Aam Aadmi has slapped the UPA Government

 

The message from the five states is loud and clear. No to Congress (Read inefficiency, corruption,.cunningness). Congress has forgotten the Aam Aadmi. It has failed to check the rising prices. It wants to demolish the retail trade by allowing FDI in retail business. It wants to pursue a blatant pro-US foreign policy. It does not care for the welfare of the citizens.

An emphatic NO to BJP (read Hindutva, anti-Muslim, anti-Dalit). Bharatiya Janata Party has landed in noman's island. It does not have a clear vision for the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-cultural plural nation that is called INDIA. It's divisive policies and politics has failed to strike a chord with the peace loving Aam Aadmi. It has refused to shed the burden of Narendra Modi. It has no agenda and has lost its relevance.

And a Big NO to BSP (read inefficiency, autocracy, corruption). Mayawati has lost a golden chance to evolve into a statesman and towering leader. She failed to cultivate, nourish, and groom second line of leadership. She has no clear vision for the emancipation of the dalits and her alliance with the Brahmins has taken away the sheen from her sole armour.

And a fresh lease of life for the THIRD FRONT. Both Congress and BJP have failed to care for the welfare of the Aam Aadmi. Hope for the emergence of the third front has got revived. Mulayam Singh Yadav has  bigger role to play at the centre.

Once again Muslims have played their cards well and voted tactically defeating both Congress and BJP. The number of Muslim MLAs has risen to all time high 69. The emergence of the Peace Party is significant.  Here

Anti-Congressism gets a new lease of life

Rahul Gandhi’s perpetual attempt to run as an outsider, as if the Congress is not responsible for the tales of woe he recounts, is patently disingenuous. Every single issue he took up, from Bhatta-Parsaul to Bundelkhand, had no follow-up.

There is little aspirational about the Congress politics: it is still tethered to a discourse of noblesse oblige that is out of touch with the dynamism of a society. And personal sincerity has done little to transform the party’s political structure. There are limits to leadership by avoidance. And there are limits to how much he can substitute for local candidates. Rahul, like Rajiv Gandhi, risks being done in by sycophants masquerading as strategists, communalists masquerading as minority protectors, and party officials who do not think that governance matters.

The implications for national politics are immense. Even if it is magnanimous, the incentive for the SP is to ensure that the Congress does not grow. Anti-Congressism also gets a new lease of life. The motive for every party is now to demonstrate that the Congress cannot govern. The Central government has been facing a crisis of authority. Its moral image has been battered; its capacity for negotiating with regional parties has been diminished. These results only exacerbate this crisis of authority. In the short run, expect a rocky political ride. It will take something drastic to reverse this erosion of authority.

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in Indian Express. Here

  

Akilesh Vs Rahul

The emergence of Akhilesh Yadav, son of Mulayam Singh Yadav, the leader of the Samajwadi Party which has won a spectacular victory on its own, as the new shining star of UP politics was totally unexpected by large sections of the public and the Congress Party. The electorate tired of old faces and old style of politics and gimmicks was looking for a Mr.Different and they saw Mr.Different in Akhilesh. Whereas they found Rahul young in looks, but old in thinking and articulation, they found Akhilesh young in looks and young and refreshingly different in his thinking and articulation.

When one saw Akhilesh and Rahul on the TV screen, the difference between the two young personalities was striking. What came out in the case of Akhilesh was his earnestness, seriousness, sincerity and his ability to articulate in a manner that could carry conviction to the public. What came out in the case of Rahul was a lack of such qualities. Akhilesh’s ability to connect instantly with the public and the media stood in refreshing contrast to the inability of Rahul to do so.

B. Raman. Here

The Roots of India's Antigraft Churn

The country has changed in the last 20 years. But neither the government nor civil society gets it.

India is undergoing a political upheaval. Anger over high-level corruption has become widespread in the past year, adding to Indians' frustration with everyday petty corruption. In an environment where no political figure seemed credible, activist Anna Hazare stepped in earlier this year and led a campaign for an anticorruption watchdog. Last month, he used a 13-day hunger strike to get his way for legislation to create this watchdog.

That doesn't mean the tumult has ended. The elites in power are misdiagnosing the situation, throwing up tired answers to graft. But the alternative solutions offered by the likes of Mr. Hazare are out of touch too. Neither side seems to understand the kind of change India has experienced in the last two decades.

In the past, India's government ruled in relative secrecy and was ensconced in a rigid hierarchy. Even though New Delhi was accountable at the end of the day to the electorate, it presumed that the millions of files that documented the minutiae of regulations and ministerial actions would remain hidden from public gaze. It also presumed those affiliated with the central government wouldn't challenge it.

Twenty years ago, moreover, India's middle class was firmly allied with the state. These professionals held positions in the higher bureaucracy or in other state institutions.

The first tectonic movement is where the middle class stands today. They have been the biggest and most immediate beneficiaries of liberalization in the last twenty years. They have no reason today to stick up for the state. In fact, Mr. Hazare is joined by middle-class professionals, who have made the anticorruption movement savvy and media-friendly.

The watchdog Mr. Hazare is asking for would have the ability to go after almost any public official for wrongdoings: essentially one single institution, with a vast bureaucracy at its disposal and with overweening powers. This idea presumes that concentration of power is going to be more effective. But divided power is already generating better incentives for different institutions to hold each other in check. What's worse, Mr. Hazare makes no mention of economic or administrative reform, which would reform the role of the state in problematic sectors like telecom and mining.

This suggests that the battle against corruption is far from over. In fact, the great churning in Indian governance, as people search for better representatives to deliver growth without graft, has just begun. The movement Mr. Hazare galvanized may have erred in the direction in which it moved, but the sentiments underlying it are genuine.

The big risk here is that the likes of both Mr. Singh and Mr. Hazare will not understand the roots of this churning. India now has a government without credibility and a civil society offering non-solutions. At this rate, instead of artful reform, India will get draconian legislation.

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in Wall Street Journal. Here

"Hindu Terror" could reduce the state to impotency : Bhanu Pratap Mehta

Which is the deeper faultline in India? The caste divide or the Hindu-Muslim divide?

The big promise of the Constitution is about what rights people have and what opportunities people have. Should we be independent of what identity we have?

The baseline is that your rights and opportunities that you have should not be decided by your identity. Both caste politics and communal politics take us away further and further away from those ideals of the Constitution. 

Caste politics was legitimate to an extent that the leaders were trying to bring injustices to the State's attention. The fact is that your opportunities are still structured on the basis of caste you belong to. Unfortunately, the system (reservations) that we created was such that opportunities that you got were more dependent on the caste you belong to.

The Hindu-Muslim divide is not a theological divide. It is a divide created on the basis of ideology where political parties want to use certain kind of nationalism for popular recognition. 

Common to both divides is that they exercise compulsory identities. These politicians want to see that each Indian can only be the caste that they belong to or be the community that they belong to. They are not emancipating us. 

In political terms, the Hindu-Muslim divide is deeper and takes away a lot from us. I am not saying that the caste divide is not polarising, but there are so many castes and sub-castes. 

The caste divide challenges us, polarises us and poses a question: Are our Constitutional aspirations possible to achieve or not?

The communal divide has, historically, manifested in much more virulent forms of violence. The big silver line is that after the Gujarat riots there has not been any major riot. But the worrying factor is the news of the so-called 'Hindu terror.' 

Even if it is a slight percentage, it is worrying because it can produce a chain reaction that could reduce the State to impotency. 

I also think that the social distance between Hindus and Muslims have grown in the last two decades. Particularly, in housing and jobs. Muslims are more into self-employment. They are not participating in new institutions. 

This is happening because the State is not seen as a fair and credible player. If you unjustly lock out some Muslims youth they will have a grudge. The State has to be a fair player. 

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in conversation with Sheela Bhatt for rediff.com. Here

What is wrong with Baba Ramdev? : Bhanu Pratap Mehta

It is an unseemly sight. First, the government loses all moral authority by its complicity with corruption. The political class abdicates its role. Civil society steps in to fill the vacuum. Hunger strikes begin. And the government of an aspiring superpower, instead of behaving like a government, succumbs to blackmail after blackmail. There is something medieval about the image. The “Baba” arrives. Practically all of government that matters shows up in attendance. God forbid if the Baba curses them. You have to sympathise with these artful ministers.

They are valiantly trying to make up for the fact that the Queen Mother, her Dewan and the little Prince run away from the most ordinary governance that matters. They have outsourced all leadership and thinking. A few ministers are left to pick up the pieces. 

Then there is the gloss on this bizarre spectacle. First, abdicate. Then, cravenly submit. Then call it responsiveness. Such corruption of language signals a deeper corruption. A responsive government is one that in its routine functioning discharges its responsibilities: enforces the rule of law, dispenses justice, provides good management of the economy and so forth. Submitting to every whim of self-appointed civil society advocates is not responsiveness. A responsive government would govern, not sleepwalk to airports. 

The fifth element of authoritarianism is endless confusion of roles. Baba Ramdev has solid achievements to his credit in raising consciousness about yoga. It is heartening that citizens take more interest in public affairs. But there is a presumption that accomplished individuals, by virtue of their achievements in one sphere, can leverage that authority everywhere. This confusion of roles is almost everywhere. Parts of the media cannot decide whether they want to be trustworthy institutions of record or tools of partisan, rabble-rousing demagoguery, with editors donning the mantle of revolutionaries. But the short-term gains of this activism will come at the price of long-term credibility. True change will not come from this confusion of roles; it will come from each profession discharging its responsibilities to the best. 

A morally insidious vacuum in government. A self-proclaimed civil society displaying its own will to power. A media age where being off-balance gets you visibility. A public whose mood is punitive. An intellectual climate that peddles the politics of illusion. And all this in a context where government paralysis is enhancing the two biggest risks to the well-being of the poor — entrenched inflation and slowdown in growth. Instead of clamouring for visibility, we should follow old Baba Ramdev’s advice: take a deep breath.

Bhanu Pratap Mehta in Indian Express. Here