Battleground MP: Who stands where?

With the assembly elections hardly a few months away, all the major political parties are eyeing on gaining a big share of the pie. While the ruling BJP faces anti-incumbency, Congress too doesn’t seem to be a clear winner. So will this pave way for other parties to gain heavily in the coming state elections? The Nationalist Congress party seemed to be planning to play the biggest gamble in this regard. After almost five years in political hibernation, Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party is ready to spring back to action in Madhya Pradesh. With the experience of the Congress ‘treachery’ in 2008 assembly elections still hurting, the party has decided to go it alone in the state. The NCP would have no seat-sharing arrangement or pre-poll alliance with any other party this election. A marginal player in the state so far, the NCP is looking to make massive gains from the weak electoral prospects of the incumbent BJP government and the opposition Congress as pre-poll surveys suggest neither of the bigger parties is set for a clear majority.

If we have a look at the last state elections which happened in 2008 where BJP was voted back to power, the BJP had secured 37 percent of votes against the Congress’ 36. Uma Bharti’s BJSP took away four percent of votes which the BJP counts as its own. The BSP’s vote share was 8.24 percent and the SP’s 1.20 percent. The NCP had fielded 105 candidates across Madhya Pradesh and it had a vote share of 2.5 percent. However, the BJP faces major odds in the coming elections, including corruption charges, falling popularity graphs of top leaders and ministers of Shivraj cabinet and the not-so-recent sex controversy involving a senior minister of the cabinet, Raghavji. Combined with the anti-incumbency mood, the party has an uphill task. To make matters worse, the party’s own poll surveys predict a downswing in vote margins as well as seats. As many as 20 ministers and 60 MLAs might lose if they contest, if recent surveys are to be believed.

The Congress, on the other hand, burdened with ‘factions within factions’, does not seem to be in a position to take advantage of the weaknesses of the BJP. The loss that latter could incur in the form of votes and assembly seats does not seem to be consolidating as a gain for the Congress. The NCP wants to fit in the gap. State president of the party, Brijmohan Shrivastav, has announced his aim to field candidates in all 230 assembly constituencies of Madhya Pradesh.  Shrivastava, a senior leader from the Nationalist Congress, a known strategist and one with great aptitude for political manoeuvring and poll calculations, has spread his attention across the state looking for candidates who can win. On target are seats where the BJP and the Congress both are unable to field proper winning candidates. 

The search is on to find dissatisfied leaders with powerful base in their areas, who after giving a lifetime to the giant parties have never been considered deserving of an assembly ticket. Also, on target are women leaders of the state, who according to poll-figures, have performed better than their male counterparts, yet will not be given assembly seat to fight for the simple fact that none is available. NCP is offering 92 seats, or a whopping 40 per cent of Madhya Pradesh’s 230 seats, to women. Thirty-five seats are marked for candidates from minorities such as Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Boudhs and so on. Wary of the poaching powers of both the Congress and the BJP, the party has not made public its list yet. But as per the president’s claims, 70 NCP candidates are already working in their respective constituencies, and shortly the first list of 100 candidates would be announced.

The Opposition in the Madhya Pradesh assembly, the Congress seems to lack cohesiveness to take against the ruling BJP and there is no single leader to lead the party. “Jyotiraditya Scindia is one day all set to be announced as the election committee chairman for Madhya Pradesh and the next day the plan is junked. Rahul Gandhi comes and promises big – ‘election candidates would be announced three months ahead of the elections’. It is now some days left for the Election Code of Conduct and yet not one single candidate’s name has been announced,’’ said Shrivastava to Firstpost. NCP’s game plan is simple and clear. With the Congress and the BJP both looking incapable of getting a majority, the party wants to cut into their votes and seats. It would not be adverse to enlisting rebels from both sides.

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

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