VHP Yatras: An Asset or a Liability for the BJP?

With around 80 Lok Sabha seats, the state of Uttar Pradesh has always been the most politically significant state in the country as far as the national politics is concerned. Since the past two decades, the state is dictating the terms as to come to power at the Centre. Among the two national parties, the rise of the BJP is actually seen as a result of the polarization that it created in the state with the help of its partisan politics and the deadly VHP yatra’s by wrecking the issue of the Ram Temple which led to not only the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya but also fuelled some of the worst riots in the state despite its Chief Minister’s assurance to the High Court to preserve the disputed mosque.

The recent VHP rallies around Ayodhya are largely nothing but a political experiment that hasn’t quite clicked in a state where polarization has worked in the favour of the Sangh Parivar. Though a conscious BJP has though tried its best to shield itself from any association with the VHP initiative, but the fact remains that nothing happens in the Sangh Parivar without letting each other know about their plans. In fact if sources are to be believed, the Ram Temple issue had been discussed among top leaders of the RSS, the BJP and the VHP earlier this year soon after Rajnath Singh had taken over as the President of the BJP. Rajnath Singh too is seen as a close aide and associate of the RSS.

There is however a firm belief among the top cadres of the Sangh Parivar that polarization has always helped the BJP in the crucial state of Uttar Pradesh. The BJP in its earlier form as the Bharatiya Jana Sangh has gained electorally from the Goraksha (Save the Cow) movement in 1966 by winning 98 out of 425 assembly seats. And the BJP in 1989 rising back to 85 compared to two seats won in 1984 on the backing of a Shilapujan programme for the Ram templein 1989 and then to a whopping 120 in 1991. And it is this belief that has made a unanimous understanding in the Sangh Parivar to create as much polarization as possible in the state so that they can reap the maximum political benefits out of it in the upcoming 2014 general elections.

But the manner in which the the UP government has reacted to the VHP’s latest ‘84 Kosi Parikrama’  has led to wide allegations from the Congress and the BSP, both of which have a lot at stake in Uttar Pradesh, that the SP and the VHP have struck an understanding. In fact, the VHP had initially had struggled to provoke the SP into any kind of response to the programme. It was until the SP’s Muslim face, UP Minister Azam Khan, issued a public statement on August 19 criticising Mulayam’s meeting with the VHP delegations. As if on a cue, UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav announced denial of permission that very day.

As of now, a temporary jail set up on the Delhi-Haridwar National Highway in Muzaffarnagar illustrates the way the programme has gone. It remained vacant even till the day after the yatra. The programme has completely failed to gather enough members and not even the crackdown on VHP activists generated any protest which is a clear message of rejection to the BJP by the people of UP of such politics of polarization. The BJP now should realize that the voters of today are no more foolish to fall prey to such silly tactics and that they need to have other agendas in order to get their house in pkace in the state of UP. As the popular old saying goes, ‘The road to New Delhi goes through Uttar Pradesh”, its high time BJP realizes that and get their calculations correct as this trick is certainly not going to work this time around.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

PM sharpens attack, Opposition Stunned

It is not unusual to see a quiet and submissive Dr. Manmohan Singh dealing with fellow MP’s in the parliament. However after his today’s avatar in the Rajya Sabha, what has now led to twitter trends, is the question- what did he had for lunch? Truly today we saw the otherwise media shy and quiet Dr. Singh roaring high in the parliament and not just me but the entire nation was delighted to see that. The Prime Minister was his usual tepid self when he addressed the Lok Sabha at noon, regurgitating for the umpteenth time how ‘the fundamentals’ of the economy were strong, never mind the reality that the just about every fundamental of the economy whether the fiscal deficit, current account deficit, growth or inflation are awry. The economist Prime Minister tried to reassure investors that reforms (and the minor matter of project clearances) were underway, and that GDP would begin to pick up from the second quarter of 2013-14.

However it was post lunch that the Prime Minister abandoned his quiet economist avatar and chose to don the role of the political combatant. Perhaps because of heckling from BJP MPs, Singh stood up to defend himself more aggressively than at any time in the recent past. He chided the BJP when he pointed out that no other Parliament in the world treated a Prime Minister with such contempt, calling him names (PM chor hai). Singh criticised the BJP for not allowing Parliament to function, pointing out how that had eroded the confidence of investors. He insisted that despite insinuations from the Opposition, he commanded respect in the council of ministers. He even pointed out how he was highly regarded as an economic thinker in international forums like the G-20. In short, he was reaffirming his credentials of leadership, while continuing to insist that the economy was not going downhill.

Honestly, if you have had the misfortune to watch how the two houses of the Indian parliament function, you’ll want to give yourself one good kick you know where. The Indian parliament stands for everything that is wrong with human behaviour. People screaming, people shouting, people talking to themselves, ten people saying ten different things as the Speaker looks on, desperation writ large on his/her face. A normal day in the parliament is what apocalypse might look like in the present day. So when Singh questioned, “Have you ever seen a country where the PM is not allowed to speak,” he hit the nail right on its head. The business of the Parliament is not to call each other names like middle school boys fighting over who gets to captain the football team. Forget respect, if you don’t let the head of the government speak, how is a ‘discussion’ supposed to take place? In fact, if the agenda of a group of people is to arrive to a solution through debate, the first requisite of the same is letting everyone speak without interruption.

For an outsider, not aware of the down-and-dirty brand of Indian politicking, the Parliament shows India as a country led by two groups of people. Out of which the principal Opposition oled by the BJP hardly lets the parliament function. The Prime Minister keeping his attack sharp also said, “Building of a consensus is the responsibility of the government and the primary Opposition.” The function of an institution like the Parliament is not only to say ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to policies, it’s function is to facilitate governance, critique the same and hence make it more efficient. There’s a lot more in the political playing ground to play nasty tug-of-wars for votes, over.

Given the fact that it was coming from Manmohan Singh, it was a terrific performance. In his Lok Sabha speech, Singh signaled three reforms that were necessary to address the structural problems in the economy: reduction of subsidies, cutting bureaucratic red-tape and implementing the Goods and Service Tax (GST). He demanded the Opposition’s cooperation in tackling these “not so low hanging fruits”. Clearly there is a need of consensus building at the moment but the fact remains that it is at the government’s perusal to take administrative decisions and ensure that the economy doesn’t go for a toss. In the absence of a concrete mechanism nobody is going to take him seriously. But history bears testimony to the fact that time and again he has saved India from an economic doom and the fact remains that his skills as an economist are applauded worldwide.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Judicial Appointment Commission: An Overview

In attempt to bring greater transparency in our judicial system which is one of the most respected institutions of the country, the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission, in which judges will be marginally outnumbered, will make the selection system more transparent and help to assess professional merit in a better way. The Union Cabinet has already decided on the composition and draft of the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission. The commission will be presided over by the Chief Justice of India, and will include two Supreme Court judges. The “non-judges” will be the Law Minister, two eminent persons and the Justice Secretary, who will be the Member-Secretary. The Leader of the Opposition in either House will be part of a committee which nominates the eminent persons, the other members being the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice. Thus, all the organs of the State, as also the citizenry, will be represented.

The attempt for more transparency is not however been much appreciated by the Bar Council and has attracted some sharp reactions. The Chairman of the Bar Council of India is reported to have said that “we are totally against this National Judicial Appointment[s] Commission Bill because of the fact that in the process of appointment of judges, we do not want any interference from any outsider, including the executive” (PTI report, August 2, 2013). A later press release of the Bar Council of India (August 10, 2013) says “…. lawyers of the country are not going to tolerate the replacement of the existing collegiums with the proposed Commission, without the representation of the Bar Councils and the (Bar) Associations.” The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association is reported to have said that “loading the Commission with more members from the Executive and including fewer members from the judiciary would curtail the independence of the judiciary” and that “the cure should not be worse than the disease. The Bar will not agree to transfer the power of appointment to the executive. The collegium system can be improved by making methods of selection more transparent” (The Hindu, August 16, 2013).

A recent Constitution Bench judgment has created consternation. In another of those “rapid” judgments, a five judge bench of the Supreme Court held that reservation in super specialities in the faculty of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences was unconstitutional. The correctness of that judgment is not the subject of today’s comment, though there is scope for two views on it. What is disturbing is an observation in the penultimate paragraph that “the very concept of reservation implies mediocrity.” There is no nuance here, no qualification, just a bald statement. The judgment is authored by the outgoing Chief Justice, who was of course under pressure of time. But four other judges who signed the judgment have not had a problem with the language. This is the judicial perception of reservation, while applying a 63-year-old Constitution which has affirmative action written into it. Can we seriously find fault with a legislator who wants to know what a judge’s constitutional philosophy is?

Another reason which makes the role of an outsider more important is that manpower planning is not a concept which the judiciary has ever considered important. Over the years both in pre- and post-collegium days, we have witnessed the spectacle of Chief Justices of India occupying office for periods like 41 days in the case of Justice G.B. Pattanaik, approximately one month in the case of Justices Rajendra Babu and J.C. Shah and as few as 18 days in the case of Justice K.N. Singh. There has not been a single occasion when a judge has renounced the high office to make way for a colleague who would have a longer tenure and would thus serve the institution better. The proposed commission needs to bring in human resource consultants as well, to ensure that only those with sufficient tenures will occupy these positions.

Similarly, High Court Chief Justices have occupied their positions for as little as three to six months en route to the Supreme Court. Little concern has been shown for the effect that these short-term appointments have on administration in the High Courts. Nor has there been too much worry about the quality of recommendations for judicial appointments by collegiums presided over by such short-term Chief Justices, who would really have had no occasion to assess the competence of such persons. There have also been instances where senior judges have been appointed as High Court Chief Justices for just a few days before their retirement, so that they do not lose out on the benefits of retiring from that higher position. While the judiciary has found it perfectly reasonable and legitimate to mandate a two-year term for Directors General and Inspectors General of Police (Prakash Singh, 2006), that unfortunately is not sauce for the gander.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Pain, Politics and the Maruti Plant

Despite huge claims and over the top promotions of Gujarat being a crusader of development, the fact remains that over the years it has indulged in nothing but crony capitalism which have affected farmers the most. India’s largest car maker Maruti Suzuki seems to have run into some unexpected starting problems with its launch in Gujarat. While labour unrest at Maruti’s Manesar plant in Haryana dominated the headlines last year, farmer protests against the Gujarat government’s allotment of land for the plant has already started making news. The latest example being the massive protest held on Independence Day while Narendra Modi was making big claims in his speech at Lalan College. According to news reports, over 5,000 farmers participated in the public meeting at Dalod village, situated 15 km from Hansalpur, where the plant is to come up.

With the state government’s notification late last year of the Mandal-Becharaji Special Investment Region (SIR) spanning across 44 villages (Hansalpur being one of them), there emerged a mass farmers movement opposed to being included in the SIR. The government, following a meeting with protesting farmers in July 2013 announced (on 14 August) that it would drop 36 out of 44 villages from the SIR. Hansalpur, which was also strongly opposed to the SIR, was one of the eight villages that weren’t dropped. While dispute over the land allotted to Maruti is separate from the campaign against the SIR notification, opposition to it has now become part of a bigger land agitation movement that has emerged from the anti-SIR struggle in the region by farmers under the banner Zameen Adhikar Andolan Gujarat.

Hansalpur’s sarpanch Ajamalbhai Thakor told Firstpost that while residents of the village were strongly opposed to being part of the SIR, they had no objection to Maruti setting up the car plant provided the government met their demands. “We are not against Maruti plant coming up here. But we have a few demands from the government. We have asked the government to retain a small part of the allotted land for development of our village for the purpose of building schools, colleges and hospitals. Also, the paths connecting our village to neighbouring villages go through that land. The government should ensure that the car plant will not cut us off from other villages and block our access.” Asked if Maruti had begun any construction on the land, Thakor said some work on fencing of the land had begun but nothing else.

However the most important cause of conflict is three-year long legal dispute over land (which is now part of the Maruti plant land) between the Hansalpur’s Maldhari community and the state government. “Farmers have been cultivating on this land for over 60 years. They also use this land to rear their cattle. The Maldhari community depends on this land for their livelihood and will be badly affected if they lose it,” said Thakor. The dispute, say litigants, began even before the 600-odd acres (of which the disputed land is a part), was allotted to Maruti.

Explaining in more detail the legal dispute over the land, Babu Nagori, a resident of a neighbouring village who is helping the farmers of Hansalpur fight the case in court said, “The dispute is over 207 acres of land which is, in fact, cultivatable land. You can see with your own eyes, crops being grown on the 207 acres. In 2010, we filed a case in order to correct the mistake made in 2004 when computerisation happened. This chunk of land was mistakenly marked as uncultivated land. We have submitted land records to the high court which proves that this land is farm land. We have paper proof.” Nagori says the case has been filed by 10 affected families which represent about 120 people of the village.

Underlining the point that the land dispute pre-dates the allotment of land to Maruti, Nagori said, “The case was filed in 2010. The plant came in 2011. Even though the case was pending, the government gave our land to Maruti.” Nagori clarifies that they are not opposed to the Maruti plant coming up in Hansalpur. “We have no objection to Maruti. But farmers have a right over their land. The 207 acres is farm land. What the government does with its land is its prerogative. But farmer who cultivate the land are owners of the land and they have rights over it. We are not against Maruti. We are happy if they come.” It is a fact that poor tribals and farmers have always paid the price in the name of the nation’s development but yet they have happily accepted it. In such a situation it is the government’s responsibility to look after their rights but the Modi led government seems in no mood for it.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Food Security Bill: Modi’s Biggest Worry?

It was a historic moment yesterday for the UPA Chairperson and Congress President Sonia Gandhi as her ambitious Food Security Bill finally got the nod of the Lok Sabha. But other than it being a game changer for the 2014 elections and the biggest social welfare scheme initiated by the UPA till date, what is more important is the fact that she not only got the most expensive passed but also made almost all parties, including the BJP, desperately vie with the Congress for some credit for the legislation. However, what was perhaps the most interesting aspect of the approximately nine-hour-long discussion on the bill in the Lok Sabha, were the indications of an early build-up of a fresh political alignment that may spice up the next parliamentary polls. The hints of new formations are something that should concern Narendra Modi the most, both in his capacity as the de-facto leader of the BJP and as the face of the party’s campaign for the next general elections.

As I’ve argued often in my earlier articles, when it comes to the politics of India, you can’t win on the basis of your personality and ignore the party cadres. Sadly at the end of the day, we’re a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential system. Despite the hype surrounding Modi and the backing of his party’s activists, the turn of events in Parliament suggested that the BJP hadn’t cared to listen to his opinion on the Food Security Bill. It’s perhaps the clearest indicator that the Gujarat Chief Minister’s battles within his party aren’t over and he will need to battle for command. BJP’s lead speaker in the Lok Sabha, Murli Manohar Joshi, who incidentally began the debate on the bill, did not once refer to Modi’s principal demand of a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the state Chief Ministers. However, in the politics of competitive populism, the BJP’s central leadership apparently decided it was more prudent to support the UPA in getting the bill passed and not do anything that could even remotely be construed as an attempt to spike it.

However more than this what should concern our PM-in-waiting more is the sudden political alignment which was very prudent in the parliament while the bill was passed. The most notable one being the Bahujan Samaj Party floor leader, Dara Singh Chauhan, and JD(U) leader, Sharad Yadav, showering praise on Sonia Gandhi for something as trivial as her speaking in Hindi in Parliament. The voting on the party’s amendment on the Food Security Bill, proposing to adopt the Chhattisgarh model for PDS, became a BJP-versus-the-rest affair in the Lok Sabha, which should also be a matter of concern. The government on the other hand easily sailed through all amendments suggested.

Ironically, it was Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav who seemed to have taken a cue from Modi’s letter and slammed the UPA government for not talking to the chief ministers, particularly when the bill listed multiple tasks for the state governments to implement. He also pointed out the absence of criteria to identify the beneficiaries. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and AIADMK chief J Jayalalithaa had also expressed a similar opinion in the past. Sonia Gandhi’s strategic assertiveness on the Food Bill allowed her to keep her nimbus of supremacy and may or may not translate into votes, but it certainly won her two powerful admirers. The BSP, with whom the Congress has had a rocky relationship, and the JD(U), which seems to be leaning towards the UPA.

BSP leader Dara Singh Chauhan began by complimenting Sonia’s pro-poor tilt and praising her for her choice to speak in Hindi, and not in English. JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav, who so far has been known for his anti-Congress stance in his opening statement said he was “overwhelmed by Sonia Gandhi speaking in a language, Hindustan spoke”. Could the BSP and JD(U)’s discovery of the merits of the Congress president translate into a stronger  relationship and even a pre-poll understanding in UP and Bihar? It may be too early to say, but politics is an art of the impossible. Given there are 120 seats between UP and Bihar, the two states have the capacity to change the electoral demography in Lok Sabha and the victory in these two states will play a major role in the formation of the next government.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

VHP’s Ayodhya Rally: A worrying trend

History bears testimony to the fact that BJP has always played sectarian and divisive politics to gain the most out of the state of UP. Whether it was 1998 when it won a whopping 57 Lok Sabha seats, it was on the lines of polarizing voters on the Ram mandir issue and ensuring political gains by exciting riots. Now with the general elections just eight months away, it seems to play the same old rhetoric of building the Ram mandir and through its other saffron fractions incite communal tensions. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is set to resurrect the Ayodhya Ram temple campaign. It’s proposed ‘chaurasi kosi parikrama’ between 25 August and 13 September would have seers and saints traversing six districts of Uttar Pradesh to garner support for the temple. The great Sangh Parivar is at work and all its elements are playing a well-defined role to shore up the prospects of the BJP in the coming general elections.

The Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to deny permission to the VHP to organise a march between 25 August and 13 September to press for the building of a Ram temple in Ayodhya has re-opened the issue. The yatra planned by the VHP would have started from Ayodhya and passed through the districts of Faizabad, Barabanki, Gonda, Ambedkarnagar, Basti and Bahraich before returning to Ayodhya. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad chief even met with Mulayam Singh Yadav on 17 September to seek a go ahead for the 84 mile rally and asked him to act as mediator with the Muslim community over the issue of building the temple. Officials of the home department said that under no circumstance would the yatra be allowed. “Other than deputing extra security forces in the region, barricading the routes is also an option we are exploring,” a senior official told IANS. The government has also decided to deploy ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) and 12 companies of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the area.

In order to claim stake in Centre, the BJP needs a significant chunk of the 80 Lok Sabha seats in the state to get respectable numbers in the 2014 elections. However, its electoral fortune in UP has been on the decline since 1998. In 2009, the party managed only 10 seats. Over a decade, the party’s vote share has come down from a robust 36 percent to an anaemic 17.5 percent. Without at least 40 seats in its kitty from the state, the party will find it extremely difficult to win around 190 seats across the country – this is approximately the number that would allow it to find allies to stake claim to form the government at the Centre. Currently, the party, pushed to the margins along with the Congress by the intense caste politics of the state, has nothing spectacular to offer to the electorate to gain a massive jump of 30 seats. The growth and good governance talk has appeal only in a limited section of the electorate.

At the ground level, the priorities of the people are different and even the presence of Narendra Modi is not likely to make huge difference to the party’s prospects. The only way it can have a massive jump in seats is polarising votes along communal lines. This is where the Sangh Parivar comes into the picture. Since the party cannot take an openly communal position – officially, its emphasis would be on governance, state of the economy and corrupt activities of both the central and state governments – the responsibility of polarising votes rests with the other Parivar outfits such as the VHP. The ‘chaurasi kosi parikrama’ is a well-planned move in that direction. If it manages to generate sufficient heat, with a riot or two fitting in somewhere, the party stands to gain. In Uttar Pradesh, as conventional wisdom goes, two parties benefit when there’s a communal polarisation: the BJP and the Samajwadi Party. The former will be happy so long as the Congress loses some of its 21 seats it had won in 2009.

Such a turn of strategy became very clear when the party deputed Amit Shah, a close confidante of Modi, to lead the party’s election campaign in the state. One of his first utterances after taking charge was about the construction of the Ram temple. Since the SP government in UP is perceived to be pro-Muslim, the BJP sees merit in its two-pronged strategy. While on paper it looks perfect, the problem is whether the electorate would be as passionate as earlier to the Ram temple issue. Even in Faizabad, home to the disputed Ayodhya site, the party has been losing elections.

However keeping the politics aside, this Ayodhya rally of the VHP is a very worrying trend given the fact that law and order had already worsen in UP after the Samajwadi Party has taken over. Such kind of religious polarizations will further enhance conflict between the two communities and lead to disharmony in the society, the repercussions of which could be felt well outside UP too. All the eyes now would be focussed on how Akhilesh Yadav’s party handles the situation and tries to keep the communal forces out. For which if they succeed in their plans, the future news of India is not very promising.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

How hypocritical are we about development?

With the economy dwindling and the Indian rupee touching record low, the talks about different development models coming up in different Indian states is the new buzz among the masses. But are we too hypocritical when it comes to development and the person we give the credit it for? While the very parameters of judging the growth of a particular state or country is not widely acceptable and inclusive, the existing methods too indicate a certain bias. For a very long time now, we have been mismeasuring the economic achievement of states and nations by using the wrong metric: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – which is about grand averages and tells us precious little about the well-being of the average individual – and even while at it we won’t allow it to go untainted by personal prejudices.

If we keep aside the biasness towards the development model of Gujarat and the credit that Narendra Modi is for long getting as a crusader of development, we tend to ignore other states too who are silently doing wonders in their own capacity. Bihar and Madhya Pradesh are such two states which have catapulted stunning economic turnaround stories over the last few years. Both, not long ago, were basket cases of the Indian economy with little hope of economic revival. Now both states have been clocking GDP growth of over 10 percent consistently – Bihar’s average growth for the last five years is 10.67 percent while that of Madhya Pradesh is 10.26 percent. Agricultural production has been at a record high in Madhya Pradesh while the macro- fundamentals of the economy in Bihar stay robust. Both are also well-placed in the Human Development Index. The men behind these success stories are Nitish Kumar in Bihar and Shivraj Singh Chouhan in MP. But for some reason the national media has been squeamish about acknowledging the spectacular achievement of the duo. 

But yet the mainstream media finds it more convenient to highlight the growth stories of Gujarat which in many ways are not even inclusive. It is nothing but hard-core PR, which is not directly paid but is certainly aided and given the backdrop against which the other two states leaders have delivered, they certainly deserve more respect that they get. Gujarat was already a developed state when Modi took over and the architecture for economic activity in the state was always robust. This was never the case with the other two states. Respect for nuances and objective analyses were never essential parts of our political and economic discourse. But in the case of Modi, the tendency to ignore nuances has gone to obscene levels. But the bigger question is, if a Modi model of economy is acceptable, why not the Nitish model or the Shivraj Chouhan model? Why are not we even prepared to discuss the models and their respective strengths and weaknesses?

Since time immemorial Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar have been insisting on the superiority of his own model. He claims it is more inclusive, more bottoms-up in approach and thus more relevant to all other Indian states with similar social and economic conditions. Modi’s model is actually the Gujarat model because it never originated with him. He has been doing a good job of maintaining a legacy, yet inclusion still remains an issue in the state. Nitish, on the other hand, could be credited with initiating a successful model.

Both models are based on different existential realities and both could be valid strategies for Indian conditions. So why are we in a hurry to dismiss one for the other? Notice the difference in the attention devoted to Modi’s success story and that of his peers; it’s easy to find how we are not ready to even hear out the other argument. Here lies the inherent hypocrisy of the Indian intellectual culture. It’s apparent during television debates and economic discourse everywhere. Modi, many of the experts in the media would like us to believe, represents the capitalist idea in its purest form. But capitalism in its crudest form is being dumped everywhere in the world.

The efficacy of GDP as a measuring tool for the success of economies is under serious debate throughout the globe. Countries have been trying to mix that up with human development indicators to draw a complete picture of the health and sustainability of economies. Interestingly, Mr. Modi’s economy – if you ignore the allegation of minority exclusion – is a good example of this. The same applies to Nitish. India as a country and Indian states are creating their own models where both capitalism and welfarism stay important.

So while Mr. PM-in-waiting’s clarion call might have been replaced with the same age-old BJP tactics of Hindutva, he has certainly not abandoned them. So it’s high time now for every Indian voter to analyse and judge it for themselves if Narendra Modi deserves the credit that he has always been assigned with. And if the answer is yes, doesn’t a Shivraj Singh Chouhan and a Nitish Kumar too must get their due share? Both in all indicators of development have done a better job in their respective states? Think about it.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

The NaMo Mantra

  

With the latest buzz about Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to New Delhi to address party workers, it seems he is all set to take the fight against Congress. To ensure the fulfilment of his dream to conquer 7 RCR, BJP’s top leadership today asked its state units to strengthen the organisation from the booth-level, and reach out to prospective voters from all segments and age-groups. In a meeting of the Central leadership with the state unit president and organisation general secretaries held on Sunday, BJP Election Campaign Committee Chief Narendra Modi and party president Rajnath Singh said the mood in the country is strongly against Congress and the main opposition is the only viable alternative.

As per sources, Modi also underscored the need for tapping the young and first time voters who, he said, are restless for a change. The 20 sub-committees formed by the party have been asked to become more active. The conclave also discussed how to make the planned rallies a success, strengthening of booth committees, and door to door and village to village campaigns. BJP President Rajnath Singh gave a call to make ‘Mission 272+’ for Lok Sabha elections a success. He criticised the Congress for failing to check price rise, falling Rupee and increasing unemployment. He said the government is now going for capital control which is a regressive step and shows a 1980s mindset,”  said BJP Spokesperson Prakash Javedkar. The BJP President also hit out at the UPA government on the issue of security.

Rajnath Singh in his address at the BJP campaign committee meet said that Congress-led UPA government has not dealt with Pakistan in a befitting manner. “There have been 18 ceasefire violations in the last 10 days by Pakistan. It is giving covering fire to infiltrators, and helping separatists and terrorists. Unless Pakistan gives an assurance that it will not sponsor terror activities and abjures firing at the border there should be no talks,” Javadekar said, quoting the BJP President. Modi also said the party needs to implement its plans effectively in the coming 200 days. Constituency congregations and reaching out to the people was emphasised by him.

The meeting supposedly also gave special attention to Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi where the party has stakes in the forthcoming Assembly elections. The state unit presidents of these states presented their report cards of the work done and the progress made so far. BJP sources said election campaign committees for these states are likely to be announced soon. Changes in the Delhi BJP set up are also likely with murmurs that Harshvardhan may be made the election campaign committee chief and the face of the party in the polls. This change, if effected, is aimed at clipping the wings of Delhi unit chief Vijay Goel. Several top party leaders are unhappy with his functioning.

Meanwhile, BJP campaign committee chief Narendra Modi and other senior BJP leaders will finalise party strategy for state assembly polls in 2013 as well as the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, in a six hour meeting that is scheduled on Sunday in New Delhi. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, LK Advani, Leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and BJP President Rajnath Singh are present at the session, which is also being attended by states unit presidents and office-bearers. The party is likely to get feedback on the progress made in formation of various teams from booth-level committees and above.

BJP has also launched a website to invite suggestions for its “chargesheet” against the “decade of misgovernance” of the Congress- led UPA. Party workers, supporters and the masses have been asked to give feedback. The party is also working on reaching out to voters through the conventional routes of holding public rallies and door-to-door campaigns. On Saturday, the party had organised a media workshop for its spokespersons and media cell and asked them to be aggressive but maintain decorum and decency while while countering the opposition through television debates and press interactions.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Bengal gets green beacons, thanks to Didi

The colour red has always been the symbol of communism and the Left throughout the world. And probably that is what makes West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee so allergic to it. From government building walls to anything else that can be thought of, the West Bengal government is leaving no stone unturned to wipe out the ‘Red raj’ in the state. But the TMC’s latest plan- to change all red beacons on official cars in West Bengal to green – is perhaps the most novel scheme yet. And here is the reasoning for this decision:

“Red is the colour of allergy. If you have a rash, your skin turns red. But green and blue are soothing colours. If you suffer from eye problems, doctors’ advice you to look towards the sky or towards any green-coloured object. I feel we should get rid of red even on beacons fitted over hoods of our cars,” West Bengal Minister Madan Mitra was quoted as telling the Hindustan Times. If sources are to be believed, Mamata Banerjee has already given her consent for the same.

Speaking to the Indian Express, Mitra said the file has already been sent to CM Mamata Banerjee. “We will ensure there is no place for red in West Bengal. I have discussed the matter (of removing red beacons) with Didi and she has given her consent,” Mitra told the daily. Since the time Mamata Banerjee took charge of West Bengal, one of the constant endeavours of the state government has been to change everything painted red to green. According to an Economic Times article, in May 2011, all that was red inside Kolkata’s iconic Writers’ Building was turned to green, sparing the 1780 Corinthian facade designed by Thomas Lyon, the only thing that has been spared as of now.

If you thought that was bad, the colour red is avoided even on invitation cards and floral bouquets. As per The Times of India report, it states that when Mamata Banerjee was Railway Minister, special care was taken to ensure that there was no red in the backdrop to the dais. Not even a red carpet or cushion. Special instructions were given to the railway authorities to ensure that no shades of red are ever used in any form. Anything other than red could be used in all formal events and official use.

So allergic is the Trinamool Congress to red that in 2012, even road dividers, railings in parks, chairs at public functions were changed to any colour other than red. Railway buildings in West Bengal were also stripped off their red paint and shades of yellow, green, pink and even purple were plastered onto them. So now that the supremo has shown a green flag to go ahead with the decision, we would soon see green beacons doing the rounds in West Bengal. Alas after a long time, some poriborton could be seen which is positive. 

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Movie Review: Once Upon Ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara

Cast: Akshay Kumar, Imran Khan, Sonakshi Sinha, Mahesh Manjrekar, Sophie Chowdhary, Pitobash Tripathi, Sonali Bendre, Tiku Talsania

Director: Milan Luthria

Bollywood has time and again taken reference from the underworld to build in their plotlines and has many a times irrevocably given us many memorable films too. Particularly the 70s and 80s are best known for their movies based on mafias and gangsters. Continuing with the legacy and now rather backed by some hard-core research materials based on Hussain Zaidi’s masterpieces on the Bombay underworld, Balaji seems to carry forward the torch.

The latest sequel to the 2010 hit starring Ajay Devgan and Imran Hashmi, Once Upon Ay Time in Mumbai Dobara is not just disappointing but also lame in many occasions. The main plot of the movie revolves around the love triangle between Shoiab (Akshay Kumar), Aslam (Imran Khan) and Jasmine (Sonakshi Sinha) and is so slow and stupid that after a point of time you will start cursing yourself for bearing this deadly torture. The plot follows the same old bollywood clichés of a love triangle where Shoiab is a gangster and Aslam his loyal protégé, both expectedly falling in love with a struggling actor Jasmine. But Jasmone doesn’t know that Shoaib is a gangster, or that Aslam works for him, or even that Shoaib has fallen for her. Shoiab and Aslam, meanwhile, are unaware that they’re both in love with the same girl which in short makes too many people going clueless in a single movie.

Needless to mention that in terms of script and cinematography there is nothing much that could be discussed. It is as plain and naïve as any other normal bollywood film. However there are some elements in the movie which helps you to bear it for nearly two and a half hours. Akshay Kumar’s character with dark glasses perched permanently on his nose and forever puffing cigarettes swaggers into the role of Shoaib, therefore offering a perfect image of an anti-hero. A surprising cameo by Sonali Bendre gives you a breath of fresh air as she pulls off the character very well even after a break of such long form acting. The dialogues written by Rajat Arora also to some extent might help you hook to the movie but in totality fails to impress with its one-liners when compared to its earlier instalment.

Coming down to its weak points? Well there are just too many of them to be discussed. The movie is backed by a poor script, naïve characters and way too many unnecessary songs which could have been easily ignored. Sonakshi Sinha as Jasmine doesn’t somehow fit the bill. Compared to her recent terrific performance in Lootera, her character in the movie doesn’t compliment her personality. Neither is Imran Khan’s character as Aslam has any strong points to mention either. The plot also doesn’t have any reference to the earlier quarter other than Sonakshi Sinha resonating Ajay Devgan’s most celebrated dialogue ‘Bas Dua Mein Yaad Rakhna’ which again has no significance in the movie plot. Given the plot, the movie is too stretched at over 150 minutes and is way too predictable for the audience to get surprised ever.

I’m going with two out of five stars for Milan Luthria directed Once Upon Ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara. Well what can I say? If you have nothing better to do this weekend and can bear two and a half hours of brainless storytelling, go for it. Otherwise it’s a sheer waste of money for those who made it as well as for those who intend to watch it.

Swamy's grand entry to BJP

And now it becomes official, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy to merge his party with the BJP. The news became official when Swami announced the merger of the Janata Party with the BJP in the presence of BJP President Rajnath Singh, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and former BJP chief Nitin Gadkari. Ahead of the merger, Swamy held discussions with senior BJP leaders’ at Rajnath Singh’s residence, who accepted the merger of his party in BJP and hoped it will make BJP stronger. While Swami spent his Sunday on twitter accepting congratulations and denying having any rift with the former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, many political observers were very apprehensive about the merger. There have already been voices suggesting that for a party grappling with the lack of ability to convince the minorities that it cares about them, picking Swamy and more importantly allowing him to speak may be a liability.

One such political observer Sadanand Dhume tweeted “Dear BJP: The best way to counter a reputation for Hindu chauvinism may not be to induct someone who wants to disenfranchise Muslims.” Dhume said it may even be a better idea for the BJP to merge with erstwhile Karnataka leader BS Yeddyurappa where upsides were more in number than downsides. It also reminds me of how former BJP party leader Ram Jethmalani described Swami to be. He famously described Subramanian Swamy as a “diseased insect” who has led “a life of character assassination, malicious mendacity and sordid blackmail.” But none of Jethmalani’s invective comes close to matching his target’s capacity for vitriol — which has been the lifeblood of his popularity as the hatemonger of the Right, and now earned him a place in the BJP party.

The assumption is that a truly erudite Macaulayputra such as he couldn’t possibly believe the hateful things he spews. He is viewed with the rueful exasperation reserved for a drunken uncle who launches into unhinged tirades at family get-togethers. But now that Swamy is a bona fide opposition leader in an election year — as opposed to a one-man army — he is going to lose that ‘get out of jail’ card. Swamy will be held accountable for his words because he is no longer a category of one, but the representative of a national party trying to win power. Nothing would delight the Congress party more than a BJP honcho who can put Digvijaya Singh to shame. And the media can no longer justify going soft on Swamy when they pounce on every gaffe made by other politicians. Political legitimacy has its price.

For months now, party stalwarts have been promising a ‘new’ BJP, ready to cast off its old saffron-smeared rath yatra image and embrace the forward-thinking mantra of development. The appointment of Amit Shah to head the Uttar Pradesh campaign was one hint that the wind is blowing in the opposite direction towards 1992. Modi’s own ‘burka-clad secularism’ was another. The induction of Swamy, who recently promised “If Modi becomes PM, the Ram temple will definitely be built in Ayodhya.” is the latest. If three instances make a trend, then it is safe to say no such reincarnation is in the works. What is more worrying is the kind of divisive politics that he so strongly believes it. In his recent interview he said “India is 80 percent Hindu. If we rally the Hindu vote and wean away 7 percent of the Muslim population to our side, we will win the elections.” If the BJP plans to risk all on Modi and his brand of Hindu right politics, it is good news indeed. Democracy is served best when the choices are clearly spelled out. Better to cast aside the pretense of a ‘kinder, gentler’ BJP so the voters know exactly what’s on offer.”

The Janata Party president brings with him little more in an electoral battlefield than his gift of gab and an innate ability to get under the skin of the Congress. He could ensure that the core right wing constituency of the BJP remains stoutly behind it. But for the BJP that isn’t really a problem, they already have Modi to do that for them and with comments like being a ‘Hindu nationalist’ he’s already doing it. If the party is attempting to atone for its treatment of Swamy in the 1980s and attempt to present a more neutral face, the merger with Swamy is one that may bring more liabilities than the BJP might care for. But if the party is aiming to polarise voters, get in its ranks a critic then Swamy’s steadfastness on issues might help in the media race.

The BJP will now be held accountable for every one of Swamy’s slanderous theories, and with the gleeful assistance of the Congress party machine. Until now, there was no profit in going after Swamy since it rewarded him with the publicity he so craved. Politically too, it is unlikely that Swamy will ensure any vote share impact in Tamil Nadu. In the final analysis it seems more like Swamy will benefit more from the BJP, than the other way around. So while it’s a win-win situation for Subramanian Swamy, for the saffron party it is nothing but an additional baggage which will do them more bad than good or in a more surreal tone, make no difference at all.  

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com

Kishtwar and the politics of hatred

The state of Jammu and Kashmir has always been volatile and prone to clashes and riots between the majority and minority communities. However what is deeply worrying is the deteriorating conditions of the state while various political parties instead of having a united voice in the parliament, tend to polarize the issue further. Such politics of convenience of counting and declaring the bodies of unfortunate victims of riot with their religion is extremely unfortunate for a country which is so proud of its rich and diverse cultural fabric.

At 11.52 on Monday J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdulla tweeted, “3 unfortunate deaths – 1 Hindu, 2 Muslim & we’ve a judicial inquiry with my Minister resigning. Would the BJP care to recount 2002 response?” By counting the bodies as Hindus and Muslims, Omar was perhaps trying to send a message that the Hindus were not at the receiving end in the Kishtwar/Jammu communal clashes and the BJP was only narrating one side of the story, in effect indulging in false propaganda.

An announcement of body count on religious lines from the highest quarters in the government is a new and potentially dangerous phenomenon that began on Monday. The counting of dead by their religious affiliations was generally given after the temperatures of clashing communities had cooled down. So far they have talked in terms of “a particular community/the other community/majority/minority” and such other expressions. The media too broadly followed the same unwritten principles.

This hedging may have been considered farcical but it was still maintained lest it provoke a spiral of retaliatory attacks. Mobile messaging and Internet services in parts of J&K were snapped as some reports suggested preventing or at least containing the speed and volume of rumours that is usually spread by motivated groups in such situations. Both Omar and his father, Union Minister Farooq Abdullah, brought in a Gujarat parallel to counter the BJP attack on their handling of Kishtwar. Omar through a series of tweets and Farooq through a short intervention in the Rajya Sabha said, “In 2002, Gujarat, in the riots period, didn’t allow people to go to Ahmedabad. They didn’t deploy the Army”.

Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley in his speech also mentioned the “selective targeting of a community” and also referred to 1990 when forced migration of Hindus took place from the valley and for describing current Kishtwar incident. The debate will continue about whether it was appropriate for Omar and Farooq to rake up the 2002 Gujarat riots, particularly when the National Conference was part of the NDA and Omar was a minister in the Vajpayee Government around that time, and continued to be there after an initial resignation in protest that was rejected by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Amidst all this war of words, even the Left has left no stone unturned as the CPI-M alleged BJP and RSS of inciting violence in Kashmir and urged the state to take firm steps against rumour mongers and rioters. “There are reports that activists of the BJP, RSS (and) VHP are fanning out and inciting people to attack houses and shops owned by the minority community,” a statement from the Communist Party of India-Marxist said. “Despite aberrations, the people of the state have maintained communal harmony and brotherhood till now. Attempts to sow discord among the people on religious and communal lines must be defeated.” The CPI-M urged the state administration “to act firmly against elements desperate to disturb peace and harmony in the state”.

Interestingly, while leaders of political parties and even media do not have a free access to visit and report from Kishtwar, Twitter has emerged as the new medium of political warfare. On the day of the incident, on Friday, it was angry exchanges on Twitter between Omar and Sushma Swaraj that made bigger news for the outside world than what actually was happening in Kishtwar.

The only message that at this point of time I would like to convey to all political parties is to stand united in the parliament and fight against those who incite violence rather than playing politics over the graveyards who got killed from which community. After all blood is blood and it doesn’t matter whether it is of a Hindu or a Muslim. When a life is lost, it is of an Indian and being the policy makers of this country, it is your responsibility to ensure the safety of your citizens and not play the politics of hatred.

For all sorts of bouquets and brickbats feel free to leave a comment below or mail it to me at author.vish94@gmail.com

The New Companies Bill: An Analysis

These days we all have become so used to watching the parliament not function, that even if it runs for one day, it comes as a shocker to us. However amidst uproars on countless issues and innumerable adjournments of both the houses, the Rajya Sabha on Thrusday finally passed the New Companies Bill. This is for your information just one bill passed out of 52 other crucial bills which are lined up for this session. Though the government is making every possible effort for a smooth functioning of the parliament, the Opposition doesn’t seem to oblige to this idea and continues to disrupt its proceeding and waste crores of taxpayers’ money. Nevertheless, let us now focus on the brand new company law passed by the parliament which is proposed to be more appropriate for the 21^stcentury India and its challenges.

The New Companies Bill made it mandatory for profit making companies to spend on activities related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). With the new legislation, India would possibly become the first country to have Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) spending through a statutory provision. The bill will now go for presidential assent. The lower house of parliament Lok Sabha cleared the bill Dec 18 last year.The best thing about the new Companies Act is that it is simple, with greater clarity of intent and purpose. It replaces the old law with over 700 conflicting clauses with something shorter and sweeter: 470 clauses and all of it in 309 pages. Not bad for something that will govern all listed and unlisted companies in the country. However, a modern law does not by itself become a great law, for success depends on implementation. Here are the main issues that will make or mar the success of the new law.

Presenting the bill in Parliament, Corporate Affairs Minister Sachin Pilot termed the passage of the Bill as a new era for corporate law and regulation in Indian economy and said this is a ‘historic moment for the country.’ The proposed bill aims at enhancing corporate governance and also contains provisions to strengthen regulations for corporates as well as auditing firms and promises to ensure an equitable and sustainable growth of the country. The new Bill has introduced numerous changes and concepts which should simplify regulations and bring greater clarity and transparency in managing businesses.  Let us now look at some key highlights of the bill.

Around 193 recommendations have been included in the Companies Bill by the Parliamentary Standing Committee and with the passing of this Bill; the Companies Act of 1956 will be replaced. The proposed legislation would ensure setting up of special courts for speedy trial and stronger steps for transparent corporate governance practices and curb corporate misdoings. The new law would require companies that meet certain set of criteria, to spend at least two per cent of their average profits in the last three years towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activities. But only companies reporting Rs 5 crores or more profits in the last three years need to invest in CSR initiatives.

The Bill allows companies the freedom to choose areas of work for CSR and the mandate of a rotation in auditors every 5 years gives the process added credibility. In case, entities are unable to comply with the CSR rules, they would be needed to give explanations. Otherwise, they would face action, including penalty. The amended legislation also limits the number of companies an auditor can serve to 20 besides bringing more clarity on criminal liability of auditors. The new bill also clears that the rotation of auditors will take place every five years, , while an audit firm cannot have more than two terms of five consecutive years. It also makes auditors subject to criminal liability if they knowingly or recklessly omit certain information from their reports.

The term for independent directors have been fixed for five years too. The maximum number of directors in a private company has been increased from 12 to 15, which can be increased further by special resolution. The new law also makes its mandatory for companies that one-third of their board comprises independent directors to ensure transparency. Also, at least one of the board members should be a woman. The new bill will speed amalgamations and mergers. The bill provides for class action suit, which is key weapon for individual shareholders to take collective action against errant companies. The move is being seen as a positive as it empowers small shareholders to seek answers in case they feel that a company’s management or its conduct of affairs is prejudicial to its interests or its members or depositors.

The Companies Bill also states that corporates must disclose the difference in salaries of the directors and that of the average employee. This will protect the interest of shareholders as well as employees. The new law mandates payment of two years’ salary to employees in companies which wind up operations. The law also gives more statutory powers to the government’s investigative arm Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to tackle corporate fraud.

Given the fact that the last Companies Bill is almost a century old and holds no relevance in today’s markets, this is a welcoming step which will prove to be a boost for our country’s economy. Industry stalwarts as well as organizations such as FICCI have too welcomed it calling it step towards greater transparency and accountability.

For any kind of bouquets and brickbats, feel free to leave a comment below or mail me at author.vish94@gmail.com