The Election that Changed India

Book Review: Non-fiction/2014:The Election that Changed India by Rajdeep Sardesai, Penguin/Viking, 372pp; Rs599 (Hardback)

Seasoned journalist Rajdeep Sardesai’s 2014:The Election that Changed India is compiled to give the perspective and remedial thoughts, how elections in India are now much more complex than the conventional tussle of ballets. However, it would be a hurried effort in reckoning that all the changes happened only through 2014 elections – earlier too, we saw how ‘born-to-preach’ troops of advertisers mislead the actual issues and slogans, especially since 2004 parliamentary elections.

Advertising is an old phenomenon in Indian politics, however the matter couldn’t be put on rest without admitting the increased effects lined up through real-time sell of ideas or dreams. This book’s heart of matter is placed to capture the unprecedented shift in poll campaign strategy and the devious role played by the Media& PR Network.

Indeed this time, the Congress Party lost the election before it entered the electoral fray and the Modi as ‘factor’ emerged there to establish a new identity, with an unimagined might in terms of numbers in Lok Sabha. Rest, all is history.

Sardesai’s book unleashes his personal experiences vis-à-vis the political developments in the country of over two decades. While doing this, he maintains the depth of political storyteller as well as of an election historian. Remarkably, the historians in India have given writing on elections amiss – somehow, the hacks roving inside the country have contradicted that trend on occasions.

In recent years, those lots of journalists have been strengthened with advent of electronic media. Nevertheless, a full-fledged book on the election and with the depth this book has, is quite rare to see in other works surfaced. Through the richness of anecdotes and balanced interpretation of truths, Sardesai’s maiden voyage of book-writing charts a territory so far not covered in his columns. This, as the narrative is candid, firm and timely.

The most interesting parts of the book recount the blunders done by the UPA regimes and how the desperations of people converged with their aspirations. Amidst those unrelenting movements, the Congress chosen to do what it was doing for a decade – no action or relaying less-pragmatic voices.

As other parties except the BJP was on the same page, the outcome of the elections was almost decided before the polls. However, the common masses of this nation did not know the extent of victory would be such miraculous. The book covers in details of ‘why& how’!

Sardesai’s early encounter with young Modi (then, Narendra Bhai for the journalists) in 1990’s and their first show on Tv after the 9/11 incident (Modi came as replacement from his party) – show how restless the later was to grow full-circle. Besides introspecting the hard realities of Gujarat Roits and how Modi cornered the existing state leadership right after taking charge as chief minister of Gujarat – the author has also not forgotten to count the sensibilities of the protagonist.

Even-though not consistently in sync with stating ‘beyond the obvious’ – Sardesai’s book never falls short on giving the readers, both information and insight about the resurgent India that has been a victim of lackluster governance and not so responsive polity.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in INCLUSION)

Making 'Un-Planning' Commission - Is it a Viable Proposition?

Bibek Debroy’s piece in The Economic Times, mentioned an unheard term - ‘un-planning' - while contesting the relevance of planning in India. This ‘un-planning’ commission, according to him, would be the replacement of the existing Planning Commission with a different nomenclature – However, he supplied no further details, about how this new institution would function.

Thus one could reckon that he too lacks information - if not the understanding - about the new think tank, in which he will probably have some major say. Debroy has been assessing governments since their early days – from UPA -I at the centre, JD (U) in Bihar, TMC in West Bengal and now to the new BJP government at the Centre. Nothing is really unusual about it.

But Indian polity is evidently in the midst of a tectonic shift, where the government is planning policy bereft of the fixed intellectual convictions of a select few, and the scheduled, fleeting cheers by related stakeholders. So, this process of ‘disillusionment’ is likely to stick amongst policy experts, who consistently spend their time and energy in channelising the interface between politics and economics – and that too in hope reciprocation from the power the seats of power.

In his piece, Debroy has articulated that the Planning Commission lost its shine soon after the 2nd Plan – even someone who is not a blind believer in the free-market - will not hold exception to this. Indeed it is true, Planning Commission turned sharply pro-Congress after the 2nd Plan and even more so in 1970’s. The aggressive control the it inadvertently had over the government and its functioning severely attacked its autonomy.

Hence, not only did the irrational annual plan discussions and the misuse of entitlements by the established cohort of cliques survive, they thrived. Moreover, what made matters worse for the Planning Commission were the falling standards of research inputs, relying too much on studies from questionable sources and being unable to competitively come to terms with the realities faced by the implementing ministries.

Somewhere along this process, the federal spirit suffered the most, and any exercise aimed at introspection disappeared from the central government. Although, now when the Planning Commission is supposed to be replaced with a new institution, which is predicted to possess a higher propensity to support the economic reforms – it would be worthwhile would be for the new government at the Centre to remember that 'planning', per se, cannot ever be irrelevant for any set of systems.

Hence, scrapping the institution merely for the sake of scrapping it hardly makes any sense. What would be the best policy correction, however, is to restructure it in tandem with the requirements of the present and the future, and to ensure that the overhaul retrieves the transparency and the efficiency losses. The UPA-I&II miserably failed in even acknowledging the ills of the Planning Commission, let alone making any effort in improving its working.

That being said, the new government has a fair opportunity to make the improve the Planning Commission by introducing some much needed changes related to the states, funds allocations, and its internal working mechanism. But instead imbibing those changes, which would have made it accountable to the ‘federal spirit’ – the decision of simply removing it does not bode well beyond enthusing momentous cheers for ‘name change’ and letting the opportunity of a ‘spirit change’ pass.

It is intriguing that so far the new institution, as it stands proposed, is not supported by any important details within the public domain (although the speculative news stories of the leading dailies are making rounds and being proved wrong simultaneously). The Planning Commission was moulded to define our economic goals in post-independence India. Except in odd patches, all it did was try and align the political goals with the social and economic aspirations of a new India.

The intent behind making Planning Commission prominent was not mala fide and with an alarming increase in income disparities, which continues to grow – it would be of grave concern if an institution such as itself ceases to exist altogether.

Through all one may gather about the new institution through public sources – this one will differ in functioning with the existing secondary and tertiary national planning processes which were aimed at handling the plan process and funding between the finance ministry and various other ministries, and between the centre and the states.

Most likely, the new body will have no overseeing authority to evaluate the quality of programme implementation and hold consultations with the government to ideate on the same. So, contrary to generic criticism, the fact is that the Planning Commission, while having the right to mediate between the centre and the state, is notionally not against the federal structure of the country.

Wherever it faltered, the blame was erroneously attributed to its structure and it would have been much better if the practices under the aegis of the central government and other stakeholders had been brought under due scrutiny.

The level of performance varies and is influenced by many factors and if the new institution in the offing can set things right, there is no reason why the Planning Commission cannot be rebuilt. Simply pronouncing capital punishment for a few wrongs should not be confused with the idea of justice.

If the central government is really serious about strengthening the federal structure and empowering states – then it should first make space for wider consultations on crucial issues like this. Simply relying on new media and discussing a policy issue as serious as this in open forum could be seen as anything, but a practical step.

The concept of maximum governance is praiseworthy but only if it also optimizes the government, as the government has to continue playing its essential role.

In the past, we have seen the names of our metropolitan cities change in the pursuit of tempering significant historical realities and respecting legacies. By scrapping the Planning Commission in one go, it seems one more such mistake is going to be committed in India's policy spectrum.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in INCLUSION)

The break Nitish Kumar will rue

As long as the Janata Dal (United) remained aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party, Lalu Prasad and Ram Vilas Paswan could be kept at arm’s length. By snapping ties with the BJP, the JD(U) will feel the heat

Bihar is passing through an unprecedented transition. This time it is imposed by the political compulsions rather by malfunctioning of the state machinery, which hitherto plagued the State on many occasions. The JD(U) and the BJP had changed the political discourse at the height of the RJD’s misrule together.

The end of the JD(U)-BJP coalition in Bihar has returned the subversive rhetoric to the forefront, which makes the present political scene in the State look like what it was in the 1990s. Back then, the Left and the Congress were in bonhomie with the RJD to fight the imagined threat to communal harmony. Although toothless, they will now do something similar in the Lok Sabha election to escape slipping through the cracks of untravelled political routes.

The Lok Janshakti Party’s Ram Vilas Paswan is too consistent in his own way. He has been a face of central politics, and his coalition choice will be decided according to which major alliance will have a better shot at Delhi’s throne.
Lalu Prasad’s son is another politician who was born into this role out of miserable cricket career and his father’s lack of trust in the senior leaders of his motley camp.

So, Mr Tejashwi Yadav is a poster boy and together with RJD’s old horse, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, they are struggling hard to make their presence felt on the rough political turf of Patna.

This is the state of affairs inside the opposition parties in Bihar. Their claim of giving the State a better governance model than the present regime is based on flawed raw material and reckless manoeuvrings. However, the three-dimensional polarisation in the State will give leeway to a certain extent to these parties. But assuming that edge too significant would be an over-estimation.

It is axiomatic that in isolation, both the JD(U) and the BJP will see the upcoming election unprecedentedly tough.
The division of votes and the lack of a natural ally for any potential coalition will haunt both the camps equally. Danger is looming large for another round of devastating political plays by the desperate RJD and the LJP. They will not prefer missing any chance to get back the State.

Development as a political agenda was not commonplace in Bihar before the NDA rose to command in Bihar in 2005. The feudal construct in the State significantly diminished in subsequent years. Besides, social and political changes fast-paced and Bihar performed remarkably well in economic sphere too. But in the changed circumstances now, it is uncertain that the erstwhile component of the NDA will be able to reap any benefits out of that success.

Another crucial factor is the rising expectation of the masses from the Government. This is a positive phenomenon and even if the State Government is being criticised for not curing all ills of public services, it should be seen differently. Recently, Bihar has overcome its chronic power crisis too, next in line with other visible developments.

But the improved infrastructure is not happening in crucial areas like education and industry, and on this count the people are genuinely angry with the incumbent Government. A lacklustre attitude towards industry is another sightable drawback that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s Government has been afflicted with.

A casual attitude in the recruitment of teachers, doctors and other professionals is another disastrous move of the regime. When such moves were resisted, they were met with an arrogant response from the Chief Minister. Despite having a stable fiscal position, it is bizarre that Mr Nitish Kumar has no interest in avoiding such treatment to the educated unemployed.

The state of higher education is no less pathetic. Most students are still compelled to migrate for university education. The only improvement is the secured finances to many sick universities. It is not that moves were not made to improve the situation. But, wrongly envisioned, they met with failure. Surrounded with the wrong set of advisers, Mr Nitish Kumar seems to forget the pain of his people
Notably, these advisers come from different orbits and they hardly know the State outside of Patna. Those living in the State are acknowledging the welcome changes of recent years, albeit shunning the insensitive stand of the Government on key issues. As they vote during the election, their anger could impact adversely on the immediate prospects of the JD(U).

It’s time Mr Kumar looks beyond his statistical progression with developmental plans. He must recognise the excluded areas where his Government has failed to go far. Officialdom has its limits and Mr Kumar must not forget that. In the next few weeks, the scenario of alliances would become clear. Bihar will usher into a difficult phase. This time, it would be losing its ‘reformed politics’.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, on January7,2014)

The Boisterous UP Election Scene

Had Uttar Pradesh been a country, it would have been more populous than as many as 170 countries and if by choice it was a democracy, it would have been the fourth largest democratic nation. However, it’s equally true that with its horrific fundamental indices, this imaginative nation would have been the most terrible democracy of the world against all the whims and fancies of political analysts. The past two decades of downgraded politics have turned India’s most crucial State into a mere statistical jargon and the centre-piece of all kinds of political experiments by exploiting the sensitive and extreme social and religious ideas. In the wake of the post-Mandal Commission politics, UP was the first State to be devoid of any development plank by putting aside its mandated unbiased conventional task in governance.

At this juncture, it seems clear that the BSP is going to suffer due to the high anti-incumbency sentiments that have piled up over the years of misrule and high-level corruption. The scale of the BSP’s loss would depend on the transfer of its traditional support base of SCs and upper castes to the Congress. Unfortunately, this would be a completely reactive change, not the type of proactive power shift that happened in Bihar a few years back and brought about a turnaround in this once sinking State through remarkable reliance on governance and progressive policies. In the very beginning, development as the catalyst of the electoral agenda was toned down by all the parties, surprisingly except the BJP. The Congress has a single aim in this present UP Assembly election: to secure the number two position and share power with the SP and RLD. So, it has chosen to pursue the most visible over-secular agenda under the aegis of Digvijay Singh, who is not an angel himself by any yardstick of credibility and knows the concept of secularism only through the dangerous mode of senseless sermons or extended “reservation”!

On the other side, both the SP and BSP have nothing much to offer except announcing the ridiculously moulded promises, best suited to maintain the TRPs of obsessed TV channels rather than controlling the damage done by them in the past. By keeping itself aloof from any potential coalition with the BSP, the BJP stands low in the electoral arena but chances are strong for its good performance in eastern and central UP. However, the present political scene projects multiple polarisations where it will be impossible for any single party to secure a comfortable majority. So, both the BSP and BJP will be the victims of their own failure to be in coalition of any kind. In the near future, that may be a setback for these two political parties for not maintaining closer ties (even if nothing is impossible after the election). However, in the long run, the throne of Lucknow would be equally tough for any political party wedded to parochialism.

•

THIS time, its early apprehension made the SP relatively less affiliated with criminal politicians. Akhilesh Yadav, the man now in command, has displayed his shrewd attitude against the induction of criminals into the party, and this in the present political setting deserves some accolade. The BSP also has not given tickets to more than a hundred of its serving MLAs and maintained more balanced considerations in the social and religious realms in fielding candidates. Unlike these two, the Congress had opened its door for all including for those tainted politicians who were boycotted in the wake of grave charges by the two less civil parties. The self-proclaimed representative of farmers from the hinterland of western UP, the RLD, has simply maintained its opportunist stand by joining the UPA Government at the Centre for a ministerial berth, which shows the futility of its existence at large!

The BJP’s sole misadventure with tainted Baburam Kushwaha deftly tied its hand at the decisive hour to look here or there for immediate leadership management. Another big casuality was not to continue its NDA tie-up with the JD (U), which is now fighting in most of the seats that would marginally hamper the chances of the BJP in every constituency. Seeing the parliamentary election of 2014, it’s certainly neither good for the BJP nor for the JD (U) to keep such a distance from each other for no substantive reason.

Rahul Gandhi’s own political future has a close relationship with this election. After failing miserably in Bihar; this is testing time for his leadership in the field and the party as well. He is well aware of the fact that his supreme position in the Congress would be unimpaired regardless of the electoral performance on account of the longstanding culture of sycophancy for his family in the party but it will be hard to lead a government in 2014 without making significant advances in the UP election. The noise this time is very loud in the UP election. Alas, it’s not for a healthy change of power but simply for a change without having any plans for the future. The emergence of a few more petty political parties is adding to the overall confusion. In the future too, it will be hardly surprising if the State’s revenue continues to be misused for building thousands of huge elephant statues or bringing sandals in empty jet for a Dalit icon with Mayawati asserting herself as the sole champion of depressed voices. Once the leading development journalist, P. Sainath, had said that the emergence of Mayawati in UP was the triumph of Indian democracy. He was right in a way but can this be true if democracy is meant to be channelised through a single arbitrary voice? The election results of UP will help us to understand how we see our democracy, secularism, idea of social justice and, most importantly, citizenship through the eyes of politicians who only know the art of playing politics, nothing more, nothing less!
Atul Kumar Thakur
New Delhi, February14, 2012, Sunday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in Mainstream, VOL L, No 8, February 11, 2012)