It is true that Jawaharlal Nehru was for his time, a modern person. But he could not convert modernisation into a mass movement as Modi has
The return of Mr Narendra Modi with a generous mandate for the second time makes it necessary to go into the rest of the phenomenon. When he was elected in 2014, there were experts who felt that the people had voted with their feet. Even tolerant Indians could not take the gargantuan corruption presided over by the financially honest Dr Manmohan Singh. Being entirely new to Delhi and Central politics, Modi was looked upon as a parvenu, who would play out his time rather like a cricket nightwatchman. With demonetisation, many a veteran of the Lutyens establishment was astounded. Actually, if an economy is to be modern, it cannot indefinitely run on two sledges, white and black: the latter had to be eventually eliminated. This did not make the veterans more sympathetic to Modi. Instead, in order to condemn demonetisation, they innovated and created a new expression— “informal sector” — for the Black economy.
The GST was originally initiated by the Manmohan Singh government and yet when the Modi government introduced it, the tax was repeatedly criticised by Singh’s party, the Congress. Modi’s Pakistan policy was frequently denounced until Balakot. However, that he was the first Indian leader to be invited to address the British Parliament and to be asked for an exclusive lunch by Her Majesty the Queen at Buckingham Palace evoked no compliment from the honourable Opposition. Instead, the Prime Minister was accused of destroying institutions. In short, Mr Modi remained a parvenu in the Lutyens circle, who hoped he would be marginalised in the just held general election. In order to make sure that he does not return to power, the Congress president called him a thief on an average three times a day. Unfortunately for the Congress president and his party, the people of India decided otherwise.
Why have the people of India chosen Mr Modi for a second term in the face of the most furious opposition that any prime ministerial candidate has ever faced in independent India? Every political party in the opposition had one common programme and that was to remove Modi from power. Such a unanimous opposition agenda was last seen in 1977 against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. But the masses of India perceived Narendra Modi as the first leader who had risen from the soil and loved his motherland more than everything else, including his own mother, whom also he loves. The people who have faith in him have not been disappointed. He has ruled for the last five years and convinced us that he has worked for the people and the country and not for himself. No previous prime minister could be tested on this touchstone. Do not think that this faith and sentiment are confined only to the Hindus; they extend to quite a number of Christians, Muslims and others, in whose veins run similar blood. Others, including many a Hindu, whose bodies reside in India but whose souls yearn for overseas, are not for Modi.
Narendra Modi is a moderniser of the country and within it. It is true that Jawaharlal Nehru was for his time, a modern person. He did think of building irrigation dams, factories that could build advanced machines, starting Indian Institutes of Technology as well as Management, giant steel plants and so on. When he became Prime Minister, the country was give or take, living in the 19th century. That India could catch up and become contemporary was not part of our thought medium. However, while Nehru did build numerous temples of modernity in a dominantly agrarian society, he did not bring about a revolution in the minds of the people that they needed to modernise and in turn, could put their shoulder to modernising the country. In other words, he could not convert modernisation into a mass movement.
Rajiv Gandhi was brought up in a contemporary environment and had spent time in England. He then learnt to fly aeroplanes; then a transport medium of the latest variety. He understood machines and certainly chose more or less the best passenger aircraft in the Airbus. An equally good choice was the Bofors artillery gun, if we overlook for a while the financial scandal attached to it. Gandhi, as it were, grew up parallel with the growth of the computer and could operate the electronic machine with aplomb, and he did try to introduce its use in government institutions. But before he could go far, he lost the 1989 election and went out of power. In any case, he might not have been able to go very far because he could not motivate men with the same aptitude he could move machines. Before we move to another prime minister, we should not forget to record that millions of telephones were installed in India during Rajiv Gandhi’s time.
Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, compelled by dire financial circumstances as he stepped into power, did bring about an economic revolution. From a party wedded to a socialistic pattern of society, it had now no choice but to overturn it into promoting laissez faire. In short, he embarked on a path of economic liberalisation as a step towards globalisation. Atal Bihari Vajpayee took liberalisation forward to some extent. His main contribution, however, was introducing the construction of modern highways, which can be considered a step towards modernisation.
To come back to Narendra Modi, he launched modernisation along with preaching its importance; of all places, from the ramparts of the Red Fort in his first Independence Day speech. He began with according importance to society with the slogan Swacch Bharat. Even earlier, his election campaign theme of 2014 was development, which willy-nilly implied modernisation. “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” clearly implies participation of all for the purpose of progress.
One of the first steps Modi took after becoming Prime Minister was to abolish the Planning Commission with the help of a Cabinet resolution. This was possible because Nehru had set up the Commission by a Cabinet decision. Such a Herculean economic step was taken without going to Parliament, perhaps because Nehru was apprehensive that the comparatively conservative members of the Constituent Assembly might not approve of such a commission. After all, national planning was introduced by the Soviet Union in the name of Gosplan. Incidentally, one of the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet economy was the excessive powers assumed by Gosplan.
As the years went by, the Yojana Bhavan in India began being misused for manipulating power over the States. Money was allotted generously, provided the State Government toed the Central government line. Whether the money allocated was used or misused depended on the State Government. The Planning Commission’s work ended with sanctioning the year’s Plan expenditure. The Finance Ministry disbursed the money. Thereafter, implementation and monitoring were entirely the State’s function. In the bargain, there was over-expenditure, misuse of funds and inflation. With the abolition of the Commission, inflation has come down quite remarkably.
Many reforms were introduced, especially keeping the poor people in mind. It is not that the previous governments had not thought of them, but a large chunk of the money earmarked was kept back by middlemen. As Rajiv Gandhi in his time had said, only 15 per cent reached the poor person. Mr Modi’s policy has been to ensure that all poor people should have their own bank accounts, wherein monies due to them can be remitted directly. All in all, it would be fair to say that through the last millennium, India experienced popular badshahs and hateful nawabs, benign rajas and cruel ones and the British rulers. But Narendra Modi is the first one who truly belongs to the soil of India. A 12-year-old schoolgirl discussing Modi was quoted saying that the measure of love is what one is willing to give up for it. And Modi intends giving himself to India.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. Views expressed are personal.)
Writer: Prafull Goradia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Why Varun Gandhi? BJP RSS mission beyond Modi Shah era will be determined by the choice of young leadership available with the party in the next decade. Varun Gandhi who has carved a niche for himself beyond his haloed family can be the answer; off course along with the top young leadership of the party namely UP CM Yogi, Maharastra CM Devendra Fernavis, Anurag Thakur, Smiriti Irani and others. Today he has expressed complete faith and appreciation for the current leadership of the party and surprisingly, he is critical of the present Congress leadership. According to him, there is absolutely no match for Narendra Modi leadership in the country and he has expressed confidence that Prime Minister Modi will guide BJP to stupendous victory in GE 2019.
BJP leader and youth icon Varun Gandhi is a sitting Member of Parliament for Lok Sabha from the Sultanpur constituency and likely to be renominated from Pilibhit parliamentary constituency soon. He is also member of Bharatiya Janata Party and was inducted into Rajnath Singh’s team in March 2012 as General Secretary. Though Varun Gandhi is a member of the Nehru-Gandhi family but he has carved out an independent identity in the national politics with tremendous hard work and strategic vision. Varun attended Rishi valley School and Modern School C.P. New Delhi and the British School, New Delhi where he ran for a position on the student council. Varun earned Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Economics from University of London. Varun Gandhi was first introduced to the Pilibhit constituency by his mother during the 1999 election campaigning. Maneka had been a part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) since earlier but she and Varun formally joined BJP in 2004. Varun Gandhi campaigned for the party in the 2004 elections, covering over 40 constituencies. In an interview to Stephen Sackur in BBC’s HARDTALK in October 2005, Gandhi answered questions about the reasons behind his political affiliation and defended his father as someone who had helped revive the industrialisation of India by starting Maruti Udyog and whose strategy helped the Congress party’s comeback after the first ever non-Congress Janata Party government following an electoral routing for the Indira Gandhi-government after Emergency, among many other things.
In the 2009 general election, the BJP decided to field Varun Gandhi as its candidate from the Pilibhit constituency instead of his mother Maneka Gandhi. He won the seat by receiving 419,539 votes and defeated his nearest contending candidate, V.M. Singh, by a margin of 281,501 votes. The victory was the strongest of any of the four Gandhi family candidates in the election: his mother Maneka Gandhi, aunt Sonia Gandhi and first cousin Rahul Gandhi. The security deposits of all other candidates, including those of V.M. Singh of the Indian National Congress and the Bahujan Samaj Party candidate Ganga Charan Rajput were forfeited. A case was filed against Gandhi for allegedly making a provocative speech about Muslims, at a meeting at Dalchand Mohalla area of Pilibhit, however he was acquitted by in court in the matter. On 5 March 2013, a Pilibhit court acquitted Gandhi in the second hate speech case registered against him during the 2009 Lok Sabha election campaign. In March 2013, Rajnath Singh appointed Varun Gandhi as the national general secretary of the BJP. He became the youngest ever general secretary of the party. In May 2013, Varun Gandhi was made in-charge of the BJP’s affairs in West Bengal. In June 2013, Gandhi requested Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar to call an emergency all party meeting in view of the calamity in Uttarakhand in which thousands of people had died. He suggested a number of steps like contribution from MPLADs fund, forgoing of three months’ salary by MPs and tax incentives for corporate and individuals for help. He has said that he spoke to many MPs and all of them were ready to contribute. He said that the Speaker should act as a catalyst and coordinate the action plan. In July 2013, Gandhi handed over a cheque of Rs 1 lakh from his salary account to family members of former Jan Sangh Member of Legislative Assembly late Bhagwati Prasad, who died at a government hospital after prolonged illness and age-related complications. The former MLA had to spend over an hour on the floor of an emergency ward before doctors at the hospital realised he was an ex-MLA and was subsequently given medical attention. His family didn’t even have money to perform the last rites after his death. Varun said he came to know about Prasad only after his death. Describing the late MLA as a model of honesty, he said it was hard to find an honest leader like him. In August 2013, newspapers reported that Gandhi was the only MP in the country who had spent cent per cent of his MP Local Area Development Fund (MPLAD) before stipulated time. According to official sources, Varun Gandhi used his funds for the development in education, health and infrastructure activities. His proposals were worth more than the entire MPLAD fund thus ensuring the entire amount of 25 crore was spent during his tenure as a Member of Parliament. His political aides stated that he submitted the proposals on time and also employed his personal team to monitor the use of money.
In September 2013, Varun Gandhi accused the Samajwadi Party-led Uttar Pradesh government of pursuing the politics of appeasement, and said that its mistakes would lead to its collapse, after it denied permission to Varun Gandhi’s rally in Agra just two days before it was scheduled to take place. He denounced Rahul Gandhi’s infamous outburst against the controversial ordinance against convicted lawmakers, and said that it was an insult to the Prime Minister, who was abroad at the time, and therefore also disgraceful to the nation. He also said that if the Prime Minister had any dignity left, he should resign immediately upon his return to the country, on the day of Rahul Gandhi’s outburst. In March 2014, he said that he holds no ill-will against Rahul Gandhi and won’t campaign against him during Lok Sabha Election.In February 2014, Gandhi kick started his campaign for election 2014 in Sultanpur. He gave an emotional speech to an enthusiastic crowd in Kadipur, and said that he had come to Sultanpur to fulfill his father’s dreams. In May 2014, Gandhi defeated Amita Singh from Sultanpur in Lok Sabha 2014 elections.In March 2016, he introduced the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2016 in Lok Sabha.
In August 2011, Varun Gandhi strongly pitched for the Jan Lokpal Bill. Gandhi offered his official residence to Hazare to hold his fast, after Hazare was denied permission by the government. When Hazare was jailed, Gandhi offered to table the Jan Lokpal Bill in Parliament.On 24 August, he went to Ramlila Maidan as a common man to support the cause of Anna Hazare, becoming the first politician to openly support the anti-corruption cause. He writes articles and policy papers for several national dailies and magazines in India, such as The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Asian Age, The Hindu, Outlook, The Pioneer among others. He writes the largest syndicated column in the country covering 21 newspapers – including Malayala Manorama, Lokmat, Hindustan Times, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Amar Ujala, Sandesh, Bartaman, Sakshi – reaching more than 200 million readers. Gandhi wrote his first volume of poems, titled The Otherness of Self, at the age of 20, in 2000. His second volume of poems, titled Stillness was published by Harper Collins in April 2015. The book became the bestselling non-fiction book, selling over 10,000 copies in the first two days of its release. In 2018, he released his book on the Indian rural economy titled The Rural Manifesto: Realising India’s Future through her villages. The book sold over 50,000 copies in ten days of its release.
BJP MP Varun Gandhi has called for change in India’s political system, including the right to recall elected representatives and more representation for women, saying people should have a greater say in democracy. He said people are less aware about the selection of their elected representatives, and choose them based on caste, religion and region, which is not the way to take the country forward.
Varun Gandhi highlighted varied issues faced by the Indian farmers: Agrarian issues have always been at the forefront the Indian electorate, as a majority of our rural population is still is largely dependent on agriculture. However, decreasing landholdings (average landholding size is 1.13 hectares, decreased marginally from 1.41 hectares in 2000, a far cry from the global average of 3.7 hectares), rising input prices, unsustainable water usage, inadequate energy access and failure to take any advantage of economies of scale make farming an increasingly difficult proposition with time. Post 1991, agriculture has grown at 1% on average, while industry has grown at 8% – we have built our economy on the backs of distraught peasants. Policy apathy and policy inefficiency have adversely impacted farmer condition over a long term. Perhaps it’s time for a re-look at our national priorities.
Inadequate marketing reforms are an important reason for dwindling farm incomes. The challenge is that the farmer loses out in both good and bad times. In bad times, crop failures lead to rural debt and in good times, it leads to drop in prices. Our increased focus on groundwater extraction, essentially a symptom of inadequate irrigation, has led India to top the list of countries with maximum freshwater withdrawals, with water availability declining by 70% since independence. Free or cheap electricity for running pumps have led to reduced investments in our agricultural mechanization, whilst contributing to the financial burden of State Electricity Boards, which in turn remain ill-equipped financially to undertake transformative initiatives in our energy transmission and distribution. Our agri-procurement policies have incentivized farming of water-intensive crops in regions with limited groundwater availability and facing risk of aridity.
Farm loan waiver is essentially an emergency measure. It remains a short term, stop-gap arrangement till credit culture improves alongside rising farmer incomes. Let us consider few figures – indebted farm households have increased from 25 percent in 1992 to 52 per cent in 2016. The average debt of an agricultural household stands at Rs 1.04 lakh, whereas the average monthly income stands at Rs 8,900 – thus, average debt is roughly their annual in
come. Nearly 70% of India’s estimated 90 million agricultural households end up spending more than their earnings, thereby being caught in a spiral of ever increasing debt. In such times of economic desperation, a farm loan waiver is needed to provide immediate relief.
Non-farm diversification is typically an important pathway for empowering especially landless labourers and marginal farmers, helping them overcome the land constraint for growth while offering sustainable income that can provide capacity to absorb external farm shocks and provide capital for agricultural investment. Most of rural non-farm income is associated with urban migration, with most village youth working as labourers in nearby towns and cities. Among non-farm income sources, livestock and construction incomes are a broad-based critical component. The recommendations of the Swaminathan Committee pertaining to distribution of ceiling surplus and wasteland shall help our landless and small/marginal farmers.
Varun Gandhi is likely to be elected in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections and he will definitely play extremely vital role in the next government. Today BJP has formidable leadership in Narendra Modi and BJP is building up gen next leadership with an intention to dominate the national politics. Varun is the front runner for handling the command from the present leadership. Surely with his experience of parliamentary life, young leader will be the key to the macro level planning of BJP RSS think-tank.
Prashant Tewari Editor-in-Chief in conversation with Varun Gandhi M.P.: Inputs from Prakhar Misra Political Editor Opinion Express.
* VARUN GANDHI’S INTERVIEW WILL BE PUBLISHED IN OPINION EXPRESS NEXT ISSUE.
The tragic end of the Congress’ greatest intellectual leader, PV Narasimha Rao, can never erase the contribution he made to redefine the journey of a modern, powerful India
Most of us visualise PV Narasimha Rao as a frail old man but he was a firebrand activist during his youth, engaging in guerrilla-type insurgency to topple the Nizam of Hyderabad. The angry young man subsequently rose to become the Prime Minister of the world’s largest democracy. Rao’s calibre and competence can be equated with Jawaharlal Nehru’s gold standards in politics. The tale of perhaps India’s two best Prime Ministers is contradictory yet fascinating. Nehru and Rao did not have much in common except that both were intellectuals. Nehru’s intellectualism was shaped by Harrow, Cambridge and Lincoln’s Inn; by Bernard Shaw, Russell and the Fabians. He probably dreamt in English. The title of his book, The Discovery of India, is a disarming confession of his need for discovering the land of his birth. Rao’s intellectual centre, on the other hand, was India. Unlike Nehru, his knowledge of Sanskrit was profound. He was a man of learning, a scholar, a linguist and a thinker of the first order. His roots were deep in the spiritual and religious matrix of India.
Click to watch video : BharatRatna4 PV Narasimha Rao | Opinion Express TV
Rao was a man of the soil. From humble social origins, he rose to become the ninth Prime Minister from 1991 to 1996. As a teenager, he was part of the Vande Mataram movement in the Hyderabad of the late 1930s. Rao was a polyglot — aside from his mother tongue, Telugu, he had excellent command over several other languages — nine Indian and six foreign. His political career was shaped by his involvement in India’s struggle for independence. His early mentors included Nehru and Indira Gandhi. He was the most trusted advisor to the latter, having impressed her with his intellectual prowess. Former Law Minister HR Bharadwaj acknowledged that Indira Gandhi always depended on Rao’s intellect to navigate her Government’s policies and party’s machinery. She appointed him the country’s Foreign Minister in 1980. This gave him a big break. With his penchant for picking up languages, Rao fitted snugly into the high-flying world of international diplomacy despite being a teetotaller and a vegetarian. In 1986, Rao, as Human Resources Development Minister, formulated the National Policy on Education on his newly-acquired word processor in six months. However, he was unable to push for funds to implement the ambitious policy, which included the Navodaya schools.
By the summer of 1990, Rao was preparing to retire from public life and had packed his bags to move home to Hyderabad when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by LTTE sympathisers. Suddenly, circumstances catapulted Rao into the country’s top job. His ascendancy to the Prime Ministership was politically significant in that he was the first holder of this office from a non-Hindi-speaking region, the South. Rao was supposed to collapse soon — if not under his advancing age, then from pressure from multiple sources. Instead, he lasted the full five-year term, turned the economy around, brought normalcy to Punjab and stamped his authority by virtually pushing detractors to the wall to be the real centre of power in the Congress. How did he manage this feat? What led to the transformation of a timid party worker more willing to follow than lead as a decisive head of Government? How did the change of heart from a Left-leaning protectionist to a free market champion happen? What techniques did he apply to have his way in a party that largely had little regard for him? This happened in a year of multiple changes and challenges. India and the world were in turmoil and grappling with change, the historical significance of which was not immediately understood by many.
Similarly, we hold Rao in high regard for his Right-wing, pro-capital reform measures for opening up the economy to liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. But he was a fierce advocate and practitioner of socialism when he was the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. His bold reforms for redistribution of land to the poor and downtrodden as also his strict enforcement of the land ceiling Act created such a strong backlash from established big landlords that Indira Gandhi had to take him back from State politics as a Minister in the Union Cabinet and declare President’s rule in Andhra Pradesh for some time. So it is extremely wrong to paint Rao as a Right-wing politician just because he was an architect of economic reforms.
The economic crisis of 1991 was the consequence of a political impasse India found itself in. A series of political and economic events of 1980s came to a head around 1990-91. India was on the verge of defaulting on its external payments obligations, with foreign exchange reserves dwindling rapidly as oil prices went up, exports went down and non-resident people began withdrawing their deposits in foreign currency accounts in India. While this situation can, in part, be attributed to unexpected and extraneous factors like the Gulf War of 1990-91, the difficulty was almost entirely on account of political brinkmanship and populism. The responsibility for the events that combined to push India to the brink of default must lie with Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh and Chandra Shekhar and it was left to Rao to arrest the slide and clean up the mess. The credit for understanding the seriousness of the situation and acting in time goes to him alone.
Adopted to avert the impending 1991 economic crisis, the reforms progressed furthest in the areas of opening up to foreign investment, capital markets, deregulating domestic business and altering the trade regime. His Government’s goals were to reduce fiscal deficit, privatise the public sector and increase investment in infrastructure. Trade reforms and changes in the regulation of foreign direct investment were introduced to open India to foreign trade while stabilising external loans. Rao chose Manmohan Singh for the job: An acclaimed economist, he played a central role in implementing these reforms. The impact of these changes may be gauged from the fact that total foreign investment (including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment and investment raised on international capital markets) in India grew from a minuscule $132 million in 1991-92 to $5.3 billion in 1995-96. Rao began industrial policy reforms with the manufacturing sector. He slashed industrial licensing, leaving only 18 industries subject to licensing. Industrial regulation was rationalised.
Rao, who held the Industry portfolio, was personally responsible for dismantling the Licence Raj, as this came under the purview of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. For this, he is often called the “father of Indian economic reforms” although his own party refuses to acknowledge it. He was, in fact, the author of the most radical shift in India’s economic policy since Nehru’s famous Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956. Nehru’s resolution had declared that India would strive to establish a “socialistic pattern of society.” In 1991, Rao moved away from that pattern to unleash private enterprise.
Rao increased military spending and set the Indian Army on course to fight the emerging threat of terrorism and insurgencies as well as Pakistan and China’s nuclear potential. It was during his term that terrorism in Punjab was finally decimated. It is said that Rao was “solely responsible” for the decision to hold elections in Punjab, no matter how narrow the electorate base would be. Rao’s Government introduced the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, India’s first anti-terrorism legislation.
He even strengthened diplomacy, making overtures to Western Europe, the US and China. Way back in1992, he decided to bring into the open India’s relations with Israel, which had been kept covertly active for a few years during his tenure as a Foreign Minister. Israel got to open an embassy in New Delhi. He ordered the intelligence community in 1992 to start a systematic drive to draw the international community’s attention to Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism against India and not to be discouraged by American efforts to undermine the exercise. Rao initiated the ‘Look East policy’ with three objectives in mind, namely to renew political contacts with the ASEAN member nations; to increase economic interaction with Southeast Asia in trade, investment, science and technology and tourism; and to forge strategic and defence links with several countries of Southeast Asia. He decided to maintain distance from the Dalai Lama in order to avoid aggravating Beijing’s suspicions and concerns and made successful overtures to Tehran. The ‘cultivate Iran’ policy was pushed through vigorously by him. These policies paid rich dividends for India in March 1994, when Benazir Bhutto’s efforts to have a resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva on the human rights situation in Jammu & Kashmir failed, with opposition by China and Iran.
In spite of significant achievements in a difficult situation, the Indian electorate voted out Rao’s Congress party in the 1996 general elections. Soon, Sonia Gandhi’s coterie forced Rao to step down as party president. Receding into forced oblivion, he died on December 9, 2004. But the Congress insulted a loyalist even in his death, simply because he didn’t figure in the dynastic paradigm of the party. It is alleged that the closest aides of Sonia Gandhi ensured his body was not allowed inside the AICC building and moved to Hyderabad. The grand old party ignored the debt it owed to the “Brihaspati (wise man) of Andhra Pradesh.” On multiple occasions, Sonia praised contributions of all Congress Prime Ministers except Rao in her various speeches. Even today, the Congress leadership shows extreme reluctance to acknowledge the role played by Rao to bail the Indian economy out of a severe crisis.
Rao was India’s first “accidental” Prime Minister and a path-breaking one. He took charge of the national Government and restored political stability; assumed leadership of the Congress, proving that there was hope beyond the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty; pushed through significant economic reforms; and steered India through the uncharted waters of the post-Cold War world. While the Congress has distanced itself from him, the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi has acknowledged his contribution in nation-building.
A simple man, Rao deployed Chanakya like tactics and strategies in dealing with the minority status of his Government, winning over support at times through questionable means. He was a man of simple tastes but with a complex mind.
Vinay Satpati, his biographer, has done an admirable job of putting up the thought process of the original “accidental Prime Minister” and the good and bad which came from that accident. In the end, though, the good is so overwhelming that the bad must take a back seat. To quote Sitapati, “His legacy lives on…his half-burnt body continues to glow.” To sum up PV in a line, “he had Pandit Nehru’s intellectual capacity and Sardar Patel’s administrative calibre.”
(The writer has worked closely with the late Prime Minister of India; is Editor-in-Chief of Opinion Express and a columnist with The Pioneer)
Writer: Prashant Tewari
Courtesy: The Pioneer
It is a well known fact that most rules neither understand their people nor care to know, but it cannot go on like that forever. At the end of the day, nemesis must appear and do what it must
Evidently, in a 20th century democracy, Muslims were uncomfortable with a Hindu majority — a more educated community where many people owned big industries and business. Whereas the Muslim elite had only land, chances of them being taken were high as zamindari was expected to come into force if the Congress came to power after independence. The Indian ummah went wild after Partition without giving a thought as to which side of the border it would be located. Meanwhile, a few commentators called MA Jinnah as the super advocate of Indian Muslims as he delivered their plea in Pakistan. After thirteen months, he died. As fee, he got a place in history as the “literal founder” of a large country. He was no less and no more committed to his cause, or rather his brief.
In some ways, Jinnah can be compared to say, Napoleon Bonaparte, an Italian from Genoa, who became a French soldier of fortune to rise to be the Emperor. He crowned himself with more glory than most but ended leading France to near destruction. Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, happened to join the Wehrmacht or the German Army to rise in World War I, only to be a mere corporal. Thereafter, in the course of time, his adopted country went wild with inflation and economic ailments to rise to unthinkable heights of power. He committed suicide because he had led Deutschland to near ruin. Joseph Stalin, a Georgian who rose to supreme power in Russia, won World War II for the Soviet Union. He led it to the path of denouement. In a comparable sense, Jinnah did not belong to Islam nor to the cause of Pakistan. He was their advocate, came and did his duty with immaculate competence. As we have said, he was for Pakistan, an alien leader. Little wonder, he left behind a country with more faults than strengths.
The first thing that struck some experts in Calcutta in the early days of Partition was how could East Bengal co-exist with West Punjab as provinces. Temperamentally, people of both sides are so different. Therefore, a loose federation of two or three common subjects should have been contemplated between the West and the East. A common religion became adequate to induce both to separate from original India of 1946, but not binding enough to hold them together in a marriage indefinitely. Inevitably, there was concentration of authority in the Western wing, which gradually led to what happened through 1971. For the Western provinces, too, a federation — not so loose, say, seven subjects — was necessary. Instead, there was no Constitutional arrangement until 1954. The muscle of each province was allowed to play until then. No wonder, the biggest and the strongest Punjab had its way. Even after 1954, people were not given sovereignty. Therefore, unlike the people of neighbouring India, Pakistanis were not responsible for governance. From the British, it was transferred to God; in 1954 it was written in the national document.
Jinnah had no exposure to administration — whether in his career as a Barrister or as a politician. Even as a leader, his forte was ‘debate’ and not the ‘pulse of people’s feeling.’ For his success at the end, it is the Muslim people who had the pulse of their leader, that he could deliver Pakistan. Had it been the other way around, the Qaid would not have landed in Dacca (now Dhaka) in February 1948 and brusquely told the university students that Urdu would be the national language and that Bengali would have no comparable place. The fire of secession was lit that day. In due course, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman left the League to form his Awami League.
Jinnah’s speech on August 11, 1947 to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi proved that he was confused. If every citizen could worship his own way freely, only being loyal Pakistanis, why have the Partition at all? Being a soldier, President Ayub Khan could be forgiven but what about the men around him? They combined all provinces of the west into a jumbo province of West Pakistan with Khan Sahib as the premier to offset the weight of the eastern wing. Instead, it would have been much wiser to sub-divide the East into three or four provinces. They were less likely to unite behind Sheikh Mujibur then as they did in 1971.
Instead of regretting the loss of the eastern wing, the impression President Yayha Khan conveyed was that it was good riddance. In fact, there were whispers that Bhutto liked the secession without which he could not have commanded a western wing majority and, thus, not been able to become the Prime Minister. This conveyed the feeling to the other or non-Punjab provinces that they are dispensable, if not also redundant. To make matters worse, the Centre built the Tarbela Dam on the great Indus, which lets very little of its water to cross Punjab. Down the great river, the Kotri Dam was built to supply water to farms in Sindh. The net result is also that from the Karachi delta, up 150 km of the river, the water is salty because it is from the Arabian Sea, having flown up into riverine space. Imagine the reaction of the citizen of Karachi who tastes the salty water!
The moral of the story is that neither do rulers understand their people of various regions nor do they care to know. It cannot be hunky dory forever. Sooner or later, nemesis must come and do what it must. Dark clouds are already gathering over Pakistani skies. The darkest is the alienation of the US, which in the name of military aid, enabled Pakistan to import everything, including beef. In Ayub Khan’s era, he had prohibited the consumption of beef one day a week. The shortage was gathering then. What now? The Chinese terms of aid are much more stringent with the risk of handing over some territory for failing to return the money. Be led by alien leaders, enjoy a picnic of prosperity and eventually come a full circle to meet disaster or destruction.
Napoleon, clever and capable as he was, did not fully understand the French people. They like a balanced life. Do not expect them to go on fighting and getting killed continually as Napoleon made them do. For example, 1812 and the French rout in Russia was fresh in everyone’s memory when the Emperor began planning a major engagement at Leipzig. Meanwhile, he had already won two victories at Lutzen on May 2 and Bautzen on May 21. In June 1813 came the big battle of Leipzig. The time-table was relentless and the Grande Armée and its French soldiers could not just cope with it.
Again, Hitler did not grasp the overall quality of the people he was leading. Nor did he recognise that he was himself not the blonde Nordic Aryan he claimed to be but a character of the ideal German. Moreover, Germany was the centre of Europe and its civilisation with its intellect, its sensitive ear for creating music, art and painting, not to overlook literature and philosophy. One wonders if the Chancellor mistook his people for the ancient Teutonic barbarians. Any wonder where he landed them?
So, did Joseph Stalin misread the Russian people? The way he translocated communities has to be known to be believed. They were uprooted and resettled hundreds of miles away. They were treated worse than cattle because with animals, one is conscious of protecting lives. But Stalin’s men let as many die as the transfer dictated.
The cruelties his regime heaped upon the Kulaks, the Army officers and the petit bourgeoisie were incredible. Stalin, thus, set the pace and his successors delivered the great country to disintegration. These are the prices that alien rulers make their countries pay.
(This is the final in a two-part series on MA Jinnah by this columnist)
Writer: Prafull Goradia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The world moves at an ever-faster rate. Those who take too long to decipher the modern code tend to be left behind. However, there are individuals who have the capacity to rise above these challenges and put themselves bang in the centre of the storm. They chase the twisters and harness that energy to give life to issues that often get forgotten or misrepresented. My friend Bob Blackman, Member of Parliament in the UK has not been shy about where he stands on even the toughest of issues. Today I write to give you a glimpse of the man who has become the champion for India, and for Jammu and Kashmir.
Bob Blackman MP of Harrow East has been a long-term champion of the Indian diaspora in the UK. He has remained a strong voice of the British Indians representing them in the parliament as well as other National and International platforms for over 25 years, including as a Councillor and Leader of the Brent Council nearly two decades before being first elected as the Member of Parliament for Harrow east in 2010 and re-elected to the seat in 2015.
In the House of Commons, he stood up and said, “I know of no other issue that creates such emotion among this country’s Indian and Pakistani communities as the position of Jammu and Kashmir. It is important that we as elected representatives should debate the issues and represent those views. I stand as an unabashed friend of India to defend India’s position in the conflict and the people who were ethnically cleansed from Kashmir.”And as recently as 26 October 2015, Bob sponsored the historic seminar commemorating the 68th anniversary of the signing of the instrument of accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India by Maharaja Hari Singh.
I caught up with Bob and below I share with you in brief some key elements which I am sure will be both informative and enlightening.
What is your current position?
I was elected MP for Harrow east in 2010, winning the seat from Labour, and successfully re-elected in 2015 with an increased majority. I am Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Hindus, Secretary of the India APPG, member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Inter-Parliamentary Union executives and Secretary of the 1922 Committee. I am also a member of the Communities & Local Government, Procedure and Backbench Business Committees.
What are your proudest achievements to date?
I was instrumental in turning around the London Borough of Brent which was regarded as a centre of left wing radicalism in the 1980s, reforming the finances and cutting the local tax rates every year for 6 years whilst dramatically improving local services.
Who/What inspires you?
Mahatma Gandhi for changing the world through peaceful means.Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for being the inspiration in the creation of a strong India and in my view, he should have been the PM. Winston Churchill for being steadfast in the face of the most severe adversity.Margaret Thatcher for rescuing the UK from being the sick man of europe. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi for making Gujarat the economic powerhouse of India and for inspiring India to believe that the whole nation can become a great power.
What has been the biggest obstacle in your career?
I attended a state comprehensive school and Liverpool University. I have only had the privilege of a loving family and the wonderful support of my wife. At every stage of my political career, I have had to overcome the obstacle of those with prejudicial views on an individual’s background. At every stage, people have tried to prevent me from achieving my potential.
Who has been the biggest influence in your career to date?
My wife has been my constant guide and help over the years. I have observed a number of politicians over the years and taken appropriate guidance from each of them. I have cherry-picked ideas from others rather than had one inspiration!
What would you like to achieve before GE2020?
I am keen to ensure that we abolish the ill-thought out, unnecessary and divisive caste discrimination legislation. This was passed in the last Parliament but has not been enacted as yet as it was passed by a combination of Labour and Liberal MPs against strong Conservative opposition. The legislation has created consternation amongst the Hindu community who rightly regard this as creating friction where none exists.
If you were the Prime Minister of the uK, what one policy would you wish to implement and why?
I strongly believe that we need to create an international partnership between the UK, India, USA and Israel to help preserve the security of the free world. I believe that the special relationship that exists between the UK & USA needs to be replicated with both India and Israel.
Where do you stand on the Eu Referendum and why?
I am immensely proud to represent one of the most diverse constituencies in the UK. Harrow is also one of the safest boroughs in London, home to a lot of hardworking people who genuinely care about our community and ways of life. I was born and raised in North London. As a former local Councillor and representative of Brent and Harrow on the Greater London Authority, I have seen the damage being caused by remote and unelected bureaucrats from the european Union. endless red tape is harming local businesses, unchecked immigration from europe is making a housing shortage into a crisis and lots of people are being trapped by unfair visa policies.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Our hands are tied by european Union policy which is designed to discriminate, so that jobs go to europeans who can move freely across our borders instead of potentially better qualified people from our Commonwealth cousin nations, despite far closer family ties and shared history and values.
When people can’t even welcome relatives to the UK short term for weddings or family events, and our temples can’t bring over the expert stonemasons they need to maintain their buildings, because of a biased and overloaded immigration system, we have to do something.
I want the UK to trade freely with our friends from the Commonwealth and other developing nations. I want the immigration system to be a fair and just one where people from India are given preferential access to the UK. Currently we have no control over immigration from the eU and draconian restrictions are placed on those applying from outside the eU as a result. We also need to remove the artificial trade barriers against goods from the Commonwealth and provide an equal playing field to those goods and services from the EU.
You are very outspoken when it comes to Jammu and Kashmir, can you tell us where you stand on this critical issue? I have been outspoken on the issue since 1991, when I heard about the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits. I held a conference in Brent Town Hall on the subject and was instrumental in ensuring that the subject of Jammu and Kashmir was mentioned in the 1992 Conservative Party Manifesto for the 1992 General election.
I am firmly of the view that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is part of India and so it should remain. I believe that the Pakistani forces, illegally occupying part of Jammu and Kashmir, should leave the region and the whole of the state should be reunited under Indian Administration in line with the original decision of the Maharajah.
I visited Jammu and Kashmir in February 2016, and I saw for myself the opportunity for increased trade, commerce and tourism to the state. I am looking forward to helping to promote the first ever Jammu and Kashmir festival in the UK in the autumn.
If you were marooned on a desert island, which historical figure would you like to spend your time with and why?
If I was marooned I would want someone with me with a practical capability of surviving in extreme circumstances! I take a very practical view! I would therefore choose David Livingstone, the famous explorer.
So, you now have a sense of the man. Let me also bring you totally up-to-date. On 13th July 2017 Bob placed before the British Parliament the following EDM:
That this House condemns the recent killings of innocent Hindu pilgrims in Anantnag, Jammu and Kashmir in India; recognises it as a gruesome attack on innocent pilgrims by Lashkare-Toiba, an internationally recognised terrorist group, led by Abu Ismail; urges the Government to condemn strongly the attack and stand with India in the fight against terrorism; calls on the Government to investigate if there are any direct or indirect links to organisations or individuals in the UK that may be involved in such cross-border atrocities in India; and further calls on the Government to reject all forms of terrorism and support to organisations and individuals propagating such ideology and to take strong action against such organisations and individuals in the UK to ensure peace in the UK as well as India.
This has been one of the most powerful statements ever presented to the British Parliament on Jammu and Kashmir. So I say to Indians everywhere, search out in your politicians, people of character and integrity who are willing to champion the toughest of causes – so that in the end we can secure justice for those who have been wronged. Great Britain and India have a history. It has not always been rosy, and yes there are multiple areas where redress is still outstanding. However, Indians in the UK are beginning to galvanise political support so that many of these important matters can be approached with seriousness and the customary diplomatic tact.
The era of PM Modi has given hope to millions in India and around the world. We have even seen the USA issue their formal State Department note in which they now formally say, the ‘State of Jammu and Kashmir’. In the space of a few years the world order is changing. With such changes the UK and India, with their special understanding and relationship, can take full advantage of the situation for the welfare of their respective citizens. We live in interesting times, let’s see who remains steadfast in reaching their goals.
Konversations with Kapil
Twitter: @kapil Dudakia
Southern Politics in tailspin courtesy Dr Subramanian Swamy
Dr Swamy effort to cleanse southern states politics has started yielding results. Tamil Nadu politics minus Chidambaram’s influence shall be ethical and healthy. Dr Swamy’s long legal battle with PC & corrupt family is reaching to its logical conclusion. In fact, Congress people should thanks Dr Swamy for prosecuting corrupt PC so that the grand old party can be liberated from the maximum corrupt practices promoted by Chidambaram since he has become a power centre in the party. Chidambaram was the architect and author of all the mega scams in India namely 2G, Coal, NPA scam, Aircel Maxis, NDTV, Vasan Eye Care, Shradha Scam, Forex derivative scam, Airbus scandal to name the few scams that rocked the nation.
It was Dr Swamy in August 2018 who unlocked the clandestine relationship between PC, Ahmed Patel with Congress Karnataka leader DK Shivkumar and handed over the evidence to investigative agencies leading to the ED registering case against DK recently. IT department has already collected enough evidence against this agent of PC and Ahmed Patel who with his set of conduits’ operated cash collection for his Delhi bosses. Incidentally the set of information regarding the corrupt trio is provided to Dr Swamy by rival group of disgruntle Congress leaders unhappy with the JD(S) Congress party alliance to form the collation government. The streaming of classified information is flowing now due to the vertical split in the Congress party that includes information on the controversial Govind Raju diary wherein the IT department has raised demand from the tainted Congress MLC.
With the seizer of the property of Karti Chidambaram: there is a huge unrest in the entire Congress party. The imminent action that was installed by certain forces in the government seems to be broken by the Prime Minister’s interference on the specific complaint made by Dr Subramanium Swamy to PMO. The Congress leaders and associates likely to be prosecuted are P Chidambaram & family, Robert Vadra, Ahmed Patel, BS Hooda, DK Shivkumar, Virbhadra Singh. Modi government has yielded to the advice of Dr Swamy to fast track investigation against the Congress leadership so that BJP can go in the 2019 elections with conviction that they have delivered on the election promise of dealing the corruption head on. PMO has instructed the investigative agencies to fast track pending investigation to bring confidence in the common masses, it will bring floating votes back to BJP.
Dr Swamy has vowed to track down all the white color criminals to cleanse the politics. After hunting down Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case, P Chidambaram & family in multi corruption cases, BS Hooda in HUDA case, DK Shivkumar in Hawala case linked to AP & PC: Dr Swamy is likely to push for the prosecution of the culprits in the court of law.
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu politics is likely to witness tremendous structural change in the next few days. Dr Swamy is a man in hurry to convict the Neta’s who have looted the country and they are responsible for the entire mess in the country including the poverty, Naxalism, poor health care and disastrous education system, poor justice system. According to his own words, ”corruption in India is the biggest cause of misery for millions for native Indians and I have taken pledge to wipe it off from the country with or without the support of the government machinery”.
Prakhar P Misra : Political Editor, OPINION EXPRESS.
When we do not find a Bharat Ratna for four years, admitting to a colossal vacuum of national genius and worth, and then suddenly find three jewels — two of whom are no more with us, and one of long-time provenance — then it means that we have been blindfolded and woken up to sudden enlightenment. Or as this year’s roll call of national honours shows, set our goals deliberately, namely the general elections. Nothing else can explain why the NDA government has strayed from just rewarding ideological affiliates to celebrating a rainbow coalition of non-partisan and big names from public life. Except that the neutral choices seemed far more politically motivated than they would otherwise. And the messaging was far from subtle. Little wonder then that Gita Mehta, sister of Odisha Chief Minister and BJD leader Naveen Patnaik, refused the Padma Shri bestowed on her, saying the intent behind it would be misconstrued in an election year and she would much rather have people believe that she got it for her worth. It is no secret that the BJP is trying to woo Patnaik, who is hell-bent on maintaining a political equidistance. It also explains why life-long Congressman and ex-President Pranab Mukherjee wondered aloud what he had done so great to merit the nation’s highest award. Of course, Mukherjee’s choice is in tandem with the BJP’s appropriation of Congress icons, from Mahatma Gandhi — who dominated the Republic Day flotilla — to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The BJP clearly wanted to show that the Congress didn’t even bother to reward the dyed-in-the-wool partyman for his contribution to the sustenance of its governments only because he didn’t kowtow to its first family. It is no rocket science to understand how both he, though he may not talk about it, and many across the spectrum were surprised about him being passed over for prime ministership in 1984 and 2004, mainly because of opposition from the Gandhis. With Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira and Rajiv Gandhi also Bharat Ratnas, the BJP seems to be attempting to soothe hurt pride of a dedicated public servant, who at one time was heading the maximum number of the now abolished GoMs (group of ministers), and equate him as an equivalent of the dynasty. But if the BJP believes that backing Pranabda would get it sympathy from Bengal, appealing to the gentry’s respect of him, it is highly mistaken. Just as it is mistaken that Mukherjee himself, while maintaining cordial relations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, will feel grateful enough to critique the Congress. Even while gracing the RSS event, he had ended up emphasising plurality and inclusiveness and not disappointed the Congress one bit. Naming Assamese author, singer composer Bhupen Hazarika for Bharat Ratna — and playing his song during the R-Day parade — was again a desperate attempt to assuage the Assamese sense of identity. Given that the Citizenship Bill has stoked a wave of ethnic protests across the Northeast with even Mizos staying away from R-Day, the BJP hopes to build bridges by positing one who commands reverence across the region. With the Asom Gana Parishad walking out as an alliance partner, the BJP has a boiling cauldron it can ill-afford to stir in pre-election season. In fact, the Bharat Ratna to Nanaji Deshmukh, while intended to appease the RSS, still doesn’t seem biased considering his socialist credentials. Even the Opposition would find little fault in his contribution to rural development or his sustainable solutions on water management and agriculture. The only homage to anti-Congressism comes from his role in the anti-Emergency movement.
In the end, everybody, citizens included, should question the increasing politicisation of the nation’s highest civilian award and insist upon a national poll on the greatest Indian of the year. Granted some have been political tributes to founding fathers and their struggles, others have rightly honoured men of rare talent and stature. But just because a template is skewed by non-transparency doesn’t mean it cannot or should not be set right. Bharat Ratna should celebrate rare talent and cannot be allowed to be used as a tool for settling political wrongs. Just as a Padma Bhushan to Nambi Narayanan cannot be looked at as an apology for wrongly labelling one of India’s best cryogenic specialists a spy.
Writer and Courtesy: The Pioneer
Mission 2019 in Uttar Pradesh will be guided by Yogi, Amar Singh and Shivpal Yadav
The Mission 2019 of Modi is likely to be routed through UP and BJP is likely to be challenged by Akhilesh Mayawati combination but there are few twist to the story. Mayawati may not like her vote bank to shift to SP and in return, the SP vote bank deserts BSP so she is planning to go solo in UP. The SP is likely to be divided in two parts with Shivpal yadav is likely to form a separate group. Congress is desperately seeking support from SP & BSP to remain relevant through they are focused on two parliamentary seats in UP. Fringe player namely RLD may go with anyone to secure seats for father and son. So there is a strong possibility that BJP will push its aggressive hindutva agenda with yogi to consolidate majority community on religious grounds. Modi will campaign on development agenda and clean image and Amit Shah will push for division of vote in the opposition ranks with Amar Singh being the guiding force to achieve the objective. India’s governing party, BJP, appointed yogi Adityanath, the 44-year-old priest turned politician, to be chief minister of Uttar Pradesh (UP). Adityanath has called for India to be a Hindu nation (according to a recent census, the country is 80 percent Hindu and 14 percent Muslim) and supports the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a razed 16thcentury mosque (which, given that he is now chief minister, may well happen). Why would Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party, on the heels of its greatest political victory since 2014, which it won largely on Modi’s political coattails, appoint such a person? “The results of the Uttar Pradesh elections suggested strong consolidation of much of the Hindu vote in the state,” Dhume explained, adding, “the BJP wants the symbol of that consolidation to be a confrontational figure best known for his animus toward Muslims.” Politics in UP are characterized by three things: personal wealth amassed by corrupt politicians, nepotism within party politics, and disproportionate power of
those in the coalition. Because coalitions in power were so narrow, those in it enjoyed tremendous pull, which gave rise to the idea that Muslims had disproportionate political clout, according to Dhume. Further, by choosing a head of a Hindu holy order, BJP is aiming to transcend caste, an idea that Modi put forth during the campaign. But so, too, does it signal something else. Since coming to power, Modi has focused on “development politics” — reforms (or promises of reforms) that would develop and strengthen India and its economy. And so Adityanath’s appointment suggests not that the BJP may be abandoning development politics, but that it will also pursue identity politics. And that it may be doing so to the detriment of 14 percent of India’s population. Shivpal yadav, political analysts feel, could
be a game changer in the Lok Sabha elections by damaging the Samajwadi Party Shivpal Singh yadav, a senior Samajwadi leader in Uttar Pradesh and younger brother of Mulayam Singh yadav, is the man of the moment. He has caused upheaval in the state’s political arena by floating a new outfit called Samajwadi Secular Morcha (SSM) which could lead to a vertical split in the Samajwadi Party as the Lok Sabha elections draw near. Shivpal yadav, political analysts feel, could be a game changer in the Lok Sabha elections by damaging the Samajwadi Party. I have formed the SSM for those who have been feeling insulted and humiliated in the party even though they are socialists to the core,” When asked that leaders in the SP still feel that Mulayam Singh yadav will ultimately convince him to return to the SP, Shivpal yadav said, “I have always respected Netaji (Mulayam Singh) and everyone in the Samajwadi Party owes his existence to him. I will never tolerate if anyone tries to humiliate him. Whatever decision I have taken is with the blessings and consent of Netaji and there will be no going back now.” The SSM leader reiterated that since he had taken a step forward, he would not look back. “I have built the SP and worked for almost 30 years and yet nobody spoke to me during the presidential elections. I was not invited for the dinner given on the eve of Rajya Sabha elections but when the party president phoned me and asked me to attend the dinner, I went there. I have not been invited to any party meeting or function. What is left for me to go back to?” he asked. Shivpal yadav said that he waited patiently for things to improve and change but the SP seemed to have strayed from its basic principles. He said that farmers are being neglected, the poor are being sidelined and these people were hoping that the SP would address their problems but the party is not doing so. There has been no agitation after the elections and, therefore,
he had to float the new party.
Asked whether his SSM would pit itself against the BJP or the SP-BSP alliance, Shivpal yadav said, “We will contest all 80 seats and like-minded parties, those who believe in Mahatma Gandhi, Ram Manohar Lohia and Charan Singh are welcome to join us. We will contest against anyone who challenges us. Of course, we will not field our candidate against Mulayam Singh yadav, if he contests from Mainpuri. In fact, I have offered him the SSM ticket.” About the changing political scenario ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Shivpal yadav said, “The election results will reflect what the people want. There have
been several occasions when elections have thrown up unexpected results. I will go straight to the people and seek their votes and support.” Responding to SP president Akhilesh yadav’s allegation that there was a BJP hand behind the formation of the SSM, Shivpal yadav said, “I have never had any talks with any BJP leader and neither has anyone from their party spoken to me. I have only spoken to those leaders (read SP leaders) who have been sidelined and insulted like me and they are joining us.” Shivpal yadav said that he would now focus on strengthening his Morcha and travel across all 75 districts in the state to set up units and meet people. “It is no doubt a tough task to build up a new party but the response that I am getting is encouraging. We are confident of faring well in the Lok Sabha elections,” he said. Reacting to apprehensions that the SSM would damage the Samajwadi Party’s prospects and help the BJP in the bargain, Shivpal yadav said, “It is for the people to decide. No party can make another lose.
(Associate Editor, Opinion Express)
Read More – October Edition of Opinion Express Magazine
Karunanidhi was a political patriarch who reigned an illustrious era and shaped the Dravidian movement. He left behind a big void.
Visionary and sagacious he may have been but perhaps DMK patriarch M Karunanidhi, with his characteristic art of understatement, hadn’t quite envisioned the vacuum he would leave behind. “If one Karunanidhi goes, a hundred Karunanidhis would be born,” he had said. The assumption that his words would be enough to encode his DNA was utopian to say the least. For none have that calling and the commitment to chase it. He was the last man standing of an illustrious peerage of leaders who shaped the Dravidian movement, perhaps not as bright with magnetism as mentor Annadurai, his friend-turned foe MG Ramachandran, his nemesis J Jayalalitha, but solidly weaving a more realistic organisational matrix of cadres. In channelising a movement that single-handedly took on casteism, centrism and propagated federalism and the pride of origin, he created a template for a Tamil Nadu that still holds its own, a self-respecting entity that has managed to tame the swamp of aggressive north Indian politics. In that respect, he will always be the strongman of a system that, now devoid of its personality cult, is yet to fall to Machiavellian moves of the nationalist parties. That legacy deservedly goes to the Kalaignar. Few know that he led a language agitation that galloped into a movement against the imposition of a monoistic idea of India through the use of heartland Hindi. In that sense, he birthed the cultural idea of regionalism as an essential expression of India’s plurality and secularism. Often pioneers are forgotten because the models they initiate become the mainstay of a governance system that is followed by everybody. As chief minister, Karunanidhi codified social welfare policies that have impacted even Central schemes like reservation quotas for the backward, creating a public transport infrastructure and taking the primary school network to every village. He created the first student division of the Dravidian movement, encouraging students to be stakeholders in realpolitik and prioritising technology in the knowledge economy much before any leader. DMK was the only ruling party that opposed the Emergency and was dismissed. This standalone spirit explains the tidal wave of ordinary people who waited teary-eyed at his funeral. For he exemplified jan dharma and stood as its primary gatekeeper, sustaining his connect through generations of supporters and the oppressed by writing columns, elucidating his bold stand on issues. Even as a script writer, he turned his films into vehicles of a grand vision.
But Kalaignar will always be remembered for his masterstrokes as a politician, stitching up alliances and breaking them, seemingly opportunistic. For though he rallied for autonomy of States and prevented the Centre from encroaching on federal territory, that did not stop him from aligning with his tormentor Congress or the ideologically dissimilar BJP at the national level. He realised that with power-sharing, he could not only negotiate better resource flow to the state but also keep his chips relevant in the coalition games. Of course, that edge was quickly lost as corruption allegations clouded his family, something he was accused of prioritising in his last years. But they rarely touched his aura. Neither did son Stalin have an easy favoured spot, he had to earn his stripes. That speaks a lot about a man who is more a concept than a physical entity, dominant enough to get a hyperbole of eulogies.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
There are a few leaders in contemporary global polity who have successfully changed a war-torn country to a vibrant progressive democracy in their lifetime. Former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, a charismatic leader, accelerated the pace of development in nationalistic spirit by pushing various infrastructure projects that transformed the growth rate and the GDP of the country from 2009. He served as the sixth President of the island nation from November 19, 2005, to January 9, 2015. A lawyer by profession, he was first elected to the Parliament in 1970 and served as the Prime Minister from April 6, 2004, until his victory in the 2005 presidential election. He was re-elected for a second term on January 27, 2010.
However, due to international and domestic imperatives, he was defeated in his bid for a third term in the 2015 presidential election by Maithripala Sirisena. An ex-aide, Sirisena had been the Minister of Health in Rajapaksa’s Government and the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) before defecting to the Opposition coalition. Later, Rajapaksa unsuccessfully sought to become the Prime Minister in the 2015 parliamentary election, where the United People’s Freedom Alliance was defeated. Many had attributed the shocking loss to his authoritarianism, nepotism, poor governance and corruption but the fact of the matter was that the anti-incumbency factor and his strident desire to break new ground was the reason for his defeat. He was, however, elected as the Member of Parliament from Kurunegala district.
In 2005, Rajapaksa reshuffled the Cabinet and took charge of the Defence and Finance portfolios. He extended the term of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army, Sarath Fonseka, less than a month before he was scheduled to retire. Over the next three and a half years, Fonseka and Rajapaksa’s brother and the Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, led the country’s Armed Forces in their battle against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), ultimately defeating them and killing their leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. It was one of the most gruelling battles that the world has witnessed in recent times. It made Rajapaksa a national hero and an international leader of repute.
The most challenging phase of Rajapaksa’s political career came after he took over the presidency. A series of mine blasts blamed on the LTTE claimed the lives of many off-duty servicemen and civilians, pushing the country back to the brink of war. However, on May 19, 2009, Rajapaksa delivered a victory address to the Parliament and declared that the country had been liberated from terrorism. It was a near miracle achieved by the Rajapaksa-led team.
After ending the civil war in 2009, Rajapaksa’s Government is known for undertaking large scale infrastructure projects. Sri Lanka also made it into the ‘high’ category of the Human Development Index during this time. Initiation, completion, and development of many highways and roads, the Colombo beautification project, the rural infrastructure development projects and so on are some of the several highlights. However, the roadways are known for high costs and are suspected to have been the hotbeds of corruption. A large sum of Chinese loans tripled the country’s foreign debt, creating an economic crisis. But Rajapaksa insisted that under him Sri Lanka experienced rapid economic growth; the GDP growth rate reached over seven percent.
In a move that was widely seen as solidifying his control over the Supreme Court, Rajapaksa removed the Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake, from office in January 2013, allowing him to appoint an ally and legal adviser, former Attorney-General Mohan Peiris, as Chief Justice.
Domestic imperatives with regard to Tamil Nadu compelled New Delhi to keep an arm’s distance from Rajapaksa, forcing him to tilt towards China during his second term of presidency. In fact, the Sri Lanka Government offered preferential infra-projects to India but received a lukewarm response from the Indian side. It was alleged that Rajapaksa, during the 2015 presidential campaign and elections, received large payments from the Chinese port construction fund that flowed directly into the campaign and related activities. The perception was created that Rajapaksa had agreed to Chinese terms and was seen as an important ally in China’s efforts to tilt influence away from India in South Asia. It is after his unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2015 that Rajapaksa adopted a more skeptical China policy, opposing major development projects such as the Southern Economic Development Zone in which China had planned to invest over five billion dollars. He spoke to The Pioneer in an exclusive interview. Excerpts:
Q: The presidential election in 2010 saw the Sri Lankan electorate freely participating after more than two decades of turbulence, unrest, and war; you are responsible for liberating the country from terrorism and set it on the path to peace. What went wrong in 2015?
It was an international conspiracy against my Government that was successfully implemented by certain political opponents to capture power. I will not reveal the names of the countries involved but I will be cautious in the future. Opponents have successfully alienated minority communities from SLFP to facilitate consolidation against us. However, everyone has realised the current bad governance. I am sure the trends of the local elections clearly indicate that SLFP is on its way back to power in the next general elections.
The criticism that can be made out of your political career is that you promoted nepotism, appointing three brothers to run important ministries and assigning other political positions for relatives, regardless of their merit. How would you react to it?
I think the built narrative is completely false. All the position-holders were elected by popular votes in their respective constituencies and all candidates had won the elections by large margins in various elections. If the people like them, how can they be ignored? However, I had appointed Gotabhaya Rajapaksa by executive order because I thought he was the right person to deliver what we wanted at that time. And my stand is vindicated when he displayed tremendous skills to eliminate terrorism during our arm struggle against LTTE.
You won the presidency on a wide-ranging, people-oriented policy as laid out in the “Mahinda Chinthana”. How satisfying was your experience of governance?
Mahinda Chinthana means good governance for all. We drafted it to incorporate the desires of every section of the society in the political mainstream. Our concept is rooted in the soil; the governance that springs from the bottom of the pyramid. Yes, we have achieved most of our promises but we have to travel miles ahead to fulfill the aspirations of our native people.
Please narrate the experience of dealing with international communities in emergency situations so that other countries battling with terrorism can be inspired by your story.
We knew that wiping out terror would cost tremendous pain and stress but we were determined to live in peace permanently. The main issue was India because Tamil Nadu is an important State for the country and the sentiments were stoked by certain interests against the probable action. We created the TRIOKA plan wherein three high officials of each side were deputed for regular exchange of information to facilitate proper coordination. It worked as it removed the chances of dissemination of wrong information on either side. Finally, we offered a choice between peace and war to the LTTE and they opted for the later. We faced tremendous pressure from all UN organisations, certain pockets of Tamil-influence countries and other local pressure but we were resolute to solve the terror issue. Many European countries and their leaders visited us to mediate in the war but I stuck to my original decision. Today, we are one of the most peaceful democratic countries in the world and I take immense pride to say that I was always right in the conflict that was forced on us by the LTTE.
The remarkable transition from a war-torn country to a peaceful nation was achieved by you in no time. We have seen many Middle Eastern countries going through similar trauma but have ended up as a failed state after the war. How did you achieve this?
We have taken huge risks in the process like releasing 12,000 prisoners in 2009 immediately after the war. It could have gone wrong but we fought the war with a humanitarian approach. We realised that though the people fighting were misguided by vested interests, they remained our own. The defence forces must be commended for the remarkable job in the recent war history worldwide. They cleaned up the landmines in the north within one year after the war to facilitate immediate popular election process. This instilled confidence in the native population reminding them of our humanitarian sentiment and belief in the rule of law. We invested over a billion dollars in the northern part of the country to develop infrastructure and better living conditions for our countrymen so their affection could be reciprocated in the next presidential election of 2010, which I won by huge margins.
How do you assess the present state of the India-Sri Lanka relationship?
All is good but we have to strengthen it further. We have to continue the dialogue with the Indian Government on a regular basis on the economy, fisheries, free trade agreements and so on to build a more focused mutual relationship. I appreciate the efforts made in the individual capacity by few to improve the bilateral relationship between the two friendly countries. Effort must be made from both G2G and P2P level in consolidating the relationship.
Writer: Prashant Tewari ( He is Editor-in-Chief of Opinion Express Group & independent writer of repute, contact – prashanttewari@opinionexpress.in or twitter @ prashanttewari11 )
Courtesy: The Pioneer – The interview is published on 18 Sep 2019
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a long-standing parliamentarian and deeply respected leader across the political spectrum, served as the head of the Indian government three times. He is best known for reinforcing India’s credentials as a nuclear power before the world. His multi-dimensional diplomacy of keeping India’s vital interests centre-stage will sustain and nourish the country’s ascent to the global stage.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India’s universally respected and loved statesman-philosopher-poet, now has countless admirers. We do not know whether the artificial lines on the political map matter to the departed souls, but knowing Vajpayee’s fierce and unrelenting love for India, he could nurture some pride to the country’s ascending global profile and its growing indispensability to an increasingly complex and conflicted world. This may sound like inspired nationalistic spiel to some cynics, but for Vajpayee, making India count on the global stage was his consuming passion and a singular achievement.
Navigating the world: A man of many parts, Vajpayee was a natural navigator in a world driven by geo-political rivalries and fault-lines. Politics was his vocation and poetry his enduring love, but it was in the area of foreign policy that his genius shone and found its true metier. He loved traversing geographies and cultures, near and distant, and meeting world leaders, making a lasting impress wherever he went. Making a case for India and making his country count amid competitive power politics — these were the twin motifs that framed his multifarious engagements in whatever role he was playing at that point in time: MP, Foreign Minister, Leader of Opposition or Prime Minister.
He became the first Indian leader to deliver speech in Hindi before the UNGA and played an instrumental role in defeating Pakistan’s propaganda machinery as the leader of the multi-party delegation sent to the Human Rights Council in Geneva in 1994. His clear-eyed logic, reasonableness and eloquence, blended with sincerity, charm and charisma, swung India’s case in the most trying circumstances.
Transformational diplomacy: Vajpayee’s foreign policy legacy can be encapsulated in the transformative initiatives he launched vis-à-vis India’s relationship with three major power centres — the US, China and Russia — and his bold, albeit thwarted gamble in seeking peace with the perennially estranged Pakistan.
The crowning moment in his foreign policy resume was his audacious move to go nuclear in the summer of 1998. Vajpayee was visionary in finally acting upon the much-debated ‘go nuclear’ decision, which was hitherto mired in endless visions and revisions. He acted like a cool calculating pragmatist in riding out global opprobrium and punitive sanctions from the self-regarding nuclear oligarchy. With that masterstroke in Pokhran, he shattered the systemic hypocrisy that underpinned the edifice of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a discriminatory instrument of exclusion, designed to divide the world into the nuclear haves and have-nots. In the face of Western sanctions, he did not bow or implore, but relentlessly argued India’s case with precision, patience and eloquence.
“Sanctions cannot and will not hurt us. India will not be cowed down by any such threats and punitive steps. India has the sanction of its own past glory and future vision to become strong — in every sense of the term.” Vajpayee’s in-born conviction in India’s destiny as a global player paid off.
After a brief interregnum of hostility, the world’s powers-that-be relented and began the process of building bridges with a newly nuclear-empowered India. The high-stake nuclear gambit was vindicated when the US showed signs of making up, with President Bill Clinton visiting India in March 2000, followed by an invitation to Vajpayee to visit the US.
In June 2000, Vajpayee addressed the joint session of the US Congress, in which he famously described the India-US ties as “a natural partnership of shared endeavours.” This was followed by a prolonged and tortuous process of nuclear rapprochement, which culminated in the landmark India-US nuclear deal in the summer of 2015. In a tribute to Vajpayee’s far-sighted diplomacy, 20 years after India conducted nuclear tests, India is now part of three multilateral nuclear export regimes, including MTCR, Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement, a sterling achievement the Narendra Modi Government carved on the solid foundation of Vajpayee’s legacy. The next big move in India’s ongoing process of nuclear rapprochement is the NSG — it is but a matter of time as global opinion is now weighed in favour of India and if China were to relent, India will be inside the NSG tent tomorrow. The continued transformation of India-US relationship and its liberation from hesitations of history, ably carried forward by successive regimes, is a concretisation of Vajpayee’s foreign policy legacy. Looking at the current trajectory of India-US relations and India’s elevation as the US’ Major Defence Partner, not many remember that it was a fraught battle of wits for Vajpayee, who had to bear the onslaught of the Left and Right, as he set this vital relationship on an upward trajectory by describing India and US as “natural allies.”
Peace with China: The gifted globalist that Vajpayee was, he showed a similar foresight in making a fresh beginning with China, an emerging power which was beginning to manifest global ambitions. Contrary to the dominant narrative of India and China as rivals and enemies, Vajpayee realised early on that continuing adversarial relations with India’s largest neighbour will not be conducive to India’s rise. Acting on this conviction, he became India’s first Foreign Minister to visit China after Pandit Nehru in 1979 and proposed the idea of Special Representatives (SR) mechanism to resolve the boundary dispute. This innovative idea finally fructified more than two decades later in 2003 during Vajpayee’s landmark visit to China.
This risk-taking diplomacy of moving beyond the comfort zone to seek entente with India’s most potent external challenge and opportunity is now being reflected in current initiatives like the much-talked about “Wuhan reset” to forge a new vocabulary of collaborative relations that focuses more on opportunities rather than what divides the two Asian giants. Fittingly, China’s Premier Li Keqiang has lauded Vajpayee as “an outstanding statesman who made outstanding contribution to Sino-Indian relations.”
Multi-alignment in multipolar world: In a mutating world order with shifting power equations, Vajpayee displayed dexterity and determination to optimise India’s prospects by re-calibrating relations with other major power centres. Old and trusted relationships were revitalised and renewed under his watch. Vajpayee put the time-tested India-Russia relationship on a new footing by forging strategic partnership and launching the annual summit process between leaders of the two countries.
Moving away from the restrictive worldview of Non-Alignment, Vajpayee forged a new paradigm of multi-alignment in foreign relations, which essentially translated into seeking stronger relations with contrarian partners. In sync with this new paradigm, Vajpayee ushered in a new phase in India-Israel relations by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India in 2003. In the same year, Vajpayee sprang a surprise by hosting Iranian President Mohammad Khatami in New Delhi. This uncanny ability to forge and nurture relations with diverse power centres, which are often at odds with each other, without getting bogged down in zero sum games, infused a new dynamism in India’s foreign policy calculus.
Risk-taking diplomacy: Last but not the least, Vajpayee’s trademark foreign policy posture of risk-taking — a careful blend of idealism and real politics — was reflected in his sincere overtures towards Pakistan. Pakistan, with its congenitally India-hating military establishment, repeatedly betrayed his hopes for a peaceful periphery — his Lahore bus yatra was followed by backstabbing in the form of the Kargil war. This duplicity disappointed Vajpayee, but did not deter his never-say-die spirit as he reached out to Pervez Musharraf, the architect of Kargil, in Agra. The summit collapsed, but Vajpayee persevered and defied diplomatic orthodoxy by visiting Islamabad for the SAARC summit in 2004, paving the way for resumption of India-Pakistan dialogue. As a new regime takes charge in Islamabad, Pakistan’s new Prime Minister Imran Khan has invoked the Vajpayee legacy to build better relations with India. Given the current atmosphere of pessimism and going by many betrayals in the past, India will probably wait and watch before taking the plunge. But if Vajpayee were alive today, he would have tried once again, assured in the belief that India can’t be stopped by the machinations of a self-serving military elite in a neighbouring country.
Risk-taking and pushing the envelope, but always keeping India’s vital national interests in the centrestage, was the hallmark of Vajpayee’s foreign policy, and it is this creative multi-dimensional diplomacy that will sustain and nourish India’s ongoing ascent as a new smart power on the global stage.
(The writer is Editor-in-Chief of India and World magazine, and a commentator on international affairs.)
Writer: Manish Chand
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month