Governance in India: Different strokes

An old woman is looking for something under the street light. A good Samaritan (you had stories with them some time ago) passes by an noticing the old woman 's plight starts generally looking around. "What are you looking for grandma? And where did it fall?", he inquired. "A coin fell down son, it fell in my house. But it was too dark there, so I am looking here".

Somewhat similar seems to our response to lack of political willpower on issues such as terrorism, infrastructure etc. Quite frankly, the politician does not give a damn about what your issues are simply because you are not the voting public (Its not an attack on politicians, they know who their audience is).

In India no. of candidates of a state is determined first by demographics rather than its contributions to the country. So you have a situations in which states that contribute very little to the progress of the country vote in politicians who are driven by their own divisive agenda s (caste, land et all) . A politician from the state of Jharkhand, will at the minimum want to make enough money to win the next election, ensure that the rank and file of his support makes enough money for him to get through the next phase or at best work towards the development of his constituency. To expect him to do more than that in just a matter of 5 years is probably stretching it too far. Our systems seem to be geared for advanced economies. If most of the population is the same of level of development you could afford to fight battles on ideology else it becomes a battle of survival and attrition.

Now get such a bunch of diverse politicians from across the country belonging to different parties, the equations change completely. First you need to get in a stable coalition, then there are hierarchies of issues that need to be tackled. Now should national security or some local level caste issue be given more importance? That purely depends on how far ahead on the development curve you are.

Politics cannot easily tide over disruptive tendencies simply because their survival depends on it. How are we to tackle this problem? Maybe something similar to the IAS cadre, no regional party can have a national minister. That way you have regional parties too, but essentially you are forcing a two party system. Or maybe have constituencies declared as belonging to one party or another (is that how US works?) so that there is no change in the developmental work that goes on, essentially changing the way how we elect our representatives .

Too simplistic or too impractical ? Maybe. But then I don't really see any drastic changes in our policy because lets face it, the voters face different reality than the one s we face. We will soon be driven by a largely urban population, maybe then the issues will become similar across the whole of society rather than being confined to any particular region.

Asking for too much? A sensible BJP??

Gujarat, MP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan.... What's common to these states? All of them are suled by the BJP. With tdp likely to see some gains along with other old allies such as amma, bjp has an excellent chance of wresting power from the upa.

But being the leaderless boat bereft of ideology all the hindu nationalist party can do is riot over a piece of land in god forsaken kashmir. Understandably there is the issue of the amarnath shrine involved- but not right now, not right now. The country is anyway reeling under mind numbingly stupid policy decisions to support mindless violence. The argument against the likes of Mufti Saeed and Omar Abdullah is firm, they are just supporting violence in order to protect their vote base, to stoke a feeling of religious fanaticism (why harmony would be there in the first place is a good question, in life dont really say two guys are equal do you? A is greater than B, A is better, A's religion is better, A is a superior human being. The trick is to achieve as much harmony to keep a larger peace) that will serve their purpose in the long run. But, BJP is precisely doing the same thing by supporting the violence by its own violence. But the BJP cant really take the stand of banning religion from public life can they? They can probably try it, nowhere does Hinduism need to be a public religion.

What the party has missed out on is catching a sympathy wave by supporting the congress on the nuclear deal. Advani would have gone on in the pages of history as a strategist. The party is going to have a no bigger advantage, it might even turn out to be better actually if there are poor monsoons, now or a year from now.

The bjp had its moment in the sun, as with indian politics it has got a shot at fame once again, will the party realize this and take the opportunity or just wallow in its pettiness? Time will tell.

Attacting party workers, Desi Style!!

Any particular choices? Man would the population be impressed or what?

What can Bill do for Hillary?

Will Bill be an influence on Hillary? What will be his role? What can he do? A lot:
1) Teach Hillary to keep her mouth shut, until forced to do otherwise. Hillary should have known better than to support the war in Iraq. A nation can be at war, but the rulers have to know that the decision is purely strategic.
2) Encourage her to add some 'spice' up: Too much of this motherhood syndrome, Mother America thing taken a bit too far (not as far as French Royal tho'). If she is seen as having some fun, maybe more people will turn out to vote. White America not withstanding, what % of other communities vote?
3) Get the right people in: Rumsfeld is a PR disaster. Way larger than life. You cannot have too many such names. Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld-disaster surely. Who do I remember from the Clinton era- Madeline Albright, foreign office and the eco guys who created the surplus.
4) Make Hillary understand that America will always be a Nation to be looked up to, to be feared and emulated. Money, free society (not maybe), democracy and pure military might. You dont have to play bully to be acknowledged leader.
But reality remains clear, a Democrat president wont be too different from our man Bush. Yes, even on climate change.

India Politics: The UP Conundrum

Uttar Pradesh is still the largest state in India and what happens there in the assembly elections has repurcussions over the politics of the nation as a whole. Maybe not, purely in terms of numbers yes, but national trends? Definitely not. Why? simply because UP has become an extraordinary melting pot of short term political machinations which rarely go beyond forming a government. Whats up this time? Have not spent too much time on this, just a macro view. Have to travel in UP sometime.

1) BJP: I like the bbc usage of the 'hindu' nationalist party. It s not so much hindu as hindu far right. Thats what the VHP, RSS and the Bajrang Dal would want. A BJP that goes no holds barred on a Hindutva movement. Again not quite, over the last general election and few assembly elections in the states the BJP and its ideological partners have realized that elections are won mostly on local issues combined with the nationwide problems of 'inflation' and 'employment'. The problem BJP faces is that there is not genuine face of the party. Atalji is gone, Advani always looks like a pirate and Rajnath is desperate. (Last heard his son is coming in to fight in the assembly...ya the electiosn in interior heartlands are supposed to be a literal fight). They cannot use Modi, even the development face of his because he is too sensitive and also he is larger than the party. There have been comments that the party organization is in doldrums at the local level in UP. But, still it is UP, the land of 'Caste' and BJP always has a chance.

2) The Congress (I): The congress g rather, their best bet is to field Priyanka as the beti of the nation. Oh c'mon, this is a sure long term bet. She does not look stupid, can speak Hindi and the mother fearing AP-Tam-Hindi belt would vote in droves for her if packaged properly. Soniaji would be worried (and she would be giving our man Manmohan sleepless nights with all those inflationary 'love' letters), she knows it is very unlikely that the congress woudl get a majority of its own. They have no organization, no strategy and no ideology. They will tag along whoever gives them the largest bite. Unless of course, a god level spin doctor comes along. The congress destroyed UP, from the minority baiting Indira-Rajiv brigade to the alliance mongering congress of the 90's-00's. Salvation? unlikely.

3) S.P: The true survivors. They are perennially the pack of wolves that is being hunted down and they will do anything to survive. They would easily get the biggest share of the minority vote, if there is enough to woo the OBC's, despite the SC verdict and all our man Mulayam will once again be having the last laugh. Amitabh for president. Expect strong show.

4) B.S.P: "Hum jo bhi karenge, Bahujan samaj ke hith mein karenge", haanji--thats why we gave 35% of seats to the upper casts this time. Mayawati knows that its unlikely the OBC's will go away from her, so she is doing all she can to get a few bonus upper caste seats. Will it work? Only if she also manages to wrest a few minorities from our man Mulayam. If mulayam can overlook criminals so can she. Mayawatiji Manuvadi tatwo ke khilaph ladti rahengi. Success likely.

I expect a hung assembly as usual.

African American President?

Barack Obama, the young democrat upstart has announced his intentions to look at running for presidency in 2008. He says he shall take the final decision on Feb 10 after extensive analysis and consultation. Known for his anti-war stance, he is a 2nd year senator and the youngest of all the candidates. He is close to Hillary Clinton and could go face to face with her if he were to announce his candidature. He has been calling for a new kind of politics and a fresh look at issues w.r.t America's global position.

What is interesting is the American acceptance of Obama as President. The conservative white voter would be strongly against him, but if he is elected it could represent a marked shift of image of America. An African-American at the helm now is probably what is the best thing for them. He will be seen as some who can inspire the black population and would probably be trusted more by leaders around the world. Though the other African American Condi Rice has had a notoriously hawkish stance on issues, the leader of a nation is some thing different. He could end up trying that bit too hard tho'.

Martin Luther might still smile in his grave. If not in 2008 hopefully in the coming decade.

French Connection:Royal-Sarkozy

The candidates for the French Presidency are out. On first impressions you have the charmy Ms Segoline Royal, the charmer, a mother of four and willing to listen to all parties concerned. On the other hand you have Mr Nikolas Sarkozy, the right wing, anti immigration anti this anti that. These are tumultous times for France, the country is questioning its role in the post-imperilast globalized world. They need their sphere of influence, which is achieved through continuous back-channel diplomacy. In fact if any conflict-country wants to talk, France would be the best bet to start off among all the Western nations. Be it through the support of former French colonies, understanding of Russia and China or even consideration of the Iran issue. France is sometimes as being perceived as being away from 'Isreal' centre. Their need for influence in EU and world makes the country an important piece in the world sphere.

The country itself might be going to the dogs, rationalization of govt held companies, social security, racial tensions (they have large immigrant populations) primary among immigrants among different cultures and the French need to be different all make the elections in France an important milestone in Global Politics. Sarkozy has the experience and the guts(the fact that he is still there after taking Chirac on for the best part of a decade is testimony) , while Royal has the charm to make the average guy feel secure.

Let the games begin.

Kashmir-Essentially Politics

The general cannot decide on Kashmir without the agreement of the parliament. More to the 'good' general image. I dont really understand who is our man trying to fool? The west certainly, but any political observer of pakistan knows the amount of power the army wields. They can cobble together a solution if and only if they want to. The solution is pretty simple from the Pakistani side, accept the status quo with the LOC as border and hope that Indians give some concessions for free movement across border making Kashmir a kind of joint rule.

The solution is not really beneficial. It pays to keep the insurgency running so that Indian forces are tied up. The right wing cannot give up on the islamic population of the valley(much less the conversion of Hindu India as the Laskhkar woudl have us believe) and they need to play up the threat of Hindu India for funds from the oil rich Arab countries. Pakistan has no real economy to speak of and they would become an Afghanistan if their primary identity of being different from India is changed. Of course, we people are similar in many customs but the people are never the rulers in any state-are they?

The commie's never had a role in Pakistan and the liberals cant do much without their integrity being questioned. So, the army would play the key decision making role. With the infiltration of right wing propaganda in the army, the decision could well be towards indefinite continuation of the support od armed conflict against India.

PS: Of course the long running water dispute is a different angle to the whole argument and I am not considering that here.

Saddam Hussein- Martyr?

History has always been that of the victorious. Most of the historical accounts from ancient times has always been from the view point of those whose armies were stronger. The printing press changed that a little bit. You could leave traces and that could be preserved. But inspite of that most of what you get to hear is from the winning side. (A kind of survivor bias). Of course countries like India with trace of formal documentation are even worse with no records. All this has changed in the era of the internet. All you need is someone who is willing to provide a ringside view at the time of war and you have history. The veracity of what is being told is not really a big issue(unless there are blatant loopholes) as long as a audience is hearing you. Be it through blogs, webcasts or plain old e-mails.

In this context Saddam Hussein may end up being a martyr. Yes, that is true. A man responsible for two wars, religious persecution of Shias, chemical warfare on Kurds and a crazy despot would become a martyr, how? Because of his image of defiance. He had taken on America which wanted oil and was hanged through a farce trial only because he was Muslim (sunni). Thats the conclusion most people are bound to make when they look back all the drama that led to his execution. Taking him to a International Court of Justice would have raised uncomfortable questions for US. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Who provided Saddam with the chemical weapons and all his conventional arsenal? Where are his links to Al-Qaeda? So, the simple solution for to hang him.

Maybe he will be just a footnote. But as long as his image is doing the rounds on the net, his history as a figure who defied US is made. Till an alternative image comes out, the people on the streets of middle east have their decisions already made.

Hugo Vs the Devil

George 'Devil' Bush- That is what Hugo Chavez (the re-elected president of Venezuela) called Bush at the United Nations summit in NY. Although Venezuela is very small both Geographically and economically, the fact that Chavez has become the poster boy of left wing Bolivarian Revolution leading to the 'pink tide' in South America is somethign that irritates US a lot and this coupled with the fact that 11% of US oil comes from the country means that in these present times of uncertainty the US cannot really affort to fully alienate Chavez as was/is done with Fidel. Of course, Chavez considers Fidel his mentor and is trying ot unify South America(+Mexico) into an entity which can stand its own against the US. His strategy is to be charm the masses and then try to decrease income disparities through the distribution of petrodollars. Some commentators have said that as soon as his economic clout decreases no one would listen to him, but till then he can be given credit for a 'revolution' which the people have taken to whole heartedly, as his seen from landslide victory electing into his second term.

The larger question will remain for the capitalist economies, yes that is what most of the developed countries are because almost all of the European behemoths are slowly moving aways from socialism, how to deal with governments whcih are on the path of socializing the country? (Picture Evo Morales of Bolivia driving a stake through the hearts of foreing companies) State sponsored socialism was not completely successful anywhere. They have left Europe burdened with huge Government expenditures in terms of social security payments and strong unions that are detrimental for competition. In India even though some income disparities were removed, state control of productive resources left us completely incompetent in the world markets and in the 15 years that the state has relinquished control we are forging ahead. But, we are still not dependent on foreign investments to drive our future growth and our mutli party cultre ensures that there are checks are place that are atleast theoretically fool proof. The problem with state sponsored socialism is that it places an premium on innovation and private enterprise and spreads a sense of complacence in people ( especially in Venezuela which is starting from a strong petro dollar base) which can be detrimental in the long run. Make this single party and you do have a recipe for disaster. But atleast state sponsored would atleast mean that armed conflicts have been avoided and that itself is a big gain.

Overall, Chavez might prove to be rhetoric but if he achieves the Bolivarian dream of a united latin america, that would be his greatest contribution to history. Already he is bigger than a footnote.

Expected results of terror

ULFA(United Liberation Front of Asom) strikes again. This time their targets are primarily Bihari immigrant workers who do small roles in the economy (laborers, milkmen). This is chillingly in line with ULFA’s strategy of exterminating all foreign (yes all Indian except Assamese are considered foreigners) nationals from Assam and ensure that Assamese gets maximum use of the state’s resources. ULFA is liberally supported by Bangladeshi Intelligence ( and hence the refusal of ULFA to persecute immigrants from Bangladesh who now reportedly form a considerable amount of population in several districts of Assam) and ISI. The first time I read something of that sort the usual Pak bashing did come to mind. But the logic is compelling, almost all of ULFA top leadership is in exile of hiding. Their organization is very strong, with disgruntled youth ready to join, but the funding for arms does not require rocket science to understand. What is the ULFA trying to achieve?

Actually what are all the terrorist organizations( I don't know what the list is based on, but just for some understanding) in India looking at. The north-east is definitely divided with calls for separate nations et all ( partially valid, 50 yrs of Indian Independence has not resulted in much for them). But what can they actually achieve:

1) The reorganization of nation states does not happen in times of peace. Unless there is full scale war India will not give up any of its territory. So, who will fight an open war with us? The Chinese? No, for them the chance to become a superpower is more compelling that fighting for minor territory, they can at best provide logistics. Pakistan? They are mad enough, but they would go for a Nuclear war which could prove disastrous for them. Covert action is best for them, to paint India as a muslim-hater for some time atleast. Bangladesh? They could do it, they need land and water (and everything else) for their people. But not very likely. Combined attack? Again would need a significant event for something like that to happen. Maybe a US invasion of Pakistan and everyone would get sucked in.

2) Destabilization of the country: This could serve its purpose, but the result would mean that the people who are disadvantaged would lost out even more because no one would invest in terrorism infested areas because of chance of loss. It's a vicious cycle, no development means that more people for the ‘cause’ which means more misery for people who try to live on. This is very synonymous with the PWG which reportedly does not allow the construction of roads in AP because that would undermine their authority.

Maybe some good can come of it, if the revolution slowly included political movements to force the central govt to be on its toes. But till then, the issue would be just a thorn, and the security forces will be used to quell the challenge. And no security force on the planet is benign and this would mean more misery for the common people. So finally you are left with just hope that such carnages as of this week would not happen.

Larger questions on issue of intra country remain. Will growth in the country living behind many geographies migration to better opportunities is a given, so if native population in growth states fights immigration (as in Mumbai, Bangalore) right now we would need a work permit system for the whole country. Will write on this some more.