How to make a mockery of Austerity

One of my professors once said that, "a politician would do anything if it grabs the people's attention". Then the obvious question arises why don't they work hard for development.

The answer is not hard to guess. Development is a continous process. It takes years to make a difference that is easily distinguishable. Hence a politician goes in for easier ways to grab attention. So since development is difficult, politician would work hard to make Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Bangalore to ......(I am sorry I can't spell that). Never mind if there is any change on the ground. The politician would always claim that it is the people's desire to change the name. Similarly Mayawati finds it much easier to built statues than work for the backwards whom she claims to represent.

In a country where just 2% of the people travel by air, it was surely going to grab headlines and it has indeed. So if Rahul Baba takes a train or Sonia madam travels by economy class, then the Congress makes sure that it is publicized in the media. Austerity is a way of life and not just for the bad times. Moreover when you start showing off austerity then it loses the very purpose it was started in the first place.

The late Indrajit Gupta, who was the Home Minister during the United Front Govt from 1996-98 refused to move out of his two-bedroom apartment. He continued to eat in the common canteen in the MP's hostel. But he never made a big deal out of it or tried to get a mileage out of it. He was from a rare breed. MP's of today rarely vacate their bungalows after losing elections unless forcefully evicted.

After all, why should there be an austerity drive. Why not have a performance based pay structure for Ministers/MP's. Those who don't perform won't get the perks. I am sure we can save much more money with that. But of course that is never going to happen because politics is perhaps the only job where you get to decide you pay.

How did India manage to stick with democracy

Hello to all the followers of my blog. I am really sorry for being away for sometime.

So finally my MBA came to an end and I left home to join my job. At one of the bookstalls at the railway station I managed to find a copy of the book that I had been planning to read for sometime. It is "India after Gandhi" by Ramachandra Guha. From what has been my experience has been so far ( read around 400 the 770 pages), I would seriously recommend you this book. This book is a must for every Indian. Our NCERT History books just talk about India's history till Independence. So other books include the first six months of Independence till the death of Mahatma Gandhi. There is whole lot of history of India that included unification of Indian Union with its princely states, linguistic division of India into states, emergency, the three war, and many more such exciting stories. Here is one of them. Although the author doesn't directly point out this story explicitly, but it is quite implicit.

How did India manage to stick with democracy and secularism? According to a statistical analysis of the relationship between democracy and development in 135 countries found that 'the odds against democracy in India were extremely high'. Given its low levels of income and literacy, and its high levels of social conflict, India was predicted as a dictatorship during the entire period' of the study(1950-90). Since in fact, it was a democracy practically the entire period studied, there is only one way to characterize India, namely as 'a major outlier'. (Source: India After Gandhi)

So why didn't we go down the route of dictatorship. Based on my understanding, I believe there were two basic reasons. The first reason was that our freedom movement was not just a struggle of a certain section of the society. Nor was it an armed movement of revolutionaries. It was a non-violent people's movement from the very beginning. The ordinary citizens were made part of it and involved. This created a certain sense of awareness among the people. And with 4 years of independence, India had its first general elections. Unlike the West, in our democracy was based on adult suffrage(i.e. every adult has a right to vote). In the West, the democracies initially started with voting rights restricted to only the people who were literate.

Secondly, India was lucky to have a stable political leadership its first 20-25 years. It was Mahatma Gandhi who chose Nehru as his political successor. Infact the Congress Working Committee had voted for Sardar Patel to lead the country. This decision proved to be critical. Firstly, because Nehru had the stature and respect that he commanded from the ordinary public. Secondly, Nehru was a firm believer in secularism. And finally, the most important point is that Nehru was much younger. For instance, Sardar Patel died in 1950 at an age of 75, while Nehru was only 61 at that time. The Father of the Nation of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah also died soon after indepence at an age of 72.

With a relatively young charismatic leader at the top, coupled with a weak opposition parties, Congress was in power for the first 20-25 years with any serious challenge to it. It was this environment that allowed a new untested democratic institutions of a fledgling state to take shape and grow stronger. Today we have an independent judiciary, a free press and an impartial election commission these forces make sure that we remain firmly on the path of democracy. A brief look at Pakistan tells us that it had 7 Prime Ministers between 1947 and 1958 and they also lost their biggest leader Jinnah. Jinnah commanded respect in Pakistan and his presence could have made Pakistan a stronger state.

While India faced many challenges during the Nehru's era like Wars, Division into states on linguistic basis, national language issue, etc but Nehru's Congress was an undisputed leader at the Centre thus ensuring stability. This stability may or may not have led to our development. This is debatable. But what is important to understand that it is this very stability that allowed democratic institutions to flourish.

Ofcourse, a lot of people might say that India did not really develop under the Congress rule. True, absolute power corrupts and makes people complacent. But nevertheless, it provides stability and ensures a strong Govt. at the Centre, thus enabling it to deal with various kinds on challenges posed to the integrity of India, be it Kashmir, Nagas, Mizoram, etc.

I will now get back to the book and I must say I am looking it. And I promise I will be back with more stories from the book.

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.

Happy Women's Day

After 20 posts, I have realized that most of them are about politics. Since the description of my blog says otherwise I decided to make amends.

Today is "International Woman's Day". The recent attacks on women by fanatics like Pramod Mutalik and also on couples on Valentine's Day once again goes to show the alarming levels of gender inequality that is still prevalent in India. More importantly, while 54% of the population is under 25, most of our politicians are over 50 who wish to stick old ideology and beliefs. The problem is also that none of the younger leaders are prepared to speak up. Rahul Gandhi, claimed to be popular among the youth by the Congress, didn't even opened his mouth against the pub incident. He publicly stated that he doesn't believes in Valentine's Day. (Read my earlier article on Rahul). Other than Renuka Choudary and Brinda Karat, there haven't been too many voices even from the women politicians. This is despite the fact that organizations like Sri Ram Sena lack mass support.

Issues such as sex-education, pre-marital sex, etc can just not be discussed openly in India. It is horrific to hear from such organizations claiming that 'Love is foreign to India'. People like Khushboo who have voiced their opinion publicly had to face enormous hardships. If this is the case in urban areas, what about rural India where centuries old practices and beliefs are still prevalent.

A lot has already been written in the mainstream media about the importance that gender equality and empowerment of women plays in the overall development of any society. So I do not wish to repeat what has already been said and to a large extent well understood as well. The more important question is How do we achieve it? Moreover how do we achieve it within the constraints that democracy poses us. India is a democracy unlike China. China had its cultural revolution from 1966-78, aimed at bringing about cultural change. This was imposed on the entire population and was not at all peaceful. In India, any acceptable change has to be brought in an extremely careful manner.

Honestly, I do not have any answer to this. If answering this question would have been so simple, i am sure that there are smarter people around who would have cracked this. So I have chosen this occasion to talk about the impact of "Reservation of 1/3rd seats for women in panchayats" which was brought in place in 1993 after an amendment. This has been referred to as "the greatest social experiment ever". Upon adding the numbers, there are more women elected representatives in India than the rest of the world.

Skeptics might argue that it is still the men who take most of the decisions and women are mere proxies. Most probably it is true. But atleast it has brought some amount change in the general attitude of the people towards women. This has got them an entry point, something that would not have been possible without reservation. Changing the rural mindset which has considered women as doormats for centuries is not easy. With such a system in place, it would atleast stop such outdated ideas from percolating to the next generation. Bringing about social change is never easy and it should never be forced. Change has to be brought about at the grassroots level. The effectiveness of this system cannot be judged as yet. The system has been in place for only 15 years and it would take atleast two generations of such reservations to really break the barriers created over centuries.

Woman sarpanches are slowly making their presence felt. They known to work much more on drinking water and education. They are much more honest. The success of this reservations clearly goes to show that reservation for woman at the top may not make such a huge difference as would reservation at the panchayat level. Increasingly there have been demands to increase the reservation to 50% since the woman population is roughly 50% of the total population. Some states like Bihar have already done. Moreover, reservation is important because it has been observed that once the seat is dereserved, almost 40% of woman choose not to contest. India's poor record on HDI index can expect to recieve a boost in the long run.

A professor(with over 25 years of teaching experience) of mine was once discussing this issue. He recalled, how over all these years the pschyche of female students changed. While female students of the 80's and 90's would be vocal and aggressive about their rights, the present day female students almost assume equality. Unfortunately, we are still ruled by oldies who have not broadened their thinking. So honestly, I do not really expect large scale change in the short term. As they say, democracy works slowly.

Happy Women's Day.

Political Dynasties knows no boundaries

I came across a nice article on the Political Dynasties around the world. While in India, we may sulk about how our Politics has been captured by a few dynasties who continue to rule us, this isn't a unique phenomenon in India alone.

1. George W. Bush got elected as president eight years after his father left the White House. This is the second instance of American history of a father-son presidency. Kennedys remain as the most famous Western political dynasty.
2. Former U.S. vice president Al Gore’s father was a senator, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's son was a Cabinet official under Clinton and campaign manager for Gore. Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa's son is now filling his father's shoes in the same slot.
   
3. Makiko Tanaka inducted as Japan's foreign minister some 25 years after her father was premier.
4. n North Korea after the death of President Kim Il-Sung, his son Kim Jong-Il became his successor in 1994, thereby creating the communist world's first dynasty.
5. After the death of Syria's President Hafez al Assad, his son Bashar became his successor.
6. South Asia has proved the most fertile ground for political dynasties. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal all have a resilient tradition of electing dynasties to the top office. Take Nepal, for instance. After the recent massacre of the entire royal family, the king's brother took over. Prime Minister G.P. Koirala's two other brothers were prime ministers as well — the only instance of three brothers serving in such high elective office. Sri Lanka started its tradition in 1960 when Prime Minister Solomon Bandranaike's widow, Sirimavo Bandranaike, became prime minister. Now her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, is president. Bangladesh will see the coming electoral contest between two iron-willed women, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of President Mujibur Rahman, and Khaleda Zia, widow of President Ziaur Rahman.
7. India's Nehru family is probably the world's oldest democratic dynasty, now spanning four generations, producing the only team of grandfather-daughter-grandson prime ministers, ruling for 37 of India's 53 years as an independent state.
8. In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was prime minister during 1971- 1977, and his daughter Benazir was elected for two stints as prime minister during the 1990s, the first woman from a Muslim state to head a government.
9. In the Philippines too, dynastic politics is quite widespread -- President Gloria Macapagal is daughter of a president, and political dynasties dominate local politics so much that there have been demands for laws against these dynasties.

Even in India, its not just the Congress that has been indulging in dynastic politics. Omar Abdullah is just 38 but he became the Chief Minister even though there are many senior leaders in the party. Similarly, elsewhere Karunanidhi has been grooming his younger son Stalin, the Patnnaiks in Orissa, Shiv Sena, Dev Gowda's JD(S), RJD in Bihar are no different. Even in BJP, son's and daughters of several leaders like Jaswant Singh, Vasundhra Raje Scindhia, Yedurappa and Pramod Mahajan are being promoted. In Congress, besides the Gandhi dynasty there is the Sandeep Dikshit, son of Shiela Dikshit; Ashok Chavan, son of late SB Chavan;Deepender Singh Hooda son of Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The list goes on.

The three reasons for this that were given in the article were:

1. Money
2. Political connections
3. Public recognition and thus easy Acceptability from the public

Access to the political system in most countries is costly in terms of money and only those who can afford the time, money, resources and have the requisite connections find an entry into what is often an exclusive if not closed club. Political lineage buttressed by money helps facilitate that entry.Bush, Gore, Tanaka, Macapagal-Arroyo fit the bill for what can be termed as politicians from Establishment families, with enough credentials due to a famous political surname to ensure a place on the political pedestal.

Then there are those who are respected for rendering services to their country during crucial periods, such as an independence struggle — hence, their legitimacy is unquestioned and widely accepted. The Nehru family in India, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia, Hafez al Assad in Syria, Kim Il-Sung are some examples from this genre. Finally, there are those whose leadership is etched in the popular imagination, and for people to identify with such a charismatic leader comes almost automatically.

Bhutto, Bandranaike, Peron of Argentina, Ziaur Rahman and Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, the Kennedys in the United States all were populists with charisma, which is then sometimes "transferred" to their scions and close relatives.

By and large, these reasons are logical. Moreover, these reasons not only explain why such a large number of political dynasties exist, but also explains why such a large number film stars and sport stars have made it to political offices. They satisfy two of the three conditions - Money and Public recognition.

South India is famous for its film stars turning into politicians and Chiru is the latest one to join that list. In north India, we have Shatrughan Sinha, Vinod Khanna. Rajesh Khanna, Dhamendra, Amitabh Bachan, Govinda, Sidhu, etc. Even in the US, we have Arnold who is now the Governor of California.

But there is a major between India and US. US has a presidential form of Govt. and hence the president is directly elected by the people. Moreover, his term is restricted to two. Also, there is complete inner party democracy in US. In India, the leader is elected by the elected representatives and there is no limit on the number of terms. This ensures the hold of dynasties. And if someone tries to raise the issue of dynasties, he/she is instantly thrown out. For ex: Sharad Pawar was shown the door in Congress. Maran was also recalled as a Union minister by the Karunanidhi.

So unlike popular belief, dynastic politics isn't the real issue. The real issue is lack of inner party democracy. Dynasty and Movie/Sports stars shall continue to play major part in democracy everywhere, whether we like it or not.

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.

Incredibly stupid India

I recently came across Karan Thapar's blog, one of the few journalists whom I respect, and found some extremely interesting posts there. I have added this blog to the ever growing list of the blogs that I regularly read, a list which on last count was close to 30. Subsequently, I have stopped counting that number.

I read his latest blog with same title, Incredibly Stupid India. He makes some very interesting points:

• "in the name of Indian nationalism, the twits from the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) have ripped apart India’s claim to be the original country of the subcontinent. The truth is it was all India before Pakistan was created. Pakistan, of course, doesn’t always accept that and now the MNS has corroborated their view that the land west of the Indus is different and separate. What a fabulous self-goal."

• “And then there’s Slumdog Millionaire. After Gandhi in 1982, no film has done more to make the world aware of India. It’s a runaway success. Yet what’s the response in India? Some foolish politicians think the name is offensive and at least one court has taken them seriously enough to issue formal notices to the producer. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.”

• “Such as: India is supposed to be a tolerant, liberal democracy. So how come we can’t accept a name like ‘Karachi Sweets’ and buy Pakistani books? Or: Hinduism is supposed to venerate women, we supposedly elevate them as goddesses. So how come we thrash them if they walk into a pub? And then: India is supposed to be an aspiring and dynamic society. So how come a rather clever name like Slumdog Millionaire can’t be appreciated but is, instead, considered offensive? These are disturbing questions.”

I don't have any answers but only questions. Is this the India our forefathers wanted to built?

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.

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.

Who will be the next Prime Minister of India?

With just 3-4 months left for the General Elections, the question as to who shall be the next Prime Minister is pertinent question to be asked.

So who are the possible candidates. BJP has named one of its founder leaders, L.K. Advani as its Prime Ministerial candidate. This may be his last shot at Prime Ministership given his age. Congress on the other hand will most probably fight the elections under the leadership ManMohan Singh given his recent success in driving the Nuclear Deal home.

However, in my opinion there is a third candidate, Mayawati, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, who has a realistic chance at becoming the Prime Minister. And more importantly, she knows it pretty well and has been actively working on it. I know the readers of this blog are bound to raise a few eyebrows. Some of my friends too objected with my choice when I told them of the possibility.

Here is the reason why I feel so. In 2007, Mayawati won absolute majority in UP, something that has not happened in over decade with a single party managing a majority. Uttar Pradesh is the largest state with respect to number of seats in Lok Sabha. The states has produced as many as eight Indian Prime Ministers. Out of the 85 Lok Sabha seats, it is quite likely that BSP may win about 55-60 seats, which is a huge number.

Left has already indicated that it is willing to consider a Third Front under Mayawati. The Left Front which has its govts. in Kerala and West Bengal should win atleast 40 out of 62 seats. This is conservative estimate acknowledging the Singur controversy in WB. So the Left-BSP combine should end up with around 100 seats. That leaves 442 seats.

Getting 272 out these 442 seats by either NDA or UPA is extremely unlikely considering that there are still many strong regional parties like AIADMK, Trinamol Congress and TDP that haven't aligned with any group. It must not be forgotten that all three parties are the states where anti-incubancy is likely to be a major factor and all three are expected to make huge gains.

All groups have been trying to woo these parties for sometime. Since, DMK is in UPA, AIADMK cannot be a part of UPA. Similarly, TDP cannot be a part of UPA while Trinamol Congress cannot be a part of the Third Front. All three parties in the past have been a part of NDA at some of time. However, they all have suffered because of BJP's communal image in the past and the Third alternative is a good option for them.

The NDA in the last fews months has managed to bring aboard a few allies, for example - AGP in Assam. However, Assam has only 14 Lok Sabha seats which WB, AP and TN have 42, 42 and 39 seats respectively. So even one of the three decides to go the Mayawati, she will be in a very strong position to dictate terms.

The coming months are very crucial and would decide who would become the next Prime Minister.