Category: Opinion

December is a humiliating month for Pakistan. The wounds of 16 December 1971, when 93,000 of its soldiers surrendered to India in Dhaka and it lost half the country are still fresh. To vent its frustration and disgrace, Pakistan has seized upon the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) to hit back at India. Four strands are noticeable in its reactions.

First, Pakistan’s attempt is to misrepresent the CAA as anti-Muslim since it fast-tracks citizenship for all non-Muslim immigrants from neighbouring countries but does not extend this provision to Muslims. It has been projecting that such discrimination against Muslim would marginalize them and India would no longer be a secular and democratic state.

The second strand is the flagrant interference in the internal affairs of India. For example, a Resolution adopted by Pakistan’s National Assembly on 16 December called upon India to revoke the discriminatory clauses in the CAA and immediately halt the brutal use of force against the religious minorities, in particular, Indian Muslim students. It also demanded the release of peaceful protesters detained during the crackdown against minorities.

The third strand is the insidious attempt to incite the Muslims of India. The narrative being pedalled by Pakistan is that the CAA is a weapon — disguised in legal language — to permanently disenfranchise India’s Muslims; that Indian Muslims are under assault; they know that it is a do or die situation for them; they are well aware that silence over the matter of citizenship is nothing short of enabling the government to ghettoise them and this would lead to dangerous sectarian tensions within India.

The final strand is the focus on the character of the BJP government. Imran Niazi called the CAA part of the RSS Hindu Rashtra design of expansionism propagated by the fascist Modi government. Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi tweeted, ‘The Modi government continues to curb and undermine the rights of minorities in accordance with Hindutva supremacist ideology. The illegal annexation of Kashmir, Babri Masjid, Citizenship Amendment Bill which excludes Muslims are all targeted towards the subjugation of minorities.’ The Pak Foreign Office in a statement termed the CAA as ‘…driven by a toxic mix of an extremist ‘Hindutva’ ideology and hegemonic ambitions in the region.’

Pakistan has tried to make a comparison with Nazi Germany’s discrimination of the Jews. The linked argument is that the then major powers appeased Hitler instead of acting against him that ultimately led to WWII. The implication is that appeasement of India now would be a precursor to the disaster that could engulf the region and the world.

Then, of course, DG Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Major General Asif Ghafoor couldn’t hide his glee at the protests in India when he tweeted ‘Today all minorities of India should have again realised that vision of our great leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah about Hindutva was absolutely right. They would now regret more convincingly to be part of India.” Perhaps Ghafoor would be better off worrying about the extension of his army chief and the death penalty of a former chief.

What Pakistan’s leaders and the media have deliberately obfuscated is that the CAA does not take away the citizenship of any Indian irrespective of her or his faith. Indian leadership has repeatedly stated this. All that it does is to accelerate the process of giving citizenship to those religious minorities from selected countries who are persecuted. Moreover, anyone regardless of faith can continue to seek Indian citizenship through the regular procedure as before. By interfering in India’s internal affairs Pakistan has opened itself to its horrendous human rights record in Balochistan and its treatment of the Pashtuns being raised by India.

In reality, Pakistan is hardly in the position to talk about minorities since the systematic persecution of its Hindus, Christians, Ahmadis and Shias has been widely documented. Ahmadi mosques, Christian churches and Hindu temples have been repeatedly attacked, the members of their communities have been killed, their women raped and forcibly converted to Islam. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, over 1000 girls belonging to religious minorities are forcibly converted to Islam every year. Hindu traders, merchants and moneylenders have been frequently kidnapped for ransom while the authorities have done nothing. In addition, the blasphemy law has been used mostly against Hindus and Christians. According to Minority Rights Index, Pakistan ranks as the ninth worst country in the world.

In Pakistan, minorities are not merely discriminated against by a radicalised population but also by the state in the form of several discriminatory laws that have been a part of the Constitution for several decades now. Thus, Pakistan had declared Ahmadis as non-Muslim in 1974, while under Zia, Ahmadis were prohibited to call themselves Muslims and were not allowed to even recite Islamic text as prayers. The targeted killing of Shias in Pakistan has been termed as genocide and not merely sectarian conflict. Recently, an assistant commissioner was forced to ‘clarify’ her stance after she said there should be no discrimination against Ahmadis. Efforts have been made to discredit army chief Gen Bajwa by alleging that he was an Ahmadi and a case was also filed that he was not fit to be the army chief on this account.

Pakistan thus has no credibility to shed crocodile tears on the alleged treatment of minorities in India who have constitutional and institutional protection. Nevertheless, Pakistan’s sinister designs to stoke protests in India through falsehoods need to be noted and guarded against.

What Pakistan really needs to do is to look at the functioning of its own moribund parliament; the fragility of its own democracy; the polarization of its political parties and polity; the tragedy of its vacuous leadership that is only adept at frequent ‘U-turns’ and above all at the institutionalised discrimination of its minorities, religious and ethnic. India is perfectly capable of taking care of all its people.

(Tilak Devasher is Member, National Security Advisory Board and Consultant, Vivekananda International Foundation. Views expressed are personal.) – ANI

How does one survive in a world torn between forces for and against globalization? How does one promote mutual acceptance when even bare tolerance is missing? The only answer is cross-cultural communications.

“Bring it at the centre table”, declares retired Indian Ambassador Paramjit Sahai. Cultural exchange, he says, is all about openness and India with its multiple identities within and of the nearly-thirty million diaspora across the globe exemplifies it the best.

His book on Indian cultural diplomacy is for “celebrating pluralism in a globalized world”. Its strength “lies in the tangible way it works. It opens the doors by changing mindset and creating a positive and friendly atmosphere.”

An official representative in many counties, Sahai insists that cultural diplomacy should, however, be essentially “people-centric” and as far as possible, independent. The government should ‘vacate’ areas like films and Yoga that have “come of age” and can be privately handled. He is right.

Actually, cinema has for long grown out of Embassy environs into theatres to be savored not only by the diaspora but also local audiences, to become a multi-billion business.

I saw Raj Kapoor’s Awaara (1955), dubbed ‘Chavargo’ in Hungarian language, over four decades back drawing full house in Budapest’s niche theatres. Returning to it in 2016, I found the craze for Bollywood even more, for younger Kapoors, along with the Khans and the Bachchans.

The Japanese some years ago demanded Rajinikanth’s Tamil films underscoring the point that cinema has its own language.

This “soft power” yields hard currency. As much as the difficult to-assess export earnings, Indian cinema exudes a mix of nostalgia and brand loyalty that has sustained for generations and is growing. A big draw among the South Asian diaspora, it has become commercially rewarding, enough for Hollywood production houses to set up shops in India and make it global.

It is amazing but Indian TV serials are popular in distant West Africa. “Everything comes to a halt in our homes at 7.30 PM when they start,” says Richard J A Boateng, a film actor-director from Ghana. So smitten is he by Bollywood that he produced, directed and performed the lead in the first Ghana-India co-production titled Mr. India.

Indian yogis and ‘god men’ have for long thronged the Western world. The Modi Government has extended the Yoga foot-fall on the Thames, on the Danube and with Eiffel Tower forming its backdrop.

Yoga’s global emphasis is on lifestyle, health, restraint, fulfillment and well-being. Some Malaysians debated whether it was okay for Muslims, who are in majority, to perform a “Hindu’ thing that requires chanting ‘Om’. But privately-run yoga centres are thriving.  

This “soft power” draws deeply from the past and the present, bolstered by deep cultural ties forged by visitors from and to India.  Few other societies can boast of this.

At official level, it is fostered by Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), the cultural arm of the external affairs ministry. It runs 36 centres across the globe like the one in Budapest, named after Indian-Hungarian painter Amrita Shergill and Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Centre in Kuala Lumpur.         

Cultural diplomacy sometimes rubs off on non-diplomatic spouses. Sahai’s wife Neena has published a delectable book on her experiences, good and not-so-good and how she freely imbibed local art and culture wherever she went.

Another example is Hema Devare. While diplomat Sudhir went about promoting India across Southeast Asia, she explored artworks and textiles in that region, discovering and writing about ancient links with India.

Their scholar-journalist daughter Ashwini has done one better. She grew up changing countries along with parents, describing her quest for self-identity in a book “Lost at 15, Found at 50.”       

Ambassador Malay Mishra on retirement is pursuing his doctorate in Hungary, studying Roma or the gypsies, migrants from South Asia, now inhabiting Central Europe.

It is a revelation that Romas or Romanis identify themselves with B R Ambedkar, the Dalit leader who framed India’s Constitution in the last century. Viewed from the human rights prism, Amberkar’s ideas have found echoes among the Romas, 500,000 of whom live in Hungary alone. 

In an apparent blowback, the Romas have found connections with Dalits, the socio-economically oppressed Indians, waging their own struggle in the present-day India. Although centuries and hundreds of kilometer apart, they are conscious of their roots even as they struggle to integrate in societies they feel discriminated.

Contemporary India nurtures these ties, albeit in a limited way, helping run schools in parts of Europe and hosting world Roma conferences.

The important thing is that India does not need to be introduced in many parts of the world. But it needs to be cultivated and promoted. One thing the government can do is to follow up the bilateral cultural agreements signed or updated during almost all visits, forgotten at times.

If basic goal is to make friends and influence people, India needs to “catch’em” young, at universities. Here again, the ethos in Indian universities where foreign students come, needs to be radically changed. Colour prejudice against the Blacks from Africa raises the question: is India spreading culture meant only to blondes and whites?

Sahai’s book is set against the backdrop of India’s ethos of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (The World is a Family) and its pivot is the “Idea of India.” He has a set of questions:

“Can India give the message of spiritualism in a globalized world that is dominated by materialism? Can India lead in sending a message of diversity and pluralism, as lived by it, when the world is passing through a period of divisiveness and hatred?”

“More important than this,” he asks commenting on the present times, “can it retain its own Idea of India, which is coming under strain? While achieving our political goals, we should not lose sight of our ‘Big Picture’ of an India whose strength lies in ‘Unity in Diversity’ and which has been viewed as a benign power.”

Warning against India being seen as a “cultural hegemon”, he lauds the objective of emerging as ‘Vishwaguru’. But says that India should never move away from Sikh faith’s tenth Guru Gobind Singh’s teaching that calls for end to distinction between the teacher and the taught: “Ape Gur, Ape Chela” (He is both a teacher and a student).

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Blessed with the world’s most complex neighbourhood, what would India have been like had it adhered to the “Gujral Doctrine”?

Inder Kumar Gujral, the 12^th prime minister and author of the ‘doctrine’ – so named, not by him but by his trusted academic aide, Bhabani Sengupta – had unique perceptions about ties with neighbours. They angered the hawks who dominate the Sub-continental discourse.

Chances are that India would have had six friendly smaller neighbours and carried more weight among the world community as an Asian power. More likely, it would have been bullied by those who, after years of accusing India of playing the “big brother”, are now getting close to China, the ‘bigger’ brother.

Conclusion is difficult as two large adversarial entities, China and Pakistan that work in tandem on most issues, cannot be wished away. There was nothing formal or official about the doctrine, a set of five principles based on unilateral accommodation.

One, with smaller neighbours Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity but gives all that it can in good faith and trust. Two, no South Asian nation will allow its territory to be used against the interest of another country of the region. Three, no one will interfere in the internal affairs of another. Four, respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. And five, settle disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations.

He believed that these five principles, scrupulously observed by all – repeat all – could recast the regional relationship, including the tormented India-Pakistan relationship, in a friendly, cooperative way.

Quintessential Nehruvian, Gujral was an idealist, but not a fool. He wrote in his autobiography: “The logic was that since we had to face two hostile neighbours in the north and the west, we had to be at “total peace” with other immediate neighbours in order to contain Pakistan’s and China’s influence in the region.” That has not happened. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is almost defunct.

But Gujral believed that for India to become a global power in sync with its stature, it needs a peaceful neighbourhood.

Sometimes this actually meant offering the proverbial other cheek. The response to his ‘doctrine’ was not always reciprocated. But that did not deter him from engaging all neighbours – benign, indifferent, suspicious or hostile.

His political and personal lives, too, were tempered by this approach. His trademark Punjabi jhappi bypassed the conventional handshake, to the silent annoyance of the bureaucracy, but helped strike an instant rapport. Like millions, India’s 1947 Partition uprooted his family. But he bore no rancour. Pakistanis were among his best friends.

In my last interview with him, he shook his head with disapproval at India nursing any superpower ambitions. “It is more important that we live in peace.” He would have been a hundred this month. He died in 2012. He led India for all of 11 months (April 1997 to March 1998), but is remembered 22 years later, as the most affable and accessible prime minister.

A political lightweight, he was truly an “accidental prime minister” long before Manmohan Singh (2004-2014). Born pre-Partition, in present-day Pakistan, both shared close affinity. Without attaching his doctrinal label, the Singh Government reached out to neighbours with two huge grants to Bangladesh and made imports from all smaller neighbours duty-free.

With Musharraf’s Pakistan, too, cross-border intrusions stopped in Jammu and Kashmir. Discussed through backdoor talks, the Kashmir dispute could have been resolved but for Musharraf’s domestic debacles. Hawks on both sides have to this day dominated after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack.        

Gujral was propelled into top post by the quirky uncertainties that govern coalition politics. Other contestants squabbled furiously and pulled each other down. He got it for two reasons: he was the least unacceptable among the contenders, and his good relations with the Nehru-Gandhi clan heading the Congress Party.

Yet, Congress pulled down his government, forced an election, only to lose it badly. As the PM, the sailing was not smooth. He had to cancel Sengupta’s appointment as adviser. His asking the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the government’s external spy agency, to close down a unit dealing with Pakistan hurt intelligence gathering on militancy and terrorism, angering India’s strategic hawks.

As foreign minister, he earned a legion of critics when he hugged Saddam Hussein and visited Saddam-occupied Kuwait. His defence was his concern for the safety of millions of Indian workers in the Gulf region. For them his government organized the world’s largest peacetime airlift.

Along with then premier VP Singh, he ended the Indian Peace Keeping Force operations in Sri Lanka. Delhi lost the goodwill of both Colombo and the Lankan Tamils, but a bad legacy had to end. His 11-month premiership saw the Ganga water sharing pact with Bangladesh. The Left-leaning liberal resisted signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). That helped the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led government to conduct the May 1998 nuclear tests.

Member of Indira Gandhi’s “kitchen cabinet”, Gujral was information minister when she imposed Emergency in 1975, detaining opposition leaders and censoring the media. He quietly disagreed and was replaced. She sent him as envoy to Moscow. Besides growing a Lenin-like beard, he also consolidated Indo-Soviet ties. But he did not mince words while telling then Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko that Moscow had seriously erred in invading Afghanistan. From Moscow, he befriended physically and culturally-close Central Asia that he called India’s “extended neighbourhood”.

During his stint, India became a dialogue partner of ASEAN and a member of the Asean Regional Forum (ARF). He was media’s darling, ready with a thoughtful smile and a coherent answer to most tricky questions. He would candidly admit failures.

A democrat, he always sought to carry others along in that coalition era, displaying, in his own words, “the ability to accommodate, iron out differences and even bear insults.” Gujral and his ‘doctrine’ would not have survived the present times, what with critics being asked to “go to Pakistan” and terror-factor compelling India’s muscular approach.

Although he was an ‘opposition’ premier, the Manmohan Singh Government had accorded him a State funeral. The Modi Government, shunning anything remotely Nehruvian, has shunned any centenary commemoration.

He was India’s last of the liberals who made it to the top howsoever momentarily. Such people don’t make it in public life any more.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Whichever way the forthcoming election in United Kingdom goes, Britain is going to change fundamentally and so might quite a few countries around the world. Even possibly India. Brexit is now a sideshow. One way or the other it will be decided after the election. The real choice before Britain is between reviving a hard socialist future or revival of an extreme right wing capitalist economy. The British election is important because what happens in UK may start to become a trend elsewhere. Besides its fading power and its slide in the economic hierarchy, Britain still influences the intellectual political discourse in the world.

Jeremy Corbyn’s call for a socialist revolution is in the Labour manifesto and for all to see. It is open to criticism, to critique and to support. Voters know exactly what they will get whether they vote to stay in Europe or come out. Boris Johnson’s Conservative manifesto on the other hand is a hall of mirrors giving away little but bouncing a number of reflections without revealing where reality lies. Behind this is suspected to be a lurch towards American capitalist model, even more than Thatcherism

Corbyn’s socialist dream is coming under tremendous media attack. Apart from the tax threat being felt by millionaires and billionaires, many media people also fear their take home pay will be down since their earnings are a lot higher than the £80000 threshold at which high taxation will come in.

Ever since Thatcher started the low taxation drive in UK reaching a current low corporation tax of around 20% and maximum 45% income tax for millionaires, capitalism has dominated economic policies not only in United Kingdom but most of the world. Before the Thatcher revolution, taxation had gone up to 83% in 1974 for high earners and 45% for corporations in UK.  In India, highest tax rates were an eye watering 97.5% at one time (1973) but remained around 85% for a long time.

Corbyn is attempting a sort of root and branch overhaul of Thatcherism. Higher taxation to pay for more social welfare, better NHS and elderly care have become part of the public debate. Corbyn’s Labour is promising to reverse another Thatcherite policy that started a trend around the world, of privatisation of public utilities. Labour will renationalize the Railways, water and even start a State provided free fast internet service.

Privatisation of public utilities and other major State services  became the economic model of late twentieth century around the world. Even India adopted it under Dr Manmohan Singh’s stewardship of economic policy. If Labour wins, it will be interesting if Thatcherism will begin to be dismantled in other parts of the world as Labour’s main message is ‘Austerity does not work, Privatisation does not work’.

On the other hand if Conservatives win with Boris at the helm, most pundits predict that Britain will swing even further to the right than it is at the moment. This will begin the Americanisation of Britain’s public policy and economy.

Any remaining public utilities and services will probably see further private ownership and left to the market to determine their success or failure. The two big areas that are likely to see significant departure from the past will be the National Health Service (NHS), a flag ship of Britain’s soft power around the world and a pride of Britain’s socialist history. The second will be the standards on agriculture produce and food. Currently Britain has very high standards imposed by its membership of the European Union. After Brexit, a Boris Britain is likely to seek greater trade with United States, which in turn is asking waiving of these standards.

It is the further privatization of the NHS which is worrying a lot of people. Boris Johnson has made promises that the NHS will not only be safe under him but will get further cash. However the majority of British people do not trust him. He has gained a reputation for being a politician who rarely keeps his word. Yet Boris Johnson’s remarkable feat is that he has continued to mesmerize the same public that does not trust any of his promises to be kept!

The Trump administration has already had meetings with the Johnson Government on letting American Health giants to gain ownership of NHS sectors. Further the Drug companies in USA will also likely be given freedom to increase charges for medicines sold by them. The NHS is an institution that continues to attract awe around the world for its free from cradle to grave free health care. There are serious attempts in India to attract NHS expertise to introduce similar models. However many fear that under Boris Johnson government, the NHS will start to crumble, a loss to Britain and to the world.

Food and agriculture produce standards will be lowered under a future Conservative Government. This effectively means that UK will become like many developing countries with poor food and agriculture quality. The items that alarm most British are steroid fed meat and other agriculture products from USA that will become common, whereas currently they are banned.

Social welfare will most likely be further cut. Many elderly and poor people will suffer even more. An environment similar to USA is being prophesised by many a political commentator. This means people hungry on the streets, increase in poverty and poor health. The rich are likely to become richer.

Britain under conservatives will become a land with little of its manufacturing or financial sector in indigenous ownership. Many of current British manufacturing is owned by international companies, including from China. This is likely to increase. Britain will effectively be owned by the non British, oligarchs and State enterprises from countries such as china, France and Germany even more than currently. It is likely to become the world’s market State. At one time Britain only had market towns, now the entire country could become a market hub.

The third major party in Britain is the Lib Dems. Their single agenda seems to be to reverse Brexit.  If they become the King makers, they will insist on a referendum which in turn may put an end to Brexit Britain with UK remaining in Europe. A number of opinion polls predict that another referendum will produce a majority in favour of remaining in EU.

Whether Labour forms the next Government or Conservatives do, the most likely tectonic shift after this elections will be unravelling of Great Britain or United Kingdom. The Scottish National party (SNP) is widely predicted to win in Scotland. SNP will insist on another Scottish referendum. Again polls predict that this time Scotland will vote to leave the Union, first formed in 1707, having been treated as an irrelevancy in the Brexit talks with Europe. This has angered a number of the Scottish.

The other land likely to drift away from United Kingdom is Northern Ireland. In a Boris Brexit Britain, the Northern Irish are likely to call for a referendum of their own. Boris Johnson has negotiated a deal with EU that requires a border between Norther Ireland (a British territory) and the rest of Britain to avoid goods being smuggled into Europe through Republic of Ireland (Southern Ireland). Polls are showing that a majority of Northern Irish feel betrayed by Conservatives and see no reason not to join Southern Ireland and become one country.

The 2019 election, called in a hurry, will not be insignificant. Instead it will have profound ramifications, changing the history, politics and economics of United Kingdom and to some extent rest of the world. Britain will have a revolution of either the left or the right which will influence public policies around the world. And regardless of which side it starts sailing, Britain is likely to start breaking up, bringing an end to the once mighty British Empire. Finally 300 years of British Empire will shrink back to start, into a small territorial land called England with Wales attached for a while.

Associated with Realpolitik that sets pragmatism over ideological goals, the phrase “politics is the art of the possible” entails that “it’s not about what’s right, or what’s best. It’s about the attainable.”

Nineteenth-century German politician Otto Von Bismarck who coined it couldn’t have foreseen events in present-day India, or in Maharashtra. He would have been flummoxed by the way even Realpolitik is played.

It is difficult to say who won in Maharashtra that saw a government ushered in by subterfuge that had to quit within three days. Besides greed for power that comes natural to all contenders, this happened because of abdication by institutions established under the Constitution.

To begin with, the President signed a proclamation revoking the governor’s rule at an unearthly 5.43 AM. The Union Cabinet did not meet to recommend it. (This was justified by the Law Minister, of all days, on the Constitution Day).

Next, the state governor, obviously on New Delhi’s diktats, hastily swore in by 8 AM Devendra Fadnavis and as his new deputy, Ajit Pawar. He did not verify the claim of majority support from among the newly-elected legislators. Even after the dust settles, his conduct shall be debated.

The Supreme Court heard the matter on a Sunday morning, an official holiday. But three honourable judges reserved their ruling when they could have issued clear directions for floor test in the legislature citing well-established precedents. That allowed contenders and their cronies — carpetbaggers all – to abuse all democratic norms in activities from swank hotels and resorts to the streets.

The apex court finally controlled the damage with clear-cut rulings, but after 48 hours. It not only gave the Fadnavis government just one day to get the assembly’s confidence vote but also stipulated that the proceedings should be telecast ‘live’, conducted by a pro-tem Speaker and held by an open ballot.

Without dwelling on the background details that are too many, problems for the BJP ruling at the Centre, always resorting to the jugular to extend sway across the country, began with falling short of majority in both states that went to the polls last month.

It roped in a rival party in Haryana co-opting its chief as the deputy chief minister. But in Maharashtra it reneged on a fifty-fifty pre-poll pact with its oldest ally Shiv Sena (at least Sena insists so).

Despite winning half of the seats than the BJP, Sena, fearing future marginalization from a marauding BJP in the only state it has political base, insisted on the chief minister’s post.

After a month’s stand-off, it broke with the BJP and aligned with old rivals, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and the Congress. The latter prevaricated, unwilling to align with an untrustworthy ideological adversary when NCP chief Sharad Pawar emerged as the catalyst. To his credit, he insisted, and secured, Sena’s formal parting from the BJP-led ruling alliance.

The BJP prime movers, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah grabbed the weakest link in the Opposition chain – Ajit Pawar, NCP chief’s controversial nephew. He succumbed, to escape probe for graft charges worth billions instituted by the Fadnavis Government-1.

Having got him, the short-lived Fadnavis-2 withdrew nine of the 20 charges. But the next day, Ajit quit, under severe family pressures. Stripped of perceived majority minus Ajit, in no position to face the floor-test, Fadnavis resigned, with egg on his and the BJP’s face.  

Now, some noteworthy points on the way polity functions. Split verdicts in an election have been creating conditions when political mores and constitutional norms are wrecked. Money flows — the going price of a Maharashtra legislator this time was, reportedly, a staggering Rupees 50 crores.

The “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” political culture of trading in legislators that goes back to the 1960s has burgeoned. People have got used to seeing those they vote changing party labels and loyalty for power and pelf. Come to think of it, all four parties were brazen and shameless, but BJP behaved with maximum impunity.

No popular movement has been unleashed to protest this trend. India’s middle class scoffs at corruption in general, but is selective on political corruption. The venerable Anna Hazare, the anti-graft movement hero six years ago, hailing from the same Maharashtra, is today silent and ignored.

Maharashtra’s changed political line-up has blurred the secular-communal divide. An aggressive “Hindu nationalist” Shiv Sena is being embraced by the NCP, the Congress, the Samajwadi and others. Keen to beat back a marauding BJP, the secularists (this term is getting blurred) have embraced Sena despite its record of regional chauvinism and its avowed “Hindu nationalism” that is more aggressive and regressive than the BJP.

The BJP-Sena split has raised new worries in influential quarters. The caste factor has always kept a pluralist Hindu society divided. Lord Meghnad Desai, the British peer and an avid Modi fan, laments: “If two Hindu nationalist parties cannot agree on a power-sharing coalition because of the Brahmin/non-Brahmin difference, what hope is there for a Hindu Rashtra?”

The Maharashtra events are a resounding slap on the faces of Modi and Shah. Their template of being the modern-day Chanakyas has taken a hit. Their ‘nationalism’ platform aggressively selling their Kashmir initiative and labeling its critics ‘traitors’ did not bring enough seats. Local issues and regional parties mattered. Besides unemployment, farm distress is a serious issue in Maharashtra.  

The Pawars are a dynasty, the reason why Ajit the rebel, turned prodigal. Now Pawar sups with another dynasty, the Thackerays and the oldest dynasty of them all, the Congress’ Gandhis.

This is Pawar’s moment, thanks to the BJP’s Maharashtra folly. India’s increasingly one-sided political discourse has been seriously breached with Pawar’s emergence. Although ageing and ailing, he has a stature around whom a leader-less Opposition, particularly the Congress, can build its future campaign against the BJP. That is, provided they sink their egos — a big ‘if’ in Indian context.

Road for this has been paved in Maharashtra, the second-largest state that elects 48 Lok Sabha members, next only to Uttar Pradesh. Equally important is the fact that the state, despite numerous flaws, remains India’s richest and its capital is also India’s principal financial/ commercial hub. Losing Maharashtra is the biggest blow the BJP has suffered since 2014.

Maharashtra has a chief minister in Uddhav Thackeray, 59, who has had zero experience in governance. He has remained under the shadow of his father, late Balasaheb, who founded and built a party with a chauvinistic agenda and resorts to strong-arm tactics. India Inc. couldn’t be happy by this development fearing political instability and the resultant damage to an already slowdown-hit economy. 

The new combine will have to battle and rein in their several inner contradictions and with Pawar playing the ‘Pitamaha’, ensure that they do not overwhelm governance.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com