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)

Remembering B P Koirala!

Bisweshwor Prasad Koirala, or BPK, was an internationalist and statesman with whom Nepal’s quest for liberal democracy began during the atrocious Rana rule. He was a maverick and never followed any existing half-baked political trend in Nepal. He embraced broader world views and kept striving to make Nepal a liberal democracy.

The monarchy was not a just ruling system for him, he maintained his struggle to replace it with democracy and succeeded to an extent in making a reasonable transition. Though things didn’t take shape ideally, once the Panchayati pattern was abolished. The other old ranks of those earlier democratic movements lost the much required vigour to carry forward desirable democratic pursuits.

BPK grew up in colonised India and shared great concern for its pathetic political status. He was a voracious reader of progressive texts and a writer of high literary sensibility. He had strong leaning towards socialistic ideas during his university days in Banaras Hindu University (BHU). He read Marx/Lenin and had taken up with the fine spirit of communist ideology.

But the personal appeal of Gandhi and the Indian Congress’ people-centric policies during the independence movement drew him closer. BHU was then a major centre of socialists in the Congress. There, he came in close contact with Acharya Narendra Dev, Ram Manohar Lohiya and Jaya Prakash Narayan.

He was sent to Indian jails on many occasions for actively speaking in favour of India’s independence from British rule. He had sensed the vitality of circumstance that could make the Ranas weaker. For this, he fought against the British. His approach broadly favoured the betterment of the entire South Asian region.

Later, as a young law practitioner, he worked for labourers in north Bihar and again spent time in jail. In those days, Indian jails were filled with high moralists. So, he was on good terms with the leading figures of Indian politics—Nehru and Rajendra Prasad, among them.

Back home during the last years of Ranas rule, he succeeded in establishing a very weak democratic system, which was working as the monarchy’s puppet. His first ministerial stint as Home Minister brought him embarrassment from various quarters, following the shooting of a few protestors by security officers in Kathmandu.

The struggle became more difficult once king Mahendra succeeded the throne in 1955. Mahendra was firm in his resolve to destroy democratic changes but BPK was not easily defeatable. By 1959, the king was forced to call a general election—this was unprecedented. The Nepali Congress won the election and BPK became Prime Minister.

But the king was wary of BP’s growing popularity at home and abroad. By the end of 1960, a coup took place (planned by the king) and BPK was sent to jail under the pressure of landed aristocrats. He was destined to struggle, but surprisingly, his brother Matrika Prasad Koirala sided with the monarchy and served as ambassador to the US. During that testing time, BPK’s personal fate was at stake but he was well connected in India and in other parts of the world.

King Mahendra knew the limit of his acts but the hardship stayed as the ‘rule of game’ against BPK and other dissenting figures. In his latter days in exile and spearheading the flame of real democracy in Nepal, BPK appeared as independent as he was always, irrespective of all pressure.

He was a tough administrator, an able diplomat and a leader who could handle adversity with courage and clear conviction. His unflinching determination for democracy did not waver with his ailing health, and hostility from king Mahendra.

Despite that, he maintained his persona and the decency of the democratic movement. His diplomatic instinct was unquestionable. He proved on many occasions that a stable leadership can rescue a nation from internal loopholes at crucial international junctures.

His refusal to VK Menon’s non-courteous demand to receive Nehru in the US, which would’ve implied that Nepal was India’s client state, could be counted as one of those astute moments. It was also not without some sound reason that he termed Nehru’s interference in Nepal’s internal affairs (beyond a point), besides the monarchy and the country’s landed aristocracy, as major hindrances for the upliftment of the country.

BPK was a respected name in India at that time, and is, even today. It was a major misfortune for Nepal that BPK couldn’t cope with his failing health and died prematurely in 1982, eight years before the country attained the remarkable landmark of a constitutional monarchy.

His younger brother, Girija Prasad Koirala, who emerged as a strong centrist and served the country many times, lacked BPK’s integrity altogether. During his time, the hope for real democracy was strengthened, albeit it proved short-lived in the course of time.

Now, with the Maoists working like monarchs, trying with all possible efforts to disfigure Nepal’s conventional outlook, it’s high time the country followed the broad path of BPK instead of getting terrorised by the current stock of dubious radicals.
-Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Kathmandu Post,on March31,2013)

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)