Category: Opinion

Irrespective of who takes over as the new Congress president, the biggest hurdle the new incumbent will face is that of acceptability within the party

There appears to be a large sink hole developing in Congress as Rahul Gandhi has made it clear that he is firm on stepping down as president, The party is gradually coming to terms with the fact it will no longer be headed by a member of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

The party is like a family of nursery age children left at home for days without parents. But it does not appear they will be orphaned. They will soon be fostered to a caretaker handpicked ‘headmaster’ and Mummy and Daddy will be at hand nearby.

It is not easy for the Congress to grasp this new reality as it has, over the years, become heavily dependent on the First Family. The party relies on the family to win them elections and also to keep it united. It appears to be headless at the moment, at least in the public eye.

There is no doubt that the Congress will soon have a new president. The process of consultations to find a consensus candidate has been kickstarted and the party’s highest decision-making body- the Congress Working Committee – will be scheduled within a week or ten days to appoint the next party president.

Several names are doing the rounds. Mallikarjun Kharge, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Ashok Gehlot, and Anand Sharma are said to be in contention but there is no final decision has been taken.

While there is no room for any ambiguity that the Congress will now be headed by someone who does not belong the party’s first family, there is no clarity on the role of the Gandhis in the new set-up. More importantly, questions are being asked if the Gandhis are ready to relinquish their control over the party.

In the four-page letter he penned announcing his resignation, Rahul Gandhi said  several leaders had suggested that he name his successor but  he did not wish to get involved in the process and wanted the party to take this decision. Congress insiders insist the Gandhis have made it known that they intended to stay away from managing party affairs and that it is now for the others to shoulder this responsibility.

However, this does not mean that the Gandhis will turn their backs on the party. They have told their colleagues that they will be always to there for the party. In his four-page resignation letter, Rahul Gandhi also clarified that though he would no longer be heading the party, he would continue to fight for the ideals of the Congress. He also said he will be available to the party whenever it requires his services or advice. The Nehru-Gandhi scion is planning to embark on a padyatra across the country to create awareness about the Congress philosophy and position himself as an ideologue.

While Rahul Gandhi will be very much on the job, Sonia Gandhi will also contribute her bit.  As chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party she has been mandated to appoint leaders in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and also to coordinate with other opposition parties on specific issues. She is also authorized to call regular meetings with MPs to decide on the party’s Parliamentary strategy. Then again, the family’s latest entrant into politics – Priyanka Gandhi Vadra – also has a seat on the high table. As party general secretary, she is a member of the Congress Working Committee.

What this essentially means is that the Gandhis are very much around and are unlikely to fade away or allow the party to slip out of their control. The family has too much at stake and cannot afford to walk away without a backward look.

In fact, it is an accepted fact that the new party president will be picked by the Gandhis as they would like to  keep one foot in the door in case the Congress experiment with a non-Gandhi  fizzles out.  Senior Congress leaders privately admit that it is entirely possible that Rahul Gandhi could return as party president after a couple of years but not before that. However, they also acknowledge that the Congress needs the Gandhis as the party would collapse without them.

This has raised apprehensions in the party that the new president will not be able to take independent decisions and function autonomously. In fact, many leaders are wary of taking on this responsibility in view of the experience of previous non-Gandhi Congress chiefs like P.V.Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesari who were booted out unceremoniously.

Irrespective of who takes over as the new Congress president, the new incumbent has a daunting task ahead. The biggest hurdle he faces is that of acceptability within the party and ensuring that he is able to discharge his responsibilities effectively. The “to do” list is endless. To begin with, the morale of the Congress cadre needs an urgent boost, the party organization has to be overhauled and strengthened, the internal wrangling in the state units dealt with forthwith and greater ideological clarity provided to the rank and file.

It is not an easy job given the constraints facing the new President. Unlike the Gandhis, who were insulated from internal criticism as these attacks were generally targeted at their team members, the next Congress chief will not enjoy this luxury. He will be constantly under the scanner and will be in the direct line of fire from in house rebels and critics.

Years ago, a senior Congress leader had once told a disgruntled office bearer to understand that “the Congress is a Nehru-Gandhi party.” The new party chief will soon find out if the Congress has outgrown the First Family or the cadre continues to look up to it for patronage and political survival.

]]>

Contrary to what is projected, the US President has found a way to dismiss the US war machine with ease and creativity. In fact, Donald Trump has made the world safer from US hawks. Read the facts

It is probably verging on blasphemy in some circles to say anything positive about American President Donald Trump. Portrayed as narcissist, misogynist, racist, climate change denier and unpredictable on international relations, Trump continues to walk the tight rope on a possible impeachment by the Democratic led Congress.

Trump may not be to the liking of many liberals and social democrats but some facts cannot be ignored. He is an American president who has not started a war on hapless people somewhere around the world for American ‘machismo’. He has also used a tool of weapon that hits the decision makers and the rich more than the ordinary people.

And importantly, his actions have led to real debates on equality, immigration, climate change etc which have usually been camouflaged under a veneer of ‘liberal’ policies.

ALSO READ: The Rubicon Crossed, Emperor Trump Or Citizen Trump?

Most of the attacks on him are domestic to USA. They are of little relevance to people around the world. Whether he is a racist, misogynist or even nepotistic does not affect the average person in Syria, Iran, North Korea or anywhere around the world. In fact, it has stopped irrelevant moral lectures from US officials to the world. He has not drained the swamp but he has blocked its hypocrisy for now.

But even in these domestic matters, is Trump the demagogue – as he is presented to be – when compared to his predecessors? These are aspects of America that have always been covered under the gloss of liberalism and pretentious progressive policies.

Take immigration, for instance. If anything, it is Obama who holds the prize for ‘Deporter in Chief’.  In 2012, Obama administration kicked out a whopping 419,384 illegal immigrants in comparison to Trump’s 256,000, a record no one has beaten. Even the family units and the children’s detention centres were started under Obama. The policy of empowering ICE, immigration and Customs Enforcement, to snoop and arrest people without warrants, or even giving them time to get their clothes let alone lawyers or say goodbye to family, was started under Bush and reached an ugly peak under Obama.

It was President Obama who proudly boasted, ‘We have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible.’ And it was also during Obama that one of his chief immigration advisors callously declared, “At the end of the day, when you have a community of 10 million, 11 million people living and working in the United States illegally, some of these things are going to happen. Even if the law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children. They don’t have to like it, but it is a result of having a broken system of laws.” 

Racism too remained unchanged, if not increased, during Obama. Many a black American has been scathing of his approach. Paniel Joseph writing in Washingtonpost (2 April 2016) says, ‘Blacks have, critics suggested, traded away substantive policy demands for the largely symbolic psychological and emotional victory of having a Black president and first family in the White House for eight years’.

Obama has been accused of skirting around issues of racism during his presidency because he wanted to be seen as ‘one of them’.  Towards the end of his presidency when racism became uglier with blatant police killings of blacks, he could only bring himself to make a statement. The same white Middle America that voted him in probably abandoned Democrats for being impotent on realistic change.

Racism and anti-immigration are ugly facts of America no one wanted to talk about at the highest level, except in superlatives. What Trump has done is taken away the mirage and the pretence. He has spoken aloud what white America talks behind locked doors.

Now both issues are there in the public glare as they really are for America to debate in earnest on these camouflaged fissures. That Democratic hopeful, Joe Biden, was taken to task for his racial hypocrisy in a recent debate shows that America is ready to talk the untalked as an electoral issue.

As for misogyny, one would be forgiven to believe from the media attacks that Trump is the first philanderer at the Oval office. Wasn’t there someone called JFK and more recently Bill Clinton? In fact why not look at the difference!

The #metoo campaign that shook the male western world was not about ‘affairs’ or philandering. It was about abuse of power when powerful men exploited their office to force women (in some cases men) into sex or sexual abuse making the workplace uncomfortable.

So far, as we know, Trump has not cornered any woman in the white house and lured her or forced her into a compromising situation or used his new power to sleep around with other men’s wives. We can’t tell, skeletons may come out later, but to date no one has gone public. He exploited his business and seems to have indulged in philandering and prostitutes rather than exploit staff.  He has not exploited the most powerful State office of trust to intimidate women into sexual favours as both Clinton and JFK did.  No #metoo campaigns against them?

However, it is the international sphere that concerns us lesser mortals around the world. It was considered almost a certainty that had Hilary Clinton become President, the USA would have gone to war with Syria, as Obama had already set the atmosphere. Another half a million people would have been killed in the madness that liberals call, maintaining ‘rule based world order’ a convenient term for hegemony or new evangelism.

Clinton’s victory would also have raised tensions in South China Sea and with North Korea. More importantly, the possibility of war with China as a result would have been high.

Trump has a unique approach to international relations, probably defying every international relations theory. Generally the State machinery or rather bureaucracy along with the political leadership, works as a unidirectional slow train with allegedly clear aims in international policy. Not with Trump. It works at tweet speed.

In US foreign policy, maintaining superpower status has been prominent in international relations and a sort of etiquette had developed on how US dealt with both challengers and friends. Commercial interests have also been instrumental as well as idealism of sustaining and promoting democracy around the world, sometimes used as a PR slogan to conceal commercial interests such as the Iraq war.

But asserting its might and a gung ho readiness to go to war when challenged or overthrow unfriendly governments has been key aspects of US foreign policy approach that can explain many of the US international actions in the last four decades if not more.

Here Trump has simply thrown the ‘instructions’ book out. Meeting North Korea in the middle, a piddling small poverty ridden country, and making it a major international event is something that would have been unheard of. Pride would not have allowed that. But pride is not something Trump bothers about. He has avoided war.

This single action has diffused tensions and there is the possibility that by wooing Kim Jong-Un, North Korea may start to reverse the nuclear programme. More importantly the shrill paranoia of US ‘pundit’ community has been silenced and they can put their pens to some other mythical danger facing US hegemony.

In Syria, Trump ignored close friends, the Sunni Gulf States, and allowed Russia to deal with the situation, albeit with some cosmetic help from US forces. Assad remains in power to the horror of many liberals who wanted to see his downfall, introduction of democracy and another country in the image of western democratic state regardless of the cost to human life. Crusades do not bother with headcounts.

Trump’s control of US foreign policy is extraordinary as shown in the recent U turn to possible attacks on Iran. Cleverly he has placed the hawks, like John Bolton, at the centre of foreign policy, letting them pump up the rhetoric, then frustrate them with his famous tweets.

Using a Fox news host to outwit Bolton and others, including ‘best friend’ Israel, was a move only Trump could have deployed. The war machine that is used to killing hundreds of thousands as necessary collateral damage must have been gob smacked when he said, ‘I don’t want to kill 150 innocent people’. It warrants a sketch. The comedians are focusing on the wrong bits of Trump’s world.

No other US president has had so much control over US wars and foreign policy than Trump. Almost every President became victim to the echoes and war drums that beat around him. George Bush was hopelessly pushed around by the hawks into needless, expensive and destructive wars. Obama, the one person who never deserved a Noble Prize for peace, went to more wars than even his predecessor. According to a LA times 2017 article, U.S. military forces had been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. In fact he started a number of covert operations around the world including the Syria war where US financed the uprising along with its friends in the first place, which Russia had to clean up.

Trump has not been a push over at all. He has found a way of dismissing the US war machine with ease and creativity. Trump has made the world safer from US hawks, at least for now. People around the world, especially in vulnerable countries, can go to sleep without fear of US missiles blowing their children in the name of peace and democracy.

As for his trade wars, they hit the decisions makers and the middle classes more than ordinary people. The poor will not miss items they can hardly buy in the first place. The manufacturers, the businesses and Middle class luxury is hit by these sanctions. They are usually the ones berating for ‘thump them’ wars around the world. They might start thinking twice before bellowing for ‘conflicts’ as Trump instead starts ‘trade wars’.

It is climate change where Trump is a problem. It is quite possible that sooner or later, Trump is going to become the greatest Climate campaigner. Wait for this space. For the world outside America, Trump is yet the first US president to let the world be in peace.

]]>

In India, where people don’t easily give up office and power, Azim Premji, an all-powerful head of a global conglomerate, the country’s second-richest man to boot, will retire end-July on turning 75.

Where families rule, be they in power or out of it, he has nominated his son as his successor, but has divided the latter’s clout and responsibilities into five entities among those outside the family. He will continue as non-executive director and founder chairman.

Where people chase wealth by means fair and foul, he has followed self-imposed work and business ethics for 53 years. He drove his Toyota Corolla till recently and travels Economy. He gets upset if an associate fudges travel bills, irrespective of the amount involved, to uphold work ethics. He once berated his staff for having him upgraded to Business Class till he was convinced that it was the airline that had made that unilateral gesture.

What makes Azim Hasham Premji stand apart is his philanthropic activities. India Inc. is not particularly famous for charity, nor are the rich in general. They engage in token charity to placate their conscience and earn public plaudits. Actually, billions remain frozen in religious endowments in the form of currency, gold and jewellery. That idle wealth is beyond the reach of the society.

Roughly, 34 per cent of shares held by companies controlled by Premji are earmarked to the Azim Premji Foundation (APF), taking the total donations to over Rs 1.4 trillion (USD 21 billion). The donation includes a 67 percent stake in his IT outsourcer, Wipro, worth $15 billion, plus assets including his stakes in consumer business Wipro Enterprises and PremjiInvest, his family office.

The APF works towards improving education in over 350,000 schools in seven Indian states. It also provides financial grants to other not-for-profit organisations. In March this year, he gifted an additional Rs 52.7 billion of the company’s shares –the most generous donation in the nation’s history. This will help the foundation scale up its activities several-fold, according to Forbes.

To give an idea of the scale of Premji’s charity, suffice it to say that India’s super wealthy households, or those with a net worth of over $50 million, are expected to double in both volume and wealth from 160,600 households with a total net worth of Rs. 1.53 trillion in 2017, to 330,400 households with a combined net worth of Rs.3.52 trillion in 2022. But a vast majority of them inherit their wealth and prefer to leave their money to family.

The remarkable thing is that it is Premji’s own money, not company funds. As the company’s executive chairman and MD, he has consistently given himself salary rises to keep control over his earnings so that he can divert it to charity without being subjected to any pressures. Nobody is saying this, but speaking generally, pressures from family and associates can be overbearing when one wants to engage in charity.

In India, philanthropy is done with caste/community considerations. Premji’s charity is not meant only for his largely impoverished community alone. In 2012, the Wall Street Journal called him the world’s richest Muslim entrepreneur outside of the Gulf region.

The newspaper titled its report: “How a Muslim Billionaire Thrives in Hindu India”. It quoted Premji as saying that such success shows globalization is turning into “two-way traffic” that can bring tangible benefits to developing countries.

“We have always seen ourselves as Indian. We’ve never seen ourselves as Hindus, or Muslims, or Christians or Buddhists,” Premji told the financial daily.

This is no empty rhetoric. On India’s Partition of India, the story goes, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a fellow-Khoja, invited Azim’s father Hasham Premji to move to Pakistan. Hasham turned down the request and chose to remain in India.   

Behind all this is the business acumen of a Gujarati and ethics of a Khoja Shia Muslim family. Hasham owned a vegetable oil product company. Azim cut short his study at Stanford and returned home following his father’s sudden death. Taking charge in 1966, at age 21, he retained Wipro, the acronym of the Western India Vegetable Products Limited founded in 1945, but transformed that small company to a $8.5 billion global tech firm. Wipro Enterprises also grew to a global FMCG, infrastructure engineering and medical devices producer with revenues of about $2 billion. It employs over 171,000 people. 

The college dropout eventually graduated in the year 2000. He completed his bachelors of Science degree in electrical engineering from the same Stanford University 34 years later.

Premji’s famous quotes include one exhorting “play to win” and another, “failure is the biggest step to success.” He has combined them when and where required.  Unlike what it should probably have done, Wipro has held off on firing all cylinders in the past few years and lost its third largest IT services firm position to HCL Technologies. Its revenues now stand at $8.12 billion as opposed to HCL Technologies’ $8.6 billion, $21 billion for TCS and $11.8 billion for Infosys.

Yet, an analysis by Mint newspaper noted that Premji was “…resolutely defiant of the Western market wisdom of sticking to a field of “core competence.” As an Indian business leader, he has always punted against the current. He was one of the first, if not the pioneering, leaders of the country s IT revolution. The opportunity was grabbed after IBM was ousted from India for selling reconditioned computers.

Steering Wipro away from business where margins were relatively secure to what was, in the 1970s and 1980s, still uncharted territory surely requires more than just gumption and a taste for risk a gift of vision.

Indeed, the story of India’s IT revolution is as much Wipro’s as it is of others. Premji rejected Narayan Murthy for a big job and the latter advanced his plans to turn an entrepreneur and launched Infosys.

Premji has been bothered about the fact that the IT business’ top managements haven’t been entirely stable and that growth has tended to plateau. Hence, he sought to consolidate Wipro’s achievements by ensuring a smooth succession. He sought out views from global management experts like late C K Prahalad and helped build the next level leadership, a younger one that can grow and think differently.

Although Wipro is not the biggest, Premji is certainly the father figure of the IT industry. Suresh Vasawani, Wipro’s former CEO, went on to lead Dell and IBM before starting his own venture capital and private equity fund.

According to a Bloomberg analysis, many industry leaders see in him the leadership style and business ethics that they want to emulate. Among them are Mindtree founders Krishnakumar Natarajan, Rostow Ravanan and Subroto Bagchi. 

With his corporate mission achieved, Azim, as announced, can plan more philanthropy.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Once the poster boy of good governance, Bihar chief minister and Janata Dal (U) president Nitish Kumar is today struggling to protect his image

Already defeated politically by a resurgent Bharatiya Janata Party and left behind by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popular appeal, questions are now being raised about Nitish Kumar’s purported firm grip on state administration.

Last year, Nitish Kumar found himself in the eye of a storm after reports by independent researchers revealed the deplorable conditions in Bihar’s shelter homes for girls and young boys. The report provided details about how the inmates lived in deplorable conditions, were denied basics like clothing and medicines and were routinely tortured and made to work in the homes of their caregivers. The report also revealed how young girls were raped and kept locked up in inhuman conditions. The shelter homes are funded by the state administration and run by influential people who are well connected with the police, officials, and politicians.

Predictably, Nitish Kumar’s image took a beating when this scandal erupted last year. And, more recently, the Bihar chief minister was once again in the firing line after an encephalitis epidemic claimed the lives of at least 160 children in Bihar, putting the spotlight on the poor conditions in government-run hospitals. Having enjoyed a popular run as a development man, the Bihar chief minister had to face irate crowds, shouting “Nitish Kumar go back” when he visited a hospital to get a first-hand account of the encephalitis epidemic.

These developments have undoubtedly come as a rude shock for Nitish Kumar who has been widely credited with streamlining the administration and focusing on development. The Bihar chief minister was hailed for restoring the law and order situation in Bihar, improving the roads in the state and ensuring better availability of electricity and water. This was in addition to the special efforts he made to push up the enrolment level of girls in schools by providing them free bicycles, books, and uniforms. 

However, it is a different story today. Not only are people looking at Nitish Kumar in a fresh and not-so flattering light but the JD (U) leader is also feeling the heat politically from the BJP and, personally from Modi. The equations between the two allies have changed dramatically since the 2010 Bihar assembly polls when Nitish Kumar called the shots while the BJP was clearly the junior partner.

Today, it is the BJP which is the dominant political force in Bihar and, as the recent Lok Sabha election showed, Nitish Kumar now plays second fiddle to Modi as the Bihar chief minister clearly depends on the BJP leader’s charisma to woo the electorate. If the JD (U) managed to win 16 of the 17 Lok Sabha seats, it contested in alliance with the BJP, it is primarily because of Modi’s popularity.

This is a far cry from the past when Nitish Kumar shunned Modi and would even refuse to share a platform with him for fear of alienating the minorities. Unhappy with Modi’s projection as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial face in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha election, Nitish Kumar snapped ties with the BJP and contested on his own. However, he managed to win only two of the 40 Lok Sabha seats while the BJP’s score was 22.

The JD (U) chief subsequently joined hands with his bête noire Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Congress to form a mahagathbandhan for the 2015 Bihar assembly polls. The alliance proved to be a resounding success as the BJP was trounced while the mahagathbandhan formed the state government. But, above all, Nitish Kumar’s personal stock shot up once again. He was feted and fawned upon by the opposition camp and was being positioned as its Prime Ministerial candidate.

However, differences between Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav cropped up soon and the Bihar chief minister did another somersault. He walked out of the grand alliance and, once again, teamed up with the BJP which allowed him to retain his government and improve his vote share from 16 to 22 percent.

But this is should be of little comfort to Nitish Kumar who finds himself shackled to the BJP as never before. For instance, a miffed Nitish Kumar did not join the Modi government as he was unhappy that his party was offered only one ministerial berth. But he is in no position to walk out of the alliance as he needs the BJP as a partner in next year’s Bihar assembly polls.

Nitish Kumar is attempting to chart an independent path despite his constant public declarations that he remains a member of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. For instance, the JD (U) leader has publicly disagreed with the BJP on the triple talaq Bill and its Kashmir policy. At the same time, Nitish Kumar is trying to expand his party’s footprint and play a larger national role in the future by emerging as a leader of the non-Congress, non-BJP parties.

But it may too late for Nitish Kumar to reclaim his lost position. He had an excellent opportunity to lead the opposition bloc in the run-up to the recent Lok Sabha election but he squandered it away by jumping ship. The Bihar chief minister’s tendency to change allies at his convenience has shown him up as an unreliable partner. His best bet now is to continue his alliance with the BJP even as a junior partner.

]]>

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

]]>