- Doubts over efficacy of Electronic Voting Machines being used in Indian Elections since 1999, are being raised for some time now. There are quite a few petitions which have been filed across various courts in the country challenging the validity of EVMs in the process and have prayed the courts for direction that the old system of paper ballots be reintroduced. I have read one such petition, filed by among others, one Mr Anil Chawla, post the November 2008 state assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, where he, alongwith a few others make a case quite strong enough to be looked into.
I remember the days before EVMs were introduced. In case of Lok Sabha elections, it would be noon by the time the first trends would start coming in, that too from smaller constituencies like Goa and the entire counting process would get at least two days to get over. One of the reasons for the delay was on account of the mixing of ballot papers from across booths, such that it became difficult to identify the direction of voting at a particular polling booth. With EVMs, things changed of course. Now, instead of agonizing waits, we can see the political spectrum of the country changing colors in a few hours flat.
That said, it is distressing to see that the Congress and a few of the usual suspects in the media have been so dismissive of the concerns expressed by the opposition parties on the safety features of the EVMs. While I cannot comment on the efficacy of the EVMs at all, I’ll certainly want to comment on a few of the points which are raised by the Congress and the media brigade to dismiss the apprehensions of the opposition
That EVMs are faulty is a complaint of the losers – So? Which sane person would expect winners to complaint that they won through unethical means? Has any winner abdicated his seat on this count ever? Or has any party accused of booth capturing accepted that they had indeed intimidated the voters? It is a natural flow of justice that the aggrieved seeks recourse while the beneficiary / accused tries to question the creditability and motive of the appellant? So what is different in this case? Do we really expect Congress to move courts asking for revert to paper ballot or do we expect the CPM to own up booth capturing, something which it has been accused of for ages?
EVMs have bought prestige to the Nation – Bah!! Double Bah!! Will Indians grow up and accept that there is more to life then empty praise. It is a self fulfilling delusion that something ‘brings’ prestige to the Nation and that the Nation’s ‘prestige’ is so fragile that questioning anything will ruin it forever. When countries much more advanced then us technologically had no qualms in discarding a system which they felt they couldn’t trust, what is so special about us? Why do we need to build holy cows all around when we don’t care for the actual cow?
EVMs declare the results faster – So? Answer a simple question. What is the purpose behind conduct of elections? To gauge the people’s mandate or to declare the mandate faster? If it is the second, then I rest my case but owing to the beliefs which have been inculcated all along, i.e., that democracy means rule by the people and for the people I have all along believed that the elections are a tool to gauge people’s will. If people’s will is being subverted, are they elections in the true sense? Why is then there a history of masses agitating against ‘rigged’ election results across the world, on a country wide scale in Bangladesh or Iran or on a smaller scale in West Bengal and Bihar? Let the result declaration process take a week. Only let it be what people have willed and not otherwise.
EVMs have helped prevent rigging – Huh! This is indeed hilarious. It is like saying that Bofors Guns helped Indian soldiers evict Kargil intruders so the scam associated with Bofors should not be investigated. Besides that, rigging has come down more on account of greater security and better booth management by the EC. EC must certainly be commended for better and cleaner elections but to credit the EVMs for that is indeed too much.
EVMs cannot be tampered with – Well, cannot comment on this in particular but would seek refuge in my knowledge that there is nothing such as perfect security. Even the most secure defense systems are routinely hacked across the world and here we are talking of a small, simple machine which is used in thousands. To turn a blind eye to the possibility that some, if not all, machines can be tampered with, either at the time of production, voting or counting is foolhardy. Moreover, this does not explain that how Maneka Gandhi and P Chidambaram won their respective seats on recount when they had initially been declared losers? If the system is electronically foolproof, it would not have allowed accretion of a single vote to either of these candidates. Further, there have been quite a few instances of particular candidates winning 100% of votes polled at an EVM. In an election, which was not driven by a strong sentiment or a wave, such happenings are certainly not normal and defy the rules of probability.
This is not to say that the General Elections 2009 were rigged. This is only to point out that when a large part of the political space in the country has developed doubts regarding a tool of election, it is proper that the cause of concern be investigated and doubts set at rest. The opposition has as much a stake in the running of the country as the ruling party and the simple fact of their defeat cannot dismiss their concerns as unfounded. We are a democracy and people’s will needs to be respected. Let us not get into a state where the credibility of our system becomes so suspect that the losers start taking to streets disputing the results. Let us remain a successful democracy and not a wannabe Iran.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Life Beyond EVMs
Monday, July 13, 2009
Delhi High Court Judgment on Sec 377 - Those opposing the opposers
Ever since the issue of decriminalization of homosexuality has gained more prominence in public imagination and more importantly, ever since the Delhi High Court judgment has been delivered, there is a sort of avalanche of posts in various foras denouncing opponents of the judgment.
While it is understandable that any person feeling threatened by someone would resort to such denouncements, what escapes notice is the cause behind the striking absence of objectivity in the readers' denouncement of critics.
Almost all supporters of judgment have heaped scorn and vitriol on saffron backsides, knickerwallahs, hindutvavadis etc. Have these people venting their spleen on the abovementioned even paused to think if their frothing is justified?
Since the judgment has been delivered, the most vehement reactions have been from the clergy of Abrahmic religions, precisely those religions which have their holy books denouncing homosexuality and precisely those which ignite and fan a strong anti homosexual sentiment across the western and Middle Eastern world. Coming to Indic religions, the Sikh clergy has officially condemned homosexuality while refusing to tar it as criminal behavior. Regarding others, I have not come across any Buddhist monk coming out against the judgment though there has been one Jain muni who has been speaking out against it from available foras. That leaves Hindu clergy to deal with. The strongest opposition has come from Baba Ramdev, who is neither a part of the clergy, i.e. math or monastery nor is he a Godman in the sense of the Sathya Sai Babas or even Asaram Bapus of the world. In fact, no Hindu religious leader of any standing has come out against the judgment even remotely as strong as the reaction of the Abrahmic clergy. Nor have there been petitions by Hindu religious leaders to the PM or any minister asking that the Parliament overturn the judgment or appeal it in any fora. It might have escaped notice of these critics, either by design or default, but even the much maligned RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal have had nothing much to say about the judgment
Coming to the political parties, it was the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the LJP (the last in Rajya Sabha) which have been most vehement in their protest against the judgment. The BJP has remained silent and even the Shiv Sena hasn't reacted the way as it did against Fire. (By the way, people forget that the ostensible reason for Sena's protest against Fire was the usage of the names Radha and Sita for the protagonist and not the film itself)
Some may point out that BP Singhal, one of the parties to the Naz petition and an outspoken critic of homosexuality is a BJP member. But then, he never joined the case on behalf of the party. If we apply that logic, then Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is a much more senior member of the Congress party, having occupied ministerial and senior party position, is against the judgment. The ex Home Minister, Shivraj Patil was a strong opponent of the call to decriminalize homosexuality. Does all that mean that the Congress is opposing the judgment?
People ignore the fact that previously, NHRC, then headed by JS Verma, one of the most respected judges in the history of the country had refused to support the movement. He was not a Hindu right sympathizer by any extent. Ashok will concur that the strongest opposition to a seminar on gay rights, many years ago, had come from Vimla Farooqui, the then Head of National Commission of Women, and a card carrying member of the communist party
Even now, the NWC has given a guarded reaction to the judgment without supporting even the concept and has only said that it will need to study its impact on the family life in the country. Likewise, there is no squeak of support from either the NHRC or the Minorities commission. None of these are headed by anyone who is remotely associated with the Hindu Right.
It stretches credulity to the extremes to believe that the Hindu right must be condemned for opposing homosexuality. Even if we give more than required weightage to the Hindu organizations opposing the judgment, we would still find their reaction muted as compared to the opposition coming from the Abrahmic clergy, something more noticeable when you realize that their population is only between one-sixth and one-fifth share of the entire population of the country
Why can’t people criticize where it is due and just? Why do they forget that criticism just because of one’s ideological blinkers or because one is scared to protest against those who protest the loudest, is an act of cheating on oneself. If one is so convinced of his / her correctness, why this display of spinelessness in taking all the opposers headlong?
Let us not forget that the Indian society has never denounced homosexuality. Though not accepted it was never persecuted and only ignored. For most Indians, while decriminalizing it may be welcome, they may not be equally comfortable in legalizing it. We are in a country where public displays of affection among heterosexuals can invite obscenity laws and sexual liberation hasn't yet prevailed.
The struggle for equal rights in any arena is a long journey and always has potent foes. It can do well without imagining foes and ignoring perils where they actually exist.
While it is understandable that any person feeling threatened by someone would resort to such denouncements, what escapes notice is the cause behind the striking absence of objectivity in the readers' denouncement of critics.
Almost all supporters of judgment have heaped scorn and vitriol on saffron backsides, knickerwallahs, hindutvavadis etc. Have these people venting their spleen on the abovementioned even paused to think if their frothing is justified?
Since the judgment has been delivered, the most vehement reactions have been from the clergy of Abrahmic religions, precisely those religions which have their holy books denouncing homosexuality and precisely those which ignite and fan a strong anti homosexual sentiment across the western and Middle Eastern world. Coming to Indic religions, the Sikh clergy has officially condemned homosexuality while refusing to tar it as criminal behavior. Regarding others, I have not come across any Buddhist monk coming out against the judgment though there has been one Jain muni who has been speaking out against it from available foras. That leaves Hindu clergy to deal with. The strongest opposition has come from Baba Ramdev, who is neither a part of the clergy, i.e. math or monastery nor is he a Godman in the sense of the Sathya Sai Babas or even Asaram Bapus of the world. In fact, no Hindu religious leader of any standing has come out against the judgment even remotely as strong as the reaction of the Abrahmic clergy. Nor have there been petitions by Hindu religious leaders to the PM or any minister asking that the Parliament overturn the judgment or appeal it in any fora. It might have escaped notice of these critics, either by design or default, but even the much maligned RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal have had nothing much to say about the judgment
Coming to the political parties, it was the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the LJP (the last in Rajya Sabha) which have been most vehement in their protest against the judgment. The BJP has remained silent and even the Shiv Sena hasn't reacted the way as it did against Fire. (By the way, people forget that the ostensible reason for Sena's protest against Fire was the usage of the names Radha and Sita for the protagonist and not the film itself)
Some may point out that BP Singhal, one of the parties to the Naz petition and an outspoken critic of homosexuality is a BJP member. But then, he never joined the case on behalf of the party. If we apply that logic, then Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is a much more senior member of the Congress party, having occupied ministerial and senior party position, is against the judgment. The ex Home Minister, Shivraj Patil was a strong opponent of the call to decriminalize homosexuality. Does all that mean that the Congress is opposing the judgment?
People ignore the fact that previously, NHRC, then headed by JS Verma, one of the most respected judges in the history of the country had refused to support the movement. He was not a Hindu right sympathizer by any extent. Ashok will concur that the strongest opposition to a seminar on gay rights, many years ago, had come from Vimla Farooqui, the then Head of National Commission of Women, and a card carrying member of the communist party
Even now, the NWC has given a guarded reaction to the judgment without supporting even the concept and has only said that it will need to study its impact on the family life in the country. Likewise, there is no squeak of support from either the NHRC or the Minorities commission. None of these are headed by anyone who is remotely associated with the Hindu Right.
It stretches credulity to the extremes to believe that the Hindu right must be condemned for opposing homosexuality. Even if we give more than required weightage to the Hindu organizations opposing the judgment, we would still find their reaction muted as compared to the opposition coming from the Abrahmic clergy, something more noticeable when you realize that their population is only between one-sixth and one-fifth share of the entire population of the country
Why can’t people criticize where it is due and just? Why do they forget that criticism just because of one’s ideological blinkers or because one is scared to protest against those who protest the loudest, is an act of cheating on oneself. If one is so convinced of his / her correctness, why this display of spinelessness in taking all the opposers headlong?
Let us not forget that the Indian society has never denounced homosexuality. Though not accepted it was never persecuted and only ignored. For most Indians, while decriminalizing it may be welcome, they may not be equally comfortable in legalizing it. We are in a country where public displays of affection among heterosexuals can invite obscenity laws and sexual liberation hasn't yet prevailed.
The struggle for equal rights in any arena is a long journey and always has potent foes. It can do well without imagining foes and ignoring perils where they actually exist.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
General Elections 2009 - An Analysis of Results - Part I
To say that the Results of General Elections 2009 were unexpected would be an understatement, particularly when considered against the backdrop of the Congress surge and BJP defeat. While the results of General Elections 2004 were also quite unexpected as no one expected NDA to lose, the import of 2004 results differ vis-à-vis 2009 results on account of the following points:
· Opinion polls had started detecting a trend of decreasing support for NDA as the poll season progressed in 2004
· Post poll analysis of 2004 results indicated that it was state level alliances which had won or lost polls across the country
Contrast above with the analysis this time around. Similarities with analysis begin and end with the unexpected magnitude of Congress’s victory as against unexpected magnitude of defeat of the NDA. However, other than that, there seem to be weak arguments on how and why it happened?
Viewers of television channels would have been amused that as soon as the direction of leads became apparent in the early hours of May 16, 2009, all analysts on TV started to appear wise and gave a string of reasons as to why BJP lost and Congress won. Anyone watching that learned gentry could be pardoned for his mistaken belief that all of them knew what causes would influence the foreseen results. So, we were dished out reasons ranging from Rahul’s charm, Manmohan Singh’s decency, good governance of UPA etc contributing to Congress victory and Varun, Modi, Advani & BJP’s arrogance contributing to BJP’s defeat.
I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that personally I am quite disappointed with the results, not so much by the Congress’s resurgence, but very much so by the BJP’s decline. That said, the reasons being dished out don’t seem to convey the real cause; they don’t sound convincing enough for the analysis seems quite superficial and more of ‘I told you so’.
I’ll break this write up in two parts, one on why I believe that all the reasons being dished out are not convincing and second why I believe that the UPA Government should have been shown the door.
Ostensible reasons as to why the Congress scored why the BJP lost:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clean, decent personality
Rahul Gandhi’s Charm
UPA Government’s performance
UPA’s schemes like NREGA
BJP’s negative campaign
Vote for stability
Vote against communal and divisive politics
Vote against Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ram Sene
BJP’s uninspiring candidate for PM, LK Advani
Opposition to Nuclear Deal
Since some of these points are interconnected, hence I wouldn’t necessarily be dealing with all of them in seriality:
One of the underlying themes of the analyst comments has been that these elections were a vote for moderation. Since the BJP is identified by these analysts as an extremist party, the analysis seems to pass muster in the first view. However, before agreeing to this, let us pause to ponder over a few facts:
A first time General Elections contestant, the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena won around 21% of the popular vote share in the Mumbai – Thane region, effectively decimating the Shiv Sena – BJP combine. Are the policies of MNS mild enough to be called moderate?
The favorite whipping boy of the media, Varun Gandhi won his Lok Sabha seat by a massive majority. Can he be called moderate?
An accused in the Kandhamal riots, Manoj Sahu won his seat and overall, the BJP won 2 of the 3 seats in the Kandhamal district. A victory for moderation?
Before the election results were out, newspapers were full of predictions on how the youth in Bangalore / Mangalore would punish the BJP for the horrendous attack on pub going girls and show solidarity with the pink panties brigade. Of course, once it became clear that the BJP was actually exceeding all its previous performances in the state, those voices became silent. So, a victory for the moderate BJP in Karnataka?
Ever since her defeat in assembly polls in 2006, Mamata Banerjee has been on a rampage against the Marxist, opposing each of their moves tooth and nail. Her activities in Nandigram and Singur can by no stretch of imagination be called Gandhian or moderate. But she won, registering the most spectacular victory for any opposition in West Bengal. Does this mean that she had been following a moderate agenda?
So, is this a victory for moderation? You decide?
Coming to Mamata Banerjee, I am tempted to comment on another bug bear, that it is a slap against the negative campaign of the BJP.
Let us go back to 2004. India was made to suffer the ‘India Shining’ campaign of the BJP which highlighted all what the BJP had done. Congress hit back with dark images of unemployed, hungry people and showed that side of the mirror where the shine had not yet reached. Results: BJP lost and quite justifiably, significant blame was apportioned to the India Shining campaign. Flash forward, Elections 2009. The roles were reversed with the Congress unleashing a ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign with the BJP responding with dark images. One major difference was the external environment. While 2004 did not suffer any negatives as far as economy was concerned, 2008-09 had been a saga of inflation, decelerating economy, job losses and an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. If anything, the BJP response was more reflective of reality than the Congress’s ‘Aam Aadmi’ campaign where the Congress had been promising return to good (?) old days. The results of course went against the BJP and universally, the BJP has been condemned for running a negative campaign and trying to ruin the mood of the country. Homilies have been offered for a dime a dozen and one would be forgiven for believing that inflation, job losses, terrorism existed in some other planet and that it is a cardinal sin for any opposition party to ‘spoil the mood’ of the country. Such homilies are of course silent on why Mamata won in spite of her so negative campaign? Aren’t these the same set of people who went around proclaiming that Nano going away from Singur on account of Mamata’s blind opposition has killed the last vestiges of support for her? Even if we agree that Nandigram helped her, it does not explain the fact that Mamata’s victories have been primarily in the Greater Kolkata region where higher urbanization means a greater number of people panting for Nano like projects. This is precisely the region where the supposed anger against Mamata was supposedly the highest. Pray tell us, what exactly was positive about Mamata’s campaign? Did she not play on the fears and insecurities of people and still win?
Please ask yourself. Was Congress’s victory in 2004 and Mamata’s victory in 2009, a result of positive campaigns?
Among the most hilarious reasons forwarded for the BJP’s defeat was its opposition to the Indo US Nuclear Deal. There were comments galore that supporters of the deal won and those who opposed lost. Now at one end, we have the same set of commentators advising the BJP sagely that only issues linked to the common man’s daily lives are of any importance in elections. Anything other than Bijli, Sadak and Pani are destined to fail and should not be ever raked up. Now, we have a deal, benefits of which, if any, would take years to come. The deal is so complicated that even its staunchest advocates would be hard pressed to convince the general public of its benefits. Not going into the merits or otherwise of the deal, let us safely say that this is one matter which is not connected to the daily lives of general public in any way. The ostensible reason offered by these analysts is that the middle class wants to go with America and that they were angry with the BJP for trying to put a spoke into that wheel of friendship. Words betray me when I try to respond to this juvenile thought. And, how is this different from the blind anti Americanism of the left? To imagine that a nebulous issue, not connected to the public at all and not a part of the election campaign at all dictated the verdict is a nut even the most credulous will find tough to swallow.
Now, coming to the crowning glory. That the BJP lost because of Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Kandhamal and Ram Sene. Let us take it one by one. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP held on to its vote share of assembly elections of 2007, that too, after the exit of Kalyan Singh from the party. Of the other three major players, only the Congress gained in vote share. As per the CDS data on election analysis, the Congress was beneficiary of a huge swing of Brahmin votes in its favor. There was certainly a swing of Muslim votes in its favor for Muslims vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the BJP but this has been the common feature of Indian elections for more than a decade now. How did a depraved and weakened BJP lose elections on account of Varun is something which can only be endlessly conjectured. The only things which can be categorically stated are that one, the BJP did not gain out of the Varun Gandhi episode inspite of his needless incarceration and that the media overhyped both the event and the fallout.
Kandhamal has been painted as another reason for the BJP’s defeat. BJP more or less held to its vote share in Orissa in both assembly and Lok Sabha polls, suffering a loss of around 1% only. This coming from a party which had been stagnating for the last 5-6 years is quite a healthy figure particularly when considered against the backdrop of its effete and disconnected state leadership. Had Kandhamal worked against the BJP, it should have been wiped out even in vote share. A party winning around 1/6th of popular vote cannot be dismissed by any sane person. Moving a bit off the tangent, while the media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the BJD’s excuse of Kandhamal as the reason behind their breaking off ties with the BJP, it fails to ask Naveen as to why it took him 6 months to ditch the BJP or why was he conducting negotiations till the very end with this communal party or why was he ready to continue the alliance if the BJP had agreed for 35 assembly and 5 Lok Sabha seats?
True, Modi magic did not work across India and failed to set the stage on fire in Gujarat. I am no fan of Modi and very sincerely believe that howsoever efficient, a despot like leader is a danger to any society. However, to blame him for the BJP’s loss stretches credulity. 2004 might have been impacted by the anti Modi campaign but this time around, even the media has been less shrill in its anti Modi tirade. Moreover, over the last 5 years, Modi has come to be identified with, either wrongly or rightly, with progress and development. He has also managed to dilute his stain of communalism by demolishing Hindu temples and getting his opponents behind bars. No ally quit the BJP naming Modi as the cause. Likewise, no analysis has indicated that voters moved away from the BJP because of Modi. Some say, Modi’s name as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP confused the public and harmed its prospects. If that be true, then what about the Congress? Almost everyone knows that Manmohan Singh is only a stop gap arrangement. Almost every Congressman and ally had declared that Rahul Gandhi is the future Prime Minister. Why did this not confuse the public? Is it that the BJP supporters are more naïve and more prone to bouts of confusion than the Congress supporters?
Commentators who have never even attempted to hide their loathing for the BJP are joined by erstwhile BJP sympathizers is hailing the verdict as a vote against Hindutva; a rejection of BJP’s politics of hate. I beg forgiveness from the general public but I could not make out anything which touched Hindutva, in the BJP’s election campaign. Neither 2209, nor 2004 or for that matter 1999 has seen the BJP taking up Hindutva related causes. Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP’s election campaign. Most have accused BJP of shielding and defending Varun Gandhi. Is that so? BJP’s stated position throughout the episode was that they do not subscribe to the statements and that if true, then Varun would have to face legal action. Their support to Varun was against his imprisonment under NSA, something which was termed out of proportion by the Supreme Court itself. Let everyone ask themselves. Were Varun’s statements deserving of the type of punishment and scorn heaped over him? More importantly, does BJP become a champion of aggressive Hindutva by protesting against his imprisonment? Are demands to hang a convict Hindutva? Which position or demand of the BJP was Hindutva related? Their campaign was centered on the theme of ‘Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’. Ad campaigns were built around developmental promises and current insecurity. Leaders’ speeches dwelt on the same lines. So, where was Hindutva in the campaign at all? Something which wasn’t there cannot be defeated, can it?
On the BJP negatives, that leaves LK Advani’s candidature as a scapegoat. Frankly, even the worst critics of Mr Advani would concede that his stature does not befit the scorn heaped on him during the course of the campaign and being heaped on him now by select groups and individuals. That said, it cannot be denied that in spite of sustained campaign and efforts of the entire Parivar, Mr Advani’s candidature failed to excite the general public mood. While reasons behind this failure calls for another analysis, it cannot be denied that compared to other Lok Sabha campaigns, there was hardly a public buzz around the prospect of seeing Mr Advani as the leader of the country. This certainly had an impact on the BJP for it probably did not, at all, secure any incremental votes on account of their Prime Ministerial candidate.
Thus, we see that most of the reasons attributed to BJP’s defeat do not, in all probability, convey the causes of defeat adequately. We must not forget that most of the analysts jumping with joy at BJP’s defeat had been predicting doom for the BJP even when it was in ascendance. Had BJP listened to them, it would never have reached the position it achieved in the 1990s’. If the diagnosis and prescriptions of these analysts seem sound today, it is only because of the law of averages. At some point of time, even the most ardent of doomsayers would be proved right. But then, one right does not set all the previous wrongs right, does it?
I will cover the part on impact of achievements of the Congress Government on election results and why I feel it should have been shifted to opposition in the subsequent part of this analysis.
· Opinion polls had started detecting a trend of decreasing support for NDA as the poll season progressed in 2004
· Post poll analysis of 2004 results indicated that it was state level alliances which had won or lost polls across the country
Contrast above with the analysis this time around. Similarities with analysis begin and end with the unexpected magnitude of Congress’s victory as against unexpected magnitude of defeat of the NDA. However, other than that, there seem to be weak arguments on how and why it happened?
Viewers of television channels would have been amused that as soon as the direction of leads became apparent in the early hours of May 16, 2009, all analysts on TV started to appear wise and gave a string of reasons as to why BJP lost and Congress won. Anyone watching that learned gentry could be pardoned for his mistaken belief that all of them knew what causes would influence the foreseen results. So, we were dished out reasons ranging from Rahul’s charm, Manmohan Singh’s decency, good governance of UPA etc contributing to Congress victory and Varun, Modi, Advani & BJP’s arrogance contributing to BJP’s defeat.
I will make no attempt to disguise the fact that personally I am quite disappointed with the results, not so much by the Congress’s resurgence, but very much so by the BJP’s decline. That said, the reasons being dished out don’t seem to convey the real cause; they don’t sound convincing enough for the analysis seems quite superficial and more of ‘I told you so’.
I’ll break this write up in two parts, one on why I believe that all the reasons being dished out are not convincing and second why I believe that the UPA Government should have been shown the door.
Ostensible reasons as to why the Congress scored why the BJP lost:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s clean, decent personality
Rahul Gandhi’s Charm
UPA Government’s performance
UPA’s schemes like NREGA
BJP’s negative campaign
Vote for stability
Vote against communal and divisive politics
Vote against Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi and Ram Sene
BJP’s uninspiring candidate for PM, LK Advani
Opposition to Nuclear Deal
Since some of these points are interconnected, hence I wouldn’t necessarily be dealing with all of them in seriality:
One of the underlying themes of the analyst comments has been that these elections were a vote for moderation. Since the BJP is identified by these analysts as an extremist party, the analysis seems to pass muster in the first view. However, before agreeing to this, let us pause to ponder over a few facts:
A first time General Elections contestant, the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena won around 21% of the popular vote share in the Mumbai – Thane region, effectively decimating the Shiv Sena – BJP combine. Are the policies of MNS mild enough to be called moderate?
The favorite whipping boy of the media, Varun Gandhi won his Lok Sabha seat by a massive majority. Can he be called moderate?
An accused in the Kandhamal riots, Manoj Sahu won his seat and overall, the BJP won 2 of the 3 seats in the Kandhamal district. A victory for moderation?
Before the election results were out, newspapers were full of predictions on how the youth in Bangalore / Mangalore would punish the BJP for the horrendous attack on pub going girls and show solidarity with the pink panties brigade. Of course, once it became clear that the BJP was actually exceeding all its previous performances in the state, those voices became silent. So, a victory for the moderate BJP in Karnataka?
Ever since her defeat in assembly polls in 2006, Mamata Banerjee has been on a rampage against the Marxist, opposing each of their moves tooth and nail. Her activities in Nandigram and Singur can by no stretch of imagination be called Gandhian or moderate. But she won, registering the most spectacular victory for any opposition in West Bengal. Does this mean that she had been following a moderate agenda?
So, is this a victory for moderation? You decide?
Coming to Mamata Banerjee, I am tempted to comment on another bug bear, that it is a slap against the negative campaign of the BJP.
Let us go back to 2004. India was made to suffer the ‘India Shining’ campaign of the BJP which highlighted all what the BJP had done. Congress hit back with dark images of unemployed, hungry people and showed that side of the mirror where the shine had not yet reached. Results: BJP lost and quite justifiably, significant blame was apportioned to the India Shining campaign. Flash forward, Elections 2009. The roles were reversed with the Congress unleashing a ‘Bharat Nirman’ campaign with the BJP responding with dark images. One major difference was the external environment. While 2004 did not suffer any negatives as far as economy was concerned, 2008-09 had been a saga of inflation, decelerating economy, job losses and an atmosphere of apprehension and fear. If anything, the BJP response was more reflective of reality than the Congress’s ‘Aam Aadmi’ campaign where the Congress had been promising return to good (?) old days. The results of course went against the BJP and universally, the BJP has been condemned for running a negative campaign and trying to ruin the mood of the country. Homilies have been offered for a dime a dozen and one would be forgiven for believing that inflation, job losses, terrorism existed in some other planet and that it is a cardinal sin for any opposition party to ‘spoil the mood’ of the country. Such homilies are of course silent on why Mamata won in spite of her so negative campaign? Aren’t these the same set of people who went around proclaiming that Nano going away from Singur on account of Mamata’s blind opposition has killed the last vestiges of support for her? Even if we agree that Nandigram helped her, it does not explain the fact that Mamata’s victories have been primarily in the Greater Kolkata region where higher urbanization means a greater number of people panting for Nano like projects. This is precisely the region where the supposed anger against Mamata was supposedly the highest. Pray tell us, what exactly was positive about Mamata’s campaign? Did she not play on the fears and insecurities of people and still win?
Please ask yourself. Was Congress’s victory in 2004 and Mamata’s victory in 2009, a result of positive campaigns?
Among the most hilarious reasons forwarded for the BJP’s defeat was its opposition to the Indo US Nuclear Deal. There were comments galore that supporters of the deal won and those who opposed lost. Now at one end, we have the same set of commentators advising the BJP sagely that only issues linked to the common man’s daily lives are of any importance in elections. Anything other than Bijli, Sadak and Pani are destined to fail and should not be ever raked up. Now, we have a deal, benefits of which, if any, would take years to come. The deal is so complicated that even its staunchest advocates would be hard pressed to convince the general public of its benefits. Not going into the merits or otherwise of the deal, let us safely say that this is one matter which is not connected to the daily lives of general public in any way. The ostensible reason offered by these analysts is that the middle class wants to go with America and that they were angry with the BJP for trying to put a spoke into that wheel of friendship. Words betray me when I try to respond to this juvenile thought. And, how is this different from the blind anti Americanism of the left? To imagine that a nebulous issue, not connected to the public at all and not a part of the election campaign at all dictated the verdict is a nut even the most credulous will find tough to swallow.
Now, coming to the crowning glory. That the BJP lost because of Varun Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Kandhamal and Ram Sene. Let us take it one by one. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP held on to its vote share of assembly elections of 2007, that too, after the exit of Kalyan Singh from the party. Of the other three major players, only the Congress gained in vote share. As per the CDS data on election analysis, the Congress was beneficiary of a huge swing of Brahmin votes in its favor. There was certainly a swing of Muslim votes in its favor for Muslims vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the BJP but this has been the common feature of Indian elections for more than a decade now. How did a depraved and weakened BJP lose elections on account of Varun is something which can only be endlessly conjectured. The only things which can be categorically stated are that one, the BJP did not gain out of the Varun Gandhi episode inspite of his needless incarceration and that the media overhyped both the event and the fallout.
Kandhamal has been painted as another reason for the BJP’s defeat. BJP more or less held to its vote share in Orissa in both assembly and Lok Sabha polls, suffering a loss of around 1% only. This coming from a party which had been stagnating for the last 5-6 years is quite a healthy figure particularly when considered against the backdrop of its effete and disconnected state leadership. Had Kandhamal worked against the BJP, it should have been wiped out even in vote share. A party winning around 1/6th of popular vote cannot be dismissed by any sane person. Moving a bit off the tangent, while the media has fallen hook, line and sinker for the BJD’s excuse of Kandhamal as the reason behind their breaking off ties with the BJP, it fails to ask Naveen as to why it took him 6 months to ditch the BJP or why was he conducting negotiations till the very end with this communal party or why was he ready to continue the alliance if the BJP had agreed for 35 assembly and 5 Lok Sabha seats?
True, Modi magic did not work across India and failed to set the stage on fire in Gujarat. I am no fan of Modi and very sincerely believe that howsoever efficient, a despot like leader is a danger to any society. However, to blame him for the BJP’s loss stretches credulity. 2004 might have been impacted by the anti Modi campaign but this time around, even the media has been less shrill in its anti Modi tirade. Moreover, over the last 5 years, Modi has come to be identified with, either wrongly or rightly, with progress and development. He has also managed to dilute his stain of communalism by demolishing Hindu temples and getting his opponents behind bars. No ally quit the BJP naming Modi as the cause. Likewise, no analysis has indicated that voters moved away from the BJP because of Modi. Some say, Modi’s name as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the BJP confused the public and harmed its prospects. If that be true, then what about the Congress? Almost everyone knows that Manmohan Singh is only a stop gap arrangement. Almost every Congressman and ally had declared that Rahul Gandhi is the future Prime Minister. Why did this not confuse the public? Is it that the BJP supporters are more naïve and more prone to bouts of confusion than the Congress supporters?
Commentators who have never even attempted to hide their loathing for the BJP are joined by erstwhile BJP sympathizers is hailing the verdict as a vote against Hindutva; a rejection of BJP’s politics of hate. I beg forgiveness from the general public but I could not make out anything which touched Hindutva, in the BJP’s election campaign. Neither 2209, nor 2004 or for that matter 1999 has seen the BJP taking up Hindutva related causes. Hindutva has been conspicuous by its absence in BJP’s election campaign. Most have accused BJP of shielding and defending Varun Gandhi. Is that so? BJP’s stated position throughout the episode was that they do not subscribe to the statements and that if true, then Varun would have to face legal action. Their support to Varun was against his imprisonment under NSA, something which was termed out of proportion by the Supreme Court itself. Let everyone ask themselves. Were Varun’s statements deserving of the type of punishment and scorn heaped over him? More importantly, does BJP become a champion of aggressive Hindutva by protesting against his imprisonment? Are demands to hang a convict Hindutva? Which position or demand of the BJP was Hindutva related? Their campaign was centered on the theme of ‘Majboot Neta, Nirnayak Sarkar’. Ad campaigns were built around developmental promises and current insecurity. Leaders’ speeches dwelt on the same lines. So, where was Hindutva in the campaign at all? Something which wasn’t there cannot be defeated, can it?
On the BJP negatives, that leaves LK Advani’s candidature as a scapegoat. Frankly, even the worst critics of Mr Advani would concede that his stature does not befit the scorn heaped on him during the course of the campaign and being heaped on him now by select groups and individuals. That said, it cannot be denied that in spite of sustained campaign and efforts of the entire Parivar, Mr Advani’s candidature failed to excite the general public mood. While reasons behind this failure calls for another analysis, it cannot be denied that compared to other Lok Sabha campaigns, there was hardly a public buzz around the prospect of seeing Mr Advani as the leader of the country. This certainly had an impact on the BJP for it probably did not, at all, secure any incremental votes on account of their Prime Ministerial candidate.
Thus, we see that most of the reasons attributed to BJP’s defeat do not, in all probability, convey the causes of defeat adequately. We must not forget that most of the analysts jumping with joy at BJP’s defeat had been predicting doom for the BJP even when it was in ascendance. Had BJP listened to them, it would never have reached the position it achieved in the 1990s’. If the diagnosis and prescriptions of these analysts seem sound today, it is only because of the law of averages. At some point of time, even the most ardent of doomsayers would be proved right. But then, one right does not set all the previous wrongs right, does it?
I will cover the part on impact of achievements of the Congress Government on election results and why I feel it should have been shifted to opposition in the subsequent part of this analysis.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Talented Mr Jaitley
Anyone following the BJP and its leaders would have noticed that almost each and every of its top leaders have suffered strong negative portrayals by the media. While some leaders certainly enjoy a much more positive image, even they had had their share of brickbats. This is fair, isn’t it? For human nature is not uni-dimensional and what is acceptable or liked by the other may be abhorred by some other person. No one, be it Vivekanand, Gandhi, Patel has been immune to their brigade of haters, so why should any BJP walla be any different?
So, the now venerable Vajpayee had his legion of admirers but suffered an occasional jab. Advani and Modi of course are devils incarnate or Hindu messiahs the way you would look at it while the ilk of Uma Bharati, Sushma Swaraj and Pramod Mahajan were usually dismissed as temperamental, shrill or unscrupulous by most who chose to write about them.
Of these, one name stands out, that of the suave lawyer politician, Arun Jaitley. Mr Jaitley is perhaps the only BJP politician who can claim company with the likes of Gulam Nabi Azad, Manmohan Singh et al, who never have any adverse comment against them from any section of the media. And certainly, Mr Jaitely has earned his laurels. Isn’t he a moderate, sophisticated, articulate, successful professionally and another right man in the wrong party? Wasn’t it his famed strategy, which won the BJP election after state election? So why should there have been any finger pointed at Mr Jaitley?
This is not about whether Mr Jaitley deserves to be criticized for anyone at all. It is about the wonderment which accompanies the realization that Mr Jaitley seems to have no detractors at all in the media, something which make him so unique in the Sangh Parivar.
Let us get back in time. Mr Jaitley gained into prominence only during the later half of the 1999 – 2004 BVajpayee Government. While always known among the more able ministers of the Government, he gained prominence as a strategist post election victories in Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh in the 2003 electoral polls. Till these elections, BJP’s tale in assembly elections post 1998, had only been a repetitive saga of failure and so the victory became all the more outstanding. It is another matter that the strategists for even these lost elections were the same and that Madhya Pradesh was anyways waiting to fall in the lap of the BJP, post ten years of mis governance by Digvijay Singh led Congress Government.
Of course, with the murder of Pramod Mahajan, Arun Jaitley came to occupy the position of master strategist.
But lest we digress, let us get back to the saga of expulsion of Uma Bharati from the BJP. Uma’s first suspension from the party was triggered by her outburst against rootless people who gave ‘off the record’ statement to the press, which in turn was triggered by LK Advani’s homily against infighting. It is anybody’s guess as to who were these ‘off the record’ statement givers in the BJP.
I am no fan of Rajnath Singh and honestly, few people would be enamoured of his vision and working style. But the type of vitriol heaped on him by the press comes across as motivated and guided by someone pulling some strings.
The media regularly credits Mr Jaitley with victories in Assembly elections of Karnataka, MP and Bihar. But by the same logic, no blame is apportioned to him for losses in West Bengal, UP and Delhi. Uma Bhartai is regularly lampooned for her indiscipline, but Mr Jaitley’s sulk against Rajnath Singh on the Sudhanshu Mittal case is high morality. That he has chosen to vacation in United Kingdom while the BJP National Executive is on, is after all, a well deserved rest for the hard working strategist of the company.
Media has gone to town over the reasons behind BJP’s loss, blaming everybody under the Sun except for Mr Jaitley, the prime architect of the campaign.
Regular leaks are a feature of the BJP, more so since the BJP lost power in 2004 elections. It is again anybody’s guess as to who the source for these losses is. Ever since the current loss, there are steady and regular stories in the media which pinpoint the cause of loss to some person or factor. Quite a lot of people have criticized Mr Advani’s continuation as the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha for he was the losing leader. Likewise, many have been critical of Sushma Swaraj’s choice as the Deputy Leader for, for many of the critics, she stands for a shrill, belan wielding middle class woman, who has no place in the Indian polity. But, there are hardly any critics for Mr Jaitley becoming the leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha, even though he was the master strategist of the election and himself lacks any mass base or even a following in the party.
Mr Jaitley has built lots of friends in the media. His bonding with the media is such that even for the cash for vote scam in the parliament, he chose a channel whose aim in life is to lampoon and condemn everything that the BJP stands for.
It is nice to be an individual who is loved by all and sundry. But to be a public figure who is above reproach is dangerous and an indicator of a highly manipulative mindset. On the positive, it speaks of the immense caliber of the person in question. Not even his worst enemies would have anything less that highest admiration for Mr Jaitley’s acumen and intellect. It is however, the BJP, which needs to pause and reflect as to how it has benefitted from Mr Jaitley’s media management.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
BJP's Saga of Electoral Losses
Consecutive losses in two General Elections, one which it was expected to win and another which it was expected to put up a decent fight, has raised existential questions for the Bharatiya Janata Party. While a lot of commentators, particularly those who have wished BJP an ignominious death ever since its inception, have been stressing the need for the party to de-Hinduise itself, more notably, this tune has been adopted by a few of those who were supposed to be close to the BJP in the past.
While the glee of quite a large section of the intelligentsia is understandable, what even the BJP’s well wishers are missing is that BJP had not won the election even in 1999, when the NDA had won a comfortable majority and Vajpayee had ruled the country for the next five years.
The first part of the sentence may sound incongruent with the second part but when the results are analyzed in detail, with the benefit of copious amount of hindsight, it becomes aptly clear that the BJP had indeed not won the elections that year too.
Let us look at a few of the ostensible reasons as to why the Congress has returned to power with a much larger number of seats in Elections 2009.
• Voters were fed up with the games of Congress’s allies and wanted to award a smooth term to the former
• Manmohan was seen as a decent and honest man and BJP’s personal attacks on him turned people off
• People approved of Congress’s handling of the aftermath of Mumbai attacks
• People were angry with the opposition and the allies for their stonewalling of the nuclear deal
These are only a few of the many reasons attributed to the Congress victory. However, if these reasons are indeed correct, howsoever in part, they only serve to highlight the fact of the BJP’s decline right from 1999.
BJP’s story, beginning with the elections of 1989, is of constant growth, both in terms of vote share and number of seats. So, from 7.8% of vote share and 2 seats in 1984, it grew to 11.36% of vote share and 85 seats in 1989, 20.11% vote share and 120 seats in 1991, 20.21% vote share and 161 seats in 1996 and 25.59% vote share and 182 seats in 1998.
Post this growth phase, BJP garnered a vote share of 23.75% and 182 seats in 1999, 22.16% and 138 seats in 2004 and 18.8% vote share and 116 seats in 2009.
What is clear from these raw statistics is that the BJP upswing was halted in 1999. Some may contend that the lower vote share was on account of BJP’s seat adjustment with allies. But, the BJP had already fought the 1998 elections in alliance with the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, ADMK, PMK & MDMK in Tamil Nadu, Trinamul Congress in West Bengal, TDP (NTR) in Andhra Pradesh, Samata Party in Bihar, Lok Shakti in Karnataka, Akali Dal in Punjab, Haryana Vikas Party in Haryana and Biju Janata Dal in Orissa. Compared to 1998, the only major changes in 1999 were in Andhra Pradesh where the BJP contested far lesser number of seats when it dumped Lakshmi Parvati to ally with Chandrababu Naidu and its alliance with the combined JD (U) and LJP in Bihar. While BJP contested 49 seats lesser in 1999 when compared to 1998, it had, in fact contested 83 seats lesser in 1998, when compared to 1996. Not contesting in seats equaling 1/7th of the parliament strength did not hamper the rise in popular support for the BJP. On the contrary, the vote share registered a rise of 5.38% in 1998 while the aggregate loss in 1999 was to the tune of 1.76%. So certainly, fall in vote share of the BJP in 1999 was not on account of contesting on lesser number of seats alone.
Now, let us get back to the thirteen month reign of the first full fledged BJP Government in the country. It was characterized by ally troubles, shooting prices and the Nuclear explosion. BJP had lost elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and was widely seen as being on its way out of power. In a nutshell, situation somewhat similar to what Congress faced before these elections, i.e., string of defeats in Assembly polls, high inflation, major foreign policy decision and limited ally trouble. In addition, Congress was handicapped by rising terrorism, a decelerating economy and presence of criminal elements in the Government. Of course, as far as the ally trouble is concerned, the Left cannot hold a candle to either Mamata or Jayalalitha, but still, constraints were certainly there.
Vajpayee was widely seen as a decent and honest man, hamstrung by allies. Almost every other day, there was news that the coalition Government is in trouble and some trouble shooter is rushing to placate some ally. Further, Vajpayee was called a liar and a traitor by the Congress during the polls. His Government took a major foreign policy and defense related decision in exploding the nuclear device, a move opposed in the Lok Sabha by our very own current Prime Minister. There was general appreciation for the way the NDA Government handled the aftermath of the sanctions against India. On the positive side, there were no criminals in the Government nor was the Government tainted with any scam.
It is nobody’s case that Manmohan Singh has ever enjoyed anywhere near the recall and adulation enjoyed by Vajpayee in his heydays. There must have been a feeling of revulsion in large sections of the society when he was dubbed a traitor for his role in the Quit India movement and a liar by the Congress. People must have sympathized when his Government was held hostage by one man parties. People must have cringed when the left, centre and sundry cried foul over the nuclear test with their leader in the Rajya Sabha bemoaning that the sanctions would lead nothing to defend.
BJP’s loss by one vote in the trust vote followed by Sonia’s ‘I have 272 and more’ followed by the then President K R Narayanan’s activist interest in getting a Congress Government installed is now a part of the folklore. What changed the game for the BJP was the Kargil incursion which led to an upsurge of patriotic feelings in the country. That the Indian troops managed to recapture most of the occupied peaks from the infiltrators gave many a feeling of victory and this, combined with alliances sewed by the NDA, managed to keep the BJP’s seat numbers static. Even here, the Congress went to the campaign highlighting the failures of the BJP Government in pre-empting that infiltration, something which any responsible Indian needs to do.
Overall, in a situation which was in many ways similar to the Congress’s situation before these elections, the BJP was on a backfoot and lost much of its support base. Not only was its forward march halted, it stated withdrawing from its catchment areas, most notably Uttar Pradesh where it suffered a loss of more than 25 seats. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened had Kargil not happened? Kargil managed to paper over the failures of the BJP Government and bought back some memories of 1998, when people were voting for a change. Even then, the Congress gained around 2.5% in vote share, while suffering significant losses in terms of seats.
Conventional wisdom and history states that power begets power and political parties use their stint in power to expand their spheres of influence and enter into areas where they were hitherto unknown. Contrary to this, the BJP ceded ground everywhere. Except for Karnataka, there is no region of the country where the BJP has been able to expand or consolidate its presence in the last ten years.
BJP and its supporters would only befool themselves if they try to analyze their causes of defeat only through the prisms of 2004 and 2009. They must pause to ask as to what went wrong in 1999? What happened that the party of hope and change was no longer a preferred alternative for a people longing for something different? What made the party lose its momentum so soon? What made it stop its entry into newer areas and withdraw from its new conquests? Unless the BJP finds answers to these questions, there would be little hope for the party to regain its following among Indians.
My take:
Results of 2004 and 2009 are only a continuation of the BJP’s decline. Except for the nuclear blasts, which were in line with the BJP’s persona, BJP did nothing in those years which would have portrayed it as a party with a difference. People don’t opt for clones over originals, particularly when the original itself is not something great by itself.
While the glee of quite a large section of the intelligentsia is understandable, what even the BJP’s well wishers are missing is that BJP had not won the election even in 1999, when the NDA had won a comfortable majority and Vajpayee had ruled the country for the next five years.
The first part of the sentence may sound incongruent with the second part but when the results are analyzed in detail, with the benefit of copious amount of hindsight, it becomes aptly clear that the BJP had indeed not won the elections that year too.
Let us look at a few of the ostensible reasons as to why the Congress has returned to power with a much larger number of seats in Elections 2009.
• Voters were fed up with the games of Congress’s allies and wanted to award a smooth term to the former
• Manmohan was seen as a decent and honest man and BJP’s personal attacks on him turned people off
• People approved of Congress’s handling of the aftermath of Mumbai attacks
• People were angry with the opposition and the allies for their stonewalling of the nuclear deal
These are only a few of the many reasons attributed to the Congress victory. However, if these reasons are indeed correct, howsoever in part, they only serve to highlight the fact of the BJP’s decline right from 1999.
BJP’s story, beginning with the elections of 1989, is of constant growth, both in terms of vote share and number of seats. So, from 7.8% of vote share and 2 seats in 1984, it grew to 11.36% of vote share and 85 seats in 1989, 20.11% vote share and 120 seats in 1991, 20.21% vote share and 161 seats in 1996 and 25.59% vote share and 182 seats in 1998.
Post this growth phase, BJP garnered a vote share of 23.75% and 182 seats in 1999, 22.16% and 138 seats in 2004 and 18.8% vote share and 116 seats in 2009.
What is clear from these raw statistics is that the BJP upswing was halted in 1999. Some may contend that the lower vote share was on account of BJP’s seat adjustment with allies. But, the BJP had already fought the 1998 elections in alliance with the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, ADMK, PMK & MDMK in Tamil Nadu, Trinamul Congress in West Bengal, TDP (NTR) in Andhra Pradesh, Samata Party in Bihar, Lok Shakti in Karnataka, Akali Dal in Punjab, Haryana Vikas Party in Haryana and Biju Janata Dal in Orissa. Compared to 1998, the only major changes in 1999 were in Andhra Pradesh where the BJP contested far lesser number of seats when it dumped Lakshmi Parvati to ally with Chandrababu Naidu and its alliance with the combined JD (U) and LJP in Bihar. While BJP contested 49 seats lesser in 1999 when compared to 1998, it had, in fact contested 83 seats lesser in 1998, when compared to 1996. Not contesting in seats equaling 1/7th of the parliament strength did not hamper the rise in popular support for the BJP. On the contrary, the vote share registered a rise of 5.38% in 1998 while the aggregate loss in 1999 was to the tune of 1.76%. So certainly, fall in vote share of the BJP in 1999 was not on account of contesting on lesser number of seats alone.
Now, let us get back to the thirteen month reign of the first full fledged BJP Government in the country. It was characterized by ally troubles, shooting prices and the Nuclear explosion. BJP had lost elections in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and was widely seen as being on its way out of power. In a nutshell, situation somewhat similar to what Congress faced before these elections, i.e., string of defeats in Assembly polls, high inflation, major foreign policy decision and limited ally trouble. In addition, Congress was handicapped by rising terrorism, a decelerating economy and presence of criminal elements in the Government. Of course, as far as the ally trouble is concerned, the Left cannot hold a candle to either Mamata or Jayalalitha, but still, constraints were certainly there.
Vajpayee was widely seen as a decent and honest man, hamstrung by allies. Almost every other day, there was news that the coalition Government is in trouble and some trouble shooter is rushing to placate some ally. Further, Vajpayee was called a liar and a traitor by the Congress during the polls. His Government took a major foreign policy and defense related decision in exploding the nuclear device, a move opposed in the Lok Sabha by our very own current Prime Minister. There was general appreciation for the way the NDA Government handled the aftermath of the sanctions against India. On the positive side, there were no criminals in the Government nor was the Government tainted with any scam.
It is nobody’s case that Manmohan Singh has ever enjoyed anywhere near the recall and adulation enjoyed by Vajpayee in his heydays. There must have been a feeling of revulsion in large sections of the society when he was dubbed a traitor for his role in the Quit India movement and a liar by the Congress. People must have sympathized when his Government was held hostage by one man parties. People must have cringed when the left, centre and sundry cried foul over the nuclear test with their leader in the Rajya Sabha bemoaning that the sanctions would lead nothing to defend.
BJP’s loss by one vote in the trust vote followed by Sonia’s ‘I have 272 and more’ followed by the then President K R Narayanan’s activist interest in getting a Congress Government installed is now a part of the folklore. What changed the game for the BJP was the Kargil incursion which led to an upsurge of patriotic feelings in the country. That the Indian troops managed to recapture most of the occupied peaks from the infiltrators gave many a feeling of victory and this, combined with alliances sewed by the NDA, managed to keep the BJP’s seat numbers static. Even here, the Congress went to the campaign highlighting the failures of the BJP Government in pre-empting that infiltration, something which any responsible Indian needs to do.
Overall, in a situation which was in many ways similar to the Congress’s situation before these elections, the BJP was on a backfoot and lost much of its support base. Not only was its forward march halted, it stated withdrawing from its catchment areas, most notably Uttar Pradesh where it suffered a loss of more than 25 seats. It is anybody’s guess as to what would have happened had Kargil not happened? Kargil managed to paper over the failures of the BJP Government and bought back some memories of 1998, when people were voting for a change. Even then, the Congress gained around 2.5% in vote share, while suffering significant losses in terms of seats.
Conventional wisdom and history states that power begets power and political parties use their stint in power to expand their spheres of influence and enter into areas where they were hitherto unknown. Contrary to this, the BJP ceded ground everywhere. Except for Karnataka, there is no region of the country where the BJP has been able to expand or consolidate its presence in the last ten years.
BJP and its supporters would only befool themselves if they try to analyze their causes of defeat only through the prisms of 2004 and 2009. They must pause to ask as to what went wrong in 1999? What happened that the party of hope and change was no longer a preferred alternative for a people longing for something different? What made the party lose its momentum so soon? What made it stop its entry into newer areas and withdraw from its new conquests? Unless the BJP finds answers to these questions, there would be little hope for the party to regain its following among Indians.
My take:
Results of 2004 and 2009 are only a continuation of the BJP’s decline. Except for the nuclear blasts, which were in line with the BJP’s persona, BJP did nothing in those years which would have portrayed it as a party with a difference. People don’t opt for clones over originals, particularly when the original itself is not something great by itself.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Myth that is Vajpayee
Ever since LK Advani’s ‘burning desire’ to be the Prime Minister of the Country has become the butt of snide comments from all and sundry, the perennial comparison between Advani & Vajpayee has gained even more currency. Analysts and critics barely stop for a breath when talking of Vajpayee’s inclusive, cohesive qualities which helped him run the NDA coalition for 6 years and disparagingly contrast with Advani’s limited appeal on account of his divisive qualities. While the following write up will take a cursory glance at Advani’s alliance building capabilities, it will certainly try to separate reality from myths of what Vajpayee is
Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been a great orator and a leading light of Jana Sangh, a man declared as a future Prime Minister of India by that epitome of secularism, Jawaharlal Nehru. While Vajpayee graced the position of the leader of Jan Sangh in Lok Sabha after Lok Sabha, a study of his speeches over the years indicate that his supposed discomfort with the Jan Sangh brand of politics did not become pronounced till his stint as the External Affairs minister in the Morarji Desai Government. Post the fall of Janata Governments and the Janata Patry rout in the 1980 elections, it was primarily under Vajpayees’s influence that rather than resurrecting the Jana Sangh, the BJP was born with a convenient Bharatiya adopted from the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, prefixed to the defeated Janata Party. What is more noteworthy that the new political entity did not speak the Jana Sangh/RSS language. Rather, it spoke of something like Gandhian socialism, perhaps a noble concept but more hazy and nebulous than the concept of integral humanism of Deendayal Upadhyaya propagated by Jana Sangh for all these years. What made Vajpayee change? The lure of loaves of office combined with the realization that the Jana Sangh, as it functioned could never become the ruling party of the country? Or the fact that the fall of Government was blamed on dual membership issue where the socialists could not digest sharing loaves of office with the communal Sanghis? Had Vajpayee realized that the Jana Sangh cannot become India’s ruling party if it carried on with its ideology?
Since there is little primary research on the reasons as to why Vajpayee chose to change the face of the BJP so we can only conjecture on the real reason behind Vajpayee’s change of tact. What we do know is that the BJP’s experiment with the middle of the road socialism proved disastrous and combined with the sympathy wave generated by Ms Indira Gandhi’s assassination, decimated the BJP, reducing it to two seats in the Indian Parliament. This election is made more famous by the conventional wisdom that even RSS workers campaigned for the Congress (I). With that election, Vajpayee receded in the background and it was not until 1995, when LK Advani, at the peak of his charisma, proclaimed Vajpayee as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate that Vajpayee came to forefront of the general public imagination again.
Vajpayee went on to lead the first BJP Government in India, infamously demitting office after 13 days, failing to win the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha.
The rest is more or less known to everyone. NDA was formed post 1998 elections; BJP formally jettisoned the Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code and Sec 370 abrogation and won even more allies in the 1999 elections. Of course, all the new allies were credited to Vajpayee’s appeal and many like Mamata Banerjee used to say that they support Vajpayee and not the BJP.
Add BJP’s propaganda machinery blaring ‘Ab Ki Bari, Atal Bihari’ from every available rooftop, the poet politician’s packaging as a politician acceptable to everyone was made perfect. So, India experienced a non Congress Government completing a five year term in center
So, even if we ignore Vajpayee of the pre Jan Sangh days, we have seen the same liberal Vajpayee in two different avatars. One, when he failed as the leader of the BJP and second, when he became Atal Bihari Nehru, attracting allies like flies.
What changed?
My humble submission is that only the realization that BJP had a strong chance of coming to power changed. BJP was no longer a party which was confined to a few states or opposition benches. After 1996, everyone realized that they had a real chance of winning power and hence the façade of Vajpayee’s acceptability. Allies left the NDA in 2004 elections when Vajpayee was still around. These allies never protested when the then most communal Advani became the Deputy Prime Minister nor did they resign seeking Narendra Modi’s resignation. Further, Vajpayee’s absence did not stop more allies from joining BJP nor did there endorsing Advani’s candidature. Mamata, Naidu, Naveen and Jayalalitha left the NDA out of their own volition, not because they were missing Vajpayee’s avuncular presence.
In a nutshell, Vajpayee was a convenient excuse, a good mask for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less!
Atal Bihari Vajpayee has been a great orator and a leading light of Jana Sangh, a man declared as a future Prime Minister of India by that epitome of secularism, Jawaharlal Nehru. While Vajpayee graced the position of the leader of Jan Sangh in Lok Sabha after Lok Sabha, a study of his speeches over the years indicate that his supposed discomfort with the Jan Sangh brand of politics did not become pronounced till his stint as the External Affairs minister in the Morarji Desai Government. Post the fall of Janata Governments and the Janata Patry rout in the 1980 elections, it was primarily under Vajpayees’s influence that rather than resurrecting the Jana Sangh, the BJP was born with a convenient Bharatiya adopted from the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, prefixed to the defeated Janata Party. What is more noteworthy that the new political entity did not speak the Jana Sangh/RSS language. Rather, it spoke of something like Gandhian socialism, perhaps a noble concept but more hazy and nebulous than the concept of integral humanism of Deendayal Upadhyaya propagated by Jana Sangh for all these years. What made Vajpayee change? The lure of loaves of office combined with the realization that the Jana Sangh, as it functioned could never become the ruling party of the country? Or the fact that the fall of Government was blamed on dual membership issue where the socialists could not digest sharing loaves of office with the communal Sanghis? Had Vajpayee realized that the Jana Sangh cannot become India’s ruling party if it carried on with its ideology?
Since there is little primary research on the reasons as to why Vajpayee chose to change the face of the BJP so we can only conjecture on the real reason behind Vajpayee’s change of tact. What we do know is that the BJP’s experiment with the middle of the road socialism proved disastrous and combined with the sympathy wave generated by Ms Indira Gandhi’s assassination, decimated the BJP, reducing it to two seats in the Indian Parliament. This election is made more famous by the conventional wisdom that even RSS workers campaigned for the Congress (I). With that election, Vajpayee receded in the background and it was not until 1995, when LK Advani, at the peak of his charisma, proclaimed Vajpayee as the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate that Vajpayee came to forefront of the general public imagination again.
Vajpayee went on to lead the first BJP Government in India, infamously demitting office after 13 days, failing to win the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha.
The rest is more or less known to everyone. NDA was formed post 1998 elections; BJP formally jettisoned the Ram Temple, Uniform Civil Code and Sec 370 abrogation and won even more allies in the 1999 elections. Of course, all the new allies were credited to Vajpayee’s appeal and many like Mamata Banerjee used to say that they support Vajpayee and not the BJP.
Add BJP’s propaganda machinery blaring ‘Ab Ki Bari, Atal Bihari’ from every available rooftop, the poet politician’s packaging as a politician acceptable to everyone was made perfect. So, India experienced a non Congress Government completing a five year term in center
So, even if we ignore Vajpayee of the pre Jan Sangh days, we have seen the same liberal Vajpayee in two different avatars. One, when he failed as the leader of the BJP and second, when he became Atal Bihari Nehru, attracting allies like flies.
What changed?
My humble submission is that only the realization that BJP had a strong chance of coming to power changed. BJP was no longer a party which was confined to a few states or opposition benches. After 1996, everyone realized that they had a real chance of winning power and hence the façade of Vajpayee’s acceptability. Allies left the NDA in 2004 elections when Vajpayee was still around. These allies never protested when the then most communal Advani became the Deputy Prime Minister nor did they resign seeking Narendra Modi’s resignation. Further, Vajpayee’s absence did not stop more allies from joining BJP nor did there endorsing Advani’s candidature. Mamata, Naidu, Naveen and Jayalalitha left the NDA out of their own volition, not because they were missing Vajpayee’s avuncular presence.
In a nutshell, Vajpayee was a convenient excuse, a good mask for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
An Analysis of Ramachandra Guha's 'India After Gandhi' - Part III (Conclusion)
Lack of discipline and vacillation forms a self imploding mixture when combined with short term memory. Ramachandra Guha’s book has started receding in the dark alleys of my memory and with each passing day, I am forgetting more on the stuff which bought out his biases very clearly.
Hence, my attempt at further analysis may be much weaker when compared to the previous two posts on the book, on its content part.
The ‘centrist’ Mr Ramachandra Guha echoes his Marxist fellow travelers when writing about the Right, Nehru, India and the communal problem in the country.
In the chapter ‘Riots’, he states that most of the riots were a result of initial petty reasons like playing of music in front of the mosque by a idol immersion procession or slaughter of a cow near a temple. Isn’t is enlightening to know that the act of killing a venerated animal near a place of worship is deemed as mild a provocation as playing of music in front of mosques, that too for a short duration and during processions alone?
In his notings on Mumbai riots, Mr Guha sadly notes that the Muslim massacre meant that around 70% of the people killed in any riots were Muslims while their share of population was only 16-17%. What exactly is Mr Guha trying to say? That the dead in the riot should reflect their respective proportions in the general population? Mr Guha probably ignores the fact that a group 1/6th in population would bear an inverse brunt of riots. In facts, the East Bengal with around 31% of Hindu population at the time of independence never saw any riot after independence. It was only a clean, simple, clinical massacre of the minority group. Getting back to India, shouldn’t Mr Guha’s notings have been the other way round…that the Muslim hooligans, in spite of being 1/6th in population, manage to kill almost double their proportion in any riot?
It is noteworthy that the proportion of Hindu casualties in riots is coming up. In the first few decades post independence, riots used to have around 1/5th Hindu casualties. Now this has gone upto a third. Who to blame? The rising Muslim population, their rising belligerence or these 2 factors combined with the cover provided by the Guhas of the world??
While commenting on the frequency and hot spot of riots, Mr Guha himself notes that cities having a larger proportion of Muslims were more riot prone. Doesn't that itself give away a prime cause of the riot? However, he moves on to completely apportion the blame on Hindu Right wing rather than attempting any analysis behind this data.
Hence, my attempt at further analysis may be much weaker when compared to the previous two posts on the book, on its content part.
The ‘centrist’ Mr Ramachandra Guha echoes his Marxist fellow travelers when writing about the Right, Nehru, India and the communal problem in the country.
In the chapter ‘Riots’, he states that most of the riots were a result of initial petty reasons like playing of music in front of the mosque by a idol immersion procession or slaughter of a cow near a temple. Isn’t is enlightening to know that the act of killing a venerated animal near a place of worship is deemed as mild a provocation as playing of music in front of mosques, that too for a short duration and during processions alone?
In his notings on Mumbai riots, Mr Guha sadly notes that the Muslim massacre meant that around 70% of the people killed in any riots were Muslims while their share of population was only 16-17%. What exactly is Mr Guha trying to say? That the dead in the riot should reflect their respective proportions in the general population? Mr Guha probably ignores the fact that a group 1/6th in population would bear an inverse brunt of riots. In facts, the East Bengal with around 31% of Hindu population at the time of independence never saw any riot after independence. It was only a clean, simple, clinical massacre of the minority group. Getting back to India, shouldn’t Mr Guha’s notings have been the other way round…that the Muslim hooligans, in spite of being 1/6th in population, manage to kill almost double their proportion in any riot?
It is noteworthy that the proportion of Hindu casualties in riots is coming up. In the first few decades post independence, riots used to have around 1/5th Hindu casualties. Now this has gone upto a third. Who to blame? The rising Muslim population, their rising belligerence or these 2 factors combined with the cover provided by the Guhas of the world??
While commenting on the frequency and hot spot of riots, Mr Guha himself notes that cities having a larger proportion of Muslims were more riot prone. Doesn't that itself give away a prime cause of the riot? However, he moves on to completely apportion the blame on Hindu Right wing rather than attempting any analysis behind this data.
In Guha’s world, Muslims come across as lamb like creatures covering forever in fear of beastly wolf like Hindu marauders. Hence, the ghastly 1969 riots at Ahmedabad, which were triggered off with attacks on Rath Yatras and butchering of cows and sadhus gets declared as a riot in which Muslims suffered immensely.
In his writings on Abdullah and Kashmir, Guha is so left of center that he even manages to find fault with the otherwise spotless Nehru. No mention is made of the games the Sheikh played or how he systematically targeted the Hindu population or flirted with Pakistan. Even his book, Aatish E Chinar, which offers panoramic glimpses to the mind of the one time Freedom fighter, is given a miss lest it threw up anything adverse on the persona of the Great Sheikh.
Mr Guha himself mentions as to how a decade after independence, Muslims started attempting to form their own political parties on the count that they were backward, cheated by the Congress and had got nothing out of independence. Guha’s heart then bleeds for Muslims and the conditions they live in and points that it is the insecurity bred by the murderous Hindu Right which makes Muslims huddle up for security with their fundamentalists and hence they remain backward. My, my!!! Never thought that the thief steals because of me…its my fault after all that I possess something which the other also desires. It is not the others’ duty to keep that desire in check but it is my fault to possess something…Same logic, isn’t is Mr Guha. It would probably do good people to read some more and realize that these were precisely the sentiments which Muslim League propagated and the same language is being spouted today. Breast beating and blaming others for ones’ own ill has become the hallmark of at least one community in India.
It is not surprising that Mr Guha’s heart does not beat at the same rate for the Hindu Refugees from Kashmir. No tears are shed for the men and children who were brutally massacred, nor any tear for those hapless women who were gangraped and murdered. And of course, moving away from their land of forefathers was an act facilitated by the wicked Jagmohan. After all, the ‘militant’ Kashmiri were brothers. How could they want their brethren to go away?
The list may go on and on. The issues, analysis and my argument would be the same. Here again, I am not at all trying to convey that Mr Ramachandra Guha does not have a right to his own opinion. He of course does, like I do or anyone else in the civilized world does. However, the issues are 2 fold: Firstly, he wants to be a centrist which he is not. Second, coloured opinion from the intellectual class impacts the way the larger public thinks.
Here is a man who in wake of the recent Mangalore pub attacks was sharing space with Harsha Bhogle on NDTV and agreeing that India has no defined culture or claiming that there is nothing such as Indian Culture as nothing has been written down as to what is Indian Culture? As a beginning, he may please read A L Basham’s ‘A cultural history of India’ to understand something about Indian culture. Anyways, what to say? Before asking such an inane question, he could at least have paused and realized that no country or civilization writes down commandments as to what its culture is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)