CONGRESS'S WOES: PRESENT TENSE AND FUTURE UNCERTAIN

India’s grand opposition Congress party seems to be inflicted with conspicuous confusion with very little clarity on the direction it wants to move. Amidst its bid to arrest the sagging fortunes and improve its presence, the party is simultaneously conspiring for the defeat of the National Democratic Alliance government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). There is an old proverb: “One foot cannot stand on two boats.” And that is precisely what the Congress is doing. Can the Congress take on the ruling party when it itself is struggling to regain the space it ceded to the BJP and other regional parties in the last few years?

pix courtesy: dnaindia.com

If the Congress has failed to stitch together an effective counter-alliance to the NDA, it is because of its refusal to give room to smaller but growing parties fearing further erosion in its shrinking base. As a result, not only did it miss the opportunity to be part of the ‘Mahagathbandhan’ in Uttar Pradesh, it is facing alliance blues in other states as well. The classic case is of Sharad Pawar-led National Congress party (NCP), which has been steadfastly associated with the Congress, has chosen to go it alone in Gujarat even though the two parties have pledged to contest together in Maharashtra. There is no doubt that with NCP choosing to contest all the 26 parliamentary seats in Gujarat, there will be a division of votes, which will ultimately benefit the BJP.

In fact, it was Sharad Pawar who had first taken the initiative to form a “Mahagathbandhan” of opposition parties to take on the ruling alliance. But his idea could not materialise as the Congress was not ready to play second fiddle to some parties which had grown in stature. The Congress, which was wiped out from Delhi in both the assembly and parliamentary elections, lacked maturity in entering into any understanding with the Aam Aadmi Party which also wanted the alliance in both Punjab and Haryana besides Delhi. But the Congress, which snatched power from the BJP-SAD alliance in Punjab and lost ground to the BJP in Haryana, did not want to share space with AAP which was spreading its wings there. As a result, what we see is a loosely-knit alliance led by Congress party with smaller parties in some states.

It reflects very poorly on the leadership of the Congress, which is not sagacious enough to come out of its shadow. Congress president Rahul Gandhi should realise that his party is not in a position to command a premium on its value. Had he been sensible and could see the writing on the wall; he would have gone ahead to accommodate as many parties which still wanted a solid and credible opposition alliance? The problem with the Congress leadership is that it wants to have the cake and eat it too. That’s not only practical but impossible also.

If the NDA alliance has been largely successful, it is due to the open-heartedness of the principal party, the BJP, which has been careful in creating a non-disturbing environment for smaller and regional parties. While continuing to pursue its agenda of maximising its reach in states where it does not have much influence, the BJP has been wise enough to enter into an alliance with regional parties.

With the Congress not having the stomach to accommodate the interests of other parties, it would have been better had it gone alone with an aim to improve its reach and tally. The Congress, which recorded its worst performance in the last general elections bagging just 44 seats, could corner only 19.5 per cent of votes then. Before it recovered some ground by winning state elections in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh last year, the Congress was only ruling Punjab and sharing power in Karnataka. The party showed some signs of recovery last year when elections to nine states – Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram, Rajasthan and Telangana – were held in 2018. Of the 1082 seats in these states, the Congress won 414 seats whereas the BJP won 355 seats.

The ideal strategy for Congress would have been to recoup and revitalise its organisation before going overboard with the aggressive approach of dislodging the Modi government. It has scored a self-goal by compromising with its prime objective of reviving the almost moribund party and simultaneously working to remove the present government. It is this confusion which has prevented it from allying with potential parties leading to three-cornered contests in several constituencies which is only going to help the BJP. In a nutshell, the present is tense and the future uncertain for the oldest political party.

(The article was first published at wionews.com)

SADLY, EC IS NO CHOWKIDAR

If the political discourse has reached an abysmal low this poll season, the Election Commission will have to apportion blame as it has failed miserably to redeem its reputation as a watchdog. Its conduct since the model code of conduct came into effect after the announcement of dates for the general elections leaves much to be desired. That it allowed free run to some of the politicians to continue with their irresponsible remarks during the campaigning does not augur well for the institution. Had the Election Commission used the discretionary powers that it enjoys, not only could it have reined in imprudent forces, it could also have escaped censure from the Supreme Court of India.

It took the rap from the country’s top court for the Election Commission to finally act against some of the lumpen elements who have brought shame not only to themselves but also to the political parties they  represent. It is a terrible loss of face for the institution which has been described “toothless” by the Supreme Court for failing to act against politicians breaching the model code of conduct through hate speeches and appealing for votes in the name of religion. The apex court rebuke not only puts the election watchdog in a poor light, it also raises questions of its conduct while ensuring free and fair elections. Being a constitutional authority, Election Commission is amongst the few institutions which function with both autonomy and freedom, but sadly it has not lived up to its image.

Over the years, the healthy debate has given way to theatrics with candidates sparing no efforts to grab the attention of the prospective voters with the media and experts also contributing to the democratic theatre going near hysterical. The near abandonment of normal political discourse and rise of nauseating campaign has, no doubt, led to a frenzy paying rich dividends, but the political process is a clear loser. There seems to be a sinister design by political parties to raise such frivolous topics so that the real issues affecting the common man remain buried under the carpet and the failings in their performance delivery get deflected.

It is not that only leaders of one political party are offenders. The entire political class seems to be obsessed with this crass stagecraft leading to politics of devaluation. It does not bode well for the largest democracy in the world. As the electioneering turns more vitriolic with leaders unabashedly hitting below the belt, the Election Commission has a moral duty to ensure that political leaders and their parties don’t cross the ‘lakshman rekha’.  But at a time when there is a critical loss of moral or ethical values, the model code of conduct needs statutory backing.

In the absence of statutory support, the model code of conduct is largely persuasive in nature leading to offenders getting away with minor reprimand from the Election Commission whenever it receives any such complaint of violation of code. With political parties and their leaders paying scant respect to such advisories, there is an urgent need to arm the Election Commission with legislative powers to ensure the model code of conduct. There should be a provision empowering the Election Commission to debar a candidate from contesting the elections if he or she is found guilty of repeat offence.

There is no doubt that the Election Commission has, from time to time, tried to bring improvements in the political process, but there is a long way to go before the Indian election system is cleansed of all the ills. An Election Commission petition pending before the Supreme Court seeking a life term ban on MPs, MLAs from contesting election after being convicted in criminal cases is one such noteworthy step. The existing law disqualifies politicians sentenced to a jail term of two years or more from contesting elections for six years from the date of release from prison. If the Supreme Court gives a favourable ruling to the EC petition and the parliament enacts such a law, it will lead to decriminalisation of politics.

With the Election Commission found floundering in strictly implementing the moral code of conduct, there is an urgent need for parliament to come up with an effective law to restrain candidates from hate speeches and seeking votes in the name of religion. The country cannot wait for clean politics any longer.

ELECTION MANIFESTOS: POPULISM VS PRAGMATISM

Come election season, Indian political parties vie to outdo each other by promising moon to the voters through their manifestos. The manifestos largely come in the shape of sops, which are mostly forgotten once the election process is over and the new elected government assumes office. These manifestos die their natural death till the new election is called after the five-year tenure of the government ends or if it falls ahead of its tenure. By the time the next election is called, nobody talks about the last manifesto. Interestingly, even the voters are not bothered whether the ruling government stuck to the promises it made in the manifesto when it rode to power last time.

A manifesto is a statement of intent by political parties detailing their aims and policies if they came to power. But sadly, the pre-election manifestos have never been treated as bible that should be followed and abided by religiously. This is so because several promises included in the document are too practical to be carried out.

How real are election manifestos? Do political parties adhere to these manifestos or these have merely been used to entice voters ahead of elections? It is high time political parties are held accountable for failing to implement what is promised to voters.

Of late, a new populist political culture is emerging which is fast catching up with people, not only in India but across the world. Populism seems to be the flavour of political parties tapping people’s frustration and anger against the incumbent government for ignoring their concerns and excluding them from the benefits of higher growth. This model has proved to be so successful that it has become an important tool for political parties to woo the voters, particularly those belonging to the disadvantaged groups of the society who feel delineated because of the government policies and programmes which they think have resulted in concentration of wealth among a few only.

This is one of the main reasons why political parties resort to populism to win the support of voters who are often taken for granted. These manifestos are loaded with goodies offering free laptops for students, cycles, gold etc at state level and waiver of farmers loans or even bigger as depositing a large amount of money in voters’ accounts at the national level while downplaying the failings in their performance delivery. The political parties should also come out with proposals how they plan to implement their ideas without jeopardising the economy.

Last week, the Congress party made some grandiose announcements while releasing the manifesto for the forthcoming general elections. The one which stands out is the offer of Rs. 72,000 annually to the poorest 20 percent of the population. Did the party calculate how much will it cost the exchequer and put budgetary pressure? And, mind you, it is not a one-time offer. 

Another such announcement is the proposed implementation of MGNREGA 3.0 with minimum days increased from 100 to 150. When not much work could be created in MGNREGA’s first avatar, how does the party propose to increase work in rural areas? A study by the National Council of Applied Economic Research and the University of Maryland found in 2015 that only 24.4 percent of rural households participated in the rural employment scheme, while nearly 70 percent of the interested households could not participate due to lack of work. Again another proposal of a new GST regime based on a single, moderate, standard rate of tax on all goods and services is not practical. In a country where there is a wide disparity of income among people, the single rate GST would, in fact, hurt the poor the most as costs of several essential items too will go up.  There is no doubt that there should be further simplification of rates with fewer exemptions and simpler policies, but the idea of a single rate GST is flawed. Another audacious proposal is to fill all the four lakh central government and institutional vacancies before March 2020, which if implemented will balloon the already bloated non-planned expenditure. Any sharp increase in the government spending will result in widening of the fiscal deficit and affect the economic growth. While the Congress president Rahul Gandhi tom-tommed the party’s election manifesto as the panacea for all the ills, he failed to enumerate how he planned to implement such utopian ideas.

Almost a week after Congress’ manifesto release, the BJP too came out with its own version today. It, however, desisted from announcing tall promises, but could not resist the temptation to offer some sops to farmers in view of the agrarian crisis and small traders who were hit by demonetisation and GST exercise. While announcing yearly support of Rs. 6,000 to all farmers under Kisan Samman Nidhi Scheme, the BJP reiterated its promise to double famers’ income, which has been borrowed from last manifesto in 2014.  The 6,000 rupees yearly dole, though pales in contrast to the Congress offer of Rs. 72,000 annually to the poorest 20 percent of the population, seems doable.

The BJP decision to provide pension to small farmers and small shopkeepers after they attain 60 years of age is vague in a sense that it did not elaborate how much pension it plans to offer. At a time, when the government has stopped pension to government employees from 2004 onwards, this new offer is bound to raise heckles, and put pressure on the budget.

The BJP’s promise to increase the doctor-population ratio to one per 1,400 by 2022 is a tough task given that there is just one allopathic government doctor available for around 11,082 people across the country, which is more than 10 times the WHO recommended ratio of 1:1000. On March 23, 2018, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare informed the Lok Sabha that a total of 30,455 seats in state-run institutions and 36,165 seats in private medical colleges in the country are available for MBBS admissions while about 2,930 seats in state-run institutes and 24,130 seats in private dental colleges in India are available in BDS programmes. According to government figures, there are altogether 93,680 seats available for both MBBS and BDS programmes together every year, so how can the government expect to increase the number of doctors?

It is high time the political parties come out with realistic manifestos offering solutions to the problems the country is facing rather than offering bribes to the voters ahead of elections. It should be incumbent upon the ruling party to come out with an action taken report at the end of its tenure so that the voters feel enlightened and not cheated to know how many of the promises have been honoured. Otherwise, the relevance of poll manifestos will be lost.

Thankfully, there is growing awareness among the young electorate who know the value of their votes. In an age of vibrant social media and increasing citizen activism, one hopes the political parties will no longer treat the manifestos as only an election ritual. With just a few months left for the election verdict, it remains to be seen if pragmatism or populism rules the day in India.

Masood Azhar proving to be Albatross around China’s neck

China is finding itself increasingly isolated after its blind support to Pakistan by repeatedly thwarting the United Nations efforts to declare Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. The United States’ decision to discuss the issue of Azhar in the open UN General Assembly has put China in a very embarrassing situation. Frustrated by China’s intransigence not to lift the technical hold on the UN listing of Azhar as a global terrorist, the three key members of the P-5 Club in the UNSC have sought explanation from Beijing. There is no doubt that major countries have been exasperated with China for torpedoing the repeated efforts of the United Nations to ban Azhar.

Pix courtesy: the print.in

Rankled by the US decision to take the issue directly to the UN Security Council, China seems to be running out of its options. Sensing that it can no longer protect Jaish chief, China made its all-weather ally Pakistan to bail it out with a statement which exposes the nexus between the two countries. Last week, Pakistan suggested that China could withdraw its technical hold on Azhar if India agreed to military de-escalation along the border and resumed the stalled bilateral talks. It is clearly indicative of the realization on the part of both China and Pakistan that the issue could not be procrastinated further. China has reportedly been rebuked by the US after it made the issue of Indo-Pak military de-escalation and resumption of talks as pre-condition for lifting the technical hold on Azhar, thus allowing later to be listed as a global terrorist.

With the US refusing to play ball with China in linking the two issues and major members of the UN Security Council hardening their position on Azhar, time is running out for Beijing. China is now working to wriggle itself out of the situation and this week’s statement by its foreign office says it all. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said in a regular media briefing: “After the application for designation of Azhar was proposed (in the 1267 Sanctions Committee), China is in close communication and coordination with various parties and made positive progress. The US knows that very well.”

“We hope various parties will meet each other half way and continue to properly solve this issue under the 1267 Committee framework. Last Friday, UN Security Council members exchanged views on the US-proposed draft resolution. The majority believes that efforts should be made to solve the issue under the 1267 Committee framework,” the spokesperson added.

The statement is not only significant but self-explanatory as China seems to be feeling the heat. It is matter of time before China falls in line and throws its weight behind the world in declaring Azhar a global terrorist. But it would make every effort to prolong the issue knowing well that India’s ruling party could use it as a major victory ahead of the national elections. Not mentioning US by name, the foreign ministry spokesman went on to add: “We believe under the current circumstances, forcing a draft resolution at the Security Council is not a constructive move and sets a bad example… It is also not conducive for peace and stability in South Asia. China is opposed to this.”

When asked specifically whether the US move to take Azhar’s listing directly to the UN Security Council could benefit the ruling BJP in general election, Geng said: “It is setting a bad example that will only complicate the matter … The general election is the domestic affair of India. We do not comment on that.”

There are three important elements to the statement. One, China has made its displeasure known at US attempts to corner it by referring the issue to the wider Security Council. Once the issue is deliberated in the Security Council, China will find itself isolated in the important forum as all the 15 countries (10 non-permanent members and five members) excluding Beijing are in favour of Azhar being declared a global terrorist in the aftermath of Pulwama attack when a JeM operative rammed an explosive-ridden vehicle into a convoy of CRPF killing at least 40 personnel in February. China is aware of its imminent defeat in the Security Council.

This is the fourth time that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist by putting the proposal on a “technical hold” before eventually terminating it on the grounds that “there is no consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council.  How can there be a consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unprincipled stand on Azhar? In 2017 also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council when the P3 nations – the US, UK and France – sought to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. While the proposal had approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council, it was China which censored it. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.

Second important point which exposes China’s double standards in the war against terrorism is how can listing Azhar as a global terrorist is not conducive for peace and stability in South Asia. One fails to understand the weird explanation offered by China. China’s opposition to proscribing Azhar is baffling given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. The Jaish was blacklisted by the UN Security Council in 2001, a year after its formation, following a deadly attack on Indian parliament in December 2001, which had brought India and Pakistan on the verge of a fourth war. Strangely, China considers JeM an outlawed organization, but not its leader? 

What is China’s compulsion in protecting Azhar, who is, no doubt, a prized asset for Pakistan? Well, if the United Nations declares Azhar a global terrorist, then Pakistan will be compelled to arrest him and seize his assets.  And this is something the Imran Khan government can’t afford to do fearing violence by an army of militants prepared by Azhar. Most importantly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Does Imran Khan, who himself has been propped up by the army, have the guts to go after Azhar?

Thirdly and lastly, China does not want to give an issue on a platter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi when India is in midst of campaigning to elect its new parliament two months from now. The designation of Masood as a global terrorist and his subsequent arrest will no doubt be a big boost for Modi’s attempts in returning to power.  Therefore, China will keep on prolonging the issue as much as it can, but ultimately, it will be forced to fall in line. Any further attempts by China to stall the move will be seen as its weakening resolve to fight the global war against terrorism. It now needs to take a stand on which side of terror it stands. The world is watching it closely.

WHY PRIYANKA MAY SPOIL SP-BSP PARTY IN UP?

Struggling with its sagging fortunes, India’s grand old party – the Congress – seems to have found its ‘Brahmashashtra’ in Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, who it believes can revive the political destiny of the party. Realising that the road to its revival hinges in the bellwether state Uttar Pradesh, which sends the maximum 80 lawmakers to parliament, the Congress president Rahul Gandhi has appointed his sister as the party general secretary and in-charge of eastern Uttar Pradesh in the hope that her charismatic personality may arrest the party’s steep fall in the crucial state.

In the last few decades, the Congress, which used to draw its maximum strength from Uttar Pradesh, has ceded space to the regional parties – the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party – besides the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which all have grown at its expense. Therefore, it becomes crucial for the party to devote its maximum energy in the state, and the appointment of Priyanka and Jyotiraditya Scindia, who has been tasked with the western Uttar Pradesh, is being seen in that direction. Scindia had recently played a significant role in the party’s success in Madhya Pradesh elections.

pix courtesy: latestLY.com

The responsibility is huge for both Scindia and Priyanka, whose role so far was limited to campaigning to the family pocket boroughs of Amethi and Rae Bareli, the parliamentary constituencies of Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, respectively. Not only that the duo will have to cope with the rising graph of the BJP, which swept the last parliamentary elections by bagging 73 seats (including two seats by its ally, the Apna Dal), the party will be hard pressed to find its footing in the face of the “gathbandhan” of Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party.  The Congress had recorded its worst performance in the 2014 parliamentary elections when it could only protect its traditional seats of Amethi and Rae Bareli.

While the selection and responsibility of Priyanka Gandhi can be understandable from the party’s point of view, the decision may hurt the SP-BSP alliance more than the BJP. The BJP garnered 42.30 % of the total votes polled registering an impressive growth of 24.80% and its ally – the Apna Dal – one percent. On the contrary, the SP saw its fortunes dip by just 1.06 percent (it got 22.20% votes), but it won only 5 seats losing 18 in the process. But Mayawati’s BSP and the Congress were hit the hardest losing 7.82% and 10.35% respectively of the total votes polled. BSP, which had won 20 seats in the 1999 parliamentary elections, was completely wiped out failing to secure even one seat, the Congress managed to secure only two seats while forfeiting 19 seats.

If one has to go by arithmetic, the SP (with 22.20% votes) and BSP (with 19.60% votes) together hope to corner 41.80 percent votes as against the BJP and Apna Dal’s vote share of 43.30 percent with a deficit of just 1.50% if the voting pattern remains the same. If both the SP and BSP manage to protect their voter base and don’t lose ground further, they are hoping to upset the apple cart of the BJP. Keeping the Congress, which garnered 7.50 percent votes in the last elections, out of the alliance and the entry of Priyanka Gandhi in the state, may put paid to the two regional parties’ analysis.

If Priyanka really manages to wean away the disgruntled die-hard voters to her party’s fold, it will be the SP and the BSP, which will suffer the most. For, it is highly unlikely that she will be able to make inroads into the BJP, which has a committed cadre who have remained steadfast with the party over the years.

It remains to be seen whether Priyanka will be able to bring any windfalls to the party in terms of seats, but her arrival is bound to galvanise the party, which is on a free fall. There is every possibility that the party may benefit in terms of vote share. And if that happens, she will be cutting into the traditional vote base of the SP and BSP. Instead of a direct contest between BJP on one hand and SP-BSP alliance on the other, there will now be a three-cornered contest. In this scenario, there is bound to be division of votes, which will ultimately help the BJP. Mayawati and Akhilesh seem to have misread the situation completely by maintaining a distance from the Congress as they were unsure that the latter could pitchfork Priyanka in the politically crucial state with wider responsibilities. This might prove to be a costly miscalculation on their part.