An Effortless Return to the Indira and Rajiv Gandhi Era
by Swapan Dasgupta
The extent to which life can be cruel on the loser was best illustrated by the hapless Amar Singh imploring a TV anchor, “Don’t laugh at me.” The occasion was the Samajwadi Party’s gratuitous letter to the president of India offering “unconditional” support to the Manmohan Singh government. The triumphant Congress has so far ignored the gesture. With the second Manmohan Singh government looking more like a Congress government (with some extras thrown in for colour and ethnic flavouring), it is likely that the illusion of single-party dominance is going to become the framework of political discourse for the next few years, or at least until there is a crisis that proves unmanageable. This effortless return to the mental parameters of the Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi era may not be a good reflection of ground realities. But resounding post-facto endorsement of the chattering classes for the Ruling Party of India has, unfortunately, never been marked by profundity.
The natural corollary of this winner-takes-all mindset is that after being at the receiving end of some initial mockery and derision, the vanquished will be left to lick their wounds in private, away from the intrusive glare of the media. Both the deflated ministerial aspirants in the Bharatiya Janata Party and the frustrated puppeteers in the Communist Party of India (Marxist) know that they have a lot of listening and explaining to do. But they also know that some perfunctory show of contrition will suffice to defray the immediate frustrations of the foot soldiers. Apparatchiks, particularly those who exist in a cloistered environment of the party offices, know that they can put off exercising hard options by falling back on the need to take a considered decision. Time and events being great healers, a rigorous post-mortem can be shelved indefinitely if the immediate pressure to take remedial action can be averted.
It is paradoxical that despite functioning in a democratic environment, the internal regime of India’s political parties is grounded in committee-room secrecy. This wasn’t always so. Till the late-1960s, the Congress, for example, had a reasonable degree of inner-party democracy. Elections to the All India Congress Committees and their state counterparts were held regularly, and were often fiercely contested. The annual AICC sessions were often marked by speeches that were robustly critical of the government’s policies and the party leadership. Additionally, there were ginger groups such as the Congress Socialist Forum, which played a role in mobilizing the ‘progressive’ wing of the party. Open, rumbustious discussion was also a hallmark of the socialists. Ram Manohar Lohia fought bitter inner-party battles with the likes of Ashoka Mehta, Chandra Shekhar, N.G. Goray and Nath Pai. His flamboyant followers, such as George Fernandes, Raj Narain and Madhu Limaye, were great ones for exercising the ‘change or split’ option.
Communism in India was nominally wedded to the Leninist tradition of party organization that ensured a paramount role of the central committee and politburo — the proverbial vanguard of the vanguard. Yet, and particularly after P.C. Joshi attracted a cream of intellectuals into the party in the mid-1940s, the undivided CPI boasted a vibrant culture of political debate and discussion. The subjects of concern — the class composition of the Indian State and the relevance of ‘bourgeois democracy’ were two all-time favourites — may have been abstruse. There was also an exaggerated reliance on what Lenin ‘himself’ or Mao Zedong may or may not have prescribed, and cravenness before discreet instructions from Moscow. However, despite these constraints, the political ‘line’ was thoroughly dissected at different levels and transmitted both upwards and downwards. The communists moved seamlessly from ‘correctness to correctness’, having internalized the party line with both passion and conviction.
The tradition of political openness received a grave setback after the Congress split of 1969 and the Emergency. The emergence of an all-powerful leader and the dynastic principle meant that decision-making was abrogated to the one and only leader. This may explain the steady stream of regional leaders and social constituencies that felt stifled and broke away from the Congress, never to return. In the 1990s, the Congress suffered three grievous electoral defeats and a complete washout in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal — states that accounted for more than 160 Lok Sabha seats. Yet, apart from one brain-storming session in Panchmarhi, the party did nothing to address the grave problem of political erosion. The Congress recovery in 2004, and the awesome advance in 2009, owed little to any well-considered plan of rejuvenation. It was an outcome of happy circumstances.
Rahul Gandhi has proclaimed his intention of democratizing the Congress, beginning with the Youth Congress. The intention is noble, and suggests that the heir apparent may have cottoned on to the root cause of the decline of political culture — a problem he has tried to circumvent by encouraging the growth of political families. However, the extent to which the Congress sheds sycophancy and reverts to its original moorings will depend on the calibre of its top leadership. It is one thing to promote inner-party democracy in the good times. But bad times often prompt a regression.
Jawaharlal Nehru loved debate because he possessed an intellectual rigour that his successors lacked. Nehru could coexist with the likes of P.D. Tandon and Pandit Sampurnanand because he believed they could be defeated in debate. Indira Gandhi couldn’t countenance the likes of Morarji Desai, K. Kamaraj and Atulya Ghose in the same party because her leadership style was based on manipulation and instruction. She was temperamentally suspicious of leaders with independent standing.
Curiously, it is the BJP which faces a problem not dissimilar to that of the Congress. If the Nehru-Gandhi family acts as an adhesive in the Congress, it is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that plays pope in the BJP. The BJP’s problems have multiplied on two counts. First, the RSS has lost its moral authority and social influence, thanks to its unwillingness to face contemporary realities. Secondly, success in electoral politics has triggered a breakdown of ideological certitudes and added to the charms of aggregative politics. The RSS has tried to hold things together by issuing whimsical three-line whips on organizational and political matters. Diktat has replaced informed choice, and this enforced regimentation has, in turn, stymied the party’s renewal.
After Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, the party’s presidents have lacked the depth to pursue creative politics. Since the defeat in 2004, the BJP has more or less shed all pretence of inner-party debate, not least because the RSS minders and their chosen nominees have lacked the calibre and self-assurance to handle challenges. After the May 16 defeat, there is a strong possibility that a beleaguered RSS may insist on eschewing all debate altogether and settling for greater control. If that happens, the future of the BJP may be bleak.
Restoring the credibility of politics and the political class is a national challenge. As democracy evolves and strikes deep roots, more and more people would want a say in how parties behave and who they project. The Primary was once an American quirk, but it has now become crucial to the British system as well. In India, people are offered choices on election day, but have no say in determining the shortlist. No wonder stories of the sale of party tickets abound. To strengthen the quality of democracy and the efficacy of political parties, a system of constant interaction involving the top and the bottom is imperative. David Cameron’s reinvention of the British Conservative Party suggests a possible way. It is time the political culture incorporated the argumentative Indian.
(This article was first published in The Telegraph on May 29, 2009.)
BJP must choose between Ideology and Drift
Kanchan Gupta writes:
The BJP must decide its ideological direction/orientation, reframe ideology within the matrix of today’s India, and stand by it. Or it must boldly stand up and say, “Ours is an ideology neutral party. We shall sway with the wave.”
The consequences of the former course of action would be three-fold:
- Those allergic to ideological rigour will make an exit. This could debilitate the party in the short and medium term, but strengthen it in the long term.
- The BJP’s integrity quotient will increase.
- The drift which began in 1998 will be arrested.
The consequences of abandoning ideology would also be three-fold:
- Those who lack morals and scruples shall take over the party.
- The BJP will, in due course, become a pale shadow of its past and jostle for space with the RJD and SP.
- The drift will gather speed; integrity quotient (at an all time low) will plummet.
What do you think?
Chandan Mitra Interview
Rediff has an interview with Chandan Mitra, Editor of The Pioneer, and a member of the Rajya Sabha and BJP supporter. Excerpt:
What were the factors that worked against the BJP in Election 2009?
There was a strong urban disconnect. We couldn’t reach out to the urban middle class, especially the younger voters. In 2004 too, we had lost in Mumbai, Delhi and other major cities. This time, even as the election was in progress, we were getting signals that the younger voter was not enthused.
The Congress was able to put up a much younger, more forward looking face.
Mind you, 40 per cent of India is urbanised and 60 per cent of the voters are below the age of 35. Obviously, if you have not been able to connect with the youth and the urban population, you have a very serious problem.
The second is a historical problem and I’m afraid we didn’t do enough to handle it. The BJP has not been able to build its base in certain big states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala. Together, these states account for nearly 150 seats. So BJP has to win, or come close to winning, from just about 400 seats, whereas the Congress has a much wider spread.
How long can you, on the basis of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, keep hoping to come back to power? After some time, a degree of anti-incumbency is bound to set in. In-fighting happens.
Nevertheless, the fact that we have won 120 seats against 138 last time showed there has not been any great erosion in the BJP’s base. What we needed to do was go forward. In that we failed completely.
Why Rahul Charmed Voters
by Swapan Dasgupta
In December 1984, Rajiv Gandhi secured by far the most categorical endorsement from the Indian voter. The landslide victory was described by many as the ‘sympathy wave’ that arose from Indira Gandhi’s assassination. However, chroniclers also noted that the grief over Indira’s death was accompanied by an expectation of change. Rajiv, it was clear even during the campaign, was different from the run-of-the-mill khadi-wearing Congress leader. His idiom was markedly different, and even anti-political in many respects. As Arun Singh, his close associate with whom he fell out subsequently, put it evocatively, Rajiv symbolised the coming of age of the “Beatles generation”.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Some 25 years after Rajiv’s famous victory, it is tempting to see parallels with the just concluded Lok Sabha poll. True, the mandate for the Congress is nowhere as categorical and the party’s candidate for the top job is far removed from all manifestations of youthfulness. Yet, it is undeniable that the crucial swing votes which enabled the Congress to win more than 200 seats on its own came from two sections that are in the frontline of change and modernity: The middle classes and the youth. The inference is that, as in 1984, the Congress received an endorsement both for the present and for the future.
Disaggregated surveys will reveal the magnitude of ‘modern’ India’s support for Congress but the instant conclusion is that Rahul Gandhi helped tilt the balance in favour of the incumbent. His energy and willingness to take risks complemented the note of reassurance provided by Manmohan Singh. These considerations will weigh heavily on the Congress when it charts its future course.
To reduce the appeal of Rajiv in his prime and Rahul in this election to merely a function of age would be unduly simplistic. The Congress didn’t field that many ‘young’ candidates this election. Most of its candidates were tried and tested political functionaries-in fact often the very ones who received a drubbing in the 1990s. In Delhi, where the party registered its most categorical victory, only two of its seven candidates corresponded to the so-called new look and both had tasted their first parliamentary victory in 2004. In Uttar Pradesh, where the party recorded a spectacular advance, its victorious candidates were mostly old political hands. There were about five exceptions.
This is not to suggest that the impact of Rahul in this election has been exaggerated. Rahul, it would seem, bolstered one of the main attributes of the Prime Minister: He enhanced the decency quotient of the Congress.
The association of decency with the Congress may seem quite galling for a generation that still remembers the Emergency, the high-handedness of Sanjay Gandhi, the brazen cover-up that was attempted during the Bofors controversy and the bribery of MPs that occurred during Narasimha Rao’s regime. To this may be added the wheeling-dealing that took place during the trust vote last July.
Why were these misdeeds of the Congress overlooked in the 2009 poll? One of the obvious answers is the moral equivalence drawn between the Congress and BJP. The BJP, which was once noted for its disciplined dedication, was perceived to be as much a problem as the old guard of the Congress. The Congress’ integrity quotient didn’t rise; the BJP’s fell dramatically in the past decade.
If there was a dismal but level playing field between the Congress and the BJP on the integrity front, the Congress stole a march over its rival on the decency front. Manmohan came across as upright but politically somewhat innocent, and Rahul’s appeal was his energy and earnestness. This doesn’t imply that LK Advani was viewed as being disreputable. Advani commanded respect but it was a veneration that was befitting the family patriarch. The BJP’s “majboot neta” campaign would have been spot on if voters saw the election as a presidential contest involving Manmohan and Advani. Unfortunately for the BJP, the people not only voted for their today but also their tomorrow. On the latter count, the BJP didn’t have a message. The idea of a Resurgent India which the BJP successfully sold in the 1990s was lost in transmission this century.
This disconnect owes quite substantially to the party’s low decency quotient. The fact is that there is something in the overall ethos of the BJP which argues against a new common sense that has developed in India. The BJP has not fought any election on the basis of assertive Hindu nationalism since 1996. Its best victories were won on the strength of bread-and-butter issues of stability, development and anti-incumbency. Gujarat 2002 was the only exception. Despite this, the party has come to be associated with menacing communalism of the Ram Sena and Kandhamal varieties and tasteless hate speeches. Against this, Rahul’s innocent earnestness and desire to “do good to people” has been preferred. The BJP has been seen to be caricatured politicians cast in the 1990s mould; Rahul and Manmohan are viewed as non-politicians and, therefore, more decent.
But the Congress isn’t the only beneficiary of being more responsive to the new common sense. In Orissa, Naveen Patnaik has redefined the calculus of electoral politics on the strength of his personality. After a decade in power, Patnaik’s command over the vernacular remains halting and his Government’s achievements are modest compared to, say, Gujarat. But Patnaik exudes sincerity, epitomises personal integrity and, despite his ruthless streak, doesn’t correspond to people’s mental image of the ugly politician. He personifies the blend of sincerity, uprightness and humility that voters have found irresistible.
These are also the qualities the people upheld in 1984 and have reaffirmed once again in 2009. With Rajiv, the euphoria proved woefully short-lived and triggered the Mandir-Mandal backlash. If the Manmohan-Rahul experiment falters, the reactions could well be equally spirited.
(This article was first published in The Pioneer on May 24, 2009.)
Triumph of the Moderate
by Arun Jaitley
The BJP’s tally in the Lok Sabha elections is below expectations. We had entered the 14th Lok Sabha with 138 MPs and we hoped to win 160 seats this time — an increase of 22 seats. Ironically, our tally was exactly 22 down to 116 seats. A thorough analysis of the 2009 verdict will take time but some messages the electorate wanted to deliver are absolutely clear.
The BJP contested the elections on predominantly three themes: the inability of the UPA government to take concrete and decisive steps in the management of the economy; the need to strengthen national security; and the importance of a strong and decisive leadership. All the three themes were directly linked to governance.
The results have demonstrated that there was a surge in favour of the Congress across the country. Even Congress supporters would have conceded that its past five years were wasted in indecision. The government didn’t live up to popular expectation in announcing decisive measures to fight the economic slowdown nor did it adopt measures to strengthen India’s security. Despite these glaring failures the Congress secured more votes and seats.
There was a larger central issue in the elections. Not only did we in the BJP fail to read it, even the Congress did not foresee it. This was the desire of the Indian voter to ensure politically stable government free from obstructions and roadblocks. The experience of the past five years had strengthened the resolve of the Indian voter to elect a government which is more decisive and is not prevented from acting merely because supporting allies are a hurdle in the decision-making process.
In the past five years, the Left obstructed economic decision-making. The leaders of the government not only appeased the Left but were paralysed into inaction. After withdrawing its support from the UPA, the Left was replaced by the Samajwadi Party. The Samajwadi Party’s agenda was more than merely political. Its quid pro quo for support involved the receipt of generosity from the CBI for the party’s leader.
The Left now attempted a new experiment. It led a combination of parties ranging from the BSP, TDP and AIADMK whose aim was to win over 100 seats and on that basis pressure the Congress into supporting a Third Front from within or outside. With the country being pushed into this nightmare, the UPA and the NDA attempted to increase their seats. But the voter wanted to favour one side decisively to ward off the Third Front threat.
The architects of obstruction were badly punished and routed. The BSP got less than half the seats it expected. The Left was routed in the states of West Bengal and Kerala to its lowest tally in recent memory. The TDP and AIADMK were expected to fare much better but got only a small fraction of what they expected. The major gains of the UPA came from the states where the Third Front was hoping to do well. But the ripples of the anti-Third Front mood were also felt in the NDA-dominated states. We lost some seats in a number of states. The first message of the electorate was thus clear: they wanted a stable government free from any form of political obstruction.
Which were the states where the non-Congress parties were able to resist this surge of the Congress? These were essentially those states where the governance record of the non-Congress parties had been good. The non-Congress parties won an overwhelming majority of seats in Orissa, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka. In the face of this Congress surge, they still managed to win a majority of the seats in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. The second message of the electorate was thus equally clear: it wanted good governance. Even in the face of the Congress surge, it spared the opposition in states in which the chief ministers had governed well.
Additionally, there are a large number of regional/ local factors which may have influenced the electorate in several states. The in-fighting within the Left in Kerala, the sympathy for the Sri Lanka Tamil cause in Tamil Nadu, the division of non-Congress votes in Andhra Pradesh, the MNS effect which helped the Congress in Maharashtra and the inability of the BJP to field more young candidates could be several other factors.
Why did the benefits of political stability accrue to the Congress and not the BJP? A possible reasoning could be that the Congress had a larger pan-India presence. The Congress was a victim of obstructions caused by the Left, the Samajwadi Party. The prime minister’s own image created a sense of sympathy, that a man who wanted to deliver was being obstructed from proceeding further.
But there are other important lessons the political class can gleam from the results. Sober governance helps, shrillness does not. Moderation and understatement are virtues.
India is changing, the profile of the Indian voter is changing. Both the Indian politician and the political parties must also change. The fact that most criminal candidates lost is itself an indication that the electorate is looking for cleaner politicians. Politics directs the life of a nation. It influences decision-making. The individuals who man it must have a tall and mature stature. The ethical criterion cannot be disregarded any more. While aligning with any coalition, political parties will have to watch that the baggage of the
alliance partners does not get transferred to them. I am sure the TDP and AIADMK would introspect whether being a part of an over-ambitious but a disruptionist alliance cost them seats in Parliament.
I also have a few other preliminary thoughts. Are we moving towards a greater bipolar politics? The Third and the Fourth Fronts have temporarily evaporated after May 16. Secondly, the opposition space belongs predominantly to the BJP/ NDA.
India is passing through a serious crisis; the economic concern is one of them. There is no improvement in the internal security scenario. There is trouble ensuing in several of our neighbouring countries which concerns us. The emergence of the Taliban in Pakistan is an area of concern. Our primary objective as a responsible nationalist party is to strengthen India. We will support the government where national interests are at stake. We in the BJP will oppose the government when we find it wanting. We have also seen the emergence of political arrogance in the party in power. The manner in which the allies have been snubbed is not merely a reaction to the erstwhile allies who irritated the government; even friendly allies are being cut to size. Arrogance in politics is always the first but a sure indicator of a future decline.
Finally, many feel that Verdict 2009 gives legitimacy to India as a dynastic democracy. A cursory look at a cross-section of our young MPs suggests that most of them are inheritors of a legacy, and not those whose merit has impressed the voters. The real strength of Indian democracy will only be realised when merit prevails over family names. India must grow as a democracy and not as a state with feudal moorings.
(The writer is a BJP MP and general secretary. This article was first published in the Indian Express on May 27, 2009.)
Why Stability won over Change
by Sudheendra Kulkarni
May 16 has reinforced my two inter-related beliefs about the behaviour of the Indian voter. First, there is nothing fortuitous about the outcome of an election in a democracy where elections are held in a free and fair manner. And Indian democracy, with all its obvious drawbacks, has a proud tradition of conducting elections in a largely free and fair manner. In other words, no party or alliance has ever won by a stroke of luck. There has always been a compelling inner logic to its victory, and this is also true about the Congress party’s victory in the polls to the 15th Lok Sabha.
My second belief is that there is something, which can most appropriately be called the ‘National Mind’, at work through which the nationally unifying logic operates. The concept of a group mind or a collective mind is one of the most complex subjects of study in mass psychology and organisational behaviour. Nation being a natural organising framework of human collectivities, the more so in a continuously living civilisational entity like India, this living being has a mind of its own which knows what is good for it under a given circumstance. It surveys the internal political situation, assesses the external scenario, weighs different considerations and arrives at a sound and rational judgment. Thus, transcending all the caste, communal and regional considerations that were being discussed threadbare in the run-up to the elections, the National Mind summoned a unifying rationale and made it assert itself in the final verdict of the electorate.
According to me, the National Mind was weighing between two options in the just-concluded elections: change and stability. Change was the need of the hour since there was nothing exceptional about the performance of the Congress-led UPA government between 2004 and 2009. Barring a few welcome initiatives like the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the UPA government’s track record was average on some counts and dismal on most others. Judged solely on the basis of its performance, the government deserved to go. However, the voters rarely oust a government on the criterion of performance alone. They also look for a viable and stable alternative.
In some of the campaign-time television debates that I participated in, I had said that more than political parties and commentators, it is the people of India who have the highest stake in political stability at the Centre. They know instinctively, guided by historical memory, that political instability in New Delhi is hurtful to the nation and to themselves in their daily lives. In their eyes, the need for a stable government had become greater on account of the economic crisis, created partly by external factors, and the turmoil in India’s neighbourhood, especially in Pakistan. An unstable coalition government, whose attention would get diverted to managing its own internal squabbles and whose energies would be wasted in ensuring its own survival, would not, in the estimation of the electorate, meet the challenges before the nation.
The National Mind would have been the happiest if there was a strong possibility for a positive change with reliable stability. This is where the BJP and the alliance it led failed to meet the people’s expectations. In four big states—Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and West Bengal, which together account for 143 Lok Sabha seats-the BJP’s own strength was near-zero. Moreover, it had no allies in these states in 2009, and such allies as it had in the six-year NDA rule (1998-2004) had deserted it for fear of losing Muslim votes. It did nothing in the past five years to allay this fear. Furthermore, when the Biju Janata Dal parted ways with the BJP in March this year, the latter’s ability to lead a stable coalition at the Centre got seriously dented. It thus became obvious to the people that any future BJP-led coalition in New Delhi would be a hotchpotch arrangement, critically dependent for its survival on undependable non-Congress non-Left parties.
The BJP could have still performed much better on its own and won enough seats to reflect the people’s desire for change of government. But the internal fissures in this once disciplined and united party were so glaring, both at the central and state levels, that far from attracting new supporters, it disillusioned a significant section of its own committed voters. In contrast, even those who abhor the dynastic rule and the culture of sycophancy in the Congress could see that the party scored over the BJP in terms of unity of command. With the media highlighting the lack of cohesion within the BJP, the many positive aspects of its governance and development agenda took the backseat. Hence, the BJP failed to capture the imagination of the people either as an agent of change or as a guarantor of stability. The BJP’s failure was the Congress’s gain. Since the desired change seemed impossible, the National Mind rooted for stability. It chose the Congress as a default option, giving it enough parliamentary strength to ensure a stable government.
Difficult days are ahead for the BJP. It faces problems that are multi-dimensional. Its second consecutive defeat in parliamentary elections calls for honest and mercilessly self-critical introspection on issues relating to ideology, organisational health of the party, leadership at various levels, management of alliances, and much more. It must seek a fresh endorsement from the National Mind, which is possible if the BJP, instead of trying to take short-cuts to revival, reforms itself thoroughly as a party with an inspiring and inclusive transformational agenda. The BJP has come out successfully from many an agni-pareeksha in the past. It will certainly do so again.
(This article was first published in the Indian Express on May 24, 2009.)
The Strength of Bharat - the Base of India’s Pyramid
by Sudipto Das
The 2009 Lok Sabha elections have brought out many things in the light. Among many others it has also converted a hypothesis into law - If you have to survive you can’t be niche any longer - you’ve to be just very common. The power is no longer at the top of the pyramid - but at its base.
When I started my career in semiconductors in mid nineties we used to strive to work in the most advanced and niche areas for creating chips which would go into some of the fanciest electronic gadgets. For obvious reasons US used to be the most desirable place to work because that was the centre of all research and development.
Since then most companies producing electronic products have invested heavily in technology to produce things which are no doubt fancy and hi-tech, but not always useful. But then people had money and could afford buying umpteen numbers of useless things. Even till recently people used to change mobile phones once in every few months. It’s not that they all really needed new phones so frequently. But they can’t be blamed. The electronics industry used to create such hype around the useless gizmos that the innocent consumers would think that their lives would be really useless if they didn’t have one of those useless things.
This vicious circle of demand and supply of things, that can’t be ever called value-for-money products and in most cases too useless, stayed for almost fifteen years when suddenly no one had any money to buy them anymore. People moved away from luxuries of replacing phones every few months to cost effective and value-for-money products.
For the first time people understood the futility of seeing a movie in the small screen of a phone. Not only such an act is unergonomic and poses serious threats to health but also the experience is a debacle compared to even watching the cheapest television.
That’s when the entire electronic industry faced the biggest ever slow-down.
The story is same for most other industries. When the going was easy people never thought of investing in useful value for money things. Most of the products were always out of reach of the Aam Aadmi and were targeted only for the niche and rich people - the ones that constitute the pinnacle of the pyramid. When the going became tough since last year the only available consumer market was the base of the pyramid - which was deprived of useful things all these years. Then suddenly the focus shifted from niche to simple and common things. Intel is thinking of $100 notebooks with wireless broadband, sales of mobiles are restricted only to the low end categories, FMCG companies are coming up with even smaller sachets of their products primarily for rural markets - the whole industry is euphoric about the prospects of Bharat rather than India.
The age of niche products seems to have come to a temporary halt.
No longer I’m proud of working on the latest technologies to produce hi-tech gizmos for the sale in upmarket malls in Europe or US - because they are no longer in demand there. Rather I should work on simple things that can be sold in a Reliance Outlet in India’s hinterland.
The importance of Bharat is clearly seen in the outcome of recent elections. Even though faulty at many places, still the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme of the UPA government did manage to give the 700 million strong rural Bharat some amount of buying capacity. When the economy went into a whirlwind downfall throughout the world one of the very few markets with purchasing power was indeed India’s Bharat. Perhaps that’s the only reason why our GDP growth didn’t turn negative. The rural economy kept the wheels of India’s economy moving. When my purchasing power was shrinking with every month Bharat was buying 15 million mobile phones every month.
The impact of the recent slowdown was not felt in a significant way in Bharat. That’s surely one of the main reasons why the UPA didn’t feel the heat of anti incumbency. None of the poll predictions could assess the strength of Bharat - the base of India’s pyramid - in such a strong way. Not only is the Bharat driving the economy of our country, but also has proved to be a decisive element in India’s democracy.
There’s no doubt that BJP failed to tap the potential of Bharat. The issue of security or inflation or economic breakdown didn’t have much relevance to Bharat. It was only the India that was bothered with all those!!
It’s the writing in the wall - take care of Bharat…. India is Bharat.
Sudipto blogs at http://sudiptounplugged.blogspot.com/
BJP May Have Lost the Battle but Certainly Not the War
by Sushil Harlalka
Let this message sink deep down in the cadres of the party. It is very difficult to be brave and it is easy to submit. Let the cadres choose.I am sure they will not disappoint.
Now let us talk about the dreaded results very briefly. In my opinion, the very broad message from the results are as under:-
1. The electorate does not want bickering and negative remarks. Talk of what you have to offer in convincing manner and leave it at that;
2. The youth are the future. Involve more young people, who can think like the young—-their aspirations,their expectations and then let the young do the talking;
3. Allies`are like Albatrosses. They are not reliable and dependable, at least not all of them. They sometimes do more damage than they actually help. It would be better to have confidence in ourselves & do away with them barring a few who are not one man parties;
4. Why is there no anti incumbency in States like Bihar Delhi, Gujarat, etc. The message is loud and clear. Do work and you don’t need to say anything else. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. I think this should be our mantra.This should be our entire concentration.
I would like to elaborate and emphasise only on this point. DO WORK IN YOUR AREAS AND YOU ARE BOUND TO GET THE FRUITS.Your work will itself do the needful when you want it to. The electorate can see and will not forget what is seen by them. At the end of the day, when it really comes down to the nitty gritty, what the voter is ultimately going to see is what has he/she got or will get by his/her choice. And if you have been visible all the time– at his time of need– there will be no need to say anything else. No need`to spend monies on costly ads, costly campaignings, costly propaganda. No need of mud slinging and slandering. All this may sound a bit too idealistic. But if you really think about it, our answer is right in there;
5. Muslims are a strength which can no more be antagonised at the same time not wooed either. The right approach to them is very essential. This needs very delicate and deft handling and a highly skilled and chisseled almost clinical ‘operation’.If a detailed study is done of the voting pattern it will amply show that Muslims are no more a minority and even less Voters who can be neglected.
Ooops! What did this Country Exactly Vote For?
by Sharrayu Aroskar
While apparently majority of the nation celebrates the coming of a stable government at the center, a sizeable fraction is also disappointed with the results. Though it is always true that the voting population is the one that selects the government, we have seen an unexpected wipe out of the BJP from larger states in India. The election this time was fought on grounds of good governance, development and security by the BJP. There was a new hope and “Hindutva” was tried to be placed in the right perspective of “su-rajya” and equality. In spite this and many more efforts, there was a short fall at all levels. From top brass of the party to an average BJP supporter, all of us have something to learn from this. Keeping the discussion in retrospect aside, it’s really important to understand what the majority of the population that went to the ballot box really voted for or for that matter did they understand what and whom they have voted for?
No doubt that people have understood the importance of getting a stable government at the center and have trusted the capability of the Congress to do so. The smaller regional parties have been largely shown a red card in national politics.
People have also accepted dynasty politics over meritorious selection. This election has proved that Congress as a party belongs largely to the Gandhi’s and there is very little that can be achieved without a Gandhi family in high office.
Sonia Gandhi’s pro-poor and social tending policies and declaration of them at the right time has as an answer to the Indian population’s short memory proved to be a boon. People saw Congress as an “aam aadmi” savior once again. People have chosen to see the political leader taking trips to the poor, spending nights in a hut whether or not even a city like Mumbai is facing power outages and the economy is making even a middle class lifestyle difficult to sustain.
People have given a loud and clear “OK” to a foreign origin leadership over five decades of committed service to the nation.
People have given in to advertising and media hype about the Congress.
People have ignored the Congressionalisation of the independent positions and organizations in this country. Right from the Indian President to Navin Chawla of the election commission all are pro-Congress entities. CBI’s misuse to either cool or heat up cases against Mayawati, declaration of Jagdish Tytler’s clean chit by the C.B.I just before the elections or for that matter nullifying the red corner notice against Quatarochi right during election campaigns has been ignored by the people over their daily woes of water, food shelter and a respectable living.
People have accepted building of more IIT’s without right infrastructure, people have accepted the reservation in premier institutions and people have accepted to ignore the woes of the defence personal. People have accepted the caste based reservation policies and welcomed the inauguration of religion based policies for the Muslims in the Congress manifesto. People have accepted that Muslims are the only minority in India that need special treatment and rest of the country can fall under a single umbrella.
People have accepted the vote bank politics over visionary agenda.
People have accepted that terrorism is not the responsibility of the running government. People have believed that “Kandahar” was a mistake but have accepted innumerable terror attacks on this land during the Congress reign. People have allowed Congress to sensationalize Godhra and Kandahar to cover the inefficiencies of the running government.
People have accepted that elections can be won without a strong agenda and analysis. People have proved that elections can be won if things spoken in speeches are things that they like to hear.
People have accepted the Congress politics to stay in power with criminals like Shibu Soren and ideologically disparate partners like LEFT.
Last but not the least, people have accepted their state as it is and have lost hope.
This is according me a verdict of confused Indian citizens who still think that BJP and Ram Sene are the same. Citizens who do not understand the meaning of “Hindutva” and citizens who neither could trust Congress enough but had no option as they could not embrace BJP and they didn’t exactly understand what the party stood for.
Will future change ? This is something we all need to see. Congress has gotten an opportunity for an image lift and has given BJP enough pointers as a feedback to do so during the election campaign. It is hard to believe that people largely ignored the fallacies of the last UPA government or did they not feel them? Or may be an alternative option to the Congress never reached that deep. Something we all need to retrospect over.
[The author is working with a well known Sales & Marketing strategic consulting firm in Pune. She has an under-grad in Computer Science from Mumbai University and Masters from Texas A&M University, USA]
Humble India Prefers Humble people
by Sudipto Das
Since last week there has been several analysis of the disappointing performance of BJP in 2009 election. Most analyses do harp on a few common points like (1) the excessive use in BJP campaigns of the strong vs. weak PM issue which seemed to have reached the level of personal attacks on a person who is perceived as Mr Good by ‘Aam Aadmi’ (2) lack of youth power which was exploited very rightfully by Congress through Rahul & Priyanka Gandhi (3) total failure in creating an all inclusive and the easily-understood so called ’secular’ image among all sections (4) total failure in retaining the educated middle class people who were instrumental in bringing BJP at the helm of power a decade back (5) total failure to utilize the media in its favour (6) the negativity of the entire episode of Varun Gandhi’s speech and the recent cultural policing by some right wing elements perceived to be affiliated to BJP and (7) the internal feud within BJP.
There should be several other reasons off course. But no one is speaking of one aspect which I feel played a major role in the declining vote share of BJP.
India and Indian culture has a lot of respect and regard for humility. Perhaps one of the most distinguishing and differentiating factors that has become identification for Indians since ages is humility. Indians have been always seen as very modest people. Aggression was never a part of the character for most Indians.
History has more regards for a humble and benign Asoka than anyone else. The next personality who comes close to the reputation and stature of Asoka’s is perhaps Akbar, again a much more benign and humble personality than most other rulers in recent times. Gandhi’s more than a life image and popularity is also perhaps due to the fact that he was seen more as a benign seer than an aggressive politician. It’s not that Tagore was a seer in reality, but the image that remained in most of the Indians’ mind is that of a bearded sage that suits the persona of a Gurudev. People tend not to see at all the aggressive side of Tagore.
With the exception of perhaps Guru Govind Singh, most of the personalities who have attained a more than life stature in India in all ages starting from Buddha till Gandhi have been - or at least perceived to be - devoid of any aggression. That’s not just a coincidence. I feel that’s a part of our culture and we’ve to respect that.
The very fact that the entire campaigning of BJP was based on the idea of a strong leader against a ‘weak’ Manmohan Singh didn’t go well with the Indians who always prefer soft and humble people. Pointing out blatantly over and over that Manmohan Singh is weak did make the Indians think about the point. At one side they have a soft spoken person who never showed aggression in any form and on the other side there’s someone strong and aggressive. I think the Indians did exactly what they have been doing for ever - prefer a soft person. It’s a common perception that soft people are also very humble. Aggression is always associated with adamance and lack of humility. That’s why they felt very comfortable with Manmohan Singh.
Not only did Advani and Modi’s image speak of aggression, but in general the BJP leaders are perceived to be less polite when they speak. This was very apparent in many of the debates in media. Might be they were always asked uncomfortable questions by a biased media, still their body language and the message couldn’t be seen as very humble or polite. Compared to that Rahul Gandhi’s master strokes of humility, or at least the publicised or orchestrated forms of humility, did gel very well with the culture of India. It’s interesting to see that even the youth of India prefers humility. It’s another story that the so called humility that has impressed the Indians can also be totally a fake.
BJP should take this lesson very seriously. It can be argued that in nineties the rise of BJP was also based on an aggressive Hindutva agenda. But that was more of a cultural nationalism rather than just aggression. Also at the centre was the benign Atal Behari Vajpayee. This time neither is any nationalism nor a benign face. So it’s time to go back to the drawing board to chalk out the plans for creating a soft and humble image of BJP.
I think that’s how the corporate world also works. An aggressive person may rise to the top, but a popular manager is he who is soft and humble. It’s true that at times you do need a strong and decisive person with lot of aggression, but then it’s very unlikely that he or she would be popular.
Democracy might not guarantee the best - but then that’s the way it is. A party or a leader has to be popular and if that requires taking a particular stand, that’s what any they should do to get to power.
Once in power there are many ways to be aggressive, but off course not in front of camera!!
Sudipto blogs at http://sudiptounplugged.blogspot.com/