Individuals, Not Ideologies ....... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ February 15, 2015

Individuals, Not Ideologies, Dictating Poll Verdicts Show Changing Contours of Democracy

There are punctuations in history that signal shifts in political idiom. Democracies are expected to vote for or against an ideology. By definition, the democratic process involves confrontation between distinctive ideologies represented by different parties. Today, individuals have replaced ideologies. Even in mature democracies like the US and UK, individuals such as Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher et al turbo-charged electoral energy rather than                                                                           
                                                                                 (From left) Kejriwal, Chamling, NTR and Mahanta)

In Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi has seen the kinetic rise of an individual instead of an alternative political philosophy to the BJP and Congress. For the political pundits, Kejriwal’s triumph has been an exceptional electoral enigma. Since it is for the first time that a newborn party has secured over 50 per cent of votes in Delhi, AAP’s victory has been projected as an unprecedented mandate. This is not entirely true. The Kejriwal Charisma is just yet another endorsement of the changing contours of political verdicts. Fed up with established parties and lethargic leaders, voters have been desperately looking for individuals who not only seem different but also behave differently. Kejriwal didn’t defeat the BJP or the Congress. He trounced the expired or confused ideologies of the national parties. The massive turnout at his second swearing-in was an indication of his personal popularity and not that of his party. Self-appointed political stargazers and opinionated intellectuals are busy predicting the impact of Kejriwal’s victory in other parts of the country. Besides bringing a broad smile to the face of Modi-wounded rivals, the Delhi declaration may not cause serious upheavals unless more Kejriwals emerge in the poll-bound states. If this happens, it may turn out to be a major headache for Modi bhakts and the BJP. But none of the local leaders have the capacity to neutralise the Modi Mantra as Kejriwal could in Delhi.

Kejriwal’s rise is as spectacular as that of Modi. People from all over the country chose Modi not because he was leading the BJP but because he looked different from the usual caricature of the political campaigner. His delivery of rhetoric was more convincing than the discipline and devotional colours of his saffron party. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani could not retain their following. Gandhi Parivar members have also lost their charismatic copyright. In the past decade, many individuals have risen at the cost of their own parties or have floated smaller organisations to take on the national or local parties. Earlier, when the Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, marginalised local leaders and ran the states like personal fiefdoms, the backlash resulted in the birth of regional satraps who ejected the Congress from their states. Some examples:

• During the early 1980s, the Congress in Andhra Pradesh became a symbol of arrogance and corrupt governance. It was run from Delhi. The local leadership had to take instructions from the private secretaries in the PMO for even appointing senior officers. As the Congress became ineffective in Andhra, it was left to film icon NT Rama Rao to take on the ruling party. NTR was the first homegrown leader who stormed to power within months of floating his party. In 1983, the TDP won 201 of 294 seats and polled 54 per cent votes. The Congress couldn’t digest its humiliating defeat. The High Command tried to break the TDP and imposed a dummy CM after dismissing NTR. But the Union Government had to yield to public pressure and order fresh elections in 1985. Once again the TDP polled 54 per cent votes and won 202 seats. But it wasn’t a vote for the TDP. It was a verdict in favour of an individual who lacked ideology but was seen as a person who would provide a clean and responsive government. Andhra became the first large state to hand over its destiny to a political novice. NTR wielded so much clout that the subsequent coalition government at the Centre couldn’t choose its PM without his approval.

• In the Northeast, another rising star demolished the might of the national party by floating his own outfit to become India’s youngest CM at 33. In 1983, student leader Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, along with half a dozen other student leaders, launched an agitation against illegal immigrations to Assam. Over 400 people died in the agitation and Mahanta became the saviour of the Assamese identity. Since the All Assam Students’ Union became a rallying point for all Assamese people, PM Rajiv Gandhi was forced to sign the Assam Accord following which the Congress government headed by Hiteshwar Saikia was dismissed. Fresh elections were ordered. Mahanta floated the Asom Gana Parishad in 1985 and won an absolute majority the same year and became the CM.

• In the tiny state of Sikkim, Pawan Kumar Chamling, 44, created history in 1993 when he floated his own party, the Socialist Democratic Front (SDF). He announced on his official website that “serving the people of Sikkim is our duty and religion”. In 1994, his party won an absolute majority. Since then he has been winning all the elections in Sikkim. In 1999, his party polled 52 per cent votes, which rose to 71 per cent in 2004. In 2009, the SDF won all the 32 seats in the Assembly.

Kejriwal’s victory is just a rekindling of the people’s desire to support those with fire in their belly. Even leaders like Mamata Banerjee, Naveen Patnaik and KCR have defeated the national parties not because their parties were seen as better alternatives but because they are perceived as better administrators. Constitutionally, India may still be a parliamentary democracy. But on the ground, the monumental triumphs of individuals like Modi and Kejriwal have transformed the country’s political ethos into a presidential form of democracy. From now on, individuals with an agenda and attitude, who do not necessarily have a defined ideology, will decide the fate of their own parties and the populace.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Opinionated Obama ..... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ February 08, 2015

Opinionated Obama Must Realise He's Dealing with a PM Who's as Responsive as Ruthless

                                                                                              Narendra Modi and Barack Obama

“A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.”—Confucius

For the chief executive of a global superpower like America, verbal modesty literally exceeds his intent and actions. President Barack Obama is reputed to be one of the world’s best orators. His Demosthenic dexterity can demolish even dedicated dissentients. Obama, however, is no exception when it comes to using words as weapons to target and tarnish other democracies. Every US president applies the US model of culture and democracy, which is used as a patent yardstick to measure the quality of cultural and religious harmony of other nations.

Last week, Obama displayed the diplomacy of arrogance by questioning the idea of a genuinely secular India. He even linked the country’s survival with its capacity to keep people of all faiths together, as if Indians are constantly engaged in bloody confrontations on the streets. His sermons came as a shock to even those who avoid seeing any evil in American acts of misadventure and malice.

In India, POTUS was not just given an unprecedented welcome, but PM Narendra Modi broke protocol to turn the Obama visit into one of the most productive sojourns compared to past presidential landings. It was considered one of the Modi government’s most stellar achievements and the PM and his team were least prepared for the unexpected and unsolicited advice from their otherwise affable guest. But Obama is a helpless victim of his domestic vote bank politics. After all, Democrats have never been genuine friends of India, preferring to give precedence to Pakistan. They have been backing Indian secularists, who have fought relentlessly against the saffron surge. Yielding to their pressure, the US had treated Modi as a pariah for over a decade. Once he became PM, Indian opinion-makers expected a change in both the mind and heart of the US establishment. Some early signs were visible during Modi’s US visit, when Obama, the American leadership and the corporate world bent backwards to woo the leader who controls one of the biggest markets for the US defence industry and other services eight months after Modi took over the reins. The Americans seem to have reverted to type, playing blow hot, blow cold with India. It surprised many of Obama’s Indian admirers when he said at the National Prayer Breakfast address in Washington, “Michelle and I returned from India—an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity—but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs—acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.” Coming a week after a similar statement in New Delhi, Indian diplomats were scrambling to find a plausible justification behind his sudden emphasis on India’s communal situation. A careful reading of Obama’s speech reflects that he was determined to send a strong message to his hosts. His critics were unkind to him for his selective praise of achievers from the minority communities, leaving out outstanding players from other states and faiths. Yet he went on to say, “Every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear of discrimination. Nowhere is that more important than India, nowhere is it going to be more necessary for that foundational value to be upheld. India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along lines of religious faith, along lines of anything, and is unified as one nation.”

Such uncharitable remarks have upset all those lobbying hard to forge strong business ties between the two nations. It is no surprise, therefore, that not one member of the chambers of industry has bothered to raise the issue of US interference in Indian domestic affairs. It is quite possible that some serious communal flare-ups may have upset the US establishment, but it is presidentially immature of Obama to have gone public with his disapproval and veiled warnings.

Obama, it seems, has not understood the might and mind of Modi. The PM is not a leader who would take an attack on his ego and purpose lying down. His ministers have already given a strong rebuttal. But Obama’s politically incorrect opinion may cost the Americans hugely in terms of both trade and ties. India has already started rebuilding bridges with Russia and China. It may again restrict imports from the US and go slow on various promises Modi had made during POTUS’s visit. America has already been reminded that future arms imports would depend on it staying away from India’s internal affairs. As per official figures, India is the largest importer of US arms. Of the $16 billion spent on importing weapons over the past three years, over $6 billion went to the US, followed by $4 billion to Russia. This is the first time that the US has emerged as India’s largest arms supplier, displacing Russia. India has acquired a variety of US defence equipment in the last three years, including C130J Super Hercules aircraft, Harpoon anti-submarine missiles and the C-17 heavy lift transport aircraft. India is also the 17th largest holder of American debt. It has invested over $6 billion at relatively low returns in the US treasury debt bonds. Despite India being heavily tilted in favour of building a better relationship with the US, the latter’s politicians remain hostile towards India’s business and strategic interests. For example, some of the active members of US establishment have launched a tirade against the Indian pharma industry. On February 26, an open campaign called ‘Harmful Indian Medicines’ began in Washington against the Indian generic drugs industry. US agencies have been holding public hearings in Washington as part of its investigation titled ‘Trade, investment and industrial policies in India: Effects on the US economy’. Various industry associations from India have been forced to appear before these agencies for clarifications.

Even in the past, Americans have resorted to similar pressure tactics and flip-flops to extract favourable decisions from India. But they haven’t realised that they are dealing with a PM for whom personal dignity and national interest are non-negotiable. If he is capable of being an expansive host, he can be ruthless opponent as well.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modi Couture Sign of the Times .... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ / February 01, 2015

Modi Couture Sign of the Times that India is Not Ashamed to Wear Style on its Sleeve

Clothes make the man, goes the adage, but the chutzpah to choose the right costume defines the power and personality of the person. PM Narendra Modi is the world’s new sartorial icon, his carefully chosen wardrobe in full display during the recent visit of US President Barack Obama. There was much discussion in the media and Lutyens’ Delhi’s salons that perhaps the PM was overdoing power dressing like wearing his name literally on his bespoke £10,o00 pin-striped suit. Even some of his Anglophile toadies thought it was a vulgar display of dress sense. But anyone who has examined Modi’s actions would know that he doesn’t do anything randomly. Every word is carefully chosen, every modulation of voice is deliberate, and every gesture is calculated to prove a point. His choice of clothes follows this thought process. Decades ago, he started as a fashion trendsetter with the half-sleeved kurta, which became a hallmark that set him apart from other leaders. It was as if he was getting dressed for destiny. Obama even joked, “I was thinking about wearing a Modi kurta myself.”

Dress conveys a sense of self, what a person is about and wants to be perceived as. It can be a sign of defiance, surprise or even reconciliation. The first Indian leader to make a fashion statement was Mahatma Gandhi. His white half dhoti and simple cotton shawl projected inverse nationalist snobbery, and when he went to meet the Queen of England, he chose to wear the same, standing out among the Savile Row row of British leaders. Winston Churchill, in his pin-stripe, three-piece suit, cigar and bowler hat disparagingly described Gandhi as the “naked fakir”, but eventually it was the Empire that fled India with a tattered Union Jack on its back. Gandhi’s disciple Jawaharlal Nehru’s knee-length bandhgala, a rose worn jauntily in its buttonhole became such a fashion hit that the Nehru jacket was named after him. His daughter Indira Gandhi was a sartorial delight in her subdued, starched handloom saris chosen carefully with Usha Bhagat, which communicated a simple yet haughty sense of power. Her daughter-in-law Sonia follows the matriarch’s style, with similar saris and high-necked blouses with long sleeves. Both cultivated distinctive hairstyles—Indira’s hair had a carefully nurtured white streak while Sonia wears a bun at the nape of her neck. Their heads would be covered at public events, emphasising their Indian-ness. Indira even chose her clothes according to the state she toured. Similarly, Sonia chooses to wear Chanderi saris while addressing rallies in Madhya Pradesh and a Sambalpuri ikat in Odisha. Like Indira, she too wears a man’s wristwatch with a thick strap on her right hand. Mrs G wore a rudraksha mala, while Sonia sports a red sacred thread on her wrist. Rajiv Gandhi, followed by Amitabh Bachchan, wore a long shawl across the torso instead of over it, leaving the right hand free, setting a fashion trend. The break from tradition signified that a change was in the air. And it was. V P Singh’s fez cap, L K Advani’s three-button, long-collared Nehru jacket and A B Vajpayee’s round-neck Nehru jacket were deliberate image identifiers that mixed personality and traditions.

Modi has never been a traditionalist. He changes clothes five times a day, dresses for the occasion and personalities he is meeting. At the banquet given by the President for the usually stiff Vladimir Putin, Modi was a casual contrast in a tie-less jacket and a woollen scarf. Sometimes, his dress code is smart casual even for formal occasions. At ease in both Indian and Western clothes, Modi’s message is that India is a globally pluralistic society. His love for Movado watches and Bvlgari sunglasses, and his vast collection of hats signify that he is a man corporates can identify with, unlike Manmohan’s monotonous blue turban. Modi wears saffron a lot, signifying his nationalist ideology. Unlike earlier leaders, he is flamboyant even in silk kurtas paired with matching vests that signal India has changed colours from black and white, and is a vibrant democracy willing to engage with the world. Speaking to students recently, he wore a classy black cashmere jacket with a silk pocket handkerchief, and an open-necked blue shirt. The message of Modi couture is that India is no longer apologetic about its pursuit of prosperity, leaving the homespun hypocrisy of the Socialist era behind.

While Obama, Cameron, Putin, Abe and Xi wear expensive conservative clothes at state meetings, Modi ambushes world leaders with his extravagant sense of style, as if it is a mind game meant to distract them and pull off surprising coups. His colourful turbans signal that he is very much Indian—not the drab caricature of the yesteryears’ politician but a PM who represents the united colours of India.

Worldwide, political couture defines personalities and cultures. Etonian David Cameron, known as Britain’s exponent of political chic, loves bespoke Savile Row suits. Obama’s personal style is subtle but expensive with his trademark wool-cashmere-blend Hartmarx suits: the fashion house even put out an ad that said “Dressing Presidential. Pick your power suit.” Mark Rutte, the PM of the Netherlands, sports rimless glasses and a youthful hairstyle, like the gemstone-loving Laura Chinchilla, the President of Costa Rica, whose shoulder length hairdo makes her look youthful, according to haute fashion magazines. Enrique Pena Nieto, Mexico’s president, loves to match conservatively bespoke pinstripe suits with colourful striped ties. A decade ago, Hamid Karzai’s exotic ensemble made him the fashion darling of global media.

Standing out among the crowd, while at the same time identifying with it, is the hallmark of a true leader. Modi couture is a sign of the times, indicating that India is not ashamed to wear style on its sleeve. Ten thousand pounds pack one helluva punch. One just can’t take out Modi out of PM Narendra Modi.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Deft Defence Minister .... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard / January 25, 2015

Deft Defence Minister on a Mission to Ensure India is Respected and Feared in the World

The guns have fallen relatively silent on India’s borders for the past few weeks. Even the Pakistani establishment seems to have reined in jihadis for now. Secularists may attribute the unexpected fall in the number of border incursions and infiltrations to the Obama visit, though the Indian Army said two days ago that 150 militants are waiting behind LoC to cross over. But the Olive Branch Brigade has conveniently forgotten that India now has a defence minister who neither barks without biting nor starts snoring when jawans are being maimed and civilians are massacred. And when he bites, it turns out to be fatal for the foe. Ever since 59-year-old Manohar Gopalkrishna Prabhu Parrikar took over as the 24th defence minister, protecting the country and its men in uniform has become his Mission 24X7. For the past three months, his actions have been unconventional and his comments acidic, which have pained peaceniks. Last week, he stirred a hornet’s nest with the explosive revelation that some former Indian PMs compromised our deep intelligence assets in Pakistan. No other defence minister has ever charged any chief executive of the country of treason. But it was not just an off-the-cuff remark. It was a calculated strategy on Parrikar’s part to silence those who are out to sabotage and oppose India’s new aggressive stance against its inimical neighbour. For the past 10 years, the Indian defence establishment has been forced to face the enemy with both hands tied behind its back and mouth bridled. Now, through his frank statements and quick decision-making, Parrikar has changed the entire narrative and grammar of India’s defence and strategic policy. He hardly bothers about the nuances and spins offered to him by agents of Western think tanks.

On Monday, as India’s defence minister, he would be playing the host at the Republic Day Parade, for which US President Barack Obama is the chief guest. While Parrikar is busy in conference with backroom diplomats and defence officials to anticipate every possible hiccup in the execution of his plans, the media is more concerned about Obama’s Beast and his romantic but now aborted visit to the Taj Mahal. As a member of the all-powerful Cabinet Committee on Defence, he has been chosen as the pointsman to finalise various defence and strategic pacts. PM Modi knows Parrikar wouldn’t be swayed by US mania and instead, would do some plain-speaking to the business-minded Americans.

Defence experts feel that Parrikar’s strong comments and inflexible approach towards Pakistan has forced the US and Western world to look at the insurgency-infested country with suspicion. Parrikar was uncompromising when he made it clear to the West that it has to choose between a democratic India and terror habitat Pakistan. Last month, the defence ministry read the riot act to US Secretary of State John Kerry that India wouldn’t be able to do business with the US unless it forces Pakistan to dismantle terror camps and ban terrorist outfits operating on its soil. It is not a coincidence that the Sharif government banned a few of them and Obama spoke against terror camps prior to landing in India. Such high testosterone actions were never expected from the US in the past, because of India’s wavering stand on Pakistan. The Americans were particularly taken aback by the threatening tenor of Parrikar’s repeated warnings to Pakistan. When incursions rose exponentially, he sent a clear message to the Indian armed forces. “Our (NDA government) response is: don’t hesitate. React appropriately without holding yourself back.” He mandated that they should retaliate “with double the force” against all ceasefire violations.

Parrikar’s security-minded preoccupation with Pakistan is not his only virtue. He is very impatient with the slow speed in procurement of defence equipment and the largely dysfunctional DRDO. Last month, when he terminated the services of DRDO chief Avinash Chander—who was on a temporary extension—it signalled his intent of promoting innovative thinking. Parrikar feels that it is the DRDO’s failure that has made India heavily dependent on defence imports. On Chander’s exit, he remarked: “I thought that at 64, a person (Chander) probably thinks in a more cautious way. The scientist world today requires probably a much younger generation.”

Another bold decision of Parrikar’s was legalising the role of defence agents, ignoring all possible adverse impact. Within two months in his job, he told officials to draw up a roadmap for legalising the role of these agents. Aware of the damage done to many politicians and civil servants through their dealings with them, Parrikar felt it was better to bring all hidden persuaders into the public gaze so that their connections become transparent to all. He says, “Several times we require feedback and also someone who can get us information. There are some foreign companies which want to come to India... They can’t go on sending their people here.” But he also made clear that it was just an idea, and a “clear cut” policy would be announced soon on engaging representatives for arms procurements, which will also provide for punitive action against firms found giving kickbacks.

As Goa’s CM, Parrikar dealt with various stake holders directly on all issues. He wouldn’t mind walking down to the hotels and offices of those whom he thought would be useful for his state’s development. He has carried this culture to the defence ministry. Soon after Modi approved the hike in FDI in defence, Parrikar invited a number of Indian corporates to Goa on December 27. He was assisted only by his private secretary at the meeting, which was attended by representatives of leading defence equipment manufactures like Kalyani Group, Bharat Forge, Godrej and Boyce, Ashok Leyland, Tata Advanced Systems and Larsen & Toubro. Parrikar is playing the role of a reformer for whom defence production is not a clandestine business, but a source of boosting the Make in India campaign. As CM, his mission was to make the tiny state of Goa a vibrant global tourist destination. Now as defence minister, his vigilant eyes are constantly examining every chink in India’s defence armour and seal it mercilessly. Parrikar’s idea of India is a nation, which is both feared and respected not just in the neighbourhood, but in the entire world.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

The Outcome of Delhi Elections ...Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ January 18, 2015

The Outcome of Delhi Elections Will Set the Tone and Tenor of Future Electoral Battles

Sometimes small is not only beautiful but can be quite brutal when the occasion rises. A tiny ant can kill a mammoth elephant as the fable goes. That is why the battle for the picayune capital city—1,484 square km compared to India’s 2,973,190 square km—has become a challenge of both credibility and survival for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The city sends just three MPs to the 242-member Rajya Sabha and seven to the 542-member Lok Sabha. Delhi doesn’t even enjoy the status of a full-fledged state. In theory, its local dynamics can hardly influence the omnipotent political establishment of 7 RCR and Raisina Hills. The Prime Minister, however, may not relish the idea of an ardent adversary sharing the high table with visiting dignitaries from all over the world. It is obvious that both Narendra Modi and his trusted political magician Amit Shah are taking no chances with the outcome of the Delhi Assembly elections. They know not only is every vote precious but each and every individual with either celebrity status or a community tag matters greatly in the poll calculus.

Last week when Modi welcomed Kiran Bedi, India’s first female IPS officer, into the saffron fold, he was sending a clear message to Delhi’s voters and his party that he wasn’t confident of any current state leader delivering the capital to the BJP. In Delhi, the party has been stuck in a quagmire for the past two decades, having been taken over by nouveau riche upstart politicians who have never sweated for the party, but instead have only managed to become rich and famous in more ways than one. Despite an urge for change, the party could not win a majority in the Delhi Assembly polls. Modi feels a victory in his new habitat would enable him to formalise the formation of a genuine Modi Sarkar in which a Modi-fied state BJP would play a pivotal role. When the Modi-Shah duo decided to induct Bedi along with AAP rebels, and a few minor minority leaders, the idea was to empower those who did not belong to any local faction. Additionally, it was an attempt to give a liberal patina of ‘swatch’ gloss and glamour to the colour of the saffron party, whose many local leaders have tainted reputations of various sorts. One of the most successful grand masters of game-changers ever, Modi is trying to repackage the BJP to recapture its market share in the capital.

His aggressive marketing strategy has been put in place only after proper research and serious study of Delhi’s social, political and economic layers. Though it may sound like an overstatement, Team Modi knows that the outcome of Delhi elections will set the tone for future electoral battles and generate positive perception about the acceptability of the Central leadership among Delhi voters. Empirically, the party that wins Delhi eventually wins India. In 1993, the BJP stormed into power by sweeping the Delhi Assembly elections. Three years later, it also formed the government at the Centre and won in many other states later. It tasted victory again in the Lok Sabha when Atal Bihari Vajpayee became the Prime Minister for the second time in 1998. But six months later, the party lost Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The BJP did defeat the Congress in the 1999 Lok Sabha elections, but the victory had more to do with the patriotic exultation over India’s Kargil victory than any popular love for the party’s local units. In 2003, even after ‘India Shining’ was spun as a web of enchantment to mesmerise the masses, the BJP lost the state elections for the second time. A year later in 2004, it lost not only six of the seven Delhi Lok Sabha seats but its majority in Parliament as well. The triumph of the Congress was further consolidated by a third consecutive win in the Delhi elections in 2008. A year later, it grabbed all of Delhi’s Lok Sabha seats in 2009, which contributed to the formation of the UPA II.

BJP’s fortunes, however, regained the glow soon after the Congress was washed away in the Delhi polls in December 2013. Not only did the BJP become the single largest party in the Assembly, it won all Lok Sabha seats in the capital in May 2014. Modi is not in the mood to suffer any setback in Indraprastha, especially after his uninterrupted winning spree in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand, and to some extent in Jammu and Kashmir. Both Modi and Shah are a tad disappointed with the party’s failure to secure a majority on its own in Maharashtra and Jharkhand. The two titans have made it clear that securing a comfortable majority in Delhi is their top priority because it will set the tone for the elections in Bihar and Assam scheduled to be held later this year, followed by West Bengal and a couple of other states. Modi’s mandate mantra is “chalo chalein Modi ke saath”.

Setting new records is not only his predilection but his mission as well. He wants to break Indira Gandhi’s record, when under her, the Congress ruled not just India but more than two-thirds of the states too, including the big ones at the same time. He has already created history by placing eight BJP chief ministers (its highest ever tally) in Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Jharkhand. The BJP is part of the ruling front in Andhra Pradesh and Punjab. Modi and Shah realise that it is difficult for the party to achieve any meaningful verdicts in Kerala, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and some of the north-eastern states even if massive communal polarisation happens in any of them. They are also aware of the dangers, which a united Janata Parivar can pose in both Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Since the process of forging a powerful anti-Modi confederacy has started in earnest, the Prime Minister is determined to demoralise and deflate their enthusiasm by scoring a big win in Delhi. Modi is like a political Eratosthenes who realises that like the earth, the globe of power is also round, and the road to Delhi’s throne in 2019 can end in Delhi only if the new journey begins from the destination itself.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Your Religion Reflects your identity ... Power & Politics/The Sundary Standard/January 11, 2015

Your Religion Reflects Your Identity, But Your Action Connects You With Your Name

The defining dilemma these days regarding identity is “What’s in a name?” In these tortuous times of identity crises, one’s appellation establishes one’s credentials. So, when I say, “My name is Prabhu and I am not a Communalist,” it means that it is my name and not my actions that denote my acceptability and credibility in society. Like many Indians, I am proud to be a nationalist Hindu. But I take much more pride in being a Bharatiya, which doesn’t differentiate between religions, cultures and faiths. For me, Hinduism is not a religion. It defines how we live in peace and tolerance. It pains everyone, including me, when one has to invoke his first or last name to prove his commitment to human values and liberty. It is also equally agonising that this nomenclature nightmare started when Muslims started being blamed by Islamaphobes for rising terror incidents worldwide. To convince people that not all Muslims are jihadists or terrorists, Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan even acted as the hero in a film, the theme of which was “My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”. It was shot in the horrific background of the 9/11 attacks. Since then, Indian liberals and propagandists have been celebrating only Muslim names in various fields to establish the nationalistic commitments of Indian Muslims, which is hardly in doubt in the minds of most number of Indians. This moniker manipulation marked the beginning of the identity wars between various communities with their fringe organisations taking advantage of the divisive din. Though all Ahmads and Abdullahs are not supporters of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, the impression being created by secularism-mongers is that most Prabhus, Rams, Deen Dayals and Krishna Kumars are communal and conspiring to annihilate the minorities. For the past few months, a competitive chorus is on, using proper nouns to divide India rather than to unite it. The discourse is not aimed at the consolidated idea of a united and inclusive Bharat, but to keep reminding people of their distinctive religious identities by emphasising on their family background. Why can’t those who exploit religion to prove their secular credentials use the hashtags #IamaBharatiya and #I stand for unity? It is tragic that in the name of modern thinking and fake ideological neutrality, some of us are bandying about minority names to defend the indefensible that is terrorism.

Unfortunately, the dance of terror in Paris has once again revived the practice of using names for cultural and religious taxonomy. For the past four days, millions of people worldwide have been tweeting #I am Charlie” and  #JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie), which have become slogans of solidarity with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Two terrorist brothers attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine—which had satirised Islam—and murdered 12, including 10 journalists whose only fault was critical and perhaps excessive satirical adventurism. Now for the French, and other Western countries, the name of an individual appears to be the only effective way to identify a possible terrorist threat. Sadly, it took the Paris carnage to wake up the West once more, which faces a lethal threat to its existence and culture. Forgetting the famous adage that ‘thou shalt reap what thou shall sow’, the West is primarily responsible for overtly and covertly funding non-governmental organisations working in the Third World for ameliorating the conditions of the poor and oppressed. For Europe’s neo-liberal altruists, championing human rights and saving the poor guarantees a ticket to heaven, flying first class. Hardly do they realise that financial magnanimity will also lead to the rise of communal hatred and encourage divisive tendencies, the way it is happening in India. Over one lakh Indian NGOs receive about `4,000 crore annually from Europe, the UK and US in the name of protecting human rights. Some of them have even aggressively defended people with suspected terrorist links. It is due to massive Western support and native chest-thumping by professional human rights activists that terror groups in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and India as well as in other parts of the world got the space and time to consolidate themselves and eventually become a threat to the very people who financed and promoted them for the sake of their own narrow political or ideological proclivities.

It is quite telling that France is now Europe’s terror capital. According to figures released by various websites on the 152 terrorist attacks in the EU last year, about 65 happened in France alone. The research organisation, Muslim Statistics, claims that over 66 per cent of Muslims in France and 80 per cent in the UK support the idea of an Islamic State. It also reveals that Sweden spends over 10 million kroner to finance Muslim immigration and the UK parts with 840 million pounds of taxpayers’ money per year on Muslim prisoners who constitute 14 per cent of Britain’s prisoner population—who incidentally are converting many prisoners into radical Islam, which has become an added source of worry for law enforcement agencies. Research scholar Tim Sadandoji wrote in his blog that “looking at all the people killed in terrorist attacks in Europe and North America during the last 10 years, 97 per cent was committed by Muslim terrorists, or 4,703 of the 4,873 killed”. While none of the Western countries have released a comprehensive list of jihadi attacks on their soil, over 5,000 people are estimated to have been killed so far in America, Russia and Europe during the past 12 years. If one includes the pogroms in West Asia and Africa, the victims of the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, the number stands at 18,000 people. Out of each 100 killed, 90 died in bloody encounters between a Hafiz and Bin Laden and not between an Antony and Abdullah, or a Prabhu vs Hezbollah. Even in Paris, it was none other than Said Kouachi, a devout Muslim, who shot the 40-year-old French Muslim policeman Ahmed Merabat in cold blood. One of the rampaging monsters said killing the journalists of Charlie Hebdo was taking revenge for insulting their Prophet. When the screams had died, and the smell of cordite was blown away in the chilly January wind, what was left scrawled in the blood and gore was just a name. It was Chérif and he turned out to be a terrorist. It’s all in the name, stupid.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla