Month: May 2019

PM Mayawati: Unthinkable Is Possible

By Anita Katyal
The BSP leader’s caste is her chief calling card as she has the advantage of tapping into the support of Dalits across the country

When the Bahujan Samaj Party drew a blank in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and was subsequently reduced to a mere 19 seats in the Uttar Pradesh assembly in the 2017 state polls, political observers and analysts were quick to declare that the party’s chief Mayawati had lost her touch and was on her way out.

But there has been a dramatic turnaround since then. As the ongoing Lok Sabha election enters the final phase, the same Mayawati, who was being written off as a political has-been, is being mentioned as a possible Prime Ministerial candidate provided the opposition parties notch up a respectable number of seats to form the next government.

Mayawati herself indicated recently that she has Prime Ministerial ambitions when she declared that she plans to contest the Lok Sabha election. She chose to stay away from the current general election but her decision sorely disappointed her Dalit support base which is pinning its hopes on “Behenji” occupying the country’s top post.

The BSP chief’s latest statement is essentially a message to her supporters that they should come out and vote in large numbers as she is very much in contention for the Prime Minister’s post. If the opposition is in a position to form the government later this month and she does emerge as its Prime Ministerial candidate, rules allow her six months to get elected to either house of Parliament.

Like West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, Mayawati has the necessary credentials to lead the country. Not unlike Mamata Banerjee, the BSP chief carved out a place for herself in a caste-ridden and patriarchal society to emerge as the unquestioned leader of her party. Mayawati has been a four-time chief minister of the country’s most populous and politically-important state of Uttar Pradesh; has proved to be a strong and efficient administrator; ensured accountability from her officials; tamped down on atrocities against Dalits and seen to it that the law and order situation in the state was not allowed to get out of hand.

Also Read: Will Project Behenji As PM, Says Jogi

On the flip side, there have been serious corruption charges against her, which continue to haunt her even today. She has also been accused of squandering public funds on erecting statues of the BSP’s election symbol (elephant), of herself, her mentor Kanshi Ram and other scheduled caste leaders. But this has not dimmed her popularity among the Jatavs who are convinced that Mayawati is being hounded because she is a Dalit.

In fact, Mayawati’s caste is her chief calling card. And that’s where she scores over Mamata Banerjee. A woman and a Dalit to boot, the daughter of a post office employee was a school teacher before she ventured into the world of politics when she was adopted by Scheduled Caste politician Kanshi Ram as his protege, becoming a key member of the Bahujan Samaj Party founded by him. Since then, she has emerged as a leader in her own right, becoming an icon and inspiration for the large scheduled caste population who view her as a symbol of Dalit empowerment. When she overcame all social and economic hurdles and first took over as Uttar Pradesh chief minister in 1995, the appointment of the first Dalit woman to this post was hailed by late Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao as a “miracle of democracy.”

ALSO READ: BSP Remains A Force To Reckon With

Unlike Mamata Banerjee, whose presence is confined to West Bengal, Mayawati has the advantage of tapping into the support of Dalits across the country though Uttar Pradesh remains her party’s main base. If a second miracle was to catapult her to the Prime Minister’s post, it will mark a huge victory for the country’s Dalits who have been oppressed by the upper castes for centuries. It will go down in Indian history as the country’s “Barack Obama” moment, finally giving the scheduled castes a share in political power.

ALSO READ: Can Didi Rise Above Bengal Politics?

It is precisely for this reason that other opposition parties, including the Congress, will have no choice but to endorse Mayawati’s candidature if her name is proposed for the Prime Minister’s post. The country is ready for a Dalit Prime Minister. Mayawati’s elevation will come at a time when the country has been witnessing an increase in the incidence of violence against Scheduled Castes since the Modi government came to power in 2014. There is simmering anger among the Dalits which can be best assuaged if the BSP chief moves into Delhi’s South Block office of the Prime Minister.

Having proved her mettle as a chief minister, Mayawati should not find it difficult to adjust to her new role as the country’s premier. While she will be expected to bestow special favors on Dalits in terms of better funding for their education and improved job opportunities, Mayawati’s interests will be better served if she avoids playing the caste card in the appointment of her ministers and advisors. She will need all the expert advice because handling the country’s economy and foreign affairs is uncharted territory for her. A failure to do has the potential of inviting a backlash from the upper castes who will not be happy to see a Dalit woman occupying the country’s top post.

Though Mayawati, like Mamata Banerjee, is autocratic, mercurial and unpredictable, she also has a streak of pragmatism in her. For instance, the BSP chief did not hesitate to put aside her aversion to pre-poll alliances and entered into a partnership with the Samajwadi Party, her bitter political rival, once she realized that her party’s political survival was at stake after it was pushed to the margins by a rampaging Bharatiya Janata Party first in the last Lok Sabha election and then the 2017 assembly poll.  

Similarly, Mayawati resorted to deft “social engineering” in the run-up to the 2007 assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh when she realized it would have to expand her support base as it would not be possible for her come to power with the sole support of Dalits. Mayawati then went on to do the impossible when she extended an olive branch to Brahmins, even though her party’s identity was based on destroying the Brahminical order. The BSP chief admitted Brahmins to the BSP ranks, fielded them in elections and promised them positions of power both in the party and the government. The strategy paid off as Mayawati went on to form the government in Uttar Pradesh then with a comfortable majority.

Despite Mayawati’s best efforts to be even-handed in her approach, it would be naïve to believe that her appointment to the country’s highest office will not be resented by the upper castes whose members have been wielding political power for decades. Don’t forget, Obama was succeeded by Donald Trump.

]]>
CEC Sunil Arora

Credibility Of Election Commission Under Scanner

By Mahendra Ved
Governing general elections in as vast and diverse a nation as India is never easy; it becomes more difficult when integrity and impartiality of the poll administrator are doubted

India’s polity, despite its robustness and seven decades’ working, is in turmoil as never before and appears divided. Causing and deepening the crisis, ironically, is an election that is being fought no-holds-barred.

Governing this vast and diverse nation is never easy. It is more difficult when integrity and impartiality of its institutions are doubted. And even more so when the political leadership in and outside the legislature that facilitates these institutions and works in tandem with them is in throes of an election.

In India, buck stops at the door of the Supreme Court on every other contentious issue. But the highest court is itself mired in a controversy involving none less than the Chief Justice of India (CJI). While handling it, it has seemingly divided members of the top judiciary on how to ensure justice and fairness, both real and perceived.

In the most piquant situation, a former woman employee last month wrote to all serving judges complaining of being sexually harassed and then victimized, by the CJI, Mr Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The CJI strongly denied the allegations. He said: “There are forces that are trying to destabilise the judiciary. There are bigger forces behind these allegations hurled at me.”

He did not indicate who the ‘forces’ could be. But he vowed that he would function normally during the six months left of his tenure.

The lady in question remains unnamed because Indian law mandates that victims of sexual assault and harassment not be named in the media. After appearing before a Gogoi-appointed panel of three serving judges for two days, she cried out alleging that the committee declined her plea for engaging a lawyer and that she would not get justice.  

The in-house panel of judges dismissed her plea stating there was “no substance” in her allegations and thus, gave a clean chit to the CJI. Prior to the committee’s verdict, two serving judges had reportedly asked that the lady be permitted to engage a lawyer or an amicus curiae be associated to ensure the probe’s fairness. However, the probe is completed ex parte, without her and its report will not be made public. Countering the ‘forces’ seeking to destabilize the top judiciary seems to have driven the judges committee’s unanimous decision.      

However, the woman is demanding a copy of the report. Sections of legal fraternity and women’s rights groups stated a protest outside the court demanding natural justice for the complainant.

As it seeks to get over its embarrassment, the apex court is being asked by many political parties to adjudicate on fairness of the conducting of the polls by the Election Commission, another august institution on whom India has been taking a bow from other democracies.

There is no last word on any issue. After five of the seven phases of this 39-day process were completed, the Supreme Court rejected a review plea filed by 21 Opposition leaders seeking further increase in random matching of the Voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) slips with electronic voting machine (EVMs).

Being directed by the Supreme Court on issues that actually belong to its turf, the EC is facing challenges more daunting than what preceding generations faced. Advances in communications technology have made regulation of campaigning, to ensure that it is consistent with the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), almost impossible. Clearly the existing legal framework is inadequate, unable to keep pace with rich and tech-savvy campaign cells of political parties.

Reminded by the Supreme Court that it had ‘teeth’ and must use them, the EC has done so partially, but is itself divided. One of its three members has dissented on whether campaign speeches, especially those by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bharatiya Janata Party chief Amit Shah, have violated the MCC.

The EC’s efforts at curbing spouting of venom in the polls discourse are also being questioned. It is accused on both counts of favouring the ruling dispensation. “While complaints against other leaders were promptly dealt with, there was an obvious delay in taking up those against Mr. Modi. Few would have failed to notice that he has been running an abrasive campaign. He has stoked fears over India’s security, claimed credit for the performance of the armed forces and implicitly underscored that his party stands for the religious majority,” The Hindu newspaper said.

Five of the six orders have been dissented and the dissenting Election Commissioner has asked why his dissent is pot part of the final order.    

The Supreme Court this week permitted the opposition Congress Party to place on record all the EC verdicts. The party argued that the EC’s silence and delay “are akin to tacit endorsement”.

The Modi/Shah duo is accused of attacking Muslims, directly or subtly, invoking armed forces and of Pakistan-bashing — all three falling within the MCC ambit — to raise ‘nationalistic’ fervor, while calling all dissenters ‘traitors’.

Just how many instances of violence can the EC’s state-level offices record, report, issue notices and upon receiving replies, deliver verdicts? It imposes token no-campaign punishment on candidates for two or three days. Even these are being violated.

Too many disputes against the EC or its Returning Officers have been taken to the apex court. Tej Bahadur Yadav had emerged as the main opposition candidate against Modi in the Varanasi constituency. A former policeman sacked for seeking better food while on duty, his papers were rejected on the ground that he had failed to take EC’s permission to contest, which is needed for a government official removed or suspended. That certificate, Yadav complained, was sought at the eleventh hour and he could not comply. He told the court that he was debarred to allow Modi a walk-over.

The EC must also play the policeman. After three of the seven phases were completed, it confiscated cash, gold and silver, liquor, drugs and other items worth ₹3,205 crore, according to its data published on April 27.   

At this rate, wonders N. Bhaskara Rao, Chairman, Centre for Media Srudies, a New Delhi think tank, “we can expect more than twice this amount to be confiscated by the time the election ends. What is confiscated is likely to be less than five percent of what is being spent by all the candidates and parties. The total expenditure of this election is estimated to be about ₹50,000 crore, which is the highest amount for any election in the world.”

As things stand with two weeks to go to the May 23 outcome of these elections, the over-worked Umpire, its credibility questioned, is under stress as never before.

Having written on a dozen elections, one is clutching at the comforting but unsure thought that things would become ‘normal’ once this no-holds-barred “dance of democracy” is over.

But the thought on low depths that can be touched by people with fellow-citizens as they contest an election and on the performance of institutions with enduring records, formed and functioning under the Constitution, is deeply disconcerting.

mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>
Narendra Modi At Rally

Six things to expect if Modi comes back as PM

By Sanjoy Narayan
A Modi regime 2.0 could mean changes with far-reaching consequences for India

When the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) national general secretary Ram Madhav in a recent interview with Bloomberg News’ editor-in-chief said that his party would require the support of its allies to form a government, there was much elation among the BJP’s baiters and opponents. Madhav merely said that his party would be happy if it won 271 of India’s 543 parliamentary seats and he forecasted that with the support of its allies, the National Democratic Alliance (a coalition that the BJP leads) would get a comfortable majority in the House for which elections are ongoing.

Five of the seven phases of India’s national election have been completed, and after the remaining two are done, the results are expected to be announced on May 23. But when Madhav hinted that the BJP was unlikely to get a majority by itself (in 2014, it had won 282 seats), the opponents of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his party viewed it as some kind of admission of defeat. The thing is many observers, including journalists who have scoured the vast nation during the ongoing elections, have been reporting that although Mr Modi and the BJP have a distinct edge over their opponents, a voting wave of the sort that favoured them in 2014 is unlikely to be repeated. But the BJP and its allies could win the mandate to form the government again—with, presumably, Mr Modi as their Prime Minister for the second term.

Such predictions are fraught with the risk of being proved wrong—India’s elections have always been notoriously difficult to predict because of the country’s vastness and its complex diversities. Yet, many wonder what to expect if Mr Modi is back in power in New Delhi for another five years. His staunchest critics fear that it could unleash a regime of authoritarianism that could raise the insecurity that minorities, including the nation’s Muslims, who account for 14% of the population, face. Some believe the authority and autonomy of institutions such as the judiciary and fiscal regulators could get compromised by his government’s political interests.

A lot would depend on the margin of majority that the BJP (with or without its allies) are able to muster up in the ongoing election. If their margin of victory is not too slender, it could mean a strengthening of the Modi government 2.0’s ambit of power. Here are some of the ways in which such a phenomenon could manifest itself:

  1. More control over India’s media sector? In last year’s World Press Freedom Index rankings (compiled by the non-profit, Reporters Without Borders) of 180 countries, India was placed at a lowly 138 (China was 176 and North Korea 180). It is widely accepted that albeit its noisy, cacophonous, and crowded nature, India’s mainstream media is not exactly free. Media owners are compromised in many different ways and the content they publish is often compromised—either through self-censorship or fear of governmental retribution. The new wave of emerging digital publications are, however, still free; and many of them are vocal critics of Mr Modi and his government. If his regime returns to power, one could expect stricter controls for the digital media, and, of course, continued influence over older, mainstream media.
  2. Constitutional and other changes? As has been evident in the past five years, Mr Modi’s style of governance borders on the presidential style that is in vogue in many large nations—including the US. Mr Modi also wields considerable power, often unilateral, over his cabinet and council of ministers. For him to move toward a presidential form of democracy where people elect the president as the head of the executive (and not a titular position as exists now) may not come as a surprise. Mr Modi is an admirer of China’s President Xi Jinping; and of Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, both politicians that rule with an iron hand and overwhelming control. Of course, China’s isn’t a democratic government like India’s is but with a sort of presidential system in place, the top boss of the executive could get to wield considerably greater powers as an individual.
  3. Further weakening of institutions? India’s central bank; its state-owned banks; its higher educational institutions; and research centres already face noticeable degrees of government interference. Vice-chancellors and other key appointments at educational institutions are often politically decided. There are instances to show that syllabuses, grants, funding, and courses, including areas of research, are often influenced by the government through its education and other related ministries. Such a trend could intensify in a second Modi regime. As could the interference of government in monetary policy. During Mr Modi’s first tenure as Prime Minister, the central bank, RBI, witnessed the exit of a high-profile and globally reputed governor, Dr Raghuram Rajan, ostensibly because he refused to toe the line of Mr Modi’s finance ministry. Many fear that a return of his government could lead to even higher government control over monetary policy.
  4. Changes in the way the judiciary functions? India’s judiciary follows the collegium system, which is based on a principle of judicial independence. This means the appointment of judges can be decided only by the judiciary without any interference from the legislature or the executive. The government, during Mr Modi’s regime, attempted to change this by setting up the National Judicial Appointments Committee (NJAC) under an Act of Parliament. However, the act was quashed by the Supreme Court, which restored the collegium system. If Mr Modi’s regime returns, many believe the NJAC could be revived. If it does, the appointment of judges, in theory at least, could be subject to external influences, namely from the government.
  5. More strident discrimination against minorities? It is widely acknowledged that the minority communities in India have witnessed sharpened discrimination during the past five years. Violence and instances of lynching related to cow slaughter, besides other forms of discrimination, have increased against religious and other minorities. Many fear that the fringe elements in the majority community could get a further boost if a BJP-led government returns to power. The National Register of Citizens, which is a register of all “genuine” Indian citizens in Assam, or a form of it could also be introduced in other states, especially those that share a border with foreign countries.
  6. Impact on the future of Kashmir? The state of Kashmir is empowered with a special status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. For all matters other than defence, foreign affairs, finance and communication, Parliament needs the state government’s concurrence to apply other laws. The state also decides on residents’ citizenship status; property rights; and fundamental rights. The BJP has been opposing this special status to the state. In the context of the continued dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, the return of the Modi regime could see revival of the move to abolish Article 370, which could lead to an upheaval in the state.
]]>
Rahul Gandhi In Arunachal

Can Rahul Pull It Off As Prime Minister

By Anita Katyal
As the battle for the most powerful and prestigious chair in the country rages on, many voters have put their penny on Rahul Gandhi as the next Prime Minister of India. Does the Gandhi scion has the mettle to handle the power and responsibility that comes with the post? In a new series of articles, LokMarg will examine the various contenders for the Prime Minister’s job, starting with the arch-challenger, Rahul Gandhi.

Well before Rahul Gandhi took over as the Congress president, a large section of his own party members were not sure that he had the capacity to lead them. After all, the Nehru-Gandhi scion had acquired a reputation of being a non-serious politician who was yet to get a firm grip on the party’s organization. In addition, he had an uneasy relationship with other opposition parties and was unable to connect with the public on account of his poor oratorical skills.

The fact that Rahul Gandhi had been unsuccessful in delivering electoral victories for the party was another negative. These doubts about his leadership qualities were further fuelled by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s relentless and highly successful campaign, dubbing Rahul Gandhi as “Pappu”.

However, there has been a dramatic change in Rahul Gandhi over the past eighteen months. His oratory has improved considerably though he is not in the same class as Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Congress president is gradually coming across as a mature politician, who is fighting shy of taking on the Modi government and is more focused on handling the party organization. Rahul Gandhi further redeemed himself with a credible performance in last year’s Gujarat assembly polls, which was followed by victories in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

More than a year after he took control of the party, the Congress president has finally shed the “pappu” image while his critics within the party have been effectively silenced.

ALSO READ: Transformation Of Rahul, Tweet By Tweet

But does this mean that Rahul Gandhi is now ready to shoulder the responsibility of leading the nation as its Prime Minister just in case the post-poll numbers favour the Congress. No,  the Congress president has still some distance to cover before he is accepted by the public at large as a credible alternative to Modi. For starters, he is sorely handicapped by his lack of administrative experience. Rahul Gandhi had an opportunity to fill this gap in his resume when he was offered a Cabinet berth in the Manmohan Singh government but he decided instead to focus on party affairs. Besides his lack of experience, Rahul Gandhi does not instill confidence in the voter that he can handle matters of state without fumbling or making a faux pas.

Congress leaders, of course, are quick to point out that his father Rajiv Gandhi also came with no previous experience in running a government when he took over as Prime Minister in 1984 in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. However, Rajiv Gandhi had the advantage of a massive majority in the Lok Sabha which enabled him to take decisive steps in both domestic and foreign affairs. Despite widespread skepticism, he pushed ahead with advances in information technology and telecommunications sectors. Rajiv Gandhi was also emboldened to take risky decisions like signing the Longowal accord in insurgency-hit Punjab, was responsible for a paradigm shift in Sino-India relations and sought to build bridges with Sri Lanka though he ended up paying a heavy price for it.

ALSO READ: Rahul’s Popularity On The Rise

Unlike his father, Rahul Gandhi is not expected to have the luxury of numbers in case he does get a shot at ascending the Prime Minister’s kursi. The Congress footprint has shrunk considerably over the past three decades and the party has gradually come to terms with the fact that it needs the support of coalition partners to come to power at the Centre as it cannot do on its own. There are lurking doubts that Rahul Gandhi has the temperament or the gravitas to deal with temperamental and demanding allies even if there is a remote possibility that the other opposition parties will concede the Prime Minister’s post to him. Undoubtedly, he will have to rely on Sonia Gandhi and other senior leaders like Ahmed Patel and Ghulam Nabi Azad to keep the allies in good humour.

Whatever other disadvantages he may have, the Congress president will have a large inhouse talent pool at his disposal to assist him in running the government. Besides, Rahul Gandhi comes with a long and rich legacy which is both a source of strength and weakness. On one hand, the party’s past experience provides a ready template for governance but on the other hand, it will also make it difficult for the young Gandhi to chart an independent path. Here, he will be hemmed in not just by his coalition partners but also by his party members. Remember the stiff resistance PV Narasimha Rao faced from Congress insiders when he deviated from the party’s set economic policy and drafted Manmohan Singh to liberalize the economy.

ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi In A New Avatar

Nevertheless, the Congress brand name, though considerably diluted, will give Rahul Gandhi an edge over the other Prime Ministerial contenders in the opposition camp. The Nehru-Gandhi scion may be lacking in experience but he can always fall back on seasoned leaders like former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, P. Chidambaram, Anand Sharma and A.K. Antony to navigate him through possible minefields in the areas of economic and foreign affairs.

Like his mother, Rahul Gandhi has made it abundantly clear that he will build on the party’s pro-poor image with a special emphasis on addressing agrarian distress and the implementation of an income guarantee scheme for the needy as detailed in the party’s election manifesto. But it is equally certain that there will be no going back on economic reforms ushered in by Manmohan Singh.

Rajiv Gandhi’s friend Sam Pitroda is currently playing a key role in Rahul Gandhi’s dispensation and will continue to do so if the Congress president makes the cut as the country’s Prime Minister. Pitroda has been instrumental in planning and organizing Rahul Gandhi’s tours in the United States, Britain and the Middle East where he has interacted with both the Indian diaspora and global leaders, policy makers, think tanks and academics.

The intention is to position Rahul Gandhi as an international leader, to correct the perception that he is a dilettante, improve his image abroad and provide an opportunity to the outside world to get acquainted with his views on a vast array of subjects. As in the case of economic affairs, Rahul Gandhi is unlikely to deviate from the Congress position in the area of international affairs which will continue to focus on strengthening ties with both Russia and the United States and improving relations with the neighboring countries. An assurance to this effect has been conveyed during Rahul Gandhi’s trips abroad and his periodic meetings with visiting world leaders.

]]>
NRIs and Narendra Modi

Long-Distance Nationalism Helps Modi And RSS

By LokMarg
Narendra Modi and RSS have a reliable and prosperous constituency among NRIs who have a translated, frozen and overly benign view of an India they left behind, writes Deepak Pant

 

The legal definition of an NRI is that of a ‘non-resident Indian’, though sometimes the person also attracts the sobriquet of a ‘not required Indian’. Physically located abroad, the NRI community – and the Indian diaspora – is spread all over the world; in some cases over generations with weak links to what was once their homeland. Many have frozen, nostalgic and mostly outdated memories of the India they left behind; India has, meanwhile, moved on. The dictum that distance makes the heart grow fonder may well be valid in the case of the NRI community: for example, Diwali is celebrated with more gusto and tradition in places such as Leicester in the UK than is the case in many parts of India. 

Caught between two cultural stools – their Indian cultural identity and the culture of the place of their location – most members of the NRI community turn more ritualistic than many Hindus in India. Most NRIs are not Indian citizens, so cannot vote in Indian elections, but that does not prevent them from joining the heat and dust of campaigning in large numbers. The BJP is clearly ahead of the Congress in terms of support in the NRI community; from the UK alone, over 2,000 volunteers have travelled to India at their own expenses to campaign for Narendra Modi and the BJP.

The RSS and its organizations have long worked among the NRI community in the UK and elsewhere, benefiting from large donations as well as spreading their version of ‘cultural nationalism’ to a grateful people caught between two stools. Britain has a considerable presence of the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), which has been functioning since 1966. Its structure, principles and activities are similar to those of the RSS, whose head, Mohan Bhagwat, attended its ‘mahashibir’ in Luton in August 2016 to mark 50 years of its existence. It was the influential Gujarati lobby that influenced the David Cameron government before the 2014 elections to abandon the earlier policy of boycotting the Modi government in Gujarat over the 2002 riots.

As prime minister, Modi made a splash while addressing the diaspora at the Wembley Stadium in November 2015, while Cameron, who would often woo the Indian vote by appearing at large events addressed by Hindu religious leaders from India, among others, won much support from the Indian community during the 2010 and 2015 elections. The convergence and conflation of Indian with Hindu interests was evident before Modi’s November 2015 visit to London. At a ‘thanksgiving’ event at the Indian Gymkhana for the benefit of many organizations that had come together to welcome Modi, the influence of the Hindu-HSS-BJP lobby in the UK was evident. On the stage, against a backdrop of a large Modi image, were Dhiraj Shah (president of HHS), Baroness Sandip Varma (Conservative), Ranjan Mathai (Indian high commissioner at the time), Nat Puri (prominent industrialist), Virendra Sharma (Labour) and Stephen Pound (Labour). Other leading lights were also in attendance.

It may well be a case of ‘Begani shadi me Abdullah diwana’, since most of the NRIs cannot vote, but the largely pro-Modi/BJP community has also been courted by Modi during his foreign visits. The template of his visits to various capitals invariably includes an address to the local Indian community, which was not the case with previous visiting Indian prime ministers. At such meetings, Modi makes it a point to deliver feel-good speeches, insisting that the diaspora community has the same ‘khoon’ as that of any Indian. He gives the impression that he is setting things right in the country many had left due to various reasons. But all the while, his stated and unstated focus remains the majoritarian Hindu support base. For example, during the community address in Paris in June 2017, hundreds of members of the Bohra Muslim community resident in France but with roots in Gujarat waited patiently for him for hours, most of them holding small Indian flags. But Modi came, spoke and went away without as much as a cursory glance at them, leaving many of them disappointed.

For the ongoing Indian elections, the Overseas Friends of BJP has been in hyperactive mode. According to its officials, nearly 5,000 volunteers from the UK have travelled to India to join the BJP’s campaign, while others have been enlisted to make calls back home to support Modi as prime minister again. Others have organised bike rallies, flash mobs and pushed on social media videos taken at iconic places such as the Big Ben while extolling the achievements of the Modi government. Leveraging support for the BJP and RSS-backed groups in the 1.5 million-strong Indian diaspora, many of its members and supporters were active in campaigning for the BJP during the 2014 elections. A ‘Chai pe Charcha with Namo’ was also held in Harrow. The level of support for Modi and the BJP in the Indian diaspora far outweighs that for Rahul Gandhi and the Congress, even though the party’s units abroad have a history dating to the pre-independence days, when many Congress leaders studied in the UK.

Most NRIs have a translated, frozen and overly benign view of an India they left behind. They may not make much of a difference on the ground, but in the age of rapid communications, globalization and the internet, Modi and the ‘sangh parivar’ clearly have a reliable and prosperous constituency outside India on which they can fall back as and when required.

]]>
Bengal Chief Minister

Can Didi Rise Above Bengal To Aim At PM?

By Anita Katyal
While Mamata Banerjee has an impressive political CV that makes various opposition parties back her as the next prime minister, she tends to look at most issues through the prism of state politics

Whenever questions are asked about the Prime Ministerial candidate of the opposition parties which have come together to dethrone the Modi government in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections, West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee is mentioned as a prime contender for the top post along with Congress president Rahul Gandhi and Bahujan Samaj Party supremo Mayawati.

Undoubtedly, 64-year-old Mamata Banerjee has an impressive CV. She has won seven Lok Sabha elections, has served as a Central minister and is now into her second term as chief minister of West Bengal. She began her electoral career with an impressive debut in the 1984 Lok Sabha election when she defeated CPM stalwart Somnath Chatterjee in the Left bastion Jadhavpur.

This spectacular victory marked the beginning of Mamata Banerjee’s long, political struggle. A firebrand politician and a dogged street fighter, she persisted with her battle over the years, leading a series of mass protests against the Leftists. Her persistence eventually paid off when she succeeded in dislodging the 34-year-old well-entrenched Left Front government in 2011. In fact, MamataBanerjee was so determined and focused on taking on the Communists that she even walked out of the Congress in 1998 and launched her own party – the Trinamool Congress – when she realized that the grand old party was not serious about overthrowing the Left Front government.

Also Read: PM Candidature – Does Rahul Have It In Him

Though  the responsibility of  heading a state government requires that  Mamata Banerjee shed her image as a street fighter, the Trinamool chief’s fighting days are far from over. She has returned to her old avatar as the Bengal tigress but this time, she is not battling the Leftists but a resurgent Bharatiya Janata Party which is making an aggressive bid to expand its footprint in West Bengal.

Her open confrontation with the Modi government came to a head earlier this February when she sat on a dharna in Kolkata along with her ministers and party cadres to protest the Centre’s move to send a team of officials from the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe the West Bengal police chief Rajeev Kumar in connection with an ongoing inquiry into a chit fund scam.

The BJP’s concerted effort to storm Mamata Banerjee’s citadel in West Bengal has also forced her to reach out to other opposition parties with the express purpose of putting up a united fight against the saffron party.  In trademark Mamata-style, the Trinamool chief got together a galaxy of opposition leaders on a common platform at a mega rally in Kolkata earlier in January. She also worked with other opposition leaders on a campaign against Modi’s decision to demonetize high-value currency notes in 2016. At the same time, Mamata Banerjee made friendly overtures to the Congress and expressed a willingness to work with arch-rival, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), in her mission to defeat the BJP.

This has naturally fuelled speculation that Mamata Banerjee wants to play a larger role at the national level. At present, the Trinamool chief is focused on winning a maximum of 42 Parliamentary seats in the ongoing general election so that she is in a position to drive a hard bargain after the poll results, in case the opposition parties outnumber the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. Her ambition to emerge as the face of the opposition front flows from her understanding that Congress president Rahul Gandhi will not be accepted as the anti-BJP coalition’s Prime Ministerial candidate. Given the feedback from the field, the regional parties believe they will have sufficient numbers to force the Congress to support them in forming a government so as to keep the BJP out.

Consequently, Mamata Banerjee’s election campaign has acquired a national flavor. While Trinamool Congress party’s hoardings and posters in West Bengal point out that this election is about forming a government of the people in Delhi, the word is out on the street if the voters play it right, a Bengali could have a could have a shot at  becoming the country’s Prime Minister.

Mamata Banerjee, it is pointed out, is politically canny, has a firm grip on her party, has the necessary administrative experience both at the Centre and in the state and above all, she is personally incorruptible. As chief minister, the Trinamool Congress chief has been a hands-on administrator, keeping the bureaucracy on a tight leash and held per officers accountable for the implementation of government programmes.  She has relied heavily on populist and welfare schemes  to remain on top of her game and has proved to be more “Left than the Leftists” as far as policies go. Like her political rivals, she has ruthlessly used the government machinery to decimate her opponents and expand the Trinamool Congress, obliterating the line between the state and the party.

Mamata Banerjee can push her case for the Prime Minister’s job on the basis of  her numerical strength, experience and seniority but she is also known to be mercurial and unpredictable which could prove problematic if is she is given the responsibility of running the country. It is not clear how she will deal with coalition partners who come with their own set of demands and agendas.

The Trinamool Congress chief as Prime Minister can be expected to go ahead with pro-poor programmes like rural employment guarantee scheme and right to food but her commitment to economic reforms are not clear. On one hand, she has been wooing the private sector invest in West Bengal but, on another hand, it was her relentless campaign which forced the Tatas to abandon their plans to set up the Nano car manufacturing unit in the state. Though it is accepted in Delhi that economic reforms are now irreversible, it must be remembered that Mamata Banerjee had pulled out of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government in protest against the Centre’s policy to allow foreign direct investment in the retail sector.

But above all, Mamata Banerjee, like all regional parties, tends to look at issues through the prism of their state politics. Since their presence is confined to a state, regional leaders tend to lack a national perspective. Mamata Banerjee is no exception when it comes to giving precedence to regional concerns over national interest. The West Bengal chief minister had embarrassed former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when she refused to accompany him to Bangladesh and derailed the signing of a landmark treaty on the sharing of Teesta river waters by the two countries on the ground that West Bengal’s interests had not been adequately protected. It may be unfair to pronounce judgment on Mamata Banerjee’s conduct as Narendra Modi’s successor but the possibility of a regional leader at the helm brings back memories of Janata Dal (S) leader H.D.Deve Gowda’s short tenure as Prime Minister in 1996 when he was derisively described as the “PM of Karnataka.”

]]>

India’s Fissiparous Politics, An Essay

By Jasdev Singh Rai
Politicians have cyclically tried to lure the voter with a ‘supranational’ identity, not realising that the most enduring character of Indian civilisation is its diversity

Are India’s election results that difficult to predict as many pollsters say? After the 2014 general elections, many pundits have become cautious of declaring outcomes one way or the other. However, Indians, like people anywhere in democracies, do not vote just for roti, kapra, makaan (food, clothes and shelter). Other factors such as vision, identity, belonging and peer pressures also influence their choice. In India, it is the pendulum oscillating between a ‘supranational’ identity and a regional ‘national’ identity that seems to be a considerable factor other than economics.

India is a country of many nations, many religions, many ‘Peoples’ and even many cultures and regions. The first identity and belonging of the average Indian, apart from the metropolitan English speaking class, is their community or region.

Every couple of decades, the ‘rooted’ voter is seduced and drawn out by a bigger vision, a ‘supranational idea’, a collective dream or ‘national’ and even a collective threat. It is promoted or exploited by a maverick leader or slick party machine.

ALSO READ: BJP Harps On Hindu Victimhood

Wars were the one factor that brought people in a huddle and start thinking ‘nationally’. It was a nationalism of negativity, of fear of being taken over again and losing ‘independence’. Wars were not necessarily of India’s choosing until Mrs Gandhi came along.

Mrs Gandhi understood that in the simple majoritarian Westminster type democracy, fissiparous votes could not be relied on to deliver working majorities simply on a platform of economics, particularly as regional parties could deliver economic improvement competitively. There had to be a ‘national’ issue or a crises to rally Indians around.

She precipitated a crises within Congress and found an internal ‘enemy’ to rally the troops. Then came the 1971 war which she started. A victory created a ‘national’ upsurge. But soon it waned.

She then targeted the Sikhs and played communal politics. The Sikhs fell into a trap. They were portrayed as the new threat to ‘Hindustan’ as a country although no real movement for Khalistan existed before 1984. The Sikhs were asking for greater regional economic and political autonomy for all Indian states. 1984 changed that and Congress had a few more years of playing the ‘national integrity under threat’. Votes were almost guaranteed.  A paranoia of nation under siege overrode regional identity.

The Sikh factor could not be played for long. Indira Gandhi paid with her life. Although Rajiv Gandhi gained from that after his mother’s assassination wearing saffron clothes among other props to create a national ‘unifying’ vision, he had no ‘national crises’ to speak of after that. Fissiparous politics came back and a coalition of regional parties got into power at the centre as a coalition only to break under their own centrifugality or lack of any ideology keeping them together.

Rajiv was assassinated. Congress cashed on the insecurity and sympathy.  Again the paranoia of ‘threat’ precipitated a national surge.

ALSO READ: Foreign Policy Is Never A Poll Issue

Congress has relied on the metropolitan class sold on the idea that India needs to be non-religious, hence secular like Europe. It successfully portrayed Hindu Mahasabha parties as threat to national unity neutrality and minorities. Its second large vote bank was the Schedule Castes and the third the Muslims. Schedule Castes hate upper caste Hindus and Muslims fear Hindus of the Mahasabha. Congress played this deftly. However, Congress also subtly played the Hindu identity card.

Playing the ‘Hindu’ card after Mrs Gandhi’s death and after Rajiv’s death, Congress unleashed a new unifying force, a revivalist Hindu nationalism. The Mahasabha cashed in on this. Its message was that the Hindu was treated as second class citizen in his own country and was being betrayed by Congress to appease minorities and ‘lower castes’.

This gradually forged a new national identity, ‘Hindu India’ created on conspiracy theories of Hindu neglect and victimhood. Hindus sense of marginalisation was cleverly played by BJP on the national field with the Bania as its most ardent supporter. This is India’s Brexit wave.

The first BJP Government came to power without any coherent vision. Simply hating fellow countrymen, blaming them for invasions that took place 1,000 years ago and a policy of reversing historic conquests of the past is not a sustainable political theory.  The Ram Mandir issue in Ayodhya may have translated some sense of historic grievance into a vote bank but it does not give people a positive identity or fill their stomachs.

Fissiparous trends pulled back the vote in favour of Congress as the regional parties were too fragmented to come together. Congress has had a clever way of forging federal tendencies and minority insecurity into a national secular campaign fighting off what it deems ‘regional communalism’ and Hindu communalism. But its game plan is cracking up and it is increasingly having to forge coalitions with the real regional parties to form a ‘national government’ still under the plank of the ‘secular’ as anti-Hindu communal slogan. It is not thriving.

ALSO READ: Do Regional Parties Hold The Key

The regional parties of India lack a national political idea that holds their federalist nature in a national coalition for long. People feel comfortable to vote for them only if there is a larger ‘national’ party in the coalition that can lead.

After the first BJP government, politics nevertheless got back to its default mode of being fissiparous and threw up coalitions led by Congress the largest party.

War as a unifying notion is no longer possible. With a nuclear Pakistan, war is a high risk strategy. The neighbours know India’s British templated adversarial political system means the party in Government is tempted to wage a token war to look ‘tough’ and harvest the vote. As insurance they have entered into security arrangements with China or USA.

Along came Modi. He cast himself as the saviour to restore Hindu glory and recover from a thousand years bruise of having been conquered and ruled. He was going to put the Hindu on the world map. Above all he was going to show all Indians that in India it is Hindu first, Hindu most and Hindu top. Hindutva replaced secular. Even Rahul Gandhi has metamorphosed into a Hindutva clone, visiting temples in veneration dhoti.

Many Hindus in India began to wear their identity on their sleeves and express prejudices in the open. Hindus outside India became the new Khalistanis, except in this case Hindustanis, annoying NRIs who don’t chant Bharat Mata ki Jai. They are Modi’s greatest supporters, imagining a revival of the Mahabharat, the Bharat of the legends.

The problem with this grand vision is that it militates against the most enduring character of Indian civilisation, a deep respect and belief in diversity of life, cultures and lifestyles. Hindutva on the other hand is an outdated 1920s theory of ethnic nationalism built on a then common template of anti-western hegemony but cocooned from within western modernism. It veers towards counter liberal tendencies.

Hindutva in the public space has not been a glorious spectacle with lynching of poor Muslims going about their traditional business of dealing with cow carcasses etc. In the new paradigm of India’s national identity, the cow has become more sacred than human life. India is increasingly becoming the land of Hindu and bovine rights.

Anti-Muslim sentiment, a fundamentalist type Hindu revivalism putsch against other Hindus, and the failure to make ‘lower’ castes inclusive have not endeared the Hindu voter whose understanding of a resilient Indian dharma is an ideology of pluralism rather than hate and intimidation. BJP’s reconstructed ‘Hindu identity’ has not only marginalised some minorities with sense of not belonging but challenges the very powerful essence of an enduring civilisation that has survived numerous efforts in history to force a monolithic outlook. It is highly unlikely that RSS-BJP will succeed where Moghuls and British failed.

Consequently, BJP’s attraction has waned as a post-Congress visionary party. Its economic record does not overcome its ideological handicap. Large number of Indians are reverting back to fissiparous politics. The ‘national’ idea is not appealing enough to hold itself.

The BJP will win but not the big majority it gained in 2014. Its asset is a ‘national cadre’ that can still revive some political ‘Hindu nationalism’. But its greater asset now is the ideological vacuity of a disparate opposition who the voter thinks will engage in palace coups as soon as they get into power. As Modi has pointed out several times, the only glue holding the loose coalition is ‘vote Modi out’, hardly basis of a national or economic manifesto.

India’s political issues are complex. Three dimensions stand out and continue to influence the oscillation between a ‘national’ surge and then falling back towards a default fissiparous politics.

Politics is forever engaged between an attempt to create an India wide and even worldwide Hindu identity in relations to others. The problem with this is that it is based on a negative concept. Both the words Hindu and Hinduism are terms of exclusion coined by invaders. Hindu was created as a general term for non-Muslims by Islamic invaders while ‘Hinduism’ as a broad tent term to include all Indian belief systems that lacked a clear indigenous name such as Sikhi or Buddhism, was introduced by British invaders. There is no real indigenous political theory that can merge from these political terms, hence reliance on western political paradigms.

The second is that Indian political thinkers continue to confuse civilisation with nation. The ‘nation’ as a concept is a European development based on meta ethnic community dominant in a State and based on exclusion. The ‘nation’ as a concept is in crises as the European State is becoming multicultural and multi ethnic and there is no mechanism within theory of nation to cope with this. By emulating the European idea of nation, Indian politics falls into similar crises.

Since 1947, Indian political thinkers have been attempting to ‘construct’ the ‘nation’ even though it has no relevance in the Indian State. Politics sees a surge for one party or person every couple of decades as a ‘new national’ identity is attempted either from the basis of external threat (war) or internal threat (fear of disintegration or marginalisation). Neither is sustainable, hence falls apart.

The Third is that the real Bharat is essentially a State of several nations, communities and immense plurality that has resiliently survived a few thousand years. But Indian political thinkers and parties remain in denial of this. Once the seduction of the ‘supra nation’ vision deflates from its own contradiction, the default fissiparous politics takes over. But no one has come up with a grand idea for a   federal and fissiparous politics as a sustainable and constructive force.

The BJP-RSS idea of the mythical ‘nation’ has not found much unifying appeal beyond the cadre, the Indian Brexiter and the Hindu Khalistani abroad. People nevertheless are not enthusiastic about the opposition coalitions either. There is no convincing grand mythical ‘national’ idea dominating the election that can override the economic woes of people this time. Hence Modi is likely to win but not with the margin he got last time.

 

]]>
Rural Distress In India

Lessons From China In Tackling Farm Distress

By Kunal Bose
State governments must adopt a rental model for farm machinery and encourage crop diversification for improvement in soil health, productivity and profitability of farming

As is generally the case with articles published in National Geographic, Tracie Mcmillan’s piece on ‘How China Plans to Feed 1.4 Billion Growing Appetites’ based on extensive travel throws light on how the country is managing to overcome the shortcomings of restricted availability of land and a good portion of that not particularly fertile for farming, tiny holdings throwing a major challenge to mechanisation and restricted availability of water to lift crop productivity.

As China continues to become more prosperous with its growing ranks of urban population seeking Western-style diets, the demand on Beijing goes well beyond ensuring food security to industrialise the agricultural economy at rapid rates. The country figured most prominently in the recent shift of largest metro areas from Western Europe and North America to China. According to Global Metro Monitor 2018, China’s share of the 300 largest metropolitan economies of the world rose from 48 in 2012 to 103 in 2016. During this period, North America’s share is down from 88 to 57 and Western Europe’s from 68 to 43.

ALSO READ: No Quick Fixes To Agrarian Crisis

Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong are home to people whose per capita income is much higher than their counterparts engaged in farming and allied activities in rural China. India’s northern neighbour is already close to 60 per cent urban and that has been a long march from 19.8 per cent of the Chinese population living in cities in 1980. According to the World Bank, by 2030, up to 70 per cent of the Chinese population or around 1 billion people will be living in cities. Urbanisation in India has started speeding up more recently and the Bank says that half the country’s population will be living in urban centres. Growing urbanisation as it requires reorganisation of agriculture giving greater weight to livestock and milk and dairy products in gross value added in the sector creates many new economic opportunities.

Farmers getting better value for fruits and vegetables, livestock and milk when the agricultural economy goes through the process of industrialisation has been seen in China for over two decades. The immediate fallout of that will be significant reduction in crop wastage, which in the case of India ranges from 30 to 40 per cent. The average farm size in China is smaller than in India. In fact the two countries, which between them have a population of 2.75 billion have farms whose average size is among the smallest in the world. But as the prospects of getting jobs giving incomes higher than tilling land in tiny plots will ever offer and the charm of city lights are underpinning steady migration to urban centres, the broader agricultural landscape contours will undergo great changes.

This has already happened in a much bigger way in China than in India. The National Geographic article says: “Every kind of agriculture is now happening all at once: tiny family farms, gleaming industrial meat factories and dairies, sustainably minded high-tech farms, even organic urban ones.” Urban Chinese with high disposable income are not only eating meat three times as much as in 1990, they have become big buyers of all kinds of processed food. Their health concerns heightened by recent scandals concerning selling of sub-standard domestically produced food products have reinforced their preferences for foreign branded stuff.

No wonder then, foreign food companies as they are making enormous exports to China are braving the country’s complex regulatory regime to build plants there. Their efforts are bringing relief to local consumers who remain suspicious of the quality of local processed food products. But doesn’t this development go against what President Xi Jinping said some years ago that “our rice bowl should be mainly loaded with Chinese food?”

Whatever XI might have said, China still swears by Deng Xiaoping’s famous ‘cat theory,’ which says: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white; as long as it catches mice, it’s a good cat.” Deng who was the de facto leader of the country between 1978 and the early 1990s wanted the job (rapid economic development) done, without making distinction between planned and market economy.

India’s tryst with foreign food companies goes back to many decades. From Levers to GSK Consumer and from Heinz to Danone are finding growing ranks of loyal consumers here of the items they are making at local plants. At the same time, however, some local groups such as Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation, the owners of Amul brand, Mother Dairy and Godrej Agrovet have fortified their position in the market based on product quality and brand promotion.

More and more local and foreign companies are making investment in the dairy sector, India being the world’s largest producer of milk at 155.5m tonnes. ITC, which is steadily building new businesses to reduce its dependence on tobacco and cigarettes has ambitious dairying plans.

Agriculture is going through gradual structural changes in India and China. While figures for China are not available, India’s Economic Survey 2017-18 says the share of crops in the farm sector gross value added (GVA) was down from 65 per cent in 2011-12 to 60 per cent in 2015-16. In the corresponding period, the share of livestock in agriculture GVA was on ascendency.

ALSO READ: Cane Farmers Stressed, Sugar Mills Helpless

India’s progress in realising values from crop diversification leaves much to be desired. The government at the federal level and in states must encourage farmers to assiduously pursue crop diversification that is to result in improvement in soil health, land productivity and profitability of farming. Water being in short supply in Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, it is desirable to use land now under paddy to grow crops like oilseeds, pulses and coarse cereals. Scope remains for shifting of land now under tobacco to growing other crops.

ALSO READ: Crop Diversification Can Fight Rural Distress

What are the common shortcomings of farm economy of China and India? The 10th agriculture census says not only did the average Indian farmland size shrink more than 6 per cent to 1.08 hectares from 1.15 hectares between 2010-11 and 2015-16, but the share of small and marginal holdings ranging up to 2 hectares rise to 86.2 per cent from 84.97 per cent of total holdings. In China, factors such as continuous diversion of land to construction, natural disasters and damage to environment led to a fall in total arable land for a fourth year in a row in 2017 to 134.86 million hectares, down by 60,900 hectares from the year before. As if there is a competition between the two countries, well over 90 per cent of over 200m farms in China are less than 1 hectare in size.

Mechanisation, which is essential to cope with growing shortages of farm labourers and boost productivity, becomes a challenge when the holdings are so small. Consolidation of land holdings is easily said than achieved. Small farmers are not able to raise funds to buy all the machinery and implements needed for tiling of land to harvesting of crops. China has found a solution to the problem by opening centres wherefrom farmers can take all kinds of machines on hire. The last Economic Survey here speaks of innovating “custom service or a rental model by way of institutionalisation of high cost farm machinery.”

]]>
Media And Modi

The Press And The Prime Minister, Over The Years

By Mahendra Ved
Even before Narendra Modi’s advent on the national scene, the media had lost relevance to public life with its conversion from the Fourth Estate to a private mint

There’s a bee in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bonnet. His critics pillory him for not addressing a single press conference since he took office in May 2014.  

The buzz is getting louder as the Elections-2019 campaign enters its second-half. His principal rival, Congress President Rahul Gandhi, recently dared him to hold a PC.

ALSO READ: Reason Why Indian Media Is Pliable

Modi has responded with alacrity and vehemence to Rahul’s many insinuations. But his silence on this remains inexplicable. Critics call him, half-in-zest, the first premier who could enter the Guinness Book of Records for failing to hold a PC.    

His ‘non-political’ televised talk with Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar was not his “first press conference” as initially announced on April 26. Nor was it an interview despite the use of that format. Now, it has re-charged an issue on which the media and Modi observers had all but reconciled. 

India’s 16th premier in 73 years shuns the traditional media. He has done away with office of the Information Advisor. No impromptu media interactions and nothing that is not pre-scheduled.

ALSO READ: Why Media Treats Modi With Kid Gloves

That he speaks only to those who fully agree and don’t ask uncomfortable questions is a given. He shows silent contempt for the rest – mainly the liberal lot who take their adversarial role too seriously. He has steadfastly stuck to “if you are not with me, completely, you are against me” stance. This is another given.

Yet, Modi remains hugely connected to his chosen audiences. He is world No. 3 on Twitter and No.1 on Facebook and Instagram. With his official page ‘liked’ by over 43.2 million people, Modi tops the list of 50 most-followed world leaders on Facebook.  It’s puzzling how and when he finds time and energy to be on the social media.  

ALSO READ: Modi Govt Wants To Target Online Media

He connects with people through “mann ki baat” on All India Radio each month for the last four years. His Hindi oratory, the turn of phrase and coining of new slogans help him communicate like no other premier before. His penchant of talking about himself helps.

His media appearances have largely been limited to his archetypal rallies, conferences and joint appearances with world leaders whom he hugs. But a hug at home is a no-no.

Despite social media posts, broadcasts and scripted TV interviews with selected TV channels, his communication remains limited. There is a wide difference between mass media and media of masses.  

He chooses the media; the media have no choice. Bulk of them has fallen in line. Reporters and editors do not matter. An ownership overhaul, direct or remote, has ensured his overwhelming presence. A friendly TV anchor calls his not giving press conferences a “new paradigm of communication.”  Critics are mostly marginalized to web sites.  

He honed his media skills long ago. An ever-smiling official at the New Delhi headquarters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Modi nurtured rapport with the BJP ‘beat’ media. Things changed when he became the Gujarat chief minister in end-2001. He courted controversy within weeks with sectarian violence under his watch. A thousand, mostly Muslims, were killed. The Supreme Court’s strictures on his government’s handling embarrassed the Vajpayee Government. Party hardliners saved him from being sacked.    

That was India’s first televised violence. Local media was divided, but the one from the national capital (hence labeled “national media”) was intensely critical from where the global media took the cue.

As chief minister, Modi was keen to shed the ‘communal’ baggage and mount the ‘development’ platform. He did so with fair success, projecting the “Gujarat model”, despite criticism that made him a pariah in the West.  

Once a Supreme Court-appointed probe cleared him, he doggedly shunned any questions and twice walked out of interviews when questioned about those riots. He never regretted his role and once compared riot victims as “puppies coming under a speeding vehicle.”

His silent war with the media continues. Yet, obvious, even if ironical, has happened since became the PM. The very media he shuns spend millions to report him. Media junkets, particularly the foreign ones that had become the norm since the 1970s, are passé. 

Why recall these details that are unsavory to all? The government-media relationship seems unlikely to change, no matter who wins the elections. The era of ‘Comment is Free, but facts are sacred’, as celebrated British journalist C P Scott once wrote, ended long ago.   

The media lost relevance to public life with its conversion from the Fourth Estate to private mint to print money for owners. This was long before Modi’s advent on the national scene. As one who can cause fear and distribute largess, he is certainly a big beneficiary.

Now, journalists who do not speak or write agreeably are called ‘presstitutes’. At least two of Modi’s ministers have publicly used that term. Social media troll has become everyday affair.

The media’s role and the respect journalists enjoyed in the past are arguable, but not denied. One of the largest in the democratic world, it has changed, for better or for worse.

Back to the press conference issue, since one can’t return, one can at least recall better times. Jawaharlal Nehru held press conferences annually and they were copiously published. Old timers recall the mix of humour and argument. Relationship was adversarial, but due to Nehru’s stature, also reverential.

Lal Bahadur Shastri galvanized the nation during difficult war-times during his brief tenure. The media role was highly supportive.

Indira Gandhi’s Vigyan Bhavan PCs, were long-drawn, moderated by H Y Sharda Prasad, her Information Advisor. Haughty when she chose to be, she rarely shunned the media.

Along with the Opposition, media critics were imprisoned during the Emergency, when “watchdogs became lapdogs”, as veteran L K Advani put it. Some Indira favourites wrote books lambasting her when she lost office. But after she returned to power in 1980, they survived to tell their stories.   

“Why should I tell you? Then, my task will fail,” was Morarji Desai’s ascerbic style. Media’s allergy to his advocacy against alcohol was known. Typical of politicians of his era, he once dismissed an inconvenient question by one Mr Thomas saying, “you are Doubting Thomas” and one Mr Chakravarty was told, “you are from Bengal, then you must be a communist.” His laughter, and laughter all around diluted severity of the snub.

Chaudhary Charan Singh expected traditional obeisance from the media. He was once upset when told that journalists rise only for the President. “At least, respect my age,” he chided. Newsmen obliged.  

Rajiv Gandhi spoke well when well briefed. His inexperience showed when he dismissed his Foreign Secretary at his Vigyan Bhavan PC. V P Singh was a media favourite, but his only PC as prime minister was a disaster when he came late, did not apologise and then ran into very hostile questions. Another media favourite, Chandra Shekhar’s tenure was just four months, but he remained among the most accessible politicians.                           

P V Narasimha Rao’s silence was mysterious. He would choose not to speak, but when he spoke little, softly and with determination, it was effective.

H D Deve Gowda’s only PC had a Western journalist asking a loaded question. “You have never seen a prime minister in dhoti?” he quipped with a mix of anger and amusement. The only ex-premier around, he shed tears at a PC recently.

His successor I K Gujral, known for his measured diplomatic pronouncements, was ready Punjabi jhappi.

Manmohan Singh, a good communicator as Economics teacher was heard with respect at conferences. His PCs, one in Egypt and another back home, however, had officials scrambling for damage control. Derided as “Maun Mohan Singh” by Modi, he took sweet revenge recently on the latter’s silence on economic failures.

Assuming Modi wins a fresh mandate, an avalanche of questions awaits him to deserve a PC. Will he? Won’t he?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>