15763270 tehelka on india elections

8/7/2019 15763270 TEHELKA on India Elections

1/33

The Hour Of The Untamed CosmopolitanBred on radical diversity and an epic culture, the voter makes a reckoning of Narendra Modi, PrakashKarat, Mayawati and the politics of excessASHIS NANDY, Social ScientistAFTER ALMOST two decades, in many ways, the election of 2009 was a normal election. No overridingconsideration drove the voting across the country. Diverse configurations in diverse places determinedthe fate of different candidates and parties. Different regions had different logic even within a given state.Still, underlying the diversity there were some common themes.First, I think people were looking for ways to lower the temperature ofpolitics. High-pitched politics has reigned in our polity for nearly 15years now. My suspicion is people were a bit tired of this. Forexample, the past two elections showed that in Uttar Pradesh, onlyone percent of the electorate was interested in Ram Janmabhoomi.The BJP probably played down the issue this year because their

internal assessment showed the same thing. Except in West Bengal,nowhere did the election involve an emotional arousal of the kind wehave come to routinely expect.There are reasons for this. In our society, we live with radicaldiversities diversity that is not based on tamed forms of difference.The US is a perfect example of tamed diversity. You get every kind offood and dress and cultural activity in America. You think you arevery cosmopolitan if you can distinguish Huaiyang food fromSchezwan food, or South Korean ballet from Beijing opera, or Mingdynasty china from Han dynasty china in a museum. This is diversitythat is permissible, legitimate, tamed.Radical diversity is when you tolerate and live with people who challenge some of the very basic axiomsof your political life. Like most of South Asia, Indians have an old capacity to live with such diversity. Apowerful example is Sajjad Lone contesting the election this year. Nobody objected that a secessionistwants to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Everyone spoke of it glowingly. I consider that atolerance for radical diversity. In such a society, all excesses are ultimately checkmated.In India, we live in a country where the gods are imperfect and the demons are never fully demonic. I callthis an epic culture because an epic is not complete without either the gods or the demons. They makethe story together. This is a part of our consciousness, and ultimately, I think it influences our public life.People go up to a point with their grievance, then get tired of it. They realise that to go further is adangerous thing because it destroys the basic algorithm of your life. They say, enough is enough, let usgo back to a normal life. This election represents something of that consciousness. We probably needthis kind of interregnum in politics. They have a soothing effect on our public life. This is what most

Indians feel.The second underlying theme is that people were searching for a sort of minimum decency. Negativecampaigns, excessively personal attacks, hostile slogans all of this seemed to upset the voter. Whenthe BJP and the Left targeted Manmohan Singh, making him the butt of jokes and accusations, Singhbecame a hero for the very qualities people joked about. His weakness, his absence of a political base,his susceptibility to pressures of the Congress high command instead of looking like liabilities, thesethings suddenly began to look like a marker of a genteel type of politics. I think that paid dividends.Contrasted with their shrill opponents, Sonia and Rahul Gandhis conduct too paid dividends.


2/33

(I asked a waiter at the India International Centre in Delhi what he felt about the election results. Its beenvery good, he said. Was he a Congress supporter, I asked him. Its not that, sahib, he replied. ThatSardarji is a good man. He is educated, he is not a thief, and he is a newcomer to politics. Still, they gotafter him, calling him weak and scared. Who can enjoy watching that? I am just happy that this electionresult has shown there is a god watching above. I quote the waiter verbatim because I think the idea ofa god above might have been a consideration with many other people as well.)THE THIRD and interlinked theme this election was the voters desire to bring down the arrogant. Theway Mayawati has lost, in what was once thought an inelastic support base, points to something verysignificant. Many people did not like the way she threw her weight around; her ostentation; the dozens ofstatues she is erecting in her likeness, her assumption that even if she did nothing to serve it further,history was waiting for her. Others did not like Narendra Modi. Yet others, Prakash Karat. Arrogance ofstyle. Arrogance of ambition. The arrogance of neglecting the people. All of this was punished by thevoter.Narendra Modi has marginalised all possible opposition within the BJP, and sidelined the RSS, BajrangDal and VHP. They cannot really muddy things for him easily anymore. He is a man looking for powerand he has used and discarded them. He has a solid support base in West Gujarat and among middle-class Gujaratis, so there is no question of him fading away, but this election doubts have been planted

about his capacity to emerge as a pan-Indian leader. He was billed as a star campaigner for the BJP, butthe Indian voter has sent back a strong message scaling himdown.Controversial leaders rarely make it to the top job in India. Modiis determined not to talk of communities, determined not toapologise or even make a gesture towards the Muslimcommunity to atone for the sins of Gujarat 2002. His refrain isthat he is the leader of five-and-a-halfcrore Gujaratis, implying he is also the leader of Muslims. But thiselection should teach him some lessons in humility and modesty. It should give him some access to thelanguage of politics in India. He will learn his lesson. Indian politics has taught humility to lots of peoplefrom Indira Gandhi to Mayawati. It will teach humility to Narendra Modi also.Unfortunately, there is a big similarity between Prakash Karat and Narendra Modi however unpleasantthat thought might be. They are both men who do not understand the wisdom of accommodation andcannot stomach the dilution of ideology.Like Modi and Mayawati, this election has scaled down the arrogance of Prakash Karat, but the debacleof the Left Front points to a deeper malaise.IN BENGAL, the party had been in power too long. In a society like ours, when any political party is on anascendant, all gangs, thugs and extortionists gravitate towards that party. In UP, this mafia element wasfirst attached to the Congress; then it moved to the BJP; then the SP; then the BSP, mirroring their risingpolitical graphs. In Bengal, 32 years into power, all anti-social elements had become entrenched withinthe CPM. The partys coercive might was enormous. In village after village, people from other partieswere prevented from campaigning. That arrogance and control has not loosened very much, but it has

started to crack. In the long run, I think Prakash Karat has done a lot of good to Bengal. These threedecades of continuous rule had rotted the system to the core. If you miss power once in a while however bad the Opposition may be it keeps people and parties on their toes.(For instance, I believe it is good the BJP got a shot at winning power at the Centre one time. Not only didit limber up the Congress, it also allowed the BJP to get a sense that it can come to power if it gets itsformulas right. This is very important to keep the rabid fringe like VHP, Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena incheck. When you have legitimate power, you dont have to use street power. You rein them in becauseits counter-productive and you want respectability.)

That Sardarji is a good man. He iseducated, a newcomer to politics andhe is not a thief, said the waiter


3/33


4/33

communities who are not well represented. Now that the big communities have organised themselvesand reaped the benefits, the smaller ones want a slice of the pie. Just as the Kammas emerged in the1970s and 1980s through NTR, the Kapus have emerged this election through Chiranjeevi. These aremuch smaller communities. Earlier, they would have voted under larger umbrellas. Now they think theycan carve out a smaller, more targeted domain or space in the political arena.Recently, the Gujjars began to lobby violently for Scheduled Tribe status as if a mere Parliamentarydecree can turn a group into a tribe. This sort of misuse, battles for quotas, unreasonable demands foraffirmative action, and other forms of vote bank wheeling-dealing will continue to happen. But in the longrun, all of this will be good for India.As representations in the system give different communities larger space, everybodys stake in thedemocratic system will increase. In the long run, there will be so many crosscutting configurations, theproblem will take care of itself. There is a big difference between caste groups angling for 35 or 40 LokSabha seats like Mulayam or Lalu, and a caste group contesting for eight or ten. Chiranjeevi, for instance,just has four or five seats. The scale is going down because we have already accommodated a lot ofpeople. The next generation will not face this. They will inherit a much more inclusive world.FINALLY, a last word on arrogance. The Left parties may have been defeated this election, but the leftist

impulse is intact in our society. In fact, it is an imperative. It would be a big mistake if the UPA saw thisvictory as a mandate for unbridled liberalisation. Some care for the bottom of the society, some belief thatthe poor should be a priority focus is vital for this society to survive and retain its idea of itself as ahumane society. You cannot pay Rs 12,000 for a meal for two people in a five-star hotel and come outand throw Rs 10 to a boy competing with a dog for the garbage and think you have done your duty.Neither can you wait 200 years for the so-called trickle down effect that never comes.It is no accident that the real factor that won the UPA this election is its NREGA scheme and loan waiverfor farmers. Even if 90 percent of this money is pilfered, it permeates into the countryside. Not all of thecorruption is in Delhi and Bhubaneswar. A lot of the siphoning happens lower down the chain. Even thosewho rob, must spend. This boosts the local economy. This pays electoral dividends. Indias poor alwaysvote. That is Indias best checkmate for arrogance.Mrs Gandhi And Her Extra GodSonia GandhiTARUN J TEJPAL,EditorDEAR MRS SONIA GANDHI, We all know the clich that India moves on faith. We love our gods, and it isat their feet that we place all our successes and failures. It is in this department that those who opposeyou and perhaps even some of those who support you will assert that you have an unfairadvantage. Through marriage and masquerade you have acquired all the gods Indian politicians have,while also possessing one you brought along from your farawayhome all those aeons ago.Since we do not oppose you, we are happy that you have an extragod. As you know, India has so many gods only because it has somany problems. (Yes, there are men on the far left and far right whothink god is the problem, to be banished or to be rescued but letthese men not detain us, since theyve failed to detain the electorate.)So we are glad that you have an extra god. One more is alwayshandy. Our gods are playful, multi-faced, philosophical. Often theirmoralities are slippery to grasp, sheathed as they are in the


5/33

complexities of karma and dharma, moksha and maya. The one you bring along, the extra one, is morecut and dried. Quite clear about right and wrong, good and bad, sin and virtue, charity and compassion.We who do not oppose you welcome that. Amid the material excesses born of our religiousabstractions, a little bit of clarity is not a bad thing.Since we are agreed that you have one god more than the rest of us, it necessarily follows that your

responsibilities must be more. It is an easy catechism: privilege and obligation. Of course it is not easilyfollowed. Our playful gods tend to often muddle it up. But your extra one is quite clear on how this mustrun. In this case, wed be quite grateful if you heed him, not for your own sake, but that of a few hundredmillion others.To begin with, this means that you must banish the thought that your labours are done. Without a doubtyou have been stellar in marshalling an army whose officers did not even know which way the battlebroke, and whose chief skill lay in swiftly putting the knife into each other. For long years you did this inthe face of great personal abuse (inspired perhaps by your extra god). It is not pleasant for a General tobe told she does not know how to hold a gun or speak the language of the troops. But you understood,intuitively, that cheap insults can so easily keep the good and the great from the good and the greattasks. You understood that wars, finally, are won not by the size of bullet and the decibel of bugle but bythe strength of heart. By simply staying the course, over 13 years, you have unexpectedly changed the

battle-lines.So your toil has been worthy. Your ragged army of 1996 is a renewed one in 2009. In the process youhave so cleverly and beautifully played out two key precepts of your extra god. Thou shalt not covet,the last of the ten commandments, so artfully spun as an act of renunciation that it sucked out the windfrom the sails of your opponents. And Mathew 5:5, which is also Manmohan Singh 2004: blessed are themeek for they shall inherit the earth. And both have been cleansing of the public in unanticipated ways.Yet let me assert it without any ambiguity. Manmohan 2009 needs you as much as Manmohan 2004. Hemay be the scythe that clears the weeds, but you are still the arm that wields the scythe. To slice cleanly,the arm and scythe must swing in tandem.Since I am convinced that your work is far from over, and since I am on Mathew, let me remind you of the

exhortation in 10:7. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye havereceived, freely give. As one must always do with divine scripture, I could spell out the contemporaryburden of every phrase. But that would be fatuous. More than those of us who write of these things, youknow best what it is in this calamitous nation to heal the sickand to cast out devils.Even so as humble epistle writers must let me say mypiece. Power brings with it a surrounding mist; great power abillowing fog. You may not be blinded by it since you havealways lived with great power, but all around you, yourpartymen will now be tempted to explode in arrogance. Theymay tend to forget they have merely won a battle. The war, or may I say wars, still rage around us. Thebigots who would divide us are still at the gates, nursing their wounds, renewing their munitions.

They are far from a spent force. They have taken a fourth of our dominions. Be in no doubt that they willstorm the walls again, and again. What will serve your legions well then is not hauteur, but what broughtthem here in the first place humility, and the steel that is born of it. Across the land we cast our voteagainst swagger: let it be known, we will bear our ordained abjections but refuse to be hit by misplacedarrogance.AS I said, the wars are many. Of civilisational ideas, of inhuman deprivations, of lack and want andmisery and dying children. In my city which is also yours, which is the supercilious capital of thislimitless nation at every traffic light, six and seven and eight-year-olds, their skins lacerated, their limbs

An open letter to the unlikely womanwhose tenacity in staying the coursehas changed the contours of Indianpolitics


6/33

twisted, rub our car windows for a throwaway rupee. Shining India, booming India, superpower India these epithets are not just jokes, they are obscenities, when we cannot feed our children, or clothe them,or send them to school. I know you know this: as of now 46 percent of our children below five years ofage suffer from malnutrition, with all the physical, mental and emotional impairment that comes from it. Aman far greater than you, far greater than any we have known, gave us a talisman which you would dowell to thrust down the throat of every person you are now anointing with power. Recall the face of thepoorest and weakest man you have seen, and ask yourself if this step you contemplate is going to be anyuse to him.It is a curiosity of the hour that while the beacon is the future, the guiding light is still firmly the past. Thereis nothing that can better unveil to us the path that we must tread than the humane luminosity of thefounding fathers.In this regard, if I may say so, you are well rid of the vanity and bluster of the Left, but you might do well tohold on to some of their concerns. As you should also of the dalit queen and the Yadav overlords. Theystand at the head of hapless peoples, even if they do nothing to represent them. The causes are great butthe leaders are little. Reject the men; embrace the mission. The task of the reparation of centuries mustproceed apace.Inevitably then, maam, all this brings me to the rich. Money is a good thing. And it is no secret that we alllove the rich yes, all your partymen too. But will you please ensure that they do not make of their love apublic thing. In India, all elected leaders must speak only for the poor. The rich have their money andthe media to talk for them. Those who have the opportunity to create wealth much or more leavethem alone to do so, and place no obstacle in their path. But instruct your worthies to focus on those whohave no hope, and bring unto them a sliver.

I must stop. It is ungracious of me to deign to sermonise. That,too, at a moment of your high triumph. Let me then offer somepraise. No doubt with the help of your extra god, you have donea fine job of bringing up your son. He has humility, decorum,diligence, and he takes the long and inclusive view. We do not

like the idea of dynasty, but we abhor the idea of divisiveness more. In an ideal world we would do away

with everything feudal and undemocratic, but for the moment let us concentrate on getting rid of theengines of hatred.Mercifully, your boy seems more in touch with the soul of India than those who try and barter deities forvotes. A man from your party once told me, disparagingly, Sure, he is wellmeaning. He wants to help oldladies cross the street. Its no good. I wonder what he thinks now. Young men who help old ladies crossthe street can also grow up to steer nations across rocky roads.Can I leave you with one last quote (though its likely you already know it)? A man far greater than you,far greater than any we have known, once said, To be in good moral condition requires at least as muchtraining as to be in good physical condition. This man was called Jawahar, the jewel. His books line yourroom. As freely as ye have received, freely should you give them on to your newly exuberant flock, andthat of your son. The jewels words will make their morality robust. After all, it is still on this mans plinth

that we build our dreams.And yes, as I bid you speed and strength, with the extra god by your side, may I make a final plea. Youhave given us of yourself, and of your son. Now will you kindly also give unto us your luminous daughter.YOURS EXPECTANTLY,TARUN

You are well rid of the vanity of theLeft, but you might do well to hold on tosome of their concerns


7/33

The Vanquished In The Rear-View MirrorFor the BJP to survive as a national party and for it to remain politically relevant, it will need new leadersSWAPAN DASGUPTA,Political CommentatorAMONG THE more fascinating features of an Indianelection is the fact that the writing on the wall isntapparent till after the event. This was as true in 1971 and1984 as it was last week when the electronic votingmachines revealed a clear mandate in favour of theCongress-led UPA. If the BJP didnt expect to be mauledin two successive elections, the Congress neverimagined the electorate would give it a firm thumbs upafter five years of indifferent governance. But while the

winner can afford the luxury of post-facto smugness, theloser suffers grievously from the hangover ofmiscalculated triumphalism.It is natural for the defeated to get into a tizzy over whatwent wrong. It is also customary for the vanquished tofocus less on what the other side did right and more onwhat it did wrong. Wisdom in hindsight, convulsions and recriminations are the inevitable consequence ofpolitical defeat. It happens in all democracies.For the BJP, the defeat in 2009 is qualitatively different from its unexpected failure in 2004. The failure in2004 was a shock but it was perceived by the party as a fluke defeat caused by one wrong campaignslogan and over-confidence. The post-mortem exercise that followed was, consequently, perfunctory and

superficial. There were no real corrective steps because there was no feeling that there was afundamental problem an impression bolstered by the series of victories in state Assembly elections.The party lived in denial, looked for signs of the UPAs premature death and convinced itself theelectorate would rectify its 2004 error at the earliest.The results of Election 2009 have shattered this self-delusion. Unlike 2004, this was a conclusive verdictfor the Congress- led UPA and against both the BJP-led NDA and the Third and Fourth formations. Apartfrom Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Assam and, to a lesser extent, Gujarat, there was anational swing in favour of the UPA. Compared to 2004, the BJP lost ground to the Congress inRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana and Delhi. Itsnational tally was a notch below its 1991 level. The incremental gains the BJP made under Atal BehariVajpayee between 1996 and 1999 were decisively lost.In social terms, the message for the BJP was quite devastating. First, there was definite evidence that theBJPs stranglehold over upper caste Hindus had been significantly eroded by the Congress advance inthe Hindi heartland. The Congress, in fact, appears to be regaining its old social coalition of upper castes,dalits and Muslims.Secondly, the loss of urban seats which the BJP viewed as a function of over-confidence in 2004 waseven more marked in 2009. In 2004, the BJP lost in the metros (except Bengaluru) but held on to thecities elsewhere. This time, not only have the metros (Bengaluru apart) rejected the BJPin Delhi the

Setbacks L.K Advani and senior BJP members at hisresidence after the partys defeat in 2009

Photo: SHAILENDRA PANDEY


8/33

Congress polled over 50 per cent of the votesbut the party lost Jaipur and Bareilly, seats it has wonsince 1989, and Kanpur. It has clung on to Indore and Bhopal with wafer-thin majorities.The middle classes were once the mainstay of the BJP. Indeed, it used to be taunted earlier as a middleclass, urban party. In this election, the BJP has seen its middle class fall steeply a situation itencountered only once before, in 1984.

Finally, the BJP has seen a complete decimation of its standing in the youth. This is not merely onaccount of LK Advanis octogenarian status. For the past 10 years, the BJP has not conducted itself in away that suggests it is accommodating towards the post-market economy generation and responsive toits impulses. On the other hand, despite the nominal presence of the septuagenarian Manmohan Singh atthe helm, the Congress went out of its way to demonstrate its partiality for fresh, young faces. Inhindsight, it would seem that Rahul Gandhis series of meetings in colleges, particularly outside themetros, and the medias fascination with the young inheritors who were elected to the Lok Sabha in 2004paid handsome dividends. Despite being a dynastic outfit, the Congress ended up as more appealing tothe youth. The BJP by contrast seemed completely hidebound and unresponsive.Unfortunately for the party, this impression is likely to be strengthened by the Parliamentary Boarddecision to reanoint Advani as the Leader of Opposition. There may be good reasons why a knee-jerk

response to a defeat had to be avoided. However, to the average Indian, the imperatives of taking aconsidered decision are likely to be misread as unresponsiveness to popular sentiment.If it is to survive as a national party and an alternative to the Congress, the BJP cannot afford to brush theimplications of a second defeat under the carpet. The familiar explanations centred on injudiciouscandidate selection, local antiincumbency and tactical blunders during the campaign are no doubtrelevant but they dont address the basic problem of a larger loss of momentum. The BJP isnt excitingtodays voters in the same way it did in the 1990s.A Pavlovian response to setbacks is to fall back on certitudes. Already there are whispers that the BJPerred in deviating from the path of assertive Hindutva the factor said to be responsible for the mutedinvolvement of the larger Sangh Parivar in the election campaign. The problem with such an approach isthat it only addresses the concerns of the committed, not the average voter. It skirts a larger question: has

modern India tired of identity politics?The answer seems self-evident. Apart from the 2002 GujaratAssembly election which was fought in exceptionalcircumstances, all elections in India have been won or lost onthe strength of normal issues such as development,antiincumbency and even personalities. This includes NarendraModis win in Gujarat 2007, Lalu Yadavs defeat in Bihar and Mayawati spectacular triumph in UttarPradesh. Identity politics may be a factor in patches but it is on the retreat nationally. True, this mayabruptly change following some dramatic occurrence but this seems to be the trend.To a very large extent, the BJP has acknowledged this. Since 1998, it has fought all national elections onconventional political lines, without raising the emotional temperature. Unfortunately, it is burdened by the

countervailing pulls and pressures of a small unreconstructed minority that exaggerates its ownimportance and influence.Orissa is a classic example of how irrational exuberance leads to strategic miscalculations. NaveenPatnaik broke his alliance with the BJP because he was exasperated by the image of incoherence hisadministration was conveying as a result of the inflammatory posturing of a few BJP hotheads. In asense, his problem was not dissimilar to Manmohan Singhs problems with the Left and the SamajwadiParty. By mistaking its own cadres dissatisfaction with Patnaik for the public mood, it tried to box aboveits weight and ended up looking very foolish after the results were out.

Advani was one thing till 1996, anotherin government and a third thing afterthe Jinnah controversy


9/33

DESPITE THE Congress advance, there is vast political space available for those who are inclinedtowards a Right-of-Centre approach grounded in alternative policy formulations. Of course, Hindunationalism cannot be discounted altogether. But the question is the strategic weight given to identity vis--vis governance issues. The BJP has made an encouraging start with a manifesto that promotesderegulation, low taxation and a zero tolerance approach to terrorism. These are planks that take time toregister with the electorate. The party has to persevere. In the past five years, the BJP was disdainful ofparliamentary intervention and casual about projecting alternative policies. Its bizarre emphasis onnationwide agitations that never took off and Mickey Mouse issues have cast it in an ugly light.With the government likely to last a full term, the BJP has time to reflect and take remedial steps. It willneed new faces to promote it. The choice should reflect the future priorities and direction. Advani was onething till 1996, another thing in government and a third thing after the Jinnah controversy. Hisinconsistencies epitomised the waywardness of the BJP. His successors must be consistent.The BJP will always be politically significant; the coming days will determine whether or not it remainsrelevant.The Charioteers Last RideLAL KRISHNA ADVANIHARINDER BAWEJA, Editor, News & InvestigationsTHE SHADOWS are lengthening and as the political sun sets into thedark, foreboding clouds, LK Advani, already 81, must surely berevisiting his 986-page autobiography My Country My Life hereleased only last year. He would certainly be turning the pages of achapter called, Defeat in Polls [2004], Turmoil in Party. The chapteris candid and reveals what defeat did to the grand charioteer ofIndian politics five years ago. He writes: Why did we lose theparliamentary elections in 2004?... that question haunted my

colleagues and me for a long time. The taste of bitter defeat is by nomeans unfamiliar to me. Indeed, for most part of my political life in theearly decades, defeat was the norm and victory an exception. This,coupled with my innate nature of reacting to any situation withrestraint and moderation, had prompted me to develop a ratherphilosophical attitude towards the outcomes of elections neither toget depressed by defeats, nor to let victories breed boastfulness.Nevertheless, the results of the 2004 polls affected me more deeplythan any other setback in the pastThe philosophical attitude helped him journey along for a bit, but what Advani did not know in 2004 wasthat he would once again be affected very deeply. That happened soon enough; the very next yearwhen he visited Pakistan and made a speech praising Mohammad Ali Jinnah at his mausoleum in

Karachi. His book, once again, gives an insight into what the old man of Indian politics must be currentlythinking, now that he has lost the American presidential-style campaign he ran in the hope of making it tothe top job. Back in 2005, his party openly bayed for his blood and he was forced to step down as thePresident of the BJP, a party that he had singularly guided and taken from only two seats in Parliament in1984 to 182 in 1999. Of the Jinnah controversy, he wrote, The turmoil began when I was still onPakistani soil the ensuing developments affected the cohesion within the party in an unprecedentedmanner and confused the minds of mill ions of supporters. They brought me pain, deep and unyielding.This was quite simply the most agonising moment of my political life, more distressing, indeed, than whenI faced corruption charges in the Hawala episode in 1996. At that time, my mind was at peace because


10/33

my party had stood solidly behind me In contrast, in the 2005 controversy over my Pakistan visit,several of my own party colleagues chose not to support meOne day in the middle of 2005, I was told that I should step down from the presidentship of the BJP Allthis was profoundly agonising for me. I was in a dilemma... My predicament often made me wonder if itwasnt time for me to embrace the peace and comfort of a quiet family l ife... My state of mind was not

quite unlike that of the unsure Arjuna on the battlefield. But every time the thought of escapism enteredmy mind, I was reminded of Lord KrishnaVerdict 2009 has left him in a similar predicament. Only, this time, his party colleagues are not insistingthat he stay on as the Leader of the Opposition they have merely agreed to it so the baton can bepassed on without the ugly infighting waiting just below the surface.So, as Advani contemplates his future and draws on a philosophical attitude to analyse why Vote 2009went so unexpectedly wrong for him and the BJP, he may just decide to add a chapter to My Country MyLife. If in 2004, the chapter was titled, Defeat in Polls, Turmoil in Party, this time, it could well be titled,Drubbing in Polls, Bloodbath in Party, and it will read as follows (many in the party would probably likehim to title it Why I Lost):In 2004, no single factor of nationwide relevance accounted for the electoral outcome. Rather, differentfactors influenced the electorate in different states. Thus it was not a national verdict, but an aggregate ofstate verdicts. The phraseology of Feel good factor and India Shining hurt us. This time, the party andthe Sangh Parivar vested faith in me and announced my name as the BJP and NDAs prime ministerialcandidate. I accepted the challenge with humility and, aware of the enormous task at hand, went aboutmy work diligently, addressing meeting after public meeting in the blistering sun.It pains me deeply to see that the BJP is down to 116 seats from 138 in 2004, and I am aware that manyof my senior colleagues are now blaming me for running a presidential-style campaign and for attackingManmohan Singh for being a weak prime minister. The fact of the matter is that for four and a half years,till he put his government on the line over the nuclear deal, Manmohan Singh was a selected PM, a nightwatchman, someone who constantly went to 10 Janpath for guidance. So what was wrong if I called himweak? I am a young 82 and showed the electorate that, unlike Manmohan Singh who underwent a

bypass surgery, I was fit enough to even lift weights.I ran my campaign Obama-style but the basic reason for ourdefeat is the limit of our geographical existence. The BJP hasno hold in the important states of West Bengal, Kerala, TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh, one of the reasons why TDPsChandrababu Naidu pulled out of the NDA.I AM PAINED by the whisper campaign in the party that I am well past the sell-by date and therefore, insome ways, out of tune with the New India. A majority of our cadres and supporters are now sending usemails and letters and there is a sympathy factor that is building around me, but the fact remains that theelectorate was unmistakably in favour of a stable government and they did not want a government whichcould be pulled around by smaller partners. So, on a closer examination, it is evident that if the Congress

went up from 145 to 206, it is because they gained these seats in states like West Bengal and TamilNadu, which have a third front.I have described the turmoil in the party over my Jinnah remark to be the most agonising moment of mypolitical life. My own colleagues didnt stand by me then, but what they failed to understand was that theremark had great political significance for the BJP. I had intended it as a transition point in the life of aparty that was struggling with the loss of success, after the Ram temple campaign of the 1990s had livedout its sell-by date.

If LK Advani had to add a new chapterto his autobiography, how would hedescribe the bloodbath of Vote 2009?


11/33

By then, it was clear to the BJPs top leadership that Vajpayeeji could only be our mentor and guide and itwas important, therefore, for both the party and me, to acquire a new image an image in tune withchanging India. I was trying to make the transition from being the hard, Hindutva face (maybe culturalnationalism is a better phrase), to someone who is seen as being softer, more amiable. Nobody in theparty had any problems with the fact that Vajpayeeji was aloof by temperament or that he wrote poetryand enjoyed quiet evenings with his family. I am in a dilemma over why my colleagues are now sayingthat I have retreated into my family at the cost of the party; that my family and a few of my trusted aides(led by Sudheendra Kulkarni) ran a parallel campaign for me when there was also a campaign committeebeing run by my colleague Arun Jaitley, out of the same precincts 28, Tughlak Crescent. The criticismnow is that I listened more to Kulkarnis team, which comprised of bloggers, techies and softwareprofessionals. There is a contradiction here, for those who are willing to see it I had a high-tech teambut the analysis is that I cost the BJP the youth voters.

The party as a whole should have done a political postmortemafter we lost the assembly elections in Delhi and Rajasthan inDecember 2008. It is a matter of record that til l the Mumbaiattacks on 26/11, we were sure that we were on an upwardtrajectory. The economic meltdown followed soon after that and

though I raised the issue of terrorism, there was a psychological shift towards stability (read: Congress),which none of us were able to spot.Unlike in 2005, when I was in a dilemma and my mind was not quite unlike that of the unsure Arjuna, Iwas quick to take moral responsibil ity this time and offered to resign as soon as the results were out. Butonce again, the party is ridden with infighting. Murli Manohar Joshi lost no time in staking claim as theleader of the opposition and other senior leaders are attacking me for not disowning Varun Gandhi afterhe made his hate speech. Others still are saying that projecting Narendra Modi as primeminister- in-waiting was a costly mistake. It pains me the most to hear that I am the one who is weak. If I agreed withboth Sudhanshu Mittal and Arun Jaitley when they came to me independently, complaining about eachother, it was because I am a consensus man and I did it in the best interest of the party. I wanted to put alid on an unsavoury controversy; cover up the infighting within the BJP, known to be a party with adifference.Should I refuse to be the Opposition leader or bow to the wishes of my colleagues? I am in a dilemma. Ihave never been enamoured by any political post or the power that supposedly comes with it. I will passthe baton soon and continue to be a philosopher and a guideThe Solitary Reaper

NAVEEN PATNAIKROHINI MOHAN,Principal CorrespondentA GROUP of white-clad middle-aged men stand around in theportico of the tellingly named Naveen Niwas in Bhubaneswar,

holding bouquets and sporting grins of varied wattage. ChiefMinister will come at 5 oclock, informs a perspiring PA. On the dot,Naveen Patnaik emerges from a hallway in his trademark whitekurta and pyjama. The man just elected chief minister of Orissa for a

third consecutive term receives the bouquets and shakes extended hands, his faceincongruously emotionless in the surrounding delirium. As he starts to speak, a manstoops to touch the chief ministers feet. Patnaik stops talking mid-sentence. What doyou think youre doing?! Youre an MLA, for Gods sake.

I was making the transition from thehard Hindutva face to someone who isseen as being more amiable


12/33

From the novice he was 12 years ago, Naveen Patnaik is today a politician who can stun a nation. Oriyasbelieve he has triggered the revival of regional politics in the state, that he is a lone man who haschanged the way Orissa is perceived by the rest of the country. Until he was 50, Patnaik had livedabroad, and Orissa was but a vacation destination. It all changed dramatically when his father andveteran leader Biju Patnaik died in 1998. The urbane son renounced his partying days in London, leftbehind his high society friends like Mick Jagger and Robert de Niro, and came back home. He took hisfathers dream forward, forming a new political party, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD).Since he became chief minister in 2000, he has not missed a single day at the assembly and has not leftthe country. He tours the state twice a month, meeting people at their doorstep, checking on localbureaucrats unannounced. Everything he does is a conscious effort to immerse himself in the political life,motivated by the ghosts of his fathers achievements and the crumbling, poverty-ridden state he isresponsible for. Yet, in little things, like his visceral impatience for sycophancy, and his business- likeadvice in English to bemused legislators, Patnaik lets it slip. He is still, and perhaps will always be, anoutsider.It is perhaps because he did not grow up in Orissa, and comes from such a privileged background thathe feels it is incumbent upon him to reach out to people, says Jai Panda, BJD MP and Patnaiks closeaide. Hell never be a typical politician. For 12 years, he has always done counter-intuitive things. And

every time he has gone against conventional wisdom, he has reaped the benefits. The first file Patnaiksigned as chief minister put corrupt mid-day meal contractors behind bars. He then sacked top leaders ofhis fathers government his own party men on charges of graft. Naveen Patnaik became instantlydespised in the BJD. But the clean image stuck, and his public popularity soared. Our country loves toidolise heroes, says Damodar Raut, a senior leader in the BJD. In Naveen babus case, what makeshim a hero is that he is Biju Patnaiks son, and he is an educated, well-to-do man. People know hedoesnt need a single rupee from the state treasury.In his entire political career, the only time Patnaiks image suffered a massive dent was after the anti-Christian riots in Kandhamal. The BJD had been in a ruling alliance with the BJP since 2000. As mobsfrom the BJPs sister organisations the RSS and VHP forced Christians in Kandhamal to convert toHinduism, burnt houses, raped women and killed thousands for 40 long days, Patnaik did not rush toaction. Suddenly, Christians and secular Hindus were not sure their chief minister was perfect. Orissa has

arguably one of the largest population of Hindus in a state, and Kandhamals large number of Christianswas an exception. They constituted less than one percent of the BJDs vote bank. The media that adoredthe English-speaking Patnaik for his lifestyle change grew worried that he wasnt what he seemed. Wasthe stability of his government more important to him than the lives of his people? Did his secular imageactually hide a moral ambivalence about Hindutva?Many months later, in March 2009, Patnaik made a television appearance again, to unexpectedlyannounce that he was severing ties with the BJP. He said the BJP had demanded an unreasonablenumber of seats for the 2009 polls. In a few days, he offered another explanation, Kandhamal was thelast straw. Every bone in my body is secular.HOWEVER, THE real catalyst for the public break-up had come after the Kandhamal riots. In local bodyelections across the state in January, the BJD contested alone, againstthe BJP, and swept the polls.

After that, it was clear we did not need the BJP, admits Pyarimohan Mahapatra, chief strategist andpolitical advisor to Naveen Patnaik. Since we were a new party in 2000, we had entered into a marriageof convenience with the BJP to beat our arch-rivals in the state, the Congress. Mahapatra says hestarted realising that the BJP was a liability. When we arrested VHP members involved in the Kandhamalviolence, BJP MLAs began to publicly protest against our government. Then they asked for more seats inthe 2009 elections despite having no electoral standing. It was time to end the relationship.In the recent polls, the BJD won a whopping 103 assembly seats out of 147, and 14 parliamentary seatsout of 21. A beaming Patnaik came on television news channels again. It is the peoples vote for peaceand harmony, he said, Also, the BJD has won because of our pro-poor measures. Both claims are


13/33

suspect. Kandhamal has voted BJP MLAs to power. Even though one of them, Manoj Pradhan of Udaigiriconstituency, is still in jail for allegedly murdering Christians.Patnaiks main pro-poor measure giving 25 kg of rice everymonth at Rs 2 to families below the poverty line was startedonly in August 2008. If it had been successful, the BJD would

have had the vote of the poorest people. But in the first phaseof polling in western Orissa, which includes the starving regionsof Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput, the BJD won only 32 of 70 assembly seats. In Kalahandi, it was aCongress candidate who won, with an overwhelming vote share. The BJDs sweep came later, in themore prosperous areas of coastal Orissa that polled in the second phase, where it won 71 of 77 assemblyseats.The pro-poor stance is only an image, says Dhirendra Panda, a Bhubaneswarbased activist, WhatNaveen Patnaik is, is pro-corporate. Since he came to power, he has signed MoUs for at least 45 steelindustries to mine in the state. Incidentally, Orissa has the largest number of anti-industry and anti-mining peoples movements in the country. In the 80s, people protested for more compensation, saysenvironmentalist Prafulla Samantra, In the last 20 years, it has changed to full blown protests againstmines. People dont want them because theyve seen that these modernised industries exploit more than

they employ.BJDs Mahapatra vehemently denies that Patnaik is pro-corporate. Naveen has not sought out investors.His clean image attracts investors like Tata Steel, POSCO, Arcelor Mittal, and Vedanta to come on theirown. Its because we have investment in the state that were able to fund programmes for the poor.On January 2, 2006, police firing had killed 12 villagers protesting the Tata Steel plant in Kalinga Nagar.This incident only made peoples movements grow stronger. Of the 45 steel investments, only two havebeen able to start operations. BJD MP Jai Panda says the government has been non-violent andtolerant. Industrialization is slowing down because we care enough to not lynch people, but the patienceis worth it to get people on our side, he says. Panda also points to a valueadd policy of investment, inwhich the government asks investors to not simply extract minerals, but also set up jobcreating industries,schools and training centres right here in Orissa.

Environmentalists and critics believe the BJD is sure tomisconstrue its victory as an endorsement of pro-industrymeasures. They expect the BJD to be more aggressive inindustrialisation, and peoples movements to escalate in theabsence of strong Congress opposition. JB Patnaik, former

chief minister and Congress leader, confesses his party lost because of infighting and dismalorganisation. Today, weve no alternative leadership to Naveen Patnaik. He may be a good person, buthe isnt a great politician. He wins because theres no one to challenge him.So is this a simple case of being at the right place at a politically uncompetitive time? The BJDs secularcredentials rest purely on its leaders secular image.The partys relatively bad performance in the poorest districts disproves that the 2009 verdict is an explicitthumbs-up from the poor. What Patnaik can get credit for is persistently invoking his failsafe persona asthe earnest leader, the good man, the secular liberal, every time his governments popularity wanes. Themedia too love him for this, even if his interviews to the print media are rare. Given that every politician inOrissa seems to think the secret behind the BJDs success is the image of Naveen babu, perhaps thereis advantage in simply being a good man. And knowing it.Tackling The Inconvenient Truth

Orissas chief minister says he issecular, clean, earnest. A crumblingstate is desperate to believe him

Patnaik says his win was a vote forpeace and pro-poor measures. Bothclaims are suspect


14/33

Capitalism and communism arent a solution for sustainable growth. India needs to think beyondyesterdays ideologiesArun Maira, Senior Advisor, BCG IndiaThe romance of democracy is that somehow the result will come out the way you want, but everything

we know about democracy is that the result comes out the way the people want.John MuellerWHEN THE votes were counted on May 16, the Congress party was declared the clear winner. On May18 morning, the Sensex soared by 2110 points, the highest single-day rise in its history. A businessnewspaper described it as a 21-gun salute for Manmohan Singh. It splashed the gushing relief of Indianbusiness leaders that the country would have a stable government with Manmohan Singh at the head.Newspapers also commented on the low voter turnout in South Mumbai, which has the highestconcentration of leaders of investment firms and businesses. Therefore it was not their votes that hadmade the Congress victorious, but the votes it received from the rest of the country. Analysts explain thatthese voters were pleased with Congress concern for the aam aadmi, along with the farmers loanwaiver scheme and the NREGA. Therefore, while captains of business and finance may haveexpectations from the government, the

governments primary concern would be whatits voters want.In West Bengal, after three decades, thelongest ruling elected communist governmentin the world was beaten. BudhadebBhattacharyas communist government hadbeen hailed by industrialists as pro-industry,and they had declared its fierce opponent,Mamata Banerjee, as anti-industry. Thismisrepresents what she was fighting for, andcannot explain why she won. In a televisionanalysis of the West Bengal results, an

anchor kept referring to Mamata Banerjee asantiindustry. A panelist reminded him thatshe had declared that she was not anti-industry but was fighting for fairness in the process of acquiring land. Inclusion in the process of economicgrowth and fairness is what people want. However, Right-leaning economists and journalists will labelanyone who takes up the concerns of aam aadmias a Leftist (a bad word in their language): thusMamata is now characterised as even further left than the Left! When the farmers loan waiver wasannounced, many Right-leaning economists and their business followers declared it a socialist idea thatwould ruin the economy. They cooled off their criticism when loans of bankers on Wall Street began to beexcused to save the US economy.ECONOMICS IS going through an ideological crisis. History shows that neither capitalism norcommunism has found a solution for sustainable, inclusive, and rapid economic growth. Indian thought

leaders must go beyond yesterdays ideologies and examine some underlying concepts that driveeconomic policy. Here are six such concepts:The first is the purpose of government in society. The debate between the Republicans and Democrats inthe US is often couched as a contest between those who want more government and those who wantless. In our country too, those who want more government spending are called socialists and those whowant to reduce it are free marketers. This is a false debate. In the last few weeks, even US Republicanshave been turning to government to stabilise markets. Therefore, the substantial debate must be abouthow citizens expect government to improve society and the economy.

Photos: SHAILENDRA PANDEY


15/33

The second is the idea of free markets. According to the view that was gaining ascendancy around theworld, markets must be free from barriers and regulation. But markets must also be fair. Therefore, thequestion is: how should markets be regulated to ensure fairness? Who makes the rules? Are the needs ofthose not yet in the markets respected or are the rules set bythose who already dominate the markets?The third is the assumption underlying economic theories thathuman beings are purely rational and selfish actors. The truth isthat human beings are emotional and social creatures. They donot live and work for money alone. This is an inconvenient truthfor economists because they cannot quantify such emotions in their mathematical models. They treatsuch conditions and human needs as externalities, and hope that people will pay less attention to themso that their models will work.The fourth is the conflict between efficiency and equity. Michael Spence along with other Nobel Laureateson the Commission on Growth and Development end their thoughtful report on ways to increase GDP ofcountries with a deep concern for increasing inequality. They say it is a problem begging for an urgentsolution. Whereas size and efficiency, which are simpler to quantify, are central to economic models,equity is a fuzzier concept. Therefore, economists need new concepts and tools.

The fifth is the concept that development is an exercise ineconomics to be guided by economists. In this concept,democratic movements for freedom from social discriminationand political oppression are seen as unnecessary interferencesto the orderly progress of the economy. However, nations are

not just economies and their achievements cannot be assessed only by the growth of their GDP. Humandevelopment is a broader exercise of progress towards multiple freedoms, as Amartya Sen says.Freedom from material poverty of course, but also social and political freedoms.The sixth is the concept of fairness. One of the greatest steps in the evolution of humanity is the desire forfairness in the way societies are governed. This idea, along with the evolving idea of inviolable humanrights, has gathered strength in the last century with the spread of democracy, and civil society

movements. But fairness is a contested concept. Is it fair that a child should carry the handicap of thecircumstances in which it is born? On the other hand, arent objective evaluations of capability the fairway to judge merit?India needs a social and political consensus about the philosophy that will take it to its tryst with destiny.Reform policies must follow from this. Healthy democracies require not just elections. They also requireplatforms for dialogues to reconcile differences. The democrats of ancient Greece conducted suchdebates in city plazas. In India, the Emperors Ashoka and Akbar created councils for dialogue betweenpeople with different beliefs. Institutions for public dialogue in the Indian democratic state are notfunctioning at this time. Parliament now meets less and less, and when it does, its proceedingsdegenerate into shouting matches and walk-outs. Discussions in our media are big fights forentertainment to attract advertisers. Political differences are being settled on the streets. The key toIndias progress is platforms for open-ended dialogues that are not stuck in old ideologies and second-

hand ideas. One prays with Rabindranath Tagore that amongst Indias thought leaders, the clear streamof reason will not lose its way in the dreary desert sand of dead habit.The Humble Tread Of HistoryMANMOHAN SINGHHARINDER BAWEJA, Editor, News & Investigations

It was the aam aadmi that voted for the

Congress. Not the leaders ofinvestment firms and businesses

The key to Indias progress is platformsfor open-ended dialogues that are notstuck in old ideologies


16/33

FOR THE five years that he remained Prime Minister, Dr ManmohanSingh was credited with little. The only things that came his way wereinvectives he is weak, he is a selected, not elected PM, he takesdirections from the Madam at 10 Janpath. In short, that he is a merepuppet, a rubber stamp, a man who was selected not because hehad any great vision or political acumen; but because he lacked theone singular thing: Ambition.The dutiful doctor, in fact, made a habit of not displaying any stellartraits. He coursed on, content. Content with not saying or doinganything that the Gandhi dynasty may or may not like; content withbeing the chosen one; never joining the ranks of his own cabinetcolleagues who appeared like power brokers and power hustlers.Hindsight often lends itself to great wisdom and as Verdict 2009 isnow being hailed as a victory of the troika, Sonia and Rahul Gandhistand out as the two leaders who reaped great benefit for theCongress Party. The third (not necessarily in that order) stands tall asthe Governance Man. As senior Congressman Kapil Sibal put it, The Manmohan Singh governments

contribution was huge and so was his persona, his gentlemanliness and statesmanlike demeanour. Incontrast, the Advanis and Karats were seen as political animals and power-hungry opportunists.The invectives again on hindsight seem to have worked. Manmohan has become the only primeminister since 1971 to win a successive victory after serving a five-year term. And suddenly, many in theCongress who have rediscovered the merits of the selected Prime Minister are all praise forachievements they never credited him with till the EVMs threw up the magical numbers.The mother and son Gandhi duo had, however, invested faith in him throughout so much so thatManmohan became the only Congressman to have ever been named as the partys candidate inadvance. On earlier occasions, it was perhaps never necessary, as the Gandhi surname always camewith the prime ministerial tag firmly in place. In an amazing display of faith, just before the big battle,Sonia Gandhi covered her photograph with her hand as she held up the manifesto, and said: he is our

prime ministerial candidate. And so, as contemporary history is now being written, no analysis of theVictory is possible without accolades being sung to the tune of Singh is king.Sonia chose well in 2004 and Manmohan performed well, is the common refrain at 24, Akbar Road, theparty headquarter that has come alive with fresh energy. But there is also an inside story; a lesser knownsecret. For the record, of course, Rahul Gandhi wasted not a second when asked the rather bluntquestion Is Manmohan Singh negotiable? by a select group of 10 journalists, including this reporter,he was interacting with. The answer could have been different. After all, it was an informal session. But, afew hours later came an email in which he chose to put this question on record and the answer read,From my side, I know and I do know my mothers views on this that he is the best prime ministerialcandidate. He is our candidate and we are going to stick by him. Like we did in the nuclear deal. Andnow for the inside story. A very close aide of the Gandhi scion also let it be known that the young pilgrimof progress was working to a longterm agenda and was not thinking of the next five years. That was well-

known. What was not, was that because of this long-term view, defeat would not have come as anirreparable blow. To quote the aide, It will not be a big deal.This little secret is important to make the point that even within the Congress, no one, senior or junior,had scripted a tally of 206 for the grand old party (taunted alternatively as buddiyaCongress and guddiyaCongress by Narendra Modi). To the contrary, some were prepared for defeat and thats why hindsightlends itself to great wisdom, for, the UPA emerged only a whisker away from the 272 figure. But theirnumber shot up to 322 with help from unlikely, unconditional support by UP Chief Minister, Mayawati.


17/33

Till a little before the electoral battle began, Manmohan was notseen, by his own party, as being worthy of driving the Congressad campaign. All posters and campaigns championed the triowith the slogan: aam aadmi ke badhte kadam, har kadam parbharat bulandh. It was in stark contrast to the BJP, whichpositioned its entire campaign around LK Advani and theslogan: mazboot neta, nirnayak sarkar (determined leader, decisive government). The irony isinescapable the weak prime minister is the one who has emerged true to the BJP slogan.KAPIL SIBAL is not wrong when he says that Advani and Modi contributed to Manmohans victory byrunning a negative campaign. Interestingly, BJP insiders agree that Manmohans (self) image of sobrietyand decency went a long way in the UPAs victory. If the loyal urban, middle-class voter deserted the BJPand swung towards Manmohan Singh for his record of governance and the Congress promise of stability,it was due, again, to Advanis negative campaign. The Congress trio shone brighter than Advani, RajnathSingh and Varun Gandhi, who collectively revived toxic memories of Mandal and Mandir-style exclusivist,identity-based politics. Abhishek Singhvi, national spokesperson and Congress strategist, says, Ourtroika is unmatched and caught the BJP unawares. The PM symbolised decency in politics, the Congresspresident symbolised stability and sacrifice. Rahul Gandhi symbolised youth power and the ability toexperiment. Their mutual chemistry and DNA made it an unbeatable combination.The Slumdog Millionairetune yielded dividends. Jai Hofor Bharat, Jai Hofor the poor and Jai Hofor thepeople of India, is how Congress general secretary, Digvijay Singh summed up the Congress victory.Only last year, the mild-mannered Manmohan had surprised his own colleagues by displaying nerves ofsteel when pushing the nuclear deal. He risked the fall of his government, and if the electorate did notpunish the UPA with anti-incumbency, the credit, in large measure, must go Manmohan Singhs way.It would, probably, be accurate to say that the invisible Manmohan turned out to be a factor. After hisbypass surgery, his doctors wouldnt allow him more than a dozen-odd public rallies, but Advani ensuredthat the spotlight stayed firmly on the invisible Manmohan. A senior Congressman says, The primeminister is not a great orator but he didnt need to speak. Advani did all the talking on his behalf. Andbecause the BJP supremo pitched the battle presidential-style, Manmohan stands taller by sheercomparison.Even by his own colleagues, Manmohan was always seen as a half half a man, half a politician, half aleader. Adjectives always preceded any introduction, but post-elections, the technocrat-prime minister,economist-prime minister has metamorphosed into a complete person, a complete politician, a manworthy of occupying the top seat in government.

Sonia Gandhi has demonstrated that she didchoose well. Thechemistry of the troika is evident even now. If Sonia Gandhisdemeanour is any indication, she respects the man andunderstands his importance. The two made their firstappearance together on May 16 after it was clear that the

mandate had gone squarely in their favour and both displayed faith and belief in each other in differentways. She waited by the door of her house till he drove in, and walking upto him, congratulated him:

mubarak ho. The photo-op told a story in itself. It spoke of a partnership the two had cemented. Theelectorate appears to have voted for this partnership. As a BJP leader remarked, Its worked to theiradvantage that while Sonia spent time on the party, Manmohan had a free hand at governance.A neo-confident Manmohan is already visible. Yes, Karunanidhi and Mamata Banerjee could provedifficult allies but there is also the quiet reassurance that they will not come close to playing the rolePrakash Karat and his comrades did. But even while he was managing the knives that came out eachtime he pushed liberalisation, disinvestments or the nuke deal, his government stayed focussed on thecommon India, on the idea of inclusion. This is how Rahul Gandhi articulated the governments and thepartys social agenda in his interaction with the 10 journalists: We have two models before us. One is the

His lack of aggression was ridiculed ina rough-playing polity. But the weakPMs decency took him past thefinishing line

A Congressman says, The PM is not agreat orator but he didnt need tospeak. Advani did it on his behalf


18/33

private sector, India Shining and a focus on issues that dont impact the people. The people of India havealready demonstrated their silent resilience to this. The other model is growth with distribution, jobguarantee, food in schools and RTI. This is inclusion not just of the poor, but also of the middle classes.That is the idea of the aam aadmi.Social inclusion is only one of the many things that has seen Manmohan Singh rise in stature. Verdict

2009 proves that he is not just the Gandhis or the Congress aam aadmi.

The Heir Less ApparentNARENDRA MODIAJIT SAHI, Editor-at-LargeANGRY VOICES inside the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) arebeginning to growl at Narendra Modi inside his home state. TheGujarat chief minister was the BJPs poster boy, the one the partyproudly paraded across India in this years Lok Sabha elections. They

excitedly touted him as a future prime minister, hoping to swing theHindu votes. The poster boy now faces a looming storm. This,despite the fact that he has won 15 of Gujarats 26 Lok Sabha seatsfor his party. And when cracks appear within the Gujarat BJP, theterra firma that Modi has controlled with an iron hand, a control thatsmade him the darling of Hindutva and fueled his fancy for a nationalpolitical role, then its a red light flashing all the way. To know justhow vulnerable Modi is now, one must begin with his home state. Forwhat would Modi be nationally, if only a straw in the winds of Gujarat?Just how could we expect someone who had nothing to do withpolitics or the BJP until a month ago to win on the party ticket? Whywas I dumped? This is the anguished voice of Vallabhbhai Kathiria, a

BJP old-timer from Gujarat, who was a minister in former PrimeMinister Atal Bihari Vajpayees government and has remained a hardcore cadre of the BJPs ideologicalparent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), for decades. Kathiria is livid because this year, Modidenied him a fifth straight shot at the Lok Sabha constituency of Rajkot, even though Kathiria had won itthe last four times. Three of those victories had come even before Modi became the Hindutvaphenomenon in Gujarat following the mass killings of Muslims in 2002. But Modi gave the BJP ticket fromRajkot to businessman Kiran Patel, a cinema house owner who also runs schools. Patel had nevercontested any election until then. And this time, he lost. A stinging loss this has been, because Rajkotwas the jewel in the BJPs Gujarat crown. The party has won the seat all six times since 1989, includingKathirias back-to-back wins.I will certainly speak up whenever the party sits down to analyse the losses, Kathiria told TEHELKA.(Recognise that this outburst is rare in Modis BJP, where his opponents, which have included two former

chief ministers, have been sacked for the barest murmur. Few have anyway dared to defy Modi since hismost vocal critic within the BJP, his former home minister Haren Pandya, was brutally shot dead in 2003.)anguish may or may not happen, because the Gujarat BJP still cowers in fear of Modi. But this time, itwont be easy for Modi to silence Kathiria or other voices that may come up. Rajkot isnt the only seatModi has lost the party in the 2009 Lok Sabha election. In 10 other seats, Modis handpicked nomineesare licking their wounds. At least two others among them were tainted newcomers, who promptly lost theelection. This includes the steady seat of Patan in north Gujarat, where Modi forced out the BJP leaderwho won it four out of the last five times since 1991, including in 2004 when he wrested it back from the


19/33

Congress. Instead, Modi nominated someone who was once a horseback bandit, implicated for murderand drug running, and someone who was, to boot, a Congress leader until he joined the BJP a few daysbefore the election. He, too, lost.So why did Modis hubris backfire in election 2009?Remember that Modi engineered a smashing victory in the 2002 Gujarat assembly elections, riding ondubious popularity gained after his government seemed to back the mass killings of Muslims. But 18months later, he faced a setback, winning only 14 of Gujarats 26 Lok Sabha seats in the 2004 generalelection. Subsequently, however, he swept the assembly election in 2007, reconfirming his stature as theunrivalled BJP leader in Gujarat. Taking advantage of his renewed unassailable status, Modi shockedeveryone this year by unilaterally deciding not to re-nominate 13 of the BJPs 14 outgoing MPs withoutany explanation. (The one spared was his mentor and the BJPs prime ministerial aspirant, LK Advani.)So brazen was Modi that he dropped even a key Advani lieutenant, Harin Pathak. Advani was forced tooverrule Modi at the last minute to include Pathak, who went on to win massively from Ahmedabad East.Another MP, Rajendrasinh Rana, a sworn RSS cadre, had to rush to the RSS Nagpur headquarters topressure Modi to re-nominate him from Bhavnagar, the once princely state that he has represented in theLok Sabha unbroken four times since 1996. He eventually

contested, and won.BUT MODI retired the 11 other MPs and nominated newcandidates. As many as four of these won with margins of lessthan 20,000 votes each on seats that averaged over six lakhvotes. In the Panchamahal seat, which includes the infamousGodhra where the Sabarmati Express was set afire in February2002 triggering the anti-Muslim carnage, the BJP candidate won by a mere 2,000 votes.Modi simply wants his MPs to suck up to him, so he brought in rank outsiders as candidates, saysAhmedabad-based commentator Achyut Yagnik. Adds Ajay Umat, editor of Gujarati daily Divya Bhaskar:This was Modis mistake. Both the partys leaders and workers refused to work for these newcomers.Wait a minute. BJP leaders and workers in Gujarat flout Modis diktat? Apparently, yes. Modi met hiscomeuppance in many constituencies because several of his ministers reportedly worked against hisnominees. Unlike in 2004, when he monitored the daily progress of BJP candidates across Gujarat, thistime, he was forced to rely on his deputies because he had to travel across India. Modi flew anastonishing 300 hours to attend more than 325 rallies of the BJP in support of scores of other candidates.But his fabled charisma utterly failed to turn the vote in most places despite his headline-grabbing high-strung oratory.From Uttar Pradesh to Tamil Nadu, from Maharashtra to Assam, Modi thundered day after day, attackingSonia Gandhis Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) as opportunistic and Prime MinisterManmohan Singh as a weak and ineffectual chief executive. Modis delusions of grandeur have nowmade him the BJPs most shaken man after Advani, whose dream to be the oldest ever person tobecome PM lies shattered.Since the BJPs rout, Modi has cried off his scathing criticism of the UPA, which crushed the BJP-ledNational Democratic Alliance (NDA) to win a historic successive second term at the Centre. Modis onlycomment on the loss came on May 18, after he emerged from two days of hiding in his official residence:The peoples verdict is final in a democracy. We accept it with humility.In state after state, Modis roughedged campaign failed to bring a favourable result other than in theBJPruled Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh. In Rajasthan, the BJP was routed despite hisextensive campaign. The BJP lost heavily in Uttarakhand, where it rules, despite Modis presence. The

The BJPs most infallible icon feels theheat from unexpected electoral lossesin Gujarat. Has the poster boy lost hischarm?


20/33

Congress swept the five Lok Sabha seats there. In Orissa, where the ruling Biju Janata Dal dumped theBJP as its ally on the eve of polling, Modis electrifying speeches could not stop his partys defeat: theBJP lost all seven seats it had won in 2004. In Punjab, the BJP returned only one of the three seats it hadwon in 2004.

Modis ignominy in Maharashtra and Goa is worse, because he

was given charge of the BJP in these two states, being the onlyone of the BJPs six chief ministers asked to handle more thanhis state. In Maharashtra, Modi held rallies in 20 of the states42 constituencies, even speaking a smattering of Marathi. But

the BJP got only one of these 20 seats. Its partner Shiv Sena won two.Modi failed to harness the anti-incumbency against Maharashtras Congress- NCP ruling alliance. TheBJP won only nine seats in the state, four lower than in 2004. Worse, the Congress won four extra from2004 to go up to 17. Perhaps Maharashtras BJP leader Gopinath Munde accurately assessed Modi asjust hot air. Munde did not allow the Gujarat chief minister to campaign in his constituency, Beed. Mundewon it by more than 1.4 lakh votes.Indeed, many in the party and its allies did not see Modi as a wonder boy. Madhya Pradesh Chief

Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan kept his distance from Modi. Nitish Kumars Janata Dal-United sweptBihar in alliance with the BJP without Modi setting foot in that state. In fact, the BJP more than doubled itsseats in Bihar, from five to 12, without any help from Modi.So what has Modi to do now? Surprisingly, the answer is: back to his much-touted governance. There ismuch unrest across Gujarat water shortage, joblessness among diamond workers, and so on, sayscommentator Achyut Yagnik. The people are beginning to get disenchanted.Lost In TransitionMAYAWATISHOMA CHAUDHURY,Executive EditorMAYAWATI BELIEVED she was set to storm the walls of history. She should have: the walls of historyneed breaching. But churlishness and hubris are poor ammunition for those who would change the shapeof the world.Since her landslide victory in the assembly polls of 2007, Mayawatihad begun to think of UP as her captive nursery. The playfield thatwould subordinate itself to her ambition and launch her as the firstdalit ki beti prime minister of India. A few days before verdict 2009, aclose aide told a Lucknow journalist that Behenjifelt she was going towin 45 to 50 seats in the state. She just got 20.Between this expectation and reality between the 50 and the 20 lie difficult Mayawati traits. For the first 24 hours after the results, shelocked herself away and refused to come out. A retreat into creativeintrospection? Not quite. On the second day, she summoned a pressconference and announced her debacle had been engineered by acompletely improbable secret understanding between the Congress,SP and BJP, all determined to trip the dalit ki beti. When waitingjournalists tried to question her, she cut the conference mid-way and

In many Gujarat constituencies, several

of Modis thwarted ministers workedagainst his nominees


21/33

flounced off in a huff. (She has subsequently sent a letter to her conspirators, pledging unconditionalsupport to their government.)History is not made by those who do not have a correct measure of themselves and the world. Paranoia,self-absorption: this can never be promising stuff. In the days since her press conference, Mayawati hasdemanded the mass resignations of over 150 party and government officials ministers, bureaucrats,

chairmen, vicechairmen and directors of scores of government bodies. (While the media has reported thispurge widely, no one has commented on the essential impropriety. These officials were governmentemployees, not BSP minions. They had been given red-beacon cars and other facilities enjoyed byministers and were paid Rs 25,000 each out of the state exchequer. They were meant to conduct thebusiness of the state, not the business of the BSP. But Mayawati does not seem to understand thedistinction between the state and herself. She had tasked them to ensure her victory. This sacking wasthe price of their failure.)There are other measures Mayawati has taken though, in the last few days, that bode better for her. Shehas gone back to basics. She has instructed district magistrates and police officers to submit monthlyreports. Announced surprise personal visits to check on government schemes. Asked party functionariesto visit a dalit locality at least once a month. (Unfortunately, this new zeal for governance appears entirelypartisan. Nettled that brahmins, Muslims and OBCs have not voted for her, Mayawati has dissolved all

her famed bhaicharacommittees set up to build bridges between dalits, OBCs and upper castes. For themoment, the idea of a sarvajan samaj a society for all headed by her seems shelved, though it isthe absence of governance that has derailed her social engineering, not the engineering itself.)Still, these measures bode well for Mayawati because the truth about the gap between 50 and 20 is that,driven by premature ambition, Mayawati had forgotten what Mayawati stands for. She is an electric figureprecisely because she represents the collective distillate of a thousand years of oppression. That is thesource of her power; that is what she draws her frisson from. If she is to breach the walls of history, shehas to fulfill the potency she has been invested with. She cannot dissolve her symbolic self into a story ofindividual greed. She has to pull her entire community out of the bowels.It is true that to begin with, dalits seemed to revel in Mayawatis personal exaggerations. The morediamonds she wore, the more helicopters she bought, the more black cats that surrounded her, the more

wealth she amassed, dalits felt vindicated. Mayawati was the Shah Rukh Khan of dalit politics; they livedout their fantasy through her. They did not want her to be like them: damaged, barefooted, destitute,neglected. But vicarious identification can only go so far. Like a Hindi film, fantasy lasts only three hours.There is always the reality to return to.A week before election results were announced, TEHELKAvisited UP for a cover story. The signs of Mayawatis impendingcrisis were everywhere. Two years into a majority government,she had done nothing for the state. People across the spectrumwere angry and sullen. Behenjiis too busy erecting statues inmemory of herself, said a driver, while we have nothing toeat. (62 percent of UPs entire housing budget has been spent on four square kilometers of Lucknow.)An angry domestic help in a squalid dalit shanty said, Behenji lives in a palace, but can you smell the

stink in the drain outside my hut? Another sweeper said, My son goes to the Nagar Nigam for a job, theywant a bribe of one lakh. How can you say this is a government meant for dalits?MAYAWATI HAS not lost her dalit vote yet, but these results show the first danger signs of impatience.The BSP has 20 Lok Sabha seats, one up from 2004, and has come second in 48 other seats. But it haslost some key strongholds: Unnao and Barabanki to the Congress, Mohanlalganj to the SP. It also lostBadohi, a reserved constituency, in a recent by-election. But Mayawati could not divine these signsbecause like some imperial monarch of a past era, this daughter of the downtrodden has cut herself offcompletely from the society she has emerged from.

Mayawati believed she could lead thecountry. There are urgent reasons whyshe slipped in her own state. Is shewilling to read the signs?


22/33

After her watershed victory in the assembly elections, she did not tarry to nurture or consolidate her state.Handing over the reins to a small coterie of predominantly brahmin advisers, she began to launch hergreater campaign on the ramparts of Delhi, buying and selling candidates across the country. Less selfishwell-wishers would have told her this was an act of impossible hubris, a gross tactical mistake, but whocan get Behenjis ear? She is inaccessible to her own party members and ministers and is completelyinsulated from the media. In fact, there is little she can glean from the media. After a leading English dailysacked the editor of its Lucknow edition at her behest and other publications faced a sudden squeeze onadvertisements, the local media has collapsed into fearful self-censorship. Within her own party, not oneminister dares to speak to the media without her authorisation. (At a recent election rally, she tutored herunlettered audience to distrust the media. The media will tell you I am spending too much money onbuilding parks and statues, do not believe them, she intoned in the peculiar monotone that has come tobe her signature. The media will tell you I am favouring brahmins over dalits, do not believe them. Theywill tell you my government is doing nothing for your welfare, do not believe them)

Self-deception cannot be sound political strategy. If Mayawatiwas listening, people would have told her it was suicidal to givetickets to criminals when she had been voted into power by anelectorate frustrated by the Samajwadi Partys jungle raj. (Everysingle mafia candidate she put up has been defeated this

election.) They would have told her it is short-sighted not to have a manifesto; short-sighted not to seekout policy experts; short-sighted not to have a vision on how to fix Uttar Pradesh. Short-sighted not tohave robust development plans that would improve the material life of her compatriots.It is politically incorrect to criticize Mayawati in the elite intellectual circles of Delhi. But this faux chivalry isitself an elite construct. It smacks of the delight Delhis elite had in Lalu Prasad Yadavs buffoonery; itsuggests people can expect no better from the lower castes. But Bihar felt differently. Psychological well-being that important ingredient of identity politics can be a tenuous thing. Bihars backward castesrode the Laloo story for 15 years, but when they saw that he had entirely subordinated his symbolic self toindividual greed, they spat him out. UP might do it sooner to Mayawati unless she reconfigures her story.Verdict 2009 has had only one real theme: the end of arrogance. Wisdom and vision are not thepreserves of the elite; they are wrought out of the hard lessons of life. The Bundelkhand farmer wants to

know why he does not have drinking water in searing 45 degree heat. The Poorvanchal farmer wants toknow why each year his land is flooded and his children die of kalazaar. The old of Azamgarh want toknow why all of their young are in jail. And the young? The young want to know why they are being leftout of the march of history.Mayawati is one of the most remarkable stories to emerge from contemporary India. Her journey frombeing a government clerks daughter to becoming the leader of potentially one of the most formidableelectoral forces in the country has been a rugged, crafty and courageous one. But clearly, the first act isover. 2009 is the intermission. Now, she needs to move from fantasy to content. If she does that, shemight yet storm the walls of history. As the Congress knows, UP should come first. Delhi always follows.How The Sickle Slashed The LeftThe CPI(M)s thirst for industrialisation has alienated rural Bengal and Muslims, leaving cracks in theregimes wall of fearADITYA NIGAM, Academic

Mayawatis first act is over. 2009 is theintermission. Now, she needs to movefrom fantasy to content


23/33

THE PERFORMANCE of the Left in therecent elections has taken most outside WestBengal by surprise. The equally badperformance of the CPI(M) and the LeftDemocratic Front (LDF) in Kerala is not thatsurprising as the state has often seen the Leftgo out of power. In West Bengal, however,the Left was an invincible fortress that wasbuilt upon a virtually unshakeable base of thestates rural poor whose lot had beenfundamentally transformed under the rule ofthe Left Front (LF). That is why, for 32 yearsthe LF-CPI(M) government has managed toweather all the political storms that blew overnational and international skies. The socialistworld disappeared from the worlds map,Congress dominance at the Centre became athing of the past, governments came and went with BJP and Hindutva playing a key role in New Delhi, butthe power in Kolkata remained unshaken.No wonder its defeat in that state has shaken everybody from the Lefts supporters to its newfoundadmirers who had begun to believe that the CPI(M) under Buddhadeb Bhattacharya was really on theway to kick-start the second Bengal Renaissance, putting it on the high road to hypermodernity.Remember the Nano and the great promise it held for the future of West Bengal? And the new chemicalhub that was to be built in Medinipur in an obscure place called Nandigram?Precisely because the LFs position was so unassailable, the explanation being trotted out by the WestBengal leadership seems so vacuous: the argument that they lost because the central leadershipwithdrew support from the UPA government and chased the chimera of the Third Front. This farceenacted under the leadership of Prakash Karat, the General Secretary of the party, is important tounderstand the delusional world that this central leadership inhabits. But it certainly does not explain theperformance of the LF and CPI(M) in the state. The fact is that state leadership has been desperatelytrying to evade its own responsibility towards issues of governance by putting all the blame on the centralleadership.THE ISSUES that lie at the heart of the current anger against the LF, and the CPI(M) in particular, are oftwo kinds. The first concerns the question of land acquisition for Buddhadeb Bhattacharyasindustrialisation programme. The question here at least as far as the elections are concerned is notreally whether there should be industrialisation in the state. The question very simply is whose land is itand what will they get in return? The incredulous party leadership, in the face of stiff peasant resistance,kept repeating that they will get jobs, apart from some paltry onetime compensation. Pose the question toall the property owners, party leaders and their middles class supporters: would they be happy to tradetheir property for a farcical compensation and a job from which they can be kicked out whenever theemployer wishes to get rid of them? If not, why should the peasant agree? Because industrialisation ishistorical progress, we are told. The peasants did not buy that line of argument and came out in openrevolt. But, can we really think of the peasant as somebody who can become an industrialist, or be given

a permanent stake in the industry that comes up on his land? A regular share in its profits, for instance?Or, is that against the laws of historical progress?Such a proposal was made by some economists andintellectuals who tried to find a via media. At some point, inrelation to Singur, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya did announce thathe was contemplating such a plan. But by then it was too late.By the time the Singur land was fenced off under police

Judgement day A tense mood in Nandigram the day before the

Left lost in the 2008 panchayat electionsPhoto: SHAILENDRA PANDEY

Can we really consider the peasant asa profit-sharing industrialist? Or is thatagainst historical progress?


24/33

violence, the bonds of trust between the rural peasants and the leaders in Kolkata had broken down.Never again would they trust the word of the babusin Alimuddin Street.I remember being asked early this year by a television journalist whether the fact that Tata had to wind upand go would not go against the Trinamool Congress and the Opposition. Wouldnt they be heldresponsible for stalling the states development? He really believed, in accordance with what the

Germans call the zeitgeist the spirit of the times that development is what the people really need. Iwas at pains to explain that, in fact, this would add to the oppositions strength and what we are seeing inthe media being represented as the voice of the people of West Bengal is but the desire of a small,globally integrated middle class. Development and industrialisation have become the buzzwords of theCPI(M)s discourse in the state and have earned it a new social base among these sections. But theyhave alienated it from its traditional base.This is only a part of the story. What Singur and Nandigram did was not simply to raise the question ofland. They broke a whole network of daily, unspoken fear that stalked rural West Bengal. The Left fortressof West Bengal was also built upon a formidable electoral machinery that went down to the deepestrecesses of rural society. Over the years, this electoral machine became one of the worlds mostinnovative surveillance apparatuses. No other party anywhere in the country can claim what the CPI(M) inWest Bengal can: detailed information down to practically each household in the village, of the political

inclinations of their members, their voting behaviour and so on. This information fed into the newmachinery of total control that came into being when the panchayats were reactivated in the early to mid-1980s. The conjunction of the party-electoral machinery and the network of panchayats manned by theparty cadre produced a new apparatus where everybody would keep an eye on everybody else. Nothingcould happen without the partys knowledge or permission. The party even took on the role of informaladjudicator in disputes among villagers. A new kind of power was born. This was what Singur andNandigram ruptured. The wall of fear came crumbling down. Protests escalated from ration shops to th

15763270 tehelka on india elections

Documents