Will Lok Sabha Polls 2019 Be A Referendum On Modi?

The world’s largest democracy, a major economy but by no means prosperous, India is also the most expensive when holding its elections.

Its 2014 democratic exercise cost as much as the United States’ 2012 presidential elections, when Barack Obama was re-elected. The one beginning next month, estimated by New Delhi-based Centre for Media Studies, may cost $ seven billion, or INR 50,000 crores.

Another calculation by political scientist Milan Vaishnav is of a whopping $10 billion, based on growth in expenditure incurred for two polls conducted in 2009 and 2014.  The US spent much less, $6.5 billion while electing Donald Trump in 2016.

These huge sums do not come only from the state that funds conducting of the polls. Contestants receive contributions, overt and covert, from businesses, corporate sector and the untaxed and largely invisible farm income. Experience shows that they are made with the understanding that the next government will tweak laws to help recover that money. This breeds corruption.

Should such an expensive exercise be a cacophony that it now seems?

With three weeks to go, the air is thick with hyper-nationalistic fervor triggered by last month’s terror attack in Kashmir followed by India-Pakistan aerial stand-off.

Tensions have subsided but not really ended. Speculation persists over its resumption, should there be another incident on the border or in India-controlled Kashmir. Such eventuality, assuming the world community (mainly the United States) is surprised again, is certain to sweep all other issues out of the polls.

Leaving aside madcaps (there are some on both sides of the Indo-Pak border) who think that India engineered the Pulwama attack, it seems god-sent for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and the ruling alliance.

To his credit, Modi did act tough, defying the nuclear threshold that has prevented a larger conflict, but not stopped Pakistan from using its so-called “non-state actors” for staging terror attacks. This was something his predecessors Manmohan Singh (in 2008 Mumbai terror attacks) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Kargil-1999, and attack on Indian Parliament-2001)  had not. Modi then swept the nation mounting an “I will not let the country down” campaign, converting the polls campaign into one referendum on national security.

His party, its ideological affiliates and a huge army of cyber warriors troll anyone critical of security lapses and/or seeking details of what precisely happened on the border.

The elections are now divided pre and post-Pulwama. The opposition is on the back-foot. As loyalty to the nation of those who ask questions, howsoever legitimate, is questioned, undoubtedly, this means political/electoral gains and losses.

People across the spectrum — media, academics and security experts among retired soldiers and diplomats – even individual families – are divided. Some ruling alliance stalwarts have gleefully given themselves more seats than they hoped to win earlier in parliament and state legislatures thanks to the border incidents. With Modi being projected as the superhero pandering to popular yearning of a strong leader, the pitch is queered against the opposition.  

However, past electoral outcomes have been mixed and indicate that there are limits to all this. For one, Kashmir and war with Pakistan do not resonate in India’s south as they do in the north and the west. Polls were won after conflicts, but not swept, be it in 1971 when Congress’ Indira Gandhi helped breaking-up of Pakistan and emergence of Bangladesh. BJP’s Vajpayee got the same numbers after the Kargil conflict in 1999. 

Electoral verdicts do not always match popular sentiments. The BJP lost in Uttar Pradesh 11 months after its cadres demolished the 16th century Babri Masjid in 1992.  And although it dubbed Manmohan Singh India’s “weakest prime minister” and BJP veteran L K Advani used the pejorative ‘nikamma’ (hopeless) after the terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008, the Congress improved its parliamentary majority and Singh got a second term.

But popular sentiments yielded results post-“surgical strikes” in Kashmir in 2016 by Modi Government. The BJP swept the polls in Uttar Pradesh despite the miseries caused by demonetization of the currency. Political engineering helped consolidation of the majority community’s vote at the expense the minority Muslims.

Most populous UP is the principal battleground now where the BJP is being seriously challenged by Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party. Credible reports indicate that the Modi campaign is working. That 11 of the 44 soldiers who died in Pulwama were from the state matters. But, this is as-of-now, since the difficult-to-fathom public mood can change. And none can fathom how the rural mind, in UP and elsewhere, perceives these polls.

Arguably, the public at large is more worried about dal-roti. If it is looking for options other than Modi, it doesn’t find credible faces among the opposition. What began as Modi-versus-the-rest effort has stuttered. Some contenders have emerged following state-level alliances, but a credible national alternative is absent.   

The communists who forged alternative fronts in the past, providing political edge by helping formulate socio-economic common minimum programme have become irrelevant.

Next, the Congress has failed to accept allies and also being acceptable as a key opposition driver. Its alliance-making is non-starter. Its past gives it a misplaced sense of entitlement. Rahul Gandhi, despite his belated surge at the national level in the last one year and winning in three key states, cannot match up against the prime ministerial ambitions of numerous state satraps. 

The impact of its ‘brahmastra’, the most potent weapon Priyanka Gandhi, will be known only when results are out. Rahul’s Ailing mother and former party chief Sonia is contesting to save her turf. Those who yearn for Congress’ return, if only as a lesser evil, may be in for a disappointment.

The Pulwama plank seems to have stonewalled the Rafael deal debate. It also excludes any discourse on day-to-day issues, especially on the troubled economy. The government version dominates through its massive propaganda machinery. Bulk of the media, both mainstream and social, the key urban drivers, are divided on pro and anti- government lines.

Politicians are generally not economists. And even if they are, they remain politicians first. Modi too is a politician, and a good one at that. All his major moves are politically motivated. His deft political engineering, now topped with “Pulwama patriotism”, has muted discussion on unemployment with job growth at its lowest in 40 years after statistics officially put out but discredited by the government itself.

His government continues to project demonetization of 86 percent of the currency notes three years ago in terms of curbing black money and denial of funds to militant bodies, when subsequent indicators have shown otherwise.   

Falling exports have yet to catch up the 2013-14 level. Industrial growth in January slowed down to 1.7 percent compared to the 2.6 percent in factory output in December last year. The GDP remains under-7 percent.

Equally serious is the farm distress. Thousands unable to repay debts have committed suicide. Minimum support price for farm produce and waiving of farm loans have come too late in the day.  Low inflation has been driven by falling food prices, cutting farmers’ incomes and pushing up debt levels. About 800 million depend on farming for their livelihood.

With Saudi Arabia, the largest source, committed to production cuts to keep crude oil prices low, it seems unlikely that India’s fuel and energy costs, a key factor for the economy, will stay soft for long. And with political parties opening the spending spigot in a bid to woo voters, inflationary impulses will quicken.

Modi remains way ahead of his rivals. But there is a risk to democrcy. Political analyst Vijay Sanghvi says Modi has isolated himself thanks to his governance style. “He has reduced the status and stature of every minister and party leader. No one informs him of rampant growth of corruption at lower levels.  Unemployment is more hurting as low grade jobs are lost.”

The newest campaign slogan “Modi Hai toh Mumqin Hai” (It’s possible with Modi) reinforces this and places him as the centerpiece of a nationwide campaign. 

This election is for the soul of India and its pluralism. But it would also be a referendum on Modi.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Expect No Miracle But Priyanka Makes polls Exciting

As political parties in India get ready for the mother-of-all electoral battles, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has emerged as the X-factor in the forthcoming contest.

Her formal entry into politics nearly two months ago as Congress general secretary in-charge of eastern Uttar Pradesh created a buzz in political circles. For starters, Priyanka succeeded in galvanizing an otherwise frustrated and dejected party cadre. 

Always seen as a natural and instinctive politician unlike her brother Congress president Rahul Gandhi, Congress workers had been clamouring for years that Priyanka is given a larger role in the party. Her resemblance to her grandmother Indira Gandhi, her easy connect with people and her ability to give speeches in flawless Hindi had convinced the party rank and file that Priyanka indeed possesses the Midas touch to turnaround the  Congress’s fortunes, not just in Uttar Pradesh but across the country.

However, Priyanka is a mystery for the Congress party’s political opponents. The Bharatiya Janata Party was, of course, quick to attack the Congress for promoting dynastic politics when Priyanka was appointed party general secretary. The BJP followed it up by highlighting her husband Robert Vadra’s involvement in dubious land deals. At the same time, the Modi government fast-tracked pending inquiries against Vadra soon after Priyanka’s plunge into politics. Her decision to back her husband and her public declaration that she “stands by her family” baffled the BJP as it did not know how it should react to Priyanka the politician. The Bahujan Samaj Party and the Samajwadi Party, which left the Congress out of their seat-sharing arrangement in Uttar Pradesh, is also wary about the impact Priyanka could make in this electorally-crucial state which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha.

After its initial acerbic comments on Priyanka, the BJP decided to ignore the new Gandhi in the field. On her part, Priyanka also went underground after making a splash with a roadshow in Lucknow. The Pulwama attack and India’s retaliatory air strike against Pakistan sent the Congress into a tailspin and forced it to put its political activities on a temporary hold. Priyanka’s much-awaited press conference was called off while her tour programme was deferred. With the BJP riding high on its nationalist agenda, it appeared that the euphoria over Priyanka’s political debut had waned.

But now that the Lok Sabha election is round the corner and the country is in the grip of feverish political activity, Priyanka has come out of her shell. This will force the Congress party’s political rivals to reassess Priyanka’s political role.

After keeping a low-profile for the past two months, the new Congress general secretary finally addressed her first public meeting and, that too, in Ahmedabad, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home turf. Her brief, understated speech referred to the Modi government’s failure to deliver on its promise to create more jobs while drawing attention to farmers’ woes and the issue of women’s security but without naming the Prime Minister.

At the same time, Priyanka has embarked on her first tour in Uttar Pradesh including a boat ride down the Ganga, from Prayagraj to Varanasi. Modi’s Parliamentary constituency. Undoubtedly, Priyanka is familiar with Uttar Pradesh. She has been managing both Rahul and Sonia Gandhi’s Lok Sabha constituencies, Amethi and Rae Bareli, for several years now. But so far, she confined her activities to the two Nehru-Gandhi bastions. She is now stepping out of this safety zone and in a new role. Her public foray will be monitored closely by her own party and its rivals as each one seeks to assess how people are reacting to her and whether she can live up to her reputation as the Congress party’s trump card.

But Priyanka has a tough job at hand. The Congress has been reduced to a bit player in Uttar Pradesh, having lost its traditional support base of Brahmins, Dalits, and minorities to the BJP and the two regional forces, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. With a defunct party organisation and no social base, Priyanka requires more time to get the Congress back in shape. She was given charge of Eastern Uttar Pradesh barely three months before the election which certainly does not give her sufficient time to build a cadre and carve out a social base for the Congress.

As it is, Priyanka has to contend with a resurgent BJP, which got an impressive 42 percent vote share in the 2014 Lok Sabha election in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, the area under her charge. At the same time, the SP-BSP combine, which brings together the social forces of Dalits, Yadavs, and minorities, also poses a tough challenge as it has an equally strong presence in this region.

The Congress is hoping that Priyanka will succeed in disturbing the BJP’s Brahmin vote and reach out to Dalits and minorities, particularly women, youth and workers. It is a tall order but in the process of rebuilding and strengthening the Congress, the party may end up helping the BJP as her outreach has the potential of dividing the anti-BJP vote. It is unlikely that Priyanka’s presence will work instant miracles.

The Congress rank and file will possibly have to wait till the 2022 assembly election to find out if Priyanka has what it takes to pull the party out of oblivion. After all, Rahul Gandhi did say that Priyanka is here for a long haul.

Manohar Parrikar: Destiny Ends A Brilliant Career

Manohar Parrikar was the most stable, effective, amiable and intelligent Raksha Mantri (RM) from the NDA 1 and 2 so far. He has been one of the few forward looking Raksha Mantris (RMs) of India who was pragmatic, hardworking, clear headed and open to suggestions. He always gave us an out of box solution to certain vexed issues. Shortly after taking over as RM he proclaimed that he would give the services a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) provided all three services were on the same platform.

Passing away of Manohar Parrikar is a loss not to the BJP alone but the whole political community of modern India. Tributes have been received cutting across party lines because essentially he was a cultured and amicable person who generally maintained the dignity of his office. A young IIT graduate, Manohar Parrikar became the Chief Minister of Goa in 2000 at the age of 45. Prior to that he had been an RSS worker from school days and leader of the opposition in Goa assembly. In one of the election conclaves of BJP in Goa in 2013, he was the first one to suggest that Modi should lead a united BJP campaign at national level. Modi was grateful to him and as a goodwill gesture got him to the Centre as a full time RM in November 2014. Prior to him the significantly important portfolio of defence was given as additional charge to an ailing finance minister.

The defence budget being limited in resources, Parrikar was able to clearly and pragmatically prioritise procurements for the three services. While he understood the need for modernisation of all the three services, he was also able to devise a time bound procurement plan. He tried to streamline and simplify procurement procedures and ushered in a new procurement policy. He had a very analytical mind and his being an IIT graduate helped him in coherently finding the way forward. A patient listener, he was quite quick on the uptake and was able to suggest workable but sometime naive, out of the box solutions to the defence forces.

Although he had excellent managerial abilities at the highest levels, his understanding about the actual conduct of operations was limited due to lakh of actual combat experience. However, he was a quick learner and during his short stint as the RM, the Army conducted surgical strikes across the international border with Myanmar and across line of Control in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

As a first he ordered some high level studies to be conducted by a group of retired and serving officers to streamline efficient functioning of the armed forces. As a result of these studies, outdated organisations were pruned or closed down to spare manpower and equipment for newly desired capabilities and capacity building.

The man had a flip side of his personality. He had no penchant for customs and time tested traditions of the armed forces and tried to bring in contemporary business practices which were not always well received by the veterans community. He was seen taking salute at ceremonies like guard of honour, a very solemn affair, in Chappals and crumpled bush shirt. At the same time, he was immaculately dressed in suit and Oxford shoes when he attended similar ceremonies abroad especially in the western countries. This did not go well with maintaining the traditions, ethos and elan of our proud armed forces and the veteran community.

Although he promised institution of the post of CDS and exhibited a will to resolve the One Rank One Pay issue, the bureaucrats salvaged his efforts and did not let these resolutions go through. He took credit for surgical strikes stating that he told the army what to do and how to do disregarding and downplaying the immaculate planning by senior officers and bold and audacious execution by junior leaders and troops on the ground. He did shake the bureaucrats a bit in a bid to make them more accountable and efficient but could not change their moral fibre and archaic ways of functioning.

He deviated from the proven tradition of martial music on beating the retreat after Republic Day celebrations to contemporary Bollywood style music with band players swaying in a manner not conforming to the values and traditions of the services. He was highly criticised for this act by the veterans and he confessed that he should take advice from the senior serving and retired officers before introducing radical changes. Inspite of his lack of strategic and operational depth in matters purely military, as a senior level manager he always gave suggestions some of which were workable and deserved to be given a chance.

Parrikar gave a fillip to all stalled defence projects because prior to him the services were not able to approach and convince the part time RM the necessity and urgency. Once he got the complete picture, which took about three months of detailed briefings from November 2014 to February 2015, he was able to prioritise logically and suggest to us how to stagger big ticket projects over the years in order to fit into the allotted defence budget. 

The much debated Rafael deal also exhibited his pragmatic approach wherein he agreed with PMO that at least two squadrons required urgently for strategic reasons should be procured through the fast government to government lane. Once the PMO took full charge of the Rafael deal he told the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to maintain a standoff distance and stayed out of the controversy inspite of opposition trying to rope him in.

In one of our meetings on enhancing the capacity of defence industries, I suggested to him that these units only worked during day light hours and if we had three continuous shifts around the clock like the heavy steel plants, then we could triple our production. He quite liked the idea but unfortunately, continuity was not maintained as he was sent back to Goa to cobble a minority coalition BJP government, which non other than him could have managed to stitch ; since one to one, congress had 25 percent more number of legislators than BJP in the state.

Parrikar would be remembered for what he achieved in his short life. Goa will always remain indebted to him for all the development he carried out in the state. The armed forces would always wish he had a longer tenure with them.

(The writer worked closely with Manohar Parrikar during the latter’s tenure as Defence Minister)

Is Riyadh Brokering An India-Pakistan Peace Deal?

There has been heightened diplomatic activity between Saudi Arabia and India in recent weeks. Saudi Arabia’s state minister for Foreign Affairs Adel Al Jubeir was on a short visit to New Delhi, his second in less than a month. He was in the capital for just over four and a half hours during which he met Prime Minister Narendra Modi and held talks with external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj.

Officially, India described Jubeir’s visit as a follow-up meeting to the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s trip to New Delhi in February, after the Pulwama terror attack. That trip of Salman to India and Pakistan was overshadowed by the rising tension which nearly aerial strikes and dogfight in the air between the two nuclear armed neighbours. Incidentally, during the OIC meet in the UAE, where Sushma Swaraj was a special invitee, Jubeir had a meeting with her; his third with the Indian foreign minister. Saudi Arabia’s energy minister was also in India over the weekend. Significantly, Jubeir was in Pakistan the week before his India’s visit.

These visits from Saudi officials within a short span of time are unprecedented and given rise to speculation about the Gulf nation is working at a peace deal between India and Pakistan. However, with Indian elections due to begin in April, that move will have to wait. While it is certain that India will never agree to a third party involvement, Saudi Arabia has enormous influence in Pakistan and can play a pivotal role in restraining the Pakistan Army from protecting and supporting anti-India terror outfits.

With Pakistan’s economy in dire need for funds, the Saudis have stepped in with emergency funding of $6 billion soon after Imran Khan took over as Prime Minister. Additionally, projects worth $20 billion were announced during the Crown Prince’s visit to Pakistan. All this gives the Saud kingdom an added leverage to influence the Pakistan Army, which dictates the India policy.

The Asian tour by the Crown Prince was seen as an exercise to salvage his profile, battered by allegations that he was responsible for the death of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. MBS was once the toast of the western world for his attempts to transform Saudi Arabia into a moderate, modern Islamic kingdom.

The murder of Khashoggi has dented his image. MBS has been shunned by Western powers and his visit to Asia where nobody would question his role in Khashoggi episode would have been a relief. To his advantage, President Donald Trump regards Saudi Arabia as an important allay and MBS as a key element in his desire to bring Iran to heel. The Crown Prince is also close to Trump’s Presidential aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner.  

Saudi Arabia is said to have played an important, behind-the-scenes role in lowering tension between the two nuclear armed neighbours. US National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were also involved in the exercise and did much of the heavy lifting, though both were in Vietnam for President Donald Trump’s second summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. The Saudis worked from the forefront in tune with the US for reducing tension in the subcontinent.

Riyadh is walking a tight rope between India and Pakistan in the current crisis, trying to balance its traditional close friendship with Pakistan, with growing ties with India. During the Crown Prince’s visit to Pakistan, the joint statement issued at the end mentioned that nations should avoid “politicization of the UN listing regime”, in an obvious reference to New Delhi’s attempts at declaring the Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar a global terrorist. India is learnt to have conveyed to Saudis that Pakistan should take “irreversible, verifiable and credible steps against all terrorists without any discrimination” sought their pressure for dismantling Pakistan’s terror infrastructure.

India’s ties to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries have been in place since the time when dhows from the region had thriving trade with the coastal India. The spice trade flourished and Indian traders too sailed to the Gulf region. In modern times, India and Saudi Arabia were on the opposite side of the Cold War divide. Though India had diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia soon after independence, the relationship was at best transactional.

The oil boom led to thousands of Indians working in the region and sending back much needed foreign exchange, but the political ties remained weak. In any conflict with Pakistan, the Saudis chose to back Pakistan, which sent detachments from Pakistan Army as guards for the Royal family. However, 9/11 as well as the Arab spring changed Saudi attitude. Eleven of the 9/11 terrorists were from the kingdom, besides the key plotter Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda. A nervous Saudi monarchy cracked down on terrorists. Jaswant Singh as foreign minister made a landmark visit to the Kingdom in October 2000. That was an ice breaker. 

The Royal visit of 2006 brought about a sea change in ties. King Abdullah became the first Saudi monarch in 51 years to visit India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went personally to receive the king at the airport. Since then, things have continuously brightened up. Narendra Modi visited Saudi Arabia in April 2016 and gave a further push to the relationship. India believes that ties with Saudi Arabia have developed beyond the traditional buyer and seller of oil to an all-embracing, comprehensive, strategic partnership. A strategic partnership council will be convened soon for efficient co ordination between the two countries.

Saudi Arabia has helped India get back terror suspects who often took refuge in the kingdom. In 2012, Riyadh sent back Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, who had taken a Pakistani passport to hide in Saudi Arabia. He is suspected to be involved in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Again, in December 2016, Abdul Salam involved in printing fake Indian currency notes, was deported from the Kingdom and handed over to Indian authorities. This was unthinkable before 9/11. Today, worried about the future of the monarchy, the kingdom is going all out to fight terror.

Both countries hope to expand ties to a solid economic one. The Crown Prince has assured investments up $100 billion in India. Riyadh is also committed to help building India’s strategic oil reserves and has spoken of investing in India’s infrastructure sector. Also, there has been buzz about investing in agriculture, getting farmers to grow for export exclusively to Saudi Arabia. Discussions are on.

The positive outcome in relations between India and Saudi Arabia is the growing strategic and economic co operation. However it would be foolish to assume that Saudi Arabia will not give more weightage to Pakistan. Riyadh and Islamabad have a thriving relationship. Former Pakistan army chief Raheel Sharif is the head of a Sunni military alliance, involved in Yemen. Every major Pakistani political party have close ties to Saudi Arabia’s ruling family. It is therefore left for Indian diplomats how they can turn the current India-Pakistan tension, which has led to increased Saudi interest in the region, to its advantage. How they leverage strategic and economic benefits out of Saudi Kingdom’s peace efforts will decide India’s interests and stature in Asia, as well as on the world map.

Indo-Pak Skirmish And Its Inevitable Political Fallout

In the early 2000s, not long after the Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, which took hundreds, if not thousands of lives, but in which India claimed a decisive victory, we invited a hawkish Indian defence analyst and expert over to the magazine that I was then editing. The idea was to get his opinion on India’s preparedness for armed conflict in the region, particularly with the prevailing hostile relations with Pakistan and a potentially hostile and powerful neighbour like China. The expert (who will have to remain unnamed for now) was good. His knowledge was vast and insightful but being a hawk, his lecture and the subsequent discussions were burnished with aggressive posturing with the key point being that India was certainly in a stronger position vis-à-vis Pakistan and with greater political will it could teach an errant neighbour some hard home truths.

It was an invigorating discussion that opened up our fairly young editorial team’s minds to issues of strategy, defence, and armed conflict. But, following the talk, it was the afterglow that seemed take hold of many of my colleagues I remember vividly. Otherwise rational and perfectly reasonable young men and women strutted about the newsroom with aggressive posturing, some loudly lamenting that the Indian government was shying away from confronting Pakistan and that our armed forces should initiate military action against that nation and teach it a sound lesson.

That sort of sentiment seems to be swirling around in India now in the aftermath of the recent skirmish with Pakistan. Last month terrorists believed to be based in Pakistan suicide-bombed an Indian convoy in Kashmir and killed at least 40 security personnel. India retaliated by sending in warplanes to bomb what it claims to be a large terrorist training centre and camp in Pakistan. This was followed by an airstrike by Pakistan and dogfights in which one Indian plane was downed and a pilot captured. The pilot was released by Pakistan, which refuted India’s claims of decimating the terrorist hideout and took the high moral ground by offering peace dialogues with India over the disputed region of Kashmir.

But the main fallout of last month’s conflict was the chest-beating brand of patriotism that it spawned and the political capital that the current regime led by Mr Narendra Modi is drawing out of it. Mr Modi, his colleagues, and supporters have been proudly proclaiming the decisiveness of the Indian attack (never mind that the actual damage may have been much less than the claims that hundreds of terrorists had perished during the attack). Otherwise reasonable people in civil society as well as India’s noisy and colourful media have earned a sort of bragging rights over the skirmish, and some of them have even been baying for Pakistan’s blood. With less than a month left before millions of Indians head towards polling booths to cast their votes in the national elections, this mood is significant.

It is significant because Mr Modi, his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and its allies are quite resolved to making the newest incidence of tension between India and Pakistan into an election issue. Dipstick surveys will likely show that the electorate’s faith in Mr Modi has strengthened as a consequence of the conflict. But what may be more important is the impact (or rather the lack of it) on those who politically oppose Mr Modi. In the past few months opposition leaders, including those of the Congress party and a host of other regional groupings, have been trying to forge an alliance aimed at ousting Mr Modi and his party during the coming elections. Several fault-lines, however, have emerged in that endeavour: there is no clear leader of the opposition alliance that can command support of the motley assemblage of parties; the political ambitions of several regional leaders are seen to be colliding against each other; and there is no clear-cut common electoral strategy that seems to have emerged.

More seriously, the opposition appears to be more than just a bit stumped by the wave of nationalistic fervour that Mr Modi and his alliance have drummed up. In the prevailing environment of patriotic pride and hawkishness towards Pakistan expressing any criticism (or even mild differences of opinion) is fraught with the risks of being labelled “anti-national”, which, with elections around the corner, can prove to be disastrous for anyone with political ambitions. Even mild questioning by some Congress leaders of BJP president Amit Shah’s claim that more than 250 terrorists had died in India’s bombing of a site in Pakistan led to counter-attacks by the BJP that labelled the Congress as being anti-India.

The problem for the opposition parties is compounded by the fact that little has emerged from their side in the form of a cogent, coherent strategy that can be part of their electoral campaign. In spite of a plethora of issues that have plagued the Modi regime—lack of jobs; distress in the farm sector; irregularities in a major arms deal such as the one for acquiring Rafale fighter jets from France; and growing insecurity among India’s minorities—besides criticism, the opposition parties haven’t been seen proffering their solutions for such problems. The Congress’ president, Mr Rahul Gandhi, is visibly more active politically than he has ever been. In Uttar Pradesh, a state which accounts for the largest number of seats in India’s Parliament and which will play a crucial role in deciding the outcome of the elections, the Congress has a new team—Mr Gandhi’s sister, Priyanka, and a relatively young leader, Mr Jyotiraditya Scindia—to spearhead its campaign but thus far their impact has been limited.

Part of the problem for leaders in the opposition, specifically in the Congress, is that when Mr Modi changed the rules of contesting elections, they were taken a bit by surprise. Mr Modi fought and won the 2014 elections by aggressive promotion of himself as the prime ministerial candidate; and by making specific promises about progress, development and improvement in the lives of Indians. It was like a presidential election where candidates project their personalities and their individual strengths to garner votes. In contrast, the Congress fought (and lost badly) the 2014 elections without even a declared candidate for the prime ministerial post. Mr Gandhi’s rallies were pale compared to Mr Modi’s thunderous ones. The leaders of the Congress, which is the only other national party of consequence other than the BJP, appear to contest elections the way the party did in the 1980s when it, for the large part, had no real challengers. That strategy is unlikely to work for it any longer.

The audience (read electorate) has changed. Exposure to digital and social media (which the BJP and its supporters deploy much more efficiently than other parties) have made India’s electorate a lot more aware and demanding. In such a context, the Congress’ style of using emotional appeal and the (fast fading) charisma of the Gandhi family can seem anachronistic. Many supporters of Congress point to the elevation and induction of Mr Gandhi’s sister, Priyanka, as a sort of trump card that the party could use in the coming elections but the fact is that she is quite untested in active politics—a newbie really if you discount her past activities, which have basically centred around nurturing and visiting the pocket boroughs of her family—her brother’s and her mother’s constituencies in UP.

As for the mainly regional parties that make up the so-called grand alliance of the opposition, none of their leaders enjoys a national stature that can be built or leveraged to position against Mr Modi. In such circumstances, and particularly in the aftermath of India’s skirmish with Pakistan, the advantage as Indians get ready to vote could seem to lie with Mr Modi and his allies.

India Celebrates Big B’s Golden Jubilee

If India is to be identified with a voice, arguably though when views can violently differ, it would have to be that of Amitabh Bachchan.

Arguable it was even half-a century back when first heard in a background commentary in Mrinal Sen’s Bhuvan Shome (1970). Sen used only his first name and paid Rs 300. Before that, All India Radio (AIR), the only spoken mass medium then, had rejected it.

Today, the baritone, both God-given and cultivated, resonates with an impressive filmography and an equally respectable persona of a bespectacled gone totally grey, his tall, lanky frame filled-out with age.

Amitabh continues to sign more films than actors two decades younger. He endorses products that earn him more money and visibility than films. The toast of any gathering he selectively attends, he also promotes many a noble cause while maintaining, gingerly, his proximity with politics and politicians who matter.

His golden jubilee in cinema this year is not unusual, nor the number of his films, 234 (including three in making). Malayalam cinema’s superstar Prem Nazir (1926-1989) did 720 films. Ashok Kumar had done 326 in a career spanning 61 years. Ailing occasionally but still on the roll at 76, having begun late at 27, Amitabh is unlikely to match them in screen-longevity and film numbers. In terms of earnings, too, he stands way below Salman Khan and Deepika Padukone, seventh among the richest Indian celebrities assessed by Forbes Magazine last December.     

 He has made the term Bollywood that remains his principal platform seem respectable when vigorously disputed by the marquees of India’s regional cinema. While deprecating Bollywood’s craze for Hollywood, he did a solitary Hollywood film. Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby (2013) has him playing a non-Indian Jewish character, Meyer Wolfsheim.

Many would agree that Amitabh could have ventured into Los Angeles any time with his cultured voice, acting talent and market pull among the vast Indian diaspora. Not chasing Hollywood and staying rooted in Mumbai is a clever move typical of him. Not for him bit roles playing brown man in a black-and-white milieu. And, he needs to proudly defend his stardom. 

Stardom took a while coming although was an “officially sponsored” actor, perhaps, India’s only one. On the threshold of half-a-century, he may not like this recall.

Renowned Hindi poet-scholar Harivansh Rai and Teji Bachchan were close to then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She was said to have addressed letters to friends K A Abbas and Nargis. Amitqbh signed his first film, Reshma Aur Shera after Nargis passed on the letter to actor-filmmaker husband Sunil Dutt. Abbas asked Amitabh to get his father to telephone him before he could consider him for Saat Hindustani. Dutt’s film was delayed for want of funds and logistics difficulties in Rajasthan’s desert. Ironically, he plays a dumb, minus his baritone. Abbas’ film came first and he was noticed.

Film historian Gautam Kaul recalls that he accompanied Abbas on a talent-scouting visit to the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII). That attracted Jaya Bhaduri, a student who had been introduced by Satyajit Ray in Mahanagar (1965). That makes her his senior in cinema. They paired in Zanjeer, Amitabh’s first big hit. Married then, they remain Bollywood’s first couple.

His honing was privileged, but far from cinema. At Sherwood, a public school, he dabbled in English theater. At Delhi’s Kirori Mal College, he was one of the ‘players’. A corporate job took him to Calcutta (now Kolkata) and then Bollywood happened, not without struggle.    

At a time when India was experiencing its ‘parallel’ cinema where one risked being labeled “non-filmy” as per prevalent Bollywood parlance, Amitabh was lucky to get noticed by some of the top directors of the day. He achieved stardom before Naseeruddin Shah, Shabana Azmi and Om Puri and others from that flock. He paired with potential rival Vinod Khanna and with Rajesh Khanna, already a super-star.

He was noticed after being paired with Rajesh in ‘Anand’ and “Namak Haram”. Although a mannerism-driven Rajesh had the best dialogues and audience sympathy on dying in the climax, Amitabh overshadowed him in terms of presence and performance. Indeed, Amitabh’s rise came after Rajesh’s dizzying but meteoric rise and fall, along with that of Navin Nischol. He paired with Vinod Khanna but the latter’s forays out of cinema and into spiritualism put him out of the race. Amitabh was lucky, again.

In socialism-driven cinema of the 1970s, Amitabh emerged as the “angry young man” with ‘Zanjeer’ and ‘Deewar’. But he also sustained Bollywood’s raucous romance (Amar Akbar Anthony). The dhoti-clad poet also donned suite-boot in “Kabhi Kabhi” rendering an urban touch to Sahir Ludhianvi’s exquisite Urdu poetry. Writer-duo Salim-Javed wrote their best lines for ‘Sholay’.

His partnering contributed to the success of directors Prakash Mehra and Yash Chopra and in later years, Karan Johar, R. Balki and many a fresh talent. He is associated with some landmark films like ‘Black’(2005) ‘Pink’(2016) and ‘Pa.’(2009)

Amitabh’s political career was brief. As one who grew along with Rajiv Gandhi, he agreed (some say reluctantly) to contest parliamentary elections in 1984. He defeated H N Bahuguna, a major opposition leader.

His first day in parliament was a spectacle. Ministers and lawmakers alike thronged to get his autographs (“oh, for my grandson,” one said sheepishly). But he made no speech and would impassively watch the House proceedings, touching his face involuntarily as if missing the greasepaint.

In my only encounter with him in Parliament’s corridors, I sought his reaction to the Annual Budget. “I have no reaction.” I scolded him, almost: “A major concession is made for the film industry and you have nothing to say?” “I welcome it,” he said and rushed off.

He resigned when the Bofors gun deal scandal scalded friend Rajiv and then lamented in a Times of India interview that “politics is a cesspool.” Truth may never be known. He was among those who had let down Rajiv, critics say. The Gandhi-Bachchan breach, it is believed, remains to this day.

A serious career decline between 1988 and 1992 saw a series of flops. He looked jaded. His film production venture skidding, he went virtually bankrupt. But he climbed his way back into reckoning as actor, despite the advent of three young Khans – Aamir, Salman and Shah Rukh.

Succeeding the three post-Independence greats – Dilip Kumar, Dev Anand and Raj Kapoor and straddling the Khan era, Amitabh has played a range of characters, from Sufi, Shakespearean, suave romantic, a conman, a policeman, a soldier, a stricken child, a ghost, a drunkard — all that Bollywood offers.  Choosing favourites from among them is well-nigh impossible. He has starred opposite son Abhishek and daughter-in-law Aishwarya and outsmarted both – of course, the director and the script demand that.

A detailed narration of his career would take more space than permitted here. Roles are written for him. Whatever be the performance of others in the ventures, he does not let you down. And that is remarkable in 50th year.

His anchoring “Kaun Banega Karorpati,” the Indian version of “Who Wants To Be Millionaire”, remains a landmark in Indian television. Beginning 2000, it has had nine seasons and demand for it seems unending among advertisers and family audiences. In a way it also marks the evolution and ageing of Amitabh.

To be seen with him by the millions, is a lifetime’s achievement for the young and old, grannies and housewives. They acknowledge this gratefully, some tearfully. They narrate to him their hopes. He inculcates in them aspirations and family values.   Money-earning, although a huge motivation, becomes incidental when they are before him.  

If his success is to be measured in terms of awards and accolades, he has numerous, including four National Film Awards as Best Actor, many at international film festivals. He has won fifteen Filmfare Awards and with 41 nominations overall, is their most-nominated performer.

In 1991, he became the first to receive the Filmfare Lifetime Achievement Award established in the name of Raj Kapoor. The magazine crowned him as Superstar of the Millennium in 2000.

In 1999, he was voted the “greatest star of stage or screen” in a BBC Your Millennium online poll. The organisation noted that “Many people in the western world will not have heard of [him] … [but it] is a reflection of the huge popularity of Indian films.”

He has been conferred two honorary doctorates by the universities of Madras and Manchester. He can use Dr. as prefix, but does not.

Conferred Padma Shri (1984), Padma Bhushan (2001) and Padma Vibhushan (2015), now, Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian national award, awaits him.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com