Prabhu Chawla

Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ January 22, 2012

2012-01-23T10:10:00.004+05:30

JOURNALISTS WORKING FOR POLITICIANS IS A LOSE-LOSE SITUATION FOR BOTH

Irrespective of growing public perception, journalists and politicians are not made for each other. By nature and training, they are adversaries. The sudden resignation of Harish Khare—the erudite media advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for almost two eventful years—proves the point. Though only Khare and his ex-boss know the real reasons behind the exit, whispers in South Block corridors hint at the growing mistrust between them.

Journalists today may believe it is spin, and not breaking stories, what makes a byline, but in reality, their job is to deliver news. Politicians who hire them expect fancy PR to hide the real news about ugly truths. The conflict between real news and spin invariably proves fatal for both hacks and their political masters. In the process, the penpusher loses both his job and his credibility, leaving the politician to scout around for another journo eager to do the same job. During the last two decades, many senior, credible and intelligent journalists have suffered because they fell victim to the glamourous allure of the post, forgetting its illusory nature. Strangely enough, the honeymoon was brief for these illustrious editors: they soon fell short of the expectations of their political mentors and promoters. Scribes by nature are rebels and inquisitive. They cannot follow the Government’s golden principle of ‘need-to-know’. Used to grilling and questioning rulers, the advisors couldn’t fully reconcile to their roles on the other side of the fence with the same people questioning their performance and dealings.

In reality, an editor has more power than a press advisor and his political guru. Personally, I’m against the idea of journalists associating with the government in a formal advisory capacity without joining the ruling party. When former Prime Minister V P Singh offered me his media advisor’s job in 1990, I reluctantly declined. I suggested Singh not to hire any journalist, as he would only be adding to his already very long list of foes. At the age of 44, I couldn’t risk my journalistic career for a lackey’s loft, and make the prime minister the target of my own numerous enemies, also from within my profession. I hate to admit there isn’t much love lost between most senior journalists. Over the years, journalism has become divided along ideological lines. Like most humans, journalists also carry their predilections, preferences and biases around. In spite of our best efforts, we try to impose our choices on political leaders.(And imagine we succeed.) In the process, the leader ends up facing the ire of other journalists who end up targeting him, thanks to the one in his service. Many journalists have visible or invisible political ambitions. It is more honest to join a political party than masquerading as a self-proclaimed professional while accepting a job from the ruling party.

Indira and Rajiv Gandhi always ignored the advice of their aides to hire a journalist to handle the prime minister’s media relations. Indira used the soft-spoken H Y Sharada Prashad’s services for almost a decade. He had many friends in the media but few enemies. He could call up any senior editor without sounding arrogant or intimidating. After Indira’s death, Rajiv kept him on. But he also added a former diplomat to his team of media advisors, keeping his close friend and my boss then at India Today magazine, Suman Dubey, who preferred to stay in the background.

But the prime ministers who followed Rajiv placed their trust in journalists. V P Singh inducted Prem Shankar Jha and lost the premiership within 11 months. P V Narasimha Rao who followed Singh was wiser and chose PVRK Prashad, an IAS officer from Andhra Pradesh, as his media officer. Rao faced hardly any trouble with the media for years. However, H D Deve Gowda who succeeded Rao opted for senior journalist H K Dua as his media advisor. Gowda also couldn’t complete a full year in office nor was he a media darling. Later, Atal Bihari Vajpayee recalled Dua from an editorial job to handle media relations. But the party wasn’t comfortable with Dua’s style and substance and he was finally packed off to Brussels as ambassador.

When prime ministers want prime time plaudits, they believe taming an editor as an advisor is the answer. Despite the bitter experiences between journalists and prime ministers, in May 2004, Manmohan Singh decided to induct former business journalist Sanjaya Baru to promote his economic reforms agenda. Baru, an economist by training, left the PMO after serving for four years and took up a teaching assignment in Singapore. His successor couldn’t survive for even half of the Prime Minister’s term. Khare’s aborted flirtation with the establishment has proved beyond doubt that politicians and journalists make gauche bedfellows. In this game, journalists are the losers as they keep losing both the bed and the room.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Teekhi Baat_Rajnath Singh on IBN7

2012-01-22T15:42:00.004+05:30

"Ram Mandir is not an election issue"

BJP leader and former party president Rajnath Singh speaks to Teekhi Baat on IBN7.

PC: Your health is better now.

RS: It is better now.

PC: But party’s health does not seem all right.

RS: Party’s health is also all right. But it is true that the health of the nation is not allright.

PC: One does not understand who among your party is fighting elections in UP, recently Gadkariji said that you are not the chief ministerial candidate there.

RS: Whatever Gadkariji said he said after talking to me. Even earlier I had said that I am not the claimant for the chief minister’s post.

PC: Then what was the reason for the party president to say so, it means there was a problem somewhere.

RS: It is natural, people should not about this thing. Because people should not think that I am in the race.

PC: Like other leaders.

RS: Like leaders from all over the state. Now MLA’s will be elected, and they will elect their leader. But I am not in that race.

PC: This you told me earlier in Teekhi Baat, I am saying this for more than two and a half years. But even then in public and party workers there was this misconception that you may become the chief minister.

RS: BJP does not want to garner votes by spreading misconception among its party workers and people.

PC: But workers would say that their leader is Rajnath Singh.

RS: So what happens, if am in the central politics now, will our worker not take me as a leader.

PC: But you are a central leader and hence will be claimant for the prime minister’s post.

RS: I am not a claimant for the prime minister’s post.

PC: What do you feel about BJP, it has not policy, no slogan, no ideology.

RS: Prabhuji I want to ask you if BJP has no policy, no ideology or programme, then tell me which party in this country has policy, ideology and programme. BJP is the only party in the country which has its own policy, ideology and programme.

PC: You promised some things in UP manifesto. Uma Bharati is from Madhya Pradesh, you are sending her there to fight elections.

RS: She has been the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh, but she has had very strong bonds with Uttar Pradesh. It cannot be said that Uma Bharati is from outside Uttar Pradesh. This nobody can say.

PC: If the party has chosen her to fight elections, then she is also a claimant for the chief minister’s post, she will not sit only as an MLA.

RS: Rajnath Singh cannot decide who will be the claimant for, or become the chief minister. If anybody can talk on this issue officialy, he is the our national president, our parliamentary board, and it decides that the MLA’s who get elected will decide their leader.

PC: I am asking something else, what is the aim behind making Uma Bharati fight elections from UP. You are the member of the parliamentary board, you have taken a decision.

RS: You are seeing that she is campaigning in Uttar Pradesh from the past 7 8 months.

PC: Even Digvijay Singh is doing that, but he is not fighting elections over there. He has come from Madhya Pradesh.

RS: This may be Congress’s own decision. It is not necessary that the BJP takes decisions on the lines of the Congress party. We take our own decisions, decide our strategy.

PC: If Uma Bharati is a member of the house, then it means she is qualified to become chief minister.

RS: Whatever it is, the decision will be taken by the parliamentary board, or the legislature party members. I am not officialy designated to comment on who will become chief minister.

PC: Like the president said that the person who wins Lok Sabha elections, will be considered for the post of prime minister. I am asking there are MLA’s in UP

RS: Didn’t you see in Congress, a person who is not a Lok Sabha member is prime minister today.

PC: Even in your party there is talk that people who are not Lok Sabha members may become prime minister.

RS: Many talks go on.

PC: Now will the parliamentary board decide that only those who win elections, become MLA, will become the chief minister

RS: How can I forecast what the parliamentary board will decide?

PC: Can a person who does not become MLA become the chief minister.

RS: No, no I said that how can Rajnath Singh give information on what the parliamentary board will decide. It is true that I am a member of the parliamentary board. Whenever there will be talk on this issue, I will give my views on the forum of the parliamentary board. There is no other appropriate forum where I can put my point of view.

PC: Initially, there were talks that the party has no strategy, no leader in UP.

RS: This you have said, the nation does not believe this.

PC: People are saying this.

RS: Nobody has told me this.

PC: Earlier Uma Bharati said that she will not fight elections, then she said she will fight. Later you also took Kushwah in the party.

RS: Nobody is over eager to fight elections in our party that is why she said. But she gracefully accepted the party’s decision.

PC: What do you think Uma Bharati represents in Uttar Pradesh. Ram Mandir, backward classes, women

RS: No, no, no you cannot limit her with caste or class politics, BJP people do not do politics on caste, creed or religion, he does politics of justice and humanity.

PC: You have so many so many senior leaders there, there is Tripathiji, you, Kalraj MIshra, Tandonji…does it mean that all senior leaders.

RS: There are many senior leaders there, Uma Bharati is also a senior leader. Why do you want to separate her.

PC: In Uttar Pradesh, you are not fighting elections.

RS: Prabhuji, why offence have to taken to her, why do you want to separate her. She is working in Uttar Pradesh from so many days, then what is the big deal if she decides to fight elections from there. And it is not her but the party’s decision.

PC: There may be a strategy to make a backward woman fight against Mayawati.

RS: No decision is taken on this basis. But I want to say one thing, if anybody has done work or reducing the reservation to the backward class, it is the Congress led UPA which has done this. There has been an attempt to loot their rights. And I even want to tell that as a chief minister in Uttar Pradesh, the reservation system we had put in place, the Muslim caste which were in the backward class, we kept them as the most backward class, hence giving them more than 14 per cent reservation. So much so that he students of Aligarh Muslim University welcomed our decision.

PC: So, ultimately came on caste politics. Now Congress has raided this area

RS: This is a constitutional provision, which has been going on from before. All people should get the benefit of reservation in the right manner.

PC: Normally BJP never used to believe in politics of reservation.

RS: It is not politics of reservation. It is sociology. People should get their due rights, ensuring this is the responsibility of any government, which I have followed as the chief minister.

PC: Was Uma Bharati projected as she is a backward face. You have no backward leader there.

RS: She should not be seen as being attached to any caste or class.

PC: Why did you take Kushwah in the party?

RS: Now that chapter is closed.

PC: He is a suspended member now.

RS: He himself said that it is suspended membership, till he is proved not guilty, till then he will not accept the membership of BJP. Not that chapter is closed and there is no reason to discuss the same.

PC: You had taken him as you needed a backward face.

RS: I said that the chapter has been closed. There is no reason to discuss that.

PC: You don’t want to say anything that is one issue, but it is caste politics.

RS: No, I want to say, I am saying what is true.

PC: Why should people vote for BJP?

RS: Why shouldn’t they vote, why shouldn’t they vote, in Uttar Pradesh, people has been the work of the government of Bharatiya Janta Party, Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party. I have full confidence that if the people of Uttar Pradesh compare the performance of three governments, then it easily accept that if any party can give good governance that is the BJP.

PC: You gave good governance you say

RS: Even at the centre

PC: You say that but you lost

RS: Winning and losing cannot be compared with the performance of the governments. I want to say, six years…

PC: Why did you lose in Uttar Pradesh.

RS: I want to as you one question Prabhuji, for six years NDA government was there under the leadership of Hon. Atalji, in six years not even one case of corruption happened, nor was published in any newspaper.

PC: In 2g scam, there were aspersions cast on you policy decisions too.

RS: Inflation was kept under control, basic infrastructure was developed, this is known as good governance.

PC: In 2004, people made you lose, in 2009 also, people made you lose, why does this happen.

RS: Please see, good governance cannot be related only to this ground. There are many factors for winning and losing elections. From all those factors, this is one factor.

PC: Now you feel that you can win on good governance, caste politics, now conveniently you have forgotten Ram Mandir, you are not speaking of Ram Mandir anymore.

RS: Whatever work we did in the six years, there was a shortfall in communicating that to the grassroots level; hence we could not get the desired support.

PC: You have been president of four years, there would have been some organisational weaknesses.

RS: There could have been organisational weaknesses. Somewhere, there has been some weakness, because of which we did not come to power, could not garner the trust of the people.

PC: In UP you have played the caste card, reservation

RS: I said, there is no question of playing class or caste card. But it is true that caste is a reality of social life in India. Our aim is that in the social life of India, social life of Uttar Pradesh, social harmony and justice should prevail, people should get their rights.

PC: If Congress wants to give reservation to Muslims than what problem you have

RS: Please see, we don’t want to erect any wall between the Hindus and Muslims. Anybody who has been born to Bharat maa, be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian, let it be anybody, everybody is a brother of the other. And whosoever is socially and educationally backward, they should get the benefit of reservation, this is our constitutional provision, be it Hindu or Muslim.

PC: You mean to say reservations should not be done on basis of religion.

RS: There is no basis of differentiating on the basis of being Hindu or Muslim. Politics should be on the basis of Justice and Humanity.

PC: If there is reservation for Hindustan, then why not for Muslim brothers.

RS: There is a provision of reservation, even for Muslim community. But the constitution of India, does not give permission to grant reservation on the basis of religion. Our founding fathers gave a deep thought to this issue and took this decision. And this Congress led UPA government is going against the constitution, just for getting votes.

PC: Do you think this is vote politics.

RS: It is vote fully vote bank politics. And I say it again and again, let it be any politician, politics should not be done to get votes, it should be done to building the nation and society.

PC: But what are you doing in Uttar Pradesh, are you or dividing people on caste basis or not.

RS: It is BJP, not SP, BSP, or Congress. We don’t divide; we join people and do politics.

PC: You said that you do politics of joining people.

RS: Yes

PC: Hence you forgot Ram Mandir in UP, you don’t speak of the same.

RS: Ram Mandir is not an election issue.

PC: Then what is election issue.

RS: Let it be the government of SP, or BSP, or the Congress government in centre, corruption has reached the zenith and hence somebody like Anna Hazare felt like starting an andolan against corruption. Congress party has increased corruption to such a level, which has got support in writing from SP, BSP that Anna Hazare felt the need of starting a protest again corruption. And this party’s were the reason for India’s image being affected all over the world.

PC: You did not let Anna Hazare’s bill passed, all together, people from Congress, BJP. You had a clandestine handshake with the Congress.

RS: You saw that after 12 pm , our leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha, Shri. Arun Jaitley, he said that the time of the house should be extended, we are ready to sit till the morning or even the next full day but this bill should be passed. But there was a conspiracy by the Congress led UPA government,

PC: But the sense of the house done first time in the Lok Sabha

RS: We passed it in the Lok Sabha. We honoured the sense of house. And let me tell, if the BJP had not done the work of building up pressure, then the Congress led UPA government would not have passed the Lokpal bill in the Lok Sabha under any circumstances.

PC: Tell anything, but Mayawati is the one who removed the most number of corrupt ministers, after Lokayukta’s comment, she removed 16 ministers.

RS: The way there has been loot in UP for five years. And when elections came near, to fool people, she removed ministers.

PC: She removed when Lokayukta report came

RS: How and why she did it, I don’t want to comment about that, but the people of the state know. For five years, why did Mayawatiji did not remember this, for five years why there were no complaints.

PC: Without any report, will she remove people suo moto, you took action against Yedurappa till the Lokayukta report was out

RS: There were Lokayukta’s earlier also. All evidences are being received on the eve of elections. Lokayukta received a complaint when elections came near. I think it is a part of conspiracy, which has been hatched by Mayawatiji to fool the people of Uttar Pradesh.

PC: You all ganged up against Mayawati who is dalit, backward and woman, but even then she won.

RS: What are you saying, Prabhuji don’t try to save somebody by saying this.

PC: But she removed ministers.

RS: She has done all this to fool people.

PC: But the people elected her 206 MLA

RS: For five years, couldn’t she see their corruption, was there no complaint for five years. When elections were announced, all complaints were made, all evidences were revealed.

PC: What did your party do

RS: I don’t blame the Lokayukta, If I hold somebody responsible, it is the chief of the UP government.

PC: Tell me one thing, there is one surety that you are not going to garner majority.

RS: Who says that, it will not come?

PC: Will you get majority

RS: Certainly. There is a target before us if of getting majority. We are making efforts, the decision is in the hands of the people.

PC: If you don’t get majority then what will you do. Will you support Mayawati or Mulayam.

RS: Our efforts are to get majority. Presume, if people do not give us that responsibility, then BJP will play the responsibility of opposition. And playing the responsibility of opposition, we will act as watchdog, chowkidaar, guardian of people of UP.

PC: Hence, you will not support anybody to form the government.

RS: There is no question; I have said it earlier, no need of repeating it again and again.

PC: In politics things keep on changing.

RS: They do, but between our words and deeds, there is no difference.

PC: Earlier you have supported Mayawati

RS: But you know that we have maintained the same stand today what we had then. And I am saying this after talking to everybody.

PC: Now talking of the fights happening at the centre, It seems that you are scared of Rahul Gandhi’s campaigning

RS: (laughs) Kya baat hain , no no, I want him to campaign, he has to, he has his own political party. Leader of every political party, has to campaign for his party.

PC: If he is raising the issue of development.

RS: For all these days, he was not worried about the development of UP, and the SP and BSP, whose support Congress party is taking in the centre, and today he goes to UP and criticizes them. What is this if not fooling the public, Prabhuji? Tell the people what is the truth, isn’t it true

PC: Tell me one thing, both the national parties, be it the Congress or the BJP, have been marginalized in UP.

RS: No, not marginalized.

PC: No, they have 22 you have 46 47

RS: That is wheel of fortune, it is a matter of time.

PC: Wheel of fortune, how many years

RS: What is years, Congress party has been out of power for so many years In Uttar Pradesh

PC: Yes, but even you are out of power.

RS: No, no we will come to power.

PC: Have national parties have become irrelevant there, without any direction, future

RS: It is not a question of national parties becoming irrelevant. If any party is trying to find its space in UP, then it is the Congress, it is fighting a battle for its significance and its survival.

PC: Will you be number three or they.

RS: No, no, we will be number one. With this conviction, we are fighting elections. BJP will emerge number one.

PC: What is your slogan

RS: Governments can be formed on the basis of slogans, but cannot run on the basis of slogans Prabhuji. We don’t want to fool people with slogans, but want to only say that BJP government will form in UP, we will give a clean government. We will give such a government, which will do such development in UP, that it will come on top in the country.

PC: We will see that when your government is formed, thank you for coming to our studio.

RS: Thank You, Prabhuji !

Teekhi Baat_Prakash Singh Badal on IBN7/January 14, 2012

2012-01-16T19:57:00.000+05:30

Interview with Deputy chief minister of Punjab Sukhbir Singh Badal for Teekhi Baat on IBN 7. With less than three weeks for Punjab polls, the Badal scion speaks about family run politics in India, the ‘Badal’ brandname, Akali Dal’s relationship with the Congress party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, allegations of black money, state of industry in Punjab and future course of Akali Dal.

PC: Tell me one thing, for how many years have you been deputy chief minister.

SSB: From almost two years.

PC: Why should people vote for you? Tell me one or two things, stating these changes have ushered since Sukhbir Singh Badal took charge.

SSB: MCDO reforms, Right to Service Act, power projects, expressways, complete development is our, our government’s and our party’s agenda. You have seen our campaign, we have told only one thing to people, this has been our performance, now you compare our performance with the five year performance of the Congress. Now see who performed more, vote for performance. We have a singular agenda, vote for performance.

PC: So you are demanding votes on the basis of performance. Now the party’s name is Akali Dal, but people who oppose you say the party’s name should be changed to Messrs. Badal and Company, it is more of family fiefdom; I will ask you later about whether you did or did not do development work. Don’t you feel that your regional party is running on parivaarvaad

SSB: Which party in the country does not run on family name? Take Jaylalia, Congress, all parties run on a brand. And Akali Dal is not a parivaarvadi party. Akali Dal is the second oldest party, its president has been Master Tara Singh, Sant Fateh Singh, Longwaal saab, Tilwani saab, my father (Prakash Singh Badal), after my father, the party decided on my appointment, after me somebody else can be post holder. Like the Gandhi family, which as tradition keeps on going on, but here the party committee decides. Before my father, somebody else was at the helm of party affairs.

PC: You talked about brand, do you think that Badal is a brand on which names votes are polled.

SSB: Sahab Prakash Singhji Badal has become a brand of Punjab. Because whole life, he has worked in the service of public. There is no village or city in Punjab which he personally has not been to and when in the right manner his government is formed, it is a government of the people. Now if you see him, he takes decisions by sitting among people.

PC: He is the most senior chief minister, he is also widely respected. But don’t you think because of this the family also benefitted a lot, you became deputy chief minister, your wife became MP, more five six Badal names I can count, the total count of whom can go upto 17-18, some of whom are MLA, some are chairmen of some committee.

SSB: No Badal is chairman; I came into politics 20 years ago. I started as a worker and gradually rose. I became an MP earlier, was a minister at the centre, after that I was also a member of the Rajya Sabha, fought, won and even lost Lok Sabha elections. After have been through all experiences, last year led the election campaign.

PC: Even now you are leading.

SSB: Now I am doing it as party president.

PC: Don’t you think you have been benefitted by Prakash Singhji’s name because he is respected. His son would have been benefitted by his goodwill.

SSB: Too much, for the first time. It happens the first time, not the second time, not the third time. Because the first time, votes can be garnered on the name of the father, there are many leaders in the country, who get launched.

PC: There is Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Omar Abdullah,

SSB: One time a person can be launched in the name of his father. There are thousands of children of politicians who fade out. Second and third time votes are garnered on the basis of performance. If he will perform he will exist, if he does not, he will fade away.

PC: Like you came to power because of the family name. Amrinder Singh, who is in opposition, gave a memorandum, that your assets increased by Rs. 50 lakh per month between 2009 and 2011, you earlier declared 57 crore now you’re declared Rs. 74 crore. He means to say have you made this amount of money through being in power.

SSB: This is stated in our income tax return. There is no black money in income tax return. Capt. Amrinder Singh does not know what is stated in an income tax return. In the income tax return, the property which we declared in 2007, is the same which we declared in 2011, but its market value has increased. This he does not know. What did he do, did you see his statement.

PC: No, I didn’t.

SSB: He said that he Patiala palace in which he stays, he declared its value to be Rs. 2 crore.

PC: He didn’t declare market value

SSB: We declare as per law, we are law abiding. Every year when the market value increase, we have to increase the value in property tax return.

PC: So do you want to say that Amrinder Singh does not know accounts.

SSB: I am saying that he has talked about Rs. 2 crore (valuation of Patiala palace). Am saying, the Punjab government will give him Rs. 10 crore and will take the palace, if it wants to. Hence, this politics of lies, will not work here. You know that last time he had raised an issue that Badal saab has a property worth Rs. 3500 crore. Night club, sheep farms, and he said that we had property in every corner of the world. When he was in power for five years, he did not work for Punjab’s development, which was finished .Capt. Amrinder Singh had one agenda, that he has to prove the list that he had issued against Badal saab. After five years, the charge sheet was filed against us, he reduced the amount from Rs 3500 crore to Rs. 76 crore. Even that was overinflated, the case went before the courts, and were acquitted. Amrinder Singh’s politics is throw mud on the wall, something will stick.

PC: He says that do you want to choose a chief minister who is 90 years old or a young chief minister, he considers himself young.

SSB: I am surprised that Amrinder Singh considers himself young. When does get up in the morning, at 11 am. In the evening at 5 pm, everybody knows what he does. Sahab Prakash Singh Badal, whom he is saying 90 years old, gets up at 5 am in the morning, then till 10 pm to 11 pm he is in some village, some city or in office. Who is young, a man who works 18 hours or a man who works for six hours. And the second point, we have a combination, Sahab Prakash Singh Badal is 90 years they say, I am 50 years old, and I am deputy chief minister, hence Punjab has got both young and experienced.

PC: Hence, Amrinder Singh is challenging you, because votes are polled in his name, he is a brand like Badal sahab.

SSB: One thing should be asked to Amrinder Singh, he was in opposition for the past five years, where was he for 4.5 years, he wasn’t seen in Punjab. He is a non resident Punjabi, most of the time, he is not in Punjab.

PC: You talked of development, road development, but even then there was power shortage in Punjab recently. Tell one development which led to per capita income improvement or the per capita power consumption increased, people say law and order is an issue, extremism has come again.

SSB: There were two governments, from 2002 to 2007 of Capt .Amrinder Singh and from 2007 to 2012 of Sahab Prakash Singh Badal. Total revenue generation of Punjab government from 2002 to 2007, during Capt. Amrinder Singh’s tenure was Rs. 35,000 crores. Our from 2007 to 2012 is Rs. 76,000 crore, which is double revenue generation. Secondly, they talk of power..

PC: How much debt are you in

SSB: Debt per GSTP ratio, when our government came into power, it was 46 per cent, debt to GSTP ratio, we got it down today to 30 per cent. Government of India’s debt to GSTP ratio is 51 per cent. We have improved in every indicator. Fisical deficit, revenue deficit in all these parameters, let me tell you one big thing, you are talking of power, it is not something that you can import from Europe or America.

PC: You get it on the line

SSB: There is power shortage all over India. We did a big thing, that we started construction of power plants. Total power generation in Punjab was 5000 MW when we came to power, then the demand was 9000 MW and shortage of nearly 50 per cent. We have initiated 8000 MW power projects, which are under construction and did long term contracts for the rest 3500 MW.

PC: What is your demand now

SSB: From next year, our power projects will start getting completed. Hence, from next year, Punjab will be the first state in the country, which will be a power surplus state, and we will sell this power to other states, like we do with wheat and rice.

PC: The issue is that no new industry is set up in Punjab. In the past five years, no new big industry was set up.

SSB: Industry has come

PC: Which, tell me

SSB: Refinery,

PC: It is a Govt. of India proposal which was on for a long time. Did the brand which has been formed be senior and junior Badal get some new industry in Punjab.

SSB: Where does industry come, where they are incentivised, what did the government of India do to Punjab? Our state is a land locked state, one side is Pakistan, other side is Jammu and Kashmir, which are disturbed states. Besides this are hill states, now all hill states have been declared as special economic zones (SEZ), we have become an island and our industry has started shifting. We wrote to the Govt. of India that you cannot create an island out of Punjab. Secondly, the package that has been given to Jammu and Kashmir because of terrorism, we as a border state face a maximum amount of terrorism. So, we should be included in the package. The reason is that they (central government) don’t listen to us. They created as island. Now we thought how to incentivise to encourage setting up of new industries, we said that because we are landlocked, the only way to connect Punjab to the rest of the world is by getting international airports, make Punjab power surplus, build expressways, get the best infrastructure. Hence for five years we focussed on infrastructure, and that is the reason investment has started coming to Punjab.

PC: You say that central government is responsible. You had good relations with the Prime Minister, sometimes you say that he is a good Prime Minister, you and your father both said. Why isn’t the Prime Minister helping you?

SSB: Prime Minister is a good human being, but he has his compulsions, political compulsions. He is controlled by 10 Janpath, Sonia Gandhi. Let me give you one small example, for world Sikh heritage we made one complex at Anantpur Sahib, we requested the Prime Minister for do the inauguration, it is a small thing. Capt. Amrinder Singh told Sonia Gandhi that Prime Minister cannot come. Sonia Gandhi controls what happens in the central government. Actually, Prime Minister is Sonia Gandhi.

PC: Not Manmohan Singh

SSB: Not Sardar Manmohan Singh. Because Sonia Gandhi dictates, he is a very good hearted man, but he cannot do anything. Sonia Gandhi decided on everything.

PC: Manmohan Singh is associated with Punjab, is a Punjabi, the first Sikh Prime Minister, is an economist, you think he fears association only by the instance that he did not come to Anantpur Sahib

SSB: I gave an example of Anantpur Sahib that at this level Congress party in Punjab and Sonia Gandhi interferes. It is the duty of the Prime Minister, that if there is a function in any state and he is invited, he comes. In these small things, Congress party has started controlling. With this small example you will understand, that how poorly he is being..

PC: He is a poor Prime Minister

SSB: He is not poor, he is a good man. But he has not got a free hand.

PC: A remote control

SSB: Basically

PC: There is one thing, let me go back to Punjab, there is a charge of black money against you, I read in papers that you are misusing government machinery, in allocation of money to intelligence agencies, people are being caught

SSB: Has even one rupee been seized. Amrinder Singh’s politics is dependent on accusation, like he did of Rs. 3500 crores, but nothing came out of it. Like now he did again, because there is so much frustration in him because his Congress party has disintegrated. Today in Punjab, a parallel Congress has come up, which is fighting elections, which is named Azad Congress. Ask any member of Azad Congress, who are ex ministers and MLA’s of Congress, why did they become Azad, there is only one talk that Congress party high command has taken money to give tickets. The party which will take money from its own worker to issue tickets, if it is given an opportunity to run the government, what will it do. His change against us is to divert attention. Against them there are reports in newspapers everyday that they are taking money to issue tickets.

PC: Both sides are taking defectors.

SSB: Our sahab did not gave ticket to even one defector, not even one, not even one.

PC: People who left Congress were given tickets by you.

SSB: Not even one, not even one, you give example, not even one. There are other parties like peoples party of Punjab (PPP), they opened an office in Punjab saying that they have a vacancy for anyone who does not get a ticket.

PC: But there was a division even in your own party, your big minister left the party, he formed his own Dal. Hence you also don’t tolerate anyone else (in your party)

SSB: He started anti party activity. He knowledge was being used against the interest of the party, against the policies of the party, if anyone gives statement against the party, this is a matter of discipline, no party will accept. Even in your newspaper, if any employee goes against your policy, you will fire him.

PC: One bad thing that has been witnessed during your government, it has been reported in newspapers, in the past five years that some amount of terrorism has come back. There have been reports that old extremists are reviving once again. Are they doing so because of your sympathy, or is your vigilance or your policies weak.

SSB: What you are saying is right, that there have been reports of terrorism in newspapers. The news that has been printed is that we have caught those people. Government of India does not know anything till the blasts happened in Mumbai. In the past five years has any blast any incident happened in Punjab. Has there been even one incident in Punjab. Our police is so vigilant, we are seized RDS, weapons, caught terrorists, we are so vigilant..

PC: They are raising their head again.

SSB: We have a border with Pakistan, it regularly wants that there should be disturbance in India, in Jammu and Kashmir, in Punjab and in different corners of the country. But we are the only state, our police is so intelligent, working in a professional way, hence we identify them before they can act. Unlike the Govt. of India

PC: The wrongful aims of Pakistan government, to create disturbance in Punjab, you claim to have failed that.

SSB: Clearly, and we guarantee that in no way will we allow terrorism to come up in Punjab.

PC: What is the reason for terrorism cropping up.

SSB: Complete Pakistan,

PC: Or because the incomes of the farmer are not increasing

SSB: This is certainly Pakistan sponsored.

PC: There are reasons like youth unemployment

SSB: No,no,no this all is Pakistan sponsored.

PC: Let me ask you a last question, you father senior Prakashsinghji, he made Punjab go ahead, and now you have come, so after elections will you replace him as chief minister.

SSB: No. Four five years ago, every two months media used to announce that Sukhbir Singh Badal will become chief minister. He will be on Diwali, New Years, after Baisakhi. I said on Day one that Sahab Prakash Singh Badal is the tallest leader of the state and of the country, he has vast experience, we want to use his experience, Punjab needs his experience. That is the reason, I said it on day one, and this time also, I as president announced, otherwise media speculation would have started, that Sahab Prakash Singh Badal will become chief minister.

PC: You will want and experienced person, but don’t you think that he should take a back seat and guide you, also because 70 per cent of the people are less than 35 years old, they will also want you to come ahead,

SSB: I am the deputy chief minister, I am the president of the party, so I am being guided by him, and it is an experience working with him. I came to state politics for the first time, I became state deputy chief minister, and because of his guidance I gained such an experience of administration which is amazing. And till the time he is fit, and god willing he will be fit for a long time, we want, our party wants, personally I want, that we want to take advantage of his experience.

PC: Because the condition of the BJP is bad there, don’t you think there they have become a liability for you.

SSB: We have an emotional relational with BJP, not political, this is the first point. It is a media created impression, that the BJP position is down, you will see the results. Coming 30^th voting will be done, on 6^th results will be announced, BJP is going to perform excellently.

PC: Earlier also they had 100 per cent strike rate

SSB: I am not saying that they should give 19 out of 23. One or two seats can be less, but the condition is not so poor as the media is projecting.

PC: Will your combine will get more or less seats as compared to last time. Do a speculation.

SSB: You will not believe me, this time you will say this is a political statement.

PC: Not political, tell the speculation.

SSB: I am clearly saying that we will cross 80.

PC: 80

SSB: We will cross 80 seats.

PC: Last question, if you lose this election somehow, will this loss be attributable to Sukhbir Singh Badal or Prakash Singh Badal.

SSB: We will not lose.

PC: It is an academic question.

SSB: Am saying that, this is the first time that we are doing performance based politics and going among the people.

PC: Who will get credit/crown for the win.

SSB: The credit/crown for the win will go to Prakash Singh Badal.

PC: And you for losing.

SSB: That you give to whomsoever you want.

PC: Our good wishes are with you, thank you for coming to our studio.

SSB: Thank You, Prabhuji !

Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ January 15,2012

2012-01-16T18:44:00.004+05:30

Uttar Pradesh Elections are Over for Big Two Even Before Polling Day

As the countdown to the five state Assembly polls begins, both ideologies and credible individual leaders are conspicuous by their absence. With the collapse of central authority and direction in all political parties, a few individuals are dictating the political discourse only to be disowned immediately by their respective High Commands. A couple of political incidents that took place in the last two weeks in Uttar Pradesh reflect the complete disconnect between the Central and state leaderships of two mainstream national parties — the Congress and the BJP. Both are in the fight not to win but to keep their current rankings in the Assembly. While the BJP with 51 seats occupies third position, the Congress with just 21 MLAs stands fourth. However, the confusion was much more pronounced in the Congress as its chief Sonia Gandhi took a backseat, leaving election management and manipulation to her son Rahul and a few other individuals. As its election strategy unfolded, it was evident that the party had taken a plunge without defining the tide. It is perhaps for the first time a statement made by a Union minister during the elections was rejected by his own party and a claim made by the most sought-after AICC office-bearer was dismissed by his government. There was yet another surprise in store for the voters. Home Minister P Chidambaram slaughtered the three-year-old campaign launched by party General Secretary Digvijaya Singh aimed at capturing the minority vote.

It was the home minister who changed the direction of his own party’s Uttar Pradesh campaign. Diggy Raja always suspected the Batla House encounter in New Delhi on September 19, 2008, in which a Delhi Police officer lost his life, as staged. He made it an issue in Uttar Pradesh in which Muslims can influence the poll outcome in over 75 Assembly seats. Since Diggy has emerged as the most powerful Thakur leader who espouses the minorities’ cause than any other, he was expecting rich dividends. But the home minister not only rejected Diggy’s theory about a fake encounter, but also ruled out reopening the case. It is a different matter that both Chidambaram and Digvijaya have been at loggerheads on various issues. But questioning one of the most powerful Congress functionaries during election time, reflected the division between the party and the Government on sensitive issues.

The Chidambaram-Diggy episode symbolises the vulnerability of the ruling party in using the minority card. It was also reflected when Congress spokesperson Rashid Alvi declared the statement made by Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid on minority reservations in government jobs was not the party’s view. Later, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put Khurshid in an awkward spot when he assured the chief election commissioner that the commission was totally independent and not supervised by the Government as Khurshid had claimed in an interview. Even the law minister had no defined script to follow for the elections. With Rahul ploughing a lonely furrow in the mushy fields of Uttar Pradesh, most Congress leaders were inventing their own slogans and stories to win seats for themselves and their kin. The party that began the state elections with a bang seems to be losing its carefully crafted plot. The Congress offence was replaced with defence. Instead of taking on its opponents on issues like the aborted Lokpal Bill, corruption and an irresponsible BSP government, the party was faced with the most serious charge of dividing the country along communal lines.

Fortunately for the Congress, its national rival, the BJP was also in a similar state of political paralysis. Its central leaders were hopelessly divided on the induction of tainted defectors from the BSP. They were confused about their enemy No. 1. While the state leaders targeted Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav, its central leaders were obsessed with the Congress. From the tone and tenor of their speeches, it was obvious they were fighting the Congress to only protect their number three position in Uttar Pradesh. Like the Congress, the saffron party was also caught in caste conflicts while projecting its leader during the run-up to the elections. An upper caste combination and elitist leaders dominated its central leadership, while its state unit was controlled by backward class and middle class leaders who wanted one among them to be projected as the potential chief minister.

With the national parties struggling to find their feet, both the SP and the BSP are better placed in terms of their mission and means. They are fighting to retain or wrest power. However, they too are caught in the defection game, unsure about either their manifesto or election machinery. However, both have left the national parties far behind. It is quite clear: the Centre can’t hold it any more.prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ January 08, 2012

2012-01-09T18:09:00.000+05:30

Politics of Divisiveness Has Already Won the Uttar Pradesh Elections

It is the largest state of India. Home to a fifth of our population, every seventh Lok Sabha member comes from it. If that wasn’t enough, the gargantuan state of Uttar Pradesh has also produced eight of the 13 duly elected prime ministers of India. Over the years, it has not only suffered geographical shrinkage, but has also lost some of its political clout. It is no longer in a position to influence the national agenda or impose anything on it. A Gandhi scion may be tasting its winter, and the heat and the dust of its dirtiest hamlets and seamy slums, but even his succession will depend on the performance of his party in states other than Uttar Pradesh. There is hardly any catchy slogan, forget about any blueprint for change. Even after the declarations of the election schedule, none of the parties has been able to present a credible election manifesto even if they will forget it after the elections. From the Congress and BJP to the smallest regional parties, all have been looking for the right text of social engineering to forge a winning caste coalition.

As the countdown for elections to the 403-member Assembly begins, the state remains locked in its worst-ever caste and community war. It is no more a fight between ideologies. None of the dozen odd parties in the election fray are talking of better governance, but are loudly proclaiming the caste and community affiliations of each candidate. Last week, when election committees of various parties met in New Delhi and Lucknow to finalise their candidates, they looked at the caste and religion of their candidates first and not winnability on merit alone. While the Congress party didn’t leave any chance to attack the Mayawati government, it indulged in the lowest kind of votebank politics by raising the issue of reservation in government jobs for minorities. For the past seven years, the UPA hardly bothered to ensure any caste- or religion-based reservation. Suddenly, on the eve of the elections, it has discovered more backwardness and poverty only among minorities. Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Mulayam Singh Yadav has even gone to the extent of promising a constitutional amendment to exceed the cap of 50 per cent reservation. Even the BJP hasn’t been immune to the caste virus, going out of its way to woo leaders of different communities, even if some are involved in heinous crimes or are being investigated by the CBI.

Indulging in competitive politics is not new to political parties in Uttar Pradesh, but it used to be camouflaged behind the high-sounding principles of social equality and justice. It was the Congress policy of ignoring its regional satraps that led to the birth of caste and community leaders like Charan Singh, Mulayam, Kalyan Singh and later Mayawati. With both the Congress and the BJP failing to promote or retain their tall caste leaders, the natural beneficiaries have been regional parties like the SP and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). None of them have ever presented an alternative agenda for governance but they have provided political power to those who had neither jobs nor social acceptability.

In a state where a Dalit or a backward caste couldn’t dream of an important position, the deprived now have the pride and power that comes from an ever-rising share in political power. The state remains at the bottom of national growth pyramid but a large percentage of its socially and economically backward population is now governed by people from their own caste and community. Mayawati’s government may have squandered development funds and encouraged corruption but it has given the largest-ever representation to Dalits and other most backward communities in running the state. Over 30 per cent of its district police and administrative chiefs are from deprived sections. A large number of senior secretarial posts have been given to those who were earlier ignored because of their caste. A state which sent some of the finest civil servants to important ministries at the Centre has now been turned into a haven of castecracy, and not meritocracy.

The February elections are unlikely to reverse the trend. With all parties and leaders coming together—directly or indirectly—to dislodge the mighty Mayawati from her caste-embedded throne, the battlelines between castes and communities are becoming sharper. Local political watchers say every party is divided into numerous caste groups. If the BSP is divided into four sub-caste groups, both the BJP and the Congress have more than a dozen each followed closely by the SP with six caste factions. Current indications are that no party will get an absolute majority. Whatever the outcome, the message from Uttar Pradesh is on the wall. It is going to be a win for divisive politics and a defeat for clean politics and responsive governance. The two national parties are to blame. prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com
Follow him on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Teekhi Baat_Mulayam Singh Yadav on IBN7

2012-01-07T19:38:00.003+05:30

With the political war for Uttar Pradesh raging by the day in the run up to the polls in the state, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav speaks to IBN7 for Teekhi Baat . In a no holds barred interview, Yadav minces no words on her bête noire Mayawati, his stance on Muslim reservation, Samajwadi party’s blow hot – blow cold relationship with the Congress party, his relationship with Ajit Singh and about his son and party scion Akhilesh Yadav.

PC: Are you ready for elections

MS: Am fully prepared

PC: Are you or your son fighting elections, tell me the truth.

MS: Neither am I fighting, nor my son, we are making people contest elections.

PC: Which people are you making contest the election?

MS: My brother Satpal Singh will fight.

PC: Who is taking the leadership position in the election?

MS: Samajwadi Party

PC: It is being said that you have decided to rest a bit and let your son take the lead

MS: It is not so. Now the condition is not conducive for me to rest, neither have I gone weak, my health is all right.

PC: Many times decisions are taken from the heart, I have done too much, the politics of our times is over.

MS: I have not got fed up of politics as yet.

PC: Not fed up as yet.

MS: No, not fed up as yet.

PC: People say that Mulayam Singh had taken a decision of allowing Akhilesh take a lead because, Rahul Gandhi, son of Soniiaji Gandhi has come forward in these polls. So, to show that there is a fight between the sons in politics, you took this decision.

MS: This is not my opinion, thinking; neither do I want to get into this issue. Because when the son wanted to come into politics, Akhilesh, then I didn’t stop him, allowed him to be in politics. The result is that he has won Lok Sabha elections three times and I am happy he is elected from the area from where Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia was parliament member.

PC: Akhilesh has won from that area.

MS: Even I had won; I vacated the seat and made Akhilesh fight from the seat.

PC: What do you think, are there any issues in the UP elections, or it is only fought over individuals Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Rahul Gandhi, there are no issues.

MS: No, there are issues. The first issue is that we will provide a clean government and administration. A clean government will be formed, and our priorities will be farmers, labour, poor people, unemployed, youth, students. Whether it be lawyers or traders, we will take everybody with us, give facilities to everybody, is the plan of our party.

PC: That Mulayam Singhji is saying from the start that everybody will be provided with facilities. But at present, is there any cleaner government than Mayawati’s who has removed all corrupt ministers, 15 of them.

MS: That is why the issue is raised, people have realized in their heart, they are fed up now, that the leaders have become corrupt. This fact has been proved by the chief minister who runs the Uttar Pradesh government.

PC: But the chief minister is at least taking action. No sooner the Lokayukta report comes out, she removes corrupt ministers.

MS: It is not action, it is posturing.

PC: Can removing 15 ministers be called posturing. Have you ever removed ministers on charges of corruption, even then there were allegations of corruption?

MS: During our period, there were no allegations.

PC: Are you saying there were no allegations?

MS: If there were allegations levelled against our ministers, we would have not tolerated it even for a day. Now, elections have come near, and they want to show that they are not doing any corruption. They want to show that when they found their people being corrupt, they punished them. The root of corruption is Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister.

PC: Have you started any movement against her.

MS: Those removed were unfairly punished, those were the ones who were earning money and giving (to Mayawati).

PC: She says that

MS: Now please tell me, she had kept Kushwah at her residence. She removed Kushwaha, he was staying at her residence. Why any chief minister keep a minister at her residence?

PC: Many ministers are sitting at her residence every day, in addition to Kushwaha many other also sit at her residence. That is her style of working.

MS: She used Kushwaha, collected (money) by keeping him at her residence; he was the most trustworthy. Now what happened, there must have been a fight over a share of the spoils. People say that there has been a fight over a sharing of the spoils.

PC: There has been a fight over the sharing of the spoils?

MS: It is over sharing of the spoils.

PC: That is why he was removed

MS: That is why he was removed

PC: Now BJP inducted him

MS: Now BJP is looking if they get anybody, somehow to win. Now it has become a weak party, the leaders are not happy, now they are inducting whomsoever they get.

PC: The question is that BSP people, they allege that you are not able to tolerate a dalit woman. Like how a dalit woman became the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, and she is proving tough on everyone, Congress, BJP, Samajwadi Party.

MS: So, should we stop fighting elections and wind up our party. Are we sadhu sanyasis

PC: One woman has troubled you all

MS: Even Indiraji was a woman.

PC: Then all had come together against her, when Jaiprakashji’s movement started, even you were with him against Indiraji.

MS: It is true, when I saw that dictatorship is dawning upon the country, then we fought against dictatorship with bravery. We were in jail for 19-20 months. And a very dangerous emergency was in force and we fought it, we saved democracy that time. Indiraji had demolished democracy, and forced dictatorship. And it is not a small thing to fight against dictatorship in those times.

PC: You opposed when Indira Gandhi’s Congress brought about dictatorship, which you opposed. I will ask you later about what relations you have with Congress now. Now, I am talking about UP elections, in UP elections, it seems that except for the issue of castes, clan, there is no other election issue.

MS: No Samajwadi party is not into clan and corruption. It is a clean party, there was never a taint on our party.

PC: There is no election issue of corruption there, you people are raking the issues of clan and caste.

MS: How can you say that caste is an issue.

PC: Reservation is being made into an issue.

MS: When we are Samajwadis, and have Samajwadi party, and Samajwadi people don’t believe in caste and clan.

PC: Now you spoke about reservations, that there should be reservation for Muslims. Congress said that Mulayam Singh is not saying anything, how much reservation should be there. Congress said it should be four per cent, you said it is less. Hence you did not make any definitive points about Muslim reservation. You are just saying that reservation should be provided, in Lokpal, in government jobs, you don’t talk of development.

MS: Now we have spoken the most on reservation which has influenced people greatly, we said that there should be 18 per cent reservation for Muslims, instead of 15 per cent. For so many years, the Muslims have remained backward, now it can be reversed when there is 18 per cent reservation for them.

PC: Will you write this in your manifesto

MS: Yes, if our government is voted to power we will give 18 per cent reservation for Muslims.

PC: Why didn’t you provide reservation earlier?

MS: We have always fought for it.

PC: Fought, but did not provide

MS: No, now this is in hands of the central government.

PC: No, like Andhra Pradesh government provided reservation there.

MS: Where was our party alone in power, it was of different people. Many people were part, hence the government was formed. If our government is formed in UP, then with what authority we have and how much reservation we can be according to the laws and constitution, that facility we will give to Muslims.

PC: Hence you are saying that, if it is in your authority, you will give 18 per cent reservation in government jobs to Muslims.

MS: Yes, we will do.

PC: Now you have not announced it as yet.

MS: We have announced it, because they have gone backward, this we are not saying, all the commissions which have been formed by the Congress government have said that. And the report of the commissions have been received by the Congress government, let it be Ranganath Mishra or Sachchar Committee.

PC: Sachchar sahab has recommended

MS: Sachchar committee has recommended. Let the recommendation be of 10 per cent of 15 per cent, I am not concerned with that. But one thing is true that they have done hard work, and found out how backward Muslims have become. And it went to the extent that Muslims became even more backward than dalits, this is written in Sachchar committee report.

PC: Mulayamsinghiji, Sachchar has written that, you are demanded that Muslims should be given 18 per cent reservation. But the Constitution has mandated that reservation should not be more than 50 per cent, then from where would be carve out this 18 per cent.

MS: This is an excuse, the constitution can be amended.

PC: No, it is the Supreme Court’s judgement that reservation cannot be more than 50 per cent.

MS: Now Supreme Court did that, but if the parliament wants, it can amend, the court has not prohibited amendment. Supreme Court has not prohibited amendments by Lok Sabha.

PC: So, can do more than 50 per cent reservation if a government is formed with your help at the centre.

MS: We will certainly do 15 per cent, and will make efforts to make it 18 per cent.

PC: It will be more than 50 per cent, if 27 per cent backward, 18 per cent Muslims, 11-12 per cent scheduled castes, scheduled tribes will take it to 60 per cent.

MS: We will certainly do 14 -15 per cent reservation.

PC: Even by giving 14 per cent reservation, it will be more than 50 per cent.

MS: For taking it up to 18 per cent, we will pass a resolution in the assembly, and we will tell the central government to pass an amendment.

PC: Hence you agree that you do politics, to remain in power in the name of reservation. You demand votes in the name of reservation, whether it be Muslims, or backward, or harijan.

MS: This is wrong. When I was in seventh class I had had food at the house of a backward class and I was banished in social circles for doing that. And in ninth class, I had food at the house of a Jatav, for which I was banished from social circles again, for one month. Hence, I am fighting from the time I was a child.

PC: Mulayam Singh, you never said that there should be reservation for poor, whether he be Muslim or Hindu, Sikh, Christian or backward or scheduled caste. Hence, it seems there should be no reservation or poor people.

MS: I have demanded 10 per cent reservation for upper class poor, in the assembly. And we passed a resolution to the effect and sent it to the government at the centre.

PC: Hence reservation should be for poor people in upper castes, and rich people in other caste.

MS: That is there in the constitution.

PC: That means if anybody is scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, backward, rich people belonging to those castes will get the benefit of reservation.

MS: They are backward.

PC: Why everywhere you don’t have reservation

MS: They have suffered, had no respect in society, and there is poverty, and I have no objection against the ones who have moved ahead. They have to go ahead. But those who have got left behind, should get special opportunity.

PC: Apply income criteria on backward, Muslim, that people above certain income should not get reservation.

MS: This you have to understand, even if people from backward class are rich, but he does not get as much respect, as people from upper caste.

PC: It means that the politics of reservation will go on in this country.

MS: No it is not mere politics of reservation. It is about farmers, jobless people, let them be of any caste. In are Kanyadaan scheme, we had made no distinction on basis of caste, all were given benefit.

PC: On development indicators, Mayawati did a lot of development in UP, made good roads, made statues, but made good parks.

MS: If roads have been built, do a survey, they have been made during our governments time. This government has made no road in five years. Those which have been made, have been destroyed in six months. And even after nine years, the roads made during are tenure are in good shape.

PC: In nine years, four years you were in power.

MS: Out government lasted for quarter to four years. And for five years the present government is running. Now see the roads made by us during our tenure, they are still in good shape.

PC: If your government and politics was good, then why people left you, like Ajit Singh,

MS: Nobody left. Don’t ask me where he goes how and why.

PC: But why you had taken him if you know how many times he goes here and there.

MS: No, we had majority, but he wanted to join us and the love that Chaudhary saab had for us, he made us go ahead, hence it was in my mind that he (Ajit Singh) is his son. I said that he is the son of our leader, hence let him say anything, I will not reply, will give him respect. Hence, for keeping his respect, we kept him (Ajit Singh)with us.

PC: He betrayed you.

MS: Now say it was betrayal or say he went away.

PC: You have no presence in western Uttar Pradesh, you took him so that you can get some votes. You used to depend on him, he did not depend on you.

MS: Now we are not depending on him. And we will not talk about him because he is the son of our leader. If I start saying then there are many things, but I will not say.

PC: Even Rashid Alvi, he was an old timer with you.

MS: When somebody gave Rajya Sabha seat, he left. Earlier he was offered Rajya Sabha, he left, again he got Rajya Sabha seat, he left again. Now, this is betrayal.

PC: Do you think you will get majority.

MS: Certainly, Samajwadi Party will get majority in elections.

PC: But people say you did not project whether Mulayam Singh will become Chief Minister or Akhilesh will become one.

MS: Everybody in the party knows who will become.

PC: Even you tell.

MS: Why should I tell, our whole party worker base knows that who will become chief minister.

PC: It means you have decided who will become chief minister.

MS: The people know.

PC: I am not asking the name, but your party has decided who will become.

MS: It is not decided in our party, it is understood.

PC: It is understood that Mulayam Singh will become.

MS: Laughs

PC: Nobody other than him can become

MS: That is dependent upon the MLA’s.

PC: Now you are saying MLA’s, earlier you were saying the party has decided. But don’t you feel after many years, in the UP elections, Samajwadi Party has not stars campaigning, no businessmen. Does Mulayam Singh feel it was a fault to get stars and ask votes for you, now only you are asking for votes?

MS: The wishes of the real stars are with Samajwadi party.

PC: Earlier they used to come for voting, they were also you brand ambassadors.

MS: Then I was not alone, there were other people, because of them they used to come and go.

PC: You used to call, hence they used to come. Now you have no need of Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Ambani.

MS: Amitabh Bachchanji has left politics. Hence I will not comment, there will be very few people like Amitabh Bachchan, I know him.

PC: His good wishes are with you.

MS: His good wishes are there, I don’t want to trap him into the political world. But people like him are few in the country.

PC: Let me ask you straight, let say he was Karan, or Arjun, but you are missing Amar Singhiji in the elections.

MS: Now that he had gone, he has gone.

PC: No, he used to help a lot in elections.

MS: Yes he used to help in elections.

PC: Now you may be missing his presence.

MS: Now I have left it to the people, the people will help us.

PC: No, the people will help, but aren’t you missing him.

MS: I will appeal to people, that I have no money, earlier Amar Singh used to collect, which is true.

PC: Amar Singh used to collect.

MS: He used to collect, he used to take donations, he used to be of big help for the party.

PC: Hence you use to depend on him.

MS: Now we are appealing that the people will make our candidates fight elections. I have no money, nor my party, hence you (the people) will make them fight elections. The people will make our candidates fight, I have full faith in the people.

PC: Earlier it used to be said in discussions that Samajwadi Party is a party of big businessmen, capitalists, now it has become real Samajwadi party.

MS: Even then the party was not in the hands of big businessmen and capitalists. Amar Singh was not big businessman, he used to do some small business. He was not a big businessman.

PC: Till now you are with the Congress government which is in power, you are supporting Congress.

MS: That we are supporting, you know, we are doing that because, we have to stall communal forces.

PC: Now like Rahul said something about Akhilesh, hence you have enemity and friendship both. Hence, it can be labelled opportunism, as, BJP cannot come to power now, hence, your argument of stalling communal forces does not stand.

MS: Now we are supporting the Congress to stop the BJP from coming to power. It is true that the Congress is not doing good behaviour with us, but we are doing politics of principle. Hence, even if they don’t look after us, we stand by our principle.

PC: They keep on slapping you, even then you are standing with folded hands in front of them.

MS: No issues, they are against us.

PC: Then why are you supporting them.BJP government cannot be formed now in the centre, they have 114 MP’s how can their government be formed.

MS: No, no, there are parties supporting them.

PC: 150 total

MS: Not 150, it is more.

PC: 160, even if you add your 20, even there the government cannot be formed.

MS: No, no, it could have been formed. Many parties could have gone with them, I will not unnecessarily take their names and annoy them. Many parties could go with them.

PC: If you withdraw support, then the Congress government will fall, but the question is that you don’t want to make the government fall.

MS: Now why to make the government fall when the elections are coming near.

PC: Elections are in 2014.

MS: There are only two years left for 2014.

PC: Hence you will not withdraw support.

MS: No, we will not withdraw support.

PC: Till 2014, you will not withdraw support to the Congress

MS: Till 2014 will not withdraw support.

PC: Will you take their support to form a government in UP.

MS: Now we are fighting alone, Samajwadi Party is fighting elections alone on its own strength.

PC: If you don’t win majority

MS: The imaginary question that you have posed, what answer will I give to that.

PC: The condition is that you will not get majority.

MS: We are in such a position that we will get clear majority.

PC: Earlier, it (majority) did not come, so if it does not come this time, then Congress doors are open?

MS: This will be thought later, but we have full confidence that the people will give us clear majority.

PC: You can take anybody’s support, except BJP’s and BSP, to form government.

MS: We will get clear majority, hence we will not need anybody’s support.

PC: No, to keep communal forces out, you will help anybody to form the government.

MS: No, our government will be formed, it will be of Samajwadi party.

PC: This is a imaginary, that your government will be formed. Now I am asking another imaginary thing, if you don’t get majority, what you will do.

MS: We are among people and have understood that people will fully support Samajwadi Party.

PC: Now I ask you the last question, if you don’t get majority in the elections.

MS: We will get majority.

PC: If it (majority) does not come, will it be Akhilesh’s or your defeat.

MS: We will get majority.

PC: If it does not come, then whose defeat would it be, party’s or Akhilesh’s

MS: Then it will be our party’s.

PC: Let’s see, our good wishes are with you, thank you for coming to our studio.

MS: Thank you Prabhuji !

DYNASTIC LEADERS IN THE DOCK IN 2012/ The Sunday Standard/January 01, 2012

2012-01-02T07:52:00.007+05:30

POWER & POLITICS

Dynastic Leaders in the Dock in 2012: People's Court will decide destiny

If year 2011 was the Year of Nemesis, 2012 will see judgment day for the political dynasties that rule more than half of India. Ever since the rise of regional leaders and the eclipse of nationally acceptable leaders, the Children of a Better God have found a place in what is now turning out to be Dynastic Democracy. Though most of those who control and direct both regional and national politics were born in India’s ruling families, they have also extracted political legitimacy by getting the popular mandate in their own states. As their parents take a backseat, or have unfortunately left the world, GenNext is now trying to assert their own ideologies and identities. From Rahul Gandhi to K Kanimozhi, they will have to now prove their own talents instead of pedigree to become leaders in their own right. During 2012, they will have to prove their utility, acceptability and political desirability not only among their own party cadres, but also among their voters. 2012 is likely to be their Year of Reckoning. The short list.

Rahul Gandhi: The 41-year-old third-generation scion of the Gandhi dynasty has hit the road to justify his privileged ascendency from a mere student to India’s second most powerful political personality after his mother. With just seven years in politics, he has already been declared the next prime minister. Rahul is perhaps aware of the monumental popular expectations from his hidden political skills. He can become prime minister only if he is able to deliver his state to his party. Uttar Pradesh goes to the polls in the first quarter of 2012. March 4, 2012, will decide not only Rahul’s future but also the relevance or irrelevance of dynastic politics. The Congress unfailingly lauds Rahul for the party’s spectacular performance in Uttar Pradesh during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections in which it won 22 seats. Since then, it lost almost all the Assembly by-elections. The Rahul experiment failed in Bihar in 2010; the Congress got only double digits in spite of his nerve-wracking poll campaign. He is not taking any chances in Uttar Pradesh, where he plans to address over 100 election rallies covering almost all the 400 Assembly segments. He has been personally involved in selecting candidates, supervising election material and choosing the campaigners. If his message and medium fails in the state, it will be a huge setback for his future plans. However, if he and his team deliver even 75 seats, Rahul will be unstoppable.

Akhilesh Yadav: The 38-year-old son of former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mulayam Singh Yadav and president of the Samajawadi Party is posing a bigger challenge to the Gandhi scion than expected. He doesn’t sleep in Dalit homes or indulge in out-of-the-box dramatics. While both Akhilesh and Rahul are targeting Chief Minister Mayawati, the former has the advantage as he is seen as the state’s future chief minister and not as India’s prime minister. Since it is a chief minister that voters elect in the Assembly elections, Akhilesh is better off. Though he has denied any chief ministerial aspirations, he has been on the road for the past six months covering almost every constituency. Unlike his father, Akhilesh is projecting himself as a moderniser and not just a leader out to seek a mandate in the name of caste and religion. He has stayed away from Mulayam’s ideology of forging a political matrimony between Muslims and Yadavs (MY). The 2012 electoral battle will also endorse Akhilesh’s dynastic succession, if he is able to improve SP’s tally of less than 90 seats in the current house.

Sukhbir Badal: With his 84-year-old father and Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal looking for an exit, it is now time for Punjab’s 49-year-old Deputy Chief Minister to prove his mettle by returning the state to the ruling Shiromani Akali Dal. For the past six months, he and his wife, Lok Sabha MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal, have been crisscrossing the state seeking a mandate for dynastic succession. Sukhbir’s ascendency led to a minor split in the party. His father, however, has given him full freedom to not only manage the state government but also the party, which rules the state along with the BJP. In the battle between a rich farmer and a glamorous maharaja, Captain Amarinder Singh, Sukhbir’s challenge is not only beating the incumbency factor, but also to carry the entire party along.

K Kanimozhi: For the whole year, M Karunanidhi’s daughter is the toughest task of them all. She has to fight daily not only legal cases, but also family members and the party to retain her political identity. After spending over six months in Tihar Jail as one of the accused in the 2G scam, 2012 is going to be her Year of Survival. Only if she is able to survive her legal nemesis will Kani be able to thrive in the party. With brothers M K Stalin and M Alagiri in deep freeze, thanks to either illness or corruption cases, she has both age and the image of a victim on her side. If Kani is able to come out of her troubles, it is she, and not her feuding siblings, who will be the DMK’s future.

Omar Abdullah: Imposed as the J&K chief minister through a secret midnight family coup in 2008, 42-year-old Omar will face the most serious challenge to his authority when he returns from his Christmas holidays to the frozen Kashmir Valley. 2011 has been a stormy year, both on personal and political fronts. With a section of the Congress and the National Conference baying for his blood, for his failure to ensure proper governance during the past three years, 2012 is going to be his Year of Trial. If Omar fails to strike a balance between good governance and good politics, a huge question mark will be raised against his dynastic succession.

Jagan Mohan Reddy: He failed to pull down the Congress Government in Andhra Pradesh in 2011, but his test ahead is not only to keep his dwindling flock together, but also to project himself as the genuine successor to his father YSR’s legacy, and an effective alternative to both the TDP and the Congress in the state. He won the parliamentary by-election in 2011, but in 2012, he will have to display all his manipulative skills to frustrate the state’s attempt to frame him in myriad corruption cases. Jagan has the money and the muscle power. In 2012, he has to put both to profitable use, and move away from being just a fringe player to the leader of a party who can dictate state politics in the long run.

The Thackeray Cousins: They have so far remained as only pinpricks in Maharashtra politics. Both Uddhav and Raj Thackeray have been ploughing and plotting for a bigger role, but have failed miserably so far. Both have been flirting and fuming with and against the RSS. In 2011, they couldn’t disturb or dislocate even a cricket match, leave alone the scam-ridden, ineffective Congress state government. Even after three years, the cousins haven’t been able to strike a chord with the cadres or people in the state. Since Maharashtra gets into election mode next year, both will have to establish their utility and relevance to their cadres. 2012 will be their Year of Introspection. If they fail to get the right idea or acceptable ideology in place, both will be doomed as dynastic successors. prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Laloo Prasad Yadav on Teekhi Baat/ December 31, 2012/IBN7

2012-01-02T07:00:00.001+05:30

In an exclusive interview on 'Teekhi Baat' for IBN 7, Rashtriya Janta Dal chief Laloo Prasad Yadav answers some tough questions, and charges against him on the issue on Lokpal bill, his feelings on status of UPA 2, reservations in Lokpal and judiciary,Congress and BJP, his views on Rajniti Prasad's actions. Excerpts:

PC: Your "Rajnitik Prasad" has given a new dimension to Indian politics.Do you like such kind of politics?
LPY: No, no, we never like (such kind of politics), you would have seen in Lok Sabha, people had a feeling that Laloo Yadav would tear the paper and throw it. I am party president and have not teared and thrown papers. The tearing of papers is no reason for delaying the issue (of Lokpal).

PC:I am asking about Rajniti Prasad's rajniti (politics) of tearing papers and entering into a scuffle with the minister, what kind of politics is this?
LPY:Rajniti Prasad got angry and there is a serious reason for his anger, he should not have done it, (the act of tearing papers), I do not approve of it.

PC:It did not happen with your approval.
LPY: No,no, not at all, why benefit would I get by doing this. If I would have torn the papers and this would have become the reason for the Lokpal bill getting delayed, then I would have accepted the charge. Now, Manu Singhviji, I was in the hall, later I was also present in the central hall, Manu Singhviji reversed the whole issue, Muslim reservation, scheduled castes, scheduled tribe, OBC reservation, which I pointed out in Lok Sabha,even there BJP and Congress had removed in minority word from the bill.

PC:The word had been removed before the bill was tabled.
LPY: And remember, the house was adjourned. And after the house was adjourned, they had no way out, and no face, and hence they improvised the bill.

PC: They called you.
LPY: What called, we went, how could we have left this issue, how would have our party left this issue. And hence we went and hence the bill was improvised, and it was passed (the bill), even though BJP, RSS people opposed, it is their birth right.

PC: You voted in favour of the bill.
LPY:Accepted, hence it was passed.

PC:You voted with the government.
LPY: The bill was weak, hence we said that it was no solution. Now Manu Sanghviji said that they have not given any reservation. He talked of representation by rotation, then being angry is natural, but anger should not go to such an extent, the paper should not have been torn, although it had no impact.

PC: Time was wasted.
LPY: I am telling you, this was not the reason.

PC: You wanted some reason to fight, people in opposition are saying that Lalooji is playing Congress's game.
LPY: No,no I know everyone (the opposition) very well, they are just talking to save face. BJP-NDA raised an unnecessary issue.

PC:Who created an unnecessary issue?
LPY: BJP did. And now it is known that Congress party does not have majority there (in Rajya Sabha), hence even if our people would have given vote in support of the Congress party, it would have made no difference. Even if we would have been absent, it would have made no difference. Our straight question was, you have gone in reverse gear on the issue of reservations, hence we have no trust in you. And hence our MP went, and whatever he did, the way to protest could have been different, but the operative part is that it did not affect anything.

PC: Do you think Congress party wanted to pass the bill there.
LPY: Congress party passed the bill, you know.

PC: Not in Lok Sabha but also in Rajya Sabha
LPY: Even here (Rajya Sabha). Yesterday Congress party was sitting (in the house) without any support, they have no majority, and SP cannot go along with BJP, BSP also cannot go with them. There were several contradictions regarding the amendment (of the bill), these inside issues, you all do not know, we know, what is happening there.

PC: People who oppose you are saying whatever you did in the Lok Sabha, you raised the issue of minority, then the amendment happened, and even after that
LPY: Did our four MP's make any difference?

PC:Laloo Yadav's four MP's are "4 pe chalees bhari padne wallah hisaab"
LPY: To hide their mistakes, BJP and other parties

PC:You mean to say Congress party is absolutely clean
LPY:Congress party was demanding, 'yeh dono mile hue hain', Congress and BJP are together, 'aur milke ye sab ram lila ho rahee thee'

PC: People say that like you don't let the women's reservation bill passed, in the same manner you dont want this bill passed
LPY: No,no, the bill is useless, everybody rejected it, it is not a strong bill, we said a lakh times, protested, but it made no impact.

PC: You said that the bill is useless, Jaitley saab also said that the bill is wrong, phoney, then why didn't you oppose it at the introduction stage.
LPY: We opposed, we opposed in the Lok Sabha

PC:No, I am talking of when it was introduced.
LPY:It is not a new bill, bill was passed, adopted by the Lok Sabha, and there were several amendments demanded by the political parties, like armed forces were included, why are you taking armed forces in this, why attention was not paid to this issue, then they agreed, they had made a mistake.

PC: So you feel everywhere there should be reservation.
LPY: Reservation, why not?

PC: You fought over reservations, like Manu Singhvi said there should be no reservation, it should be by rotation, but you should have read the bill, it states that not less than 50 per cent members should belong to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, women and minority.
LPY: It (reservation) should be on every layer, from the search committee to the Lokpal body, make eight or nine, or ten, improvisation and making law is in your hands, make it 50 per cent.

PC: I had asked Salman Khurshid (Union Law Minister) that which minority would you include in 50 per cent, only four or five people can be included.
LPY: No, no, let me tell you, we are supreme body, i mean parliament, which makes the law, when we are making the law, then we will make it equal, by increasing the members.

PC: It has been written how many members should be there.
LPY: If it is written it will be changed in one minute, it is not a big issue. The main issue is that BJP and their other people who are opposing reservation, they are adamant that we will not allow to give (reservation) to minority and Muslims. This was their strategy, hence they tabled the bill in such a way, even though everybody knew that the Congress has no majority (in the Rajya Sabha)

PC:Even BJP wanted that there should be no minority reservation, Sushmaji said in the house that minority reservation is anti constitutional and should not happen, don't you feel why everywhere reservation, reservation?
LPY: Why not? When there is talk of scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, minority, OBC. It is a wrong thing to oppose reservation, it is being cunning, it is fraud, this nation belongs to everybody, there are 17-18 crore Muslims, there are people from scheduled castes, scheduled tribe, 90 per cent population belongs to these lower castes, wont you give them reservation? and then do you think we will tolerate it?. Yesterday, whatever happened regarding Lokpal bill in Rajya Sabha, Congress did not have the majority.

PC: It is fine to bring you socially and economically backward people, but there is a creamy layer in that too.
LPY:Supreme Court has talked about creamy layer. I want to say via your TV that it should be seen that the minority is included (in Lokpal), when we are forming an organisation, erecting a building, then everybody should have representation, whether he be Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Christian.

PC:You are such a big leader Lalooji, dont you feel dividing the country, its politics on communal and caste lines
LPY: From where this talk of division is being raised.

PC: Harijan, Scheduled Caste is fine, it was there in our constitution, then you included backward castes via Mandal commission, now minority talks has started, earlier there was no reservation based on religion.
LPY: No, is there is talk of reservation based on religion, is it a government job.

PC: Tomorrow you will say reservation should also be there in judiciary.
LPY: We say, it should be there.

PC: Even doctors now
LPY: Why not, Supreme Court has agreed, that they should get (reservation). It is there is lower judiciary.

PC: Even doctors should be selected on basis of reservation.
LPY: Dcotors are there already, when Mandal commission was implemented, there is already reservation for doctors.

PC: It is there for admissions
LPY: No,no,no,no, it is in appointment, please know it. And why not, you have pushed people to social backwardness, you have snatched away their rights, people are depressed and oppressed.

PC: So many people of lower castes have come up in life, whatever benefits reservation has had, it has happened only for rich.Jagjivan Ram was a big man, his daughter became speaker.
LPY: She became it is natural, she has a vote, Mayawati has votes she is chief minister.

PC: Am talking of others, why there is no reservation for poor people, why not reservation on economic criteria.
LPY: People who are shedding tears for poor people, why not for rickshawwallahs

PC:I am asking you why did not you speak in Parliament in favor of reservation for poor people whose monthly income is less than Rs.500.
LPY:One who cannot afford education for his children, do you know, rights have been snatched even in the 27 per cent reservation for OBC's. Even after that we fought for reservation for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes.

PC: You are not answering my question, why don't you advocate income based reservation.
LPY: What income?

PC: So that poor people can come up in life become doctors, advocates, judge.
LPY: Poor people who cannot provide education to their children.

PC: When you can distribute 2 lakh crore via NREGA, then cannot you give money for fees.
LPY:Give that, where have we stopped. Creamy layer is already in force, the answer to your question is that there is creamy layer. Laloo's son, daughter will not get benefit, we are income tax payee, hence we don't get, we never claim. It should be seen in this country, people's whose rights have been snatched, that is why people are unsatisfied in this country, hence when we talk of reservation, then people raise their noses.

PC: Reservation should be there for the poor people, why caste based reservation.
LPY: What is caste based, we also talk about people who are upper caste but poor. Bring an amendment in the constitution.

PC: In the name of reservation, till now women's reservation has not become a reality. Even in that there have been quarrels that whether there should be reservation for backward, others in women's reservation bill. In the same way there were quarrels regarding Lokpal bill.
LPY: No, did anybody oppose, did Anna Hazareji oppose, even people who opposed said that you can do (reservations)

PC: Yesterday they quarrel that Rajniti Prasad got into
LPY:Arre... Rajniti Prasad, if i would have been there, i would have caused more chaos, i would have stopped everybody and demanded to debate and take a decision on the issue of reservation. You said something else there, passed something else there, how did it change after coming here, how did it change. BJP and Congress are together, in every issue they are together.

PC: You have four or five people. (In the house)
LPY: We have only four people.

PC: You and your few people in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha together shook up the politics of this country, people say that because of you
LPY: Did not shake up or stirred, some people talk, some shut up. Now if it a right thing, we talk about it and the nation stands with us. Is there any answer why the reservation stance changed overnight, so MP's of our party who went, in the lobby, protested and was angry, on the issues facing Muslims, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes.

PC: After that, Narayanswamy cleared that this (reservations) are there in the bill already.
LPY: This Narayanswamy, why trust can one have in him.

PC: Didn't the Prime Minister gave you assurance.
LPY: If Narayanswamy could be trusted, even there regarding the issue of Trinamool Congress Mamta Banerjee said, that in a federal set up, one has to ask the states in a federal set up. Then why did not the amend it, (the bill), how can we believe them then. You are making a law, include the provisions in it.

PC:People say that in the government, people speak behind one's back, do you think there are people in the government, that can be depended upon.
LPY: First you understand that, in the Lok Sabha, the Congress gathered majority.

PC: But you are with the Congress, ideologically you are with the Congress.
LPY: We walked out, saying that your bill is very weak, and i am going back.

PC: You did not oppose.
LPY: What is this then,what were we four people doing?

PC: I am asking you that Prime Minister, Pranab Mukherjee and other big minister call upon you and talk to you
LPY: I don't do any deal, if i go anywhere, i say the right thing.

PC: Do you have trust on this governrment
LPY: If Congress is adressing the right question, and we are not going to fall in the Congress-BJP trap. Congress party or any other will not listen to us, then will i listen?. Regarding talks, everybody talks to each other.

PC:Can it be said about this government that they do what they say.
LPY: There are not people of one kind in this government, they were in UPA (1), in UPA (1) people were consulted, allies were asked (before taking any major decisions),here nobody asks anybody.

PC: But you are supporting the government.
LPY: We are supporting the government to stop BJP.

PC: You are giving outside support to the government
LPY:We are supporting the government from outside on the condition that they will do right work, in the interest of the poor people of the country and reservation issue.

PC: Lalooji, tell me whether the government is doing right or wrong work.
LPY: UPA 1 was a government that used to do work, in UPA 2, no work is happening, they are stuck in various confusions.

PC: Is it a failed government
LPY: The government doesn't work, it is failed (government)

PC: Government has failed
LPY: It is failed government.

PC: on whom you will fix the responsibility for this, because you are saying it is a failed government.
LPY: UPA 1 was a government in which the people were consulted.

PC: of which you were part (UPA1)
LPY: I was a part of (UPA 1), even in two there are allies, from whom no suggestions are sought.

PC: Hence you are saying that the government has failed.
LPY: It certainly has failed, has the government been able to do any work? the government has not been able to do any work. The work of UPA 1, including the various work components of Bharat Nirman, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, MNREGA, roads, hospitals, electricity, on that basis this government is running.

PC: The number of people staying below the poverty line has increased, this you would know Lalooji
LPY: It has increased, a survey should be done, with honesty.

PC: Now who would you blame for the failed government.
LPY: On those who are running the government.

PC: Prime Minister or somebody else
LPY: No, i wont comment on their internal issue.

PC: So tell if you are in support or against the government.
LPY: I staunchly oppose the wrong works done by the government, certainly, I oppose.

PC: Now what happened in the parliament yesterday, do you see it as the government's mistake, the government shied away from a vote, this happened for the first time.
LPY: Please listen what the government wants to say, from every party, people are saying five five times, time was killed, went up to 12 pm, there was pressure from the Congress party to pass it as it is,on the pretext that there is no time. Now when you passed there, (the Lokpal in the Lok Sabha), why BJP changed face here (in the Rajya Sabha) and changed its stance. Were our four people going to make any difference of passing any failing the bill.

PC: Trinamool Congress also opposed, but you are giving clean chit to them, but you are blaming the BJP time and again.
LPY: Certainly, six people from one party will speak, it takes so much time, it went upto 12 pm, who has been responsible for this.

PC: In Lok Sabha Congress later stopped the debate and allowed voting on the issue, this could be done here also (in the Rajya Sabha).
LPY: They saw that the date was changing.

PC: They could have done here also, (in the Rajya Sabha), said debate is over, and gone for a vote. Congress could have said at 10 pm, that no more debates we want a vote on this issue
LPY: Who would have let them speak there.

PC: So, why are you standing in Congress party's support. First time in history, any party shied away from vote.
LPY: No it is not question of who shied away, speaker adjourned, sine die.

PC: When Bansal (Pawan Kumar Bansal) that they dont want to debate on the issue, we will later bring an amendment, and will see after that.
LPY: That is a different amendment.

PC: After Bansal sahab said adjournment happened.
LPY: He saw that there was hot exchange from both the sides, you read the adjournment observations. You read what the speaker said, that he never saw such a situation and it seems that a battle will start hence he took decision in national interest.

PC: So you think what the government did was right?
LPY: No, the government did not have majority. Certainly, everybody knows, you know that the government did not have majority.

PC: If you were Prime Minister, and you knew that there is no majority, would you have got the proposed bill in the house.
LPY: The majority who were in opposition consisted of BJP, JDU, Left and Mamtaji on one issue,

PC: That is a big issue, the bill will be finished because of that issue.
LPY: Please listen, and we all together, including BSP, there was majority, and together with SP, there in the other house, there was majority. This majority is for counting. But there were internal issues in these parties, nobody was with each other.

PC: Opposition was divided, hence Congress could have taken benefit
LPY: Internal, hence the debate prolonged, you don't know. This is the reason for the time being prolonged, if you want to know.

PC:This was happening from both sides.
LPY: No,no,no, one was saying go for this, the other said we will not go with you, somebody else says that we will not go with the other.

PC: Congress should have taken benefit out of this.
LPY: Congress did not have majority.

PC: When they are divided among themselves, then at least Congress should have taken benefit.
LPY: I am telling you, this is an internal issue. There are upcoming elections in five states, hence for saving face, they are organizing rallies against one another, raising issues. One saying that the other has caused problems, he ran away, they ran away. Nobody wants the Lokpal bill in the present form. If it was strong, everybody would have agreed, any party internally, how much ever you try, even tomorrow some issue would be raised, the bill is still alive, it has not been rejected nor accepted in Rajya Sabha. Even if tomorrow it is discussed, they will raise the same issues.

PC: It seems no party wants the Lokpal bill.
LPY: No, nobody wants.

PC: Everybody was giving political speeches.
LPY: It was all Ram Leela, know this first. Nobody wants.

PC: Who is Ravan and Ram in this Ram Leela
LPY: No, please listen, why would anybody want (this bill)

PC: You say this was Ram Leela, no party was in its favour, then what is the meaning of bringing this bill, when Congress, BJP and you are not favour of this bill, then why this tamasha. This is fraud with the nation.
LPY: No, it is not fraud with the nation, our nation with the party, what is our line(of thinking), others line (of thinking), Babasaheb made the constitution, the structure that he gave us, we will not allowed it to be destroyed, please understand. We don't have that much power, strength, but I will say and I speak and will keep on speaking. The constitution given by Baba, in which everybody has work allotment. What CBI should do, what court should do, what CVC should do, now in a hurry, without thinking you also kept the army in the Lokpal's ambit, to destroy it. And to keep CBI under Lokpal's ambit,

PC: You are time and again hinting at the BJP, now the lawyers drafted the bill Kapil Sibal, Manu Singhvi, the bill made by all these big lawyers,
LPY: Please listen to what i am saying, the whole political system is centralized in the Lokpal Bill, this is an attack on democracy,

PC: It is an attack on democracy
LPY: Certainly, our base (of democracy) is being attacked. I am saying the right thing, that is why people are saying that Laloo Yadav is opposing.

PC: You are saying that this bill should be thrown away in the dust bin.
LPY: Say any word, but we are cutting the branch on which we are sitting.

PC: Tell me straight, should this bill be thrown in the dust bin
LPY: This bill, for eradicating corruption from all places, has been drafted in a hurry, and do you think you can eradicate corruption like this.

PC: Lalooji, you are extending support in such a logical way, do you feel, you this government shouldn't take you in ministers position.
LPY: See, again, you spoken on a small thing,

PC: Government is failing, people like you should be there
LPY: See, Laloo is not standing because of any minister's blessings, it is because of his own strength. Through his own strength, not because of anybody's blessings. Minister, minister, minister, for what? We are erecting a building, destructing our institutions.

PC: What is you aim
LPY: Our aim is that if there is corruption, then takeover wealth of all people in this country, take over all bank accounts.

Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ December 25, 2011

2011-12-26T18:40:00.001+05:30

Power & Politics

The King C0ng Option is on the Table, and It's Not Going To Work

Consistency has never been the virtue of Indian political parties. The ruling Congress is no exception. Mauled and marred by adverse publicity for its failure to create a strong Lokpal Bill, the Congress first chose to walk with Team Anna. It accepted the deadline set by Hazare for the Bill’s passage. It made Team Anna’s voice mightier than its own collective speech. Leaders, including Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, provided mass legitimacy to the movement by writing numerous letters to Anna. But that was a couple of months ago.

Last week, the same Congress party questioned the very idea of civil society activism. Suddenly, it invoked the principle of parliamentary supremacy and asserted its right to legislate, even if it went against the spirit of the Constitution. Through various actions and statements, the party leadership is trying to create the impression that it is not merely hanging on in office, but also has the will to govern with full authority. It is not willing to lose sleep or prestige under pressure from an agitation led by an ‘individual’. The Congress has once again asserted its unique DNA, which allows it to make and break deals according to its convenience, even at the cost of conviction.

The Congress has decided to confront its challengers within and outside. None other than the Congress president herself blew the bugle. While addressing partymen, Sonia scolded them for behaving like losers. She repeated her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi’s favourite ideological weapon — the destabilisation theory. She said: “Let’s fight the forces out to destabilise us; the forces who never accepted the verdicts of 2004 and 2009.” She went a step further by announcing, “I am always ready for a fight.” The party, as well as UPA ministers looking forward to their Christmas holidays were once again ordered to train their guns on the Opposition. During the Lokpal debate, Sonia thumped her desk vigorously when Lalu Prasad Yadav made fun of Team Anna. The Congress was once again at its usual best: dividing the Opposition and isolating its worst enemy, the BJP. Even Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee took an uncharacteristically confrontationist approach when he dismissed important objections raised by the Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj on the Lokpal Bill. Mukherjee argued that Parliament cannot give up its right to legislate simply because the judiciary may strike it down. Interpretation: Parliament could also pass laws that can take away the fundamental rights of citizens as it happened during the Emergency. After Sonia and Pranab became aggressive, Manmohan couldn’t afford to be left behind. During a meeting with corporate leaders last week, the Prime Minister chastised them for attacking the Government for policy paralysis. Even top industrialists like Ratan Tata must have been shocked at Manmohan’s newly acquired confidence. He left none of them in doubt that the Government wouldn’t treat them as partners in growth if they continued their pessimistic attitude.

He couldn’t have spoken like a maverick in the House, unless he was assured the full support of various political parties. For the first time after many months, the Congress was able to divide the entire Opposition in the name of the minorities. One could notice a sense of relief on the once-sullen faces of Congress leaders when the composition of the Lokpal, and not its contents and powers, became the subject of national debate. By adopting the British policy of divide and rule, the Congress changed the discourse on corruption. Barring the BJP, all parties who were earlier pleading for a strong Lokpal suddenly chose to support and laud the Government on the clause providing for not less than 50 per cent reservation for SCs, STs, OBC, minorities and women in the Lokpal bodies. They must have forgotten to read the Bill, which is an apology of a legislation. If passed in its current form, the Lokpal wouldn’t have any powers to investigate or prosecute and will be just one of the many commissions or panels that occupy over 100 offices in the capital and whose members enjoy all the perks of a Cabinet minister, but not the authority to advise even a ministry official. Obviously, the Congress and its allies have come to the conclusion that corruption isn’t an election issue in India. Recent by-election results in Bellary and other places delivered verdicts in favour of those who are symbols of corruption in high places. According to Congress insiders, the party is confident of scoring impressive victories in all the five states going to the polls in early 2012. For the Congress, winning an election by any means symbolises political acceptability. In the process, it is betraying the most powerful and innovative slogan Indira gave the nation in 1980: “Elect a government that governs.” prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Salman Khurshid on Teekhi Baat/IBN7 on December 24, 2011

2011-12-24T19:02:00.004+05:30

As the issue of Lokpal snowballs into a political hot potato, Law Minister Salman Khurshid in an exclusive interview for Teekhi Baat on IBN 7, answers questions on the issue Lokpal , independence of CBI, the politics of reservations, team Anna and many other contentious issues.

PC: Hello! I am Prabhu Chawla, and our guest for today on Teekhi Baat is Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid, welcome to our studio Salmanjee.

SK: Thank You, Prabhuji and I am happy that I am back in your fourteenth episode.

PC: Congress got freedom for the country, by putting the British out of power, but you adopted their strategy of divide and rule. Divide political parties and rule all of them. And you have done a very good thing about lokpal, made everyone fight on this issue; this is what we expected of you, divide and rule, make Laloo fight with Mulayam, Mulayam with BJP and CPM with somebody else.

SK: Please see, we want the Lokpal bill to come to reality. And we want it because it is needed today and today the environment is such that people seek faith in such an institution which can stop corruption, only time will tell, whether it will be able to stop it or not. But even then, there is a necessity.

PC: There is a necessity. But today discussion is happening whether it should be reservation for minority or not, Laloo started giving speeches on this issue. The discussion to stop corruption is not happening, but sure they say in the last sentence that Lokpal should be a strong bill. But the whole discussion in parliament was centred around the topic whether there should be reservation for minorities. This means you wanted to divide people, people say your intentions are not right.

SK: No, no please see, let the Lokpal be formed first, after that we will talk of intentions. Because, before anybody announces decisions on our intentions, you are questioning intentions, which is not good, I believe that the condition that our politics is in today, the reality, is the same thing which we are seeing on television today. Now to run from this reality and form any institution, that will not run. We will have to accept the reality. If this reality can be changed, time will change it, some big leader will change, some party will change it that is a different issue. But today this is the reality.

PC: You want to show you are ushering in change, tinkering and altering the system.

SK: We are not tinkering with the system, please see.

PC: Kiran Bedi said that the earlier bill was not Lokpal but Jokepal. But today people are saying that you have made jalebi.

SK: Who is the joke on, the people who said that this is a jokepal bill and the other bill was good. Who is the last laugh on.

PC: You messed with the lokpal bill so much, people are saying you have made it jalebi pal bill.

SK: Eat the jalebi and see.

PC: One will get diabetes.

SK: No, diabetes will not happen by eating jalebi , but if one already has diabetes, then jalebi has a bad effect.

PC: You have made such a jalebi nobody is understands what is what.

SK: These days sugar free jalebis are also made.

PC: You have put rabri on it

SK: (laughs) rabri daal di.

PC: Your intention is that the lokpal bill should be formed, because the kind of bill that you have brought forth, from what I read I could make out that there will be two agencies to deal with corruption in the country. The idea of Lokpal was to have one agency to deal with corruption in the country. Now CBI which should have been under Lokpal, is out of its ambit.

SK: This is whose idea, of them who have not fought elections. Who has not experience of coalition government, who is not inspired nor experienced about politics, he said that he has had a vision, let anyone have won or lose an election, he should accept that vision. We heard, tried to understand, tried to mould it into our thought process, some of the aspects we moulded into our thought process, but they say that not even one word should be changed from here to there, and if that happens, we will not accept.

PC: That man disturbed your sleep, you sat all day along with other ministers, some went to receive them or others at airport, you first surrendered and today you say that the man is wrong.

SK: Please listen, I am not saying wrong.

PC: I mean you are saying things like he has not fought an election. Earlier also he had not fought, it is not a new fact brought it light. He dictated you to sit all night, pass it in the Loksabha session, you followed their agenda and calendar. Later, you understood the politics, and started to divide.

SK: If we would have given no response, then we would have been labelled as insensitive.

PC: Some said who are they (team Anna) to decide about how the parliament will go about…

SK: In parliament all agree on this issue, that we will listen to everybody, but doing the thing is our job, nobody can dictate us, and there is nothing wrong in that.

PC: They dictated and you followed their agenda and time frame, they will sit for hunger strike on 29^th, hence we have to pass.

SK: No, no, no, since last time we said that we will pass it in next session, hence it will be tabled in this session, it is not so that anybody is giving us a schedule, that they (team Anna) are doing something on this date, and hence we do such and such thing before. People also told us, why are you doing it now, show it to them, do it later. We said no, if there is a feeling in the country, how much ever support it may have got, more or less, it is a good through and hence we must respect it.

PC: Your language has changed since Soniaji said that we will fight, ‘Soniji ki lalkaar, Congress ladne, marne ko tayiaar’

SK: Why not, why

PC: Why not earlier, why not earlier, the day Soniaji said we will fight, earlier you used to right letters to them, suddenly they said we will fight.

SK: The army starts when the commander says start, soldiers, move ahead. Before that the army stands, silent.

PC: Earlier you were compromising

SK: We didn’t compromise; there is no harm in talking. Even if somebody talks today, I think that talks should happen. Nothing happens in a democracy by shunning dialogue. There should be a dialogue. But dialogue cannot be one sided. There should be give and take from both sides. We move ahead a bit, the other moves back a bit, we accommodate them somewhat, then accommodate us somewhat.

PC: In the bill you have brought out, you accommodated no one, you did what you had to do. You kept CBI totally out of the ambit, you also attacked the existing federal structure, that the leader of opposition also said, and others agreed.

SK: Leader of opposition did not do that.

PC: The leader of opposition said that you cannot make such a law which curbs powers of the states

SK: May be she would have not read the whole bill, which states that the law will only be enforced in the states if the incumbent assembly in the states wants to keep this law above the existing law and proposes the same.

PC: The law is being brought to reduce corruption in India, there are two agencies, will CBI or Lokpal be big according to you.

SK: No, no there will be different administration for CBI and lokpal.

PC: If a complaint goes to both places, then what will happen.

SK: No, no it cannot go to both places, because, if a complaint goes to the place at first, is regarded a s valid complaint. Just for example, if an application has to be made in the High Court and Supreme Court under article 32, if you give it first in the High Court under article 226, then the Supreme Court will not hear it. If you give it first in the Supreme Court, then the High Court will not hear the matter. And sometimes the Supreme Court says to the other court to send the application to Supreme Court as they have similar applications before them. They say we will hear it collectively. This is what the Supreme Court says, in every organisation, there are rules, every organisation, there is a system, if you have a choice at two places, then you must go to only one place, for which there are rules.

PC: On the one hand CBI does independent inquiry, does trap cases, but you have not given any such powers to Lokpal.

SK: Lokpal cannot do investigation, when it receives any complaint; it will start in inquiry, after the inquiry, if Lokpal wants an investigation, the CBI will do that.

PC: If anybody wants to complain against you, he will go to Lokpal,

SK: It is his own choice.

PC: Just presume he went

SK: Yes

PC: Then Lokpal gives the matter to CBI to investigate; the CBI will investigate, isn’t it.

SK: CBI can do, some other agency can also do, like Delhi police.

PC: Mostly, corruption charges against public servants are investigated by CBI.

SK: Because they are given to CBI.

PC: But Lokpal.

SK: Lokpal can autonomously do it, but if Lokpal wants to give it to somebody like CBI, they will have an option to do that.

PC: But if it goes to CBI, then it is under your control, the central governments control.

SK: No, it is not under our control.

PC: Will you give it to Delhi police or state police.

SK: CBI is not under our control, you have read the Supreme Court decision of Vineet Narayan, CBI is under CVC. CBI works independently.

PC: CVC in under Prime Minister, this means it is all under political control.

SK: Why not do one thing, let us say there will be no prime minister in India, issue would have been over. But there will be a prime minister, and everywhere there will be a chief minister, and the prime minister will have some powers at least. Will we make a prime minister sans any powers.

PC: There are all powers; the law is for the whole country.

SK: Then why do you need the prime minister, have only MP’s.

PC: There is a leader to take decision; otherwise too many cooks spoil the broth, there should be a super cook.

SK: Hence, will be give the super cook any rights or not.

PC: The government is there to form system and make it independent.

SK: Make system independent, let Supreme Court announce a decision and put them on the computer, after which there is no need for hearing the decisions again, you see the computer.

PC: You are forming two agencies.

SK: We are not forming two agencies. When there is a CBI, the police in every state has a CID.

PC: CID did not have prosecution power, but investigation power.

SK: Prosecution and investigation are two difference things. Even now, who appoints prosecutor under CrPC, the state government appoints. It is used by the police. I the whole world, prosecution and investigation are different wings. Only in our country, prosecution and investigation has been attached. If prosecution and investigation are attached, then the safeguards are over.

PC: When you changed or made laws two three times after under pressure from team Anna. Are you not sending across a message that democracy has been rooted so strongly in this country, that outside voices can also force the legislature, to make the law,

SK: They don’t force, they persuade, like I spoke to you today, you said one such thing, whether it be Teekhi, Seedhi, then I will go to Prime Minister and say that Prabhu Chawlajee said one very good thing, we also should incorporate.

PC: But I don’t say that I will sit one hunger strike if you don’t agree.

SK: That I don’t know, hunger strike is a different issue. But if you say a good thing, then I should listen. Not only because Prabhu Chawlaji said it in his programme.

PC: You will not agree, but you have set a precedent that any civil society movement, will persuade you, force, to say it in your words, to bring a law fast.

SK: Convince.

PC: Then how is parliament supreme.

SK: Parliament, in today’s democracy, a dialogue with civil society, any group, stake holders , that we say always hence we put on our website that we want to make such and such a law and invite suggestions. Then when it goes to standing committee, advertisements are issued, and seek inputs from all stakeholders, let the issue be pertaining to patents, or making any law, or making any policy, then people come, give their opinion. You know that before the budget, finance minister speaks to the stake holders. In the same way, this thing has been taken ahead, because today, democracy has become participatory, it is not the case that you vote once in five years and sit at home. Now, every day in a democracy, that you make your voice heard, to your MP, write letters,

PC: Stage Dharnas.

SK: No, no even Dharnas, even Dharnas are a part of our political system.

PC: You said parliament is supreme, people should give their suggestions, but should parliament be allowed to pass any law.

SK: No, no if parliament passes a law, which is not good, then the people who have been voted to power in parliament, who are in majority, will lose next time.

PC: There is a history of parliament, like the 40^th or 41^st amendment in the constitution, when emergency was imposed, even that law was passed by the parliament.

SK: Yes

PC: That was not interest of the country.

SK: And lost after that.

PC: After that, there was 44^th amendment, which means parliament can make even wrong laws, public is supreme. Your imposed emergency and took away people’s rights.

SK: That is not the case, public is supreme, which is true, but the same supreme public game themselves a constitution, and gave rights of amendment to the constitution,

PC: It means we will make the law, then Supreme Court will declare it ultra vires, like it did earlier.

SK: According to our understanding, we will do what is right, but we cannot duplicate supreme court here, what can happen in supreme court, cannot happen here. The kind of arguments and thoughts presented in supreme court, and the kind of study that is done in supreme court, that cannot happen in parliament.

PC: I am reading his statement; which he said in the house, our work is form legislation, the supreme court will decide its implications.

SK: Of course.

PC: In the constitution, it has been said you cannot have more than 50 per cent reservations, but you said,

SK: Now, supreme court, sees two things, what you have said and what you have done, you said minimum 50 per cent,

PC: Not less than 50 per cent.

SK: Yes, not less than 50 per cent, all right, then it is minimum. But if you exceed 50 per cent

PC: But you said not more than 50 per cent.

SK: No, no if we exceed 50 per cent, then Supreme Court will say it is wrong. But supreme court, in the two matters of Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, the limit, set by the supreme court itself, has ordered to go more than that, has given this right.

PC: In services not in constitutional bodies, it has not be done for CEC

SK: No, it is not there, not in Supreme Court, reservation is not there in Supreme Court, not in any high court. This is an experiment in the modern world, in the background of changing politics, not leaving all parties, one party raised the issue of minorities,

PC: This is what you wanted, use the minority card and divide.

SK: So should we not put it.

PC: No, I am not saying that, I am saying reservation shouldn’t be there, but there should be merit based reservation in this country.

SK: You are saying it shouldn’t be there, but you having a firm point of view. Now there are people who say it should be there, but it should be this much, not that much, now only seeing his benefit he changes, then he has to be told that you are faltering.

PC: But to attach the word minority, earlier you told we will not attach, then you withdrew the bill,

SK: I will clear the issue for you. In the all party meeting, in that 99 per cent of the people, including BJP, they said that there should be reservations. But BJP had not said anything in the matter of minorities.

PC: Then why was it not in the bill.

SK: It was in the bill, cabinet passed it, it was in the bill, then there were talks with all stakeholders, in which there were talks with the BJP too, when the issue was raised that there is a category for socially and educationally backward minorities, that category cannot assimilate all minorities, they said that, and hence we said that we will think over it. Hence, till that time, we did not include it in the bill, but when we thought, and after giving a thought everybody formed an opinion that there should be no doubt as it is a constitutionally valid category, hence we included it.

PC: There are five minorities recognized nationally, with you make minorities fight against minorities in the Lokpal.

SK: No, why.

PC: You will keep five, each from one community,

SK: No, we will not be able to keep five.

PC: Then you will leave somebody.

SK: if we keep four, then one will be left, but next time.

PC: You will have to have one women member.

SK: About women member, women can be included from anywhere.

PC: How many members are there in Lokpal.

SK: Lokpal has nine members.

PC: From nine, if you have to include, five, four minorities, then after four, one woman.

SK: Now it is not said that if somebody is from minority, then the person cannot be woman. It can so happen a woman from minority is included.

PC: Then five are done, from where will you take backward.

SK: No, all five won’t come at one time. One backward, one dalit,

PC: Then according to you, somebody or the other will be left out.

SK: In backward also there are 2000 different backward,

PC: In this country, you started a discussion, earlier scheduled castes, scheduled tribe, which is ok, which was for the first 10 years in the constitution, now it is permanent, accepted, for eradicating social backwardness. But now if you split the minorities, then in this country, till when will you continue splitting caste, sub caste, religion, sub religion, is it in the interest of the country.

SK: I ask you, if you want to finish this system, can we take all people together and ask them, are you getting justice, till people keeping on thinking that they didn’t get justice as compared to others, till then reservations will have to continue.

PC: This is what the politicians say

SK: This is even in America.

PC: Public is not demanding reservations as much as politicians.

SK: That is not the case, there are reservations in America,

PC: That is affirmative action

SK: There is affirmative action, hence you are saying there should be affirmative action but not reservation.

PC: Yes, in affirmative action economic criteria are included.

SK: In affirmative action, at someplace economic and some place social criteria are included, some where there is historical, there can be anything.

PC: There is a logic behind that, here, let anybody be rich or poor, everybody gets it.

SK: No, that is not the case, there is a creamy layer.

PC: That is in backwards, it is not in religion based reservation.

SK: No, no, what we know, creamy layer was not written in the constitution. Supreme Court gave directions regarding the same.

PC: What do you think, the bill that has come now finally, (Lokpal bill), will you be able to get the current draft passed, or will there be changes.

SK: That is our aim, but Pranab da has said that we have come with a free mind, everybody have to get together and pass it. What is somebody’s opinion on it,

PC: You don’t have majority.

SK: No majority that does not mean

PC: Hence, you will have to take everybody together.

SK: If there would have been no majority, how would we have been in the government?

PC: You are in the government because you don’t let the no confidence motion come.

SK: No, no

PC: Don’t let any voting resolution come

SK: That is not the case, vote is cast every day. We have our partners, our colleagues,

PC: The majority was not in favour of your bill today in the house.

SK: Today

PC: Let’s take today’s sense of the house

SK: It has been admitted on the basis of the sense of the house.

PC: But people have not asked for division.

SK: If division is not demanded, is it our fault, or theirs

PC: Now you will have to do some compromises to take people together.

SK: Compromise is a word which people understand wrongly. But dialogue

PC: You will have to do adjustment

SK: Accomodation, not adjustment and accommodation and dialogue is a part of democracy.

PC: Will the government think on making some necessary changes in Lokpal bill later.

SK: That happens in every bill and in many bills official amendments are moved in which people say that do these amendments in the bill. It happens in every bill, and where there is brute majority, where there is no need to listen to anybody, there a person can ask to close eyes and ears and ask to vote. But where there are coalition governments, there dialogue has to be done, accommodation has to be done,

PC: Tell me one thing, who will do Lokpal’s inquiry, if there is a complaint of corruption against them.

SK: There is a provision of inquiry of Lokpal, the complaint will go to the Supreme Court, a Supreme Court committee will inquire into it, even today this happens, you will know that the head of Prasar Bharati, if there is a complaint against person holding that post, it goes to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court inquires, after that, Hon. President is told,

PC: What about the staff under Lokpal.

SK: There is a system for staff under Lokpal. Their inquiry can be done by Lokpal themselves or the Lokpal can give it to somebody else.

PC: Who will do CBI’s inquiry

SK: Who does CBI’s inquiry today

PC: Can Lokpal do it or not

SK: CBI themselves to CBI’s inquiry today.

PC: If any independent inquiry has to be done then, will Lokpal have the right.

SK: Even CBI people are from group A, group B. The complaint of group A,group B can go to Lokpal.

PC: You mean they can do CBI’s investigation

SK: Why not, there is no problem, there have to be checks and balances.

PC: Will you get this law passed in this session

SK: I have full hopes, I have full hopes and we have this aim in mind because we have promised the country that will be get the bill in this session.

PC: Promised the country, due to Anna’s fear

SK: No, no,no,no, we did not get scared. Please see, one senior citizen, who is respected by so many people, if he is in pain, he is in trouble, in matter of his health, if we gave some indications, that we want his health to be fit and fine, then is it a bad thing,

PC: You have brought this bill fast to keep his health right.

SK: No, no it is the issue of that time. Sense of the house

PC: Am taking of today

SK: No, we are doing what our sense of the promise was.

PC: Their team rejected you bill today, they will sit on hunger strike, they are ready to fight against you

SK: No issues, now what can be do

PC: Aar paar ki ladai ke liye taiyaar hain

SK: Aar paar ki ladai kya hain, why will we fight against them. We have to do something in this country; we will do that and show. If the country is with us, we will go ahead, if it is not with us, we will stop.

PC: The country is with you or not, that will be known in elections. These all things you have done keeping the UP elections in mind

SK: (laughs)

PC: You are UP incharge

SK: Keep on giving us best wishes.

PC: Thank you for coming to our studio.

SK: Thank you, Prabhuji!

CONGRESS CANNOT SUCCEEED .../The Sunday Standard/December 18, 2011

2011-12-19T08:03:00.001+05:30

POWER & POLITICS

CONGRESS CANNOT TASTE SUCCESS AS LONG AS IT IS GUIDED BY FEAR FACTOR

The greatest barrier to success is the fear of losing, goes an old proverb. It aptly describes the current state of Indian politics with most political parties locked in the grip of the fear of losing. When the Congress party decided to welcome Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Ajit Singh into the UPA fold, it reflected more weakness than confidence. Ajit has never been known for good politics or great governance. He has always been a politician on the prowl, seeking easy prey. He has always been led by his mission and has consistently ignored the means. He mastered the art of wooing those who are suffering from the fear of losing power or facing defeat. After weeks of both secret and open dialogue and deals, Ajit got the better of the Congress leadership and became the 33rd minister in Manmohan Singh’s Cabinet—the largest since Independence.

While Ajit’s triumphant return to power marked his rise, it also signalled the erosion of Congress’s confidence in retaining power at the Centre and winning the state Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh. For the past few months, Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi has been crisscrossing the state—covering sweltering hamlets and stinking cities—to establish his acceptability and proving his ability to win an election for his 115-year-old party. In his speeches, he always expressed confidence and assured his workers a return to power for the Congress in Uttar Pradesh after 20 years. The Congress had never sought an alliance with any regional party since it trusts the power of Brand Rahul to get the winning votes. His contempt for local heavyweights like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati was more than visible in his diatribes against the politics of caste and community. During his seven-year stint in politics, Rahul’s objective has been to win Uttar Pradesh for the Congress and for himself; as he knows, without a success in his own state, he can’t become the leader of the nation or Prime Minister. The Congress was taking its success in Uttar Pradesh for granted until recently till they were suddenly struck by a fear of the unknown.

Instead of fighting to win, the Congress chose to make compromises with its avowed ideology to ward off the fear of defeat. In the process, it has indirectly conceded Rahul needs more time to win an election for the party without leaning on the crutches of a regional party or tainted leaders. Perhaps, after losing miserably in Bihar in spite of Rahul’s vigorous campaign, the party isn’t willing to risk another political blow to their future leader’s iconic image. Though there is nothing in common between a 72-year-old Jat leader and a 41-year-old Gandhi scion, both will be seeking votes against Mayawati’s misrule in return for a better development-oriented coalition government. The longevity of a pre-poll alliance, however, is highly suspect. In the most unlikely event of them getting a near-majority, the Congress may find it difficult to retain Ajit in the alliance. His destination is Lucknow and not New Delhi. Since the Congress hasn’t declared its chief ministerial candidate, the junior Chaudhary is most likely to stake his claim for the post that was once held by his father, Chaudhary Charan Singh.

But the fear of losing has blinded the Congress from looking into the future. For example, it was the fear of losing Andhra Pradesh that led the Congress to finally admit film actor Chiranjeevi into the party; he was also promised a berth in the Union Cabinet at the cost of old and loyal Congress leaders. The party showed some guts when it replaced old Rosaiah with a young and clean Kiran Reddy as AP chief minister. He would have succeeded had he been given a free hand and authority. Within a few months, the Congress leadership lost its confidence in his governance and the local leadership; it went on a witch-hunt against its opponents because it feared the whole world was conspiring against the Centre.

Even while conducting its business in Parliament, the Congress hasn’t pressed for the passage of various important bills in the Rajya Sabha because it fears it will lose. Instead of calling the Opposition’s bluff on the floor of the House, the Congress has either chosen to withdraw many legislations or not to press for their introduction. The Prime Minister is also unwilling to take on his Cabinet colleagues on crucial decisions. On food security, nuclear energy plant in Tamil Nadu, Foreign Direct Investment in retail and others, the UPA leadership is reluctant to take the plunge to succeed. The Congress is bound to achieve a remarkable success in the long run if it rejects invisible barriers now. But it has chosen to accept the roadblocks because it fears to in the short run. No wonder, even after two decades, the party is still hobbling on borrowed crutches.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Sachin Pilot on Teekhi Baat/ IBN7/December 17, 2011

2011-12-18T20:31:00.002+05:30

Interview with Youth leader Sachin Pilot, who is a member of ‘Team Rahul’ and is currently the minister of state in the ministry of Communications and Information technology, for Teekhi Baat on IBN 7. PC: Youth leader Sachin Pilot, we are not presuming you to be a minister, what do you want to be a party leader or minister.

SP: Give any description of mine, but working as a worker of the Congress party in this country.

PC: There is only one youth leader, Rahul Gandhi.

SP: Rahul Gandhi is our leader, he is a national leader.

PC: You are also the spokesperson of the government, now some names have been added to the list and you are one among them. You know it, you have been sent a copy of the decision.

SP: I am in the know and recognize the responsibility Prabhuji.

PC: Senior ministers keep you together just to state that they have a youth face with them.

SP: The work given to us and which has got done from us is not for fulfilling your expectations. But the news about the government should reach people in different states in the right manner for which we have been given a collective responsibility.

PC: It is written in the letter that if you want to ask anything about the government you can ask any of these people.

SP: You are free to ask me anything, not only me all the ministers in the group.

PC: I want to ask you that no face representing the youth from your party was seen the Lokpal all party meeting, who want to speak on behalf of the government.

SP: You ask a question and take and answer from me.

PC: Yesterday, who said what in the meeting?

SP: Our government called and all party meeting, which was attended by leaders who gave their opinion. It was not a UPA government meeting; it was an all political party meeting.

PC: So, UPA prime minister called the meeting, all other ministers were present in the meeting.

SP: So, will all 75 ministers sit in the meeting?

PC: I am speaking of those who have been made spokespersons.

SP: You ask any question that you like, what you want, and I will make full efforts to satisfy you.

PC: I am asking about the view of the government, not the party, regarding proposal Lokpal.

SP: Congress government, UPA coalition government has a clear view; we want to get a strong bill, so when the Lokpal is formed, a message should go into the country, that Lokpal formation is one part of our fight against corruption, and we have committed ourselves towards this. From the past 45 years..

PC: In the standing committee, there is news regarding dissenting votes.

SP: There are people from different parties in the standing committee. The MP who is part of the standing committee gives his individual opinion. He is a MP of his party, and his job is to give his and his party’s view and suggestions, this is the work in the standing committee. The report of the standing committee is tabled in the parliament, and we want that in this winter session.

PC: I am asking the spokesperson of the government, you will not be present in the cabinet meeting in which the bill will be tabled, because you are not a cabinet minister, but are spokesperson.

SP: Prabhuji, we are members of parliament, we are members of Congress party, we are ministers of the government, we have assured the country that we will bring a Lokpal bill, more than this what do you want to know.

PC: The view has come, the chairman has present, some Congressmen have given dissent note, there is no view of the government on this.

SP: What can be the governments’ view, we will consult all parties and a consensus will be formed, we will bring that bill. And we don’t want to complete a formality by doing this, but for 45 years the issue is going on, hence Manmohan Singhji has said on the floor of the parliament that we will table a Lokpal bill and get it passed.

PC: What view do you have regarding the Prime Minister coming under the jurisdiction of Lokpal.

SP: I think the view that will be formed after consultation between all parties, that view the government must go by. Because, it is not question of one Manmohan Singhji,

PC: All parties, except one or two small ones, are of the view that the Prime Minister must come under the jurisdiction of Lokpal, even your allies are in favour.

SP: Even Prime Minister saabI wants to be under the jurisdiction of Lokpal.

PC: Am asking a young, youthful spokesperson of the government, what is his view.

SP: I feel that after consultation with all parties, Congress party view, UPA government view, and form a consensus. But if I tell you in this programme, whether it will come or not, wouldn’t it be insulting the parliament?

PC: I am not asking whether it will come or not.

SP: All people should fulfil his responsibility and if anybody comes under the jurisdiction of Lokpal, then it will harm nobody.

PC: Because Anna Hazare said that your youth leader derailed Lokpal bill.

SP: I found his statement highly unfortunate, because the movement that Anna Hazare saab started, he is digressing from it so much, may be even he is not realizing it. Because the people surrounding him used to talk of changing the system, and now they talk about changing the ones who are ruling. Hence, to make this movement political is not doing his movement any good.

PC: They are talking about changing the party who is ruling because the ruling party is not allowing the bill to come through, hence uproot the party in power. I am stating their argument, neither justifying nor arguing.

SP: Prabhuji, I am feeling that you are talking like their spokesperson.

PC: Na, na, they have said all this. We asked them a question, why you are speaking against the Congress, they said that if the Congress party wants, the bill will be passed ,which is true.

SP: Please know one thing, this is the Congress party government will make Lokpal a reality. Till now so many governments came and went, nobody did anything. If Anna Hazare saab kept this movement apolitical, then credibility would have been maintained. Today they have started campaigning against the Congress party, and only making the Congress party their target, they have politicized it. Cant he go to Karnataka and speak against Yedurappa, go to Uttar Pradesh and speak against Mayawati, campaign there. I understand that the mission that he had spearheaded, he has somewhat digressed from it.

PC: There were so many cases and enquired opened against the people surrounding him, it is happening even today. But from the time they started targeting Rahul Gandhi, Congress party had more problem.

SP: It is absolutely correct, if you criticize somebody’s leader, if it is based on facts, that fine, but making baseless allegations, that does not suit. And please listen the second issue Prabhuji, any per son who is in public life, political life, is in a party, at a post, is a minister, if he is scrutinized, then it is fine. But if any enquiry if there on team Anna member, then ‘doodh ka doodh, paani ka paani ho jaana chahiye’ . Why have double standards, why do you have any problem, if anybody spends or not.

PC: If Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi committed a fault four – five years ago, then why was your government silent? Why didn’t you enquire then?

SP: When a person becomes prominent, when people know him, there are 120 people staying in this country, if you are taking up an issue and want to show yourself squeaky clean, then you will have to go through the same process that you want to implement on other people.

PC: It is fine to punish them, hang them for their mistakes, but when they started speaking against you, you started digging graves.

SP: If don’t think that the government has acted in a vindictive manner. But if an issue is published in a newspaper, will the government close it eyes.

PC: Your note was printed in the newspaper.

SP: When the information was received, then there was action ,some media printed it, some raised questions, let it be against any person, if there is an inquiry, then what is the objection.

PC: Rahulji had given a statement that it should be a constitutional authority, this was a suggestion of Rahulji in parliament.

SP: He has a right to speak as an MP.

PC: Certainly, you and he both have rights, the question is when Annaji is saying again and again, but for that there has to be an amendment in the constitution with two third majority, it this a way of delaying things.

SP: You know how the things have moved fast this time, because there is a commitment from the government, we are acting on it. Then you boycott the process of the standing committee, you go and make all laws at Jantar Mantar, you only want to go on with your dialogue, become inflexible, don’t listen to anybody, political party MP’s who have won parliament elections, they all are saying that they are with this issue, and are against corruption, we want to give our opinion, but if you want to impose every full stop, every comma sitting outside the parliament, that I think is not right.

PC: The question Sachin is that all the things that you are saying, in public, media, in other political parties, you have be isolated, all your seniors, from whom you will take over again, if you win next time and it seems you will win if you keep on working, but does it seem that the senior people are leaving a infamous party, failed government. It will be a reason of worry for youth leaders like you in the party.

SP: Please see, we won elections in 2004, after five years the people of India again gave us the mandate to run the government, and today according to you, your perception, if there is any deficiency in the government, then this is a collective responsibility. The government has appreciated all good things done by us, and made us win elections, for which we all take credit. But if there is any mistake, deficiency, according to you, for that collectively the cabinet has the responsibility, and all of us. I don’t believe this, but if you feel that we have committed mistakes or deficiencies, only then. This is your allegation.

PC: A chief minister of some state reverses the cabinet’s decision, this is not happened in the history of India. This is a reflection.

SP: First of all, the decision has not been reversed, Pranab Mukherjeeji, leader of the house

PC: It is on hold, or whatever other terminology.

SP: It has been said that we will stop it till a consensus if not evolved.

PC: Does the chief minister have a right to make such an announcement.

SP: This announcement has been done by Pranab Mukherjeeji, in the Lok Sabha.

PC: But she said that Pranab Mukherjee will say it in parliament.

SP: What anybody writes, speaks to the newspaper, is not my responsibility,

PC: She said on TV

SP: But the government’s decision, was stated by Pranab Mukherjee, who is leader of Lok Sabha of Congress party, he conveyed his decision in the house.

PC: Youth leaders like you, who are not in cabinet, but will soon come, don’t you think senior people over 70 -75 want to stay in power, there is a police complaint against one minister, other minister is boycotted by the BJP, third minister is infamous for some other reason, don’t you think that the credibility of your ministers at getting affected because of this, the youth leaders are being affected most.

SP: Like I said under the government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singhji, we have collective responsibility. In every decision, if there is a credit, we all get it. If you want to make allegations, if you think something is wrong, then for that we all together are responsible for it.

PC: For failure you have collective responsibility, for success it is the same.

SP: It cannot be that we wear a sehara for success and according to you if there is a mistake.

PC: Some 6 8 youth leaders like you, who are seen with Rahul Gandhiji, you are going for Rahul Gandhiji, and then you beat up workers; it seems that you are youth leader, if they have problems taking them with you.

SP: You have no authority to give judgement on this.

PC: I am asking a question.

SP: Rahul Gandhi is our leader, what relationship, what working we have is our internal matter. We want to present such a face in front of the people which is acceptable to all. And according to me, in this country, and specially in the Congress party, the transformation that is going to come about under the leadership of Rahul Gandhiji, even you will say that the strategy that we adopted, have given us a positive result.

PC: If Rahul Gandhi was so strong, then why would you take a minister like Ajit Singh ,who is not so strong, but you are making him cabinet minister. You decided some days before election, if you and Rahul Gandhi are so strong, why do you need people.

SP: Tell me one thing Prabhuji, in Uttar Pradesh, there are 22 MP’s from the Congress party out of 80. There are so many states in the country, where coalition governments are running, our coalition partners are in state as well as centre, and if we fight elections in Uttar Pradesh by keeping one, two or three alliance partners, and give a united opposition to Mayawati government, then what why objection to that. In politics, if you compromise with somebody and fight an election, you consolidate you position, and you get more strength in uprooting Mayawatiji’s government, then what problem can anyone have.

PC: After touring, Rahul Gandhiji came to know that he cannot win on his own, hence it is necessary to go with Ajit Singh,

SP: Both parties feel that by fighting elections together.

PC: Is that a party,

SP: He has a support base in west Uttar Pradesh, their MLA’s MP’s have been elected. We know that to defeat the Mayawatiji’s government we need a united opposition. And today the alternative is not Samajwadi Party (SP),

PC: Join hands with BJP, Samajwadi.

SP: SP, BJP is not an alternative. Only Congress party is an alternative to Maywatiji. And we will fight elections under the leadership of the Congress party, I feel we will be successful in forming government there.

PC: Hence, you had to take Ajit Singh, till yesterday he was voting against you.

SP: In politics if you take somebody together for fulfilling your collective objective.

PC: Why didn’t you do it earlier, why three months before the elections?

SP: Coalitions are formed before the elections. Can you do political coalition five years before, there are so many parties who went to NDA, came out.

PC: This is a political compromise to fight elections, win elections.

SP: We are forming an understanding with them so that we can do seat sharing and give a united fight to Mayawatiji’s government.

PC: What is happening in parliament FDI bill is stopped, some other bill is reversed, what is happening to the leadership.

SP: I think that your way of viewing, you think if we suspend any cabinet decision,

PC: Earlier this would not happen.

SP: Please listen, if we take opinion of any party, if we accommodate anybody, become flexible, hence in a democracy everything is not winning or losing. We try to take everybody and go together. It is a coalition government; there is a limited elbow room.

PC: What about leadership.

SP: There are 40 parties in parliament, keeping such a big country together, we have run a stable government for 7.5 years. And on all parameters, be it economic growth, prosperity, be it the economic situation, we have maintained that , for which you will give some credit to the government.

PC: In UPA 1, such fights would not happen. You put down CPM in such manner, whether the vote of confidence was tainted or not I am not going into that. You showed them muscle, now why don’t you have strength to show muscle.

SP: Where did we not show muscle?

PC: You would have told Mamta, we have taken a decision, we will not reverse it, do what you want. FDI is in the interest or the country or not, do you agree with it or not.

SP: I think that if Mamta Banerjee wants something, is she a member of our coalition or not? If she has an objection.

PC: Why didn’t you consult with her earlier then?

SP: Because in the FDI proposal, every chief minister has a free hand to decide whether you want to implement or not in your state.

PC: You went into nuances, I don’t want to go in to that. You have Soniaji, Rahulji

SP: But prime minister himself said that would could have held consultations on the same, but they didn’t happen in the right manner. The consensus which should have been formed inside and outside the parliament, which we could not make. But in the next few months few would be able to do the same.

PC: You feel it is the collective responsibility I don’t want to discuss on the same. . But the question is from the time Rahul Gandhi has come on the scene, he does not say anything even if the government is criticized time and again. What do you think about Anna Hazare’s statement that nobody can become prime minister by staying into a hut for one day.

SP: I think in politics, one should have a big heart sometimes. If somebody taunts, criticizes, if anybody raises a finger at you, then in a democracy you have to take humble in your stride and move ahead. And let it be anybody, I don’t want to name any particular person, if you in a principled, political way oppose anybody, we have no objection to that, but if you say something below the belt about a person, that does not suit our culture.

PC: He is from a village.

SP: Let him be from anywhere.

PC: You mean people from village are not mature, they don’t know how to speak politely.

SP: Now some people say ‘tu ki bole’ now somebody may say saying ‘tu’ is not right, now it is the nuances of a language.

PC: Languages and words both are different.

SP: Let one say something, by the way one says it,

PC: Do you think that by standing in a hut, one can become, you think going to a hut, this style of his..

SP: I don’t understand, Prabhu Chawlaji, if Rahul Gandhiji is a leader of our party, and if he goes to poor, dalit, weak, farmer’s house, sits, talks, has food, then Mayawatiji has so much of a problem, Prabhu Chawla has so much problem, Anna Hazareji has so much problem, why does it happen?

PC: I am asking a question.

SP: You people don’t do, if somebody does,

PC: You feel the media has no right to ask question.

SP: You ask so many questions, but you have no patience to listen to the answer, nor do you want to.

PC: You don’t give straight answer

SP: You ask what the question is, you are doing all ‘feeki baat’, and you said you will do ‘Teekhi Baat’ but you are doing all feeki baat.

PC: I am doing a Teekhi Baat, can one become a prime minister by staying in a slum.

SP: In this country, the person who stands with the poor, will share his sorrows, understand their pain, will stay on ground. By taking out big yatras and giving big speeches, and by doing dharna’s if people would have become prime minister, or coming to power, that is easy. But leaving ones impression on the mind of the common man, understanding people’s pain, share their work, this is the first responsibility of a political worker, that is what Rahul Gandhiji does. But Mayawatiji gets troubled because of that, the whole media feels troubled by that, but ‘janta janardhan hai woh samay aane par apna nirnay degi’

PC: That they have given, in the byelections in the past five years, you have lost deposits.

SP: In 2009, 22 out of 80 we won, how many did BSP win, 19, SP 20,

PC: But you had admitted people like Ajit Singh then, 7 8 people had left other parties and joined you, defected.

SP: If anybody wins from the Congress party, you will read his whole history. But some other party

PC: That is the case with all in UP, Mayawati is also the same.

SP: That is why I am Prabhu Chawlaji, elections are going to be held in Uttar Pradesh, I want to request you humbly

PC: You did not answer my question; next Prime Minister is Rahul Gandhi

SP: I think he should certainly become prime minister,

PC: Now he should become?

SP: This decision is of the party, but my personal opinion is, if youth leaders come rise in the country, then Rahul Gandhiji has all the qualities and capabilities, to lead the country.

PC: Hence, Rahul Gandhi should become prime minister and under his leadership, it will be easy for you to win 2014 elections I feel.

SP: This decision is of the party, but he has got all qualities to be prime minister, and in the past eight years he has proved, that he knows how to connect with the masses.

PC: Hence you said that he should become prime minister, the party will decide, but he should become.

SP: Certainly.

Yashwant Sinha on FDI_Teekhi Baat/IBN7/December 10, 2011

2011-12-12T19:29:00.004+05:30

Interview with senior BJP leader and former union finance minister Yeshwant Sinha for Teekhi Baat on IBN7.

Hello! our guest for today on Teekhi Baat is senior leader of the BJP and former union finance minister Yeshwant Sinha. Welcome to our studio.

YS: Thank You Prabhuji!

PC: I said that you are senior leader.

YS: (Laughs)

PC: You are one, isn’t it?

YS: If you say, then may be.

PC: It is said that Yeshwant Sinha is a tall statured but small leader.

YS: Laughs

PC: You have the senior most standing in the party after Advaniji, among leaders, but Advaniji’s stature and position both are big. But you are talking big these days.

YS: Is it.

PC: You have become the spokesperson of the party on issues relating to economic policies. But I don’t understand one thing, the party which was known as reformist under Atalji’s government, now is opposing on every issue, whether the subject at hand is good or bad. Like FDI in multi brand retail, you started it first; you were to get the bill, you even opened up insurance, now with FDI in retail the people will benefit, any loss won’t happen, then what is your problem?

YS: Please see, first I will like to say that the assumption that you have, that we were bringing it (FDI in multi brand retail) and that we had taken a decision regarding the same, this is absolutely wrong assumption. And, history is witness,

PC: You opened up FDI in insurance.

YS: I will come to the issue of insurance afterwards. History is witness, that during our time thought was given to this subject (FDI in multi brand retail) and knowingly we took a decision that will not allow FDI in retail. And an assurance in this regard was given by our leaders, including me, in both the houses. Hence, there was a note

PC: But in the 2004 manifesto

YS: Please listen, I will come to the manifesto. The first thing in 2002,

PC: There was a note by Maran saab (referring to former union minister Murasoli Maran)

YS: It was not Maran saab’s note, it was Maran saab ministry’s note. And you know government’s way of work, that there are many notes going to and fro.

PC: But cabinet note comes via the minister.

YS: It didn’t come to cabinet sir. It was a note of May,2002 and I am talking of December 2002 when an assurance was given on behalf of the government in the house that we have no interest to allow FDI in retail. Now, come to 2004 NDA (National Democratic Alliance) vision document, it was not NDA or BJP manifesto, NDA’s vision document. In which it was stated that we may open retail. But we didn’t accept this thought in 2009 BJP manifesto, not today when this government decision. We said it clearly that we are not in favour of FDI in retail, and we oppose it.

PC: Sinha saab you mean to say that some constituents of NDA were in favour of opening it.

YS: No. We fully own the vision document, I don’t reject it. I am saying the truth, you were saying it was BJP’s, it was not, it was NDA’s vision. But we stand by it; I will also say that we did not change that position today, but in the 2009 manifesto when there was no talk of FDI in retail on the horizon, then we said it.

PC: Sinha saab people feel that because the trading community supports your party, middlemen are associated with you party, you are known as a middlemen’s party, I am saying in the trading sense. To save those middlemen, you are leading the farmer to ruin, there is the claim of who are supporting FDI. I have not read economics regarding this issue as much as Dr. Manmohan Singh or you. But for safeguarding the interests of a small community, you are stalling money coming into the country and progress, why do you have an objection, why should it not be allowed.

YS: In 2002,when this issue was raised in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, who opposed it, who said that doing such a thing will be anti national.

PC: FDI in retail.

YS: Yes, the Congress spokesperson said this.

PC: Who was the Congress spokesperson that time?

YS: Priyaranjan Dasmunsi, he stood up and said in the Lok Sabha, that we are hearing and there is news in the newspapers that you are going to do this. And I want to know from the government that what is your policy, and our minister Arun Shourie was present in the house that time, he stood up and said that the government is not thinking about any such proposal. That time Congress party said something different, now it is saying that it is in national interest, but allowing it that time was against national interest. Now, you will not focus on that statement, but your attention goes on BJP, because BJP has to be made whipping boy somehow.

PC: You have been the finance minister, you lowered interest rates, you did many such reforms which lead to development. But I feel under the Congress rule, in UPA one and two, there has been eight per cent growth, now do you want to stop this growth, that is why you are opposing.

YS: No, please listen, growth did not happen because of their policy.

PC: There is 7.5 per cent average growth.

YS: Not, 7.5 per cent let it be 8 per cent, or let us presume 9 per cent. But the economic car, ran on the petrol that we filled in, and it ran as far as it could, they did not put any fuel in it, and hence the vehicle is stopping now.

PC: But it is still highest as compared to other countries all over the world, except China.

YS: It is not highest; it has 6.9 per cent now.

PC: Even that is highest.

YS: It is not highest; we are behind China and other countries. It is not a question of highest or lowest. I am saying why it became 6.9 per cent, you will go in the reasons of the same. We were progress oriented, even now we are progress oriented, but I want to say one thing clearly to you, but you me and other people should not say and make people presume that if we get foreign investment in this country, then you are heavily progress oriented. And if you don’t get foreign investment, then you are not progress oriented. The way foreign investment is now being linked to being progressive, I flatly reject this theory. And I want to ask you, if this government wants to make roads, this government wants to make airports, this government wants to make steel, this government wants to make improvement in infrastructure, increase power supply, then who has opposed it, aren’t these measures towards progress. No, just talk about FDI in retail, FDI in retail. And then you are saying there is a small group of middlemen, and connecting it with BJP, this is absolutely wrong. This step (FDI in multi brand retail) will cause the most loss to farmers in India, which comprise of 80 to 90 per cent farmers with small land holdings; they will have the biggest los sir. What did Wal Mart do after going in other countries of the world? You are talking people like you and me, who will enjoy when they will go to big store and will buy what we like but I want to tell you that the aam aadmi of the country, common farmer, common trader, he will have so much loss.

PC: Any government takes decision to retain or come to power. Now when Congress party has taken such a decision, what reason could it be for taking such a decision?

YS: There is only one reason behind this, they are under pressure from America, that you open this sector and they want to open.

PC: There is American pressure; will they do anything under American pressure.

YS: They keep on doing. They passed nuclear deal on the basis of what America said, they are opening FDI in retail after America said, and this is my direct charge on the Manmohan Singh’s government.

PC: The progress of corporate India, even now they are saying, they are partners

YS: Corporate India does not vote, they don’t go to vote in our constituency. I opened all gates for corporate India when I was finance minister, now they put us aside like a fly is taken out of milk. Hence, corporate India, corporate India, it is there, they also have a contribution.

PC: You mean they are opportunists.

YS: Opportunists, do you have any doubts about it. They know tow to the one who is in power.

PC: Then why do you go to CII, when you were finance minister, you used to go in CII conventions.

YS: Yes, I used to go.

PC: You also used to enjoy sitting there.

YS: After that I realised that today no CII or PII calls us.

PC: When you become minister again, will you go.

YS: I i become finance minister again, they will call again, they will call again.

PC: You will go to Davos again

YS: Will go on not that is in future, will become finance minister or not is in the future, but I want to tell you that corporate India, and pink papers think that those who are in power has all the knowledge and intelligence, nobody else has. Hence, when I was the finance minister of this country for four years, now today they don’t need our knowledge. Hence, I don’t go.

PC: Now names like rollback Yeshwant Sinha, rollback BJP are being chanted.

YS: When this government rolled back FDI,

PC: Where has the rollback happened, they have suspended the decision.

YS: It is ok, the suspension,

PC: I read your statement, your party’s demand was that till there is not complete roll back, you will not let parliament function.

YS: Yes, after that.

PC: You changed after that.

YS: No, no nobody changed.

PC: You said, they suspended, now after session, they will again start.

YS: How will they start, you listened to Pranab Mukherjee’s speech which he gave in the Lok Sabha.

PC: They will engage in consultation.

YS: No consultation, he said consensus. Until there is consensus with all stakeholders, and there are political parties in stake holders, stakeholders include state chief ministers, stake holders include farmers, stake holders include businessmen, stake holders include corporate India also, talk to everybody, this is what we said.

PC: Congressmen say that BJP is Bharatiya Jhagda party; they don’t know to do anything except fight.

YS: Please listen; it is absolute rubbish and wrong talk. You talked about insurance sector, when we talked about improvement in insurance sector, tabled a bill, then I went to the Congress party, then Murli Deora was the chairman of standing committee on finance,

PC: Whose incumbent chairman you are now.

YS: Yes. I spoke to him, we together prepared a roadmap, we had no majority in Rajya Sabha, hence ever after standing committee’s assent, we held wide discussions on this issue with Congress party leaders. We accepted their suggestions, then we got the bill passed in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. I will say that Atalji had a very distinct style of working, they way Manmohan Singh works is very distinct. We used to value and respect the opposition, they want to sweep the opposition with a broom.

PC: You feel that there is a great difference between Atalji and Manmohan SinghjI’s stye of working.

YS: Certainly.

PC: You were saying that there is great difference between Atalji and Manmohansinghji.

YS: Please see, I myself come from a civil service background, you know it. But after coming into politics, I felt want I worked with leaders like Atalji, worked with leaders like Chandrashekharji, and today I am seeing Manmohansinghji, like the people who have come up from the grassroots, the people who spent their life at the grassroot level, the understanding which they have about India, that cannot be ours or yours or Dr. Manmohan Singh’s. You were talking of Atalji, Atalji’s was a great democrat

PC: He used to speak less, and listen to everybody more.

YS: He used to listen to everybody, give a chance to everybody, he used to take the whole party together with him, take together the alliance partners, he used to take together even the opposition, presume if an urgent letter from Shrimati Sonia Gandhi is received, she raised some issue, he will invite them immediately saying please come, let us sit and talk. This was the way the government functioned then. I told you regarding insurance, because, in that same way we were moulded, and were working in that style.

PC: After forming consensus.

YS: Going ahead after forming consensus. The basic element of democracy is consensus, agreement, maintain that and go ahead. Numbers are not the soul of democracy, being in agreement is.

PC: Why is the difference in Manmohan Singh.

YS: He does not do it. Now you see regarding FDI in retail, if he would have talked, even if he had not had dialogue with the opposition, he should have spoken to their alliance partners at least, at least their party members, opposition in the party, in their own party,

PC: Yes from Kerala, it was said.

YS: Sanjay Singh, even people from Kerala. Sanjay Singh gave an open statement, and DMK, TMC had reservations, which became public. Hence, not even taking you own people together, what is a great feat in this, I don’t understand. So, they had to roll back.

PC: You don’t think that the Prime Minister would have the interest of the party in mind. He has been a Prime Minister for seven years, running the government for seven years, eighth year is on. Now, because his hold is good, the Bharatiya Janta Party is struggling to weaken it always.

YS: No at all, we are not working to loosening his hold, when his hold is automatically loosening then why there is a need for us to toil for it.

PC: You said politics, he may not know politics.

YS: No, I did not talk about politics; he may be a big politician. A renowned economist told about him that he is less of an economist and more of a politician. But leave that, I am saying that building a consensus.

PC: Dr. Manmohan Singh is less of an economist and more of a politician.

YS: A renowned economist has said this, before us and you.

PC: You mean one economist is saying to another that the economist has forgotten economist.

YS: (Laughs) Forgotten or not, but knows less of economics and more of politics. But I am saying that the politician who has come up from grassroots level, Dr. Manmohan Singh fought one Lok Sabha election, which he lost, after which he never fought a Lok Sabha election. I want to ask you, Dr. Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of the country went to what village last time.

PC: What do you mean by going to village?

YS: He will go to some village; he is the Prime Minister of the country. What is the condition of the village, he will go to some village to see it. When did he meet poor people, when did he last meet the poor people of the country,

PC: They have the SPG surrounding, which Prime Minister goes to meet..

YS: No, no, no they can meet. Atalji has a constituency, of Lucknow, he used to go there and come back, meet people there, whoever is in the Lok Sabha will do this.

PC: You mean Dr. Manmohan Singh has got nothing to do with villages.

YS: We feel the same because he never goes to villages, he never goes.

PC: But he has become the Prime Minister of the country.

YS: How he has become you and I both know.

PC: Through Rajya Sabha, you never took an objection.

YS: He became with the blessings of somebody, and is running with that person’s blessings.

PC: Don’t you think that Bharatiya Janta Party selects and targets ministers, first they targeted P. Chidambaram, SM Krishna, you are targeting and destroying assets of UPA one by one, because you have no agenda of your own.

YS: Please see, we believe that Shri. P. Chidambaram, is responsible to the extent in the 2G scam that A. Raja is.

PC: Why, there are there any allegations of taking money against A. Raja but not against him?

YS: There is no need of taking money under the Prevention of Corruption Act Sirji. If you have helped somebody make money, even then you are guilty, it is not related to whether you made money or not. So, when he approved all decisions taken by Raja.

PC: But that was your policy, of 2003, and you were in the committee which took the decision.

YS: Certainly I was, but where did they ride on this policy.

PC: On that policy they allotted 2G.

YS: No, no, this is absolutely wrong, then why are we not in jail, why he is jail.

PC: There is no court verdict, but on everything you demand P. Chidambaram’s resignation.

YS: We certainly believe that he is guilty and the matter is before court. Court has gone ahead with it and let see what happens in future.

PC: The negative attitude you party has, to not let this government function, don’t let the country progress.

YS: I want to give you an example, I am also in parliament for a long time. Chandrashekharji’s government used to run with the help of the Congress. One day a foreign guest was to come, his flight landed early, and senior Congress leaders stood up in the house and said, how this government is running the man has come at the airport and your people who were to receive him were not present, such a big bungle. Now, they said that it was such a big problem because there was some delay in receiving him. And now in their rule, let P. Chidambaram do any scam, you spoke about Krishna, SM Krishna who is foreign minister now, who read the Portuguese foreign ministers speech, leave that. Now, after the Lokayukta and court said, there is an FIR against him, we did not say

PC: Hamaam mein agar sab nange hain to kya kar sakte hain

YS: No, this is not right, when their issue comes, then saare nange hain.

PC : Saare nange means, the hold of political parties is decreasing, people started slapping, somebody throws a shoe.

YS: That is a wrong thing.

PC: But it is in issue of worrying for all.

YS: Well, a shoe was even thrown on Bush, and many other people.

PC: Even his credibility was bad, isn’t it.

YS: The falling of standards in politics, is not true to India, but other nations also.

PC: But you have no positive agenda, BJP has an agenda to not let the session run.

YS: Certainly, we wanted in this session, we had an adjournment session, have a discussion on the same. Now, under what rule will we raise our issues, will this be decided by the government, in what language we will raise issue, will this be decided by the government. Then how will the Lok Sabha run in such manner.

PC: You party taken a decision in the morning, changes it later in the afternoon.

YS: When?

PC: Your leaders and you decided that you will not let the session run till there is no rollback, they did not rollback in any manner. You said that will bring an adjournment motion and 2g and black money,

YS: We are bringing, with everybody’s agreement we decided that the adjournment motion will be brought on the issue of black money, as far as inflation is concerned, we will under 193, under which there is no voting.

PC: But in every session, you make demand of voting but then don’t take action on it.

YS: In every session, there cannot be voting on every issue. Hence, the whole opposition decided together, that we will demand for voting on issue of black money not inflation. On both we cannot get voting done.

PC: Leaders of both Congress and the BJP seem to be cut off from the party, leaders are engaged in saving the government, and the other ones in troubling the government.

YS: So should we sing praises of the government every morning in the parliament.

PC: But they have done good work.

YS: Good work, let me tell you in the last budget session, the pension fund bill was to be tabled, if we had not supported the government, the bill would have not passed through that day. We supported because it was the bill that we brought.

PC: You are finance committee member, I have read the report, you have opposed UID.

Ys: I will make no comments on the same because that report, when it is before the country, before parliament.

PC: Do you see any good thing in the government.

YS: When we see any good thing we will say it.

PC: There is no good thing.

YS: We cannot see it now

PC: Prime Minister is famous all over the world, he is respected,

YS: We also respect a lot, we also respect a lot. Did you see any time that we troubled him.

PC: Respect in terms of good economist.

YS: Good economist good not control inflation in three years. Good economist could not look after growth rate, under good economist tenure the reserve bank has increase rates 13 times. Investment is finished under the rule of the good economist.

PC: Yesterday, your party said in the house that if the ruling party cannot, you will run the government. Do you have the capacity to run the government?

YS: We have run and shown it.

PC: After which the people defeated you two times.

YS: Let them defeat two times or five, is voting done on performance. If there was voting on performance, the UPA one

PC: why don’t you bring no confidence motion then.

YS: When there is a need we will bring.

PC: You don’t want to make the government fall.

YS: no, when there is a need we will bring.

PC: Now you are not in a mood to make the government fall, am doing Teekhi Baat, are you not in the mood of making the government fall or you have no capacity of making the government fall.

YS: No, when there is capacity, that day we will make the government fall.

PC: Today you don’t have

YS: What need we have to make it fall, when their tallest leader Pranab Mukherjee, he himself said that they had to suspend FDI in retail otherwise the government would have fallen.

PC: Hence you are exploiting their weakness.

YS: They have a weakness, which they themselves are responsible for creating.

PC: What is future agenda, will you let parliament run.

YS: Parliament is running, parliament is functioning.

PC: You will let it function.

YS: Certainly.

PC: You will co operate with the government.

YS: I mean we will want the parliament to function.

PC: Let’s see what roadmap you take, thank you for coming to our studio.

YS: Thank You Prabhuji!

A Coalition Dharma .... /The Sunday Standard/ December 11, 2011

2011-12-12T07:03:00.001+05:30

POWER & POLITICS

A Coalition dharma that Undercuts Cabinet is Bad News Indeed for PM

Once upon a time, India’s destiny was decided in Calcutta when it became the capital of British-controlled India in 1772. Calcutta, as Kolkata was called then, was the seat of the Governor General of India whose writ ran large over all Indian princely states, small and big. In 1911, better sense prevailed and King George V decided to move the capital to Delhi, as it was not merely surrounded by faithful royalty but was also conveniently connected with the rest of the country. Like all of British India, Kolkata too started receiving instructions and directions from Delhi. Almost 100 years later, Kolkata’s present ruler is now talking like the Governor General of India. And after 66 years of Independence, Kolkata is once again deciding the future of the country. History has come full circle.

It was West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee who first announced the Union government’s decision to suspend FDI in retail trade. Her emphatic revelation came after a telephonic conversation with Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. He refused to go public on his private conversation. In Parliament three days later, he lamely repeated the decision Banerjee had announced earlier to the thumping majority of both treasury and Opposition benches. A couple of days earlier, the same finance minister had scolded Dinesh Trivedi, Union Railway Minister and Trinamool Congress leader, for opposing the Government’s decision on FDI. Mukherjee even gave him a few lessons on the functioning and sanctity of the Cabinet, after which the TMC minister made a hurried exit from the Cabinet meeting.

The Mamata Mantra of dictating the discourse of coalition politics reflects the growing erosion of the institutions of both the Union Cabinet and the Prime Minister. Rarely is a Cabinet decision reversed or kept in abeyance by a government faced with an ally issuing public threats. Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh found it humiliating to explain his about-turn on FDI to the same Cabinet in which he and Mukherjee had bulldozed and silenced every dissenting voice. It was Manmohan’s Faustus moment. His own party and Cabinet did not fully stand behind him. His allies were defiant instead of being deferential. Prananbda, the permanent prime minister-in-waiting, dropped a bombshell at the Congress Parliamentary Party meeting when he admitted that if the FDI decision wasn’t reversed, a mid-term poll would be inevitable—implying the Government had lost its majority in the House. Both Sonia and Manmohan remained silent listeners to Pranabda’s lament. Rahul Gandhi was invisible by his silence on an issue that threatened the very survival of the Government. The Congress could no longer take for granted its artificial and opportunistic majority in the Lok Sabha.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has faced strong opposition to his policies from UPA allies. During UPA I, the CPI(M) prevented Manmohan from taking many crucial decisions, but it rarely forced the Government to reverse or hold any Cabinet decision. The Left parties never spoke on behalf of the Government either. However, it is not just the Prime Minister’s authority and acceptability that has been eroded. During the past few months, iconic ministers like Home Minister P Chidambaram, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal, forgetful External Affairs Minister S M Krishna, over-enthusiastic reformer Anand Sharma and an experienced Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar have either been sidelined or are facing Opposition ire on one issue or the other. If the home minister is boycotted in Parliament; if the foreign minister, against whom an FIR has been lodged, forgets to read the correct speech; if a senior minister resigns from the Cabinet panel because of opposition from a social activist, the entire Cabinet loses relevance and purpose. No wonder, the attendance in the 34-member Union Cabinet is down by 60 to 70 per cent, with many ministers staying away even from crucial meetings. The Congress swears by coalition dharma but it hardly takes any of the ministers into confidence before taking crucial economic or political decisions. Even within the party, ever since its President Sonia Gandhi fell sick, complete absence of participative democracy prevails. Its five-member core committee does meet often to resolve one crisis after another, but the UPA itself has hardly met in the past two years to take stock of its plummeting popularity and ailing government. It is no more possible for New Delhi to tell others to fall in line or fall aside. Now it is Kolkata or Chennai who writes on the wall. If the Prime Minister and the Congress president refuse to read it, they always land up in big trouble.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Manmohan Needs to Get his Economics Right/The Sunday Standard/Dec. 04, 2011

2011-12-05T22:00:00.003+05:30

POWER & POLITICS
Manmohan Needs to Get His Economics Right, Pranab His Politics

While politicians make promises, economists make predictions. For the former, promises are meant to be forgotten. Economists change their predictions and blame others for getting it wrong. For the past few months, our economist-turned-politician Prime Minister has been changing his economic forecasts too often and getting it wrong most of the time. On the other hand, our politician-turned-economist Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee is conveniently forgetting his promises to reverse the inflationary trend and tame the rising fiscal deficit. Both have little in common. But they never give up and continue to build castles in sand.

After sticking to their rosy India growth story for the past few months, reality seems to have dawned suddenly. Last week, Pranabda admitted there is something rotten in the state of Indian economy. His most painful confession was that India’s GDP wouldn’t grow beyond 7.5 per cent, as against his earlier prediction of 9 per cent. Only a few months ago, both the Prime Minister and the finance minister have been telling the nation that the country is poised for massive growth, in spite of global recession. During the last Budget Session of the Lok Sabha, the Prime Minister announced to the thumping of the tables by the treasury benches, that India would achieve at least 9 per cent growth. Later on, during his recent visit to Kolkata, he stuck to his prediction. “Since we have already achieved about 8.2 per cent in the 11th plan period, it may seem that a transition to 9 per cent growth is not difficult,” Manmohan said during his speech at the golden jubilee of the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. Now we are hearing a different tune. Addressing a meeting last week in New Delhi, Mukherjee said, “We can not expect we can reach a high growth rate of 9 per cent overnight. We will to live with relatively moderate growth rate this year, and next year we may try to improve it higher.” He went on to caution that “in the short and the medium-term, we will have to emphasise on the strategy of domestic demand-driven growth”.

For the first time, the fact that Indian economy was being driven by external demand became official. As the rest of the world heads towards economic disaster, the weak foundations of our domestic economic policies stand exposed. In a country like India, where public borrowing accounts for over 70 per cent of the GDP—the highest among BRIC countries—expecting domestic demand to ignite economic recovery is highly unwise. Pranab has conveniently forgotten that his Government’s reform menu has proved conventional economic theory wrong. Contrary to accepted models of development, a developing and predominantly rural economy like India is highly dependent on services for generating every second rupee of its income. Over 55 per cent of India’s GDP comes from the services sector, which provides only 34 per cent employment. On the other hand, every second job is still provided by the traditional agriculture sector that accounts for only 14 per cent of the GDP.

Frankly, all the economic reforms so far are meant to give income, power and glamour to those who know how to use a mouse, drive high-end automobiles or fly in chartered aircraft. For the past two decades, mouse-driven growth has created tiny islands of prosperity surrounded by a massive sea of poverty and unemployment. The Government’s fiscal and the monetary policies are aimed at making the rich richer and the poor, poorer. With ostentatious upper middle class demand peaking, it is only the rise of the poor and the middle class that can save the sinking manufacturing sector. No amount of social funding like MGNREGA or writing off farmers’ loans can generate a permanent demand for goods and services. Government schemes should lead to creating permanent, productive assets and not convert a healthy workforce into beggars heavily dependent on Government doles. An ideal combination of good economics and better politics would mean pruning the size of a bloated bureaucracy and political establishment, dismantling the pro-corporate official mindset and launching massive labour-intensive development projects. If the Government’s only mandate is to facilitate highly lucrative nuclear energy commerce and FDI in retail trade in India, the economy is bound to take a plunge in the long run. If only the leadership had spent half the time in resolving intra-state issues on infrastructure development than what it has spent on managing the agitating poor in Koondakulam, the economy would have grown by that mythical number of 9 per cent. The time has come for the economist Prime Minister to revert to practical economics, and a political Finance Minister to prudent politics. Forgotten promises and wrong predictions only spell disaster in the long run.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Teekhi Baat with Anand Sharma/December 03, 2011/IBN7

2011-12-05T17:00:00.003+05:30

"NOT AFRAID OF VOTE IN PARLIAMENT ON FDI ISSUE"

Commerce Minister Anand Sharma says that the decision to allow FDI in retail was well-thought out and that the UPA is not afraid of a division in Parliament. Excerpts from Teekhi Baat on IBN7:

Q: It seems you have become the Abhimanyu of the Congress, stuck in the retail FDI chakravyuh.

A: I have come out of chakravyuh. The chakravyuh is laid by people who don’t understand what is in the interest of the country’s farmers and consumers. This decision has been taken after a great deal of thought, not overnight.

Q: All political parties, including your allies except NCP and National Congress, gave a statement that this should not happen. Don’t they understand the benefits?

A: This is an enabling policy, it is the state governments’ decision to allow or disallow.

Q: Don’t you think you should have held consultations?

A: We have had discussions with every state in finalising the draft. I explained the whole background (to Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee) that we are second in the world in food, fruits and vegetable production. And 40 per cent of produce is wasted because we don’t have the required infrastructure, cold storage, warehouses and very few cold storages. The farmer does not get the right price for his produce.

Q: Even then she did not agree?

A: She said that the conditions in West Bengal are different. We respected her thoughts. She said this will be at the discretion of the states, and you make this amply clear, because I will not allow this in West Bengal. This is in the enabling policy framework.

Q: What’s the policy worth if 25 of 30 states don’t implement it?

A: I don’t want to go into how the states will react.

Q: But the Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee president, who was with you in Youth Congress has come out against it.

A: It is fine if they do not want it in Kerala. Even he is a part of our party. But I have a question: should the states who want this be left deprived? The BJP says they don’t want this in the states they rule. The same BJP was in in the NDA government which prepared a Cabinet note seeking 100 per cent (in retail) without any restriction or condition.

Q: They said that was in single brand.

A: No, it was multi-brand.

Q: It was made by Maran.

A: But Maran, a minister in the government, alone did not make it. In their 2004 manifesto, they had talked about 26 per cent. And there is an April 2004 interview of then finance minister Jaswant Singh, when he spoke about a strong decision and commitment.

Q: He said that he was speaking about single brand.

A: I don’t want to taunt anybody, but it is true that the BJP had a different line of thinking when they were in power.

Q: When Kamal Nath wanted to bring FDI in retail, the Congress president wrote to him to not hurry on the issue.

A: Discussions have been on for a long time. A consensus of all cannot be reached.

Q: But Parliament is the apex body of the country.

A: This is within the purview of the executive. There can be discussion in Parliament.

Q: Then what will happen if Parliament disapproves?

A: There will be no disapproval. Is there any precedent of policy being disapproved in Parliament? In 1985, there was tremendous opposition to Rajiv Gandhi when he talked of computerisation. In 1991, Dr Manmohan Singh was finance minister when the economy was opened up. It was then said that the whole country will become a slave, East India Company will be back again. Now Indian companies are buying companies abroad.

Q: Parliament has not functioned for 10 days.

A: The BJP has been stalling Parliament on some or the other issue. Advaniji went on a 38-day yatra over black money, and now he has forgotten the whole issue.

Q: It could be said that Anand Sharma played such a game that the issues of black money and Lokpal got forgotten.

A: I am happy that we have taken a step that has changed the political discourse in the country. Other people were setting agenda, but now the government has set the agenda by way of policy.

Q: Why do you fear to go to Parliament with this issue? Don’t you have a majority?

A: When there is a Cabinet decision and Parliament is on, it is the minister and government’s responsibility to keep the House informed, which we did. It is the MPs’ right to discuss the same, but the Opposition did not let the discussion happen.

Q: But what is wrong if adjournment has been demanded? Are you ready for a vote?

A: This is within the purview of the Speaker. I will not comment.

Q: But why do you fear an adjournment motion?

A: We are not afraid.

Q: But BJP and other opposition saying that it is ulta pulta alliance, and nobody knows who is with whom.

A: When the issue is placed before Parliament, it will be clear.

Q: The DMK and TMC are not with you?

A: This is what you think.

Q: They have said so.

A: They have some reservations but they will not go with the BJP and Left front, and against us.

Q: So you don’t think they will vote against you.

A: I don’t think any political instability will be created.

Q: Is the Congress with you? Sonia doesn’t say much; she leaves issues to the government.

A: It is our duty to give her information. Soniaji does not interfere in government’s functioning. She has said the interests of the small farmer and small businesses should be kept in mind. I will say that the provision of 30 per cent local sourcing was on her suggestion.

Q: You said that BJP said that there should be 100 per cent FDI in retail. You are the commerce minister; this should be on file. Maran did say it, but Cabinet rejected it.

A: But they put it in their 2004 manifesto.

Q: What about after 2004?

A: Their thinking has changed after they lost power.

Q: It is being said that the US depression means pressure has come on India to open up. It is being said the policy was announced after the Asean Summit at Bali, where Manmohan Singh met Obama.

A: The Cabinet note on the FDI issue had been initiated for completing inter-ministerial consultation in August, well before the Bali summit.

Q: So this charge is wrong.

A: Totally baseless, mischievous.

Q: Did you think you could lose the Uttar Pradesh elections on this issue.

A: There is no co-relation; we will not lose.

Q: Nobody objected to the manufacturing policy formulated on your watch, but allowing FDI in retail may mean people from outside will come and control our markets.

A: When single brand retail was allowed, it was said local supermarkets would be hit hard.

Q: But some Indian brands were affected.

A: That is business. Some businesses grow strong, and some go weak. It will be wrong to link policy with the same.

Q: Will you revise the proportion of locally sourced goods to 45 per cent?

A 30 per cent is the minimum.

Q: So will you revise it?.

A: Let us see how the policy is implemented and the benefits that follow.

Q: Will you roll this decision back under any circumstance?

A: I don’t like the word rollback.

Q: Will you make some changes then?

A: There are safeguards built into the policy.

Q: So it is written on stone.

A: It is not a matter of being written on stone, it has been done in consultation with all.

Q: So there is no scope of any changes in this.

A: Like I said, this has been thought over and framed. This has not been framed with eyes closed.

Teekhi Baat with Uma Bharti on IBN7/November 26, 2011

2011-11-29T10:00:00.006+05:30

Interview with BJP leader Uma Bharti for Teekhi Baat on IBN 7. Excerpts:

PC: These days you do a lot of ‘meethi baat’.

UB: It’s fine.

PC: You have liked this transformation of nature that you have had to undergo.

UB: No, I am the same; the lens with which you view me has changed.

PC: There were so many yatra’s in UP, now your yatra has been announced by the president. From 1^st December you are going to embark on a big yatra.

UB: That is an abhiyan not a yatra.

PC: Is it not yatra, what is the abhiyan about.

UB: Abhiyan is Uttar Pradesh bachao, Bha ja pa la. Under this abhiyan, there will be 50 gatherings in each vidhan sabha constituency. And this abhiyan will last for 15 days in which close to 200 leaders will participate, these will include leaders from the centre and the state.

PC: You will lead.

UB: You can say I will co ordinate.

PC: The president announced your name.

UB: He said coordinator.

PC: Then what did other people do earlier, what was that, what Advaniji, Rajnathji did.

UB: That was a yatra.

PC: What is the difference between abhiyan and yatra.

UB: The difference is that when one man leads it is a yatra, but in an abhiyaan close to 200 are participating. They will go to different places in one day. Like on 1 December, Nitinji would be there, shahiji, I will be there and other 200 leaders from state and centre would go to 400 vidhan sabha constituencies.

PC: Where will you start this from?

UB: Today evening there is a meeting regarding the same.

PC: It is not decided as yet.

UB: It will be decided tonight.

PC: For the yatra your slogan is UP bachao ba ja pa lao.

UB: Uttar Pradesh bachao .

PC: It is the same. But who will save BJP; it is all over the place. First BJP has to be saved, then UP will be saved.

UB: I am concerned with my own work, not other talk and issues.

PC: Your responsibility is not to save BJP.

UB: That is a different subject. But now my responsibility is to get UP rid of maladministration, to contribute in a way which leads to the formation of BJP government in the state. But the issues that you want to take me to Prabhu, I don’t want to go into those issues.

PC: You said BJP saving is not your responsibility.

UB: I never said that, I said that I am not connected with that issue.

PC: What is your work in Uttar Pradesh, your responsibility?

UB: I have been given work, like the co ordination of the abhiyan, also to build connections till the district and the vidhan sabha constituency level. To focus on corruption and criminalisation which are the two important issues that UP is facing. I have been born in Madhya Pradesh, was an elected member of parliament five times and also the chief minister. But from the time of Ramjanmabhoomi andolan, for me Uttar Pradesh has been the same as Madhya Pradesh. I have such good and deep relations with the party workers; hence I have no problem in working in Uttar Pradesh, keeping this in mind, Nitin Gadkari gave me this assignment.

PC: Because of Ram Janmabhoomi movement, Uma Bharati’s name came up to the national level.

UB: When I took part in Ram Janmabhoomi movement, I was a second time parliamentarian.

PC: Hence Uttar Pradesh is not a new place for you, it is your karmabhoomi now

UB: Yes, for me it is the same as Madhya Pradesh.

PC: Earlier, your karma bhoomi was Madhya Pradesh.

UB: My karma bhoomi is the whole world. Not only India, but the whole world, wherever I feel one has to work humanity; I will go even to Africa.

PC: You are the first Chief Minister of BJP, who is also working as a ordinary party worker now.

UB: Let me be anybody, I have never considered myself more than an ordinary party worker. The reason for the same is that there is a glamour associated with politics which has its conveniences and fame, that I have been experiencing from the time I was six years old. Hence I have no attraction towards conveniences and fame. Because I had the two already, when I came into politics, hence my mind is that of a karyakarta and I work with same fervour.

PC: The thing is that such people made you ordinary party worker who themselves have no following.

UB: I think contrary. For the first time it may have so happened in the history of Indian politics, that for a person who has been a leader in one state, he has been accepted as a leader in other state too. People and karyakartas of Uttar Pradesh accepted me as I am from Uttar Pradesh.

PC: Some say that you are an intruder in Uttar Pradesh.

UB: It is something else to go to another state to fight lok sabha elections. It is a different thing to be nominated in the Rajya Sabha. Like the way I worked in Madhya Pradesh, in the same way with a homely feeling I am working in Uttar Pradesh. May be I am alone who has been able to do this.

PC: But people are appointed as in charge of other states too. Like in a way you also garnered fame from Uttar Pradesh.

UB: For me there is no difference between Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

PC: So, in a way it is second home for you.

UB: It is two parts of one home.

PC: But let me ask you the same thing again, suddenly you were made karyakarta again.

UB: No, I was not made karyakarta, I was always a karyakarta and my feet were on the ground.

PC: But other people who left the party, or were expelled, they were welcomed back with great respect and fanfare. Like Kalyan Singh was made election incharge, when Uma Bharti came from the medium of sangh, hindutva, does the party and its leaders have any problem in giving Uma Bharti a post.

UB: There is no importance of these things for me. Let me tell you one thing, I went to meet president Prathiba Patil on the issue of Ganga, when I reached the gate and walked towards Rashtrapatii Bhavan, there my bodyguards tried to tell officials there that Uma Bharati has come, the body guards there said that there is no need of introducing Uma Bharati, hence I don’t need any designation and fame.

PC: Your clothes explain who you are.

UB: May be, due to the grace of god, the place that I have in the hearts of the people is important.

PC: This is your large heartedness,

UB: What large heartedness.

PC: All the other people who were brought back into the party, they were given some official position.

UB: I have no importance to such things Prabhu.

PC: Don’t they fear you.

UB: Fear?

PC: Because you have come back, you went to UP, if you win elections, people will give you credit for the same without asking. That is why you are being given no post, hence everybody would seem equal.

UB: I am not someone to fear, I am lovable, and people may love me.

PC: From your nature, not talking about your face.

UB: Not talking about my dangerous face, beautiful people are also dangerous. There is dangerous mind and thinking, there is nothing in my mind to the effect that I want to threaten anyone.

PC: By heart you are a rebel.

UB: This is the way media projects it. Because when I participated in Ram Janmabhoomi movement, people with leftist thought were holding sway over the media. Since they could not find anything against me, they drew this analogy.

PC: But when you start this yatra, which will be your party’s fifth or sixth one.

UB: This is not a yatra I am telling you. Gatherings will be held at various places. There will be no movement in this, we will go and hold gatherings, just that it will happen with my co ordination.

PC: If your name is associated with yatra, then you are equal to Kalraji, Advaniji, Rajnathji, hence the name of your yatra is changed to something else.

UB: But this is the work I like, I have asked for it. I spoke to Nitin Gadkariji. There are two steps leading to an elections, one is canvassing and abhiyan and the second is other administration which is related till the polling booth. Hence I requested him for the former, and even worked in Rajnathji and Kalrajji’s yatra. I was also asked to initiate a yatra, but I said that I would like to participate in these two yatras.

PC: That means you are doing more of organisational work.

UB: I said that I will go for both yatras because I would like to go to both areas. One is with Rajnathji, the other with Kalrajji, I wanted to go to both areas. Both yatras were very good, and Advaniji’s yatra was at the national level, and for three days he was in Uttar Pradesh. The experience which I got from these yatras, after which I requested Nitinji for giving me work, which he gave me.

PC: Now days decisions are taken that some people cannot work in their own states. Let me do a teekhi baat, that why can’t you go and become a karyakarta in Madhya Pradesh.

UB: I go there. There was a time in Narendra Modi’s life when he was said not to go to Gujarat. I was not told so but I myself did it. If the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh faces any difficulty because of me being there, then that should be averted. Because for the past two years, the campaign was that I am capable of disturbing Madhya Pradesh. That is why I decided. But I go there, my brother is ill, to meet him.

PC: But you don’t go for political work.

UB: In guess that in a programme journalists asked this to Nitinji. Recently, I also got an invitation from the Madhya Pradesh government to be the chief guest for a function. But I could not go.

PC: Sanjay Joshi and Uma Bharati are working outside their own state.

UB: Sanjay Joshi is from Maharashtra.

PC: But he stayed in Gujarat and built organisation there.

UB: With Narendra Modiji, one for one – two years he was told not to go to Gujarat. This case is not the same with me.

PC: Now you starting a yatra, I am saying a yatra because people think is it yatra not abhiyan.

UB: It is an abhiyan, nobody thinks It is a yatra.

PC: When Uma Bharati’s name is attached, after Kalraj Mishra, Rajnath Singh, now it is possible somebody else will campaign after you. What is Uma Bharati’s slogan there, people will say she is a paratrooper.

UB: Till now nobody has said such a thing, people said quite the contrary. Even the survey that India today did, people agreed that me going to Uttar Pradesh has benefitted BJP. Hence, it is contrary, the people, party workers and leaders there have lovingly accepted me. My village is also an important reason for this , the village that I hail from has two parts, it is on the border of UP and MP. Hence my village is half in UP and the other half in MP.

PC: Same like Jaiprakash Narayan. if you want to go to Bihar you have to go via UP.

UB: Hence, UP people did not feel that I am not from there.

PC: Since you are saying political acceptability, then there is possibility of you being political leader and chief minister there. I am not saying you want to be.

UB: This is not the issue now. The issue is that we have to form a government there. The present condition there I feel that that the people want to see our government being formed there. Now we have to set out systems rightly. Hence I requested Nitin Gadkariji, to give me work of co ordination for some time.

PC: Will you fight elections there.

UB: I will take no decision regarding me, Nitin Gadkariji will do that.

PC: But the state the organisation is in, on what issues you will win elections. Uma Bharati says that she will not contest elections. There is also no chief ministerial candidate. Plus you are pitted against Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati, Ajit Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, but BJP has not candidate.

UB: I accept that two parties are strong there. One is SP, the other is BSP, they have got state level leaders too. But people are miffed with BSP these days, this is said by people all over UP. People consider SP, even worse than BSP. Congress has no existence there, even if Rahul Gandhi does extensive campaigns. Now he has said such a thing, which has heart the self respect of the people of UP, that people go to beg, he does not know that people go to work there as labour. There is a difference between doing labour work and begging, this understanding Rahul Gandhi does not have. UP is a place filled with nationalist people, and to say that they are beggars is absolutely wrong.

PC: But Rahul has made Mayawati and your situation difficult there, because of the impact he has on the people and the media, you have nobody in comparison.

UB: I don’t think this way, one the other had the way media focuses in Rahul Gandhi yatra, the same way focus on me. My programmes are better than his.

PC: He is a new face

UB: He is no new face, he is 40 years old and middle aged.

PC: But at 40 he is young compared to all other leaders. But Rahul Gandhi is leaving an impact there. Even you had become chief minister at age of 40-42, weren’t you middle aged then?

UB: No, congress has no influence in UP. They would not get even a polling agent. They have so many problems; they have taken the support of Mayawati and are also troubling her. I will say that the stand taken by Mamta Banerjee was good, he took a stand on inflation and fought with the government. Mayawati has given support to the central government; they are both in a strange association. Now also you will see they way Congress has trapped Mayawati, you will know how Digvijay Singh said, and ‘we have the CBI’. This is Digvijay Singh’s statement. There is difference between CBI investigations and a party post holder saying that “we have CBI”. CBI is with the government and not with the general secretary of any party. Digvijay Singh, one the issue of Batla house, or Karkare, Mayawati, he has tried to prove that the central agencies work on his directions.

PC: I feel that elections are not between Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav but Uma Bharati and Digvijay Singh.

UB: I can say that destiny is such that, when he was chief minister in Madhya Pradesh, I went there and defeated him. After which he was incharge of Bihar, where I was there to defeat Laloo and Rabri. Now, he has come here.

PC: In UP there will be conflict on communalism and secularism. Digvijay Singh is sec

ularist and you are communal, this message will be spread by the people.

UB: No, I don’t believe that Digvijay Singh is secular, and I am communal. One who is Hindu and hindutvavadi is secular. One who is against hindutva cannot be secular, he will be communal. Now, it is a different issue that you don’t consider muslim leaning as communal, but say hindutva is communal. I find him a muslim leaning person.

PC: He is secular.

UB: Muslim leaning and appeasing does not mean secular. That is communalism.

PC: You say that Mandir vahi banega, your program is mandir, and your party president Nitin Gadkari said that this is not your poll agenda the next day.

UB: Both said the right thing. We said that where Ram Lalla is there we want to see a mandir there. And it is also true that in the UP elections, criminalisation and corruption are the major issues. Hence, both issues what Nitinji and I said are correct.

PC: What will happen if you become chief minister by chance, same that happened during Kalyan Singh’s time.

UB: The land earmarked by the centre for building a temple, that land should be given to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

PC: But you will abide by the Supreme Court judgement.

UB: The judgement which came and was accepted by the Muslims and Hindus with grace, it paved that way that the temple will be built there.

PC: But that is on your agenda.

UB: That is the agenda of the whole country, all Hindus.

PC: But like there is no agreement on who will be chief minister, there is no agreement on who will be prime minister, you said Advaniji can become, somebody else also said he can become. Was Advaniji successful in his yatra, at many places yatra did not go too well? Did he become weak, or is he still the prime ministerial candidate.

UB: In my opinion, of all the yatras I saw, Advaniji’s was the best.

PC: He is a strong candidate for prime minister’s post.

UB: See I will tell you the successes of Advaniji’s yatra. In Anna Hazare’s movement, all political parties and leaders were put on one side, and made to look as villains. And there was a mood that only people running NGOs can be against corruption and nobody else. There was a need to fight corruption on a political agenda, because when that step will come, the party who will fight corruption on political agenda will have the onus of proving themselves clean first. But the issues which Advaniji took up he said that our leaders should declare that they have no bank accounts abroad.

PC: But according to you is Advaniji a prime ministerial candidate.

UB: What has happened to you Prabhuji, what has happened to the media of this country? Why are you raising questions against our party regarding prime minister and chief minister somewhere, I am speaking on the issue of Advaniji’s yatra.

PC: Now are you missing Atalji’s absence.

UB: Now, I will focus on what Advaniji said that those who will speak against corruption, first will have to show that their party is clean. Advaniji dared and got the party to your scrutiny. Media now should watch BJP.

PC: You started to imitate Anna Hazare

UB: Black money and corruption are our election issues of 2009.

PC: But you lost the elections, the people did not accept what you said.

UB: Losing elections does not mean that the issue is lost.

PC: Now you don’t want to talk about the prime minister.

UB: This is a non issue.

PC: This is a non issue for your party

UB: It is a non issue for me.

PC: For you PM and CM is non issue.

UB: Yes, they are non issues.

PC: Ram mandir and corruption are issues for you.

UB: corruption, criminalisation, ram mandir are issues for me, not who will become CM and PM

PC: Let see how your UP yatra goes

UB: Abhiyan

PC: Thank you for coming to our studio.

UB: Thank you Prabhuji !

PM must get his House Maths right/Power&Politics/November 27, 2011, The Sunday Standard

2011-11-28T10:00:00.003+05:30

Power & Politics

Prime Minister must get his House Maths right for the people

Anyone who has something to hide or fear runs away from dialogue and debate. Instead of taking detractors head on, they take refuge in whispers, vendetta and verbal vandalism. Such cowards are subjecting India’s parliamentary democracy to the worst kind of assault.

The UPA Government doesn’t want to face reality. The Opposition is insisting on dictating terms rather than the agenda. For the past few sessions, Parliament has transacted little business. All its bright, earthy and absentee members will continue to get their perks, salaries and daily allowances by merely marking attendance. The substantive blame for parliamentary paralysis lies at the UPA’s door. Its leadership lists bills to be discussed in the House, but lacks the will to see them through by building consensus. Instead of creating an environment for reconciliation, the Government is resorting to confrontationist tactics. Its reluctance to accept some of the genuine demands of the combined Opposition stems from insecurity. Going by the arithmetic composition of the house, the UPA is in a hopeless minority. It is hobbling along on crutches given by some of its allies who are but providing only outside support. The Opposition is legitimately exploiting the mathematical discomfort of the Government. Both the BJP and the Left have been confabulating on rules regarding voting in the House once discussions on politically volatile issues like inflation, corruption and Telangana are done. Even during the last two sessions of Parliament, both Houses had to adjourn without transacting any business because the Government didn’t concede the Opposition’s demand to allow either a censure motion against the UPA or to vote on various issues. Since the Opposition is aware of the contradictions and conflicts within the UPA, it has always tried to corner the Government by bringing controversial resolutions on corruption and black money on the floor of the House. Since the Congress has only 206 members in the Lok Sabha, it needs 70-odd more votes from its allies for survival. So far, only NCP and the National Conference—whose combined strength is barely 19 MPs—haven’t served any ultimatum to blackmail the government. But the TMC and the DMK with 40-odd MPs are always threatening to walk out of the Government. Last month, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee announced unequivocally that she would withdraw support to the UPA if the Government raised petroleum prices again. She also openly opposed the Cabinet decision on allowing FDI in retail. Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi of the TMC even left the Cabinet meeting after the Prime Minister and finance minister chose to ignore his reservations on the matter; though he did seek the Prime Minister’s permission to leave. M K Alagiri, the only DMK nominee in the Cabinet, was conspicuous by his absence as his party is also opposed to the move.

With the numbers stacked against the Congress, its floor managers are not willing to take any risks. The conduct and posturing of UPA leaders betrays their lack of confidence. Last week, its floor managers used every rule in the book to stall any debate that would expose the Government’s numerical minority. For voting on the floor of the House on subjects like inflation and black money, even UPA allies and sympathisers wouldn’t want to be seen being on the Government’s side. Opposition leaders like L K Advani, Sitaram Yechury and others are determined to prove that the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of not only the allies who are part of the Government, but also of those who are supporting the Government from the outside. On the other hand, Manmohan’s floor managers and promoters are equally aggressive in preventing Parliament from giving any number-driven verdicts against the Government. Political compulsions prohibit all political parties from wanting a mid-term poll and hence they are refraining from making any move that might bring the Government down.

In fact, the ruling establishment is seriously divided over the manner in which parliamentary business is managed. No UPA minister has been able to infiltrate the Opposition. Worse, hardly any of them commands respect or has a reasonable rapport with those who matter in the BJP or in other powerful opposition parties. Sadly, the weakness and irrelevance of the few individuals in the Government has made the Prime Minister’s position shaky and untenable. Already weakened and crippled by various scams, any question mark over the majority the Government enjoys in Parliament subverts the Prime Minister’s authority. If Manmohan wishes to regain his political clout, then both he and the Congress has to dispel the impression that the Government does not enjoy full support in Parliament, even though public perception feels so. The sooner this is done, the better it is for the stability of India’s political system. prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Teekhi Baat with Abishek Singhvi_Prabbu Chawla/November 19,2011 _IBN7

2011-11-21T19:00:00.004+05:30

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Spokesperson

of the Congress Party on Teekhi Baat