Naxal Attack: Injured India bleeds from a thousand cuts

(Coming up)

Election-2009: Are voters seeing the challenge? -II

In the previous article, the Oracle presented the three "meta-challenges" facing India. In this piece, we will consider whether voters seem to be fully cognizant of how much is at stake and what is to be done.

Like most things about India, there is more than one way to answer this question. Judging from voter percentages alone, you would think that the voter is apathetic. After all, voting percentages in the three phases of election held so far have struggled to break the 50% mark. Heat wave or no heat wave, conscious citizens should have recognized the importance of their duty. Standard (or sub-standard) excuses such as a general cynicism towards the political system are the most shameful of all; they are little more than intellectual and moral cowardice. In short, if you think the nation is broken, pick up yourself and stand up for your nation. If you think you have an opinion that needs to be heard, pick up yourself and voice it. Not doing so, or expressing mindless cynicism, or speaking in vague generalities serves no purpose and it is disrespectful to the millions of people in the world who live under oppressive authoritarian regimes. If we do not celebrate our freedom, how will we spread it? How will we convince other nations to become free? As and when it is written, history is very unkind to cowards. So... all shame be upon them who did not exercise their franchise in the General Election. This nation will never forgive them.

On the brighter side, we have millions of good people who did come out to vote and thanks to their efforts, we expect to have a democratically elected fifteenth Lok Sabha in power by June 2. Though the grime of our centuries old civilization clings fast to his skin, the Indian voter has always shown a maturity that has confounded his critics. It was the humble voter that rescued India from the clutches of Indira Gandhi's dictatorship, thus saving India from following in the doomed path that so many newborn democracies have taken since 1947. The Indian voter made sure the Hindu voice was heard in India after a thousand years of slavery and yet made certain that the large Hindu majority never treated the Muslims unfairly. The Indian voter has also rejected politics of separatism, regionalism and linguistic identity. The Indian voter never votes in a frenzy. The Indian voter has slain many monsters. Few nations manage to get this far.

Are voters doing well in 2009? In the first phase of the election, it was moving to see 60% of the electorate come out to voting booths, braving the threats of Naxal rebels. This is truly wonderful. One can only hope the electorate will vote wholesale for rejection of the Naxals just as they did in Chhattisgarh last year.

There is an interesting puzzle here. Over the last two years, there has been a nationwide trend of heavy voter turnout at the polls. Election 2009 bucks this trend. What does this mean? Can the heat wave play that much of a role? If that is indeed the case, the Election Commission is to blame for not having organised the election at a more opportune time. If it is not just about the heat, this suggests the increasingly local nature of issues on which people vote, issues that the Central Government may be a little too distant to address directly. If this is indeed the case, there is cause for major concern. India is NOT meant to be a loose federation of states and if voters are failing to appreciate the overarching unity of India as a nation, we have indeed lost sight of one of the core principles of our Constitution.

Is this increasingly local approach a natural outcome of the raucous multi-party system that we have evolved? Perhaps. What would probably be ideal for India would be a multi-party system in the states with a two party system at the Centre; thus concentrating major policy making power in the hands of a strong and stable Union Government while leaving the "checks and balances" to the States...

It is possible that I am reading too much into this. Perhaps local issues are dominating simply because no major national issue has been projected. This need not necessarily be a bad thing. Frenzied masses can sometimes vote unreasonably on so called "national issues". Absence of a "national issue" prevents the election from becoming uni-directional, or from being reduced to a referendum.

In 2009, the voter has been a lot quieter. Everyone who cared to speak was given a hearing and judging from the overall mood, the voter has refused to make any promises so far. The BJP has tried to shuffle horses throughout; shifting between Modi and Advani. Modi has generated much excitement across BJP cadre (and much heartburn in the liberal media), but he has not managed to extract a commitment from the people. The Congress has had little success with Rahul Gandhi, hence the last ditch attempt to change the game by throwing in reserve player Priyanka. The UPA that went in riding a media scripted pipe dream, has been thrown off balance. There is a realization at 10 Janpath that Dr. Singh might soon have to clear out his desk; hence the let off given to Quattrochi. Even Mayawati seems a lot more mellowed these days and is not rumoured to be making waves on the campaign trail.

The worldwide recession has, of course, taken some toll on the confidence of the people. However, the Left, which has tried to generate support for its own brand of regressive politics by riding public disillusionment with dreams of "fabulous growth", has come a cropper. However, in urban centres, the initial reaction to "play it safe" has worn off. Terrorism and the public humiliation of India have a part to play in this. The initial desire for inaction has given way to an undercurrent of urgency about doing something quickly to fix the nation.

However, on the issue of economic reforms, the voter is still in two minds. He cannot commit to a ruthless capitalist model like the United States and yet he cannot but acknowledge the success of this model (even in spite of the recession). The recession has made it that much harder for reformists to speak, but there is little reason to give up heart. The voter hasn't.

The Oracle concludes that, in the minds of the Indian voter, this election is hardly "special". It remains to be seen whether the voter is behaving insanely by thinking thus.... or just being more sensible.

Election 2009: Are voters seeing the challenge? -I

As the five phase election makes its way across India, there is an overwhelming sense of the unreal as we watch satellite television and print media drone on about hackneyed, meaningless issues. The dominant issues in political discourse have never been so out of touch with the people as this time. From what we get to read and hear and see from India, you would get the sense General Election 2009 is happening in South Africa and the Indian Premier League is being played in India. The Indian Premier League now fully occupies one half of the entire media coverage, with the General Elections, the Global Recession (and perhaps the recovery) and the Indian obsession with H1-B visas crammed into the other.

Mercifully, democracy gives us a way out: there is nothing to worry about as long as people are in touch with the issues that affect their lives and their future. On a personal note, the Oracle must add that given the fact that India does not allow non residents to vote, my future is now fully in the hands of my fellow citizens.

So, what are the big issues, the big challenges? Despite being no fan of the UPA government, I believe that the Central Government has done a fairly good job of holding on, consolidating and building upon the achievements of the previous NDA government and has added several new dimensions to India's rise on its own. The one blessing that India enjoys, despite the fractious state of the ruling coalition and all possible future coalitions, is that all sides agree on the issue of further economic reform and growth. Even the Left Front eschews the old socialist model in states where it enjoys power; while all its pretensions at the Centre merely reflect the fact that the Polituburo is run by a bunch of self styled "leaders" with zero mass appeal.

This brings us to challenge no.1. Although there are several candidates for this, I daresay that the biggest challenge of all is to maintain the soaring mood of the Indian people that has been built up over the last ten years. The worldwide depression and the economic slowdown in India has certainly lowered the prestige of capitalism and free market as the model of growth and in India, as well as across the world, the cynical losers have come out of the woodwork. They are all upon us now, with the "I told you so" rubbish. These scoffers are bitter losers and they do not understand how capitalism works. When the wheels are turning fast and returns are high, the economy always manages to reward a few more people than actually deserve success. Every now and then, the wheels stop, the dirt is scraped off and the engine presses on. Any system of growth and change, left to itself, inevitably takes on a Darwinian character. Challenge No. 1 is to make sure Indians do not fall prey to the propaganda of prophets of doom. Rather, Indians need to see the Economic Recession as a time of power shifts, a time rife with opportunities for historically disadvantaged nations such as ours to change the prevailing hierarchies.

The second challenge, of course, is that of national security. This is not just about Islamic terrorism. India faces several other internal security threats and the ruling UPA Government has a negative score on this count. Time and again, the Prime Minister has promised to deal effectively with the Naxal violence in the interior and each time, we the people have been let down by his government. Desperate measures, such as Salwa Judum in Chhattisgarh, the appointement of "Special" police officers (SPOs) taken at the state level have received little Central support. Add to that a disgusting media industry that spends all its time condemning the Salwa Judum and other heavy handed anti-Naxal measures. As a result, the Government at the Centre receives a blanket waiver for inaction when it comes to national security issues.

And terrorism... more terrorism... more demands from Islam ... and more terrorism. In this case, the terrorists have friends and supporters right within the ruling establishment. Railway Minister Laloo Yadav proudly parades his Osama bin Laden lookalike, who does photo-ops and signs autographs for cheering supporters. Laloo's alliance partner Paswan ran a whole election campaign with a single point agenda: a Muslim Chief Minister for Bihar. Mulayam Singh Yadav, another man who plays the role of both ruling party and opposition, has unabashedly come out in favour of the banned terror outfit SIMI. The Prime Minister has openly expressed his personal view that Muslims should enjoy first rights to India's resources. Anti-terror legislation POTA has been struck off the statute book and special pensions and allowances have been announced for the families of terrorists killed in Kashmir. The Central anti-terror agency was never created and it now takes the National Security Guard 10 hours to make it from Delhi to Mumbai, i.e the sixth busiest route in the world (to be fair, the Government has now moved to give itself rights to take charge of any commercial flight for emergency purposes and will duly compensate the airline). The cacophony is building up to a fever pitch. India's cup of woes is full. Afzal guru is probably drinking to that....

Through all this, the media has been hot on the trail of "Hindu terrorists" and Loch Ness monsters. Witch hunts have taken place; sting operations have been carried out on people such as Madhu Srivastava to uncover hidden hands behind the Gujarat riots. The latest Hindu terrorist to fall into the trap is Varun Gandhi who was promptly arrested under the National Security Act. The Oracle urges all Indians to avidly look for Hindu terrorists in their midst and anyone who is even vaguely suspect should be dragged to the town square and stoned to death immediately. To be doubly certain, friends and family of the suspected person should also be stoned to death "just in case", except when those family members happen to be part of the Gandhi dynasty!

(Note: The call to violence in the preceding paragraph is meant in a purely sarcastic and figurative manner and is not intended to incite actual physical violence.)

The third great challenge is that of Indian voters demanding far more from their government than they get. Generally speaking, this is about infrastructure. The Government has done precious little to improve infrastructure in the last five years. The NDA government's ambitious road building project has been all but stopped right in its tracks and the mega plan to connect India's rivers has met the same fate. Twenty four hour electric supply is far too distant a dream in all states other than Gujarat. Admittedly, there are some difficult problems here. There are concerns over displacement of people, there are environmental concerns and budget problems. And there is also the question of how much responsibility the Government should assume in such matters. Certain attempts at privatisation have turned out to be nightmares, such as the disastrous venture with the Delhi Electricity board. As such, Challenge No. 3 is for the government to coax the Indian people and Indian enterprise, long used to going to the authorities for everything, into start looking for solutions on their own. Indian people have to snap out of the coma of the erstwhile socialist years. This is a challenge not exactly limited to the election, but what kind of government people elect will have a bearing upon how fast this process is. A system that adjusts to mediocrity instead of stigmatizing it is dangerous for our country.

Thus have we outlined the three major challenges facing India. Each of these is, in some sense, a "meta-challenge", i.e. a challenge that involves thinking the right way rather than doing, thus encompassing a whole genre of challenges. In the next part, we shall deliberate on whether the Indian voter is being fully perceptive to the challenge.

Pakistan in flames: India wary of smoke - II

Continuing from Part-1, we now come to the political and diplomatic options that India has given the current scenario in Pakistan.

First, we have what one might call the "Forward approach". This is all about making big things happen rather than reacting to them. If China can courageously pursue a "One China" policy, there is no reason India cannot pursue an "Akhand Bharat" policy. Given that India has never made territorial demands on Pakistan despite being well positioned to do so several times in the past, an idea like this might generate shock within the Indian diplomatic community. However, anything vaguely bordering on the threshold of "conquest" is seen in extremely negative terms by the world at large. Unfortunately, most of the Western powers will not understand the sentiments of the Indian people about the oneness of their ancient homeland striken by a shameful partition. Nor does India have the clout to make this case forcefully. "Akhand Bharat" is not about conquest or occupation; it is about stretching India to the banks of the Indus, the Hind to the Hindukush and returning the Sindhi people to the Sindh. We get that. They don't.

But there is no reason India cannot work towards this dream in smaller ways. As Pakistan begins to disintegrate over the next few years, there is no reason India cannot start claiming its old domains. The unification of Kashmir would be the first place to start. Given that India has always talked of "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" and this region is still included in the official map of India, this does not even represent a departure from India's diplomatic stance.

The problem is how one can get Indian troops into Kashmir without starting a war or even appearing imperialist. This is where joint action with the United States becomes imperative. To achieve a goal in this "Forward policy", India has to take the initiative and join in with US forces in Afghanistan. Such a suggestion, would, of course, send Indian liberals into a tizzy, but the national interest is above the screeching of anti-national elements. The more uncomfortable issue is with getting the US to accept and appreciate the value of Indian military deployment in Afghanistan, particularly with its new President Obama who thinks he is some kind of charmer who can make the beasts of hell dance to his tune . Indian presence in Afghanistan will provide the US with some true tactical advantages and not just in the sheer military sense. It goes without saying that Indian military deployment will come in the form of real numbers and not token support like the kind the US has come to expect from its European "allies". Second, India has excellent relations with Afghanistan and presence of Indian troops will bolster the argument that the US is not an occupying force. Thirdly, one of America's major challenges is connecting with the people of Afghanistan, without whose help no lasting solution can be achieved. Connecting with this mostly rural, mostly medieval nation will be a lot easier if the Americans are seen in company with other people of colour. Unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan have not achieved the sophistication to think beyond race and America has to act accordingly.

The only downside for the United States is that Indian presence shuts out the possibility of Pakistani cooperation. As American officers on the ground realize how dishonest the Pakistani pretence of "support" really is and how weak and worthless Pakistan is anyway, this situation will mitigate itself. Besides, the new diplomatic establishment in the United States has a few hard lessons to learn from dictators before it begins to see the light. India will have to wait until that moment.

The advantages for India are manifold and the encirclement of Pakistan is pretty much the least of these. Deployment of Indian troops beyond Indian soil will raise the stature of India as an international power. It will also set the stage for larger joint Indo-US operations that may be required in other theatres. The prospect of Indo-US operations is enough to send the Chinese into a huddle. The Chinese will get the idea quickly and stop throwing their weight behind Pakistan. A drop in Chinese morale benefits both India and the US.

On the less pragmatic side, unification of Kashmir should be the first step in the long journey to redress the injustice of partition. The liberation of Balochistan is important, both because the Baloch people deserve to be free and because Balochistan has never really been part of India and we have no claim to the land.

A forward policy comes with its perils. Expansion of Indian troops into Afghanistan might cause a paroxysm in Pakistan and might well lead to a military takeover of the sick country. In this scenario, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal becomes extremely important. This is where the Oracle must leave the question open and hope the US has a "Plan B" hidden somewhere... an audacious operation to deprive Pakistan of its nukes at lightning speed. It is not foolish to assume the US has the ability or that it is at least working on such a plan.

Two more caveats: First, can India even afford a major military deployment in Afghanistan and protect the homeland should things go cataclysmic? The answer to the first part is most certainly "yes", but the second part is more tricky. Does India have the might to protect the Western frontier AND the Northern frontier after sizeable numbers have been moved to Afghanistan? Can the Indian Navy handle Chinese vessels operating out of Burma, Sri Lanka and perhaps even Bangladesh should the worst happen? On the naval side, things do not seem so dismal. On the Northern frontier, things do not look so good. But the chances of an Indo-China war starting over heightened bitterness between India and Pakistan are so dim that it is well worth the risk.

The second caveat is that any forward action by India will cause considerable discomfort among smaller South Asian states like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who might gravitate further towards China. Again I daresay that joint Indo-US operations raise a prospect so terrible for China that the Chinese will not have much use for these little countries anyway.

In conclusion, the Oracle opines that a five year careful watch might well be worth the wait. America isn't going anywhere from Afghanistan, Pakistan is never going to get better and the new guy in the White House will touch the ground in about that much time (Yes.. I am sure Obama is going to get a second term) What is important is that India wait to reap the benefits of the deadly harvest that is finally coming ripe in our military labs. It has taken us sixty years, but finally the Agni, the Shaurya and the Nag are beginning to stretch their limbs. The Tejas is close to spreading its wings and the ATVs, the Shivaliks, the Vikrants await their moment to be pressed into service on the high seas. An air of maturity is beginning to blow across the Indian science, technology and military setup. That is how democracy works. We are over the hump and it is time to collect our treasures. The important thing is that we weren't forced uphill, 20 million people did not have to be "deprived of existence" so that the nation might "live"; we made it up here by the power of freedom. We should wait eagerly for the rich reward.

Pakistan in flames; India wary of the smoke-I

The picture says a thousand words. A lone Pakistani soldier stands with his assault rifle; guarding the flaming ruins. He looks alert and holds his rifle straight. His lifeless nation stretched out behind him, the lone soldier looks like the loyal dog guarding his dead master.

In the last sixty years, a fertile land that was once an organ of the Hind, has been prised out of the body of the mother country and its veins poisoned by a hate filled religion. As Pakistan is slain by its own children, the question is: should we care?

The temptation to let Pakistan stew in its own juices is quite strong. The nation that boasted of strategy to bleed India "with a thousand cuts" has slit its own throat. Revenge rarely gets sweeter than this. It was "they" who wanted to cooperate with the British. Then, it was "they" who wanted a separate electorate. Then, it was "they" who wanted a separate state. Then, "they" went for "Direct Action". It was "they" who named it "Pakistan", i.e. "land of the pure". It was "they" who were not content with their portion and wanted to have more of ours. It was "they" who decided to change their secular constitution in 1973 to adopt hatred as the state religion. As we say:

Karma: It's only a bitch if you are a jerk.

However, even as Pakistan hangs lifeless at the end of a noose, we have to care. Should one care about an enemy? Perhaps not. But then, one must make an exemption for the dead.

Before we get into the details of how India should engage in the South Asian diplomatic tangle, we need to address this moral dilemma over the situation in Pakistan. Is it fitting on our part to celebrate? Lives are being lost in Pakistan; innocent men and women and children are being mowed down by the dozen. Should India act merely out of apprehensions over the fallout of the situation, or out of a human interest in the tragedies that are being wrought on Pakistan by its own?

So, let us put it out there in the open. Pakistan's demise is a moral victory for India. It validates our nation, our constitution and our government. There is no shame in acknowledging the fact that our democratic institutions have brought us to the verge of becoming a world power and Pakistan's spectacular failure underscores the enormity of what our nation has achieved. Indians have no reason to be coy about India's achievements. In fact, it is precisely this reticence to acknowledge our own greatness that India gets a bad rap from so many quarters. It is all so often that India is accused of having scant respect for human rights, upwardly mobile enterprising Indians are cast as unsympathetic to the "plight of their brethren", those who express any measure of optimism in the rising economic, military and diplomatic clout of India are sneered at as ignorant and ill-informed. India's image is held back by stereotypes; stereotypes once created by the British and embraced by the West. And Indians have done little towards dispensing with these stereotypes; instead naysayers are held in high esteem as elites and intellectuals. In this respect, a big thank you must go out to the Tibetian community in exile in India, who recently decided to dedicate a whole year towards celebrating what India has done for them; finally there is someone who wants to gratefully acknowledge what is one of the freest nations in the world.

It is striking that while Muslims who left India behind at the time of partition to seek the glory of their faith in the "land of the pure" are still derided as beggars in Pakistan, the Sindhis, Sikhs and Hindus from Lahore, Bengalis from East Pakistan have all been embraced as one blood in India. Therefore, in this hour of Pakistan's failure, no Indian who wishes to dance in the streets should be made to feel ashamed.

The Oracle's point is not to say that Indians should drown themselves in jingoism and euphoria over the death of our mortal enemy. It is only to suggest that no Indian who wishes to celebrate should be made to give in to the bullying of liberal intellectuals who may well be in denial over the achievements of India and/or unable to fit in India's success into their world-view and who are not above using scare tactics to keep Indians from celebrating this victory. Let's say it: India's powerful democratic institutions, huge military and thriving economy are strong guarantees against the advance of Islamic fascism.

(to be contd. in Part-II)

Tired losers form "Third Front"

For those of us who remember, there was once an alliance called the NFLF: "National Front-Left Front". That evolved into the United Front and the latter evolved into the People's Front which evolved into the United National Progressive Alliance. This time, they did not want to bother with having to decide on a name; so they are just calling it the Third Front!

So, what is common to all these "Fronts"? The Left, for one, has been part of all of them (barring a technicality, i.e., the Left formally stayed out of the United Front once the UF government accepted Congress support). Are these "Fronts" merely transitional forms on the path to the extinction of the Left as a political force in India? Political evolution has already condemned the Left to the dustbins of history and that is exactly where they are headed.

Wait! One might be tempted to point out that the "Third Front" may well hold the key to forming the government in New Delhi, deciding the Prime Minister and even the successor to President Pratibha Patil (Heavens no! she still has three more years to embarrass our country!). But what would that achieve? The Left has already relegated itself to the reduced stature of being a regional party by joining the Third Front. The Left has already compromised its reputation of being stoutly opposed to corruption and caste by allying with the worst scum in Indian politics... from Laloo, Mulayam and Paswan to Jayalalitha and Mayawati. The Left's boast of being a disciplined, monolithic, cadre based organization has suffered irrevocable harm due to the events in Kerala. For the party of the Communists, it is a moment of truth, a time to face up before the people for their anti-national pronouncements over the last sixty years. And they are smiling foolishly as they walk the road to oblivion with hell in a handbasket.

So, what is the future of the "Third Front". If Parliament is hamstrung in a horrible manner, the "Front" will press for a repeat of 1996 and there is a slight possibility that they might achieve it. The Congress, for its part, has learned from its mistakes and is very unlikely to offer the Prime Ministerial position to someone else. The BJP and NDA have already gone to town for far too long with the candidature of Lal Krishna Advani and they are not likely to back down now. Also, other NDA leaders such as Sharad Yadav, who may be more "acceptable" than Advani are all weighed down by powerful regional leaders and are therefore unlikely to get the go ahead towards becoming Prime Minister from their own parties. We should mention here that the "Maratha PM" dream will require a coalition all too queer to come into being. Even so, the possibility of a Third Front PM should not be discarded entirely. If only as a thought experiment, let us consider the Third Front PM candidates.

There's Mayawati, of course. She has been rearing to become Prime Minister. Unfortunate though it is for our country, Maya is the only one who has something of a chance. Since her party puts Maya's Prime Ministerial ambitions as the prime point on its agenda, and indeed, the only point, bargaining with Mayawati is both easy and difficult. If one of the two sides can leave its ego aside and accept Mayawati as PM, there will be nothing else she will require of them. Mayawati's big advantage is that most of the Third Front losers will support her in a heartbeat and so will the Congress' alliance partners. In fact, the only one who would suffer heartburn would be Ram Vilas Paswan, who cannot muster the numerical might to throw a spanner into the works. Moreover, Mayawati has a way of getting things done, of producing major thrusts and her single minded ambition to become PM might stand her in good stead.

Then, there is Mayawati's arch rival: Mulayam Singh Yadav. Such is the pathetic state of ideological confusion within the Third Front and indeed the boudaries of the UPA that any or both of these rival leaders may turn out to be part of the ruling coalition post election. Mulayam Singh knows, however, that his moment has passed. If there was one, it was when he had peaked to a solid tally of 37 MPs from Uttar Pradesh in 2004; and as a thumb rule, anyone who suffers a loss of seats in the ensuing election will be out of running for the Prime Ministership.

Jayalalitha is an intriguing figure in this election. Just how many seats she will pick up is anyone's guess. The question of whether Jayalalitha is seriously considering a Prime Ministerial bid is even more significant. The Dravidian parties have traditionally had a tendency to stay slightly aloof from the government in New Delhi, but there is a possibility that a "Tamil PM" might prove to be a unifying issue. As such, a more "colourless" Tamil leader, such as one from the MDMK or the PMK might emerge as a winner. Sivaganga MP and Home Minister P. Chidambaram, who was a runaway best performer in the UPA government should have been a good choice under these circumstances (and a great choice for the country as well) , but the Congress is in no mood to advance anyone other than Dr. Singh (except Rahul, of course).

One man who should never be counted out is Chandrababu Naidu. For one, Chandrababu would make a fairly good Prime Minister. Although many will disagree with his vision and his approach to development is often facile, Naidu does not lack good intentions. That, in itself, places him way ahead of leaders of many other regional parties. Naidu's one major impact on the national scene, i.e. the elevation of Dr. Kalam to the highest office, is remembered with pride and gratitude by most Indians. Of late, however, Naidu has been wallowing far too low in the filth, allying with the Left, with K Chandrasekhar Rao and sundry others. The Oracle would like to believe he is the same Chandrababu of old. But, perhaps, that is not to be.

BJP's balance sheet of allies

Those of us with even moderate political foresight have known for some time that the Congress has been living in a fool's paradise. Now that the parties that used to be in the somewhat optimistically named "United" Progressive Alliance have all decided to go their merry way, suddenly the BJP's balance sheet does not look so bad.

The NDA's core has, of course, come down to just 3 parties other than the BJP: the Shiv Sena, the SAD and the JD(U). The BJD used to be a core member until it decided to overreach itself. Fortunately for the BJP, the BJD does not have much of a choice once the elections are over. The prodigal son of the NDA will have little recourse than to troop back to base camp soon enough.

It would be more than just a stretch to imagine that these five parties (including the BJD) can muster a majority on their own in the House. The BJP, however, has no reason to despair, since all that the NDA needs to do is finish ahead of the "UPA", whatever form the latter alliance might have at that moment. The key is to clearly demonstrate that the "UPA" has lost the popular mandate, if it ever had one. If that is achieved, it will not be very difficult to get fencesitters, many of them estranged friends to support and/or join the NDA. These "fencesitters" have made things more efficient by putting themselves up for sale on a single unified forum the Left likes to call the "Third Front". Post election, a winning NDA can offer great careers to these unemployed former Chief Ministers.

The NDA has a lot of estranged friends. Some have faded into oblivion. Some are fighting for life. Some others are actually doing well. Some would want back in, but have drifted too far to do a volte face. The AGP, the INLD and the RLD belong to the second category and all three have done the smart thing by joining hands with the BJP. The Congress is sitting on two remarkable performances in both Asom and Haryana that would be hard pressed to repeat. In western Uttar Pradesh, Ajit Singh's RLD might give a much needed boost to the BJP's demoralized and depreciating rank and file.

What about others? First, the funny ones: like the National Conference and the Lok Janshakti Party. A father and son Muslim party like the National Conference should never have allied with the BJP in the first place. They have faced up to their embarrassment and are now busy ruling their ancestral land, with help from the royal family in Delhi. Good for them.

Ah... Paswan of course. Why is it that Paswan gets tricked into joining some alliance or another each time elections take place? He was with the NDA until 2002, then with Laloo in 2004 and then claimed to be Laloo's biggest challenger in 2005! He made a fool of himself every single time. His latest gambit is to ally with the RJD he had sworn to uproot from Bihar. Let's see how long that lasts before Paswan finds an excuse to join the winning alliance.

Things are more interesting for the BJP down south. In Andhra Pradesh, the TDP and the TRS have actually tied up, although few could have predicted this five years ago. The BJP has been putting in a lot of money and energy in the state and any meaningful gains there will help the party to attract, for instance, the TRS into the NDA fold. In fact, now that the TDP and TRS are together, it should be possible to bring the TDP in tow if needed. Chandrababu Naidu has been cozy with the Left for far too long. Out of a sense of denial, Chandrababu wants to believe that the drubbing he received in 2004 was due to his BJP ties. Instead of blaming himself and his outlandish governance schemes that he liked to refer to as his "vision", his blatant inability to stem the tide of Naxalism, Naidu still believes that the BJP weighed him down in the 2004 election. Fortunately, the worst is over for him. The electorate might not have switched sides entirely, but people are beginning to consider him again. His promise of providing social security to the poorest of the poor might also help in reviving his fortunes. If the NDA agrees to make a few cosmetic concessions to the state of Andhra Pradesh, it will not be too difficult to have Naidu back in the BJP camp.

Then there is the AIADMK, which knows that it is carrying the momentum of the election in Tamil Nadu. It is not for nothing that the PMK switched sides in such a dramatic manner of late. State elections in Tamil Nadu are far away and Jayalalitha would want a foothold at the Centre. The Congress has invested a little too much into its alliance with the DMK to be in a position to take AIADMK support. In any case, it is impossible for the Congress to take in Jayalalitha without immediately losing DMK. The NDA has a vacancy it should look to fill right there.

The role and purpose of the NCP in Indian politics has always been somewhat of a question mark. Initially, it was Congress strongman Sharad Pawar's ego that drove the party. However, with passage of time, the NCP has evolved more and more of a state level personality as opposed to the wishes of Pawar Sahib who has always wanted a more pan-Indian presence. The NCP's proximity to the Shiv Sena has been a source of both consternation and consolation for the BJP. The personal equation between Balasaheb and Pawar Sahib has kept both the BJP and Congress on tenterhooks. Even so, it is far too speculative to imagine the NCP joining the NDA camp after elections.... not yet...maybe in a post Pawar era....

Whether the BJP can get Mamata Banerjee back depends on how well the TMC does in Bengal with Congress support. If Mamata is able to deal a body blow to the CPI(M), as she probably will, she will try her best to keep the Congress with her. This can change only if the Congress has to take Left support in order to form a government. Mamata Banerjee has defined her politics by her opposition to Left Front hegemony. And even though nothing, not even joint Congress - Left -TMC support for a Central Government can dent that image, leave it to this highly emotional politician to freak out over the ethics of having a "semi-alliance" with the Left at the Centre.

That leaves Mayawati and Mulayam Singh, the two worst politicians in the country. For the NDA, Mayawati is the more "natural" ally. Maulana Mulayam, the one who ordered the shooting of VHP workers, has few bridges to the BJP. However, the extreme bitterness between the Samajwadi Party and the Congress, the propensity of the Samajwadis to justify just about any alliance as well as their desire to have as many anti-Mayawati forces together as possible, suggests that the NDA can have some sort of "arrangement" with the SP. For its part, the SP wants the Congress to act as a subservient doormat in UP the way the latter typically submits to Laloo (not this time!!) in Bihar. The Congress, on the other hand, cannot get over the fact that the SP treats the Gandhi family as though they are nothing special...just flesh and blood like everyone else. Perhaps Mulayam Singh's dislike of dynasties has roots in the fact that his own political guru Charan Singh passed him up to give preference to his son Ajit long ago. Advani practises politics as the art of the possible. Should the opportunity present itself, he will not make light of it.

Pressure group building within UPA

In a striking anticlimax, the coming of elections has been heralded by a string of betrayals, snapping of alliances and breaking of promises. It is almost as if our politicians can't seem to wait until after the election is over.

Given that the UPA, a post poll alliance (lest we forget!) from 2004 has not contested any elections as a united force, there is small surprise that the formation is in disarray a month before the polls begin. The Congress Party has been in firefighting mode, striving to preserve some semblance of dignity in the seat sharing arrangements it has to work out in state after state.

The Congress' problems stem from the fact that it is a spent force in almost all states where it has alliances and is locally dependent on its regional allies (such as SP, JMM, RJD) to a much larger extent than the BJP is. Ten long years of ineffective government by the Congress has weakened the party's position in Maharasthra vis-a-vis the NCP, which has an axe all of its own to grind. The Congress is in a very difficult situation in Mumbai, Konkan and has lost a lot of ground in Vidarbha and Marathwada regions. The NCP has always maintained a slight distance from the Congress and as a result, the Congress Party is completely cornered in Maharashtra. As for Tamil Nadu, it seems clear that Jayalalitha has the initiative and whatever remains will go in favour of the Congress' Dravidian ally. Although the DMK's overall position has weakened, it is in a much stronger position to bargain with the Congress. In Andhra Pradesh, the Congress can only lose seats, though probably not too many. Similarly, the Congress will lose seats in Delhi, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and is likely to be pushed to the wall in Gujarat and Karnataka. Even though Rajasthan will probably offset some of the losses and they will make minor gains in Madhya Pradesh, this is not enough to make up for the difference. The party is facing disaster in UP, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and there might be surprises in Assam. As a result, the allies realize that it is the perfect time to rub the Congress nose on the ground.

Consequently, the UPA allies have not only asked the Congress to accept less than 5-6 seats in most states, but they have also decided to challenge the claim of their "Big Brother" to the post of Prime Minister. Sharad Pawar and Ram Vilas Paswan have openly expressed their desire to be Prime Minister and for Laloo Yadav, the claim that he will be "Prime Minister one day" has been a continuing refrain over the years. Of these, Sharad Pawar is the only one who is dead serious about his desire to be Prime Minister. A first sign that the Congress has been scared by its allies is Pranab Mukherjee's recent statement that the UPA need not project a Prime Minister at all. Lest we forget, Pranab Mukherjee nurses an old wound over the issue of Prime Ministership; Pranab da circulated his CV among the Congress leadership after Indira Gandhi's death to stake claim to the highest office, but was reprimanded for imagining that he could become Prime Minister while an able bodied, adult Gandhi family descendant was still alive. This blemish of thoughtcrime has since stayed with him and in 2004, the choice fell on Manmohan Singh, a man whose record of loyalty to the Gandhi family was as spotless as his white kurta.

Unfortunately for the Congress, its list of current allies includes the Samajwadi Party and the latter commands the skills of Amar Singh, who is the foremost practitioner of realpolitik in the country today. The crafty Thakur who can make alliances literally appear out of thin air and strike fantastic deals you never thought possible; is capable of slitting the Congress' throat with surgical precision. The fact that Amar Singh has met Sharad Pawar in person, following which Pawar saab has made his Prime Ministerial ambitions public, should raise a lot of eyebrows. In classic Amar Singh style, Pawar's talk about a "Maharashtrian PM" has made the Shiv Sena sit up and listen. Sharad Pawar, a man grappling with cancer, does not have much to lose. Amar Singh realizes that; and the SP has a great personal rapport with Laloo Yadav. The fact that the SP is Mayawati's principal challenger makes Paswan a natural ally for Mulayam Singh Yadav, while events in Sri Lanka have pushed the DMK to move away from the Central government; it could hardly get any worse for Congress. Most of the Congress' allies are on highly cordial terms with the Left Parties and by extension, the so called "Third Front".

What does this mean for India? It follows that should the UPA finish ahead of NDA, it will still have to bridge a yawning chasm of at least 70 seats to get to the majority mark and one of the concessions the allies will demand is the giving up of the post of Prime Minister. In fact, the Left Front, which is one of the gluing forces in the "Third Front" will find it impossible to support a Congress Prime Minister after the drubbing it will likely receive at the hands of the TMC-Congress alliance in West Bengal. In fact, should such a situation arise, the Congress might be confronted with a fait accompli over the formation of a "secular government". If the Congress refuses to swallow its pride at such a point, the BJP, which will get the BJD back on its side in a flash after the polls, might be able to put the numbers together, by attracting say Jayalalitha, Mayawati and others. In such a scenario, the "blame" for letting the "communal BJP" have its way will fall on the Congress.

Rahul Gandhi has succeeded to the Congress leadership at a difficult time. The party organisation is in bad shape and alliances have weakened the party beyond recovery in several states. The party of his fathers seems oddly bereft of inspiring leaders and if only clean image were everything in politics, S M Krishna would have been in power much longer than Rabri Devi did. There is some urban sympathy over the persona of Dr. Singh, but if only that were enough, Atal ji would have never been shoved out in 2004. And now, given that there is uncertainty over the leadership of Dr. Singh, this positive might wither away. Rahul Gandhi, with the weight of his hundred year old dynasty on his shoulders, is older than Advani in practical terms. Young India has not fallen for Rahul's unintelligent antics and Priyanka Gandhi's possibilities have been let go waste, possibly because her children might not carry the Gandhi surname. The Congress needs to dictate some terms, but it seems that, for now, the "allies" are the people doing all the talking.

Let's discuss the media

The Indian media is sharp, lively and so much a part of our lives. Buzzing with activity at all times, the media plays a huge role in shaping our perceptions about the politics of our nation, society and future. In this article, the Oracle will assess the media and its impact on our world.

Unfortunately, in this article, the Oracle will only be able to discuss the English language media. This is the form of the media that the Oracle is most familiar with, and let's confess; loves to hate. Therefore, it behooves the Oracle to first acknowledge a debt to this media for providing the considerable volume of information that the Oracle in order to form his opinions.


Here, we use "English language media" as a generic and rather loose term to describe cable news delivered to middle class homes by the top media houses. We clarify that this term will be applied even to channels such as Zee News, Aaj Tak and Star News and NDTV India which do NOT report in English at all. Perhaps "elite media" would have been a better term.

Though freedom of the press would be defended by law in any real democracy, there will always be elements in power, in Government and society that will try to intimidate/subvert the media in subtle ways. The Indian media has generally performed well on that account, managing to remain fiercely independent at most times. And, even though the media may be accused of being hawkish in its tactics or insensitive in its reporting on some occasions, they deserve credit for keeping the citizenry fully informed of national events on a minute to minute basis. Brutal competition is usually good for any industry. Our media, its brashness, its enthusiasm, its zeal is in many ways a testament to our vibrant democracy.

Let us consider the "standard of reporting". It really depends on how we see the media withing the framework of our democratic society. For instance, we could excoriate the media for being obsessed with certain events of no consequence such as reporting on ... say .. Slumdog Millionaire (to take a fairly recent example) in the top story section. We could take the media to task for reporting on the Abhishek-Aishwarya wedding way beyond its actual relevance. A slightly different allegation would be that the media is insensitive and seems to revel in tragedies. A case in point would be the stampede at Chamunda Devi temple in September, 2008 in which 249 people were killed. The media has also come under fire for irresponsible reporting during the Mumbai terror attacks when they were accused of allowing details about Army positions to pass to terrorists through the TV news. To sum up, the media often caters to the obsessions of the public with celebrities or feeds its voyeuristic desire to see blood and gore.

Of course, there is another way to see this. The media is a business and fools who fail to recognize it as such have only themselves to blame for any delusions that might arise. The dangers lie in the fact that the media often gives the public a false sense of empowerment. The corporate media masquerades as the "voice of the people". The Oracle has pointed out elsewhere that the corporate media is actually the least democratic of all the so called "estates of democracy". This is a fact that seems to escape notice completely. What actually happens is that the media essentially reports its own points of view rather than those of the people and we are told that these viewpoints should somehow take precedence over our own. Why? Are the mediapersons, journalists, newspaper columnists elected in any way? Do they even represent a fair cross section of our society?

There are many things we seem not to notice about the media. For one, we must remember that journalism is a fairly low skilled profession. Journalism, on an average, requires a skill set that can be hardly rated as being more specialized than an actor. Just because journalists pass judgement on issues does not mean that they are smart people who know what they are talking about. A glaring example would be the media reports on legal representation for captured terrorist Kasab. Not one journalist seemed to understand the depth of the ethical and legal subtleties of the situation and instead focussed on random remarks made by politicians, knee jerk Shiv Sena reactions and the like. Another case in point would be the ruckus created by Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami demanding the removal of a fellow Election Commissioner, when the media reported on the general smoke screen of sensation and completely failed to display even a basic grasp of the constitutional issues involved. Science journalism is, of course, the best evidence for the proposition that journalists are only semi-literate. We need look no further than the story of the "$10 laptop" that embarrassed India and IIT Chennai recently. The swanky studios, the eye catching graphics, the dramatic background music and imposing names like "Face the Nation", "We the People", "The Big Fight", etc. are all bluff and bluster; a cover for semi-literacy. It is a classic case of anything that glitters being taken for gold.

To be fair, the media never claimed they were experts in anything. "We the people" are responsible for our own stupidity. If we are unable to glean "information" from "opinion" and make up our minds based on what people with the most shoddy academic skills have to say, it is our problem.

Of course, no discussion about Indian English language media can be complete without paying a tribute to the dogged dedication with which the media is committed to eradicating the BJP from the country. There was a time when the "communal" BJP was an untouchable in Indian politics, even more than the forces of communism. Then the BJP forged alliances with anti-Congress forces in state after state and this tag of untouchability became all too redundant. Credit goes to the media for keeping the tired old genre of BJP baiting alive.

Even today, at the drop of a hat, the media goes into a frenzy of anti-BJP ranting at the drop of a hat. Sometimes, it is not even necessary for the proverbial hat to drop. A wonderful example would be the recent tirade that the media has launched against the BJP at the snapping of the BJP-BJD alliance. Instead of castigating the opportunistic stance of the BJD for betraying a trusting old ally at a vulnerable moment, the media is all too caught up with celebrating the BJP's setback. The buzz in the media is that the NDA is imploding, notwithstanding the fact that the BJP has added two allies (RLD and AGP) in the last two weeks; and the INLD before that. It also makes no difference that ever since the UPA was formed in 2004, the "United" Progressive Alliance has not managed to contest a single election as a unified whole. It also makes no difference that the BJP has won 7 of the last 11 Assembly Elections outright and made huge inroads into an 8th (J&K) and has just managed to defend two incumbent governments with substantial majorities in two large heartland states. In contrast, the Congress has managed to win one (Delhi) and emerged as single largest in another (Rajasthan). That has not, however, held the media back from declaring that the Congress is on an upswing. Take another instance, when the BJP bagged Karnataka last year, defying obviously contrived* and dishonest opinion/exit poll predictions, the disconsolate media sought solace in pointing out that the Congress would still be ahead if the Assembly segments were grouped in terms of Parliamentary seats. No one cared, of course, to do a similar analysis on Rajasthan. And when the BJP won 5 out of 8 Assembly bypolls in Karnataka at the end of 2008, and the Congress did not manage even one, the plan was to look the other way.

So, why would the media do this? In the short term, the media is relieved that the Mumbai terror attacks did not result in a paroxysm of support in favour of the BJP. But why would the media be against the BJP in the first place? We have to understand what a journalist does. The average journalist is faced with important political, economic and diplomatic issues on a daily basis and yet does not possess the intellectual capacity to process these in an appropriate manner. As such, the average mediaperson finds it vastly simpler to jump on to bogeys, focus on buzzwords and act like a swarm of bees than to think. 24 x 7 television further heightens the need to look smart as opposed to being smart. Blaming the BJP is easy. The BJP lacks a systematic multi level worldwide terror infrastructure unlike Islam does: ranging from the "few misguided youths" who fly planes into buildings to the "peaceful demonstrators" and "victims of discrimination" who burn down Bangalore because dictator Saddam Hussein is about to be hanged. In fact, the motley band of Shiv Sena thugs who show up to break glass panes make for excellent reality television; the meagre financial losses these events entail are more than justified by the money the channel makes by subsequently telecasting this "riot". Understanding the "secular argument against the savagery of Islam" is a nuance that is beyond the intellectual capability of the average journalist.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is : why is the media able to get away with this? The reason is that the media has the privilege of writing its own performance review, and therefore, is effectively free from the constraints of professional responsibility. When the media drives itself into a corner, as it often does, the media can pull out simply by deciding not to talk about their blunder any more on the airwaves. What India needs is a second line of defence against forces of misinformation, such as a higher penetration of media such as blogs and youtube. Media personalities such as Barkha Dutt have already gone public with their dislike of blogs. The fact that the media is the least democratic of all the estates of democracy is a point that cannot be stressed enough. Although we the people are grateful to the media for the wonderful coverage, we should know better than to let the opinions of some semi literate, self appointed intellectuals to influence our opinion beyond a point. Fortunately, most of us already know that. Election results bear that out.


* As a postscript, the Oracle will explain why he considers the Opinion Polls to be "contrived and dishonest". We start by agreeing that opinion polls have gone grievously wrong in recent years. The failure can be blamed on either of two sources (or a combination thereof): the science that underlies an opinion poll or the integrity of the people who administer the exercise. In view of this, the Oracle would much rather question the honesty of the mediapersons than the power of science and logical reasoning.

Political soup in Jharkhand

The political compass has been spinning madly in Jharkhand for a while now. Just so we can get a sense of how Jharkhand became the most politically unstable state in the country (perhaps after Goa), let us take a look at the timeline of events that have happened since the Assembly Elections of 2005.

1. Shibu Soren forced upon the state as Chief Minister by Governor Razi, by falsely claiming the support of 2 MLAs in his letter to the Governor.

2. BJP smuggles out 5 MLAs through Bhubaneshwar to Delhi and parades them before the media.

3. Supreme Court strikes down the nomination of an Anglo Indian member by Soren, asks proceedings of the Assembly to be videotaped: Arjun munda forms government. Governor Razi receives a severe reprimand from the President for his partisan role.

4. Coup engineered by Laloo yadav unseats Munda, replaces him with independent Madhu Koda who had been supporting the previous government.

5. Shibu Soren is convicted of murder and sent to prison.

6. Koda abdicates in favour of Soren.

7. Soren seeks election to the Assembly from Tamar constituency, loses miserably to a candidate from the Jharkhand Party.

8. President's rule is imposed.


...phew! It is difficult to believe that all this could have happened in just four years. And now the UPA "partners" continue their machinations to prop up a new government as the enraged Opposition demands fresh elections. The question is: could a political class get so self involved, so self centred that they actually forget that they are representatives of the people? The state of Jharkhand performs miserably on every indicator of development, the majority of the people languish in desperate poverty, illiteracy is rampant and social unrest threatens to boil over. Jharkhand is a microcosm which parallels the many states in Africa, etc. that are complete disasters.

The state of Jharkhand has, on an average, struggled to keep any maintain an organized polity. In Ranchi, for instance, where local bodies went to polls last year, the number of candidates was so large that special arrangements had to be made. While this is symptomatic of a vibrant democracy, this also suggests that the state might be falling over the edge into anarchy. Small state Assemblies have always been a bane, with smaller parties and independents having a field day, but Jharkhand has taken this to a whole new level.

So what options do the political parties have? The BJP has had to lie low ever since Arjun Munda failed to save his government. Ever since, the party has struggled to win by-elections, mostly due to organizational and local problems. The state unit has been torn apart by factionalism. Uncomfortable personal equations between party leaders such as Yashwant Sinha and Yadunath Pandey have taken a toll on the BJP's fortunes. Although party backed candidates performed handsomely in the local bodies a year ago, the party has let its tribal support slip away. The major architect of this decline has been former BJP leader Babulal Marandi, who is usually credited with having run a fair and decent BJP government in the state. But, in this election year, the BJP seems to be getting its act together. Recently, party leaders were in the streets of Ranchi together, in a show of unity, demanding fresh elections. The party has also gradually expelled the malcontents, who have found seats of opportunity in other political corners.

The BJP has also had to deal with a sulking JD(U). After JD(U) lost Namdhari, the party has been reduced to nothing in the state. This has not stopped JD(U) leaders from demanding a large chunk of the seats in the state. As a result, the BJP is now threatening to go on its own in the Lok Sabha elections. As in 2004, this gambit could cost the party dearly, since even marginal number of votes can tilt the outcome decisively in such a fractured polity.

Fortunately for the BJP, the UPA camp has been plagued even more seriously by internal problems. The bonhomie between all anti-BJP parties that brought all seven of them together as a mammoth alliance in 2004, is nowhere to be seen. It is noteworthy that the seven parties together had managed to notch up a mere 2% larger share of the popular vote than the BJP had on its own. Had the BJP been in alliance with JD(U) at that time, it would have won at least 5 seats.

The UPA's abysmal failure to run a confidence inspiring government or to put up a united face is going to cost them dear. No one ever took Madhu Koda's government seriously and how the people feel about Soren has become amply clear with the Tamar bypoll results. To my knowledge, a sitting Chief Minister seeking entry into the Assembly has never been turned down by the people. And Tamar is an utterly rural seat in the tribal heart of Jharkhand. If "Guruji" cannot make it there, he should think twice before trying his luck. The decline in JMM's fortunes is largely due to the fact that people are tired of the blatant opportunism of the party. The integrity of JMM is so low that disgust is the only possible reaction. The party has never had success in the urban areas of the state and now it is beginning to fall apart in tribal areas. This is the fallout of the whimsical leadership of Shibu Soren. JMM ranks cracked even as Assembly elections were in process in 2005, with the exit of Stephen Marandi. Less than three weeks later, Stephen Marandi was back at Soren's side as his trusted lieutenant. Things kept changing even after that; and Stephen was in the company of Babulal Marandi when the Oracle lost track of him.

The JMM's sour relations with RJD have not helped. In the aftermath of the Tamar fiasco, the RJD rushed through a proposal to have its own Annapurna Devi as Chief Minister (the RJD's obsession with food continues.... from Rabri to Annapurna). Soren, for his part, wanted Champai Soren to hold the position until the former managed to win a later bypoll. After Champai was rejected by UPA partners, the choice fell on Nalin Soren, then on Salkhan Soren and finally on Sushila Hansda. It took Shibu Soren four tries to figure out that the Congress was happy to rule the state through Governor Sibtey Razi and didn't mean to have anybody from the JMM as Chief Minister. Now Soren is threatening to contest the Lok Sabha polls on his own if the UPA partners do not cooperate. Given that the UPA has failed to contest a single election in the last three years as a united whole ever since it was formed in 2004, this is what would have happened anyway.

In all this, the man who has looked rather unperturbed is Babulal Marandi. His Jharkhand Vikas Morcha has gone from strength to strength. Some of this has to do with his stubborn refusal to return to BJP out of a sense of honour, a rare commodity in Jharkhand politics. His party has sapped the membership of the BJP, the latest being legislator Pradeep Yadav, who is now principal general secretary of the JVM. However, the JVM still lacks a credible cadre across the state, which means it might not be able to translate the generally positive impression of his party into votes.

There is a case to be made before the people of Jharkhand about rising above the minutae of local party politics. Too many parties have come up in Jharkhand in too short a time, each with its own axe to grind, each commanding a small sliver of the population that is too myopic to see beyond some small issue that is of marginal significance to affairs of the state. The outcome: the Congress, which has zero public support in the state, is now ruling the state by proxy. Governor Razi now enjoys power without responsibility. This is what happens when people abdicate their responsibility to the state and the democratic process.

Nagpur meet: BJP tries to close ranks

The Nagpur meet has come as a change to party watchers who thought the BJP's campaign would never begin. It has been a while since the BJP and NDA declared L K Advani as the Opposition candidate for Prime Minister and tried to build a buzz around his personality. The strategy never worked; Advani's efforts failed to arouse little more than scholastic interest among political junkies. To his credit, the formidable Advani tried his best to become larger than life; he wrote a massive volume compiling his immense political life experience, tried to reach out to the young through the internet and recently, through blogging; but things never qute took off. Advani was ridiculed for being too old to lead an aspiring young nation and a shamelessly partisan elite media kept rooting for Rahul Gandhi to take over as an "Indian Obama"... that's right; a man with a shockingly low political IQ as Rahul Gandhi, whose elevation to high office should cause any hard working man or woman to swear under his/her breath against the "class privilege of the lazy rich"; is suggested as a parallel to America's transformational new President, who overcame barriers of racial prejudice, institutional power and poverty to rise from the middle class wasteland to Harvard, to the United States Senate and then to the White House! It does not get any more surreal than this...

The BJP's Nagpur meet was an improvement in the sense that one saw nothing of the blame game that has become pervasive in BJP circles. The BJP is under pressure and frustrated at not being seen as a favourite to win the Lok Sabha polls in April-May. Ever since the BJP-NDA declared Advani as the Prime Ministerial candidate, there have been 8 major Assembly elections. Of these, the BJP has won 5 on its own, improved its performance vastly in a sixth (J&K) and lost two. The Congress has won one, emerged as single largest party in one and lost six. That is 2 positives to the BJP's 6! The BJP realizes that it has to use its worker base to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, since not even a 6-2 advantage will translate into the slightest media coverage in favour of the party.

With this understanding, the BJP began at Nagpur, with LK Advani urging party workers to probe the ground and listen to the people. This meet lacked the bluff and bluster of previous party meetings, in that it was austere in self congratulation and forthcoming in terms of self evaluation. First of all, the BJP has decided to opt for a more "dissipated" campaign, with regional leaders taking charge of each state. This has been done in the absence of a single polarizing national issue and the failure to create an aura around the person of Advani. Advani, for his part, has been extremely dynamic in the last one year, struggling to repackage himself. Although the venerable leader probably realizes that it is well nigh impossible for him to break all associations with the past, he is not about to give up. Advani has been, in fact, spectacularly optimistic ever since he was declared as candidate for Prime Minister. Advani has appeared at book signings, has created a website with a smart new feel and tried to be everywhere at once. The party organization has often failed him in this respect. Advani conceived the series of Vijay Sankalp rallies across the country, but the party machine could hardly bear him out. Nevertheless, he has refused to be discouraged. At one such rally in Ranchi, he was so moved by the response that he asked for a personal video copy of the events.

At the Nagpur meet, Advani was his new self yet again, refusing to read from the prepared text of his address, instead launching into a fiery speech all on his own. In his speech, Advani mentioned each of the BJP's second generation leaders in turn, reserving the fewest words but the most fulsome praise for Modi. Modi, for his part, still seems to be taking stock of the situation, content to let the BJP leadership and the media hang on to his every word, holding back word on whether he plans to become Prime Minister one day. Modi's tirade against the Gandhi dynasty made headlines all around, but little else was heard from the BJP's most charismatic leader.

Apart from this, the BJP made some stunning decisions at the Nagpur meet. Following 2004, the BJP had, for long articulated their decision to make the top leadership of the party contest elections. It, therefore, came as a shock that both Venkaiah Naidu and Arun Jaitley had decided to stay away from contesting elections. Only Sushma Swaraj would try her luck, possibly from Bhopal. This is precisely the kind of flip flop that has been letting the BJP down in Delhi. Despite winning so many states, the BJP has never looked very decisive in the last five years. From Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi; and from Bihar to Jharkhand and Orissa, there is a sense that the BJP is bowing out of contests, very much like the Congress.

The absence of an NDA outlook at this crucial meeting was conspicuous. This can only mean that the BJP is getting too comfortable with its NDA allies and has stopped taking their occasional disgruntled murmurings seriously. After all, the NDA core group consisting of the JD(U) , Sena, SAD and BJD has come to be so closely identified with the BJP that chances of these parties seeking realignment are few. The BJP's main concern should be with how small this group really is and how the party has failed to draw any other major regional party "into orbit" since the elections of 1999. There have been alliances: with Chautala's INLD, Mayawati's BSP, Jaya's AIADMK, Naidu's TDP and Gowda's JD(S), but little has come of these alliances that is of lasting value. In fact, the BJP has grown increasingly distant from two former friends: Chandrababu Naidu and Mamata Banerjee.

The BJP is, therefore, caught between two stools. On the one hand, the party has had to contend with increasing disenchantment of core supporters, bickering among party factions and a diminishing Hindutva vote. On the other, the party has the challenge of coalition building. Paradoxically, the same issues that unite the BJP and give it its unique identity are those that scare away potential allies. Coupled with the fact that the BJP has been stripped of its "rising star" appeal of the 90's, the party has been limping around the political arena, looking for friends. The eagerness of the Congress to negotiate and compromise on all issues except the leadership of the divine family has proved to be a superior asset for the sake of coalition building. The extensive "name and shame campaign" carried out against "communal forces" in India still has some bite left. For the BJP, the stigma has remained, the star quality has not.

The BJP, in turn, chose to put its house in order. The party chose to project the two issues that virtually every BJP worker, leader and sympathiser can agree upon: building the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and bringing down the Gandhi dynasty. This effectively means that the BJP has decided to seek no new alliances until the election. It's a cynical approach, built on the idea that post election support will coalesce around whoever is ahead. The trouble is; if the Congress goes into the election with too many allies and the BJP with too few, the NDA might just fall a few seats short of the UPA, at which time the secular bogey will be evoked to thrust yet another Gandhi government upon the country. The BJP hopes to maximise the number of seats contested by having fewer seat sharing arrangements, thus winning the race to become the single largest party. Unless the BJP can beat the Congress by a considerable margin, this strategy will not work.

As the BJP gets back to the business of working on the General Elections, it is good that the party has given itself a moment to plan about the future. It had been said that the BJP's political rise was only meteoric, with the party sure to fall apart due to internal bickerings soon after losing power. It had been said that the NDA would disintegrate after May 2004. In the later half of 2004, there were plenty of signs that all this was about to happen. But, slowly yet surely, the BJP and the NDA have prevailed over the prophets of doom. A face has begun to emerge, a hint of the "chaal, charitra, chehra" of the the BJP that is to be. It had been lamented that, "once upon a time, the BJP had a strong leader at every level", a setup that had collapsed when the BJP leaders flocked to the Centre to share power in Delhi. Ten years hence, Vasundhara, Modi, Shivraj Singh, Raman Singh, Yeddyurappa, Sushil Modi have fallen into place again. The managers and spokesmen: Javadekar, Jaitley, Swaraj, Naqvi, Ravi Shankar have come to the fore. A farmer's son has taken over as party president. It is a victory, not of dynasties, but of organizational ability. It has been a long time coming for the only political party in India with an internal democracy, but it has happened.

The post 26/11 diplomatic offensive: Did it work?

The Indian Government has been waiting, and so has the humble Oracle, for the response from Pakistan. It has been more than two months since India has established, beyond all reasonable doubt, the fact that the Mumbai terror attacks were conceived and commandeered from Pakistani soil. Apart from the damning dossier that India compiled, most democratic nations in the world and even some despotic ones like Saudi Arabia bought India's claims almost at face value, leaving Pakistan scrambling for a credible defence. The Oracle now begins an analysis of what Pakistan's aims are, of the measure of India's success and of world perceptions that matter.

1) The immediate aftermath: Given the relentless 24 hour coverage that the Mumbai terror attacks received across the world, India began on the diplomatic game on an international high. The Americans and the rest of the (civilized) world, for the most part, thought that war was imminent and top US officials basically conceded that there were few moral grounds to restrain India from seeking violent revenge. The world community, which had hitherto taken a more nuanced view of the India-Pak question, was strident this time around in saying that it is errant Pakistan that needs to fall in line with international commitments. The United Nations rushed through a ban on the Lashkar's front organisations and Condolezza Rice firmly told the Pakistanis that India's case was irrefutable. It was a marker of how much attitudes have changed towards India. The sentiment that carried the day in the international community was that Pakistan had to be pushed to act fast against terrorist to prevent an angry India from going to war.

Although it now appears that much of the war phobia across the world was unfounded, the entire exercise was not without merit for India. The lame and listless sham Pakistan Government was fried in international circles when it tried to embrace sundry conspiracy theories about the Mumbai attacks. Much of this is owed to the extensive coverage by a sharp Indian media, the fortuitous capture of a live Pakistani terrorist and the establishment of a clear trail of evidence leading directly to Pakistan. This time the world community was more informed, more conscious of South Asian issues and more disgusted over the failures of Pakistan. On former occasions, it had always been India's word against that of Pakistan, suggesting the existence of a genuine controversy. This approach worked as long as the two nations were hyphenated in international perception. As India worked its way into the list of potential superpowers and Pakistan floated towards the top of the list of failed states, the hyphen was stretched too thin. The hyphen snapped when the Mumbai attacks took place.

2) Pakistan's antics: The low life running the government in Pakistan have lurched from one inconsistent statement to another. Long before the attacks of 26/11, we had lost count of Pakistan's damning failures. To put this in perspective, Pakistan never got its democracy off the ground, failed to retain its Eastern arm and most of modern day Pakistan has never seen much of government, only anarchy. The biggest failure of all was the plan to "bleed India with a thousand cuts", which has backfired spectacularly. The ruse of being an American "ally" against did not endure for long before it was brutally exposed, with Pakistan too scared to even protest violations of its territorial integrity by the United States. The Pakistani Army which floated the Taliban in the first place could not masquerade as the "frontline of the defence against the Taliban"; fanaticism runs too deep in the Pakistani psyche and all lies have been nailed. Between each military dictatorship and the next, the Islamic Republic has survived on a series of "life extensions". You can't build a future based on life extensions.

After 26/11 happened, the "government" of Pakistan began a series of hard headed arguments. First, they contended that the attacks had nothing to do with Pakistan; but Pakistan could not find a single nation that would so much as hear them out on this one. Even Saudi Arabia, which is the No.1 state sponsor of terrorism, shook its head in disbelief at the Pakistani argument. The Americans would have none of it, neither would the British, the French nor the Germans. The one shot in the arm came when the chief of Interpol suggested that there might be some merit to the Pakistani claim, but there was only so much Pakistan could gain by clutching onto a straw. The American response was particularly damning, with Condolezza Rice describing India's evidence as "irrefutable" and Sen. McCain suggesting openly that India could hardly be blamed for a war, should it want one. Though many in the Islamic world will heave a sigh of relief at the change in the White House, President Obama has, many a time, uttered that the US might need to "bomb Pakistan". One of President Obama's first orders of business was, in fact, doing just that, when he allowed a US missile strike in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Ever since, Pakistan has wilted under pressure. First came the admission that captured terrorist Kasab is indeed Pakistani. Pakistan asked for a joint investigation; then ordered its own probe. Then it promised to act against terror groups on its own soil and also claimed that the Jamaat ud Dawa etc. were "charitable organisations". Then it promised to reply to India's dossier by Jan 26, a date that came and went. Recently reports suggested Pakistan would actually file cases against five people for the Mumbai attacks. These were soon superseded by suggestions that the attacks had been planned in "an European country". Who's counting anyway?

Pakistan, understandably, is trying to buy time. They are still hoping that the Mumbai issue will fizzle out. Whatever the plan is, it doesn't seem to be working.

The Pakistani civilian population is caught between a rock and a hard place. They have been poorly served by their "government" and their media. Instead of trying to isolate the extremists after 26/11, the immature, ill informed Pakistani media bought into a series of conspiracy theories and anti-India jingoism. Worse, many actually suggested that the Mumbai attacks were the beginning of the collapse of the Union of India and therefore a cause for celebration in Pakistan. The Pakistani media is a market of insane ideas, one in which, the 9/11 conspiracy theory is assumed to be an established, well known truth and the Mossad is almost blamed for the Kashmir earthquake. The civilian population needs therapy, not a reinforcement of their delusions.

Pakistan has been a wreck since its inception. The wreckage is sinking now. It was a mistake to found that nation on hatred. Pakistan does not stand a chance now. It never did.

3) Indian stance: The Oracle has been no friend of the UPA, but due credit must be given to the diplomatic stance assumed by the Indian Government. External Affairs minister Mukherjee has held his line stoically and has been duly backed by the new Home Minister and by the Prime Minister. The Government intelligently nailed Pakistan with a dossier and did not let one inconsistency pass in the last two months. Besides, India showed the evidence of Pakistani involvement to anyone who would listen, leaving not a doubt in the minds of the whole world that Pakistan based elements had carried out the terrorist attacks. This was apparent when China, which had blocked a UN resolution to ban the Lashkar Front organisations no less than three times; got out of the way with a whimper this time. The Chinese have been covering for Pakistan at the UN while people have not been looking. The Chinese also started a whisper campaign at the Nuclear Suppliers Group last year to confound India covertly, while supporting India on the outside. That's two strikes for the largest rogue state in the world.

Two months hence, the Indian government has not wavered much. It has refused to be drawn into a slandering match with Pakistan. It has also garnered worldwide goodwill for restraining the urge to use military might.

There have, of course, been minor infractions. First there was Minority Affairs Minister Antulay making public his misgivings over the death of Hemant Karkare. Being a Muslim and a Gandhi family loyalist at that, he was later issued a full pardon by both the Government and the media. The attitude of the corporate media is apparent in that the attack on a group of women in a Mangalore pub has received so much more attention than the rape of an 8-year old girl by policemen in Uttar Pradesh. Though the media might have its priorities wrong, the free market media model that India has still, fortunately, worked to our favour in international circles.

India loses a friend: Time to move beyond individuals?

The direction in Indo-US bilateral relations taken during the Bush years will serve as a diplomatic compass for several decades to come. Hardly surprising therefore, is the fact that the President who made America unpopular with its traditional allies in Europe has made foreign policy experts on both sides shake their heads in disbelief and agree that "Blame Bush for what you will, but with regard to India, he got it absolutely right". In this article, we analyze whether President Bush's departure from the White House will put Indo-US ties in peril.

It is hard not for Indians to feel some personal affinity for President Bush and the party he represents. After all, it was Bush and his Republicans who made the US overtly friendly to India, cemented military ties and helped India gain recognition as a legitimate nuclear power. However, it may be argued that most of these measures were imperatives for US policy, given the political, military and economic rise of China and the menace of Islamic terrorism. Even so, the thaw in Indo-US relations is very new and Bush happened to be in office when all of it happened. It is therefore pertinent to ask whether bilateral relations will continue to improve, given that Bush is no longer President and that the American people typically regard his Presidency with disgust and anger.

New Delhi has already answered half of the question. That the right wing BJP brought India closer to a Republican ruled United States is understandable. The events of Sept 11 pitted the civilized world against Islamic terrorism and both the BJP in India and the Republicans in the US were only too happy to join hands as "natural allies" against the common enemy. What is remarkable is that the "US-tilt" in Indian foreign policy continued even when the BJP was replaced with a Congress government propped up by Communist support! By the same token, India and the US share so many common interests and so many common values at the moment that it is difficult to see why things would change now that the Republicans have been replaced in Washington.

America has learned from its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. The paradigm of war has changed to a great extent and raw power is no longer enough. The US realizes that a unipolar world is now out of question. China intends to threaten the US from all quarters and the Russians will never stop flexing their muscles. America's European allies are sulking and do not have the stomach for a fight anyway. Even the once unassailable Israelis seem to be faltering into a public relations nightmare. The US needs allies desperately, allies that are economically strong and militarily potent. And allies don't come much bigger than India.

Also, America's political games over the last sixty years have finally brought home the lesson that supporting tinpot dictators for immediate ends never pays in the long run. The Saudi Royals are the most zealous and most well heeled supporters of terrorism in the world, the gambit in Iran never took off, training the Mujahiddeen in Afghanistan resulted in the worst terrorist attack ever and the one time support to Saddam backfired spectacularly. America has paid in blood and suffered much in the last eight years. A man so brilliant as Obama can be logically expected to have learned: Choose the wrong allies and you can't win. Therefore, it follows that America will strive to build alliances with "like minded nations" only, nations that are fundamentally friendly to the American way of life.

That apart, India and China are also some of the few places in the world where economic growth is still happening. America, which is seeing a trough in its economy, needs all the business it can get.

Much depends on how the US perceives the situation in Pakistan-Afghanistan (isn't that hyphenation so much better?). The realization that Pakistan and Afghanistan are two parts of the same problem is not lost on the Americans. If terror is funded by the Saudis, its infrastructure is parked in Pakistan. After six years in Afghanistan, the US fully realizes that its mission will never succeed as long as the Pakistani Army continues to play double agent (triple if you start counting the Chinese in). Obama has voiced his desire to stop all military aid to Pakistan if it does not take believable steps in aiding the US war on terror. That Pakistani credibility has reached an all time low in Washington was on display when Secy. Rice (as did the rest of the world) summarily dismissed all Pakistani attempts to pretend that Pak based elements were not behind the 26/11 attacks. Not that Pakistan's reputation was much better earlier in the fall, when President Bush gave the US military permission to conduct operations inside Pakistan without consulting/informing Pakistani authorities.

The time is, therefore, ripe for the Indians to cut off the Pakistani lifeline in Washington with one fell swoop. Sending Indian troops to Afghanistan would not only strengthen the US military there in real terms, but also push Pakistan to fall out of US favour for a very long time to come. Of course this is a very courageous diplomatic step that neither bureaucracy will be able to pull off. US-Pakistani relations are much more likely to die a natural, long drawn out death. Pakistan will inevitably draw closer to China and become part of the new "axis of evil". The US (and certainly India as well) will remain wary of this possibility and will try everything it can to prevent the inevitable from happening.

And finally, it is necessary to keep the forthcoming Indo-US (and certainly Israel) alliance in historical perspective. This is a very important geopolitical alliance, which will possibly expand to include Japan and might well be the hope for humanity once the fascists of all colours start getting their act together. Such an important alliance cannot be built on the strength of personal rapports. After all, India and the US found each other as natural allies, not exactly through diplomatic channels, but through common interests, common values and people to people contact. This is the stuff enduring alliances are built of.

Thoughts on the RSS

The RSS has pride of place in the political, social and cultural fabric of modern India. Understanding the cultural context of the Sangh and the Sangh Parivaar is therefore critical in comprehending the soul of the new nation we wish to live in. In this article, we will discuss this much maligned organization and its role in shaping the mindset of modern India.

1) As we said before, it is important to understand the "cultural context" of the Sangh. The Sangh arose out of a desire for Hindu revival, a desire to return to values indigenous to the Hind, a desire to reclaim our history and a desire to define our nation. While our liberal democracy must needs be built upon pluralism and multiculturalism, liberal democracy is nothing if people do not take pride in the nation.

Therefore, the first essential function of the RSS was to define India, the Hind, as one, as "Akhand Bharat". The purpose of this was to assert the cultural integrity of India and celebrate the seamless union of cultures that make up the subcontinent. This train of thought was particularly important at a time when India was being partitioned, its ancient boundaries trifled with by mindless Anglophiles who were ready to accept a compromised version of Indian history. While democracy had to be imported into India from the West, in doing so, Indian leaders of that age managed to import the colonial mentality of the times. Therefore, they saw India as a political entity rather than a cultural one. As a political entity, India could be carved up and divided without compunction. In that sense, the RSS restored to the nation what the Congress removed from it. While the Indian National Congress served as the vehicle of political assertion before 1947, it failed to assert the cultural indentity of India.

The second essential function of the RSS was to define the term "Hindu". Once again, a cultural unity was asserted and the RSS proclaimed that anyone born within the borders of Akhand Bharat was a "Hindu". This definition was also meant to weaken the grip of the caste mindset that has a stranglehold on India to this very day. A striking feature of the RSS was its assertion that Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc. were also "Hindus". As for the Muslims, the RSS called on them to disassociate from their connections to Arabia and Persia. Given the graveyard of human values that Arabia and Persia have subsequently become, it is difficult not to praise the foresight of the RSS in asking Muslims to disconnect from them culturally.

The third essential function of the RSS was to urge the Indian people to take pride in their history. This was not to condone cultural shames such as Sati, child marriage, female infanticide, untouchability, etc. but to build a sense of nationhood as well as the confidence that the collective conscience of our culture could deliberate upon these issues and firmly shut them out into the past. Such a process, initiated by Indians, would be cathartic to the nation and would heal the wounds of history. The Indian people were denied this opportunity to grieve and atone for their mistakes, thus ushering in a generation of people who did not understand whether to be proud of their nation or to apologize for it. A case in point would be the United States, which despite its shameful history of Native American genocide, slavery, Japanese internment and racism, rose to become the greatest nation in the world. This is due to the fact that the American people supplied their own intellectual leaders, who founded their democracy and then weaned their nation away from its weaknesses and led the United States to the pinnacle of power.

2) The political context of the Sangh is also very interesting. The Sangh supplies the ideological foundation for the BJP and heads the Sangh Parivaar, of which the BJP is a member. The tactical refrain of the RSS from participating directly in elections is an illustration of the Hindu concept of "body" and "soul". This is explicit in the manner in which the Sangh restricts its membership to Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists and Jains, but the BJP has no such bar, explicit or implicit. The idea is that while the political body of India is multicultural, it's cultural soul is anchored to human values of ancient India, loosely referred to as "Hinduism".

Hinduism, at its very core, is about tolerance for all kinds of thought. Hinduism is what you have when you try to rationalize the observable universe in a pre-scientific era. For instance, if one does want to believe in the supernatural, it makes more sense to believe in multiple gods rather than one, for that would at least account for the contradictory ways in which "God" seems to act. The "single minded", dogmatic God that rules over all three Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam illustrates the point. In fact, all the strife between these three religions can be attributed to a mindless quarrel over the interpretation of the rules given by the God of Abraham, the so called "Yahwe". It is the unwavering belief in a single God that leads people to fight over what they think this God wanted to say. This also explains why the Hindu "scriptures" are written in the form a discussion between philosophers, rather than as a story or a sermon. The Hindu scriptures ask questions, debate possible natural and supernatural explanations and leave it at that. This is an aspect of Hinduism that has hardly ever received praise or recognition. We repeat: "Hinduism is what you have when you try to rationalize the observable universe in a pre-scientific era". Unless you have science, you can't be sure of anything. That is why Hinduism is so lax, so loose.

3) No discussion/evaluation of the Sangh is complete without talking about the RSS position on Gandhi. Whether Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte were continuing RSS members at the time of assassinating the Mahatma is immaterial, since it is well known that the assassins traced much of their personal beliefs to the RSS and its sister organizations. Here it is important to understand that the RSS formed a kind of cultural umbrella before 1947, much as the Congress formed a political umbrella during the same period. Nehru, Gandhi, Subhas, Sardar and even Jinnah belonged to the same Congress Party. Similarly, the RSS contained within itself a whole cultural spectrum, ranging from those who believed in a Hindu state in literal terms to those who understood Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay's integral humanism. The maturity of the Indian people has sorted out these elements in course of time: while Jinnah and his state have been pushed into the dustbins of history, Godse and his fellow travelers have been cast away as well. In his book, "My Country, My Life", Advaniji praised the people of India who were not taken at all by Government lies during the Emergency. This is in contrast to the people of many other Third World nations, who bought into what despots told them and were tricked into losing their democracies. It is this spirit that made India unique in the Third World, as a nation that reconciled 18 major languages and 3 major religions, managed its own functioning democracy including rule of law, built up an massive military, created an economic powerhouse and found time for a moon mission.