Decidere Mr. Naidu, Decidere!

Naidu thought he was being clever by using the word “immobilismo” to describe the situation in Seemandhra. There is very little he can be clever about on this subject, and hence this recourse to Italian may be his only option. But really, if he does want to speak Italian, maybe he should learn the meaning of the word “Decidere” – decide, in plain English! Decidere about where he stands on Telengana.

For the media is saying that Naidu is not sure whether he supports or opposes the formation of Telengana. On the one hand we have a Digvijaya Singh claiming that Naidu had given a written letter supporting Telengana. Can Naidu please “chiarere” (clarify) if this is factually “corregerre” (correct)? Equally, all media outlets are saying that Naidu is sitting “sulla recinzione” (on the fence) on this subject. The TOI writes today “He remained non-committal on Telangana saying he couldn’t choose from among three of his children”. So what’s the real story here? Is there a conflict between his personal views and his party’s? We do know that Naidu loves Hyderabad and rightfully claims credit for having made the city into an IT firepower. Is it this love for Hyderabad (in addition to the thousands of crores his family and friends have invested in the city) that is making him now hint that he supports a united AP?

Also, can Naidu please decidere whether he has discussed his “situazione” (predicament) with the BJP and Narendra Modi? Because it appears, at least for now, that the BJP is sticking to its declared support for Telengana (we cannot be sure when the party does a “salto mortale” (somersault), as it did with its stand on overturning the SC verdict on convicted MPs/MLAs). If Naidu plans to support the BJP, it looks specious that he hasn’t had a conversation with Modi when he famously shared the dias with him recently. Also, can we please know whether Naidu has invited Modi to sit in for a few minutes as he “astenersi cibo” (abstains food…..damn, cant find the exact word for fast in Italian!). Will Modi come if he is invited…..he seems to be going everywhere these days, especially the bigger towns where TV cameras are available aplenty!

Because really, it looks like Naidu is playing “raggiungere” (catch up) with Jagan. Even Jagan has reportedly gone back on his party’s support to the Telengana cause, but then that young leader has so much more charisma than Naidu. Why, Jagan has had the guts to undertake his fast in Hyderabad, the epicenter of the Telengana struggle, where there is massive support for the breakaway state. Naidu, in contrast, has chosen to run away to Delhi – maybe learning from Modi that the density of TV cameras is the highest in that city!

Naidu can fast in Delhi, but he is not getting any good press. The TOI again reports that “Naidu stressed that bifurcation of the state needed discussion and debate and inclusion of all stakeholders. But he refused to say which side of the divide he stood”. He must know the Center has done everything possible to discuss and debate. In the all-party meeting held on 1^st August, the subject of Telengana was discussed. Naidu’s friendly partner the BJP, in fact issued this statement “BJP demands that the government should bring a bill to create Telangana state in this session of Parliament itself. We will fully support the bill and ensure its passage so that the very old demand of Telananga is fulfilled," (source: Indian Express). In fact, Digvijaya Singh was referring to this very all-party meet when he claimed that all parties except the CPM supported the division of AP.

The reality is that Naidu is squeezed between the TRS-Congress combo in Telengana and a possible Jagan-Congress tango in Seemandhra. That’s why he has been crying foul about the “fixed match” which the Congress has been staging with TRS and Jagan. Is this why Naidu felt compelled to gravitate towards the BJP? Is it the fear of becoming totally irrelevant in the state that is making him make these frantic moves? After all, his seats tally in the Lok Sabha has come down from 29 in the 1999 elections to just 6 now. His vote share in the meantime has declined from nearly 40% to barely 28% now. Is it this electoral desperation that is making Naidu so awkward, risking the proverbial “falling between two stools”? Naidu has a lot to think about, and maybe the fast he is undertaking will give him the time to do so.

The real truth is that Naidu is looking desperate. Unable to decide where he stands. Politics pushes him towards the BJP, but that party has declared support for Telengana. What will Naidu do now? That’s the million dollar question (damn…..how do I say that in Italian?!)!

Forget the BJP. The ordinance really wasn’t that bad….

The BJP made a desperate attempt to distance itself from the bill to overturn the SC verdict against convicted MPs/MLAs, after having first supported it. At the same time, it continues to support the overturning the other SC verdict – that chargesheeted candidates should not be allowed to contest elections – on the grounds that the law & order machinery was in the hands of the state governments and they could misuse this provision against political opponents. Implicit in this is the assertion that we should be worried about corrupt cops, but not about corrupt judges. I beg to differ.

It is well known that corruption in the lower judiciary is rampant. Here are some statements made by prominent people in just the media in the recent past:

In a story in The Telegraph dated July 11, 2011 titled “80 per cent of lower judiciary is corrupt” (http://tinyurl.com/omd77rk), Bar Council chairman, Baleshwar Prasad Sharma, says “About 80 per cent of lower judiciary and nearly 10 per cent of higher judiciary (high court) are corrupt”.

In a story in OutlookIndia.com, titled “Corruption Is Rampant In The Lower Courts” (http://tinyurl.com/ppnxhuw), former CJI, Justice VN Khare, when asked if bribes were endemic in bail cases says “There is no doubt about it. It is rampant. Corruption in the lower courts is no secret. Sometimes, in the high court as well, cases of corruption have surfaced”.

In a story in The Hindu titled “Judiciary not untouched by corruption” (http://tinyurl.com/pz4pv7a), present CJI Justice Sathasivam says “I should fairly admit that the judiciary is not untouched by corruption. When we take the oath as judge, we swear to be fair and impartial in all our judicial functions. However, on some occasions in the past, few judges have wilfully dishonoured the oath by adopting to corrupt practices”.

And of course, in their famous statements, both Prashant Bhushan (In my view, out of the last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt. I can’t prove this, though we had evidence against Punchhi, Anand, and Sabharwal on the basis of which we sought their impeachment”) and father Shanti Bhushan (eight were definitely corrupt, six were definitely honest and about the remaining two, a definite opinion cannot be expressed whether they were honest or corrupt) have made the same point, but this time at the level of the apex court.

Leave the Bhushans’ bizarre assertion aside. At the lower courts however, one has to agree that corruption does exist, and whatever laws we design should keep this reality in account.

So lets re-look the provisions of the proposed ordinance. What did the ordinance really say? Did it really give convicted MPs/MLAs the “free ride” that we were made to believe first by the media and then the opportunistic BJP? Or was the ordinance actually proposing a significant improvement over the current situation, where convicted law makers were indeed getting a free ride?

Kapil Sibal is quoted in the TOI dated September 25^th (http://tinyurl.com/opf8ouq) as making the following points:

1)    The member will lose membership of the House if his appeal is rejected. In other words, if a higher court rejects the appeal, the member will still be impeached.

2)    Even during the pendency of the appeal, a convicted MP or MLA will not be eligible to vote or draw other privileges that he is entitled to because of the conviction. In other words, its hardly business as usual. Laloo may have remained in Parliament, but he would not be able to help the Congress, as is alleged, in touch voting situations.

Taking the extensive corruption in the lower judiciary into account, why is it not possible that a state government could use it to “fix” an MP or MLA in the same way it could use the police to fix an opposition candidate? How can the BJP take the specious stand that the first is a risk that is acceptable (hence it doesn’t support the amendment/ordinance), but the second is not (hence it supports the amendment to the Act)? Is this not a case of obvious double standards?

My own view is that given the pathetic state of our police force (poor forensics capabilities, huge corruption, untrained personnel) and an almost similar situation in the lower judiciary (corruption, backlog, incompetency), it is only fair that the MPs/MLAs should not lose their seats unless at least the High Court convicts them. We can hope that a High Court decision will be more honest, but not the lower court’s. Relying on the wisdom (?) of the lower courts could be the equivalent of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We will all feel smug we have done something “to purge the criminals”, but in reality, we will only be making things worse.

The real truth is that in hindsight, the amendment proposed was actually good. It should have been pursued, not dropped. Unfortunately, the BJP made it political (like it has done everything). And the government failed to explain the context and content of the ordinance to the public (like it has always failed). If this is the way we are going to make, or not make, amendments and laws in the country, we have a lot to worry about….

Rahul is the opposite of Modi. That’s his biggest strength….

It is said that Rahul Gandhi saved the Congress the blushes by scrapping the ordinance to save convicted fellow politicians. I still cannot understand why the Congress is singled out for this lucky break; the entire political class including the BJP had supported the ordinance and the related Bill. While most people have been saying that RG did the right thing, they are also saying that he should have intervened earlier; that he embarrassed the PM etc. There is certainly some truth in this. This situation could have been avoided if he had been a part of the core group that took the call in the first place. Given his inherent opposite polarity to Narendra Modi, now is the time for him to do so….

Does Rahul have it in him to lead his party? To answer that, we must ask what it takes to lead a party. In my mind, the following. And RG is qualified in all respects:

1)    A vision: RG’s vision is the same as the Congress’s. Terms like “inclusive growth”, “secularism” and “social liberalism” describe this vision. It is this vision that will save India from social strife. And stop it from being divided into small pieces. It will make sure that we don’t have the richest people in the world and also the poorest. It is this vision that will distribute income and raise living standards far faster than the trickle down effect ever will. If this is what Amartya Sen believes in, so it is.

2)    Leadership/charisma: What is leadership or charisma? A charismatic leader leads a team towards achieving the vision. He/she helps develop the plan, motivates the cadres, forms the teams, takes blows on the chin when the chips are down and provides a moral compass during the whole exercise. He unites the whole team; not divides it. He is interested in the results, not in hogging the glory nor grabbing the trappings of power. And all this is true in RG’s case. He has a plan and we’ve seen that in the Land Acquisition bill, MNREGA and FSB, his support for FDI in retail which will benefit the farmers amongst others, his demand for the Lokpal to be made a constitutional authority, and now his latest stand on the ordinance. He has the courage to take blows on his chin, as we saw when he failed to win big in the recent UP assembly polls but didn’t run away or blame others. He doesn’t crave for power; in fact he calls it poison. This has his opponets flummoxed. Why does this person not want power? He can have all that he wants! Why does he say he doesn’t want to PM, a statement which make all others insist that he must become one, unlike his opponent who cannot stop making his deep desire known to everyone?!

3)    He is the exact opposite of Narendra Modi: This is his biggest strength. Rahul goes to villages to meet people. Modi goes to the big towns. Rahul shuns TV cameras; Modi goes only where the cameras are there. Rahul is mild mannered and never attacks anybody. Modi is brash and foul mouthed. Rahul goes even where the terrain is tough, knowing he could lose; Modi refused to go to Karnataka where his party was in the doldrums. Rahul unites his party; Modi just divided it (forget the sham show of unity!) trampling 4 of the top 5 leaders (Advani, Swaraj, Yashwant Sinha and Murli Manohar Joshi). Rahul appeals to Bharat and India; Modi largely the latter. Rahul never lies (remember his statement on the Punjab drug problem; now proven correct). Modi is branded #feku. But most importantly, Rahul is secular; Modi a Hindu fanatic.

The last point is the most endearing thing about Rahul. In him, people see someone who is interested in uniting society. “Unity in diversity” is something we’ve been taught in schools. This is where Rahul delivers a body blow to Modi. Maybe because Modi hasn’t lived outside Gujarat, he doesn’t know. But Indians are very happy living together as a heterogeneous bunch. Hindus don’t want this nation for themselves. Gandhiji knew that. That is why he didn’t want the country divided. And even when it had to be, he was sure he wanted the rest of it to remain united.

Rahul Gandhi may not want the trappings of power, but that is no reason to stay out of his party’s core group. His presence there will help make the body more productive; take the right decisions. His youth will help the Grand Old Party stay in touch with the restless youngsters. His morality will keep the devious and the debauched out.

And RG must also speak more. He must become more available to media. He must express his views on issues that matter to the people. He has the right instincts. And he needs to communicate those. By staying in the shadows, the leader becomes invisible to his supporters. Some of them get misled. Just letting them know he is there will enthuse them. More than anytime else, it is now that his party workers need to see him more.

The real truth is that Rahul Gandhi is the exact opposite of Narendra Modi. For the first time today, the country has the option to choose from two diametrically opposite personalities. Those who want a Hindu nation will vote for Modi. But those who want a multi-cultural India will vote for Rahul…..

Expecting strong governance from Modi? Just look at the US first!

Many supporters of Narendra Modi fool themselves by saying that Narendra Modi is the messiah of governance. They point towards Gujarat to prove their point. It’s a different matter that many of the statistics Modi hurls at us are fake, earning him the #feku tag. It’s also a different matter than Modi usurps Gujarat’s success (even though Raghuram Rajan disagrees), achieved over several decades, and thanks largely to the industrious nature of its people, as his own. For his supporters, what matters is that Modi has provided great governance in Gujarat (really???). And he will the same at the national level.

If Modi’s supporters only looked westwards, towards their favorite country, the US of America, they will realize just how much of a hogwash their advocacy of Modi’s governance really is. They may even start to appreciate the reasons for the “policy paralysis” that plagued the UPA-2 government for a couple of years (before it was replaced by policy activism). But only if they want to review the facts objectively; something I am sure they cannot do!

The US’s biggest problem, and the reason for the current governmental shut-down, is because the two elected bodies – the House of Representatives and the Senate – are controlled by two different parties – the Republicans and the Democrats respectively. And they simply cannot see eye to eye on many matters of core ideology. This leads to legislative bottlenecks all the time. Even if this government shut-down is resolved soon enough, there is an even bigger problem waiting to be tackled. Soon, within October itself, the US will start to default on its loan payments if the two bodies do not raise the government’s debt ceiling from the present $16.7 trillion. Going by the way things are, it is not impossible that the two parties will not be able to find a resolution.

Does Modi think he is a better administrator than Obama? If Modi has won three elections as CM, Obama has won the maximum permissible two. If Modi gives impressive speeches, Obama gives even better (remember Modi plagiarized Obama’s “Yes we can” call?!). If Modi connects with the people, as his supporters claim, so does Obama who has the right instincts to feel what Americans feel. And yet, we are to believe that where Obama failed, Modi will succeed?

Modi is used to ruling in a state that has always given the ruling party a clear majority. That makes life really easy. So easy in fact that absolutely perverted pieces of legislation – like the recent amendments to the state’s Lok Ayukta Act giving overwhelming powers to appoint the Lok Ayukta to the ruling party – get passed without so much as taking the opposition’s views into account. This ability to pass legislation as he pleases, makes Modi claim he is “different” (even if his party isn’t!). But what would Modi do if he had a fractured coalition to run in his state, and if each coalition partner was a hero in himself? Imagine if there were twenty parties sharing seats in the Gujarat Assembly, and the BJP-led coalition barely reached the half-way mark? Imagine also that there was a second house, a Vidhan Parishad in Gujarat (which there isn’t), which was led by a Congress-led coalition. What would Modi have done with his Lok Ayukta amendments? What would he have done if the Vidhan Parishad had created a storm when he gave away land to Tatas and Adani, reportedly at discounted rates? What would he have done if even a few members of some minor party had stormed the well of the Assembly or the Vidhan Parishad and stalled the working for sessions on end?

Modi would hardly have remained the governance guru he calls himself (I don’t). He would hardly have won his 3^rd term in fact. He would not have been able to indulge his friends in the private sector, and none of them would have praised him as effusively as they do today (of course, they praise several Congress CMs as well, only that’s not reported!).

Modi’s hardly the only one to benefit from majority verdicts at the state level. The Congress’s Haryana, Delhi, Maharashtra, Andhra are all run as effectively and with as much top-order governance as Gujarat is. A majority is not a guarantee for good performance though (as UP and West Bengal will show), but it certainly helps in a big way (Jayalalitha will appreciate this point too!).

Despite the BJP’s methods in Parliament, we are lucky that we haven’t reached the point that the US has, when even the annual budget is not passed by the two houses. Maybe the BJP will take a cue from the US now! Maybe the February session of Parliament next year, which will pass the interim budget, will be held to ranson like in the US.

One last point. How should Parliament’s conduct be in today’s divided political situation? Who should dominate, and be allowed to have way, when an irreconcilable disagreement happens? In my mind, the government should. Because the government, represented by a majority in the Lok Sabha, has the mandate of the people to run the country. They should have their five full years to show what they stand for, what their ideologies are, and what they are capable or incapable of doing. After five years, the people will know clearly how good or bad the government is. If they are unhappy, they can throw it out. At present, it’s impossible for people to know who stands where. When they see a logjam in Parliament, they don’t know whom to blame. When they see the opposition, they don’t know what the opposition stands for, because no one has to clarify his stand in Parliament. My suggestion is that the opposition must always let the government have the way, with clear statements in Parliament that their support (and vote) is in spite of disagreements. This will ensure that we never face the shut-down the US is facing now.

The real truth is that running Gujarat, with its absolute majority, is a far simpler job for Modi that running India, with its divisive politics, is for Manmohan Singh. To call Manmohan Singh weak because of this is bizarre. For Modi to project that he would have done a better job, without acknowledging this essential reality, is childish. Maybe his supporters believe him, but a lot many more know this to be yet another #feku story!

Shinde is right….Minorities do need special protection

On the eve of Gandhi Jayanti, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Home Minister of India, wrote to all state CMs asking them to “ensure that no innocent Muslim youth is wrongfully detained in the name of terror” (TOI). This led to the “sparking off of outrage in the BJP over his “antisecular and divisive” move”. In May this year, Shinde had indicated he favored “fast track courts” to try Muslim youths accused in terror cases. Is this a Home Minister playing politics with religion and polarizing the country or is he one applying a soothing balm over communal tensions in which the minorities suffer the most?

Fortunately, we now have some data available on the deaths/injuries arising as a result of communal clashes. An HT story (http://tinyurl.com/p5xkqcx) provides valuable insights. At an All India level, of the 107 people who died in communal clashes, 66 were Muslims and 41 Hindus. Of the 1697 injured, 797 were Hindus and 703 Muslims. In 2012, of the 93 killed, 48 were Muslims and 44 Hindus. And of the 2067 injured, 1010 were Hindus and 787 Muslims. There are state level figures also mentioned in the article, and in all cases, the number of Muslims is around 50%; sometimes going up to 65%. Equally, in the 2002 Gujarat riots, it’s a known fact that nearly 76% of all dead were Muslims (Wikipedia: 790 Muslims, 254 Hindus. Other sources put the number of Muslims killed at above 2000).

Why is it that a community which forms just 13.5% of the country’s population suffers more than half the casualties? Is it because Muslims foment terror and are violent by temperament, or is it because they suffer at the hands of fanatical Hindus? The answer to that question will depend on which side of the political spectrum one finds himself in. For me, having lived in Gujarat most of my life and having witnessed first hand several incidents, I feel Muslims are the victims. For a BJP supporter, he might find Muslims to be the perpetrators of violence.

But whatever the political views, can anyone deny that it is always the minorities who feel threatened, because of their lower numerical strength? Who deserve protection? Even special favors maybe? The BJP’s much touted “uniform civil code” is great in concept, but should it not be first practiced within Hinduism itself. Can the BJP say with its hand on its heart that Brahmins treat dalits equally? Do they drink water from the same well, and eat food at the same restaurant? What is this entire khap system in the North, if not a representation of a divisive Hindu community?

Maybe the BJP should ask Indians living in foreign nations how it feels to be a minority. About racial discrimination. How did it feel when the recent crowning of an Indian-origin girl as Ms. America led to a volley of racial abuses on twitter? Did we not feel that the US authorities should act against such perverts? And what about the Sri Lankan Tamils, a minority community which has been attacked by the majorities there for long? Don’t we all feel they deserve “protection”? When riots broke out in Kishtwar in Kashmir recently, and the minority Hindu community felt threatened, did Arun Jaitley not make a dash to that place? He did it to show support to the minority Hindus right? But how good would it have been if the majority Muslim population had come to the protection of the Hindus? What’s wrong if we, as the majority community in the rest of India, make a special effort to protect the Muslims? How about actually going out of the way to make them feel safe?

The BJP talks about Pundits in J&K, and about how the Congress doesn’t do enough for those who have been evicted. Fair point, but can BJP supporters please first read the history on J&K and understand that state has a unique status in India? A few pages of Ramachandra Guha’s “India after Gandhi” should suffice. That aside, the vast army deployed in that state has protecting people, mostly Hindus, as one of its main responsibilities right?

The problem is that most BJP supporters want to see India in a monochromatic hue, similar to how Jinnah envisioned Pakistan. What they don’t realize is that we will end up becoming, like Pakistan, a hot bed of terrorism and violence. Religion is a matter of personal faith, and should never be allowed to be practiced in public. Those who find this unacceptable should look at the history of the world. Most countries that have gone to war have done so on the matter of religion. Whether it was the crusades of the Christians against the Muslims from the 11^th to the 13^th centuries or the present struggle between the two communities in the Middle East, it is religion which has led to wars. When Sudan was divided recently, it was divided into a Christian South and a Muslim North. This is true across the board. Play politics on religion…..you will divide the country.

The BJP doesn’t like the concept of a “secular” India. They would like India to be a Hindu Rashtra. RSS ideologue and its second “sarsanghchalak” Golwalkar was candid enough to say that the three biggest ills facing India were 1) Muslims 2) Christians and 3) Communists. For a BJP completely in the embrace of the RSS, especially under Modi, Golwalkar’s message is the gospel truth, to be pursued with zest and vigor. How can we even expect the BJP to understand the import of Shinde’s statement?

The real truth is that Shinde did the right thing by asking that minorities be treated fairly. Fairly, not favorably. States don’t need to be told to not hold Hindus wrongfully, it s understood…..but they do need to be reminded about the minorities. To urban pseudo-intellectuals, this may look communal. My only request to them – try living like a minority for once…..

Laloo’s fate to be decided today. What about Bokhariya’s?

Now that the ordinance to overturn the SC order disqualifying MPs and MLAs convicted by a court has virtually been thrown out, the focus of media has shifted to Laloo Prasad Yadav. The Ranchi court will decide his fate today. And rightly, if the court convicts him, he must resign. Babu Bokhariya, the Gujarat Water Resources minister, however is more lucky. He was convicted in June this year, just before the SC verdict came out. Technically, he is not required to resign. And he and his boss, Narendra Modi, have decided to avail of this technicality.

But since the larger debate this SC order, and the entire ordinance follow-up, has raised is about probity in public life, shouldn’t we demand that all people who have convictions standing against them resign and re-contest? Why rely on technicality at all? After all, the BJP has decided to take the high moral ground on this issue, completely ignoring the fact that it is way worse than the Congress on the issue of criminality, with 31% of its MPs/MLAs charged with criminal charges unlike the Congress’s 21%?

Babu Bokhariya was charged with profiting from illegal mining operations with the scam figure put at Rs 54 crores. He was convicted in the crime in June this year by a Porbander court. To be sure, he has already appealed to, and obtained a stay from, a higher court. But like I said, the issue can hardly be one of technicality. If Modi really wants to prove that he is different from the Congress, then shouldn’t he have already sacked Bokhariya? Even if he hasn’t done so yet, shouldn’t he do it now?

Actually, if Modi thought about this for a while, he would realize that Bokhariya would typically be what is called a “low hanging fruit”. A minor sacrifice in Gujarat would give Modi a major talking point on probity. And he surely needs that talking point, as he goes about trying to convince people that he is tough on corruption. Currently, he suffers from an image deficit on this subject. The entire Lok Ayukta issue – having successfully avoided having a Lok Ayukta for 10 good years in his state – didn’t go too well for Modi. Modi did manage to avoid too many charges of corruption coming up against him. But the way he hounded Justice Mehta, and eventually made him decide against becoming the Lok Ayukta, made Modi look insincere about corruption.

But of course, everyone knows the issue is not about probity at all. It is about making an impression on the public at this crucial juncture. The BJP had agreed to support the bill which would have nullified the SC order. But publicly it now claims that it is opposed to the ordinance. See the difference? Opposed to the ordinace, but not opposed to the concept of protecting convicted politicians. That high ground has now been usurped by Rahul Gandhi, and before him, the BJD.

Just in case anyone has any doubts about the BJP’s support for overturning the SC’s order, here’s a piece that will dispel that doubt. On 1^st August, Zee News reported this on its website “Political parties united Thursday against a Supreme Court order on criminals in politics and wanted the government to address the issue during the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Leaders belonging to the Left parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Janata Dal-United (JD-U) and the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) expressed concern over the implications of the court order that disqualifies a legislator if convicted in a criminal case and bars him from contesting the polls if under arrest. They said the government should address the issue as misuse of the law could be rampant just before any election. "We want a discussion on the apex court order," CPI-M leader Basudeb Acharia said after an all-party meeting called by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath. The BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad, JD-U president Sharad Yadav and RJD chief Lalu Prasad also expressed their concern” (http://tinyurl.com/lqt6l2f).

Its not easy to get a list of current MPs and MLAs actually convicted by the courts. But the TOI on 11^th July reported that Pappu Yadav, Shahabuddin, Mitrasen Yadav and Navjot Singh Sidhu would have been disqualified if the SC order had been applicable. A list of others available from Wikipedia lists Om Prakash Chautala (INLD President), Shibu Soren (JMM), Manoj Pradhan (BJP – Odisha) and Mukhtar Ansari (Quami Ekta Dal – UP) as others who probably remain elected representatives (I am not sure of this list though).

The real truth is that while all of us are waxing eloquent about the need to disqualify politicians who are convicted, we should make sure that we be fair in the exercise. The BJP – and to be fair – all other parties need to be grilled for their duplicity. And while we are at it, there is a great opportunity for all parties to proactively sack those who are technically exempt by the SC order, but otherwise deserve to be sacked….

Does Modi suffer from an inferiority complex?

I think I have finally understood Narendra Modi. And its so so simple really! He possibly suffers from what could be loosely described as an inferiority complex. Let me demonstrate this with the help of three very clear examples:

First, and what Modi is most well known for, is his paranoia with Muslims. Now Muslims account for less than 14% of this country. Hindus in contrast account for more than 80%. And yet, the leader of the Hindus, the Hindu Hriday Samrat as he is called, has such inferiority complex that he feels compelled to attack the poor minorities. Just think about this. Anyone else in a position of 80% strength would have been smug. He would have been guilty of merely ignoring the minorities. But not Modi. He has to attack them to reassure himself that he is indeed 80% strong.

Modi has converted this complex into a political plank. Most of his followers admire him because they possibly also suffer from a similar complex. I was stunned recently when a friend admitted over Facebook that if Hindus have to remain in a majority, they have to vote for BJP. I was stunned, but it struck me that for a whole bunch of Modi-backers, this is perhaps the only reason to back him. Certainly, many in Gujarat think that way.

Second, look at which country Modi attacks the most. He doesn’t attack America, a country that continues to deny him a visa. He doesn’t attack the Brits who ruled us for two hundred years. He doesn’t even attack China for he knows that they are well capable of reaching him right inside his dugout in Gujarat. Who does Modi attack? Pakistan. In fact, Modi loves to attack Pakistan. At first, I used to think that attacking Pakistan is just an extension of attacking Muslims, but now I am convinced that its about size. Pakistan is just about the right size for him to feel comfortable to attack. Modi feels safe in attacking Pakistan. The Pakistanis probably cannot cause much harm to him. They cannot fight back. They are weak. For all of their bluster, they have not been able to impress the world about their claims on J&K.

The population of Pakistan is some 18 crores. That’s about the same as the Muslim population of India. This is tiny in comparison to India’s 100 crores Hindus. This is just the size difference that gives Modi the confidence that he wont be pummeled. He feels he can get away by attacking. So he roars against Pakistan. Many, if not most, of his speeches are about Pakistan bashing, a rhetoric that he presents as Indian nationalism. Excuse me Mr. Modi, but for many of us, we are not really that worried about Pakistan. Irritated by its nefarious activities yes, but not really worried. Nor are we about China or any other neighbor for that matter. It is in fact China and Pakistan who huddle together because they are worried that India will punch them in their noses if it ties up with Israel, Japan and the US. But for Modi, this is merely a detail, an inconvenient detail, that like so many others, he likes to ignore!

Third, in the political space, Modi attacks a PM who everyone knows is a gentleman of the highest order. The PM is an economist, one of India’s most erudite leaders, and one whom the entire world looks up to. The PM however is weak in oratory. He cannot shout the way Modi does. He cannot punch his fists in the air like Modi does. No way is the PM going to get into a shrill fight with anyone. This is precisely why Narendra Modi attacks the PM. He knows the PM cannot give it back. But where the PM can give back – in economics, in FDI policies, in foreign affairs, in strategy – Modi runs away from a discussion. This is why Modi never offers any solutions to any of the problems he blames the Congress for, because that would expose him and make him feel weak. He realizes his educational disadvantage when compared to the PM. This is also why Modi never gives interviews to savvy journalists. He walked out of a Karan Thapar interview because he couldn’t intellectually bully Thapar. But give him a lame duck anchor (and there are a few!) and he may just take the bait. This is also the reason why Modi has never accepted the challenge of a public debate with Digvijaya Singh.

This is why there are others in the BJP who may eventually make it to the PM, if the party comes anywhere close to forming a government. For whatever one may say about them, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley and LK Advani maintain a certain decorum and decency that national politics and the PM’s office demands.

The real truth is that people with inferiority complex typically tend to be bullies. Bullies make a lot of noise. So does Modi. Bullies exaggerate figures to show how muscular they are (when they really are not). Modi does the same. Bullies try to sully the reputation of others better placed than them, with the hopes of catching attention. Modi does that when he attacks the PM. It’s a cinch really!