While the announcement of the Bharat Ratna for social activist Nanaji Deshmukh, former President Pranab Mukherjee and Assamese musician Bhupen Hazarika by the Narendra Modi Government has been well-received all over the country, there are some voices of dissent, especially within the Congress, with some leaders accusing the Union Government of promoting “loyalists.” Nothing can be farther from the truth and, as the details that follow will reveal, it is best that members of the Congress are far more circumspect when the debate is about honouring the real heroes of the country.
Given Nanaji Deshmukh’s phenomenal contribution to the idea of rural self-reliance and the sacrifices he made to bring about agrarian reform, the real question to ask is: Why was he not conferred the highest national honour earlier? The same is true of Bhupen Hazarika, who bridged the cultural gap between the North-East and other States of the country and made a phenomenal contribution to national integration through his music and art. Former President and Congress veteran Pranab Mukherjee, who was the most qualified Congress leader for the office of the Prime Minister, was edged out of the race by “accidental” Prime Ministers more than once because of the insecurities of a single political family. However, his judicious and thoughtful advice and non-partisan approach have proved invaluable at critical times for two Prime Ministers between 2012-17 when he was President.
Now for some very unpleasant home truths about the Bharat Ratna. As per the rules governing this award, Bharat Ratna is conferred by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. It was instituted in 1954. The very next year, the then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, gave himself the Bharat Ratna in 1955. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, too, gave herself the award in 1971. Neither Nehru nor Indira Gandhi considered BR Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution, or Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the man who got over 560 Rajas and Maharajahs to sign the instrument of accession and created an united India, worthy of the nation’s highest honour. Rajiv Gandhi, too, was given the Bharat Ratna soon after his assassination in June, 1991.
Ambedkar was conferred the Bharat Ratna by the Janata Dal-led Government of VP Singh, which was supported by the BJP. But why was he overlooked until then? Because, according to BJP leader, Subramanian Swamy, “Till then no Prime Minister dared to overrule Nehru”.
Again, the phenomenal contribution of the real architect of Indian unity — Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel — was recognised by a non-Congress Government in 1991. It was the then Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar, who suggested that the Sardar be given the Bharat Ratna posthumously and former President R Venkataraman recalled in his memoirs that he “readily agreed to the proposal.” Rashtrapati Bhavan announced the awards Sardar Patel and Rajiv Gandhi simultaneously in June, 1991. Earlier that year, Chandrashekhar had proposed that Bharat Ratna be conferred on former Prime Minister Morarji Desai and President Venkataraman endorsed this too “considering his immense contribution to the freedom struggle and service to the nation.” Desai was 96 at that time.
The Narendra Modi Government’s decision to honour Bhupen Hazarika with the Bharat Ratna reminds one of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government’s decision to honour former Chief Minister of Assam, Gopinath Bardoloi, a great patriot. Bardoloi worked closely with Sardar Patel to ensure that Pakistan’s claims to parts of Assam were scuttled and this key State in the North-eastern region remained united with India. The Congress, however, did not consider him worthy of this honour. He was conferred the Bharat Ratna by the BJP-led Vajpayee Government in 1999.
Another great Gandhian, patriot and national hero, Jayaprakash Narayan, who led the movement for the restoration of democracy in the 1970s after India Gandhi imposed a dictatorship on the country, was conferred the highest civilian honour by the Vajpayee Government in 1999.
Although the Congress, under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership was at the vanguard of the freedom movement, the party, under the leadership of the Nehru-Gandhis, became small-minded and spiteful. Between them, Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were in power for 38 years. In addition, Sonia Gandhi as Congress president was virtually the de facto head of the Government while the ‘Accidental Prime Minister’ did the de jure functions for 10 years between 2004 and 2014. The family also extracted its political pound of flesh when Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister between 1991 and 1996.
However, even though many well-meaning citizens suggested that Vajpayee be conferred the Bharat Ratna, the Sonia-Manmohan combine dismissed the idea. Ultimately, Vajpayee was given the well-deserved honour after the peoples’ verdict of 2014 reduced the Congress to a rump in Parliament. On the other hand, the Narendra Modi Government chose eminent Congress leaders of the past and present — Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya and Pranab Mukherjee — for this honour.
This history of the Bharat Ratna shows that while the Nehru-Gandhis conferred the highest civilian honour on themselves, they never felt the need to honour some of the greatest Indians, many of whom worked alongside them for decades and played a key role in the emergence of a strong, independent and democratic India, including Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and Vajpayee among others. India had to elect non-Congress Governments to ensure that these leaders got their due.
It is also true that the Nehru-Gandhis have never acknowledged the immense contribution of individuals belonging to political formations they disliked; although the Congress often harps on its commitment to diversity. Obviously, in the Congress’ lexicon, diversity does not include political/ideological diversity. On the other hand, Prime Minister Modi and the BJP have displayed far greater maturity and magnanimity in the decisions they have taken.
Finally, the Congress has often been accused of using the national award to promote its electoral prospects. A case in point is the conferment of the Bharat Ratna on Tamil Nadu film star-turned politician MG Ramachandran in 1988. The Congress, headed by Rajiv Gandhi, was desperate to win the support of MGR’s party and garner votes in the Tamil Nadu elections the following year. BG Deshmukh, who was the Cabinet Secretary at that time, recalled in his memoirs that “many in Government as well as outside it viewed this as a political move by the Congress.” Also, Deshmukh indicated that there was much opposition to awarding Bharat Ratna posthumously as this would open the floodgates. But all these arguments were over-ruled obviously because the Congress was dreaming of the votes that it would garner with this announcement.
Therefore, with regard to the Bharat Ratna, the best advice for members of the Congress would be: “Please keep your lips sealed.”
(The writer is Chairman, Prasar Bharati)
Writer: A Surya Prakash
Courtesy: The Pioneer
In 1958, a social and economic campaign, led by former Chairman of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong, sought to transform the Chinese economy from an agrarian society to an industrial powerhouse. It is widely believed that some of the policies introduced during the Great Leap Forward eventually led to the Great Chinese Famine between 1959 and 1961. While China focussed on moving its workers from farms to factories, simultaneously, it went through one of the worst famines in human history.
Peculiarly, in the years leading up to the Great Chinese Famine, Beijing was actually exporting significant amounts of grains while a large population of the country was dying of starvation. Why was this so? Reason for this seemingly irrational policy was apparently an illusion of abundance. In order to avoid the wrath of their bosses, it turned out that at each level of the bureaucracy, every person fudged the grain production marginally to show better output than was the case actually. By the time this information reached the top brass, an impression was already created that China had enough grain to spare and, therefore, could fund the Great Leap Forward by exporting excess grain. As we all now know, the lack of accountability and the verification of information eventually contributed to a famine that led to the death of tens of millions of people over there.
While this may just be a morbid example, it does underline the importance of the bureaucracy, which serves as the framework of a democracy and crucially highlights the importance of keeping this framework accountable. In this week’s column, this writer’s focus will be on why it is important for Members of Parliament to participate and spend more time in the House so as to ensure greater accountability.
Fundamentally, the bureaucracy forms the other arms of the Government because unlike the elected representatives, who may be voted out in an election or the judiciary, which has to justify its decisions through reasoned orders that may even be challenged and are a matter of public record, the bureaucracy can really be held accountable by elected representatives, who are in turn answerable to the public. This is one of the primary reasons why both Houses, at the Centre and in the States, must be more active so as to ensure that those individuals, who are actually responsible for the day-to-day working of the country, are held accountable along with the MPs and MLAs.
While it is often thought that the Parliament’s role is limited to discussing and drafting laws for the country, there are other crucial roles, too, that it fulfills. They are just as important as the drafting and passing of legislations, including ensuring that individuals and departments, which are responsible for running the country, actually do their job. This is the role that ‘Question Hour’ is primarily meant to fulfill. It refers to the first hour of a sitting Session of the Lok Sabha. During this hour, MPs are free to raise any question pertaining to various issues regarding the actual administration of the country. After a question has been raised, in accordance with the applicable rules of Parliament, the concerned Minister, to whom the query has been addressed, is required to answer in Parliament itself. This is one of the many ways in which the Indian public gets access to information and details about the manner in which actual work is being carried out by the Government.
Take for example, there is a question regarding the ‘Smart Cities Mission’, such as how many smart cities have actually been built or what is the success of the said plan that was launched by Prime Minister Modi? The relevant Minister is required to provide the answer along with a detailed reply, placing such information on record on the basis of which the answer has been provided. The Minister’s speech is obviously made on the basis of information provided by the particular bureaucrat, who is responsible for the implementation of the plan. Therefore, if the answer does not show the Government in good light, automatically, there will be pressure on the relevant bureaucrat to ensure that the programme is implemented more efficiently or he/she will have to explain why the scheme is not being implemented as intended.
Question Hour, therefore, not only ensures that the Opposition keeps the Government in power honest but also ensures that the public is provided with authentic data that the bureaucracy has examined and vetted. Such questions, therefore, indirectly force the bureaucracy to answer important questions and create an indirect accountability mechanism by which the bureaucrats can be held accountable.
The UPA did, in fact, contribute towards bringing accountability to the bureaucracy in a major way through the introduction of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but there is a need to ask more from the Parliament. It is an extremely sad state of affairs that in the past three years, Parliament has functioned for an average of 60-70 days a year. It is, therefore, imperative that Parliament functions for at least 120 days a year. Such legislation has been proposed in the past as well by certain MPs as a private Bill but there has, as yet, not been enough momentum for such an initiative. This has been particularly disappointing. As opposed to Britain, where Parliament functions for around 120 days a year, over the past three to four years, the Indian Parliament has only functioned for around 60-70 days. This period is barely enough to get any significant work done and, therefore, it inevitably leaves a major arm of the Government — the executive — unchecked and unaccounted.
While during a session of Parliament, a large amount of time does go into drafting and debating legislations, the importance of Question Hour in ensuring a functional, transparent and honest bureaucracy cannot be ignored. This is all the more important since, as mentioned earlier, while elected representatives do receive a lot of criticism (often warranted) during their tenure, there is an easy way of holding them accountable: By voting them out. In the case of the bureaucracy, however, which is responsible for actual implementation of policy decisions, there is no clear mechanism in place to hold them accountable.
It is for this reason that one must understand and appreciate the role of the Opposition in a particular country since it keeps a Government and the executive honest. This is why the Congress and its chief, Rahul Gandhi, have repeatedly said that they have no interest in a ‘BJP-mukt Bharat’ because despite the ruling party’s parochial view of India, they do fulfill an important role in our democracy. After all Mao and the Communist Party in China did not have an Opposition or the concept of a Question Hour in place to keep their bureaucracy accountable. India should be grateful that it does but should also recognise that it is time to take a few more steps forward.
(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Torrential rain washed away Suspended Particulate Matter (SPMs) from Delhi air and the air quality improved to year’s best on Wednesday. This was the first time in New Year when Delhi’s map was coloured “green” with satisfactory levels of Particulate Matters (PMs) on the National Ambient Air Quality Index (NAAQI).
Good news for Delhi and National Capital Region (NCR) is that the levels of PM 10 and PM 2.5 were recorded under the permissible limit with values 73 and 51 against 100 and 60 in microgram per cubic respectively.
As Indian Meteorological Department’s (IMD) prediction proved correct, the national Capital breathed easy after hazardous pollution levels for the past few months gave way to the rainfall.
In its weekly weather forecast, the Regional Weather Forecast Department, New Delhi (RWFC) has forecast generally cloudy sky with drizzle. The minimum temperature will remain at eight degrees Celsius while the maximum temperature will fluctuate between 18 and 19 degrees Celsius.
For air quality, System of Air Quality and Weather Forecasting And Research (SAFAR), a unit of Ministry of Earth Sciences (MOES), has forecast satisfactory for Thursday, for Friday, air quality will turn moderate, this further means that air quality will remain “good” till Friday.
According to SAFAR in air quality forecast, the concentration of PM 10 will oscillate between 74 and 141 microgram per cubic while levels of PM 2.5 will remain under the permissible limit.
According to IMD official, the Safdarjung observatory recorded 14.8 mm rainfall, Palam 22.8 mm rainfall, Lodhi Road 15 mm and Aya Nagar recorded 26.1 mm rainfall.
“The minimum temperature was recorded at 12.5 degrees Celsius, five notches above the normal,” the official said. The humidity level was recorded at 100 per cent at 8.30 am. According to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) data, the overall air quality index (AQI) in the city was 133, which falls in the moderate category.
It affected 15 trains which ran late with an average delay of two to three hours. These included Howrah-New Delhi Poorva Express, Malda-Delhi Junction Farakka Express and Mumbai Amritsar Express. The Puri-New Delhi Purushottam Express was late by six hours, according to the Northern Railways.
Writer: Sapna Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
While the Karnataka Congress seems “drunk” on power games, what with its MLAs caught in a nasty brawl with liquor bottles being hurled liberally to decide whether one should stay with the JD(S) government or topple it, the central Congress leadership must realise that it cannot afford to appear so in its quest for national relevance and must restore a modicum of discipline among party rank and file. It must realise that it has yet to build confidence among the electorate as a national alternative and should not be “drunk” over its recent electoral successes in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Truth be told, it has barely made it and now has to do much more to win back trust, something that regional parties seem to command better at this point of time and is a glue of the federal front as a viable option. It also needs to understand that three Assembly victories are not enough to assume that it can strong-arm its way vis-a-vis allies and that resurgence cannot be seen as arrogance or greed akin to swamping propriety.
While one can charge the BJP with attempting a coup in Karnataka to expose the faultlines of the Congress-JD(S) alliance, can the Congress really afford to be swept up by the poachers’ trap and risk its image as an auctionable rather than an actionable party? It is sad enough that former Congress Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has had a hard time confining party MLAs to a plush resort to ensure they don’t quit the flock. It is a shocker that four MLAs still dared to defy the whip. And the grand old party, instead of chalking out strategies for the Lok Sabha election, has only been playing hide-and-seek games in this crucial southern state, quelling fistfights among legislators over joining the BJP just to get prized posts denied to them in the current regime. If the recent United India rally by the federal front leaders in Kolkata is any indication, then it amply proves that the Congress, in public perception, is very much the B-Team and in Karnataka has done a pathetic, iffy job as an ally. Clearly miffed by such shenanigans, Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy lost no time in heaping praise on his West Bengal counterpart Mamata Banerjee, saying she was a “good administrator” and has all capabilities of leading the country, indicating that if need be, the regional parties could do without the Congress and could very well choose from many capable prime ministerial candidates among themselves. They could browbeat the Congress even further, which actually needs them more to give the emergency jet packs for political survival.
The Congress high command understands the need for continuity of its alliance government with JD(S) but has somehow desperately failed to impart some lessons in realpolitik to its myopic cadre. Siddaramaiah’s discomfort with the Gowdas is well-known and was visibly upset when his loyalists were kept out of the State Cabinet. A disturbing video leak of his critical remarks against the JD(S) had already cost the Congress in the initial days of government formation with chief Rahul Gandhi compelled to make him the chairman of the Congress-JD(S) coordination committee and ensure he was abreast of all developments in the government. The Congress must realise that it will lose all credibility and be considered an opportunist if it sinks Kumaraswamy. The latter, seen as a victim, will be expected to be open to other alliance partners. If the Congress cannot keep its MLAs together and ends up destabilising the government, then it can give up any hope of progressing in the state where a strong Vokkaliga backlash could grind it to dust. The Congress must realise that it has to have grace, humility and the wisdom of a kingmaker if it wants to have a stake in the Lok Sabha elections. It cannot afford to be a king yet, nor behave like one.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
Tribal development (especially adiwasis) has been a hot topic of discussion for ruling Governments as well as political parties. Ever since independence, several Governments have launched numerous programmes, which have seen minimal success in terms of enhancing the socio-economic condition of the tribal population. Of course, a miniscule group of educated people have benefitted from the policy of job reservation. But it is the land tenure reforms that have been at the forefront of tribal struggles. Many NGOs as well as social workers have been raising the issue of tribal land with the forest department. Tribal livelihood rights, after all, are intricately linked with the management of forest ecosystems. For, it is equally important that forest bio-diversity remains in good shape to meet tribal needs.
Not only the tribal people but villagers living in about 170,000 villages, situated in and around 32 million hectare of forest lands, are partially dependent on the adjoining forest lands for daily needs. As per the 2011 Census, the tribal population in India stood at 10.4 crore and constituted around 8.6 per cent of the total population. In 2004, the then NDA Government had brought to fore the issue of historical injustice regarding settlement of disputed claims of tribals over forestlands, which were pending since decades, particularly after the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. A notification was issued on February 4, 2004, recognising the rights of occupation of forest lands by tribal people and a procedure was communicated to the States to vest the occupied land. This recognition was welcomed but could not be implemented because the NDA could not come back to power. Taking cue from this notification, the then UPA Government re-initiated the process and enacted the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, (FRA) 2006. Ever since, it remains one of the biggest reforms to correct the historic injustice done to tribals. It will be appropriate to examine the impact of this Act on the political economy of the tribals.
One of the biggest constraints for forest management and tribal development is that our forests, regions of tribal habitation and mineral-bearing areas overlap each other. Due to this, inherent conflicts occur. For long-term sustainability of forest management and to meet the climate change targets, it is essential that not only does our forest land become productive enough but also that the land vested under the Act can offer a decent livelihood to tribals, in a manner that their dependency on forests is gradually reduced. The ultimate goal should be that our forests are manned for ecological sustainability of all kinds of landscapes. For this to happen, it is essential that political parties assess the economic polity of the tribal-forests interface and chalk out an integrated strategy.
Let us first examine the implementation of the FRA. Though the basic surmise of the Act, before its enactment, was on community rights, it is now focussed on settling individual rights. It will be interesting to note that during the last 10 years, till May 2018, 58.5 lakh hectares of land were vested but more than half of this figure was distributed in the next five months, by the end of October 2018. The Act is open-ended and for the past 10 years, the process is still on.
This reflects that either the system is incompetent or the Act is being used as a tool to barter away forest land. The moot point is: Was it an easy task for the tribal, revenue and forests departments to ascertain the land under occupation, as on 2006 when this Act came into effect? Why it is taking so long for officials to ascertain tribal occupation? Land is a precious resource. A lackadaisical attitude in implementation will yield to increasing encroachments of our forest lands. Political parties as well as the Government must act timely, pull up their socks to fix this malady. After this, focus must be shifted to developing these lands for better returns to the beneficiaries. Land rights, however, are not the only reason for tribal alienation. The lack of infrastructure, deteriorating health conditions, struggle for livelihood and educational deprivation, too, are some of the reasons why they feel disenchanted. Unless the land vested is demarcated, digitised on priority and becomes productive, the real purpose of tribal empowerment will not be achieved.
The implementation of FRA should, therefore, be linked with the creation of livelihood. A nationally coordinated project, in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of AYUSH and Ministry of Rural Development for livelihood generation is a sine qua non. The project should also have a second component, based on a cluster approach to be implemented by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Ministry of Power to create necessary infrastructure.
Questions now arise about its implementation. Considering the interface between forests and tribes, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes requested the Government to rename Indian Forest Service (IFS) as the Indian Forest and Tribal Service. This is an excellent proposal but renaming IFS is not essential. What is needed is to encompass tribal welfare as a core value of forest management. For this, IFS training will require changes and the Indian Institute of Forest Management and Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy should be assigned this task. The IFS cadre will require revamping to create a capable force. To begin with, one Additional Director-General’s post should be created in the Ministry of Environment to deal with tribal affairs, ensure convergence and plan future set-ups. In the long-run, a tribal child should grow up imbibing his culture while encompassing the fruits of modern development.
(The writer is a retired civil servant)
Writer: VK Bahuguna
Courtesy: The Pioneer
As the Lok Sabha election gets tantalisingly close, the season of mahagathbandhan or a grand alliance has started in right earnest. So has flexing of political muscles by what can loosely be called as the anti-Bharatiya Janata Party (anti-BJP) — a conglomeration of diverse regional parties, united by a single agenda of removing the Modi-Shah duo from national politics in the Lok Sabha election. Of course, BJP rebel and now architect of the “Save Democracy” movement Yashwant Sinha adroitly reminded everybody that the Modi versus Rest narrative would only strengthen the former’s image and the Opposition needed to counter the BJP on ideological counts.
Raised hands and clenched fists of all leaders present in the Kolkata rally, organised by the Trinamool Congress (TMC), not only gave a perfect photo opportunity to Opposition leaders but somewhere down the line increased the frown lines of the defender — the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Many considered the rally largely as an exercise to project TMC chief and West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee as a possible prime ministerial candidate of the grand Opposition alliance for the Lok Sabha poll even though the stated objective was to bring all anti-BJP parties on the same platform. But that’s just one aspect of the burgeoning index of Opposition unity.
Of course, all the 20-plus parties that participated in the Kolkata rally on January 19 had different agenda on their minds. Most of them were looking for a better outing in the Assembly polls with their respective alliances, where the BJP has become a force to reckon with since 2014. But given that the TMC hosted the first successful Opposition rally and managed to get on board almost all leaders and parties opposed to the BJP, it can now safely claim to be the leader of this Third Front. Banerjee also pitched herself as a sort of an arbitrator for possible disputes, whenever and wherever they arise, among this Front. Her diplomatic handling of the stage and giving importance to all the leaders present amply suggested her ease of managing diverse interests, her acceptability and showed her national ambitions.
But the fissures in such a loose formation are still too wide and its ability to pose as a united front before the election is still a matter of speculation. Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief Chandrababu Naidu, who was present in the Kolkata rally, has practically abandoned the Congress with which he had sewed an alliance for the Assembly polls of Telangana. Congress president Rahul Gandhi and Naidu had become the poster boys of this mahagathbandhan then, beaming as they were with hands raised in solidarity.
As an afterthought, the TDP supremo perhaps realised that he cannot give much space to the Congress to grow in his home state of Andhra Pradesh. An alliance with the Congress in the State would limit his chances to have a go at the chair of Prime Minister. He might have perhaps looked at the prospects of him somehow becoming a possible compromise candidate in the event of this Opposition grand alliance getting close to government formation.
Besides, Mamata Banerjee and Chandrababu Naidu, who are possibly looking at a national role for themselves, this anti-BJP Opposition front also has Dalit leader and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief Mayawati as the prime ministerial candidate. She has been endorsed strongly not only by her own party but also by her newly-found political partner and nephew Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party (SP). The Bua-Bhatija alliance is the one which has set the tone and template for the general election and almost every political pundit now says that the road to New Delhi this time would go through the lanes and bylanes of Lucknow and Uttar Pradesh.
Days before the Kolkata rally of the Opposition, the SP-BSP alliance in Uttar Pradesh triggered a wave of anticipation among the anti-BJP front and threw open a wide range of political possibilities at the cost of the saffron party in the largest State of the country. The TMC rally simply took the idea of unity ahead and sort of announced to the world that the neutral Third Front was alive and kicking and both the BJP and the Congress should consider it as a possible contender for the throne in Delhi provided it gets the numbers leaders are hoping for. And if all parties do well individually, then the Congress can provide outside support if the situation so warrants.
Coming back to the SP-BSP alliance, even the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in Bihar, which has a vote base similar to the SP’s in Uttar Pradesh, is excited about its prospects. This perhaps explains why Tejaswi Yadav, the de facto supremo of the party in the absence of the incarcerated Lalu Prasad Yadav, dashed to Lucknow to congratulate Mayawati on her birthday and tweeted pictures in which he touched her feet reverentially. It’s rare to see bonhomie between the parties representing the Dalits (BSP) and OBCs led by the Yadav community (SP and RJD), as they have not only been at political but also social loggerheads for decades.
Tejaswi knows for sure that keeping the BSP in good humour would only help consolidate and expand the vote base of the grand alliance in Bihar. Dalit leader and Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) chief Ram Vilas Paswan is firmly in the NDA fold, at least for the Lok Sabha election, and the RJD would be more than happy to get any incremental votes of Dalits in the State if Mayawati is on board even if the BSP does not contest a single seat as part of the grand alliance in Bihar. In fact, the RJD could go to the extent of offering a seat or two to the BSP even though the Mayawati-led party does not have any foothold in the neighbouring state.
In this season of anti-BJP posturing, photo ops and alliances ahead of the Lok Sabha poll, the only motive seems to be removal of Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister by working out sound electoral mathematics and ensuring a higher seat turnout than the BJP did in the 2014 polls. The SP-BSP alliance is simply banking on the fact that if it gets a combined vote share, which is higher than the NDA’s in the state, it would be in the driver’s seat. Of course, chemistry and adjustment are equally important in alliances and it remains to be seen how firmly it is cemented at the grassroots and booth levels.
Left out of the alliance in Uttar Pradesh — a move on expected lines — the Congress is neither happy nor unhappy at this moment, contemplating the different possibilities along with permutations and combinations ahead. Optimists in the party believe that at the end of the day, the SP-BSP alliance could be a part of the UPA if the numbers so demand and they are at a striking distance of forming the next government. Of course, Mayawati would throw her hat in the ring for a possible go at the chair of Prime Minister if the situation so warrants and the mahagathbandhan gets a respectable number of seats. This situation would be conditional on the Congress not doing well and remaining well below 100 seats, regional parties dominating the results and the BSP itself performing well and getting a reasonable number of the 38 seats it would be contesting out of the 80 in Uttar Pradesh.
But there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. Post-verdict electoral understandings, support and alliances could be quite different from the ones cemented pre-poll. In a possible scenario where the NDA is a little short of majority, the BSP could always spring a surprise. It has a history of aligning with both SP and BJP, and there has been no shift in BSP’s ideology even as it goes to polls this time around as a formidable force in alliance with the SP in Uttar Pradesh.
Similarly, the TDP, too, could go anywhere — from the NDA to the UPA, or to Third Front — in the post-poll political calculations. In the last six months, we have seen the party travelling all platforms. So there we are. It all depends on numbers after the polling and till then, all political parties would be posturing and keeping their options open. Much water will flow till then.
(The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer, Chandigarh)
Writer: Amitabh Shukla
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, took the fight to his enemies’ camps on Tuesday. He warned both the LDF and the UDF that the day is not far off when the BJP would unseat them and win power in Kerala. Addressing a huge NDA rally at the historical Cantonment Grounds at Kollam, Prime Minister Modi lambasted the CPI(M)-led LDF as well as the Congress-led UDF for their stance on the Sabarimala Temple issue.
“The entire nation is speaking about Sabarimala. The blunders of the CPI(M) would go down in history as the most shameful act. The CPI(M) speaks about gender justice while they behaved in the most shameful and inhumane manner at Sabarimala Temple. Why did they oppose in Parliament the Bill banning triple talaq if they have concern for gender justice and welfare of women?” asked the Prime Minister.
Modi also said the Communists are known for their hatred to Indian history, culture and spirituality; the Congress is also no different in this issue.
“The BJP is the only political party which believes and works for the all-inclusive growth of the population,” Modi added.
He said the Congress is notorious for its double standard as well as hypocrisy. “What is their stance on Sabarimala? They speak something in Parliament only to contradict the same the next day outside the House. The LDF and the UDF are the two sides of the same coin. They are the ones who strengthened casteism, communalism and corruption in the country,” Modi said, and listed the achievements made by the country under the NDA regime during the last four and a half years.
The Prime Minister pointed out that Kollam, which was once famous for its cashew nut industry, is suffering because the Governments led by the UDF or the LDF did nothing to revive and resuscitate the sector. He assured the people of Kollam in general and Kerala in particular that the BJP would soon emerge as the ruling party of the State.
“I know the karyakartas of the BJP are being assaulted, attacked and victimised by the LDF Government. I would like to remind the Communists and the Congress that if we could win over people in Tripura where we had no representation, Kerala is not far away. Our workers will overcome and win Kerala too,” said the Prime Minister.
Earlier, the Prime Minister dedicated to the nation the 13-km long two-way Kollam bypass built at a cost of Rs 352 crore which would bring down the travel time between Alappuzha and Thiruvananthapuram.
“The project conceived in 1972 could be finished only after the BJP-led NDA Government took charge in New Delhi and released funds for the speedy implementation of all infrastructure projects which were facing inordinate delay,” Modi added while inaugurating the bypass.
The PM took strong objection to the delay in the execution and completion of the infrastructure projects. “I came across 250 projects which have consumed Rs 12 lakh crore and yet remaining incomplete after decades. This is a serious crime because the common man is deprived of the fruits of development,” said Modi.
Vijaya Mohan Valiathan, a chartered accountant, staying near the bypass said the project got delayed because of land acquisition issues. “Two huge bridges, lack of funds, tendering delays, estimate revision requirement and of course Government red tape were the main reasons for the delay the project,” Valiathan said.
Writer: Kumar Chellappan
Courtesy: The Pioneer
In the end it is all about seizing the pre-poll narrative for the general election and whoever does that better, may just get some customers or force a self-serving discussion. That is why the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP)’s withdrawal of support to the BJP-led Government in Assam is more about finding a politically opportune moment than real dissatisfaction. Yes, the AGP is right in arguing that the new citizenship amendment Bill as proposed by the BJP, granting citizenship to Hindu refugees from across the border till the cutoff year of 2014, is detrimental to Ahom identity and the right of indigenous people over their land, indeed the wherewithal of its politics. However, it was not that the AGP didn’t know that this was coming though, it can be reasonably argued, it found itself in a box in launching a counter campaign. It knew that the ruling Sarbananda Sonowal government would not fall if it withdrew support as it had overwhelming numbers (74 to AGP’s 14) and was unsure about its standing as an independent party that had the faith of the people.
The panchayat polls of December restored its confidence as did the Assembly election results that got the Congress back in reckoning in some states. But it was when other NDA allies became restive, demanding a pound of flesh or two from a dented BJP, that the AGP decided to get into the ring. Sensing the national sentiment at the moment, the AGP has realised that while the state government could run without it, it could threaten the BJP’s winning prospects in the Lok Sabha with its pullout. The BJP, not exactly riding the wave pre-2014, may not get the monolithic heartland verdict and would need every extra seat from the Northeast, which it has been nurturing and betting on. In about four seats, the BJP needs the AGP to effect a swing or defeat an entrenched Congress vote. Pundits predict if the Congress woos AGP and other parties to form a state level alliance and ensures a convergence of vote shares, then they could halt the BJP juggernaut in the general election and push its tally back from the seven seats it won in 2014.
The AGP’s main contention is a refugee influx, irrespective of religion, would change the demographic contours of the border districts that would forever be a prey base for the larger national parties and ensure the local parties are squeezed out. The BJP is clearly following a me-too model that has worked for the Congress and other Opposition parties at one time. As waves of Bangladeshi migrants crossed the borders, each Opposition party is equally guilty of legalising their stay and shoring up its respective votebank. If it was Muslims before, it is Hindus now. So the AGP has little choice now but to stand out as a strong regional voice. Meanwhile, the BJP is losing the tide of opinion as far as its allies are concerned. First, it was the TDP, then it was the PDP in Kashmir, followed by the Upendra Kushwaha-led Rashtriya Lok Samta Party. The Shiv Sena still likes to trouble it now and then while the latest withdrawal missive from Apna Dal (Sonelal) has revived the perception of the BJP as an arrogant big brother feeding off the smaller parties and then grinding them to dust. As we said, it is all about the visual narrative. Depending on trade winds, all allies jump ships.
Writer:The Pioneer
Source: The Pioneer
It is often said that ‘Uttar Pradesh is India and India is Uttar Pradesh.’ A win in India’s most populous State can prove to be a game-changer for any party, nationally, as it accounts for 80 out of the 545 parliamentary seats. Besides, Uttar Pradesh has gifted many Prime Ministers to our country. As the two foe-turned-friends — Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Samajwadi Party (SP) — inch closer towards a grand alliance in Uttar Pradesh ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha election, minus the Congress, the poll scene is becoming interesting. The Congress could still become a coalition partner if there is any breakthrough in alliance talks. But as of now, the two regional satraps want to keep the Congress out as it does not have a place in their scheme of things as yet. They want to win the maximum number of seats in their stronghold and take matters from there to a post-poll scenario to do the final bidding for the top job.
First, the SP and the BSP do not need the Congress which is a lightweight in that crucial State. Second, the Congress’ votes are not transferable. Third, the SP feels that its experience of aligning with the Congress during the 2017 Assembly election did not work. Also, the Congress did not include the lone SP legislator in the recent Madhya Pradesh Cabinet. Though it was the Congress that had been stressing on the need to bring regional parties together to take on the BJP, after its recent wins in Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, it failed to honour the demands of smaller parties. Fourth, BSP supremo Mayawati is worried about some Dalit votes moving to the Congress’ camp. She has made her political calculations keeping her party’s interests in mind. Fifth, both parties feel that a three-cornered contest would benefit the alliance as it can stop the Congress’ votes from going to the BJP in protest against the grand old party joining the alliance as the former’s core voters are from Dalits, Other Backward Classes and minorities.
The grand alliance might include Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) and some smaller parties. The RLD, once strong amid sugarcane farmers of western Uttar Pradesh, has just begun to re-organise itself. The alliance is also trying to get Om Prakash Rajbhar’s Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party and the Krishna Patel faction of Apna Dal. Not only does the tie-up has arithmetic but also chemistry as the once bitter enemies — Mayawati and SP chief Akhilesh Yadav — are now on ‘aunt and nephew’ terms. In 2014, the BJP had a vote share of 42.63 per cent in Uttar Pradesh, while the SP-BSP combine got 42.19 per cent — its almost the same. With Mayawati winning 22.23 per cent of the votes even in 2017 and the SP securing 28.32 per cent, together, they polled over half of the total votes. If the Congress also joins the alliance, the combined vote share of the three parties will be more than that of the BJP’s. There is a divided opinion in the Congress about it joining the alliance. This is in sharp contrast to 2017, when the party, in one voice, favoured a tie-up with the SP. One section feels that making the contest triangular is bound to hurt the BJP. The grand alliance might have a strategic understanding with the Congress to help each other.
But where does all of this leave the BJP? Experts say that it means the alliance might pick up about 50 seats. Then the BJP and the Congress would be left with 30 seats. The Congress could pick up two seats — that of the Gandhis and perhaps one or two more. The BJP can at best hope to get 24 or 25 seats. After the recent loss of three Hindi heartland States — Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh — it might lose another 30 seats. In other States, it might shed 20 seats. So, expectation is that the BJP could lose as many as 100 seats. The party would have to cover up the gap from other regions to reach the 282 mark that it won in the 2014 Lok Sabha poll. But how much can they make up in West Bengal, south and Odisha? Moreover, the BJP does not have any big alliance partner. The Telugu Desam Party has quit and the Shiv Sena is threatening to break alliance. The Peoples Democratic Party has left and the Akali Dal is disgruntled. About 18 smaller parties have left the NDA fold since 2014. However, the BJP does not agree with this analysis. They believe that the people will vote for Modi. The party is hopeful that with a strong leadership, effective communication, disciplined organisation, unlimited funds and a divided Opposition, it can make a come back.
However, one can sense a certain degree of worry within the party. BJP chief Amit Shah is subdued and the top leadership is already on a course-correction mode. It will be looking for a new narrative in its national council meeting next week. But Modi can spring surprises. One week is said to be long in politics and three months is quite long to make any prediction. One thing is certain that the BJP will emerge as the single largest party with or without forming the Government.
(The writer is a senior political commentator)
Writer: kalyani shankar
Source: The Pioneer
While the mahagatbandhan talks take place over lunch and dinner meetings in an election season, the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) have frozen their mutual alliance in Uttar Pradesh over a tub of ice-cream and are determined not to share it with the Congress or let anybody else melt it with their warmth or anger (SP chief Akhilesh Yadav has already called out the BJP over the CBI case against him in a sand mining case as political vengeance). Superficially, it might appear that the SP and the BSP have been somewhat miffed at being cold shouldered post the Assembly victories of the Congress in the three States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. While the SP is sulking that its lone MLA had not been accommodated in the Madhya Pradesh Cabinet, BSP chief Mayawati made her ire public saying the Congress should not take its support for granted in the same State if cases against some Dalit protesters were not withdrawn. Chief Minister Kamal Nath promptly took care of her wishes. But the fact of the matter remains that politically both the regional parties would have a greater bargaining chip sans the Congress. Akhilesh particularly learnt this the hard way during the last Assembly election, which cost him the chief ministership despite speeding up on the performance index in the last two years of his tenure. That was because a pre-poll alliance and mutual accommodation ensured SP did not have a full play of the seats. And the Congress vote share wasn’t transferred to it either. In fact, it flitted away to other parties, so insignificant it is in Uttar Pradesh.
Even today the Congress’ vote share in India’s barometer State is in dismal single figures. Nor is it loyal enough to now migrate to caste-based parties. In fact, it has gone to the BJP. Even the Muslim votes are not with it anymore. And if the Phulpur bypoll was the litmus test, then both SP and the BSP realised that their committed votebases could work to each other’s advantage in alliance and getting the arithmetic right. The Congress, with its minuscule presence, would prove to be a dead weight than an asset. So it works for both SP and BSP, given their solid vote percentages, to pose a threat to the BJP’s vote share in combination and even surpass it for the Lok Sabha. If the alliance does succeed in gaining a major share of the Lok Sabha seats in Uttar Pradesh, it will clearly have a greater say in the formation of the new Government, whatever that might be, and may have an opportunity to claim its relevance at the State level. Besides, Akhilesh may have lost the chief ministership but is still reaping the dividend of an image change he has effected over the years, emerging out of his father’s shadow and politics of opportunism to posit himself as a dynamic, young and doer leader. He certainly doesn’t want to dilute this or get swamped by associating himself with Congress chief Rahul Gandhi. It works for both the SP and BSP that the Congress stay in the fray as a vote-cutter of the BJP and helps justify the backward caste-Dalit coalition, something which is otherwise considered a marriage doomed from the start, as a front against the upper caste, Thakur raj of Yogi Adityanath. This anti-oppression stance might just work.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
A prime ministerial interview is an occasion for the incumbent to address his constituents, not an opportunity for critics to extract their pound of flesh. In an interview to news agency, ANI, Narendra Modi tackled a range of issues with finesse. Deflecting charges of corruption in the Rafale deal, Modi made the subtle distinction that the allegations were not against him, but his Government: “If there is any allegation against me personally, let them dig who gave what, when and where and to whom”.
This is a gentle dare to Congress president Rahul Gandhi to find a link to Modi; the Bofors kickbacks trail led directly to Sonia Gandhi crony Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose London bank accounts were unfrozen by the UPA Government to allow him to withdraw the money. The Rs 30,500 crore offset deal with Dassault, under which the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and nearly 70 private firms will manufacture varied equipment, lacks similar resonance. Modi pressed the point mildly, “What is the need for middlemen in defence deals? … Had ‘Make in India’ been initiated 70 years back, the malai khane wala raasta from outside would have been closed”.
Modi expanded on the surgical strikes: “When Uri happened, when our jawans were killed, burnt… there was rage within me… I realised that the anger in the Army was much more than mine. For the morale of the forces, they somehow wanted justice to be done…” Thus, the operation was planned. “I gave clear orders that whether you get success or failure, don’t think about that, but come back before sunrise”. Revealing that he was in live contact that whole night, he said there were anxious moments when the flow of information stopped for an hour after sunrise, until he was finally told the men had returned safely. Thereafter, Pakistan was informed, the Cabinet Committee on Security met and an Army officer briefed the nation.
Denying that his Government or party politicised the issue, Modi countered that the very same day, “leaders of some parties raised doubts over the surgical strikes. It was necessary for Pakistan to speak like this to keep their morale intact. But what Pakistan was saying, was being said here too…. Politicisation started from that point”.
Regarding overtures to the then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and congratulatory message to Imran Khan, Modi said India, be it UPA or NDA, favours dialogue, but talks are inconsistent with cross-border terrorism. Dismissing criticism of his foreign trips, he said all Prime Ministers have similar travel schedules because of the numerous multilateral forums; “If the level is lower than the Prime Minister, the voice is not heard… I try that India’s voice reaches the world… My visits are noticed because I interact with people and take decisions”.
Combative over allegations that his Government has weakened institutions, Modi charged that the previous Government created the National Advisory Council against the Prime Minister and Prime Minister’s Office; a Cabinet decision was torn up by a big leader (read Rahul Gandhi) at a Press conference; judges were selected on the basis of ideology, and many Reserve Bank of India Governors were forced out before completion of their terms. However, when his Government learnt of the bickering in the Central Bureau of Investigation, the top two officials were asked to go on leave. He insisted Urjit Patel resigned for personal reasons.
Denying charges of vendetta raids, Modi hinted at the Sohrabuddin judgement where the Supreme Court observed that the case seemed tailored to implicate political leaders. The Enforcement Directorate secured a “razdaar” from a foreign country, and a Congress worker turned up as Christian Michel’s lawyer. Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya fled because tolerance for their activities ended, but international laws are being invoked to bring them back, and their property is being seized even in foreign countries. While those, who absconded under previous regimes, have not returned, Modi promised, “those who fled during this Government, will be brought back… Those who have stolen India’s money, will have to compensate for each and every penny”.
Modi said he was the first to raise the issue of black money and banking havens at the G20; this was accepted as a serious concern and a source of terror funding; nations agreed to share information. While many well-connected accused are moving freely, he remarked, “those considered first family, who ran the country for four generations, are out on bail, that too for financial irregularities. It is a big thing… The country’s former Finance Minister is making rounds of courts…”
On the generally clubbed issues of Ram temple, triple talaq and Sabarimala, the Prime Minister said the Ordinance was a response to the Supreme Court verdict; triple talaq is an issue of justice and is banned in most Islamic countries; while Sabarimala temple has its own traditions, just as there are temples where men cannot go. Moreover, “a woman judge in the Supreme Court has made certain observations..… There should be a debate on that as well sometimes”. As for Ayodhya, the matter is at its final stage in the Supreme Court. Urging Congress lawyers not to create obstacles, he promised that once the judicial process ends, “whatever be our responsibility as Government, we are ready to make all efforts”.
Regarding Congress’ promises of loan waivers for farmers, Modi said these have failed to resolve the farm crisis; farmers have to be saved from incurring debt in the first place. On Opposition plans for a grand alliance, he said parties with no national agenda were uniting on a single agenda of opposing him (Modi). On Uddhav Thackeray’s criticisms, he said the BJP adhered to coalition dharma in 2014 when it won its own majority, and he was committed to giving space to regional aspirations.
Modi condemned lynch mobs in the name of cow protection and the political violence in which BJP workers have been killed in West Bengal, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam, and Jammu & Kashmir. On Ganga, he said a drain polluting the river for 120 years has been closed and the next step is to cleanse the tributaries that drain into the river. The Prime Minister answered questions on all important and current issues; in the run up to the polls, as in 2014. More televised interviews can be expected.
(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)
Writer: Sandhya Jain
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month