UP is BITA Pill / The Sunday Standard/ March 11, 2012

POWER & POLITICS

UP is BITA Pill but Congress yet to learn which way the wind blows

The Dynasty is dead. Long live the Dynasty. Uttar Pradesh decisively rejected the Gandhis by voting for homegrown succession. Akhilesh Singh Yadav, a 38-year-old mechanical engineer, became the youngest chief minister of a state which will decide who will be India’s prime minister in 2014. Akhilesh is perhaps the only political scion who has become chief executive of a state without ever having held a ministerial post. Perhaps his anointment is the only commonality between the Gandhi Family and Yadav Parivar. Rajiv Gandhi became prime minister without having held any administrative post.

Analysts and pollsters define the Uttar Pradesh verdict as a vote against Mayawati. The outcome also emphasises the increasing irrelevance of the national parties—the Congress and BJP—in the state which has 80 Lok Sabha members. While two young inheritors of a political legacy were seeking democratic legitimacy, it was a local youngster from a land-owning backward community who became the electorate’s preferred choice. Rahul Gandhi’s high-powered super-tech campaign to install a Congress-led or supported government was foiled because neither he nor his party were seen as a credible alternative to Behenji. As one of the senior Congress Ministers puts it: “Only viability generates credibility. In Uttar Pradesh, our party wasn’t a viable proposition and therefore Rahul’s campaign didn’t get credibility.” Local leaders with a clear message and mission are proving to be assets for their parties, and national leaders non-productive assets, or even liabilities.

According to Congress insiders, Rahul’s electoral tools suffered from ideological and strategic infirmities. He was aggressive in tone but weaker on conviction. He targeted Mayawati but didn’t seek votes for his party. His speeches at 200-odd public meetings were aimed at demolishing Mammoth Maya, painting her as a deity of destruction and devastation. He charged her with squandering the Centre’s money as if it belonged to the Congress. His message was well received, but the beneficiary was Akhilesh, whose target was also Mayawati. When voters itch for change they don’t go by pedigree or social hierarchy; they look for a credible replacement. Rahul couldn’t convincingly hawk the Congress as a vehicle for better governance. He and his co-planners became victims of the BITA factor (Bhaiya Is The Alternative). Even in their captive constituencies of Amethi and Rae Bareli, the Congress could retain only two of 10 Assembly segments. It was the first time the party came a cropper in Rae Bareli; most of its candidates lost their deposits or were defeated by huge margins by their rivals.

Unfortunately, new age politicians live in the present and do not learn lessons from past political battles. No party can win, unless it is able to project itself as the best substitute for the incumbent. Both the Janata Party and the Congress learnt this in 1983, in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Powerful national leaders like Morarji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Chandra Shekhar and George Fernandes campaigned aggressively in Andhra Pradesh against the Congress government. They drew huge crowds, but the Janata Party was rejected soundly; the Congress also lost and a dark horse, film actor-turned-politician N T Ramarao, became the chief minister. Later in 1989, the Congress decided to fight the Tamil Nadu elections alone under G K Moopanar’s leadership. But it was the regional party DMK which came to power.

The problem with the current Congress leadership is that it lives in its own world. Its leaders never forget to extol Rahul’s spectacular success of bagging 22 seats in Uttar Pradesh during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections—its largest tally since 1984. It conveniently forgets the context. More than half of its elected MPs were defectors. But the most important factor was CPI(M) honcho Prakash Karat’s efforts to form a Third Front and market Mayawati as India’s first Dalit prime minister. Both the upper castes and the OBCs were polarised against the Samajwadi Party and the BSP, and voted for the Congress.

If 2012 has turned out to be the nemesis for the Congress and the BJP, 2014 is going to be worse. The bitter truth from Uttar Pradesh is: without solid caste or local support, the Congress is unlikely to repeat its 2009 performance. Until recently, national leaders could sway voters. Sixty-six years after Independence, the country is left with an ideologically and sartorially compatible cabal of national leaders, but they can’t win a single state for their parties. The old Brahminical order has been dismantled to pave the way for caste and community leaders who will decide the national leadership. It will be the Badals, Yadavs, Abdullahs, Chautalas, Pawars, Stalin and Jagan Mohan Reddy—and not just a Gandhi—who will decide India’s political destiny.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

UP POLL RESULTS/ The Sunday Standard, March 04.2012

POWER & POLITICS

Poll Results Aren't Out Yet, But Here's what the Parties Will Say

After a gruelling eight-week poll campaign in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur, political leaders are busy rehearsing their lines for post-results talk shows. While in the field, they thought of nothing other than winning elections by promising the moon to voters. Now, with the possibility of defeat staring them in their face, they have turned into film actors, getting lessons in deflecting and dodging questions on earlier boasts. Here’s what they are going to say:

If the Congress loses in all the states, including Uttar Pradesh: “We’ve improved our ballots tally as our party has polled more votes than it did during the last election. Rahulji was able to attract more crowds but the party failed to carry his message to the masses. The Congress organisation was very weak in most places. Local leaders have lost touch with workers. Candidate selection was faulty—state leaders got tickets for relatives. The local administration was working against the Congress. The alliance with Ajit Singh wasn’t Rahulji’s idea.”

If it wins in Punjab, Uttarakhand and loses in Uttar Pradesh: “It’s a vote for clean government. Voters have expressed full faith in Soniaji and Rahulji’s leadership. They have proved once again that only they can win elections for the Congress. Rahulji was able to activate the Youth Congress through democratisation of the organisation. He sidelined old satraps and infused young blood into the party. The people of the two states were impressed by Rahulji’s performance in Uttar Pradesh.”

If the Congress wins 60-70 seats in Uttar Pradesh and forms the government in Uttarakhand: “Voters have expressed full support for Rahulji’s anointment as India’s next prime minister. It’s his hard work and aggressive campaigning that turned young voters in Congress’s favour. He is now ready to take over the top job and lead the party in 2014.”

If BJP gets more than 70 seats in Uttar Pradesh, wins Goa and retains Uttarakhand: “People have totally rejected the corrupt Congress and its dynastic leaders. Voters have given a befitting reply to the UPA’s vote bank politics and minority appeasement. Voters have chosen our clean leaders as they see the BJP as the only alternative. Our agenda is development. Our president Nitin Gadkari took a calculated risk by fielding new candidates. The party won the elections under his leadership. Other big leaders don’t matter.”

If the BJP comes No. 4 in Uttar Pradesh, winning less seats than the Congress, loses in Punjab and Goa but retains Uttarakhand: “We lost because of divisive politics played by other parties. Our honest leader B C Khanduri has been elected but we lost in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, thanks to corruption among our candidates. The Badals were a liability. Too many local leaders were fighting each other in Uttar Pradesh. Our workers weren’t able to carry our programmes and ideology to the masses. Candidate selection was faulty.”

If the BJP loses in all the states: “All anti-BJP parties joined hands in the name of secularism and created a sense of insecurity among the minorities. Our vote share, however, has improved and our popularity graph is on the rise.”

If Samajwadi Party (SP) wins a near-majority, becoming the single largest party: “The people have voted out Uttar Pradesh’s most corrupt government ever. They have expressed confidence in Mulayam Singh Yadav’s wisdom and endorsed Akhilesh Yadav’s induction as our next leader. Uttar Pradesh has chosen its local son over the son from Delhi.”

If SP becomes the single largest party but needs Congress support to form the government: “Uttar Pradesh has voted for secularism and has rejected the idea of communalism. It has expressed confidence in youth leaders, Rahul and Akhilesh who champion development in the state.”

If SP fails to become the single largest party or wins fewer seats than it did in 2007: “We lost because of a secret understanding between the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), BJP and the Congress. They played caste politics by choosing candidates from castes that could defeat our backward caste leaders. Officers loyal to Mayawati influenced voters. But our popular vote is still intact, and in fact, has even gone up in certain areas.”

If the BSP retains its majority or emerges as the single largest party: “Behenji has trounced her challengers who employed money and muscle power. These parties were supported by rich people. Voters have endorsed the great development that occurred in Uttar Pradesh under Mayawati’s five-year rule. The poorest of the poor have won. All attempts to dislodge India’s only Dalit chief minister have been foiled by the people. They want to see her as the next prime minister.”

If it wins enough seats to form the government with the help of either the BJP or the Congress: “The voters have rejected Samajwadi Party’s ‘goonda’ politics. They want Behenji to form the next government, ensure stability at the Centre and play a major role in national politics to become an important player in the formation of the next government in Delhi.”

If BSP gets less than 100 seats: “It’s a conspiracy by the rich and the mighty. Manuwadi forces supported by moneybags from other states ensured a Dalit will not rule Uttar Pradesh. Even the Election Commission (EC) helped them. EVMs have been manipulated. EC didn’t take any action against the Congress and BJP leaders. It was an unfair election.”

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Poll Panel Neet To Find Their Teeth Again/The Sunday Standard/ February 19, 2012

POWER & POLITICS

The Three Wise Men of the Poll Panel Need to Find Their Teeth Again

Has the lion been caged? It has stopped roaring. After high voltage outrage, banning busts, covering statutes and transferring errant poll officials, the Election Commission (EC) has retreated into a shell. Last week, Chief Election Commissioner S Y Quraishi wrote an irate letter to President Pratibha Singh Patil seeking her decisive intervention to deal with a serious violation of the model code of conduct by Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid. The commission then magnanimously forgave Khurshid, after receiving a letter from him accepting the EC’s supremacy. This liberal gesture is being perceived as weakness. Soon after, Union Minister for Steel Beni Prasad Verma also promised job reservation for the minorities, delivering the EC yet another body blow. Like his colleague, Verma called his gaffe a mere ‘a slip of tongue’ and expected the commission to give him the same treatment it gave to Khurshid.

Undoubtedly, the commission has been able to instil confidence in the electoral process and has succeeded in taming political muscle and money power. However, for the past few days, it seems to have lost its bite. Its highly visible head Quraishi is now hardly seen on TV debates. His two other colleagues prefer to hide within the four walls of their spacious rooms in Nirvachan Sadan. No money is being seized from cash-rich candidates. Nor is excessive publicity material or illicit liquor being recovered.

The sudden minimisation of the EC is ominous for the free and fair conduct of elections in a state like Uttar Pradesh. The commission was excessively active in taking strong action against the ruling BSP. It ordered all statues and busts of Mayawati be covered along with those of elephants—the party’s election symbol. The commission was prompt in taking action on complaints filed by the Congress party about the conduct of a few top poll officers, in both Rae Bareily and Amethi. It shunted out over half a dozen officials, including a lady district magistrate. It even repatriated an IAS officer—posted by it as an observer—back to Goa after he strictly enforced the code of conduct in Amethi. The transfer was reversed after the Opposition made it an issue and charged the commission with playing into the hands of the Congress party.

The EC’s reluctance to move against the two Union ministers raised serious doubts about its neutrality in the state. Frankly, they are entitled to market their ideology and manifesto to voters. It’s ridiculous to consider political promises made during an election campaign a violation of the code of conduct. But once the commission has taken a view, it must follow through to the logical end. Its inexplicable decision to knock on Rashtrapati Bhawan doors against Khurshid is seen as an attempt to pass the buck and give the ruling party an escape route. Never before has the commission approached Raisina Hill to invoke presidential authority against code of conduct violations.Surprisingly, Quraishi and his colleagues have betrayed their inconsistency in dealing with recalcitrant politicians. The EC has shown its teeth when it comes to smaller or opposition parties, and its tail while dealing with the Congress. In 2009, Quraishi, as one of the three members of the commission, rightly passed a strong order against Varun Gandhi —a BJP Lok Sabha candidate from Pilibhit—for making inflammatory speeches. Not only did the commission censure the young firebrand leader, it also issued a notice to the BJP seeking explanation. It took suo motu cognizance of Varun’s speeches. It even advised the BJP to deny him an election ticket. When it came to Verma and Khurshid, the EC didn’t even bother to question the Congress on the conduct of its senior ministers.

In 1999, the commission displayed its powers when it disqualified Bal Thackeray from contesting elections for six years, and barred him from voting in any election. He was also charged with inciting communal disharmony and speaking against the minority community. Surprisingly, ignoring the advice of the then law minister Ram Jethmalani, President K R Narayanan accepted the recommendations of then chief election commissioner M S Gill and election commissioner J M Lyngdoh to punish Thackeray. Under Article 103 (2) of the Constitution, the President is bound by the advice of the EC on matters of disqualification. The commission can bar any leader from campaigning, countermand an election and even disqualify a defiant leader from contesting an election. However, the commission has now restricted itself to recovering cash, tracking the use of motor vehicles and punishing pygmies in every political party. Unfortunately, the current state of mind of the three wise members signal a fear of the unknown. Unless reversed at the earliest, it may undo the great contributions made by the institution and lose the confidence of the people.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla