MP tragedy exposes BJP’s double standards….

I was shocked to watch the TV channels last night and see BJP spokespeople trying to deflect the blame for the temple tragedy in MP onto the “district administration”, as if that was a body alien to the government. There was no acceptance of the government’s failure, no remorse for the tragedy, no concern for the stories of police conduct emanating from the tragedy site and certainly no explanation for why the incident had recurred yet again under the same CM’s watch.

No one was blaming the CM for having personally killed the people. The question one was raising was about basic governance. Why were so few cops provided when so many lacs were expected to be in attendance? Is it true that the cops were busy taking bribes and allowing tractors onto the bridge where they were not permitted? Is it also true that no senior administration official was available to take care of the arrangements before the tragedy; and more shockingly, after the tragedy as well? And lastly, is it true that the cops – reportedly under pressure from the “administration” to report a lower body count – were pushing dead bodies, young children and the injured into the river, unmindful of the fate that awaited them? These are disgusting stories, and yet there was no acknowledgment or denial by the state government. All that Shivraj Singh Chauhan said was “The focus should be on attending to the injured”. By throwing them into the river???

The whole effort of Nirmala Sitaraman was to make it a problem of the district administration. “Shield the CM” was her only mission. She had for support the BJP-leaning (or should we say Congress-hating) ex-cop Kiran Bedi, who called managing crowds of this sort “routine police duty”, something “they are trained for”. If both these ladies had the authority, they would have sacked the whole administration there and then. But none had an explanation for the inaction of the state government since 2006, when 50 people had died at the same place.

Then, there was an attempt to show that similar tragedies had taken place in Congress ruled states. Of course they had. And the BJP had not lost a second in blaming the Congress CM in those states. Even in Uttarkhand, the party blamed the “government”, not the administration, and demanded the CM’s resignation (http://tinyurl.com/klafry6). Why was it then not open to the same criticism of its own government and CM? How is it that the party loves to attack the Congress on some issue of morality or governance; but hates accepting the application of the same principle to itself when the tables turn?

The PM nominee of the party – the messiah as projected – likewise refused to take responsibility or demonstrate superior governance when floods recently ravaged parts of Gujarat. The administration was found to be sleeping. The CM was busy trying to become the PM, giving speeches on his governance style, unmindful of the truth in his home state (not without reason is he called #feku!). Maybe Modi knew of this vulnerability of his; that’s why he chose not to seize the opportunity and finish Shivraj Singh Chauhan once and for all (Modi spares no one who challenges him). Maybe that’s why the heavy tweeter chose not to tweet about the governance failure in MP, preferring ironically, to give one more speech on “Effective governance in democracy: Gujarat experience”. All he tweeted was “Saddened by unfortunate stampede at Ratangarh temple. Spoke to Shivraj ji and expressed my condolences. Prayers with victims and families”. Saddened? But what else? Why did he not cancel his speech? Why did he not fly himself and his efficient bureaucrats to the state, like he had done to Uttarakhand, to rescue “thousands” stuck there? Was Uttarakhand just political grandstanding?

Party President, Rajnath Singh was no better. In fact, he had nothing to say at all, preferring instead to tour Muzaffarnagar and demand a CBI inquiry for the riots there. What about a CBI inquiry in MP? Double standards!

And what about the CM himself? He never responded to Digvijay Singh’s accusation “Postings of Collectors and Superintendent of Police (SP) in districts have been done on the basis of money they collect. It is a common practice during BJP rule and those getting appointed in such a manner hardly care for an action in the event of a lapse on their part”. Why? If he had a clear conscience, shouldn’t he have challenged that? All he said was that such incidents shouldn’t recur in the future. But wouldn’t he have said the same thing in 2006? And when he says the “guilty will be punished”, what authority did he have left knowing full well that his own government was accused of corruption over the postings of police officials.

There is nothing particularly unique about the MP tragedy. India has seen many such under all parties. But it’s because the BJP keeps taunting the Congress on governance failures, projecting itself as being much better in contrast, that people are now asking it tough questions. If it said Bahuguna was responsible for the Uttarakhand tragedy (when in fact, it was the BJP that had ruled the state for five years just before the tragedy) and demanded his resignation, then why did it not say Shivraj Singh Chauhan was responsible, and sack him? Can the “party with a difference” (I don’t hear them claiming that too much these days!), please be different and blame even its own leaders?

The real truth is that time and again, the BJP’s double standards get exposed. On corruption, when it blew the CAG’s bizarre “notional” loss theory into “the biggest corruption scam ever”, it got exposed when Karnataka blew in its face. Now on governance as well, it has got exposed. This is what happens to parties that build their strategies only on criticizing others. One day, the shoe does get onto the other foot!

Phailin fails…..Center/state demonstrate top quality governance

If ever there could be an example of great center/state co-operation in serving the people, it was on display in the states of Odisha and AP over the last few days. The dreaded storm Phailin – the strongest ever seen in the Indian Ocean – ended up being an image booster of sorts for India, proving that when we want to, we can work wonders. On the other hand, the man-made tragedy around the temple in MP shows the reverse – poor governance, leading to unnecessary human tragedy.

Many many people deserve to be recognized for their efforts:

First, the IMD – the much maligned, “never-can-get-it-right” meteorological department – which got it perfectly right this time. It was right about the time of the landfall (well, nearly), and more importantly about the speed of the winds (200-220 kmph, not 300+ that Western “experts” were warning). The early warning made all the difference. It helped evacuate 9 lacs people in AP alone, and maybe an additional 1 lac in AP. The IMD had been panned for not predicting the flash floods in Uttarakhand, but one has to remember that predicting floods is more difficult than predicting storms.

Second, the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) created under the 2005 Disaster Management Act, and working under the Ministry of Home’s National Disaster Management Authority, made all the difference. These are a bunch of experts trained in handling natural and man made disasters. The TOI reported on Saturday 12^th October that “Over 50 teams of National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), comprising nearly 2,000 personnel, have been pre-positioned in vulnerable areas of Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal ahead of Phailin's landfall on Saturday evening. The teams are equipped with satellite phones and wireless sets to maintain smooth communication, given the likely disruption in normal communication lines due to the cyclone”. If this doesn’t make us proud, what will? The paper also reported that “The national executive committee, the National Disaster Management Authority's executive body headed by the Union home secretary and comprising secretaries of various ministries and defence brass, was on Saturday closeted in a meeting, reviewing the mitigation measures and taking stock of the approaching cyclonic storm as it hits the coast”. And also “NDRF control room in Delhi is closely monitoring the situation round the clock and keeping close coordination with state administrations”. Who says our bureaucrats cannot deliver?

Third, our armed forces, who like always stayed on the ready. Website Newstrackindia.com reports “The Army has deployed an engineering task force, six composite relief units, four columns in Odisha and Andhra Pradesh. The Air Force, on its part, has put in place frontline C-17 Globemasters, C-130 J Super Hercules and IL-76 transport planes to Odisha to carry out relief operations. Two Indian Naval ships, including the Landing Platform Dock INS Jalashwa are standing by.

INS Jalashwa, the second largest combatant of the Indian Navy, is ideally equipped to undertake Humanitarian Aid Distress Relief (HADR), evacuation, logistic support and hospital ship operations.

Both the ships are poised with additional divers, doctors, inflatable rubber boats, integral helicopters and relief material that include food, tentage, clothes, medicines, blankets etc, in quantities sufficient to sustain over 5000 personnel for three days. Six helicopters are standing by at the Naval Air Station INS Dega to undertake reconnaissance, rescue, casualty evacuation and air drop of relief material to the stranded”.

Fourth, the states of Odisha and AP, largely the former. Outstanding preparation by the CM and his administration. Most importantly, Naveen Patnaik kept his head down, focused on the work, and stayed away from the media.

Fifth, the learnings from the past. What warms the cockles of my heart is the data that more than half the evacuated people were placed in shelters built after the 1999 tragedy. How many such stories does one get to hear in India? In MP on the other hand, 110 people died at exactly the same place where 50 had died in 2006. Truly, shorn of the marketing, MP continues to languish as an exemplar of poor governance. Why did the CM not keep special emergency rescue units ready when he knew lacs were going to attend the religious celebration? Why were there only 10 odd police personnel at the place? How does it help to order a judicial inquiry now? This is governance at its worst….

And lastly, the close co-ordination between the central and state governments. Both attacked this like they were on a mission. There was no politics, no rush for claiming high ground, no inflated egos, no imagined turf battles….nothing. Politicians and bureaucrats at the highest levels worked together in serving the people. Whether it was Naveen Patnaik or the PM/Sonia, our leaders presented a united face.

The real truth is that we Indians have the capability to achieve a lot, if only we decide to work together. In most such cases, our semi-federal structure would have become a bother in delivering speedy relief. But in Odisha/AP, we saw what co-operation between the Center and states can achieve. If only this co-operation could be seen in more states, we wouldn’t see crores of central allocations going unused even as people continued to suffer….. 

Prime time devoted to Sachin…..our news channels lose direction again

At the best of times, our news channels make a mockery of the news business. They take political sides. They pack their panels with more members from the opposition. They misreport facts in the pursuit of speed. And they ape each other, even having identical programs. One prime example of this was yesterday after Sachin announced his retirement from cricket.

Now let me clarify. I love Sachin myself. Sachin has been one of India’s finest cricketers, and his departure is going to leave a huge emotional hole in the hearts of most of us. More than his strokes, it is his gentlemanliness that has etched a mark inside all of us. Hopefully we will continue seeing more of him, either as a commentator or something more worthy. So my grouse is hardly with Sachin. My grouse is with our news channels.

In any case, our news channels are accused of being more like entertainment channels. For them, news is fiction. They trivialize news to the point where anybody serious about news is forced to go elsewhere, mostly to newspapers the next morning, unmindful of the overnight wait that has to be endured. This is proven by the plummeting GRP ratings of TV channels. English news channels have suffered a more-than-75% erosion in viewership in the last 2 years, down from already pathetic levels. And yet the editors of these channels learn no lessons. They continue with their charade. They refuse to analyze their own performance, even as they are ever-ready to analyze the government’s performance. They can be as critical as a hawk with the latter, but they are as soft as a dove when it comes to themselves!

News channels love to spread negativity. They are quick to run up hour-long debates when the price of petrol goes up by Rs 3. But when prices come down by the same amount, they don’t spend even a minute on the subject. When an Indian soldier is killed on the borders, they put up a panel of fiery back-room boys who’ve probably never seen any action, and retired generals desperately seeking some publicity, to lambast everyone in authority. Yet, when our army repels an attack, they don’t have anything to say. We accuse Pakistan of interfering in Kashmir (and they surely are), but we never ever debate whether Pakistan’s claims of India interfering in Balochistan are true or not. For that, we have to turn to the newspapers or web publishers. When the 2G “scam” broke, our news channels became “parrots” (caged by the opposition maybe!) repeating the opposition’s charges of corruption of Rs 1.76 lac crores (the CAG disgraced his office, but he never used the corruption word himself!). Yet when years later, its become amply evident that that number was a bogus number, no one in the TV news business has the guts to put up shows saying the government has been unjustly accused; that the scale of the taint is much smaller (perhaps “only” Rs 200 crores – the amount DB Realty allegedly paid to DMK though it’s not been proven yet). For TV news anchors, negative news is the life-blood of their business. When Anna fasted in Delhi, they provided minute-by-minute coverage, as if some Indian spring was in play. Yet none of them analyzed how damaging the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill were. This is the quality of our news TV journalism.

That’s why its hardly surprising that they lost direction again yesterday. A whole hour (and more) was devoted to Sachin. Why? If people wanted to know so much about Sachin, they could have got it online (English viewers all have access to the internet) or waited for today’s papers to come. Newspapers have also given prominent coverage on their front pages, but that’s the beauty about newspapers. They can do a lot more than TV channels can. Besides, readers have an option. They can skip the articles and move on to something else. On TV, they cant. So they just move onto something else. At this rate, English news channels will be dead in no time.

And what’s with this peculiar habit of aping each other? Why do all anchors feel like doing the same story all the time? If they weren’t so focused on each other, surely its probabilistically impossible that they would do the exact same thing again and again? All channels run their sports shows, or car shows, or food shows, or music shows, or entertainment shows at exactly the same times! There is a reason for this. I have seen this personally – news channels beam their competitor channels right inside their studios, tracking each other on a second-by-second basis. If one channel “breaks” a story, another one copies it and also claims it to be a breaking story! There is probably another reason. All present anchors have originated from the same school of news journalism – Prannoy Roy’s NDTV. Maybe, they have all been brainwashed into thinking absolutely alike!

News channels should have talked about the ongoing Telengana struggle, and Jagan’s abrupt departure from his fast. And on the anti-Congress, anti-BJP third front that is soon to hold a rally. Or the “government of youth” statement of Rahul Gandhi. Or the President shortening his visit to Bihar to avoid a clash with Modi. And a small dose of business is always welcome. Maybe they could have brought up Walmart’s decision to sever ties with Bharti. And the moves the RBI is making to steady the rupee. But they chose to talk about Sachin. Even ignoring the fact that cricket lovers were actually glued to Star Sports for the edge-of-the-seat excitement that was unfolding in the T-20 game with Australia. Pathetic.

The real truth is that much as I love Sachin, I hated the coverage devoted to him on TV last night. It made me angry. News is supposed to be about politics, and issues of national concern, and spreading the truth, and so on. Maybe these are just lofty ideals that none of our anchors subscribe to. Maybe they yearn to be in the entertainment business. Maybe they actually like the tag they are often given: “Horror Entertainment Channels”! It’s a shame really….

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!