Sins of Emergency repeating themselves

By Swapan Dasgupta

It is sad that Indian newspapers, unlike their British and American counterparts, have not yet digitised their archives. Had they done so, I would have been able to offer readers a selection of the choicest quotes from Professor K.K. Tiwari, once a Minister of Information and Broadcasting in Rajiv Gandhi’s Government.

Tiwari, who was said to have been a teacher of English, loved using Shakespearian analogies to pour venom on the Congress’ then favourite hate figures, notably V.P. Singh who had emerged as the foremost challenger to the Rajiv government. Some of Tiwari’s interventions were very funny and the others were mystifying. Most people viewed him as a ridiculous loudmouth who used the government monopoly to transform the electronic media—AIR and Doordarshan—into propaganda vehicles for the Congress.

However, Tiwari wasn’t quite the buffoon he sometimes appeared to be. Subsequent investigations suggested that he had a major role in designing the St Kitts frame-up targeting the son of V.P. Singh—a conspiracy in which, quite regrettably, a section of the media played a collusive role.

The transgressions of the Emergency which even led to AIR blacklisting Kishore Kumar for his non-performance at a Youth Congress function—surely a warning to Lata Mangeshkar to now prepare herself for recriminations after she publicly endorsed Narendra Modi last Friday—have been well documented. Less recorded are the ways in which the Rajiv Gandhi government tried to narrow the space for dissent by putting pressure on the print media. The Indian Express, Statesman and particular individuals in The Hindu were targeted for unearthing the dirt on the Bofors scandal. But pressure was put on all publications to toe the line. At one time, the Ministry of External Affairs even had two IFS officers working full-time to ‘manage’ the newspapers.

I mention these incidents from the past because there are definite indications that history is repeating itself. Having erred in its belief that the anointment of Narendra Modi as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate would lead to a favourable polarisation in favour of the Congress and UPA, a disoriented regime has reacted in panic. Where persuasion and better governance should have been the natural democratic reaction to political adversity, the government has embarked on the path of calumny, subterfuge and arm-twisting.

Telecom minister Kapil Sibal whose political ratings inside the government took a nosedive after Rahul Gandhi rubbished the ordinance to insulate convicted politicians from immediate disqualification, has crafted his rehabilitation strategy with a frontal attack on Modi. In itself that is a legitimate exercise in political warfare. But Sibal descended from the sublime to the ridiculous by blaming Modi for the sharp increase in the price of onions.

On his part, I&B Minister Manish Tiwari, who must take exceptional care that he doesn’t come to be viewed as the natural inheritor of K.K. Tiwari’s mantle, has put out a circular warning broadcasters with uplinking facilities that they risk their future by putting the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech on par with others (namely Modi) who attempt to steal the thunder. Since it is an open question whether Manmohan Singh will address India from Red Fort in 2014, this silly advisory is less aimed at protecting the fragile dignity of the incumbent as instructing the electronic media to reduce their Modi coverage.

Then there are those who, even at this late stage, insist that Modi should be ruled out of the 2014 race using the police powers at the disposal of the government. In recent weeks, inordinate pressure has been put on the country’s premier investigative agencies to call Modi for questioning and thereupon file an FIR against him on the charge of masterminding encounter deaths. Pressure has also been put to somehow or the other implicate Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley in a case that dates back to 2008.

That officials haven’t succumbed are due to two facts. First, the political antennae of the babus are very sensitive to stirrings on the ground. The emerging consensus within babudom this Diwali is that the UPA isn’t coming back. Secondly, the recent Supreme Court order on tenure has ensured that civil servants and policemen won’t do anything remotely irregular unless it is accompanied by a written ministerial order.

So far the attempt to make politics into an abattoir has not succeeded but a section of the government believes that no means are too petty to fight Modi. The manner in which advertising largesse is being dangled in front of media companies who are experiencing a squeeze on account of the general economic slowdown will no doubt see many channels and publications suddenly going soft on the UPA Government. There has already been the curious spectacle of media managers donning the editorial mantle and penning articles advising the country to be wary of Modi. Presumably, these are not aimed at influencing public opinion and calculated only to informing the money-disbursal teams in the ministries that the hints are being acted on.

Past experience suggests that last ditch attempts to undo the damage inflicted over the past four years are rarely successful. Therefore, unless the next six months lead to something dramatic, all the indications are that this may be the last Diwali, for some time to come, that many of the anxious political stalwarts are going to enjoy in a ministerial bungalow in Lutyens’ Delhi.

A Happy Diwali to them and to everyone else

Road to regression

By Swapan Dasgupta

It is inconceivable to imagine a place 100 km from a metropolis but cut off from what is happening in the rest of the country and, indeed, the whole world. Curiously, that was my experience when I spent three days of the Durga Puja celebrations in my mother’s ancestral village.

Actually Guptipara is more of a market town that boasts a railway station, two ATMs, an engineering college and an ASI-protected temple.

In ordinary times the village is served by both newspapers and local cable TV. But last week wasn’t ordinary. First, the outer perimeter of the Cyclone Phailin resulted in incessant rain and strong winds. This ensured that the TV in my cousin’s bedroom was unable to receive signals — not that anyone watches news channels during a grand family reunion.

But what about newspapers, at least the Bengali ones which are avidly read, digested and discussed in rural Bengal? Strange as it may seem, there were no newspapers in West Bengal for four days.

The journalists were willing to work and the workers were ready to keep the printing presses rolling. Unfortunately, the highly unionised newspaper hawkers decided that it was inappropriate to distribute newspapers on the days Ma Durga was coming home.

Most states in India have local holidays when no newspapers are published. But whatever the local variations, the four-day holiday was unique. Yes, that used to be the practice with Bengali newspapers once upon a time.

But the practice had been abandoned during the latter part of Left Front rule when the communists belatedly recognised that for West Bengal to revive, capitalist values — managed by a Marxist party — must stage a comeback. Now, with the reds in full retreat, regression appears to have set in.

Nor is the four-day Durga Puja an aberration. Driving along the Old Delhi Road, parts of which were also the Grand Trunk Road, I was struck by two things. First, that this road had not been re-surfaced for years, so much so that it took nearly two hours to travel the first 45 km towards Kolkata.

Some­time ago a Trinamul Congress legislator suggested that the old Jessore Road should be renamed Uday Shankar Sarani because going through it involved unending body movement. The Old Delhi Road could do with a similar name change.

I read recently that Union rural development minister Jairam Ramesh, the man with clever answers to questions, had promised Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee the necessary funds for the maintenance of roads in West Bengal.

The question then is: Was funding of schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana withdrawn after the Trinamul Congress withdrew support to the UPA-2 government? Alternatively, does West Bengal secure a “developed” state label in the Raghuram Rajan Index? The Centre spends a lot of money on all sorts of things, including underwriting the media with advertisements for Bharat Nirman. Yet, it doesn’t have money to maintain important link roads.

The second feature of the bone-shaking drive along the Old Delhi Road was the cruel sight of acres and acres of land, behind high boundary walls, occupied by factories that had closed down. The term “rust belt” has a particularly resonance in this part of West Bengal that happens to be not too far from Singur where rust set in even before the machines had been fully installed.

That many, if not most, of these industries shut down owing to irresponsible trade unionism by the comrades with red flags is undeniable. That most of these units will never reopen under their existing managements is also an unfortunate reality — some were actually bought over by ponzi schemes to showcase mythical investments.

It is also a fact that a number of erstwhile manufacturing units have been converted into warehouses for cars and chemical fertilisers. But by and large, there is a vast stretch in the heart of West Bengal that has been turned into ghostly relics of a once-grand industrial age.

It is such a colossal waste. The process of re-industrialisation of West Bengal came to a halt on the issue of land acquisition from small and marginal farmers. Ms Banerjee champ­ioned the cause of the marginal peasants, drove out the Tata Nano plant from Singur and created the conditions for the electoral defeat of the well-entrenched Left Front.

The Singur experience frightened industry and reinforced the perception of West Bengal as an inhospitable place. Since Singur there has been no large scale investment in manufac­turing in a state that was till the mid-1960s second only to Maharashtra. West Ben­gal has, in effect, become a trading hub and a permanent branch office.

To turn adversity into opportunity requires more than just inspired political leadership. It also necessitates a disavowal of the mindset of envy and cussedness that bred Bengali Marx­ism. Tragically, there is little evidence of any mental transformation.

Bengalis, it is said, are productive outside their homeland. That may well be a reality rather than a racial stereotype, but is it always destined to be so? In the aftermath of the UPA’s Land Acquisition Act, industry is sullen on account of not merely the costs but the complex process of bureaucracy monitored rehabilitation of the dispossessed.

There are sniggers that far from preventing farmers being short-changed by real estate sharks, the act will promote an underground Land Use Change industry.

The fears are yet to be tested. However, the many thousands of acres earmarked for industry lying non-utlised is a national waste. There is a compelling case for the state compulsorily re-acquiring land occupied by closed industries and auctioning these to investors who are anxious to secure land to establish manufacturing units.

Had the Tatas been given lands occupied by closed industries along the Old Delhi Road, the Singur kerfuffle may never even have happened. Instead, we may have seen a resurfaced road linked to the Durgapur expressway, existing space for smaller ancillaries and, perhaps, even a workforce willing to wipe away a past history of disruption.

It didn’t happen that way. But it doesn’t mean it can’t ever happen.

Asian Age/ Deccan Chronicle, October 18, 2013

Conress' 2014 Aim Is To Prevent Stability

By Swapan Dasgupta

Putting up a brave front in the face of adversity is an understandable feature of competitive politics—and all parties have taken recourse to it at one time or another. However, a stiff upper lip, while playing a role in bolstering the spirits of the foot soldiers, cannot alter realities. And the reality that the Congress and the UPA-2 Government is confronted with today is grim, very grim.

Consider the facts. The election of the UPA for a second term in 2009 owed to three factors: a resounding win in Andhra Pradesh, an equally conclusive victory in Tamil Nadu and unexpected gains in urban India that added significantly to its overall tally. Today, the Congress is beleaguered on all three fronts.

In Andhra Pradesh, it is sandwiched between forces that are insisting on Telengana and those who feel betrayed by the imminent division of the united Telugu-speaking state. There may well be an intense rivalry between the breakaway YSR Congress of  Jaganmohan Reddy and the Telugu Desam Party of N.Chanrababu Naidu. But the point to note is that the Congress stands nowhere in this battle. Indeed, wearing the Congress badge has become a symbol of dishonour—the reason why most Congress ministers from Andhra Pradesh have thought it wise to quit the Manmohan Singh Government. Worse, this irrelevance in the Seemandhra region has not been offset by tangible gains in the Telengana region. The Cabinet may decide to fast-track the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh but even in the Telengana region the p[olitical benefits will accrue to the Telengana Rashtriya Samity. For the Congress, Andhra Pradesh seems a complete write-off. As things stand today, it is possible that the Congress may fail to win even a single seat from state that gave it such a shot in the arm in 2009.

The story may not be a grim in Tamil Nadu, especially because the Congress-DMK alliance will be resurrected in some form before the 2014 election. But a last-minute patch-up after a prolonged bout of bitterness is unlikely to recreate the chemistry of 2009. Chief Minister J.Jayalalithaa may not win all the 40 or so seats but the AIADMK seems set to come to the next Lok Sabha as the third largest party.

Add to this the precarious position of the Congress throughout urban India which accounts for more than 50 parliamentary seats, and it is possible to appreciate the logic of those who say that the Congress will be lucky to secure more than 100 seats. Apart from Karnataka, it is difficult to see the Congress bettering or matching its 2009 tally in any state. The prospects of the Congress emerging as the single largest party in the 16^th Lok Sabha looks, at present, to be remote.

Yet, like generals who have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, neither the Congress nor the UPA should be completely written off as yet. Every incumbent government has bags of tricks in reserve which, intelligently use and with a dose of luck, can nullify adversity. Moreover, it needs the BJP to score a few self-goals for the Congress to begin an aggressive retaliation.

It is in this context that the elections to the five state Assemblies acquire importance. If the Congress can somehow maintain the status quo, or compensate a possible loss in Rajasthan with an unexpected victory in either Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh, it will go into the 2014 election with a measure of chance. A modestly good outcome will make it possible for parties such as the BSP to even consider an electoral understanding with the Congress in Uttar Pradesh. Such talks are at their very initial stages at present and both sides have adopted a wait-and-watch approach. Ideally, the BSP would like to deal with a weakened Congress that will be prepared to concede seats to it in places such as Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. On its part, a half-decent performance should create conditions for the Congress to demand a fair settlement.  

Either way, the Congress has begun the search for new allies in right earnest. It is not that the Congress seriously hopes to manage a UPA-3 Government. Its principal focus is to narrow the gap between it and the BJP to such an extent that it becomes impossible for any stable government to emerge in 2014. A short burst of instability and incoherent government, the Congress hopes, should  set the stage for a grand dynastic return in another two years. By this time the novelty of Narendra Modi would have worn off considerably.

There is little point in denouncing such cynical calculations as morally reprehensible. The more important thing is to be mindful that the Congress doesn’t appear to fighting the 2014 with an eye to victory but with the sole purpose of making life as hellish as possible for its opponents both in 2014 and beyond.

For the BJP this situation is both an opportunity and a challenge. Its opportunity stems from having to confront a dispirited government that knows that its natural life is ticking away fast. But it is also a challenge because to avail the most politically, it has no choice but to try for a bumper harvest of seats. Those who want to regulate the BJP’s seat tally in order to create internal checks on a Modi in full steam are essentially playing into the hands of the dynasty.Sunday Pioneer, August 6, 2013 

SOUND AND FURY - The belief that the UPA’s position is not critical is unfounded

By Swapan Dasgupta

Despite the peremptory withdrawal of support to the United Progressive Alliance Government by the DMK and the incessantly awkward noises being made by the leadership of the Samajwadi Party, the consensus in Lutyens’ Delhi is that there will be no abrupt collapse of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Government. Although all discerning observers and particularly the financial markets anticipate a period of turbulence, nail-biting uncertainty and policy drift, the overall belief is that Indians are unlikely to get a chance of voting in a new government until 2014 unless, of course, there is an accident which upsets all calculations.

Common sense should suggest that the Congress is viewing its government’s survival on a life-support system with considerable trepidation. Yet, despite the additional nervousness created by heir-apparent Rahul Gandhi’s strange utterances and unpredictable conduct, there is a quiet belief that the position of the UPA is not as critical as may appear. Thisapparently  bewildering optimism is based on a number of factors which may or may not be based on reality.

First, there is dogged faith in the ability of L.K. Advani and RSS to create a stalemate in the BJP over the projection of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as the leader of the pack. The Congress believes or, rather, hopes, that uncertainty on this count could lead to a dispirited BJP whose foot-soldiers are solidly behind Modi.

Secondly, there are tantalising whispers that the CBI assault on the family of the late Y.S. Rajasekhar Reddy in Andhra Pradesh is beginning to yield dividends that will, in time, lead to an understanding of sorts between the Congress and the Jaganmohan Reddy-led YSR Congress. Likewise, the pressure of investigative agencies would also ensure that the DMK’s departure from the UPA would deter it from adopting a belligerent anti-Congress stand. There are sections of the Congress that even believe that an undercover electoral understanding with the DMK is still possible, and that Finance Minister P.Chidambaram who is extremely vulnerable in his present Lok Sabha constituency can be accommodated from Pondicherry.  

Thirdly, in the past weeks, there is frenzied speculation that Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar will be tempted by financial lollipops to finally walk out of the National Democratic Alliance, citing the pre-eminence of Modi as the reason for taking a stand on ‘secularism’. The groundwork for this is being readied and those who claim to speak for Nitish seem to be openly flaunting their anti-BJPism more than their desire to end a decade of Congress rule.

The Bihar Chief Minister’s moves seem to be based on two assumptions. First, he is working on the assumption that a political break with the BJP on the question of the ‘communal’ Modi will endear him to the Muslim electorate of Bihar and have the same effect as Lalu Prasad Yadav’s arrest of Advani during the rath yatra of 1990 had. In short, if Nitish is able to detach the Muslim vote from Lalu, retain his Kurmi-led backward caste vote and secure a sprinkling of the Congress’ upper caste following, he will be home and dry. The Janata Dal (United), it is being said, need not enter into a pre-poll pact with the Congress. But if it can bring in some 25 MPs into the next Lok Sabha, it can play a role similar to that of the DMK in the UPA. Certainly, the composition of those who have climbed on to the Nitish bandwagon suggests that he wants to play a meaningful role in the next government at the Centre. As a first recourse he will try to torment the BJP into sending Modi back to Gujarat. In case that is not possible, he may be willing to explore a post-poll pact with the Congress.

Of course, this scenario is based on the premise that Nitish will squeeze both Lalu’s Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress to the margins in Bihar and engineer a contest that involves only the JD(U) and the BJP. My own sense is that Nitish has underestimated the potential appeal of Modi among Bihar’s OBC voters—something that, judging by anecdotal evidence, Lalu has not. If there is indeed a visible momentum in favour of Modi in Bihar (as a section of the state BJP believes), many of these calculations could change mid-course. In that case, Nitish may put his energies into finding a way of remaining in the NDA without losing face.

Nitish’s second assumption centres on triggering a blend of sub-nationalism and regional pride. At the heart of this approach is the demand for ‘special status’ and a compensatory package for backwardness which, ironically, is at odds with the claim that Bihar (and not Gujarat) is setting the pace of economic development. In his Budget speech, Chidambaram spoke about the need to redefine ‘backwardness’ in a way that exceptional benefits are no longer confined to the ‘special category’ states viz. the North-eastern, Uttarakhand and Jammu and Kashmir. It is believed that with the concurrence of the Planning Commission, Bihar could gain an additional Rs 12,000 crore from the Backward Region Growth Fund under the 12^th Five Year Plan. Although this is well short of the Rs 40,000 crore of special assistance that Nitish has demanded from the Centre, the promise of additional resources may be a lifeline to Nitish who has encountered political upheaval (such as the temporary teachers agitation) on account of budgetary constraints.

However, in banking excessively on the political fragility of the UPA to wrest financial concessions from Delhi, Nitish may have overplayed his hand. Given the fiscal predicament of the Centre, its scope for showering political largesse has shrunk considerably. Nor does it have the political muscle to pressure the National Development Council to modify the ‘special category’ list. In trying to firm up his electoral plank, Nitish, it would appear has allowed the larger fight against a skewed federalism to be overshadowed by his faith in his ability to exploit the Centre’s discretionary powers. He has unwittingly given a new lease of life to the philosophy of a redistributive Centre, an idea that contributed to the economic devastation of eastern India after Independence and which, mercifully, was diluted following the liberalisation of the economy in 1991. Where he should have been pressing for more statutory rights and control over regional decision-making, Nitish has been content to agitate for grace marks from an indulgent examiner. His approach is risky: he may have made Bihar’s development a hostage to the political mood of the Central Government.  record.

Finally, the Congress has been enormously encouraged in recent weeks by the overtures of friendship coming from Mamata Banerjee. Following the three by-polls, Mamata may have arrived at the conclusion that the decline of the Left hasn’t been accompanied by a sharper erosion of Congress support. In short, there is every possibility that a three-way split in votes could benefit the advantage of the Left. This could be more so in view of the possibility that a Modi-led BJP could secure as much as 12 per cent of the popular vote in Bengal, even if the moribund local local BJP leaders sits idle. No wonder there are already unmistakable indications that Mamata may be reviewing her no-holds-barred assault on the UPA.

Together, all these developments add up to the likelihood of a bitterly contested election campaign where the expectation of change could well be spiritedly countered by the fears of change. As India persists with its gloomy economics, its politics is simultaneously acquiring an autonomous dimension. 

The Telegraph, March 29, 2013

A Scapegoat for Political Games

By Swapan Dasgupta

Since issues and ‘causes’ are most often a fig leaf for other hard-nosed calculations, there is an understandable reluctance to take the formal pronouncements of political parties at their face value. This is particularly true of the Dravidian parties of Tamil Nadu. Although the main Dravidian parties trace their political ancestry to the pre-Independence Justice Party and the anti-Brahmin social movement launched by E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, there is precious little in their present day actions to suggest that they are guided by lofty ideas. Having alternated control of the state government since 1967 and having become stakeholders at the Centre since 1996, Dravidian politics has conveyed an unmistakable impression of being guided by venality alone.

Given this backdrop, it is hard to completely discount the suggestion that the DMK’s dramatic withdrawal from the UPA last Tuesday morning—a move that has left the Congress completely at the mercy of two Uttar Pradesh-based parties who can barely tolerate the sight of each other—was guided by a touching concern for the plight of the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Had that indeed been the case, the DMK (which always had a soft corner for the separatist Eelam movement) would have exercised its clout to force India to join other Western countries in 2009 and press for a cease-fire across the Palk Straits. True, DMK chief M.Karunanidhi did go on a symbolic fast to highlight his concern over the military elimination of the dreaded LTTE. But it is an open secret that despite nominal appeals for restraint, New Delhi was not unhappy that the LTTE was roundly vanquished and its leader V.Prabhakaran eliminated.

Yes, there was some concern at the high civilian casualties during the final stages of the bitter civil war. At the same time, New Delhi, through its bitter experience of the IPKF misadventure, knew very well that LTTE showed scant respect for the Geneva Convention and other rules of military engagement. The use of civilians and particularly children as a human shield was a recurring feature of the LTTE’s military strategy. Indeed, the reason Prabhakaran’s last stand turned out to be such a bloody affair was precisely because the LTTE had gambled on the fear of collateral damage forcing the Sri Lankan army to stall. If Colombo refused to blink, it was due to a corresponding realisation that it was confronting one of the most brutal and fanatical armies ever raised. Those familiar with Ian Kershaw’s The End, a masterly study of the final five months of the war against Nazi Germany in 1945, will see parallels with what happened in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka four years ago.

Of course, the term ‘human rights’ hadn’t entered the vocabulary of international politics in 1945—a reason why the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Poland and erstwhile Czechoslovakia has been erased from Europe’s collective memory. In any case, the application of human rights to a regime that organised the Holocaust would have been laughable.

Likewise, the invocation of human rights to a dispensation that combined brutality with unwavering fanaticism and which controlled the Tamil areas through efficient intimidation seems as out of place today as it would have in Germany 1945. There has been a brutalisation of Sri Lanka ever since the civil war began in 1983. But the hardening of the Sri Lankan military—which used to be a ceremonial force—is in direct proportion to the blood-thirstiness of the LTTE. The efficacy and wisdom of Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka may occasion legitimate debate. But there can be no debate over the fact that the LTTE personified evil.  

The irony is that the pundits in New Delhi and the political class in Tamil Nadu are fully aware of the real face of the LTTE and even the danger it posed to India. It is relevant to recall the LTTE’s calculated, cold-blooded murder of Rajiv Gandhi during the election campaign of 1991. It is also pertinent to refresh public memory of the Congress Party’s dissociation from the United Front Government of I.K. Gujral in 1998 after the Jain Commission reported the cosy relationship between the DMK and LTTE. True, the imperatives of coalition politics may have forced the Congress to enter into an alliance with Karunanidhi’s party after 2004. But domestic expediency is no reason to forget the past entirely, particularly the unhappy chapters relating to the manner in which Prabhakaran did a Bhindranwale on a cynical regime.

There are a lot of forces and individuals who were responsible for Sri Lanka’s nightmare years. The Bandaranaike family cannot escape responsibility for triggering the process of ethnic polarisation in 1956; other Sinhala politicians cannot disown their roles in the marginalisation of moderate Tamil politicians; and even the Buddhist clergy had a role in stoking a regressive majoritarian outlook. But among those responsible was also India. Would the LTTE have emerged as a force had it not been for New Delhi’s covert support?

Finance Minister P.Chidambaram has sought to send a “resolute” message to Colombo. Perhaps President M. Rajapakshe could do with some softening. But will New Delhi show the same resolve in attacking China for its treatment of its Tibetan minorities? Is Colombo being targeted because it is a small player? Are the principles of ‘constructive engagement’ determined by the electoral calculations of Tamil Nadu? Let’s not make Sri Lanka a scapegoat for the political games we play at home. 

Asian Age, March 22, 2013

Who governs this nation?

By Swapan Dasgupta

Those familiar with the political history of India since the decline of the Moghul Empire in the 18^th century will easily detect a common thread that runs through to the present: the weaker the regime the greater the levels of intrigue and conspiracy in the courts. In Bengal, for example, the levels of intrigue reached colossal heights in the courts of Siraj-ud-Doulah, Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim—nawabs who combined impetuousness with eroding authority. And in western India, the term “Peshwai intrigue” became a stereotype for displays of purposeless cunning so much so that Veer Savarkar lamented the great Vedantist Baji Rao II’s inability to distinguish between a kingdom and a pension.

It may seem far-fetched to extend the mystical charms of oriental intrigue to the India of Manmohan Singh. Yet, occasionally, such a temptation is irresistible.  

Last Wednesday morning—before the Prime Minister intervened in Parliament to inform Italy of “consequences” if it persisted in harbouring the two fugitive marines—a bizarre story began doing the rounds of the political towns of Delhi. The PM had, the previous day, met agitated MPs from Kerala and had placated them with the message that he too felt found the attitude of Italy completely unacceptable. The PM’s assurance soon found its way into the newsrooms and some of the next morning’s newspapers even had a mention of it. Yet, it seems that late at night some media people were contacted by a Race Course Road functionary and told that there was no need to over-interpret the PM’s displeasure.

When the PM got to know of this spin-doctoring the proverbial excreta, it is said, hit the ceiling. According to those who claim to be in the know of the innards of the system, he posed a fundamental question: who controls the Prime Minister’s Office? It’s a question many have privately asked and now, it seemed, the PM had stumbled on the same query.

It is a matter of some solace that the PM did not budge from his original displeasure with the proverbial ‘nation-in-law’. His intervention in Parliament may have lacked delivery but its larger message was quite forthright.

At the same time, the question persists: why was there an attempt to dilute India’s outrage over Rome giving a new twist to the concept of “most favoured nation”? Was this a unilateral gesture by a courtier who was trying to second-guess the ‘real’ power centre? Or, was there some basis to the thwarted revisionism? In that case, from where did it originate?

These are questions that will never be satisfactorily answered. When it comes to the intrigues of the court, no absolute verification is really possible. What is important, however, is not whether an attempt was made to underplay the significance of Italy’s hostile action—if it was, you can be rest assured that Indian diplomacy will not pursue the issue relentlessly and, instead, allow it to fade away from public memory. To my mind, the significance lies in the fact that even in matters that involve national sovereignty and India’s place in the world, the preoccupation of the court is factional one-upmanship.

Those who narrated the supposed sequence of events to me were gleeful that the PM had “asserted” himself. But the mere fact that the PM did what the occasion demanded invoked a celebratory mood among those who still retain a soft corner for him is itself revealing. It suggests that the mind of the government is in a haze and systemic dysfunction so deep-rooted that the movements of the left and right hands are wilfully uncoordinated.

India’s stock in the world has fallen so alarmingly in the past year that Rome doesn’t think twice before flashing two fingers at New Delhi and Islamabad is brazen enough to pass a provocative resolution on Afzal Guru in its National Assembly. Nor does it stop here. Even Maldives doesn’t feel that Indian counsels amount to very much. In the game of international politics, India is precariously poised to become the football—an object that can be kicked around merrily because its rulers are busy settling factional scores and its functionaries are gleefully taking advantage of a prevailing power vacuum.

It is wrong to believe that the state of drift we are witnessing today is a function of incoherent economic policies. That one wing of the government wants to end its term with a colossal display of fiscal profligacy while another wing is pondering over the judgment of history is only part of the problem. The unpalatable truth, that we as Indians must recognise, is that we are confronted with a lame duck government that has lost both the will and the authority to function.

One pillar of notional authority is concerned with the legacy question; another, and more formidable, pillar is preoccupied with the question of inheritance; and the third is self-absorbed with evolving management information systems. Last week, on Times Now, a belligerent retired Pakistan Admiral mocked India for its hollowness. It made a lot of us very angry but there was a ring of truth behind his sneer.

The question is: who governs India? This is a puzzle that is awaiting a solution. From yearning to be a regional superpower, we have been left celebrating that we are at least better off than Pakistan. Some achievement! 

Sunday Pioneer, March 17, 2013

Later Gandhis same as later Mughals?

By Swapan Dasgupta

Indians have an elevated perception of their own moral standing in the world—as the nation that has been wedded to lofty spiritualism for many thousands of years, as the civilisation that put personal ethics over the quest for power, and as the karmabhoomi of the Buddha, Guru Nanak and Mahatma Gandhi. What is less appreciated is that this faith in collective self-superiority is not universally shared, and certainly not in the West. The Occident’s view of what the Orient represents doesn’t make very flattering reading.

Some of the most damning indictments of the flawed Indian have, naturally enough, come from Britons who have had the most sustained engagement with Hindustan. Robert Clive, the rogue who cut every corner to establish the foundations of the British Empire in India, made a fortune from his swashbuckling ways. Yet, when he returned to England to enjoy his fame and fortune, he found himself the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Clive defended himself with characteristic gusto, claiming that in view of the temptations, he was “astounded by his own moderation.” But more than emphasising his own uprightness, Clive’s defence rested on the assertion that corruption was a way of life in India. “From time immemorial”, he told his inquisitors, “it has been the custom of that country, for an inferior power never to come into the presence of a superior without a present. It begins at the Nabob and ends at the lowest man who has an inferior.”

The omnipresence of Indian venality was recognised by the stalwarts of the East India Company as an inescapable reality. If Britain was to do business with India, it would have to recognise the grim truth of Lord Cornwallis’s claim that “Every native of Hindustan, I verily believe, is corrupt.”

Nor was this accommodation of local custom limited to graft. Duplicity in dealings and negotiable standards of truthfulness were the two other features of public conduct that confronted the foreigner. Innumerable civil servants who were entrusted with dispensing justice were aghast at the ease with which witnesses committed perjury if that suited their self-interest. In February 1905, while delivering the address at the Calcutta University convocation, Lord Curzon (one of the few Viceroys who was genuinely fond of India) lit a bush fire by claiming that “I hope I am making no false or arrogant claim when I say that the highest ideal of truth is to a large extent a Western conception… (U)ndoubtedly, truth took a high place in the moral codes of the West before it had been similarly honoured in the East, where craftiness and diplomatic wile have always been held in much repute.”

In Kim, Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale of the Anglo-Indian encounter, the Eurasian street urchin watches the disoriented Tibetan lama narrate his search for his disciple to a passer-by: “Kim stood amazed at this, because he had overheard the talk in the Museum, and knew that the old man was speaking the truth, which is a thing a native seldom presents to a stranger.”

Subsequently, describing the boy’s friendship with the spy-cum-horse trader Mahbub Ali, Kipling stressed Mahbub knew that “Kim was the one soul in the world who had never told him a lie. That would have been a fatal blot on Kim’s character if Mahbub had not known that to others, for his own ends or Mahbub’s business, Kim could lie like an Oriental.”

There is a strong temptation these days to dismiss these awkward observations on the Indian character as being racially and political prejudiced—what Edward Said has characterised as the condescension of “Orientalism”.  Equally, there is an inclination to highlight the role of ‘dharma’ in moulding the individual India’s perception of right and wrong.

Actually, it would seem there is no contradiction between the two. Just as the Indian manages to effortlessly reconcile a strong sense of personal hygiene with public squalor, the tendency to see salvation as a personal initiative has invariably prompted a detachment from the disrepute of public life. “Responsible Government” the British ICS officer Sir Michael O’Dwyer (who earned notoriety with the Rowlatt Act) wrote after a lifetime in India, “has no meaning to the Indian peoples, no equivalent in any Indian vernacular”. 

O’Dwyer was not entirely correct because “Ram Rajya” came to denote virtuous and enlightened governance. But he was right in emphasising that in the hierarchy of values, Hindus have attached greater value to the self over the state. This isn’t because of any insufficient attachment to wider dealings: the importance of trust in Indian business practices has been known and appreciated for centuries. Yet, there is a profound alienation from the ethical underpinnings of politics and governance which outsiders have noted and repeatedly taken advantage of.

The latest saga of the 10 per cent or so commission paid to agents and an unnamed ‘family’ for facilitating a Rs 3,600 crore helicopter purchase from an Italian firm has an air of eerie inevitability about it. Short-changing the public exchequer, subverting public officials and discounting the larger good have been the driving principles of national life for too long.

I haven’t read what the Italian whistle-blower deposed before the Magistrate and public prosecutor. But I won’t be surprised if they resemble Lord Clive’s observations on the India of the decrepit Moghul Shah Alam. The later Moghuls and the later Gandhis: is there any difference?

Sunday Pioneer, September 17, 2013 

Of debates, divisions and discretion

By Swapan Dasgupta

It is in the nature of contemporary politics that the more profound facets of political change are often subsumed by the clutter of immediate developments. The first days of the winter session of Parliament has been disrupted by a determined Opposition demanding that the Government subject its decision to facilitate foreign direct investment in multi-brand retailing to a parliamentary floor test. As much as the BJP and Left’s defence of small and medium retailers who may be threatened with unequal competition, the insistence on a voting resolution owes considerably to the belief that the Government is extremely vulnerable on this one issue.

On its part, the Government has maintained that the Constitution is explicit in allowing executive decisions in matters that are not governed by specific laws. Since the larger conduct and organisation of retail trade has been governed by executive orders, the Government is on strong legal ground in maintaining that changes to existing orders, such as the one the Centre notified earlier this year, does not warrant parliamentary approval. Legally speaking, a Government is not obliged to even withdraw its executive orders in the event of parliamentary disapproval—although it is certain that the embarrassment would have triggered a demand for a trust vote.

In the past, Governments haven’t stood on prestige over allowing debates under a voting rule on subjects that are governed by executive discretion. Under the NDA, the Congress and Left joined hands in pressing for a vote on the privatisation of BALCO. Likewise, even though the conduct of foreign affairs is totally in the realms of executive discretion, a ‘sense of the House’ resolution was adopted in 2003 to forestall the possibility of India getting embroiled in America’s war against Saddam Hussein. It is precisely because the UPA-2 was unsure over its ability to cobble together a majority that it fell back on principle to prevent a vote. Once that problem had been successfully negotiated, it became agreeable to a debate followed by a division. At the time of writing, it appears that a debate followed by voting will not create any awkwardness for the Manmohan Singh Government.

Yet, the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of contentious executive decisions is a problem that is unlikely to go away. The Indian Constitution was formulated at a time when the Congress exercised a stranglehold over politics. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, the Congress had a commanding majority in Parliament. Consequently, the Opposition rarely pressed for a vote on executive decisions. However, now that India has entered a prolonged phase of coalition governments of varying stability and coherence, the issue is certain to present itself over and over again. Governments with uncertain majorities cannot expect the same measure of indulgence as regimes with a clear mandate.

The Constitution accorded the Centre with more discretionary powers than enjoyed by its counterparts in other democracies. Those familiar with British Constitutional history will be aware of the tussle in the 19^th century between the Whigs and Peelites over ministerial responsibility. The Whigs favoured the entire governmental process being subjected to parliamentary oversight while the Peelites favoured strong government, the insulation of ministers from constituency pressures and sought to emphasise responsibility over responsiveness. These debates have persisted to this day. Parties which appeared to uphold Whig principles while in Opposition have tended to become Peelite when occupying the Treasury benches. India will also witness similar flip-flops.

Yet, some changes have already begun to be felt. As opposed to the time when appointments to important state agencies were left completely to the discretion of the executive, there is an attempt to curtail the element of discretion by involving the Leader of Opposition in many of the selection committees. The Supreme Court’s annulment of the appointment of K.V. Thomas as Central Vigilance Commissioner also demonstrated that the executive cannot act as before. Likewise, the process of appointment of the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation looks set to undergo a radical change in the coming years, a development that augurs well for the beleaguered body.

Overall, the process of governance by discretion is under serious challenge because the polity is fractured and there are many more aspiring stakeholders. Even foreign policy looks set to witness important shifts. The intervention of Tamil parties in nudging India to vote against Sri Lanka in Geneva earlier this year and Mamata Banerjee’s veto of the Teesta waters agreement with Bangladesh are indications of which way the wind is blowing.

In the short-term, this move towards asserting the supremacy of Parliament over executive discretion may well further impair decision-making and even force a political stalemate in the future. However, there are two positive developments that can also result from this shift to responsive government. First, the curbs on discretionary powers may actually erode the influence of an over-bearing state on civil society. It may actually provide an extra space for citizens to go about their lives without bothering about a vengeful and venal political establishment. Secondly, the process of greater parliamentary oversight may actually propel MPs to look beyond narrow party interests on many matters. If MPs start exercising their independent judgment on most issues, the quality of public life is calculated to improve significantly.

Meanwhile, the UPA can take heart that ‘reforms’ don’t need to be undertaken by stealth. It can be legitimised by parliamentary approval.

Deccan Chronicle/ Asian Age, November 30, 2012 

Why stake all on moth-eaten FDI?

By Swapan Dasgupta

The motives may be extremely cynical but there is no question that the attempt by the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister to engage with the principal Opposition party prior to the winter session of Parliament, will be welcomed by those committed to strengthening the institutional foundations of Indian democracy. With a fragile majority that can be overturned by either design or accident, the Government is aware that it cannot realistically hope to get fresh legislation through unless it commands bipartisan support. And unless it can show tangible progress in securing the passage of ‘reforms’ legislation, the Government of Manmohan Singh may as well retreat into history.

Sandwiched between its visceral loathing for the BJP and its desperation to show that there is still life left in the UPA, the Government has prudently chosen to sup with the representatives of forces it regard as satanic. It marks a change. For quite some time, a civil relationship between the Government and the BJP had broken down on two counts. First, say those in the know of the room temperature in Race Course Road, the PM regarded L.K. Advani as being wilfully discourteous to him on a number of occasions. An incident which is said to have particularly rankled in the minds of the PM involved the NDA chairperson allegedly throwing a document at the PMs table. Secondly, it is said that the PM was livid with Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj’s ‘mota maal’ comment in the context of Coalgate.

Whether these constitute the real reasons for keeping any meaningful Government-Opposition engagement on hold, or are being cited as justification for the Congress’ pre-determined haughtiness is a matter of conjecture. What is, however, undeniable is that during earlier sessions of Parliament, when the Government had a comfortable working majority in the Lok Sabha, the UPA-2 leadership never felt a need to forge a cross-party consensus on issues of governance. However, now that it faces difficulties in securing the passage of economic legislation, an attempt is being made to reach out to the Opposition. The Government knows that there are limits to talking up the economy and unless pious intentions are accompanied by concrete action, there is every possibility that the mood of cautious optimism will disappear.

Granted that the overtures by Manmohan Singh and P.Chidambaram are governed by expediency and self-interest, how should the Opposition react? The Opposition has a litany of grievances against the Centre. Apart from non-consultation, there are grave charges centred on the Centre’s duplicitous conduct in matters governing the treatment of non-Congress-ruled states, not to mention the blatant misuse of central agencies such as the CBI. Together, these have contributed to a vitiated environment and the feeling in Opposition circles that blind hostility is the best way to confront the Government.

Then there is the entire corruption issue. Although the Opposition momentum on corruption and cronyism has been somewhat checked by the turbulence in the BJP over Nitin Gadkari’s unwillingness to do the honourable thing and retire to Nagpur, the Parliament session does give the entire Opposition a chance to put the Government on the mat on issues ranging from Robert Vadra and the National Herald properties to the Swiss accounts in HSBC. But the moment the Opposition tries to raise any of these issues, the Congress is bound to respond belligerently and the resulting bedlam is certain to dash all hopes of any constructive engagement. For the Congress, ‘reforms’ are important but not as important as the honour and prestige of the Gandhi family.

Then there is the role of the FDI in multi-brand retail which, for inexplicable reasons, the Congress has chosen to make the signature tune of its entire ‘reforms’ thrust. Regardless of the perceived economic benefits that the entry of retail giant Walmart brings to India, the fact is that political India does not believe that such an entry is desirable at this time. A vote in Parliament will clearly reveal that the Government is in a minority on this issue, which is why the UPA’s political managers will do their best to prevent any voting. But, having smelt an advantage and the Trinamool Congress determined to engage in fierce battle on this issue, why will the Opposition let the Government escape embarrassment? Would the Congress have shown similar generosity had a BJP-led Government pushed through a major move without bothering about the sense of Parliament?

On the retail trade FDI question, the Government finds itself in an awkward bind. As a symbol of ‘reforms’, this is a measure whose effects will be largely symbolic. It is doubtful if the measure will result in any significant quantum of FDI. Neither is there any evidence that the state-centric measure will make distribution channels for agricultural produce more efficient. If good reforms involve good politics, the Government should actually be willing to eat humble pie on this issue and instead concentrate on effecting changes in pensions, insurance and ensuring the passage of the Forward Contracts Regulation Bill which was mooted in 2006.

It is inexplicable why the Government has made the moth-eaten FDI in retail a prestige issue, unless, of course, we are to read grave meaning in the recent revelation that Walmart played the bribery game in India. If the Government gives in to the Opposition on this issue, its chances of addressing the more substantial reforms becomes brighter.

Sunday Pioneer, November 18, 2012 

Cabinet reshuffle and the Big Picture

By Swapan Dasgupta

There is something in the air of Lutyens’ Delhi that makes its inhabitants heady over any real or proposed reshuffle in the Union Council of Ministers. During his five years at the helm, Rajiv Gandhi pandered to this yearning for unending churning by changing his ministerial team every six months or so. By contrast, Manmohan Singh has been partial to continuity. Maybe this has been due to the fact that he was never a complete master of his own destiny. Buffeted between coalition imperatives and the non-playing captains in 10 Janpath, he has operated under severe limitations.

Last week’s reorganisation of the team was a little different from half-hearted exercises of the past. First, this time there were no coalition pressures. Apart from a solitary Minister of State from the Nationalist Congress Party who was quietly palmed off to his mentor Sharad Pawar’s ministry, the alterations were exclusively a Congress affair. Whether the Congress has the comfort of numbers to be able to confine its sights exclusively to the party is something that must await the course of the winter session of Parliament beginning later in November. However, to the outside world the Prime Minister and Congress President maintained the pretence that the party had a majority on its own. The real significance of the openings created by the departure of the Trinamool Congress and the reluctance of the DMK to fill its ministerial quota were quite deliberately understated.

Secondly, this delusion of grandeur was further maintained by the special accommodation of Andhra Pradesh. That the late Y.S. Rajashekhara Reddy contributed disproportionately to the success of the UPA in both 2004 and 2009 is a matter of record. However, it is clear that the benefits that accrued to the state in October 2012 stemmed less from Andhra’s clout in the Congress than from its vulnerability. The elevation of Pallam Raju to the Cabinet, the inclusion of Chiranjeevi as a Minister of State with independent charge and the accommodation of other junior worthies may actually seem a desperate measure to somehow contain the pincer movement by the YSR Congress and the Telengana Rashtriya Samity. Recent opinion polls suggest that the Congress may find it extremely difficult to win more than five Lok Sabha seats in the event of a snap election.

If the past is any indication, the mere induction of ministers doesn’t by itself change political equations in the localities. The Government of Atal Behari Vajpayee had some five Cabinet ministers from undivided Bihar at the time of the Lok Sabha dissolution in 2004. However, both the BJP and its ally did disastrously in Bihar at the parliamentary election. Likewise, when the V.P. Singh wave first hit Uttar Pradesh, Rajiv Gandhi tried to offset his estranged colleague’s influence among Thakurs by resurrecting Dinesh Singh from oblivion and appointing him External Affairs minister. This had very little effect on the ground.  

Inducting a politician into the ministry may, at best, give an individual enhanced status in the locality. But symbolic gestures rarely translate into the larger political goodwill the Congress craves for. What matters is the wider political message.

To the extent that the Congress was desirous of packaging last week’s reshuffle as an attempt to give more responsibility to younger ministers the party was aware of the importance of the big picture. Although statistically the average of Manmohan Singh’s team has fallen marginally from 65 years to roughly 64 years, the Congress was successful in conveying the message that the process of generational change that was being demanded has begun, albeit modestly.

More important was the emergence of another theme that the Congress, perhaps understandably, was not unduly anxious to over-emphasise: the domination of the economic ministries by those who have the reputation of being reformers and who share the Prime Minister’s broad economic philosophy. The injection of a measure of ideological coherence into the economic ministries is no doubt welcome. At least the coming months may see an end to the confusion over and resistance to market-based reforms. Manmohan may even take advantage of his nominee in the Railways Ministry to try and remove a major infrastructural bottleneck. Indeed, so high is the apparent optimism of being able to achieve reforms and ensure fiscal consolidation that Finance Minister P. Chidambaram announced the Government’s willingness to travel by the fiscal roadmap of the Vijay Kelkar committee. Chidambaram has also been less squeamish about putting political pressure on the Reserve Bank of India to cut interest rates.

What this implies is something quite dramatic. Does the behaviour of the Prime Minister and Finance Minister indicate that the Congress has decided to go slow on Sonia Gandhi’s desire to expand the welfare net? Expressed in another way, has the Prime Minister decided to liberate himself from the shackles of populism for the remainder of his tenure?

The signs are confusing. At one level the Government has chosen to persevere with its in-principle decision to raise user charges in power, fuel and railway travel. At the same times, there is frenzied activity to ready the Aadhar scheme for direct cash transfers before the election. The Government, it would seem, is keeping both options ready. The outcome of the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh election and the course of the parliament session will us whether the regime will turn right or left. The state of the opposition will shape the final judgment. 

Deccan Chronicle/ Asian Age, November 2, 2012

Burden of Survival

By Swapan Dasgupta

Posterity tends to be excessively harsh on losers. In the coming months, after the present political storm has either subsided or transformed itself into a fierce cyclone, the Congress will no doubt reflect on the course of events that led to Mamata Banerjee withdrawing her Trinamool Congress (TMC) from the UPA-2. Will the Chief Minister of West Bengal continue to be described as a maverick, unsuitable for the serious business of running the Government of India? Alternatively, will she be regarded as a canny politician who, despite her mercurial ways, had her finger firmly on the pulse of the popular mood?

Amid the clutter of the hour-by-hour developments in a Delhi that is salivating over the excitement provided by politics, it is difficult to predict the judgment of history. However, certain things are clear.

First, Mamata’s withdrawal from the UPA-2 last Tuesday after a three hour-long meeting with her senior colleagues in Kolkata was not an impulsive decision. For the past six months or so, the whisper from knowledgeable political circles in Kolkata strongly suggested that Mamata was convinced that the UPA-2 had run out of steam and that the Congress was heading for a massive election defeat in the general election, regardless of its timing. For Mamata, good politics dictated that she detach herself from the burden of the Centre’s rising anti-incumbency and move to grab both the regional party space and the terrain the Left threatened to occupy.

It wasn’t merely the opprobrium attached to being part of a regime that was burdened by both economic mismanagement and corruption that moved Mamata. What may have clinched her final decision was the unease in the state’s large Muslim population over the belief that the Congress Government in Assam shared the blame for the attacks on Muslim ‘immigrants’ in Kokrajhar.

The extent to which the events in Assam and coloured reports of an ethnic cleansing in Myanmar have contributed to Muslim anger all over India has been insufficiently noticed. It is still too early to be sure what political form these stirrings will take but Mamata has moved with great speed to ensure that the Muslim sullenness against the Congress does not rub off on her. By using both a regional and populist plank to justify her revolt against the Congress, she may have ensured that the 27 per cent minority votebank remains attached to her, but without any corresponding risk of playing the “Muslim card’ overtly. Observers of Bihar politics may find strong traces of Mamata’s approach in some of the recent moves of Nitish Kumar.

Many commentators mistook the 60 hours gap between the announcement of her withdrawal and the formal resignation of her ministers at the Centre as evidence that she was amenable to some last minute persuasion. The symbolic significance of using the day of Friday prayers to mark her go-it-alone strategy was not adequately understood.

Secondly, unlike the Left which chose the ideological issue of anti-Americanism to walk out of the UPA-1 arrangement in 2008, Mamata was careful to choreograph her grandstanding around livelihood issues. This has put the Congress in a serious quandary. Regardless of how much the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the court economists and Corporate India see the fuel and cooking gas price hikes and the qualified opening up of the retail sector to foreign players as indicative of a fierce desire to usher a new wave of reforms, the political class isn’t convinced that market economics is electorally saleable. A section of the Congress may have taken heart that at least Coalgate has been relegated to the inside pages, but this is a small consolation prize. At the end of the day, the party knows that there are ominous implications behind the grand show of political unity for the largely successful Bharat Bandh.

In 2004, a copywriter in an advertising agency borrowed the term ‘aam aadmi’ for the political use of the Congress. It worked, beyond the party’s wildest expectations. Unfortunately, in the business of selling reforms which involve pain, austerity and dislocation, it is the ‘aam aadmi’ slogan that has become a millstone round the neck of the ruling party. It is now being unceasingly taunted by what was once its most effective brand positioning exercise.

Finally, even if Mamata’s exit fails to dislodge a minority government from power, the TMC has more or less ensured that Manmohan Singh and P.Chidambaram will no longer be able to muster the political strength to push through another wave of reforms. Those who enthusiastically cheered the diesel and cooking price hikes as being bold steps in the daunting battle against a soaring fiscal deficit and a possible ratings downgrade by international agencies, may find that the big bang has culminated in the equally big whimper.

The full-page advertisements issued by the beleaguered Ashok Gehlot Government of Rajasthan promising generous state subsidies to mitigate the hardship caused by reforms tells the story of growing panic. The Congress can’t disown its own Prime Minister and Finance Minister but it can’t embrace their reformist zeal either. Therefore, since the political costs of the ‘reforms’ became apparent, the Congress endeavour has been to shift the burden of subsidies from the Centre to the states.

By the time the survival game gets over for the Congress, the R-word may be sharing a berth with the FDI retail proposal in the political deep freeze.

Deccan Chronicle/ Asian Age, September 21, 2012 

Pawar game for a federal front?

With the London Olympics beginning next week, it is hardly surprising that sporting terms have acquired currency, even in politics.

The buzzword these days is ‘cornered’ and everyone is suddenly getting ‘cornered’. The NDA was ‘cornered’ when APJ Abdul Kalam decided not to contest the presidential election and the Shiv Sena and Janata Dal (United) broke ranks. The pugnacious Mamata Banerjee was well and truly ‘cornered’ when she grudgingly endorsed Pranab Mukherjee’s candidature. And on Friday evening, I heard a venerable editor say with astonishing certainty that Sharad Pawar had unfurled the banner of revolt because he too had been ‘cornered’ by the Congress.

To be fair, the cornering of Pawar and his Nationalist Congress Party was entirely unanticipated. After the so-called cornering of Mamata, it had become conventional wisdom that a resurgent Congress was all set for a show of cornering. The much-delayed economic reforms were set to be back on track despite the underperforming monsoon, Hamid Ansari’s re-election as Vice President was expected to be smooth sailing and Rahul Gandhi had given his in-principle approval to the orchestrated clamour that he abandon his ‘cameo role’ for some sustained political engagement. In short, happy days were back again and it was thumbs-up for the Congress and UPA.

So why did Pawar choose this most inopportune of moments to show that he wasn’t a circus ka sher (a description accorded to him in the mid-1990s)? Surely a seasoned politician like him wasn’t going to walk out of the Government because he didn’t like the new seating arrangements in the Cabinet room?

If whispers from the top echelons of the Congress in Maharashtra are any guide, Pawar was feeling ‘cornered’ because of a monumental irrigation scam involving NCP Ministers and the kerfuffle over the involvement of Chaggan Bhujbal’s relatives in the construction of the Maharashtra Sadan in Delhi. Both these scams, it was said, were on the verge of becoming public and a ‘cornered’ Pawar imagined he had no alternative but to threaten a walkout. Since coalition dharma has come to mean the right of every party to make their pile without fear or inhibition, the NCP chose to assert his political right. After all, or so the grapevine has it, wasn’t that at the centre of the midnight deal the Samajwadi Party chief negotiated with the Congress when he left Mamata high and dry?

More to the point, why should Pawar have felt ‘cornered’? True, he has merely 9 MPs in the Lok Sabha. But Ajit Singh, the newest entrant to the UPA Government, has only 4 MPs. This insignificant number hasn’t prevented the RLD’s trapeze artiste from dispensing with the services of a man who was proving to be a ‘difficult’ Director General of Civil Aviation. Nor has it prevented the mysterious loss of a noting that sought an inquiry into the safety standards of a beleaguered private airline.

Ajit Singh doesn’t seem to feel cornered by the media outrage, and neither is the Congress shamefaced about the possible shenanigans of its small ally. Why, therefore, should Pawar feel ‘cornered’ by the purposeful appearance of two scams in Maharashtra? Is the Congress feeling ‘cornered’ and flaunting a red face because sensitive defence procurement files by the kilo load have been shown to have been passed on to an arms dealer whose qualification in life is that his father coined Indira Gandhi’s famous comeback slogan in 1980?

The significant feature of these strange goings-on and cornerings is that the Government has lost all sense of the one thing that keeps democracy and civilised governance ticking — the sense of shame. There is no shame attached to the complete subversion of the CBI — so much so that most of the Twitterpostings after Pawar announced his revolt were centred on the imminent arrival of the CBI on the NCP leader’s doorstep. There is no loss of face for the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission — a man with a reputation for being one of India’s foremost modernisers — as he doles out money to States on the strength of political calculations.

Politics within the UPA has touched the heights of cynicism, and Pawar need not fear if the Congress wishes to sully his reputation with charges both true and imaginary. That is because he appears to have realised something that the crisis managers of the Congress seem blissfully unaware of: that prolonged association with the Government is yielding diminishing returns.

Walking out of the Cabinet and the Government may seem a risky proposition if a turnaround was in sight. Pawar may yet settle for a patchwork compromise that safeguards his interests in Maharashtra and, perhaps, even leads to the removal of Prithviraj Chavan as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. After all, it is not mere the NCP but builder lobbies linked to Congress leaders who are baying for the CMs blood. But that would be tantamount to a short-term truce. In the long-run, Pawar can only be enthused by the example of Jagan Mohan Reddy who has taken on the Congress and kept his political clout intact by going directly to the people and stirring up regional sentiment.

With the BJP still unable to take full advantage of the anti-incumbency against the UPA, there is still a vast constituency that can be mobilised for a Federal Front which will have a say in 2014. Pawar, it would seem, is indicating his preference for that game.

Sunday Pioneer, July 22, 2012