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.