Month: June 2019

Times are a-changing in Bollywood as iconic RK Studio and Kamalistan, a key part of Indian cinema legacy, make way for real estate projects

Heart bleeds as one hums “Jaaney kahan gaye wo din…” from Raj Kapoor’s semi-autobiographical Mera Naam Joker (1970) on reading about the sale of R K Studio in suburban Mumbai where this song was filmed.

It ends almost seven decades’ cinematic pursuit that began with shooting of India’s first dream sequence, “Ghar aaya mera pardesi…” for Awaara (1951) when the studio was yet to have a roof above it.

With it has disappeared the famous red logo – derived from film Barsaat (1949) with Raj Kapoor holding a violin in one hand, and leading lady Nargis on another arm. Also gone is the statue of Charlie Chaplin whom Raj copied with unapologetic aplomb.

A key part of Indian cinema’s legacy, of four generations of Kapoors, arguably its “first family”, stretching nine decades, has vanished. This is even as Kareena and Ranbir, of its fourth generation, enjoy their careers’ high noon.   

The 2.2 acre land with 33,000 square meter of saleable area reportedly went for ₹500 crores. Soon, a bunch of high-rise luxury apartments and office complex will be built.

Cineastes and city historians have wishfully proposed a modest memorial, something like “here stood…” It is likely Godrej, the new owner/developer, may oblige, given the Parsis’ penchant for cinema and the city they partly built. Otherwise, it will be “The End”.

RK Studios was a gurukul (learning ground) where Hindi cinema came into its own and acquired the strength to become world-class. Songs “Mera joota hai Japani” and “Awara hoon” are alive in people’s hearts and minds.

Cradle of some of the most iconic films, its long list must include, besides those of other banners, RK’s own Awaara, Shree 420, Satyam Shivam Sundaram and Bobby.  

Beyond films, the studio hosted famous RK parties and the annual Ganesh festival and Holi revelry, the latter with colour and bhaang. Galaxy of actors and actresses called it their home.

The Kapoors are nostalgic, but not apologetic for parting with it. Fire had destroyed the main studio floor. Running the rest had become uneconomic.

The Kapoor family, by all reckoning, is an emotional lot, bonded by their shared heritage and place in the film industry. How late Raj Kapoor might have reacted is anybody’s guess.

Even as RK Studio has folded, Kmaalistan, another iconic studio built by legendary Kamal Amrohi along with his star-wife Meena Kumari, is being sold. This was where Pakeezah (1972) and Razia Sultan (1983) were made besides Amar Akbar Anthony (1977), Naseeb (1981) and Coolie (1983), as well as all of Sooraj Barjatya’s movies.

Of recent films, Salman Khan’s mega-hit Dabangg (2010), was shot here. Today, however, it is let out for weddings and events, ads and TV shoots.

With Kmaliastan will disapper 25 acres of little idyll in a congested city. Many times larger than RK, it must have fetched a sum that nobody is talking about. For Tajdar, Amrohi’s son, the parting is a relief, leaving behind a prolonged property dispute. 

The stories of RK and Kamalistan are similar to Mumbai’s textile mills. Both required technological revamp for which the owners were/are reluctant to spend. And like the mills, the land the studios stand on is many times more lucrative for shopping malls and office complex.   

Film historian Gautam Kaul traces the history of studios integral to 121 years of Indian cinema when about 44,000 films have been created so far in only about 74 film studios, now reduced to a half.

The first attempt at building a confined space to shoot indoor scenes, according to him, was by Kolkata’s Sen Brothers — Hiralal and Motilal – in 1899 for filming The Prince of Persia.

Years later, Dadasaheb Phalke, acknowledged “Father of Indian Cinema”, shot his first film, Raja Harishchandra (1913) at his bungalow before building a studio. Most studios that sprang up across British-India since are closed down, unheard today.  

Times are a-changing in Bollywood that got its name from Bombay, now Mumbai, to rhyme – and compete – with Hollywood. According to realty consultants, two more prominent studios are planning to sell out.  

Film industry representatives blame this on the changing business of entertainment. It can no longer afford to maintain old-style studios. While the big budget movie makers go for outdoor shoots and prepare their own sets, those with fewer budgets prefer smaller rooms and outdoor locations.  

Unsurprisingly, Bombay Film Lab, Jyoti and Filmalaya have also shut shop over the last two decades.

A theatre is cinema’s end-product. Studios’ closure coincides with those of single-screen cinema theatres, among them Majestic, Kohinoor, Plaza and Hindmata that have dotted Mumbai for nearly a century.  Of Mumbai’s 130 odd thatres, 70 have gone.   

Among the marqee names, Regal, built in 1933 at the edge of Colaba, was closed to end its ₹10 million annual losses, but after saying its last hurrah as a host to the Mumbai Film Festival. This writer luckily saw the Vincent Van Gough film along with award winning film-makers Shyam Benegal and Gyan Correa.

Edward (1914) stood at Kalbadevi near Watson Hotel at Dhobi Talao where the first-ever film screening was held in 1897. Capitol that stood bang opposite the Victoria Terminus, Asia’s oldest railhead now called Chhatrpati Shivaji Terminus, succumbed to market pressures in 2011.

Eros, opposite Churchgate, another railhead, closed in 2017. Like Capitol, New Empire nearby has become a ghostly dilapidated edifice – till some builder/developer comes along.   

This is part of a countrywide trend. Of the estimated 12,000 ‘talkies’ as they were called only about 6,000 remain. While the stand-alone ones had 800-1,000 capacity each, where “Silver Jubilee”, or running for 25 weeks meant success, the multiplex come with 200-400 seats.

They run multiple shows to facilitate a film’s “initial draw”, or happy earnings, over the first weekend. They offer the best screen and sound technology, besides fast food and beverages.  

There are, however, some exceptional cases of turnaround. Metro at Dhobi Talao went multiplex a decade back after a period of closure. Its Art Deco façade with the scarlet-and-silver sign are retained — there is even a beautiful old-style wood and metal elevator in its office premises. But inside looks like any upscale cinema.

Ironically, this is at a time when the leisure industry, including Bollywood, has expanded. Though not the numbers (Hyderabad has them), Mumbai, still the unique Bollywood, is fast losing its landmarks. But then, its leading lights do not seem to care. History cannot be sustained on nostalgia of its fans. It is legacy which is neither cared for by the industry nor the city.

This is not surprising in a city where the transformation is transactional – where even bookshops are yielding place to beauty parlours and pubs. Mumbai, Urbs Prima in Indis, may have no memories to recall.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

India-US relations are on track but with Donald Trump at the helm, there will be flare-ups now and then; this is where the real test for Jaishankar and his MEA team lies

Will President Donald Trump’s obsession for reworking trade deals affect India-US ties? Is Trump ignoring the big picture for a quick fix solution to please his support base and losing the good will of new friends like India and old allies France and Germany in Europe?

The Modi-Trump meeting last week focused on both trade and Iran, two things uppermost in the US President’s mind at the moment. No breakthrough was expected on any of the niggling issues that has troubled ties between the two countries in recent months. But after all the hard work put in by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to smoothen a bilateral platform, Donald Trump once again sullied the atmosphere.

The US President tweeted about high India’s high tariffs before leaving Washington for the G20 summit in Japan, where a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled: “I look forward to speaking with Prime Minister Modi about the fact that India, for years having put very high Tariffs against the United States, just recently increased the Tariffs even further. This is unacceptable and the Tariffs must be withdrawn!”

But India and the world is now used to Trump’s style of diplomacy, and taken this in its stride. Perhaps this is Trump’s way of putting pressure on Modi ahead of their meeting. Trump should know that Narendra Modi, now riding a popularity wave in India will obviously not be cowed down.

Pompeo’s trip to India was an attempt to smoothen the wrinkles in ties. Much of this has to do with President Donald Trump’s political message to his support base, to re-work trade ties and ensure that America is not taken for a ride. Meaning every other President before Trump has not bothered to look after America’s trade interests. In the process Trump has lumped Delhi with Beijing, though America’s trade deficit with India is a mere $24.2 billion (2018 figures), compared to $621 billion with China the same year. Putting India and China in the same bracket, as Trump keeps doing in his numerous tweets on trade issues is foolish to say the least.

The Trump administration increased tariff on aluminum and steel last year impacted India’s export to the US. India did not retaliate. Washington earlier this year ended the duty-free import from India under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). That was done in the middle of the election campaign. India responded recently by increasing tariff on 28 items, mostly agricultural products that it imports from the US. This has angered President Trump.

Significantly, Eliot Engel, Chairman of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote to Pompeo ahead of his Delhi trip saying that the Trump administration seemed to be coercing India on various issues instead of sitting across the table and negotiating with Delhi. As Engel pointed out, while most of the statements made about being defence partner and friends with India were all good, the administration’s actions did not match its laudatory comments. Both the Republican and Democrats support stronger ties with India.

 In his public statements, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has made all the right noises to flatter and disarm India as Jaishankar prepared the groundwork for the Modi-Trump meeting.

In fact, the process started when Pompeo delivered a major speech at the India-US business forum ahead of his two-day visit to India. Pompeo quoted Modi’s election slogan “Modi hai tu Mumkin Hai.’ And translated it as “Modi makes it possible. I’m looking forward to exploring what’s possible between our two peoples.” Flattering Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a good way to start the dialogue.

But no one need be fooled by the sweet talk, as the US drives a hard bargain. Pompeo put enormous pressure on India to concede. The Secretary of State known as a hawk on Iran, is hoping to shore up support for the US position as war clouds loom over West Asia. He described Iran as the “biggest sponsor of terror”, a claim that Delhi certainly does not agree with. Iran came up for detailed discussion during his talks with Jaishankar. India raised the issue of oil supplies. Aware of the consequences of doing business with Iran, India has stopped buying oil from Tehran.

The good news is that the two sides are taking stock of the hiccups in relations and are ready to discuss them further. “On some outstanding issues related to trade, I pushed for a constructive and pragmatic view. The real test of our intentions will be our ability to deal with this,” Dr Jaishankar said, at a news conference with Pompeo after talks on Thursday.

But India has clearly drawn the red lines. On certain issues which affect India’s strategic interests there would be no compromise. That message has gone out clearly to Washington.

But it is not just trade. Political issues like Iran and purchase of S400 missile defence system from Russia goes against American interests. Jaishankar has made it clear that India will not change its stand on five billion dollar S400 purchase order from Russia.

Luckily, Washington does not hold all the cards. At a time when the US-China trade war is on and Trump’s aggressive stand on Iran and the threat of war which can disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz is making all countries nervous. Prime Minister Modi is not just meeting Trump on the sidelines of the G20, meetings are also lined up with China’s Xi Jinping as well as a meeting of BRICS leaders, which means Russia’s Vladimir Putin and President’s of South Africa and Brazil. A Chinese official was also reported as saying that Xi will discuss US protectionist policies and how the world can counter this at the BRICS informal get together on the sidelines of G20. India and China, together with France and Germany are vocal critics of Trumps protectionist trade policies.

Modi’s meeting with Xi is important, and a Wuhan type of informal summit is being planned later this year in India. Perhaps as a signal to China, Jaishankar made the point. “We had also a talk of – over lunch on the Indo-Pacific. On the Indo-Pacific, the point – the big point I made was that the Indo-Pacific is for something, not against somebody. And that something is peace, security, stability, prosperity, and rules.” This is certainly India’s attempt to reassure China that Delhi is not ganging up with the US against Beijing.

In brief India-US relations are expanding in ways which were not conceivable in earlier decades. The momentum which began with the landmark civil nuclear deal is gathering speed. But India, much like the US will look out for its strategic interests and guard its space. America knows well that India is no push-over. India however also knows that having US on your side opens doors. The Modi government is looking to US for investments. So during negotiations localization of data, the new e-commerce rules that affect US companies like Amazon and Walmart, will come up for discussion. The US and India will agree on certain issues but not on all. There will be give and take on trade. The relations are on track yet there will be flare-ups now and then which Jaishankar and his MEA team will have to fire fight. Overall however ties are on course.

]]>

All stakeholders in the mineral mining sectors are living in uncertain times, thanks to flawed lease policies by Union and state governments

Mineral resources in India from iron ore to bauxite to coal are majorly found in remote centres of Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh where people, who hardly figure on the radar of the powers that be in Delhi, eke out a difficult existence unless they are employed by mining groups for ore extraction and allied works. No wonder then, when resources remain hidden under the earth and in the absence of their raisings, the places become fertile ground for spread of extremist movement or what is popularly known as Naxalism in India. The country’s mineral belts are generally rains deficient and the hard stony soil there does not support worthwhile crop cultivation.

The fragile peace that exists in the country’s sensitive mineral-bearing regions will be put to test as the leases of merchant miners of iron ore and manganese ore will expire on March 31, 2020 under a directive of the January 2015 amendment of the 1957 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

In a questionable wisdom, the authors of the amended Act had for the first time made a distinction between merchant, captive and government groups owned mines. In what appears to be palpable discrimination, the 2015 version of the Act prescribes that while the existing leases of non-captive merchant miners are valid till March 2020 that of captive mines will remain in force till March 2030. What is more captive mine owners alone are given the right of first refusal when their mines are put up for auction.

As for Union and state government owned companies such as Steel Authority of India, National Mineral Development Corporation and Orissa Mining Corporation, they are allowed extension of existing leases for a period of 20 years at a time beyond the stipulated period of 50 years. Remember, ahead of 2015, there was no distinction between captive, non-captive and government ownership of mines. In every respect, including lease tenure, all three groups got identical treatment under the law.  No longer so.

Discrimination part may or may not get set right by way of amendment of the 2015 MMDR Act. But what is of immediate concern is the large number of iron ore and some manganese ore mines owned by merchant groups that will stop operation on lease expiry in March 2020 making in the process thousands of workers unemployed. The same fate is awaiting many more thousands who are engaged in the long chain of logistics between mines and use of iron ore by steel mills domestically and in foreign destinations. This is to happen when the country’s unemployment rate is worryingly high and few new jobs are created with deceleration in economic growth.

Speak to minerals industry experts and they will tell you in one voice that there is no way the concerned state governments will be able to complete auction of the merchant mines whose tenure of leases will run out in nine months. Even assuming that auctions are held and successful bidders chosen, it will take them a long time, going by established patterns to secure all the sanctions, including environment and forest clearances (ECs and FCs) before they could start ore extraction.  Yes, the Supreme Court has given a ruling that for auctioned mines that were operational earlier, the new lessees would automatically get ECs and FCs transferred to them from earlier lessees. But we are seeing new lessees’ frustrating wait for transfer of ECs and FCs for mines in Karnataka.

This correspondent on his recent visits to some Orissa and Jharkhand mines whose leases are to expire next March found workers and managers rattled by an unsettled future awaiting them. They have no clue as to whether the central government in view of the inevitability of anarchy setting in mining centres will do the sensible thing of extending leases of merchant miners to 2030 in line with captive mines or it will let mayhem happen.

The ground reality is this. It emerged at a recent mines ministry coordination cum empowered committee (CCECC) meeting that New Delhi has advised the concerned states to start auctioning mines expeditiously “so that the incoming miners have time to take preparatory steps to make the mines functional.” If any proof is needed, this alone is enough to confirm that the administration has no appreciation of the consequences of such a move. In fact, a recommendation of this kind could open a Pandora’s Box and the evils that will come out will be difficult, if not impossible to contain.

The law says: “On the expiry of lease period, the lease shall be put up for auction.” This means the concerned state governments can start the process of auctioning the iron ore and manganese ore mines only after their current leases expire in March 2020. There are other constraints too. According to rule 12 (gg) of the Minerals (other than atomic and hydrocarbon energy) concession rules, 2016 “a lessee is entitled to remove within six months after the expiry of lease period all or any one mineral excavated during the currency of lease, engines, machinery, plant …. and other works.”

Furthermore if a lessee is not able to remove all that is his, he will under the law get an extra one month to do so. The lessee, therefore, has a total of seven months after lease expiry to remove all his stuff, including mineral stocks.

In spite of the protection that current leaseholders enjoy under the law, the prospective bidders, emboldened by state governments, may seek to do due diligence of mines whose leases still have months to expire. An Orissa based mine owner says: “In that event, we most likely will go for legal recourse as due diligence by outsiders will interfere with our day to day operation. All mines stakeholders are living in uncertain times.”

An agitating issue for iron ore mines in Orissa and Jharkhand is the unsold pithead stocks of 127 million tonnes – 85 million tonnes in Orissa and 42 million tonnes in Jharkhand. The stocks are mostly fines of grades with iron (fe) content of up to 62 per cent for which there are no domestic buyers. Yes we can find buyers for the low grade ore abroad, particularly in China provided New Delhi will dispense with 30 per cent export duty on grades of up to 62 per cent fe content. The ill-advised export tax has robbed Indian ore of global competitiveness.

Some miners have made the suggestion that in the unlikely event of auctions going through, the successful bidders (lessees) should be “mandated” to pay to the existing lessees for pithead stocks “on the basis of last ex-mine grade-wise prices published by Indian Bureau of Mines.”  But why should new lessees carry the cross of massive unsold stocks of departing mine owners, specially when demand for fines and low grade iron ore remain low. Will the government then remove the 30 per cent export tax on iron ore with up to 62 per cent fe content to facilitate pithead stock disposal in foreign markets? Export duty removal remains the budget expectation of the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries.

However covetous steel mills here unlike their counterparts in China, Japan and South Korea may be of captive mines, steel producers in eastern India without mines ownership are dreadful of the impending prospect of chaos engulfing the iron ore sector. Remember, working mines in Orissa and Jharkhand meet as much as 45 per cent of iron and manganese ore requirements of the steel industry in eastern India. According to rating agency India Ratings, iron ore production disruption following lease expiry will be around 60 million tonnes a year.

]]>

Haryana is a classic case of how the Congress frittered away its chances in a state where it once enjoyed a strong presence

Even as the Congress is yet to recover from a drubbing in the recent Lok Sabha election, the party is staring at a major challenge in the coming assembly polls in Haryana, Maharashtra, and Jharkhand which were swept by the Bharatiya Janata Party in the general election.

Haryana is a classic case of how the Congress has frittered away its chances in a state where the party has a presence, strong leaders as well as a social base. Instead of building on its strengths, the Congress has handed over the state to the BJP which was never a major player here. In fact, the BJP always depended on an alliance with O.P. Chautala’s Indian National Lok Dal to mark its presence here.

However, the electoral landscape in Haryana has undergone a sea change since 2014 when the BJP swept the Lok Sabha and the assembly polls, edging out both the Congress and the INLD. It would have been expected that five years later, anti-incumbency against chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar would pave the way for the Congress to stage a comeback. But the Modi wave and Khattar’s own unblemished reputation ensured that the BJP won all the ten Lok Sabha seats in the recent general election and looks set for yet another resounding victory in the assembly polls later this year.

It is clear the roles have now been reversed. While the BJP is now the dominant political force, the Congress is on the margins now. If anything, the Congress has only itself to blame for its sad state in Haryana. Bitter infighting in the Congress state unit, a non-existent party organization and a new caste dynamic has ensured that the grand old party poses little or no challenge to the BJP.

The Congress party’s wash-out in the Lok Sabha should have served as a wake-up call to the squabbling state leaders and it would have been expected that they would sink their differences and work on putting up a united fight in the coming assembly elections. But they have learned no lessons from the party’s disastrous performance in the last election as they continue to trade charges against each other.

In fact, the infighting has become worse as witnessed during a recent internal meeting called by Congress general secretary Ghulam Nabi Azad to plan and strategize for the upcoming assembly poll. The proceedings degenerated into a bitter slanging match as state party president Ashok Tanwar and former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda blamed each other for the party’s disastrous electoral result. Hooda essentially wants the state unit to be entrusted to him so that he can accommodate his supporters in the distribution of tickets and also be projected as the chief ministerial candidate.

Matters have come to such a pass that even a senior and seasoned leader like Azad has not been able to quell the infighting. Both Tanwar and Hooda draw their confidence from their proximity to Congress president Rahul Gandhi. And given the current leadership crisis at the top, Hooda and Tanwar are obviously feeling sufficiently emboldened to defy any attempt at disciplining them.

Hooda may be flexing his muscles but his defeat in the recent Lok Sabha election from a Jat-dominated seat has weakened his position and his claims to be projected as the party’s chief ministerial face. What is worse, his son Deependra Hooda also lost from Rohtak, which has been the family’s stronghold since the fifties.

The defeat of the Hoodas is not only a personal loss for the father-son duo but it has also put the focus back on the sharpening divide between the dominant Jat community and the non-Jats in Haryana. The Congress woke up to this harsh reality earlier this year when the party’s prominent Jat face – the party’s chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala- was handed a bitter defeat in the Jind bye-election. The Congress had hoped to benefit from the anti-incumbency against the Khattar government but failed to see that the chief minister’s popularity had not dimmed and that he had succeeded in consolidating the non-Jat vote in the BJP’s favour.    

The violent Jat agitation which rocked  Haryana in 2016 and the open preference shown by Hooda for his clansmen during his ten-year tenure as chief minister had alienated the other castes which had been feeling neglected by the Congress. In fact, the BJP’s victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha election was attributed both to the Modi wave and the coming together of the non-Jats in favour of the saffron party. It was the same story in 2019.

The shifting caste dynamic in Haryana has forced the Congress to rethink its strategy of relying on a Jat face. Till now, the party was convinced that it was essential to appease the Jat community but it now realizes that it also needs non-Jat leaders to woo the other castes. The Congress is sorely missing a leader like Bhajan Lal who had succeeded in keeping the non-Jats in the party fold. However, it is not an easy task as Hooda has dug his heels in and has the potential to create further dissension in the party’s state unit if he does not have his way. 

There are no easy answers for the Congress. While the party is still struggling to find an amicable solution to this problem, the BJP is predictably upbeat after its massive victory in the Lok Sabha election. Since the assembly poll in Haryana comes barely six months after the general election, the state tends to vote for the same party in both elections. In contrast to the Congress, which is a house divided with no clear leader, the BJP has found a winner in Khattar who has emerged as a leader in his own right. He is known to be honest and upright and has also delivered on governance.

]]>

The newly constituted Lok Sabha marks consolidation of the political right and defeat of the Left, Left-of-Centre and the liberals

Kanhaiya Kumar, who became the young mascot of India’s beleaguered Left after he was thrashed, imprisoned and faced the worst for never-proven charges of raising “anti-national slogans” three years ago, lost last month’s election by a huge margin. The victor, a Narenda Modi Government minister is notorious for his provocative utterances against the Muslims.

The contrast is obvious. It symbolizes changed times: consolidation of the political right and defeat of the Left, Left-of-Centre and the liberals.

Ideologies apart, Kumar’s defeat in Bihar is a resounding slap for the squabbling opposition parties that went by a misleading name, Mahagathbandhan (grand alliance). Not endorsing his candidature, some of them even fought him.   

Unsurprisingly, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) where Kumar led the students’ movement, will before long cease to be the Left’s bastion. A decade back, it was called “Kremlin on the Jamuna” by an American diplomat in dispatches back home, as per Julian Asange’s Wikileaks.

The whistleblower’s own fate hangs in balance. He readies for prosecution in another sign of what is a worldwide surge of ‘nationalist’ rulers who would rather shoot the liberals.

Kumar’s Communist Party of India (CPI) is among the world’s oldest, first founded in Tashkent in 1920 and then in India in 1925. The latter coincided with the birth of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), whose ideology has triumphed, with Modi, most ministers and lawmakers across the country belonging to it.

Frequently banned by British colonial rulers, the communist activists worked under socialist and Congress banners, organising farm and industrial workers, staging plays and promoting ‘progressive’ literature and cinema.  

India’s communists contributed significantly to evolution of the Marxist-Leninist principles of the global communist movement in the last century. But while interpreting and acting upon them, they also suffered numerous splits, throwing up a plethora of rival left groups, including four Revolutionary Socialist parties, with tendencies ranging from Bolshevik, Trotskyites and Maoists, to plain vanilla Marxist.

Their bigger problem has been approach to the two principal poles – Moscow and Beijing – and the biggest at home, to the Congress. The 1964 split, following the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962, created two communist mainstreams, the CPI and the CPI (Marxist). The more radical ones, meanwhile, continue to this day to confront the State with armed revolution.

In its parliamentary journey the Left has produced some of India’s best lawmakers. It was the principal opposition in the first three parliaments. The world’s first democratically elected communist government was formed in Kerala in 1957.  

Vigorous pursuit of their different lines landed the two parties in opposite political camps.  The CPI supported Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime. After the defeat of Rajiv Gandhi’s government, the CPI (M) and the BJP joined hands behind Prime Minister VP Singh to keep the Congress out, both losing ground nationally during this brief period.   

Claiming to be ‘scientific’ in their approach, the communists have, however, displayed serious contradictions – and they justify them. They opposed the Congress’ ‘authoritarianism’ in the past, just the way they oppose the ‘communal’ BJP today.  

The CPI (M) was the kingmaker when then General Secretary, Harkishen Singh Surjeet, one of the most down-to-earth Marxists with a mind uncluttered by dogma, helped forge alliances that formed non-Congress, non-BJP governments at a time of political instability.

But its rigid hardliners have prevailed while dealing with ideologically different forces, refusing to share unless they have the upper hand. The CPI(M) hardliners, dubbed ‘Stalinists’ scuttled Jyoti Basu’s becoming the prime minister even as CPI’s ministers performed creditably. The cooperation between Left and other democratic parties has always been problematic.

The Left’s sun shone bright in 2004 with 61 parliamentary seats and a key advisory role that helped it push multi-billion anti-poverty schemes. But it fought the Manmohan Singh Government, even tried to oust it, to oppose India’s civil nuclear deal with the chief global bugbear, the United States. Somnath Chatterjee, the only communist Lok Sabha Speaker ever, was expelled. That marked the beginning of the end of its national role.

Despite long years of internal debate, the CPI(M) that leads the Left combine has failed to resolve its original contradiction: dealing with the Congress. It persists with West Bengal (Sitaram Yechuri) versus Kerala (Prakash Karat) line. The Left’s self-inflicted isolation has in the long run allowed BJP complete advantage.

West Bengal was lost in 2011 after 33 years of Left Front rule. The Left slumped to just 10 seats in the 2014 election. And then, the BJP stormed tiny Tripura. Across the east, cadres, even legislators and now long-time-loyal voter, have transferred their support, almost wholesale, to the BJP. With vote share down to seven percent, the Left scored a duck in 2019. The once-red region has turned largely saffron.

Its pockets elsewhere in the country long gone, only Kerala remains, but under siege from the BJP that has emerged as the third force threatening what has been a revolving door arrangement between two fronts. With the Left Front in power, the Congress snatched five seats from the CPI(M), including one for Rahul Gandhi, thus damaging the Left hugely, not the BJP.

Gopalkrishna Gokhale who mentored Mahatma Gandhi once said “what Bengal thinks today, the rest of India thinks tomorrow.” Is West Bengal going the BJP way judging by the party bagging 18 parliamentary seats? And is Kerala, India’s most literate – and politically mature – state with significant population of Muslims and Christians, too, heading in the same direction?         

The combined Left tally of five is its lowest in parliamentary history. The CPI and the CPI(M) may lose their “national party” status. Worse, four of the five seats — two each of the CPI and the CPI (M) – were from Tamil Nadu, where both rode piggy-back on the regional major, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

The Left’s decline was foregone. A pre-poll survey conducted by Lokniti-CSDS in the last week of March correctly showed that the BJP was set to improve its performance in West Bengal as compared to 2014. It did with an impressive 18. Irrespective of the numbers, it has damaged the Left, perhaps, irreparably. The Congress’s decision to go it alone in West Bengal and fielding Rahul in Kerala seriously hampered the Left’s prospects.

The decline is all-round. The Left together claims a million members. Compare that with the BJP’s 88 million, with or without the cadres of the affiliates. It claims to be the world’s biggest political party.

As elsewhere in the world, India’s middle class has grown richer, vocal and powerful. The State treats efforts at collective bargaining as law and order challenges. As millions are displaced from their homes, the corporates-controlled media has no sympathy for farm and industrial workers who fed the communist movement.

In the past, tens of thousands of Indians turned out for communist rallies, chanting proletarian slogans and wearing hammer and sickle neck chains with their Marxist-red t-shirts and hats. But today, the movement, after a century of struggle, is fighting a desperate survival battle. The “Lal Salaam” era is over.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

The 134-year-old Congress party is imploding and there is no one to pick up the pieces.

It is over two weeks since its president Rahul Gandhi took responsibility for the humiliating electoral defeat and declared that he intended to step down as Congress chief but there is no end to the uncertainty which has gripped the party. Congress cadre is still to recover from the twin shocks of a second consecutive debacle in the Lok Sabha election followed by Rahul Gandhi’s refusal to reconsider his decision.

The Congress Working Committee, the party’s highest decision-making body, has rejected Rahul Gandhi’s offer of resignation and has instead authorized him to restructure and overhaul the party organization at all levels.

However, this authorization has not cut any ice with Rahul Gandhi who is in no mood to retract his offer of resignation. As a result, a leaderless and directionless party is floundering while its members are running around like a headless chicken.

A number of senior leaders have sought an appointment with Rahul Gandhi but to little avail. Heavily dependent on the Nehru-Gandhi family, the Congress is yet to come to terms with an outsider as party president. The party is convinced that only a family member can keep the Congress united and that anyone other than a Nehru-Gandhi will not be acceptable to all sections in the party and such an appointment could intensify internal factional battles.

For instance, any move to replace Rahul Gandhi with Jyotiraditya Scindia would be opposed by senior Madhya Pradesh leaders like Kamal Nath and Digivjaya Singh. Similarly, Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot will resist the appointment of his deputy Sachin Pilot as Congress chief. Well aware of the problems they face in finding Rahul Gandhi’s replacement, senior leaders are suggesting that Rahul Gandhi be persuaded to continue as Congress president and that he should be assisted by a number of working presidents to make way for collective leadership.

As the party mulls various options, it is becoming increasingly clear that Rahul Gandhi and the Congress brass have to act swiftly to put an end to the ongoing rift in the party.

But if the party fails to resolve its leadership crisis at the earliest, the situation will  get progressively worse as demoralized workers are bound to jump ship and look around for better options. As it is, internal bickering in the party’s various state units have become a norm as senior leaders are not shying away from taking potshots at each other in public. It is time someone reined in the battling leaders and strengthened the party organization so that it is in a position to recover some lost ground. It is not an easy task as the Congress has been reduced to a bit player in large parts of India while the BJP has emerged as the country’s central political force.

While a triumphant BJP has already started work on the forthcoming assembly polls, the Congress remains caught up with its own problems which are only multiplying. For instance, the battle between Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh and his bête noire Navjot Singh Sidhu are out in the open. Emboldened after the party’s  reasonably good performance in Punjab, Amarinder Singh stripped Sidhu of the local bodies department on the ground that he had been remiss in the handling of his duties which was responsible for the party’s poor electoral performance in the state’s urban areas. Sidhu, who has been sulking ever since his wife was denied a Lok Sabha ticket, has also gone public with his grievances against the chief minister on several occasions. The cricketer-turned-politician maintained he was being singled out in spite of “collective responsibility”.

Similar reports are coming in from other states. In Haryana, the party’s state president Ashok Tanwar and former chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda were involved in a slanging match at an internal party meeting called recently to analyse the reasons for the party’s rout in Haryana and discuss future corrective measures. Needless to say, the meeting was inconclusive.

In Rajasthan, chief minister Ashok Gehlot and his deputy Sachin Pilot are constantly at loggerheads and this showed in election results in the state. The Congress failed to win a single Lok Sabha seat in the desert state barely four months after it defeated the Bharatiya Janata Party in the assembly polls.   

The Congress legislature party in Telangana has been reduced to a rump after 12 legislators walked out recently and joined the ruling Telangana Rashtriya Samithi. And in Maharashtra, senior Congress leader and former leader of opposition in the assembly Radhakrishna Vikhe Patil switched loyalties to the BJP amidst reports that several more MLAs are also set to join the saffron party.

The list of issues which need to be attended to is endless but clearly the Congress is showing no urgency in dealing with them.

]]>

An alternative leadership takes time to emerge and the Congress high command must patiently wait for that moment to arrive

It is tempting to make an uncharitable yet apt comparison of Rahul Gandhi with Casabianca, the boy who stood on the burning deck. He wants to jump off the ship, but can’t. A ship needs an anchor, but here, the anchor needs the ship.

Most of those who sailed with him want him to stay at the helm. Blinded by a mix of loyalty and despair, they can’t visualize another captain. Before Rahul, mother Sonia, father Rajiv and grandmother Indira had led them to their electoral highs and lows. The loyalists are hoping for yet another heave out of their worst low in five generations of the Nehru-Gandhis.

ALSO READ: Is Dynastic Politics Dead? NDA Is Nursing Aplenty

It is worst because their party has lost its pre-eminence to another force that is many times more muscular, resourceful, focused and determined to stay, come what may. To some analysts, this is India’s end-of-history moment.

Those watching our Casabianca with a mix of glee and disgust that a loser invites want him out. They couldn’t care less if the ship sinks. Such is the mood after the overwhelming electoral triumph of the people Rahul fought defiantly, but lost badly. That elections come and go does not seem to occur to his friends and foes.    

This is not the first time, but yes, media and the middle class across much of India, happily listening to their own loud drum-beats, have never been so ruthless. Even if momentary, these, too, are signs of the changed times.

ALSO READ: Gandhi Or Godse? Take Your Pick

Should the ship sink, with or without Rahul and/or the Nehru-Gandhis? Risking being accused of writing an apologia, one still wants to stress the need for a strong opposition for Indian democracy to thrive. A discourse has to have at least two sides to justify itself. The Congress, although a pale shadow of the party that had inspired generations, has the biggest, if not sole, responsibility. India’s oldest party cannot and should not die.

But it is facing its existential crisis. Each time it has, groups have shifted, some even retaining the Congress label. That is how you have a beleaguered Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress in West Bengal and a triumphant YSR Congress in Andhra Pradesh.

Neglected, Congressmen have walked away. The North-East was won for the BJP by Himanta Biswa Sarma whom Rahul had paid no heed. More such shifts will take place in the coming weeks and months if the party does not put its house in order. And, to begin with, it does not fill the leadership vacuum.

See the contrast: when Rahul, having lost the Amethi bastion, was thanksgiving in Wynad, mealy-mouthing his will-respond-to-hate-with-love lines, Modi was also visiting temples in Kerala. Donning veshti and angavastram, he assured Keralites that he ‘loved’ them even if they did not vote him. Modi was already preparing ground for the next election, while Rahul resembled a snake that has gobbled a shrew (chhachhunar) that he can neither devour, not eject.

As an aside, it needs recalling how the BJP, today’s victor, managed its crises after 1984 (only two members in the Lok Sabha), 1996 (losing power by a single vote), in 2004 (losing again by whiskers on failing to win over allies) and 2009 (defeat confirmed by rivals returning in larger numbers). The party was resuscitated and guided by Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), its ideological mentor, whose cadres filled the playgrounds and poll rallies.

ALSO READ: The Captain Who Sailed Against Modi Tide

The Congress has no such mentor and the ‘dynasty’ that has leads it is no longer the answer to a marauding BJP. Sonia is re-elected the parliamentary party chief as part of a holding operation to quell murmurs getting louder and turning into rebellion. Nineteen years the party chief, she enjoys respect within and among opposition leaders. But the latter, into a long winter for now, have no patience for a defeated Congress. The more agile among them, Mayawati and Aklhilesh Yadav, have mutually separated.        

The Congress’ problems are intertwined, which makes it hard to see.  The rot started with Indira Gandhi who had transformed the composition and political culture of her party by replacing established heads with rootless persons without self-esteem through a new culture of nomination. Today, it doesn’t have an organisation in most parts of the country, despite years Rahul wasted building it.

It has not wielded power in the bigger States for long years. It has failed to consolidate and to correct its mistakes – unlike BJP. Narrow victories in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan last December that got overturned in the parliamentary polls are examples.

The defeat has only exacerbated factionalism. A month after the elections’ outcome, Congressmen are damaging their party further by fighting among themselves. Provincial satraps are becoming silently defiant and legislators are beginning to jump off the ship.

The party also has serious ideological problems. Trying to be everything to everyone worked in the distant past – not any longer.  The slide-down accelerated under a politically inexperienced Rajiv when it swerved from pandering to Muslim orthodoxy (the Shahbanu case and undoing a modern court verdict on alimony to divorced wife) to opening the locks of the disputed Ram temple in Ayodhya. In adopting ‘soft’ Hindutva to counter the BJP’s ‘hard’ version, it has completely conceded the ideological space.

In contrast, the BJP now has become the dominant party occupying the space from the centre-right to the extreme right. The Congress has responded by trying to appropriate Ram temple and cow protection during the election campaign.

Having conceded the secular platform, the Congress can still develop a narrative of Sanatan Dharma, the essence of Hinduism, as a way of life different from the Hindutva, eschewing the aggressive political aspect. It can rescue secularism as well by first, self-belief and then, stressing, not on keeping away from religion, but by advocating equal treatment for faiths to build afresh the composite culture.  It’s long haul uphill.

Finally, the ‘dynasty’ is a matter of interpretation and expediency. The choice of retaining it or not is best left to the party. Virtually every party in India has dynasty at its core. If 31 percent of Congress candidates in this election were ‘dynasts’, as per a study, 22 percent BJP nominees also were from families. And most regional parties are notoriously family ventures. It can’t be argued that in the game of changing electoral fortunes, the families that lose must disappear while the victors can prosper.

The liberal classes whether or not they swear by the Congress, are on the back-foot and alarmed. They wishfully hope the party would throw up a new leadership – not of those remotely pitch-forked, not those who want to keep the seat warm for Rahul or anyone from the family. That would be waiting for Godot. Will this Godot arrive?  

Hence, it would be unnecessary and unwise to advocate a decision from outside. Established political leadership cannot be replaced abruptly and an alternative leadership takes time to emerge. It would be suicidal for the Congress, or any other party – and the BJP would want precisely that.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

There is hope that even though the BJP will continue with its anti-minority mentality and Hindutva agenda, the Indian Constitution will ensure to keep its sanctity

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party has been crowned to rule over the multi-religious, multi-cultural and constitutionally secular India for further five years. It increased its own seat count to 301 and with allies, it has won a decisive 350 seats decimating the once proud Congress to a mere 54 seats. This massive victory has ramifications not only for India but for the region as well.

If we peep into the near past, we find India becoming a victim of religious extremism since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister. During the last tenure of the BJP under Narendra Damodar Das Modi, the government unleashed anti-minority drives which took lives and property of the Muslims, Sikhs and Christians.

The last political spell witnessed ground and air strikes on the Pakistan’s borders and claims of so-called ‘surgical strikes’ against Pakistan. India having enjoyed soft and secular image throughout the world previous to this had to face severe criticism inside and outside the country which caused embarrassment for Indians living in different corners of the world. Indians have been expressing their anger from time to time against the jingoism and extremism popularized by the ruling BJP but this could not suffocate the ongoing aggressive diplomacy and anti-minority activities.

ALSO READ:  Gandhi Or Godse – Kindly Choose One

The BJP leadership openly talked against secularism and the minorities living in India which alarmed them. They started campaign against this anti-constitutional and inhuman policies and actions of the government and government sponsored agencies. The BJP hatred convinced different factions in India and Pakistan that the BJP was doing pursuing a policy of hatred just to win the April-May elections. Activists and concerned people exposed it on social media and mass gatherings but the BJP continued their electioneering campaign with the same strategy, zeal and rhetoric.

The BJP and anti-BJP contentions suggested that BJP would lose the elections as the BJP leadership faced embarrassment at the hands of Pakistan’s army. The government was alleged to be involved in corruption cases. Modi’s claim to launch surgical strikes was not accepted by many including media and people. It appeared that the BJP position seemed weak in the election contest.

Pakistan like other societies looked at the results from three angles including:

1. Results at national level
2. Success of the Muslim or specific candidates
3. Political trends in the Indian states.

The Pakistani government seemed to be expecting a Congress victory. Yet Prime Minister Imran Khan gave statement in favour of the BJP which to many was a diplomatic sagacity. Whereas the pro-Congress or anti-BJP statements by some Pakistani politicians created a sense among Indians that the Congress had a soft corner and friendly sentiments for Pakistan. This seems to have gone against the Congress.

ALSO READ: Foreign Policy Challenges Before India

Sardar Navjot Singh Sidhu had already created such an environment which was susceptible to be easily twisted by the BJP. The BJP machinery presented Sidhu and Congress as friends of Pakistan while they promoted themselves as champion in the enmity stakes against Pakistan.

Sensing this political exploitation, the astute Imran Khan issued statement in favour of the BJP to counterbalance them. This could be useful in the case of Modi’s win. So Pakistan’s government adopted sagacious strategy and now the BJP cannot quote any support by Pakistan for the Congress in the elections.

Pakistan did not want to be accused of interference in the elections. Therefore, Pakistan’s establishment remained neutral and impartial in the elections. To its credit no allegation came from India that Pakistan had tried to interfere in the elections.

ALSO READ: Modi 2.0 – Majoritarian Agenda Is In

Second is the mass interest in Pakistan which was concerned with the Muslim candidates, Navjot Singh Sidhu and film stars. The Pakistani government has nothing to do with any candidate in the Indian elections but the people of Pakistan always seem keen to follow the win and defeat of some specific candidates. After the election, people wanted to hear of the success of Navjot Singh Sidhu who has become very popular in Pakistan. His magnificent reputation lies in his friendly character and being a charismatic, witty personality, cricket fame, Sikh and Punjabi Jatt son, and TV show magnet.

People in Pakistan remained interested in the election results of the constituencies having Muslim candidates and in the Punjab. The Pakistani Muslims have deep religious affection for the Indian Muslims as they do for Muslims living throughout the world. Their second deep affection is based on culture therefore they are always keen to know about the Punjab across the border.

It is not surprising since despite the geographical split in 1947 the Muslims living in Pakistani Punjab and Sikhs living in the east Punjab love and respect each other because of cultural affinity. This harmony and adherence will continue forever because of Guru Nanak Dev and Nankana Sahib. This is perhaps a blessing of God that Nankana Sahib, Kartarpur Sahib remained in Pakistan so that these sacred places could extinguish the feelings of hatred between the Muslims and Sikhs propounded by the political interests in India. Sikh sacred places provide opportunity to remind the warm past and the message of Guru Nanak Dev for peace and harmony.

There is also a big faction in Pakistan who thinks that the BJP’s win will be a problematic for regional peace and the minorities living in India especially Sikhs and Muslims either in India or Kashmir. The message that has come across the border is that Modi has pledged to revamp and restore Hindu grandeur and root out the minorities. This is seen as an extremely dreadful policy.

Modi promised to end Articles 35 A and 370 which debar the non-Kashmiri to buy land in Indian-held Kashmir. If the BJP government tries to amend the constitution, there could be a decisive escalation in the internal conflict in Kashmir and cross-border fight as passions will be raised.

Many Pakistanis think that Sikhs can play a strategic and decisive role. I personally opine that BJP will never fulfill this promise because it is fraught with grave risks which India cannot afford. India has gone far away from secularism but it is difficult for the BJP government to bypass the Constitution. Therefore, the BJP as party will continue with its anti-minority mentality and Hindu nationalism of Hindutva while the constitution will ensure in its own way to secure its sanctity. That remains the hope in Pakistan.

]]>