Modi , the fire in the BJP's belly

Why is Narendra Modi feared? The answer is not difficult to find if we first ask the counter-question. Who fears him? The vested interests. The politicians of different parties. The ' secular' lobby who wants to keep the minorities illiterate and poor by treating them as a vote-bank. Those journalists , both from the print and the electronic media, who sell their souls to politicians , power brokers and corrupt businessmen for the sake of a few foreign trips, liquor bottles ,routine gifts and a rare nomination to Rajya Sabha or some Govt. body. The NGO-s who have profited from making poverty a business idea. The corrupt officers of the Government departments. it is not the Aam Admi who fears him. Otherwise why should every survey of public opinion put him on top of the list of preferred Prime Ministerial candidates? The vested interests do not want to see some one in a powerful position, who can not be bought. They looked for and failed to find any price tag on him. The man has no wife or kids. He has no interest in amassing property for himself or for any one else related to him.His mother lives in a small apartment with his brother. His brother uses public transport. None of his relatives has become rich , exploiting his or her closeness to the Chief Minister of Gujarat. He refuses to wear a scull cap just to please a certain section of the people. He does not grant special interviews to high profile media stars, giving them a huge break in their career. So, all the men( or women) in black ( or with black heart) have no option but to hate him; this man threatens their very survival in a way no politician has ever done before. Nehru was totally out of touch with ground realities. He was an European in Indian skin. His wooly non-alignment and disproportionate interest in international politics consumed most of his time in office. Shastri was a grass-roots leader, but remained as PM for too short a period to make a difference. Indira Gandhi could be pampered through sycophancy and servility to the Family and crumbs of privilege fetched from her. Rajiv Gandhi could be softened through Doon School connections and support on controversial issues like Bofors . V.P.Singh was on a hopeless trip to find a mention in the history books for cleansing the society of caste system; he had no time to notice the looters as long as they did not oppose Mandal. Narasimha Rao was an old world politician and had use for courtiers as long as they loathed the Gandhi family. Gowda was a sleeping farmer,any one whose waking hours are short could not be a threat. Gujral thought most of the time about making peace with Pakistan where his birthplace is located; he was hardly aware of what was happening in India. Vajpayee as PM was a goody-goody type, wanting to take every one along with him. Being a poet, he could not be stern even with the bad but powerful elements of society. Man Mohan Singh carries out the Family's orders; so why not court the Family instead of him? Now comes a man from the land of Mahatma Gandhi and says' Better behave or else....' , showing the stick. You can not bribe him. You can not frighten him. You can not blackmail him. He is both honest and efficient. He has no feet of clay. No scams. Is not afraid of criticism.What choice do the vested interests have other than fearing him and expressing their fear through hate articles and hate comments? Pity them ! Every time a Burkha Dutt or a Vir Sanghvi or a Manish Tiwari or a Jairam Ramesh or a Diggy Raja or a Renuka Choudhary badmouths him, a couple of hundred thousand voters join the Modi bandwagon afresh. Chug Chug gaadi Modi ki, Pakad gayi ab tej Gati, Socho mat kahin beech me aane ki, Pahunchayegi bure logon ko avashya kshati !

Play of Money in Tamilnadu Elections

In the Indian Elections, money has always played a role. Obviously, I am not referring to the genuine expenditure incurred by the candidates. Cost of posters and hoardings, expenses for organising public meetings and rallies, money spent for scores of vehicles hired and food for the volunteers and political workers. These are definitely expenses which are justifiable. But the unjustifiable and illegal expenditure namely money paid to the poorer sections of the electorate for voting in favour of a particular candidate has assumed alarming proportions.

Tamilnadu has been a pioneer even in this evil practice. Every election has seen more money flowing by way of bribe. The recently innovated 'Tirumangalam Formula' is an euphemism for buying votes by giving exhorbitant and unprecedented amounts to a large section of people irrespective of their financial status. The 'Scientist' (!) who invented this formula is none other than Alagiri, one of the sons of Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamilnadu. It is an innovation in the sense that money was delivered to the voters of Tirumangalam where a by-election was held, in the early hours of the day and hidden between the pages of morning newspapers. Estimates of cash paid for a vote vary between Rs.500.- and Rs.5000.- There are reliable reports that if a family has 4 votes, it was paid Rs.20000.- That would mean that if there is a deficit of 10000 votes (assuming that money need not be paid for all the votes obtained by a candidate) , an expenditure of Rs.5 crores would be able deliver this number of votes. For a party which has earned thousands of crores through corruption while being in power, spending a total of Rs.500 crores in about 100 assembly constituencies is no big deal.

One genuine question needs to be asked in this context. Is it not imaginable that people accept money but do not necessarily vote for the candidate who bribed them? Observers of the political scene say that a promise is extracted from people who are being paid substantial bribe; the promise is that they will vote for the candidate who bribed them. This promise is demanded in the name of God. Tamilnadu rural folks being very religious and God-fearing, this method works perfectly; not many betray or go back on their promise. While people getting money along with their newspapers in the early mornings have no promises to keep, those voters who are personally handed over bulk amounts ( say Rs.5000.- per vote) for their entire family are asked to promise and they keep their word irrespective of their liking or otherwise for the candidate.

Tamilnadu has been leading the country in many fields and the people of the state are rightly proud of such feats. But it is a pity that the state has started pioneering novel methods of bribing voters. This is one innovation that the state will have to feel ashamed of.

Indira was never India, India will never be Indira !

It is 25 years since Ms.Indira Gandhi was assassinated by a Sikh guard. There were several programmes on TV last week to mark this occasion. If I were still a young man in his twenties, I would have believed all the lies the TV channels uttered. But I was already an engineering student when Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister in 1966. And I was in my late twenties when she imposed emergency on the country in 1975. I was in my mid-thirties when she was killed brutally. I watched with sadness the downward slide the country took under Indira Gandhi's leadership. Therefore, I can not agree with the TV channels on their description of Mrs.Indira Gandhi as the best Prime Minister the country has ever had.

Indira Gandhi was one of the most popular Prime Ministers. May be, even the most popular. But that can not blind us from making a fair judgement of her contribution . If this great divide of time namely 25 years does not enable us to look at her period of rule with clear hindsight , what else will? In my opinion, Indira Gandhi set the country back by two decades in terms of economic progress. She was not a natural believer in Socialism or Leftist policies. She used these as a tool to beat her inner-party opponents with. But that brought disaster to the country's economy. She wanted to discredit the old 'Syndicate' politicians of the sixties; so she nationalised the banks. She wanted to win the elections in 1971; so she coined the slogan 'Garibi Hatao'( Drive out the poverty). What is her contribution to removal of poverty other than mouthing such slogans? Did she lay any great policy foundations for the economy to take off? Like all the Socialist Politicians, she called for fair distribution of wealth. But when and where was the wealth created? There was only poverty to be equitably distributed. She supported the loss-making Public Sector companies and made it difficult for Private Sector to do honourable business without greasing the palms of the ruling party politicians. Corruption grew to monumental proportions during those times and that is eating into the vitals of the country till date.

Her dislike for equals or near-equals was legendary. She nipped in the bud career of any Congress politician who showed promise. She was highly insecure and so could tolerate only intellectual pygmies around her. She permitted or rather promoted the growth of a personality cult around her name. The slogan 'India is Indira, Indira is India' coined by one of her stooges Dev Kant Baruah had her tacit approval. She was a dictator by temperament.

Indira was no friend of the working class though she talked of socialism in bated breath. The brutal way she crushed the All India Railway Employee's strike in 1974 was a national shame.

Indira Gandhi wanted her arrogant son Sanjay Gandhi to succeed her as Prime Minister. She was never a true democrat. She was the one who firmly laid the roots for dynastic politics. She let him play the role of an unconstitutional authority . The lad assembled a lot of lumpen elements around him and ran a parallel Government. Imposing Emergency was probably more his idea than hers. But it suited her, so she played along and imprisoned several political leaders including the then-80 year old Morarji Desai. Her admirers even now proudly recollect that trains ran on time during emergency. They do not have any other grounds to defend the draconian emergency.

People in the know say that Indira Gandhi was solely responsible for the rise of Binderenwala which later led to the blood bath in the Golden Temple of Amritsar.

Popularity among the public is no yardstick to measure one's contribution. The Indian villagers have always blamed poverty on their fate and spared the rulers of any role in it. Politicians like Indira Gandhi reaped the benefits of such an innocent world-view of things. Indian people vote with their heart. I wish they voted with their mind or at least their stomach.

Indira Gandhi might have had several good traits as an individual. As a daughter, as a wife and as a mother. Even as a person interested in fine arts, literature and music. I do not know. But Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister was not a good thing that happened to India. People cite victory in Indo-Pak war of 1971 to praise her leadership qualities. Even granting it, a single achievement over a period of 18 years can not cloud all the overwhelming negatives.

Indira Gandhi's period throws up a lot of lessons to the people. Never hero-worship any leader. Never believe empty slogans. Never loosen the guard over democracy. Never vote for a politician because of his or her family background. Never trust a leader who thinks that Prime-ministership is God's gift to his or her family for all times to come.

Will the NDA come to power in New Delhi?

If the NDA has to have a chance of coming to power, the following outcome of the elections is a must.

*Win hugely in Gujarat, Karnataka, Bihar, M.P., Chattisgarh, Assam , Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Contain losses in Rajasthan , Orissa and Punjab. Improve in Delhi, Haryana and U.P. Maintain at least the same number of seats in Maharashtra.

*AIADMK-led front should do well but not sweep the elections in Tamilnadu. If a clean sweep is the outcome, then Congress will snatch the AIADMK away, tempting it with the promise of pulling down the DMK Govt. in Tamilnadu. Otherwise, the AIADMK will align with the NDA.

*The BSP should do just moderately well in U.P. If it does very well, then it will put impossible conditions such as Prime Ministership for Mayawathi, which the NDA can not fulfill. If the BSP gets just about 35 seats, then it will be in a sober mood to do business with the NDA.

*The TDP should do well , but not very well in Andhra Pradesh. In the latter case, the aspirations of the third front and Chandrababu Naidu in particular will rise enormously , resulting in Naidu rebuffing NDA offer.

*The Trinamul Congress should do well in West Bengal and the Left should do badly there so that the Left has no option other than supporting the Congress Party's claim to power, thereby driving the Trinamul Congress to the lap of NDA.

Elections in India - the given and the puzzles

Since the Election Commission has banned exit polls till the completion of voting in all the five phases, there is absolutely no idea regarding the performance of the various political alliances in the concluded phases of the election. . However, certain things are taken for granted and it will be a huge surprise if the results are not in line with these assumptions. These are as follows.

*The Congress Party will lose heavily in Andhra Pradesh and Assam. It will gain handsomely in Rajasthan and Orissa.

*The BJP and NDA will do badly in Delhi and Orissa, but win spectacularly in Bihar and Gujarat.

*The Left will lose seats both in Kerala and West Bengal.

*The RJD, LJP and DMK will lose considerable number of seats this time.

The uncertainty is the following.

*Will the two national parties i.e. Congress and BJP succeed this time in improving their score in the regional parties- dominated Uttar Pradesh?

*Which of the two alliances will do better in Maharashtra?

*Will it be a sweep for the AIADMK-led front in Tamilnadu or will it be just a win in the majority of seats?

*Will Naveen Patnaik's gamble in ditching its 11-year old alliance partner BJP and going it alone in Orissa pay off? Or, would it prove to be a blunder ?

The answer to the above will determine which of the two alliances will get to rule India in June.

President Obama ! Is old wine the change you promised?

President-elect Obama's new cabinet is being hotly discussed. But it is a disappointment to read in the Newspapers that the man who promised change for the last two years is busy procuring old wine for bottling in the flashy new containers.

Who is tipped to be the new Secretary of State? Good old Clinton, the feminine one. Here is the lady who tirelessly questioned and ridiculed Obama's 'change' mantra in the run-up to the nomination. Is she going to be the agent of change under Obama? The bet is that Hillary will function as an autonomous Secretary of State. May be, she would consult the other Clinton who is even older wine than the lady herself. So, the entire foreign policy might turn out to be Clintonian, Part II.

Now look at the prospective Defence Secretary. Is he going to be some one who is in favour of reducing America's involvement in Iraq? Is he likely to be the one who has the credentials of belonging to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, like Obama himself? Oh no ! The new Defence Secretary is the old Defence Secretary. That means that Robert Gates, the current Defence Secretary under President Bush will be the brand new Defence Secretary under Obama who has been elected on a platform of change. Do we already see some eggs on the face of the electorate? This appointment is being justified on the grounds of continuity. My goodness ! If continuity is what the people of America had wanted, they would have elected good old McCain, not young untested Obama.

I do not know what other such ' changes' are in offing from Obama. One thing is pretty clear. You can not find another set of people who are as naive as the Americans. For all their child-like enthusiasm that almost brings tears in the eyes of the watching world, they are a very gullible people. They fall for slogans very easily. They fall for external appearances instantly. Catchy phrases and boyish charm are all that are required to fool the American voters. I might still reverse my views on this, if Obama's first few weeks hint at some really fundamental change in any important aspect of governance. The signs, so far, are not promising.

Black President for the U.S.?

Obama routes Hillary in South Carolina

Does it automatically follow that Obama will win in other state primaries and be nominated as the Democratic Presidential Candidate? Not at all. He might win a few more primaries. But as his challenge to Hillary grows more serious, the Democratic primary voters will ditch Obama and opt for Hillary. In the unlikely eventuality of Obama clinching the Democratic nomination, there will be cause for celebration in the Republican party. The defeat of the Democratic nominee would be certain if Obama is the nominee.

But America not ready for Black President

The blacks constitute only about 10-12% of the American population. But that is not the reason why the U.S. can not have a Black President. While there has been grudging acceptance of civil rights for the Black community, the American Whites are not ready to be led by a Black man , however erudite and capable he might be. The Whites nurture very deep distrust of the Blacks. Even those Whites who are friendly and sympathetic with the Blacks do not accept as equals; their attitude is more of a patronising type, if not outright condescending. The U.S. could , do and did have a Black as the Secretary of State. But that is the highest political position a Black can aspire for, for a long time to come.

Even a Woman President has not happened

If Hillary gets the Democratic nomination ( which appears a near certainty in spite of Obama's initial wins) , she will still have to win over the conservative White males of America before she has a reasonable chance of making it to the Oval Office. The U.S. has never so far had a woman as the Presidential nominee of either of the two parties. Two decades ago, there was a woman on the Democratic Ticket as Vice-Presidential nominee. Less developed countries like India, Sri Lanka, Israel , Pakistan and Argentina have had women as Head of State . Even European Countries have not shied away from having a woman as their Chancellor or Prime Minister. Margaret Thatcher made it in U.K. 25 years back. Germany elected a woman as its Chancellor two years ago. France almost elected a woman as its President. But not the strongest Democracy in the world, the U.S.

No President of Southern European origin either

There have been several actors of Italian origin in Hollywood. But there has been no American president who was of Italian origin. For that matter, no Spanish, Portuguese or Greek either. Dukakis lost in 1988. His Greek origin did contribute to the defeat.

Catholics have seldom won

Except for Kennedy's name , no name comes to my mind when I think of a Catholic as American President. Leave alone people of Latin American or Italian or Spanish origin who are mostly Catholics; even Catholics of Irish or German or French origin have failed to occupy the Presidential Chair.

America is conservative

Contrary to the popular impression in the world, the United States does not take huge risks. Reforms on social issues ( as different from economic issues) , if undertaken, are more as aberrations. The country finds safety in sticking to time-tested positions on many issues. The politicians do not believe in tinkering with the deeply-embedded conditioning. So, it is doubtful that a woman will make it to the Presidential Office. It is impossible that a Black will ever become President. Only WASP, oh sorry, only WASPROM (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male) will be accepted as the occupants of the White House.

Is the U.S. on the decline?

Once-mighty Dollar

The U.S.Dollar replaced the British Pound as the most sought-after currency in the world long ago. Perhaps, soon after the second World war. Or latest by the mid-1960s by which time Britain had lost all its colonies and was no more the World Power it once was. So, the U.S.Dollar has remained as the queen currency for over 4 decades. It is only in the last couple of years that the U.S.Dollar is sliding. The slide may yet be only slight, but the slide is unmistakable. The Euro is growing in stature. In 2002, when Euro took the place of major European Currencies such as D-Mark, French Frank , Dutch Guilder and Italian Lira, one Euro fetched less than a Dollar. Now, one Dollar fetches less than 75 Euro Cents. It should not be a surprise if in another 10-15 years, Euro becomes the No.1 International Currency.

Once-invincible Economy

Some experts say that the U.S. economy is already in recession. Some others say not yet. But no one rules out that recession is round the corner. Banks are writing off bad debts. And such write-offs are huge. People are spending less on consumer goods. Houses offered for sale are fetching much less than the loan taken to finance them. Jobs are getting lost. The mood of the people is sullen. America's underbelly stands exposed. The sub-prime crisis may only be the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The one consolation(?) that the Americans could have is that if the U.S. economy sinks, the economies of the rest of the world will sink too. The health of the world economy still depends on the American economy doing well.

Once-loved Democracy

Once upon a time, long long ago, people around the world loved America. The country offered hope. If there was one place on earth where any one could nurture an ambition of making it in life irrespective of one's background, colour, religion, gender etc., it was the U.S. No more. America lost respect by supporting dictatorships and fighting unjust wars. Within the country, successive Presidents have encouraged special-interest groups and let themselves be used against the greatest good of the largest number of people. Internationally, the U.S.Administration is no more seen as walking their talk of free enterprise. Free enterprise was good as long as it suited America's interests. When the balance started shifting in favour of the emerging nations, then it was time to bring about trade barriers as a way of protecting America's own producers. This hypocrisy in politics, democracy and economics undermined the credibility the U.S. used to enjoy.

But........

....the U.S. is still the leader. No single nation or a group of nations is as yet in a position to take over the world leadership from the U.S. Europe is too divided. China is seen as too self-absorbed and unreliable. Moreover, China does not respect human rights of an individual and so is unfit to graduate to global leadership. Japan is already a has-been. Any way, it is too small a country to think of leading the world. Russia is still licking its wounds inflicted on it by the demise of its world-power status. It is at best an emerging but cheap carbon copy of the west. So, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will remain as the leader of the world. But, just a lame-duck leader counting its days before the day of ouster dawns upon it.

Political Dynasties in India

Gandhi-Nehru Dynasty

Years ago, when I was talking to an European friend of mine on the then imminent elections in India, I was surprised to discover that my friend thought Indira Gandhi , the then Prime Minister of India was related to Mahatma Gandhi. Later I learnt that he was not the only non-Indian to think so. Leave alone non-Indians, even a substantial number of rural Indians thought so. The benefit of such misunderstanding has been ample for the Nehru Family. Today the Nehru Family is known as Gandhi-Nehru dynasty, though the name 'Gandhi' in this case pertained to Indira Gandhi's husband Feroz Gandhi who had nothing to do with Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi-Nehru dynasty has given so far three Prime Ministers to India. Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi , who controls today India's biggest Political Party, the Congress Party , almost became the Prime Minister in 2004. Her son Rahul Gandhi is being widely thought of as the next Prime Minister, if the Congress Party wins the coming 2009 elections.

Karunanidhi Dynasty

Karunanidhi, the four-time Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has founded a powerful political dynasty. Stalin, one of his sons, is being groomed to be the next Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Karunanidhi's another son Azagiri has been a DMK party strongman of the southern parts of the state. It should not be a great surprise, if he is soon given a vey senior position in the party, as a compensation for missing the chief minister's chair. Karunanidhi's daughter Kanimozhi is a member of the Indian Parliament and an announcement of her inclusion in the Central Cabinet is expected any time.

Deve Gowda Dynasty

Deve Gowda, Prime Minister for a year in the mid-nineties has been working hard to see that his sons get established in Karnataka politics. His son Kumaraswamy was chief Minister for 18 months. His other son Revanna, angry and unhappy about having lost a previous opportunity of becoming the Chief Minister to his younger brother, is Chief Minister-in-waiting. Deve Gowda does not think twice about toppling any Government that survives on his support, if it does not suit the political interests of his family.

Lalu Prasad Dynasty

When Lalu Prasad Yadav had to quit as Chief Minister of Bihar due to the corruption charges against him, he brought in his wife Rabri Devi, a housewife as his successor. Rabri Devi's brothers are already playing important roles in Lalu Yadav's RJD party. The latest buzz is that Lalu Yadav's son is entering politics to carry on the family's stranglehold over the party and possible positions in the Government.

Mulayam Singh Dynasty

Mulayam Singh Yadav was Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state in India more than once. His brother has been occupying the second or third most important position in his party Samajwadhi party. Mulayam Yadav's son has been a Member of Parliament for a few years and is the likely future Chief Minister if the Samajwadhi Party comes to power ever again.

Gwalior Dynasty

The rulers of the former princely state of Gwalior, the Scindias have managed to carve out a powerful niche in Indian Politics. The Chief Minister of Rajasthan Vasundara Devi belongs to this clan. Her nephew is a member of Parliament and her sister is a member of a state Legistative Assembly. This dynasty has been intelligent enough to create roots in both the major Political Parties of the country, the Congress and the BJP.

Democracy or Dynocracy?

Besides the above dynasties, there are others in the making such as Sharad Pawar dynasty, Patnaik dynasty, Badal dynasty, Ramadass dynasty etc. While the Congress Party was the original innovator of this practice, the Regional Political Parties quickly caught on to this and have been the main spirit behind the spread of this quasi-feudal system. Well, however uncomfortable this development is to blue-blooded democrats, one can not dub this practice as totally undemocratic, since the succession from one generation to the next of these dynasties has the endorsement of the Indian people through voting in the elections. India has invented a new system of governance which is a hybrid of Democracy and Monarchy. India has always spiced its imports with indigenously-grown additives, be it the American Burger or the English Language. Democracy is no exception.

What is 'Communist' about China today?

There was a time the People's Republic of China was fiercely Communist. There was no private ownership of any thing. The Government run by the Communist Party decided on every aspect of its citizens' life. There was centralized planning of the economy.There was only State-sector. Private citizens were not allowed to set up industries. Foreign Companies were not allowed to exist. There was no individual freedom. No political party other than the Communist Party was allowed to function.

China remained closed to the outside world for a long time. No one who was an adult in the sixties could forget what Cultural Revolution meant for the citizens of China. Intellectuals were jailed, if not murdered. Books were burnt. No idea other than Communism was allowed to take roots. The Chairman of the Communist Party wielded more power than the President or the Prime Minister of the country. So, China was really an arch Communist Country then.

But what about today? What is so 'Red' about it? Can one still call China Communist? If so, on what grounds? The country , of course, still does not allow any Political Party other than the Communist Party to operate. There is no Democracy. The freedom of speech is still very much restricted. The Govt.uses force to make its Citizens obey. But such conditions exist in some other countries too, though the ruling parties in those countries are not Communist. So, single-party dictatorship and absence of democracy and freedom of speech alone can not make a country Communist.

Today China follows its own version of Capitalism. Though big industries are still in the State sector, private initiative is allowed in several walks of life. There are opportunities to grow rich. Capital inflow from the outside world is encouraged. There is a Stock Market trading in Chinese company shares. Foreigners visit China in droves. Beauty contests which were once considered part of the 'Decadent Capitalism' are now a part of the Chinese social scene. Private ownership of houses, cars and other trappings of the Capitalist system has been accepted. China is no more insular. There is considerable disparity among its people in sharing the fruits of the economy. While in the old Communist China there was no economic disparity among its people ( except for the fact that the party functionaries were a privileged class), today's China is like any other country where there are rich, poor, and middle classes.

Yes, China has its right to pursue any economic policy which guarantees a better life for its citizens. When the whole world is under the spell of Market Economy , why should China be an exception? But why this Communist mask ?

If China still calls itself Communist, Karl Marx must be squirming in his grave. The Chinese have discarded his 'Das Kapital' once for all and embraced his class enemy, the Capitalists in a bear hug. Or Dragon hug. Marx, if he can make himself heard to the Chinese Rulers, must be pleading helplessly " Choose any name you like for your rule, but not Communism and any colour you like but not Red. Bitte nicht Rot."