to disagree with that and be presenting my counter arguments in the rest of the article.

My First point is that there seems to a political saturation in our country. Political parties throughout India have consolidated their positions. If we analyze of the political upheavals in the last decade, there aren't too many states where the major political parties have changed. For instance, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,Delhi still has only two major players Congress and BJP; Kerela still has LDF vs UDF, Tamil Nadu still has AIADMK vs DMK with PMK, MDMK, Congress and BJP being marginal players. Maharashtra has seen minor re-allignment with NCP first breaking up and then allying with Congress. On the ground, the state still has two major players both alliances.

So which are the states having new players? These are Orissa, Karnataka, Bihar, UP and West Bengal. Let us look closely why in these places new players were allowed. In Orissa, Naveen Patnaik split the erstwhile Janta Dal to ally with BJP. Karnataka used to witness direct contest between erstwhile Janata Dal and Congress but the split in JD led to growth of BJP. Bihar again has a similar story. Leaders from JD split into JD(U) and RJD. In West Bengal, Mamta split the state Congress to create TMC and hoped to occupy the non-Left political space in the state.

Now comes UP. In UP, BSP wasn't really a major player and did well in reserved seats only. In the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, BSP won just 5 seats out of which one was Mayawati. It all changed when in 1996 Congress under Narasimha Rao decided to ally with BSP. Congress fought on just 125 seats leaving around 300 to BSP. This meant transfering of Congress vote to the BSP, and also that the national party was accepting a minor role in the state politics. Mayawati hasn't looked behind while Congress hasn't been able to regain ground in the state. Subsequently Mayawati has even wooed the upper castes and with the BJP collapsing in the state, BSP has effectively replaced it as one the major player in the state.

In all the above cases, one thing is common - the rise of a new player meant that an existing player had to go. It is no wonder that the BJP hasn't been able to even open its account in the Kerela assembly despite trying for almost two decades. In Tamil Nadu, PMK and MDMK continue to remain marginal players because both AIADMK and DMK remain strong. With Karunanidhi ageing and there is a posibility of a split because there are 3 players within the DMK - Stalin, Stalin's elder brother and the Marans. Actor Vijaykanth started a new party DMDK but failed to have any impact. This is because there isn't enough political space for a new player. NT Ramarao created his own political party and became the Chief Minister in less than year. But that was 1982 and Chiranjeevi is unlikely to repeat that. The recent surveys of CNN-IBN just gave him 7% vote share.

Just look at things from a logical point of view. If I am an aspiring politician from Kerela, I would rather go with either LDF or UDF than go with BJP. So it is quite evident that BJP in Kerela cannot attract local talented leaders. Therefore, I would like to conclude my first point by saying BSP cannot emerge as a major national player unless one of the two BJP or Congress has a major split.

My second point about why BSP cannot emerge as a national force is internal. BSP as a party has remained undemocratic with Mayawati being the sole leader. To rise to a stature of a major nation party, BSP needs to reform itself by giving more space to other leaders. But is the party and more importantly is Mayawati ready for this. BSP only ideology seems to be dalit vikas, but beyond that there isn't much. To be a more broadbased party like Congress or BJP it needs to reinvent itself. Merely inventing a slogan of 'Sarvajan Samaj isn't going be sufficient.

So far we have only seen the rise of Mayawati. But she is trying to rise too fast without consolidating her existing position, which is a recipe for disaster. In the last assembly elections, BSP 30% of the votes, giving a clear 3-4% lead over its nearest rival SP.In the current parliamentary elections, she can hope to maintain that with rising support of Muslims, largely because of the community has switched sides after Kalyan Singh joined SP. But that does not guarantee her an unlimited rule in the state.

She has used every trick in the book to increase her tally. She has allied with almost everyone, and invited almost everyone. She has even accomodated a man who tried to molest and kill her in 1996. This is a major problem for her because her MLA's are not there because of any ideology but because they are powerhungry. BSP has suffered maximum number of splits largely because others found it easy to woo her MLA's. She has also given seats to the Ansaris from Azamgarh who are well known for their criminal record.

So far she had never ruled the state for a full term and thus could hit at her rivals for non-performance. However, in the last 12 months she has hardly done anything significant while being the Chief Minister. She has spent more time outside the state like campaigning in Karnataka elections. Caste based politics do not guarantee anything and one needs to back it up with development work. Moreover, both BJP and Congress are alarmed by its rise and neither of them is going to repeat the mistake of Congress in 1996.

Here is the most likely scenario (according to me). 2009 Lok Sabha elections throw up a hung Parliament. Mayawati becomes Prime Minister of a Third Front Govt. formed after getting outside support of Congress. Congress is likely to withdraw support within 12-18 months because it would not allow BSP to make any gains. I am pretty sure that they will find some excuse for withdrawing support. By that time the BSP Govt. in UP will be 3 year old and given its past record, its likely suffer a heavy defeat in the 16th Lok Sabha elections which would most likely take place in 2010. Since West Bengal is also headed for polls in 2011, a 2010 election would mean that an anti-incumbancy facing Left too isn't a major player in the final count.

Bottomline is that BSP shall remain at best a regional player.

Negative voting revisited

It gives me immense pleasure to inform the followers of my blog that my earlier article on Negative Voting has been referred to by the Economic Times in its article on the same topic.

"Echoes of this sentiment can be heard across websites. The right to a negative vote is being viewed as a demand for more accountability from government . In desicritics.org, Sandeep Bansal says, “The negative voting option has the potential to bring about changes to the overall political system just like RTI is bringing about changes in our bureaucracy,” he writes."

There is one interesting aspect which I had not considered in my earlier article and that has rightly been raised. BJP’s Sudheendra Kulkarni says that it is the democratic right of a voter to choose ‘None of the above’ . ‘‘ But in that case, voting should be made compulsory ,” he says. This is quite logical as a candidate should not be barred from contesting simply because some % of people feel it that ways.

But then can our democracy really make voting mandatory. Imagine if voting is made mandatory, there will be a backlash in a number of regions where people are dissatisfied with democracy. These regions are particularly the Naxal affected regions and Terrorism affected Kashmir. Democracy is supposed to win over people, and not impose itself on them.

Aam Aadmi or Khaas Aadmi

In the last polls, the BJP came up with a slogan India Shinning. Congress came out with its own slogan, Congress ka haath, aam aadmi ke saath. After five years, how much has the govt. really served the aam aadmi. The Indian Muslims blog has an article on this. Some of the interesting points presented are:

1. The five years of UPA rule was supposed to benefit Aam Aadmi (Common Man) but it has only served the interests of Khaas Aadmi. UPA’s Common Minimum Programme was replaced by Uncommon Minimum Programme based on four ‘achievements’: Indo-US nuclear deal, Chandrayaan moon mission, 9% growth and Slumdog Millionaire Oscar win! None of this is directly related to the common man.
2. Indo-US nuclear deal is still no-clear deal to many; it will take at least 8 years to generate nuclear power. Chandrayaan moon mission is part of a satellite programme which any government would have followed it. The “9% growth rate” is indeed related to the fellow Indians but nobody is asking this: what percentage of Indians have benefited from the 9% growth rate? Merely 10%! This figure sums up the economic policy of the UPA government which is ironically headed by an economist and has the “dream economic team.”
   
3. The government of “Aam Aadmi” has shown remarkable generosity in subsidizing big business houses and SEZs (Special Economic Zones). UPA has tacitly ignored small and medium enterprises which constitute the majority of Indians.
   
4. The rich-poor divide has widened but yet UPA is singing a tune of good times! In the last five years India has not witnessed economic prosperity but economic regression. This fact can be gauged from Human Development Index of United Nations Development Programme where India’s rank has slipped from 124 to 132 in 2008. Even countries like Bhutan, Algeria, Tajikistan, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Iran have performed better than India!
5. What is the role of UPA government in a British movie with Indian actors? The euphoria over Slumdog Millionaire at best can be described as an act of individual creativity. The movie depicts the story of India’s poor and the bottom-line is the survival spirit of Mumbai. The movie must remind our shameless politicians a fact that gathers dust in government files that at least 30% of India’s population still leaves below the poverty line. There are at least 260 million Indians who still go to bed hungry every night.
6. The UPA, very subtly, is doing an NDA. It is building a momentum similar to NDA’s India Shining campaign. NDA had pumped 4000 million rupees of Indian taxpayer’s money in the form of advertisement just to communicate Indians how good they are feeling! P. Sainath, rural editor of The Hindu had commented then, “The fastest growing sector in India Shinning is not IT or software, textiles or automobiles. It is inequality.” His comment still holds relevance.
7. If Congress has miserably failed in its economic policy then BJP has floundered in making it a real issue which affects fellow Indians irrespective of their caste and religion. BJP is still trapped in its stone-age politics despite the fact that its allies have made it abundantly clear that they don’t support BJP’s Ram Janambhoomi movement. The BJP’s poll strategists have forgotten a fact that Indian economy was performing better in NDA’s rule.

Although I agree some of these points, I do not agree on all. Firstly, the author failed to mention RTI act and NREGA. Though NREGA can hardly be regarded as a success, it surely is a promising step. RTI surely is great step, something that will benefit us in years to come.

Regarding the other criticism levelled against UPA for support to SEZ's, the author should also recall that India is a signatory to WTO. Whatever growth in IT and manufacturing that we have seen is because of WTO. The price that India has to pay for this is the SME sector. At a time when we are competing against China, which specializes in mass productions, our own SME sector cannot compete. Chinese toys have already taken over our domestic market. We need SEZ's to help achieve the scale. On the HDI front, surely we are lacking. But the author should understand that it is easier to achieve improvement for smaller countries. Moreover, it is the state govt. that should be held more responsible for HDI than Central Govt. The Central Govt. can only come up with schemes like NREGA, its upto the states to implement them.

Though all is not well. The NDA Govt. had passed the FRBM act to check fiscal deficits. In the past five years the UPA hasn't done anything to improve that and the fiscal deficit is expected to be around 5.5%. It should be recalled that our economy has been growing at roughly 7-8% for the past 5 years. This means that the fiscal deficit has actually increased in real terms. This deficit is surely going to affect our sovereign S&P ratings. Moreover Chadrayaan was started under the NDA. Terrorism is another major threat. The UPA first revoked POTA and then came up with its own version of the law.

All may not be well. But what is most important is to understand that democracy is slow because it has to consider each and every aspect and also because it undergoes scrutiny every moment. We have two examples in our own neighborhood, Pakistan and China. Neither can be called developed. If China grows at its current rate for the next 20 years, just 2% of its population will become world class consumers. So, my only advise to the writers at Indian Muslims blog is believe in democracy, to accept that it will be slow and continue scrutinizing the action of the govt.

Rahul Gandhi - Is he really a youth icon?

The Congress is projecting him as their youth face claiming that he represents the young India. But does he really represents that or is he an 'old wine in a new bottle'? Here are a few pointers that will answer this question:

1. Just type his name on Wikipedia to check profile. It says, "His admission to St Stephen's College was controversial as he was admitted on the basis of his abilities as a competitive pistol shooter, which was disputed. He left the school in 1990, after one year of education".


2. The Wiki page also says that, "It is reported that Harvard alumni records list him as attending between 1990 and 1993 but not as completing a degree".


3. He is said to have done MPhil in Development Studies from Cambridge. The MPhil Development Studies program requires 4 full papers to be completed and it lists 60% as a pass, 65% as eligible for an entry to PhD and 75% as a Distinction. But the real shocker is in the Paper on National Economic Planning & Policy? he scored 58% which is not even considered a Pass.Why do we need such an average mind when we have got brilliant minds like Manmohan Singh. (Source)
   


4. Rahul Gandhi had publicly stated that he did not believe in Valentine's Day. He did not utter a word on the 'Bangalore pub incident'. So how on earth is he different from his older party colleagues.


5. He was a prominent figure in a high profile Congress campaign for the 2007 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections; Congress, however, won only 22 seats with 8.53% of votes.Congress has been known to give credit of every major or minor political victory to the Gandhi family while the family is never known to accept any failure of whatsoever scale.


6. He has criticized the Gujarat Govt. for the incentives it provided for Nano. His own Prime Ministerial candidate, Manmohan Singh said the following at the centenary celebrations of Tatas, "I compliment my friend Ratan Tata, his colleagues Shri J.J. Irani and Shri Muthuraman, for their leadership and for their vision. Our country owes a great deal to such dynamic patriotic leaders of Indian business. They create wealth, they create employment, they create new capabilities and they create new possibilities for all our people". (Source)

Just like the case of his father (who was anointed to the throne soon after Indira Gandhi was assasinated), the Congress party workers want to get him straight to the Prime Ministers Chair, even though he is yet to prove himself as an administrator. They blindly want to get another Gandhi. The brand Gandhi is the biggest brand in the country. All in all, Rahul is in no way different from other politicians. As I stated earlier, 'an old wine in new bottle'.

Fall of LTTE is in India's interest

The Sri Lankan Army has made steady gains in its struggle against the LTTE over the last two years. This has been particularly after the LTTE had a major split in its ranks with one of the top commanders, Col. Karuna defecting. As per the latest reports, the LTTE is now restricted to an area less that 100 sq. kms and some of their major bastions have been taken over by the army and the war this time is increasing seen as a decisive this time.

Sensing a defeat for the LTTE and also with an eye towards the upcoming elections, the pro-LTTE Tamil parties have been raising this issue. They are calling for a ceasefire and a mediation by the Indian Govt. Any mediation by Indian Govt. on the issue would be in direct contrast to our principles. Since 1972, when the Shimla Agreement was signed, India has vehemently opposed any attempts to mediate by the West by claiming that Kashmir was a bilateral issue and shall be solved by bilaterally with Pakistan.

I personally believe fall of LTTE is in India's interest. The reasons are as follows:

1. Moreover, it would be wrong to assume that the current LTTE is the sole representator of Tamils. LTTE has not allowed moderate Tamil leadership to develop. Even before the Islamic militants developed fidayeen squads, the LTTE had mastered the art of carrying out successful suicide attacks and had assasinated numerousTamil Leaders.
2. LTTE was also responsible for assasinating Rajiv Gandhi and it has also been known to train some of the Naxalite groups in India.
   
3. LTTE does not has a good track record. It has been known to forcibly recruit child soldiers.
4. During the present conflict, it has been using civilians to slowdown the movement of the Sri Lankan army.
5. Despite the present Sri Lankan Govt. offering partial autonomy (within the Sri Lankan Union) to the Tamils in the Tamil dominated areas in the North and East, the LTTE has refused to even consider such an option.
6. LTTE, which has been demanding a separate nation for Tamils, also sees Tamil Nadu as a part of the larger Tamil nation.
   
7. China has been consistently trying to extend its influence in the region in an attempt to encircle India. Its relations with Pakistan are well known. After the rise of Maoists in Nepal, the Himalyan Kingdom is increasing coming under the Chinese influence. If India doesn't help Sri Lanka by supplying arms, Sri Lanka could seek help from the Chinese. So far the Sri Lankans haven't done anything to offend India but this cannot be guanranteed as national interest is of paramount importance to every nation state.

What is important to note is the Indian response. Indian external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee has rightly told the Sri Lankan President that millitary solution cannot guarantee peace to the island nation and it needs to back it up with a political solution. There is no doubt that Tamils were killed on a large scale by the Singhalese majority during the 1983 riots and it is not easy to heal those wounds.

At the same time, India has refused to mediate between the two parties. Moreover, it has been reliably learnt that India has been helping the Sri Lankan armed forces by supplying weapons to them. A peaceful and stable Sri Lanka is in our own interest as it would ensure stability in the South Asian region.

Will Elections 2009 be any different

The countdown to the General Elections has begun after a meeting of the Election Commission with all the major political parties, even as the controversy regarding Navin Chawla, who is slated to takeover as the next CEC, refuses to die down.

So, will these elections be any different?

The one aspect that will make a difference is the increase in the representation of the urban voter with respect to rural voter because of delimitation of the constituencies. Delimitation of constituencies is the process of redefining the boundaries of the constituencies to reflect changes in the population pattern. The present constituencies were carved out in 1976. Since then, our demographic pattern has changed and population of the cities has grown from 13% to 28% (2001 census). However, till now only 13% if the Lok Sabha seats were representing 28% if the population. For instance, the Chandni Chowk seat had 3.5 lakh voters while Outer Delhi has 35 lakh voter, clearly defeating the principle of one vote one value. With such a scenario, its no wonder that the politician never bothered about the middle class. Vice-versa the middle class never bothered either because his vote would have hardly make a difference.

But delimitation will change that and would ensure that there isn't vast difference between the number of people every seat would represent. It would also increase the number of seats representing urban voter to more than double(28% from 13%). However there is still a catch here. The population of some of the states like Tamil Nadu hasn't grown that much while that of Bimaru states like UP have grown tremendously. So a uniform delimitation would have actually decreased the relative representation of states such as Tamil Nadu. It would have meant penalizing such states for the progress they have made on the population front and HDI index. Therefore, the number of seats of every state remains unchanged. What will change is the boundaries of the constituencies and number of urban constituencies.

For instance, sitting Congress MP Sachin Pilot will now have to look for another seat as his Dausa constituency in Rajasthan has been reserved for Scheduled Castes. Union minister Kapil Sibal, whose Chandni Chowk constituency has expanded to approximately four times of its present strength, will now have to factor in the aspirations of the new population that has been added. There are many such cases. Somnath Chatterjee will have to forget his Bolpur seat in West Bengal and Mayawati her Akbarpur stronghold (Akbarpur has been put into the general category). (Source)

Delimitation was originally supposed to happen every 10 years as per the constitution, but it was banned in 1976 till the first census of 2000.

In the last elections, the Congress got only 145 seats while BJP got just 138 seats. The delimitation would benefit the two national parties because unlike the rest of the country where general elections are fought on local issues, the cities are more likely to vote on national issues. The delimitation may also alter the power structure among alliances in various states. For example, the BJP in Orissa wants to fight more seats.

Surely, the political power structure has changed. But will it actually translate to any gain, only time will tell. The rural voter still dominates with 72% of the vote.

Swaminathan Aiyar seems to agree with me

By no means, I would dare to call myself as a political analyst. Yet my predictions seem to be extremely close to what Swaminathan S Ankleshwar Aiyar has written says in today's Sunday Times. Almost three months ago, I had predicted Mayawati as the next Prime Minister. Here is the link to my original post. The points in both articles are different and complementary, and point towards the same conclusion.

However, I don't expect the Mayawati led Govt. to more than two years in office. Probably, by Rahul would the Prime-Ministerial candidate while for BJP, Modi could be in fray. Given the recession, probably I should seriously consider Psephology as a career option.

Negative voting is positive for India

With a plethora of happenings in last week that included the Republic Day celebrations and Mangalore attacks on women, the Indian media has hardly covered the issue of negative voting. Considering that the general elections are just round the corner, it is both surprising and shameful that media hasn’t given the issue its due importance so far and has instead been concentrating on issues like moral policing. This is not to suggest that issue is not important but a 'negative vote' can bring about much larger changes in our society.

Govt. of India has dismissed the recent suggestion of the Election commission of India as a part of the proposed electoral reforms, to give a negative voting option in the Electronic voting machines. There is a petition filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties(PUCL) in 2005, before the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the proposed reforms of ECI. Opposing this PIL, the Govt. has argued that unlike freedom of speech and expression, voting is just a statutory right. Govt. even goes on to say that such an option is not healthy for democracy. (Source)

What is negative voting?

Negative voting is a privilege that allows the voters to reject all the candidates that are in fray. As per the present provisions of the Indian Constitution, a voter who seeks vote for none any of the candidates has give this in writing to the presiding officer giving in the reasons for doing so. The problem with this is that it is against the concept of secret ballot. Moreover it is a little cumbersome. Hence, most of the educated youth disgruntled with the political system, prefer to enjoy a holiday at home on the Election Day.

In a way they are right. The falling standards of the politicians of India hardly offer any hope and option. We have the likes of Pappu Yadav, , Taslimuddin , Mohd. Shahbuddin and many more representing the electrorate. Sanjay Dutt, who has been convicted in the 1993 Mumbai Blasts, is going to fight election from Lucknow. He may have done a lot for poor; he may have become popular particularly after the Munnabhai, but the fact remains that he is responsible for the loss of several hundred lives.

In the just concluded in Kashmir, the voter turnout was over 60%. Is this an indication of the rejection of the demand of azaadi? If experts are to be believed, the answer is a blunt no. People of the state need electricity, jobs and water and that’s what they have voted. If there was an election that included a negative voting option, surely a large number of people would have used this option. The story of the rest of the country isn’t too much different with people hardly having any confidence in the system. Some of my friends from UP say tell me how every elections they have to decide who is the lesser evil between SP and the BSP.

In such a scenario, the negative voting option has the potential to bring about large scale changes to the overall political system just like the way RTI is bringing about changes in our bureaucracy. But Governments stand on this issue is pretty much on expected lines. All political parties have resisted any major electoral reforms. For example, there is no institutional method of political funding. The recent case where over 2 crores Rs. was missing from the BJP office. Yet, there wasn’t any police complaint registered by the party. It will be naive to suggest that BJP is the only party which uses unfair means to get political funding.

Entities around the world that include "None of the Above" on ballots as standard procedure include the U.S. state of Nevada (None of These Candidates), Ukraine (Against all), Spain (voto en blanco), France (vote blanc), Colombia (voto en blanco), the United States Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Florida affiliate of the American Patriot Party, and the Debian Project.Russia had such an option on its ballots (Against all) until it was abolished in 2006. (Source)

Our politicians may take great pride in calling India as the largest democracy; the same pride is however missing from the electorate. Please join me in signing of the online petition.

A Wednesday

Wednesday, a recently released Bollywood movie was a fictional story where in an average Mumbaikar, takes revenge for the Mumbai serial train blasts. Ever since watching that movie, I had a feeling somewhere from within that the next attack would happen on a Wednesday. It might well be a co-incidence that the latest attacks on Mumbai happened on a Wednesday.


I am writing this article even as the rescue operations still continue after over 48hrs since the attack first began. These attacks are perhaps the biggest ever attacks, ever bigger than the 1993 attacks. This attack raises important questions on our security establishment:


* Terrorist used loopholes in India’s coastal security which were not plugged even after 1993 attacks
* The political leadership was indecisive and NSG was called in very late. This delay would have allowed the terrorists to take proper positions at the hotels.
* Further time was lost in briefing of the commandoes about the internal layout of the hotels.
* Initial reports claimed the number of terrorists to be between 25 and 30. However, adding up the terrorists killed so far and those holed up inside, the number is nowhere close to 25. So it seems that a lot of the terrorists managed to escape after creating mayhem in the hotels.
* Shivraj Patil’s mis-handling of the home ministry has been well documented. Another chapter to it was added when he accidently helped the terrorists by giving prior information about the movement of the Commandoes from Delhi.
* No Helicopters weren’t used on Thursday. Opening up a second front could have speeded up the process as it would have easily diverted the terrorists’ attention that would have to fight on two fronts now.
* All this is quite reminiscent 1999 Kandhar hijackings where the terrorists were allowed to leave the country from the Amritsar airport.

The Congress Govt in the last five years of its rule has done little to counter terrorism which meant that the attacks have more daring day by day.



* The Congress has always been keen to stick to its secular image. What is unfortunate is that being secular has lately meant tolerating everything what the minority community does even if it is against the larger interest of the country. So even if BJP raises the issue of terrorism, it is often labeled as communal by the so-called secularists (Congress and the Left)
* Bangladeshi refugees have continued to stay in the country and pose a grave danger to the country’s security. Many of them have even obtained voter id cards. The NDA did take some initiatives to fan out these illegal immigrants. But such issues of grave national importance have continuously been politicized. During the NDA regime several Left leaders raised the issue stating that only Muslims were being transported back to Bangladesh easily ignoring the fact that over 83% of the population of Bangladesh is constituted by Muslims.
* It has always opposed Uniform civil code and reforms in the Muslim society which are absolutely necessary to prevent any outburst by the Indian muslims who could become easy recruits for the Lashkar and Jaish.
* Even in the past it came under the pressure of the fundamentalist and India became the first country to ban Salman Rushdie.



At a time when Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise and has even managed to take shape of terrorism, it would be grossly naïve to ignore the Muslim extremism, which still remains a much bigger danger. However, the political leadership seems to be more interested in scoring brownie points and trying to equate both forms of terrorism. The so-called Hindu terrorists do not receive the kind of military support that Islamic militancy gets. There may a few mis-guided Hindu youth backed by some retired military officers. But this is still no match to the Islamic terrorism who have the audacity and the capability to carry out attacks of this scale like that in Mumbai.



The US after 9/11 attacks enacted ‘The Patriot act’ to counter terrorism, an act that in some ways compromises with personal freedom but aims to keep US and its citizens safe. However in India with its diversity in religions, it is unlikely that such a consensus is possible. The BJP ofcourse has been repetedly demanding that POTA be brought back, which was repealed by the UPA soon after it came back to power. Merely bringing back POTA may not bring back peace.



As Vinod Sharma points out in his blog, “ Laloo Yadav, India's Railway Minister, has in fact, been openly calling LK Advani a terrorist. He himself was openly moving around accompanied by an Osama Bin Laden look-alike during the elections in Bihar to get Muslim votes.”



All this has happened just a couple of days before the Capital is set vote for the Assembly elections and the ruling party is bound to suffer heavy losses because of this. In my earlier article, I had said about the possibility of a Third Front govt. led by Mayawati. But that is all set to change with the events of the last three days. So far, the BJP has exercised restraint and not really started politicizing the issue, but it hard to say how long that would continue. The NDA could be a major beneficiary of these attacks and given the new political dynamics where in it has the momentum going into the polls. It is now quite likely that it may also be able to convince some of the regional parties who are yet align with any of the fronts.



It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, well it is still more than 3 months for the general elections and hence anything can happen. For now, its advantage BJP.