Nitish Kumar and Narendara Modi

There was an article about Nitish Kumar in a recent issue of Time. Reading it gave way to this question: What are the chances of Nitish becoming the next Prime Minister, even if NDA were to win? Ten percent? Twenty percent? On the other hand, what are the chances of Modi becoming the PM? Eighty? Or is it hundred?

The point here is, despite the backing of a few English media houses Nitish Kumar does not appear to enjoy any backing from any national-level institutions. Modi has BJP and RSS and VHP and Bajrang Dal. And probably Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, the trade union outfit affiliated with RSS and hundreds of fringe Hindu organisations across India. Not to mention the negative campaign launched by the whole media that had actually ended up making him a household name.

Odds aside, who would make a better PM? That’s to be waited and watched. But speculating on this thought, India might benefit immensely from Nitish Kumar’s premiership. Modi may be the most celebrated (and most loathed) Chief Minister but there are several factors that favour Nitish.

First off there is no taint of pogrom on Nitish. He may come across as one of the pseudo-secular leaders, but who would you vote, a pseudo-secular or a pseudo-communal? Regardless of the allegations on his collusion, some of the statements Modi made during the riots and his reaction afterwards are reprehensible and there is still no sign of him admitting to erring, not about collusion but about even not dispensing justice. Ten years and only recently there are people being convicted and many questions still hang in the air. Nitish Kumar, on the other hand, is one of the pseudo-seculars who can be expected to play inclusive even if that would seem like ‘conceding’ to the ‘aggressive minority’. About that one thing we need to understand here. There are NO minority in India. Christians, who constitute 2.3% of the population, are more than 24 million people, meaning there are more Christians in India than there are Australians in the world. So India, in effect, is multiple countries so there’s only so much of ‘melting pot’ that can happen which means we’re not really ‘conceding’ but making structural and federal adjustments to different ‘countries’ within India. So we need a person who understands this, even implicitly, or even if it appears like he is playing vote-bank politics.

Secondly, about the transformation these leaders achieved in their respective states: Modi’s plank was mainly business growth and the GDP. And Nitish Kumar’s achievement was law & order and infrastructure. Which ones do we need for today’s India? What more do we need to do for encouraging business growth than what we’re not doing already? Coming to think of it, we need our rulers to actually ‘discourage’ business houses. Discourage them from plundering our lands, from plundering our mines, from throwing out our adivasis, from their unbridled lust for capitalism, however beneficial that might be to the famed GDP. Perhaps Nitish Kumar’s background in socialism will help in keeping the much needed check on them.

Thirdly, the very comparison with Modi and Nitish might be a bit lopsided. In the sense, let’s assume this metaphor. If you are a teacher and you have to train a state-ranked student from CBSE board for IIT entrance. How difficult is it to do that? And let’s say you have to train a non-English medium state-board student, who failed his 7^th class, to pass his higher secondary. How difficult is that? Now map this metaphor to Gujarat and Bihar. Gujarat has always been known for business-minded people who had a penchant for entrepreneurship. We had Gujaratis who excelled in business even during the Licence Raj. But Bihar was an epitome of everything that was wrong about India. Poverty, natural calamities, caste wars, feudalism, illiteracy, female infanticide, bad roads, bandits, you name it Bihar had it. And it was written off by almost everybody. The fact that somebody managed to make Gujarat excel in business is commendable but it’s not an impossible achievement. But for somebody to have gotten Bihar out of its mess and, what the heck, even into the pages of Time magazine is near magic act. And this person was able t pull off such a feat without tiring rhetoric or without ridiculing or alienating any specific community is something nobody thought would ever happen in India. And we need such person at the helm of affairs nationally. And to be given free reign. If Modi comes to centre, the GDP may skyrocket to 15% or even 20% but god help if you’re an adivasi or, if you are from a minority community. You may have to constantly be watchful of skirmishes in any railway station.

Democracy

Banana Republic, a term often applied to India, is only half truth in describing the real state of affairs. The term originally refers to an oligarchy or plutocracy running a country in collusion with large private business enterprises for profit. India could be conceived of as an oligarchy pejoratively considering a single party has been ruling the country almost major period since independence. However, they were not self elected but chosen through democratic means. The second part, however, of collusion with private enterprises, is largely true. This adds another peculiar problem to the table. The person governing the country is actually not the one elected by the people but has been ‘appointed’ by a party leader. What kinds of democratic rights does this person have and how is the governing actually taking place, especially with the ‘appointed’ leader having to face and defend the criticisms from the media and the party leader, who is considered to ‘actually’ run the country not having any such democratic duties!

Simply put, there’s no decent English word to describe the current phenomenon of governance in India. The term ‘puppet regime’ is to narrow and too derogatory a term and we’re looking for a one with ‘cracy’ ending.

To be fair, this government is run be an able administrator. Rarely have we seen a government run by a Scholar from Oxbridge being ridiculed, however unfavourably, as a ‘puppet regime’. Rarely also, have we seen an Oxbridge trained Scholar heading the most corrupt regime in the history of independent India.

Considering the weak and divisive nature of the opposition and the perceived ‘untouchability’ of BJP, there is no doubt that Congress will win again. And that victory will be touted as a vindication of all these corruption charges. Again new corruption charges will emerge and Sonia Gandhi will again travel to European countries under mysterious circumstances and leaving this Scholar to face the media and the people in his now-famed indecisive spurts of address.

If this is the state of the government, the so-called Civil Society is comprised of members too idealistic to believe that a stronger law leads to stronger society. They want the strongest possible law to combat corruption. They believe that corruptible people who are ubiquitous in India, who flout every law of the land in the country to their benefit, will not misuse the anti-corruption law. This appalling naivety is compounded by their despicable hunger for publicity which gave way to one of the most absurd slogans ever heard in the east – Anna is India and India is Anna.

If this is the state of affairs with the Civil Society, the state of opposition appears even more deplorable. It now looks like, to BJP, that Modi is India and India is Modi. Or more precisely Gujarat is India and India is Gujarat. They are too caught up with trying to protect Modi from various onslaughts and very often crying foul at the media and the central government of targeting Modi. The Centre is indeed targeting Modi and trying to find ways to trap him. But then that’s what they are supposed to do. Crying indignantly that ‘Snake is venomous’ is not going to change the biological nature of the reptile. Especially today’s government, with little reputation to lose, might go out on an all out war on Modi. Their retributory aggression is being evident in the actions against Jagan Mohan Reddy in Andhra, Reddy brothers in Karnataka, Modi in Gujarat and of course actions against Baba Ramdev and other Civil Society members. Why, of all the people arrested and all the people on whom charge-sheets are filed, not a single Congress member is present is a mystery to which we will never have an answer.

But how is all this affecting today’s India? A certain number of actions, however partial, can bring ill-repute to the fragile democracy we have. It has already made the dent to the system. We mock, ridicule, caricature and despise our politicians. We do not trust them. We think they are the reason for all the illnesses that are plaguing our country. We do not, for a moment, think we could be part of the illness. We bribe and solicit bribes. We exploit our employers for allowances. We disregard our public places. We celebrate our corrupt relatives who have ‘made it’ in their life and deride the ‘honest’ ones. However, we think that removing a couple of ministers from their portfolio will somehow, magically, cleanse the nation.

How far are we from thinking that all our politicians need to be removed? And then who will come? How many people think that a military regime would solve our countries problems, raise your hands?

So are we slowly but inexorably sliding towards becoming another Pakistan? Where the people are corrupt to the core but slap all the blame on their countries politicians, much to the convenience of their military leaders; where they long for ‘honest’ and ‘strong’ governance but do everything to prevent it from happening?

The solution does not lie in dismissing Dayanidhi Maran or even Manmohan Singh. Sonia Gandhi is not the personification of all evil in this country, although she could claim quite an extent of credit for the shambles that we are in today. Having said that, we don’t need villains to put things in perspective. This does not take the ‘everybody is bad’ tone, which, according to me, is the laziest and most dangerous attitude to take. So, having said that, our question is: is cleaner autocracy better than corruptible democracy? 

Unreasonable Debate

We are heading towards a possibility of abolishing death penalty; or possibly a speedier trials and speedier sentences in future. Regardless of what kind of ramifications it will have towards judiciary in particular and terrorism in general, the event that ensured this possibility is worth exploring.

Ironically it was not a ‘liberation’ organisation in Kashmir or Manipur that has triggered it but events in Tamil Nadu. The resolution, ‘unanimously’, passed by the Tamil Nadu assembly seeking clemency and the clamours by the pro-Eelam groups, the usual suspects, and the media’s zealous support of this cause, for whatever reasons, have ensured that his debate is now out in the open. People are already talking about such copycat resolutions in Kashmir and other places. It is also now almost certain that Afsal Guru, the convict of 2001 Parliament attack, would not be executed in the near future, or possibly never at all. Ajmal Kasab can rest assured that, although he may never come out of the jail, he may not be sent to the gallows for at least another two decades.

What are the issues on hand?

• Rajiv Gandhi’s murder and the people who were involved in the conspiracy.
• Death penalty as a human rights issue and its necessity as a deterrent.
• The qualification of the clamour raised by the people supporting the clemency.

First off, Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination is possibly one of the most gruesome murders involving a national leader, not just nationally but even internationally and I’m not including the murders of cruel dictators in the hands of their civil war rebels. The assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was not only the cruellest but it changed India irrevocably. It changed the political landscape, paved way to Prime Ministers that were grumpy and moody (Rao), drowsy and illiterate (Gowda) and quiet and inactive (Gujral). Today’s Prime Minister cannot be described in two or three adjectives and may require a separate blog piece, so we’ll skip that. We were set behind a decade on political growth. Also, sadly, Prabhakaran achieved what he wanted through the murder: of India’s abstinence from the Sri Lankan Tamil issue, that absence of a large, powerful neighbour led to countless civil wars and murder of thousands of innocent Tamils and Sinhalese. It had taken nearly twenty years for this most lethal terrorist organisation to be decimated, which would have happened in a matter of two years if Rajiv Gandhi had been alive. The political rights to Sri Lankan Tamils, which is still elusive, would also have been achieved. In a cruel paradox, the conspirators of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination have suffered a self-imposed punishment already.

However, as a nation, India needs reprieve, rather than retribution, from that heinous crime. Would it happen if those three men were hanged? Possibly. Would it happen if those three men were pardoned? Even more effectively. By choosing to leave the death penalty behind, India would also traverse a step closer towards becoming a mature democracy. An eye for an eye would not only make the whole world blind, it would also keep people busy in gouging each other’s eyes rather than indulging in anything productive. Has death penalty served any purpose as a deterrent in India so far? Hardly. It has only made the prison sentence more meaningless because we believe that punishment is meted out only if someone’s put to death but not as long as they are in jail. Having lived in jail for more than twenty years, mostly in solitary confinement, is punishment enough, not to mention the ever hanging Damocles’ sword. Abolishing death penalty would add value to these jail sentences. Today, prisoners languish in jails whilst the trails go on interminably. These undeclared and non-convicted prison sentences would be severely criticised in future thereby paving way for speedy trials. We may well be inching towards a true justice system.

But what about these three people? The arguments for or against death penalty aside, do these people deserve clemency? Their involvement in the conspiracy is beyond any argument today. Whether they were involved in ‘just’ buying battery or ‘just’ arranging car hire or whatever they did, does not matter anymore. Those debates and arguments were made repeatedly and elaborately for more than a decade during when their trial clambered from one court to another. Karthikeyan, who headed the team that investigated the case, remarked that the mercy petition becomes meaningful only if they show remorse or atonement. Unfortunately, there are still people claiming the ‘innocence’ of these three, which would have been laughable were it not for the severity of the topic in discussion. That those three were involved in the conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi is beyond any doubt now. The conspiracy was hatched by LTTE and masterminded by Prabhakaran is also beyond any question as it was proven in the court, acknowledged by Prabhakaran himself and, in a way, quite blatantly evident due to circumstances and the people involved. So the three in question should stop this ‘innocence’ nonsense and show remorse and atone for this heinous act. Even Prabhakaran showed some bit of remorse by terming it as a ‘tragic event,’ and that’s as close to remorse as the ruthless megalomaniac can demonstrate. So what is Vaiko or Nedumaran or Seeman or Santhan or Perarivalan or Murugan’s take on this? Putting all these people in one list is not unintentional.

So what is Vaiko’s take on the death penalty for Afsal Guru or Ajmal Kasab? Why didn’t Vaiko fight for the clemency of Dhanajoy Chatterjee who was hanged in 2004 for raping and killing a school girl? In fact Vaiko and Ramadoss’ parties were members of the coalition government in the centre until 2004 and they could have stopped Chatterjee’s death penalty. Claiming to be pardoned just because the people involved are Tamils is abysmally parochial at best and reckless hypocrisy at worst. Abolition of death penalty is a very important, serious and sensitive subject. It is unfortunate that this is being taken up by a group of which the key members are Ramadoss who came up the political ranks through violent protests, another member, Nedumaran who was a friend and emissary of a notorious bandit and, finally, the last member Vaiko who was an ardent supporter of the most lethal terrorist organisation in the world, known for its most gruesome and merciless murders including, of course, that of Rajiv Gandhi. These three people are the least qualified to use the words ‘mercy’ and ‘clemency’ and ‘justice’ and it’s a tragic irony that, today, they are the sole proprietors of these terms.

This debate today may lead to speedier trials or even abolition of death penalty in India, either of them would be good outcomes. However, the emotional clamour seen today in Tamil Nadu and the qualities of the flag bearers seen in this movement might end up leaving a great dent on reasonable debates, national unity, and of course justice, the very term with which these noises are being drummed up.

Modi - An Analysis

It was heart-warming to see Narendra Modi attending the swearing-in ceremony of Jayalalitha. It was even more comforting to see him interacting freely and openly with left leaders and Chandrababu Naidu. Nobody complained about it and nobody denounced it. I kind of half expected D Raja of CPI to get up and sit at a different seat.

For Modi has become a political pariah in the past few years. Although many secular media have been rooting for his fall, this political isolation originally started by Nitish Kumar when he barred Modi from campaigning in Bihar and BJP unashamedly complied. Then it became easier for others to turn him into an untouchable. If Shanawaz Hussain speaks about the progress of Muslims in Gujarat, Outlook publishes a study of Muslims in Gujarat. If Anna Hazare praises Modi, Teesta Setalvad and Arundhati Roy are up in arms. Are we being offered ‘incorruptible fascist as an alternative to hopelessly corrupt supposed democrats?’ Roy asks.

It’s not the first time she used the word ‘fascist’ to label Modi or BJP, his party. Ramachandra Guha argues that BJP cannot be termed as fascist as it is a very careless use of that term. Then Roy gets emotional and calls Guha a ‘mere cricket statistician’, as if it’s an insult.

So leaving the emotions aside let’s take this argument further. First off, what’s fascism? Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government’. BJP fits the definition except ‘Authoritarian’, which could mean dictatorship, which is what Guha meant, taking the roots directly to Mussolini.

The deeply entrenched democratic institutions of our country make it impossible for anyone to think about authoritarianism. In another 200 years, no prime minister can think of clamping down another emergency. But then, should the definition fit perfectly if someone were to use it? Left often hurls an ‘abuse’ calling people ‘CIA Agents’, again only metaphorically, that they are indeed blind supports of America.  We call people ‘westernised’ but they are nowhere near an actual ‘westerner’.

One of the standard defences offered in favour of Modi is that he is a development-oriented Chief Minister and corporate-friendly. They don’t realise that ‘corporatism’ is one of the ideologies of Italy’s Fascist Party. In fact, Mussolini was credited with a lot of development and economic progress in Italy. Hitler brought Germany back from its bankruptcy caused by Weimar Republic and oversaw one of the greatest industrial and economic expansions Germany had ever seen.

So are fascists anti-development? As history reveals, they are more pro-corporate and pro-development than perhaps even capitalist republicans. In addition to their economic outlook, Nazi party encouraged German women to largely stay at home, look after their husbands and bear children, as many as possible. Obviously since other ‘less-important’ races were going to be extinct soon, they needed as many Aryans as possible. Sometime back, RSS were in a controversy over asking Hindus to not practice family planning so that the Muslim population growth could not overtake Hindus’. And the ideology of the RSS towards women emancipation is widely known. Note that I’m not referring to the famous pub attacker of Mangalore here. They are only fringe concubines trying to be more loyal than the king.

So, consolidating the argument of the above paragraph, the term fascism doesn’t appear quite far from what was preached and practiced in the Hindu extremist circles. Guha’s statement stems from his personal love towards democracy and how well it is entrenched in India. Pandering to fascist thoughts when you’re an autocrat is different from nurturing such thoughts whilst being a democrat.

Modi, being a dyed-in-the-wool swayamsevak, could have exhibited these tendencies in the initial years of his tenure before realising we are not living in a pre-War Germany. When the realisation came, was it before or after the riots is a question. There are other questions, however, being asked by the media. Was Bhat present in the meeting? He might or might not have been. Did Modi ask the police to go slow? He may not have. But did Modi ask the police to go full-on against the rioters?

There’s a subtle difference between endorsing something and not condemning it hard enough. Did he endorse it? No. Did he condemn it in unequivocal terms? No, either. Was he complicit? Was he conterminous?

These analyses become important for Indian democracy, especially for the BJP. If the right-wing party were to return to power, they would have to heed to these dialectics. The Congress have never been in such a shambles since Bofors and still, BJP do not look like they are in a position to cash in on that. They have two problems:

Number one: They don’t have a Prime Ministerial candidate. Despite the despicability of the opposition, unless BJP have a national face, they won’t gain from Congress’ woes. Advani had his chance in the field and could not make it. As of now, Narendra Modi is the only national face they have. How much ever contentious or arguable, his development image has a reach, especially among the middle class. But he is a social pariah. Reason: Gujarat Pogrom.

Number two: BJP need alliances. They could win in 1999 because they had Telugu Desam and TRS in Andhra, ADMK in Tamil Nadu, AGP in Assam. They lost all of them. Reason: Gujarat Pogrom.

Modi may show 15% GDP growth in Gujarat whilst the rest of India totters on at 6-7, but unless he clears the air on the riots, he is not going to make it. The counterarguments such as that Godhra was responsible for the riots or people who write articles like this are pseudo-seculars are not going to wash. With the whole of media gunning for you, and the ‘pseudo-secular’ activists poring over your administration with the finest toothcomb, and the Congress eagerly waiting for your fall, it’s not going to be easy. The net result is if you need alliances and your leader acceptance, you have to stop lamenting and start working.

So what should Modi do? He should talk. After the initial bloopers during the riots – gems such as ‘every action has an equal reaction’ – he has been steadfastly refusing to speak about the riots. He even walked out of an interview with Rajdeep Sardesai and pushed the mike away from another reporter. He should call for a formal press conference and clear the air. If there were any lax on the side of his administration, he should declare that and then openly apologise. Britain is preparing to apologise to Mau Mau victims. The Queen expressed her sympathy in her address to Ireland public for the centuries old conflict and the atrocities of Britain. Back home, Congress’ chances among the Sikh community improved after Sonia Gandhi openly apologised for the 1984 riots.

What could be the consequences of Modi’s apology? The media may go berserk. Regional leaders may seek his resignation. The central government may even dismiss his government. But all these will be temporary and will later turn to his favour. A dismissal would be very risky because it may make him a martyr and enhance his chances both in Gujarat and elsewhere.

And then all the artilleries would fall silent and all guns will be laid down. He will have effectively disarmed the media. They will only have his development to write about. If he follows it up with the swift rehabilitation of the victims and refugees of the riots he will be celebrated. How the corrupt, egotistic, arrogant Jayralalitha of 1996 has had a volte-face and being hailed as incorruptible, effective administrator today, Modi’s fortunes too will change. A sympathy wave, a larger acceptance and change of image will have the alliances flocking to the BJP nest.

Then the BJP can use Adarsh, 2G, CWG, and CBI wanted list goof ups as real weapons and activate the triggers.

And of course, give Arundhati Roy’s nerve-racking pen a rest.

Guha and Nehru

Of the books I read last year, Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi stayed in my mind and left a mark. I especially admired the part how Guha admired Jawaharlal Nehru and his role in building the modern India. From someone who disliked Nehru and attributed all our social ills to him to someone who turned indifferent, I became a complete convert and therefore an ardent admirer of our first Prime Minister. I am fully convinced that if not for the first almost two decades of Nehru’s rule India wouldn’t be what it is today. I mean obviously much worse. I didn’t want to rely only on Guha’s arguments for that conclusion so I read other books on India’s independent struggle and Nehru’s biography. From juicy, nosey and gossipy Indian Summer to the authentic biography by Stanley Wolpert to even Nehru’s own writings. After reading others, especially the British writers, I found Guha’s devotion woefully inadequate.

I intend reading more about Nehru in the coming months. One book I have in mind is Nayanthara Sahgal’s Civilising a Savaged World. It’s about Nehru and not to be confused with similarly titled Guha’s book, Savaging the Civilised which is about Verrier Elwin, a tribal leader.

Musings from the effete rebel

I started this blog with the intention of discussing and sharing topics that, in my opinion, are strategic, philosophical, and not ephemeral and to sum up, esoteric. Whilst reading some books or talking to people, I get into this stream of consciousness thoughts and dialectics that are kindled by the ideas. Often times these are merely questions, queries or musings. Other occasions as lengthy and tedious as James Joyce would permit. 

There may be some like-minded people who may find these pieces interesting and most others may want to stay off. These are not intended as highbrow because there isn’t anything like that. There are only pretentious discourses and I’m not for them. I find several topics curiously engaging because I feel passionately about them. I know a microbiologist who gets exhilarated looking at microscopic pictures of organisms as if she was watching porn. So to use the cliche, to each their own. And this space is my own.

Welcome. And please be quiet.