The dates for the general elections have been announced, and the country is gearing up for a hectic and no doubt eventful six week long campaign period. Already, parties have begun jostling for the early lead. Here is a round up of the highlights from some states, and what I feel their implications will be:
1) Uttar Pradesh:
We begin with the state I have repeatedly called the most interesting state in Indian politics, UP. Not much has changed since I last wrote about the state, but Ajit Singh and his Rashtriya Lok Dal have formally joined the NDA. This is good news for the BJP in the state-they need every ally they can get, and the the RLD is guaranteed to return 3-4 MP's from the sugar belt of western UP. Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP is still working out a deal with the Congress- after initially insisting that they will allow the Congress to contest only two seats, Rae Bareilly and Amethi, they seem to be moderating their position. Yet, political brinksmanship continues to be played, and this is no surprise-the SP is flirting alternatively with the BJP and a potential 'fourth front', composed of dissenters from the UPA and the NDA. Of course, it is unlikely that either of these alliances will materialise-the SP will ultimately tie up with the Congress-but this brinksmanship is characterstic of UP politics and what makes it such a fluid space. I still do believe that the SP-Congress tie up is a mistake on Mulayam's part, and I would go so far as to say that the BJP-RLD combine will push the SP-Cong alliance fairly close for second spot in the state. First spot of course belongs to Mayawati-her slogan 'UP hui hamari, ab Dilli ki bari' is evidence of her brimming confidence and is certainly far more inspiring than the yet-finalised BJP proposal 'This country deserves better'. Who in the BJP is in charge of these things? Can't you do any better? What happened to the days of 'Agli bari Atal Behari'?
2) West Bengal
Long thought to be an impenetrable bastion of the Left, West Bengal will play a crucial role in these elections. A resurgent Mamata Banerjee will exploit the growing disenchantment with the Left to the full. Having already gained ground on the Singur issue, Mamata has struck an alliance with her old foe, the Congress. This is a great deal for Mamata-it will allow her to direct her focus against only the Left and not against 'CPM-B' as she once descriped the Congress. However contrary to popular opinion, I do not think it is a great deal for the Congress. Let's look at the math. For much of the current Lok Sabha, the Congress had the support of 41 out of 42 MP's from Bengal, including 35 from the Left Front. Although currently on bad terms, it is clear that the UPA if it wants to come back to power will probably need the support of the Left. However by consolidating the Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress, the Congress will ensure that the Left loses more ground than was otherwise possible. The Congress is probably hoping that their alliance with Mamata will give them a majority of the seats in West Bengal and free them from the grip of the Left. However this is wishful thinking. What is more likely to happen is that the Trinamool, and to a lesser extent the Congress, will get more seats, but the Left will not fall below 20 seats. Now since the Left will not join a government supported by the Trinamool, and vice versa, the Congress will find itself in a position where instead of having the support of 35, let alone 41, MP's from Bengal, it will have the support of 25-30. Just to clarify with some predictions: if things go really badly for the Left, they will get 20 seats, the Congress will get 10 and the Trinamool 12. This will leave the Congress with 2 choices- dump the Trinamool and embrace an angry Left and thus earn the support of 3o MP's. Or stick with the Trinamool and recieve support from 22 MP's. Either way, they are going to lose seats in Bengal, and will have to figure out where they are going make these up from.
3) Maharashtra
Politics in Maharashtra is becoming increasingly murky. The Shiv Sena is flirting with the NCP, the NCP is threatening the Congress, the Congress is playing hardball and the MNS is wrecking general havoc with the best laid plans of the four big parties. To clarify: the Shiv Sena, facing political oblivion due to the success of the MNS, is looking to recapture the Maratha votebank and enter some sort of understanding with the NCP. This is unlikely to materalise, mostly because such an alliance will harm Sharad Pawar's national prospects. The Shiv Sena will thus probably remain within the NDA, though this could change. Meanwhile, the Congress is refusing to enter into a pre-poll understanding with the NCP, and this is straining relations with Pawar's party. Why the Congress is doing this, I do not know-perhaps there is some information on the ground that has not reached the shores of Long Island Sound. With the information I have however, this lack of a pre-poll understanding makes no sense and is a hangover of the days of Congress hegemony. Why doesn't the Congress realize that it can't go the distance alone any more! The party to watch out for is the MNS. A new party led by a charismatic young man and specialising in a unique kind of divisive politics, it is unclear whether the MNS will actually win a seat. What is likely is that they will eat into the votebanks of the BJP and the Shiv Sena and perhaps even the NCP, and thus provide some much needed succor to the Congress, who otherwise face an uphill battle to retain the seats they have.
4) Tamil Nadu
A few months ago, it was expected that Jayalalithaa's AIADMK would sweep the Tamil Nadu polls, but the action of the Sri Lankan armed forces against the Tamils in northern Sri Lanka resulted in things looking a little different today. The DMK and its alliance partners have politicized the plight of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and are appealing to voters on the grounds of their Tamil identity. In doing this, politicians like Vaiko are showing an immense amount of immaturity-by blindly supporting the LTTE, they justify the actions of the LTTE, including the use of Tamil civilians as human shields. Instead of pushing the Indian government to take a reasonable, yet pro-Tamil, stand on the Sri Lanka issue, parties like the MDMK and PMK are outdoing each other in taking a militantly pro-tiger line on the issue. Whether this will translate into votes or not remians to be seen, but I do think that the AIADMK will settle at around 30/40 seats (counting Pondicherry) if things go as they are. Ultimately, I do not think voters will be swayed by appeals to identity politics, especially if they feel that the DMK led government as failed to deliver on key issues. This once again is a bad omen for the Congress. The AIADMK is hardly a reliable alliance partner for anyone, but is more likely to ally itself with the NDA than with the UPA. Jayalalithaa has no problems with the BJP's Hindutva philosophy, and will support them if offered a suitable 'reward'. Tamil Nadu has played a key role in deciding who forms the government in Delhi in the past, and this trend looks set to continue.
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Big Picture
The journalist Siddhart Vardarajan recently talked to some students at Yale on a variety of topics pertaining to current affairs in India. Here's the crux of what he had to say:
1) On the Mumbai Terror Attack:
Evidence points to Pakistan-of that there is no doubt. But which Pakistan? Vardarajan pointed out that there are many competing groups within Pakistan-the army, the ISI, the Jihadis, the political parties, civil society-and that it is likely that the terror attack did not have the sanction of the civilian government. Instead, the common belief seems to be Jehadi groups within Pakistan working with some elements within the army and the ISI carried out the attack. The phrase 'Jihadi groups' points to LeT, but what is interesting is that the LeT is no longer working as an independent Jihadi group. Rather there is clear evidence that it has developed ties with the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives working on the western border. This explains the targeting of Americans and Jews, something that LeT is not known to have done in the past. Keeping these new ties between the LeT and other Jihadi groups in mind, Vardarajan espouses a rather complex motive behind the attacks. He believes that the attacks took place to create tension between India and Pakistan, which would force Pakistan to pull troops out of the western front and move them to the Indian border, thereby relieving some pressure on the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda.
2) On India-Pakistan relations:
Despite the recent positive developments in Indo-Pak relations (after reaching a low in December-January), Vardarajan is fairly pessimistic about the relations between the two countries over the next few years (although he does say that all out war is unlikely). The primary reason for this is the nexus between the LeT and the Taliban. As long as this nexus is allowed to thrive in Pakistan, terrorist attacks will continue in India and this will prevent a substantial improvement of relations. Vardarajan believes that Pakistan will not crack down on Jihadi groups largely because once the Americans leave Afghanistan (which is bound to happen at some time), they want to ensure that they have a tried and tested Jihadi apparatus left to fill the power vacuum.
3) On the upcoming elections:
The short answer seems to be: the UPA is coming back. Also look out for a resurgent AIADMK, TDP, BSP and a still powerful Left. Neither the UPA nor the NDA will get more than 200 seats, so third front support will be essential. Vardarajan has great faith in the Indian voter. He believes they will reject divisive politics, that deep down they think the BJP is responsible for the growth in terrorism, that they recognize the NREGS is a central scheme, that they are not swayed by the theory of anti-incumbency.
And now for some of my views:
1) I agree primarily with much of Vardarajan has to say on foreign policy (who am I not to). However one major issue I have with him is his determination to separate the Kashmir issue from the Mumbai attacks. He claimed that because of the convergence of Indian and Pakistani views on Kashmir in the last 5 years, Kashmir was not the reason why Mumbai was attacked. However, if we are to believe that the Jihadi groups were primarily responsible for the attack, and not an official wing of the Pakistani establishment, then I wonder how easy it is to isolate Kashmir entirely. Certainly Jihadi groups have a motive in getting Pakistani troops away from the Afghan border, but I think the more pressing reason for the attack is as follows: Jihadi groups wanted to derail the peace process and strengthen extremist groups in India (namely the BJP). The timing of the attack-just before a round of state elections, points to this fact. Presumably, the terrorists felt that the attacks would result in the Indian public taking a hard line and sweeping the BJP into power. Why would they want this to happen? Because groups like the BJP were primarily responsible for the huge azadi demonstrations that took place in Kashmir last summer-remember the Amarnath controversy? The relationship between a strong BJP and popular discontent in Kashmir seems to be a direct one, and this is of great benefit to groups like the LeT, which receive much of their funding and popular support due to their stand on the Kashmir issue.
2) Vardarajan is certainly spot on when he comes to predicting the future of Indo-Pak relations. Until Pakistan dismantles its carefully constructed Jihadi framework, terror attacks will continue in India and relations will remain sour. What is baffling is why Pakistani officialdom does not crack down on the Jihadis. Recent events in Swat, where the government has effectively ceded administration to the Jihadi groups, points to the fact that the Pakistani authorities have created a Frankenstein monster. It is quite possible that their obsession to control Afghan domestic affairs and hurt India with a thousand small cuts (the two primary reasons for the creation of the Jihadi apparatus) at the same time will lead to Pakistan itself being consumed by the Jihadi fireball.
3) On the issue of the general elections, I believe that Vardarajan may indeed have got it wrong. The UPA may come back-I don't deny it. But to say that the Indian voter will turn away from the BJP because of divisive politics or that most voters recognize NREGS to be a central scheme is, I believe, wrong. The BJP is stronger than ever in states like Gujrat and Karnataka despite shockingly divisive politics. Just because Delhi did not fall under the spell of divisive politics does not mean that the BJP's style of functioning has no appeal. As for the question of NREGS, Vardarajan believes that the BJP lost in Rajasthan because people recognized NREGS to be a central scheme. I believe that the primary reason for the BJP's defeat was not this however. Rather I think that the abrasive personality politics employed by Vasundhara Raje turned a lot of people off and created divisions within her party, which led to her defeat. Moreover, even if the people of Rajasthan looked at NREGS as a Central scheme, the people of MP and Chattisgarh certainly did not. Indeed the fact that the BJP won in MP and Chattisgarh, thus defying anti-incumbency, does mean something.
Vardarajan also ruled out the possibility of Mayawati becoming PM, saying that she will get not more than 50 seats. I'm not sure how true this is-I believe that she may even get closer to 60. I certainly think she has a reasonable shot at the PM's chair.
Despite my disagreements with Siddharat Vardarajan, I must put on record what a pleasure it was hearing him speak. He is a lucid speaker, certainly knows his stuff, and provides an original insight into a number of issues. I look forward to reading his columns more regularly in future.
1) On the Mumbai Terror Attack:
Evidence points to Pakistan-of that there is no doubt. But which Pakistan? Vardarajan pointed out that there are many competing groups within Pakistan-the army, the ISI, the Jihadis, the political parties, civil society-and that it is likely that the terror attack did not have the sanction of the civilian government. Instead, the common belief seems to be Jehadi groups within Pakistan working with some elements within the army and the ISI carried out the attack. The phrase 'Jihadi groups' points to LeT, but what is interesting is that the LeT is no longer working as an independent Jihadi group. Rather there is clear evidence that it has developed ties with the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives working on the western border. This explains the targeting of Americans and Jews, something that LeT is not known to have done in the past. Keeping these new ties between the LeT and other Jihadi groups in mind, Vardarajan espouses a rather complex motive behind the attacks. He believes that the attacks took place to create tension between India and Pakistan, which would force Pakistan to pull troops out of the western front and move them to the Indian border, thereby relieving some pressure on the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda.
2) On India-Pakistan relations:
Despite the recent positive developments in Indo-Pak relations (after reaching a low in December-January), Vardarajan is fairly pessimistic about the relations between the two countries over the next few years (although he does say that all out war is unlikely). The primary reason for this is the nexus between the LeT and the Taliban. As long as this nexus is allowed to thrive in Pakistan, terrorist attacks will continue in India and this will prevent a substantial improvement of relations. Vardarajan believes that Pakistan will not crack down on Jihadi groups largely because once the Americans leave Afghanistan (which is bound to happen at some time), they want to ensure that they have a tried and tested Jihadi apparatus left to fill the power vacuum.
3) On the upcoming elections:
The short answer seems to be: the UPA is coming back. Also look out for a resurgent AIADMK, TDP, BSP and a still powerful Left. Neither the UPA nor the NDA will get more than 200 seats, so third front support will be essential. Vardarajan has great faith in the Indian voter. He believes they will reject divisive politics, that deep down they think the BJP is responsible for the growth in terrorism, that they recognize the NREGS is a central scheme, that they are not swayed by the theory of anti-incumbency.
And now for some of my views:
1) I agree primarily with much of Vardarajan has to say on foreign policy (who am I not to). However one major issue I have with him is his determination to separate the Kashmir issue from the Mumbai attacks. He claimed that because of the convergence of Indian and Pakistani views on Kashmir in the last 5 years, Kashmir was not the reason why Mumbai was attacked. However, if we are to believe that the Jihadi groups were primarily responsible for the attack, and not an official wing of the Pakistani establishment, then I wonder how easy it is to isolate Kashmir entirely. Certainly Jihadi groups have a motive in getting Pakistani troops away from the Afghan border, but I think the more pressing reason for the attack is as follows: Jihadi groups wanted to derail the peace process and strengthen extremist groups in India (namely the BJP). The timing of the attack-just before a round of state elections, points to this fact. Presumably, the terrorists felt that the attacks would result in the Indian public taking a hard line and sweeping the BJP into power. Why would they want this to happen? Because groups like the BJP were primarily responsible for the huge azadi demonstrations that took place in Kashmir last summer-remember the Amarnath controversy? The relationship between a strong BJP and popular discontent in Kashmir seems to be a direct one, and this is of great benefit to groups like the LeT, which receive much of their funding and popular support due to their stand on the Kashmir issue.
2) Vardarajan is certainly spot on when he comes to predicting the future of Indo-Pak relations. Until Pakistan dismantles its carefully constructed Jihadi framework, terror attacks will continue in India and relations will remain sour. What is baffling is why Pakistani officialdom does not crack down on the Jihadis. Recent events in Swat, where the government has effectively ceded administration to the Jihadi groups, points to the fact that the Pakistani authorities have created a Frankenstein monster. It is quite possible that their obsession to control Afghan domestic affairs and hurt India with a thousand small cuts (the two primary reasons for the creation of the Jihadi apparatus) at the same time will lead to Pakistan itself being consumed by the Jihadi fireball.
3) On the issue of the general elections, I believe that Vardarajan may indeed have got it wrong. The UPA may come back-I don't deny it. But to say that the Indian voter will turn away from the BJP because of divisive politics or that most voters recognize NREGS to be a central scheme is, I believe, wrong. The BJP is stronger than ever in states like Gujrat and Karnataka despite shockingly divisive politics. Just because Delhi did not fall under the spell of divisive politics does not mean that the BJP's style of functioning has no appeal. As for the question of NREGS, Vardarajan believes that the BJP lost in Rajasthan because people recognized NREGS to be a central scheme. I believe that the primary reason for the BJP's defeat was not this however. Rather I think that the abrasive personality politics employed by Vasundhara Raje turned a lot of people off and created divisions within her party, which led to her defeat. Moreover, even if the people of Rajasthan looked at NREGS as a Central scheme, the people of MP and Chattisgarh certainly did not. Indeed the fact that the BJP won in MP and Chattisgarh, thus defying anti-incumbency, does mean something.
Vardarajan also ruled out the possibility of Mayawati becoming PM, saying that she will get not more than 50 seats. I'm not sure how true this is-I believe that she may even get closer to 60. I certainly think she has a reasonable shot at the PM's chair.
Despite my disagreements with Siddharat Vardarajan, I must put on record what a pleasure it was hearing him speak. He is a lucid speaker, certainly knows his stuff, and provides an original insight into a number of issues. I look forward to reading his columns more regularly in future.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ulta Pradesh
An addition to Keshava's description of the Hell that is the Indian political scene:
Uttar Pradesh. Indian politics is murky, that we know. But the politics in the state of Uttar Pradesh is murkier than imaginable. Aside from the BJP predictably re-raising the Ram mandir issue, a lot has happened in UP over the last two weeks.
Firstly, Kalyan Singh, CM during the Babri years has joined the Samajwadi Party. He has even (sort of) apologised for the demolition. One cannot understand why Mulayam Singh, who will need the sizable Muslim vote bank to support him if he is to retain even half of his seats in the Lok Sabha, has brought Kalyan Singh into the party. Ostensibly it is to reinforce the coalition of OBC's and Muslims that he has built up so effectively (Singh is an OBC), in order to act as a counterweight to the Brahmin-Dalit combine of the BSP. However even a village idiot could tell you that no matter how many times Kalyan Singh apologises for Babri, Muslims will not easily forgive, let alone forget the role he played in the demolition. And even though M J Akbar points out correctly that there are people other than Kalyan Singh who deserved to be blamed for the incident, that fact is that he is the natural target for all the anger directed against the kar sevaks. Mayawati, who harbors prime-ministerial ambitions, has already moved to make inroads in the Muslim vote bank. She made a big scene by joining Prakash Karat and the left in opposing the Nuclear Deal, and now she has offered a ticket to Afzal Ansari, for whom the word thug seems polite. Ansari was involved in the murder of BJP MLA Krishnanad Rai 2 years ago, and Mayawati spearheaded the agitation against him. But then, MLA's are expendable aren't they. And so I believe Kalyan Singh will lose Mulayam the Muslim vote. I don't even know whether he'll gain much more from the OBC community. The Yadavs are behind him, but Singh is a fading leader amongst the Lodhs and the BJP will be looking to regain some lost ground by getting some of the Lodh vote.
Secondly, Mulayam Singh has aligned himself with the Congress, an example of classic political opportunism. The opportunism began when the SP extended support to the UPA coalition during the trust vote (I refuse to believe there were no deals struck). Indeed, no one has forgotten the feud Amar Singh (Mulayam's chief 'fixer') had with Sonia Gandhi, or the manner in which he famously said that she is intent on making him a 'keeda makoda'. Even now, the alliance has a distasteful air about it. Amar Singh has said that the Governor of UP (who is supposed to be above politics) helped put the pre-poll 'understanding' together. The Congress has nothing to lose, but again I don't know how good this deal will be for the Samajwadi Party. It may of course be good for Mulayam personally-he is facing a disproportionate assets case in the Supreme Court. Amar Singh says that the report filed by the CBI has not 1 not 10 but 288 mistakes. Perhaps the deal between the Congress and the SP will alleviate some of the pressure on Mulayam. The fact is however that the Congress is facing anti-incumbency across the country. And Mayawati, who will fight the elections alone, should be able to take advantage of the 'election opportunism'.
Mulayam Singh has gambled a lot in the last 2 weeks, and I feel that he has gambled foolishly. Perhaps there was no alternative but to ally with the Congress in order to ensure that anti-BSP votes don't get split, but there certainly was no compulsion to get Kalyan Singh into the fold. Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the endgame in UP. For the last 10 years, Mayawati and Mulayam have tussled for political power as the BJP and Congress have sunk to new levels of irrelevance. Mayawati has an upper hand as of now, and she may just be able to kill Mulayam off for good. I'm not betting on it yet, but it does look like an increasingly likely possibility.
Look out for more developments from UP. To me, it is the most interesting Indian state. Historically it has played a pivotal role in Indian politics. It has the most seats in the Lok Sabha. The Congress and the BJP can never get near 200 seats without a strong showing in UP. And it has a whole troupe of personalities-Amar, Mayawati, Ajit Singh, to name a few. For 10 years, UP has not played a prominent role in the central government, but I think that is set to change. Love it or hate it, you can't ignore Ulta Pradesh.
Uttar Pradesh. Indian politics is murky, that we know. But the politics in the state of Uttar Pradesh is murkier than imaginable. Aside from the BJP predictably re-raising the Ram mandir issue, a lot has happened in UP over the last two weeks.
Firstly, Kalyan Singh, CM during the Babri years has joined the Samajwadi Party. He has even (sort of) apologised for the demolition. One cannot understand why Mulayam Singh, who will need the sizable Muslim vote bank to support him if he is to retain even half of his seats in the Lok Sabha, has brought Kalyan Singh into the party. Ostensibly it is to reinforce the coalition of OBC's and Muslims that he has built up so effectively (Singh is an OBC), in order to act as a counterweight to the Brahmin-Dalit combine of the BSP. However even a village idiot could tell you that no matter how many times Kalyan Singh apologises for Babri, Muslims will not easily forgive, let alone forget the role he played in the demolition. And even though M J Akbar points out correctly that there are people other than Kalyan Singh who deserved to be blamed for the incident, that fact is that he is the natural target for all the anger directed against the kar sevaks. Mayawati, who harbors prime-ministerial ambitions, has already moved to make inroads in the Muslim vote bank. She made a big scene by joining Prakash Karat and the left in opposing the Nuclear Deal, and now she has offered a ticket to Afzal Ansari, for whom the word thug seems polite. Ansari was involved in the murder of BJP MLA Krishnanad Rai 2 years ago, and Mayawati spearheaded the agitation against him. But then, MLA's are expendable aren't they. And so I believe Kalyan Singh will lose Mulayam the Muslim vote. I don't even know whether he'll gain much more from the OBC community. The Yadavs are behind him, but Singh is a fading leader amongst the Lodhs and the BJP will be looking to regain some lost ground by getting some of the Lodh vote.
Secondly, Mulayam Singh has aligned himself with the Congress, an example of classic political opportunism. The opportunism began when the SP extended support to the UPA coalition during the trust vote (I refuse to believe there were no deals struck). Indeed, no one has forgotten the feud Amar Singh (Mulayam's chief 'fixer') had with Sonia Gandhi, or the manner in which he famously said that she is intent on making him a 'keeda makoda'. Even now, the alliance has a distasteful air about it. Amar Singh has said that the Governor of UP (who is supposed to be above politics) helped put the pre-poll 'understanding' together. The Congress has nothing to lose, but again I don't know how good this deal will be for the Samajwadi Party. It may of course be good for Mulayam personally-he is facing a disproportionate assets case in the Supreme Court. Amar Singh says that the report filed by the CBI has not 1 not 10 but 288 mistakes. Perhaps the deal between the Congress and the SP will alleviate some of the pressure on Mulayam. The fact is however that the Congress is facing anti-incumbency across the country. And Mayawati, who will fight the elections alone, should be able to take advantage of the 'election opportunism'.
Mulayam Singh has gambled a lot in the last 2 weeks, and I feel that he has gambled foolishly. Perhaps there was no alternative but to ally with the Congress in order to ensure that anti-BSP votes don't get split, but there certainly was no compulsion to get Kalyan Singh into the fold. Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the endgame in UP. For the last 10 years, Mayawati and Mulayam have tussled for political power as the BJP and Congress have sunk to new levels of irrelevance. Mayawati has an upper hand as of now, and she may just be able to kill Mulayam off for good. I'm not betting on it yet, but it does look like an increasingly likely possibility.
Look out for more developments from UP. To me, it is the most interesting Indian state. Historically it has played a pivotal role in Indian politics. It has the most seats in the Lok Sabha. The Congress and the BJP can never get near 200 seats without a strong showing in UP. And it has a whole troupe of personalities-Amar, Mayawati, Ajit Singh, to name a few. For 10 years, UP has not played a prominent role in the central government, but I think that is set to change. Love it or hate it, you can't ignore Ulta Pradesh.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Haathi Mere Saathi
After writing an article in which he attempted to relate economic development with Ranji trophy success, Swaminathan Aiyar returned to writing sense this weekend when he published an article declaring Mayawati to be the front runner for the Prime Ministership after the upcoming elections. I believe that most of India would pray that he is wrong, for a variety of reasons, but I will stick my neck out here and say that in the current political scenario, perhaps she is the best choice for the job. My reasons for saying so are as follows:
1) Even if things go her way, Mayawati will not win more than 70 seats. She will have to aid either the NDA or the UPA or even the Third Front if she wants to form a government. Her political opportunism, as Aiyar points out, will ensure that she is able to ally herself with any of these blocs should the need arise. In such the coalition government that will thus arise, most of her ministers will be from other parties, especially larger ones. Since we live in an age of coalition politics as it is, most of the possible ministerial candidates in a Mayawati led government have already been ministers in some form or the other over the past 10 years. Her government will not result in political upheaval as some expect, but in a certain amount of continuity.
2) Many critics of Mayawati point to her lack of clear and well defined policy positions on a number of important issues, ranging from relations with Pakistan to subsidies, pension reform, education etc. Her only ideology seems to be Dalit upliftment. However contrary to popular belief, I believe that this could be a good thing. She is not limited by ideological baggage. Moreover she is limited to UP and though she may have All India aspirations, her policies will not be governed by vote bank politics outside UP. This is in contrast to the BJP and Congress, which as All India parties, have to manage the pulls and pushes from all corners of the country. Once she comes to power, she will be forced to take coherent positions on a range of important matters, which, if she has good advisers, could mean the birth of policies that are based on reason and general well being rather than the benefit of a particular community. If the right ministers and bureaucrats are appointed, we could actually find sound policies not bound by populist necessities.
3) Mayawati's ascent to power does not pose a threat to the secular nature of India. In this respect she is unlike both the BJP and the Congress. While the BJP pushes for what it terms 'positive secularism' and the need for Hinduism to be 'respected' the Congress indulges in vote bank politics and minority appeasement, resulting in a backlash from the Hindu right.
4) Mayawati has immense political skill and personal charisma. The presence of such a leader is lacking in both the Congress and the BJP. The former has Sonia Gandhi, but she refuses to take up the Prime Ministership. The BJP has Advani who is looking increasingly old, and Narendra Modi who is increasingly unpopular with is party workers (not that that has stopped him before). If she utilizes it properly, Mayawati should be able to use her strong personality to cobble a coalition, hold it together and drag it along through its five year term. She is a strong leader and will be able to ensure that her writ runs outside 7 Race Course Road, unlike some other Prime Ministers that we have had.
5) Mayawati's rise to the PM's post will have immense symbolic power. Here we have a dalit woman who has risen to where she is not because of her family name or connections but because of her own skill and ambition. If she becomes PM, marginalised communities like Dalits, Muslims and even Adivasi's could hope for greater inclusion within the Indian political setup and a larger voice. Indeed one of the greatest problems of Indian democracy is the lack of a variety of credible political voices in the minority communities. This can be seen in the birth of Naxalism, which began (at least) as an attempt by tribals to ensure that their demands are heard and addressed. Yet Mayawati is not a solely Dalit figure, as her victory in 2007 showed. She appeals to all those who feel disenfranchised, and is able to do so because she is a symbol of traditionally 'fringe' group asserting their rights. India has successfully tackled the issue of linguistic diversity. Mayawati may just be able to tackle the issue of caste divisiveness in the country.
6) And finally, she is a new entity as far as Delhi politics goes. She neither supported the NDA for a stretch of time, nor the UPA, and that in itself says something. She is capable of shaking up a system which looks like it might stagnate into two coalitions pointing fingers at each other.
These are just six reasons why Mayawati could make a good Prime Minister. There may be more. Of course, a lot could go wrong. Her lack of ideological baggage could lead to the creation of totally populist policies. Her strong personality could lead to authoritarian tendencies and thus result in political turmoil. Her famed opportunism could lead to great instability. And then there is her corruption.
However I would rather be an optimist. If Mayawati becomes PM, she will have more choices than many of her predecessors. After all she is not bound by precedent or party democracy. And I do believe that if she becomes PM, she will make many right choices. And so I say at least think about Mayawati. Do not attempt to ignore her, do not cringe every time she says Uttar Pardes instead of Uttar Pradesh, every time she cuts a giant birthday cake. The elephant is rumbling in. Learn how to ride it.
1) Even if things go her way, Mayawati will not win more than 70 seats. She will have to aid either the NDA or the UPA or even the Third Front if she wants to form a government. Her political opportunism, as Aiyar points out, will ensure that she is able to ally herself with any of these blocs should the need arise. In such the coalition government that will thus arise, most of her ministers will be from other parties, especially larger ones. Since we live in an age of coalition politics as it is, most of the possible ministerial candidates in a Mayawati led government have already been ministers in some form or the other over the past 10 years. Her government will not result in political upheaval as some expect, but in a certain amount of continuity.
2) Many critics of Mayawati point to her lack of clear and well defined policy positions on a number of important issues, ranging from relations with Pakistan to subsidies, pension reform, education etc. Her only ideology seems to be Dalit upliftment. However contrary to popular belief, I believe that this could be a good thing. She is not limited by ideological baggage. Moreover she is limited to UP and though she may have All India aspirations, her policies will not be governed by vote bank politics outside UP. This is in contrast to the BJP and Congress, which as All India parties, have to manage the pulls and pushes from all corners of the country. Once she comes to power, she will be forced to take coherent positions on a range of important matters, which, if she has good advisers, could mean the birth of policies that are based on reason and general well being rather than the benefit of a particular community. If the right ministers and bureaucrats are appointed, we could actually find sound policies not bound by populist necessities.
3) Mayawati's ascent to power does not pose a threat to the secular nature of India. In this respect she is unlike both the BJP and the Congress. While the BJP pushes for what it terms 'positive secularism' and the need for Hinduism to be 'respected' the Congress indulges in vote bank politics and minority appeasement, resulting in a backlash from the Hindu right.
4) Mayawati has immense political skill and personal charisma. The presence of such a leader is lacking in both the Congress and the BJP. The former has Sonia Gandhi, but she refuses to take up the Prime Ministership. The BJP has Advani who is looking increasingly old, and Narendra Modi who is increasingly unpopular with is party workers (not that that has stopped him before). If she utilizes it properly, Mayawati should be able to use her strong personality to cobble a coalition, hold it together and drag it along through its five year term. She is a strong leader and will be able to ensure that her writ runs outside 7 Race Course Road, unlike some other Prime Ministers that we have had.
5) Mayawati's rise to the PM's post will have immense symbolic power. Here we have a dalit woman who has risen to where she is not because of her family name or connections but because of her own skill and ambition. If she becomes PM, marginalised communities like Dalits, Muslims and even Adivasi's could hope for greater inclusion within the Indian political setup and a larger voice. Indeed one of the greatest problems of Indian democracy is the lack of a variety of credible political voices in the minority communities. This can be seen in the birth of Naxalism, which began (at least) as an attempt by tribals to ensure that their demands are heard and addressed. Yet Mayawati is not a solely Dalit figure, as her victory in 2007 showed. She appeals to all those who feel disenfranchised, and is able to do so because she is a symbol of traditionally 'fringe' group asserting their rights. India has successfully tackled the issue of linguistic diversity. Mayawati may just be able to tackle the issue of caste divisiveness in the country.
6) And finally, she is a new entity as far as Delhi politics goes. She neither supported the NDA for a stretch of time, nor the UPA, and that in itself says something. She is capable of shaking up a system which looks like it might stagnate into two coalitions pointing fingers at each other.
These are just six reasons why Mayawati could make a good Prime Minister. There may be more. Of course, a lot could go wrong. Her lack of ideological baggage could lead to the creation of totally populist policies. Her strong personality could lead to authoritarian tendencies and thus result in political turmoil. Her famed opportunism could lead to great instability. And then there is her corruption.
However I would rather be an optimist. If Mayawati becomes PM, she will have more choices than many of her predecessors. After all she is not bound by precedent or party democracy. And I do believe that if she becomes PM, she will make many right choices. And so I say at least think about Mayawati. Do not attempt to ignore her, do not cringe every time she says Uttar Pardes instead of Uttar Pradesh, every time she cuts a giant birthday cake. The elephant is rumbling in. Learn how to ride it.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Suicide Watch
Much has been made of the BJP's organisational problems and the widespread prevalence of dissenting factions within their camp. But judging by this article, that appeared in the Times of India, it is the Congress and not the BJP that is bent upon committing political harakiri. With elections less than a 100 days away, the party has made clear its decision not to create a pre-poll alliance. The United Progressive Alliance will not contest elections as a united front at all, and while they may be some amount of seat adjustments by some members of the alliance, one can't help but feel that in an election that is tipped to be perhaps the closest in history, the Congress could lose out.
The Congress' decision seems to have been prompted by problems encountered in seat sharing talks with the SP, LJP and NCP. However their decision to contest the forthcoming elections alone is inexplicable, especially as they have seen how useful alliances are. In the previous Lok Sabha elections, a pre-poll alliance with the DPA in Tamil Nadu led the combination to win 40 out of 40 seats in that state. Moreover, the Congress has reaped the benefits of alliances by staying in power in the centre for 5 years with less than 145 seats of its own.
As already mentioned, these coming elections will, in all probability be exceptionally close. In many states, the fight will not be a two way tussle between the Congress and the BJP. In most large states, it will be a four or even five way tussle. For example in UP we have the SP and the BSP apart from the Congress and the BJP. In Maharashtra we have the NCP and Shiv Sena apart from the big two, not to mention the MNS. And these are just two examples-in fact in many states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the BJP and the Congress are not big players at all. Whoever is going to win these elections will have to form smart alliances, will have to be willing to make compromises in the allocation of seats, will have to respect what Atal Behari Vajpayee once famously called the 'coalition dharma'.
These are not the years of IG or Rajiv Gandhi. The Congress will never form a majority on its own. Many pundits are predicting that the Congress may not even be able to win 140 seats, forget 272. The sooner Sonia Gandhi realises this, the better off the Congress will be. And if she does not realise this, the whole country should be on suicide watch as India's Grand Old Party tries, once again, to kill itself.
The Congress' decision seems to have been prompted by problems encountered in seat sharing talks with the SP, LJP and NCP. However their decision to contest the forthcoming elections alone is inexplicable, especially as they have seen how useful alliances are. In the previous Lok Sabha elections, a pre-poll alliance with the DPA in Tamil Nadu led the combination to win 40 out of 40 seats in that state. Moreover, the Congress has reaped the benefits of alliances by staying in power in the centre for 5 years with less than 145 seats of its own.
As already mentioned, these coming elections will, in all probability be exceptionally close. In many states, the fight will not be a two way tussle between the Congress and the BJP. In most large states, it will be a four or even five way tussle. For example in UP we have the SP and the BSP apart from the Congress and the BJP. In Maharashtra we have the NCP and Shiv Sena apart from the big two, not to mention the MNS. And these are just two examples-in fact in many states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, the BJP and the Congress are not big players at all. Whoever is going to win these elections will have to form smart alliances, will have to be willing to make compromises in the allocation of seats, will have to respect what Atal Behari Vajpayee once famously called the 'coalition dharma'.
These are not the years of IG or Rajiv Gandhi. The Congress will never form a majority on its own. Many pundits are predicting that the Congress may not even be able to win 140 seats, forget 272. The sooner Sonia Gandhi realises this, the better off the Congress will be. And if she does not realise this, the whole country should be on suicide watch as India's Grand Old Party tries, once again, to kill itself.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Falling by the Wayside
With the Mumbai attacks and its prolonged aftermath dominating newspaper space, scant attention has been paid to other relatively major developments in the Indian political sphere. VP Singh died, Vasundhara Raje's attempt at a replication of the Modi style personality politics in her state of Rajasthan was shown to be a failure, and Sheila Dikshit swept into an unprecedented third term in office. However what really fell off the media's radar was the defeat of Uma Bharati and Shibu Soren in Assembly elections, marking a 180 degree political turnaround for the two.
Uma Bharati, one of the darlings of the Hindutva movement that propelled the BJP onto centre stage, is perhaps best remembered for leading the BJP to a historic victory in the 2003 elections in Madhya Pradesh, crushing the incumbent Congress government led by Digvijay Singh. Yet the 'fiery sanyasin' as she came to be known, soon fell out with the BJP high command and formed her own party-the Bharatiya Janshakti Party, along with her trusted lieutenant, Prahlad Patel. There were many who felt that Bharati's absence from the BJP would weaken it considerably, especially as she was perhaps (along with Narendra Modi) the only leader of the generation that is to succeed that of Advani and Vajpayee, that had widespread popular support. Many also believed that the BJS would eat into the BJP's vote share and actually harm the prospects of the ruling party in the state elections that were concluded just over a month ago. What transpired in those elections was that not only was the BJS' influence negligible, but Bharati actually lost her own seat. It remains to be see whether she will honour her promise and retire to Kedarnath.
The case of Shibu Soren is even more interesting than that of Bharati. Soren has led the Jharkhand movement for years and it was felt that at least in Jharkhand, he was invincible. He used this perception to his advantage often, punching well above his weight in the Central Government. It was he who is said to have saved Narasimha Rao's government in the famous trust vote, he who wrangled the coal portfolio for himself in Manmohan Singh's government despite having only five MP's and he who supported the Nuclear Deal only when he was assured of the Jharkhand Chief Minister's Chair. Although Soren was notorious in Delhi for his wheeling and dealing, and was reviled by the English press for his role in the Chirudih massacre case, he remained a central figure in Jharkhand politics. Yet his election defeat, a few weeks ago, to a relatively unknown opponent, will bring his central position into question. While Shibu Soren is still called Guruji by his cadre, one surely must wonder how long he will be able to command respect, especially as he lost his election when he was running as a sitting Chief Minister.
What lessons do the defeats of Shibu Soren and Uma Bharati provide for us? Most obviously they show, if we didn't already know it, that the actions of the Indian voter should never be taken lightly, never be predicted with any level of confidence, never said to be understood. The defeats also draw attention to those politicians who have managed to survive the voter's wrath time and again-Kamal Nath, Sharad Pawar, Laloo Yadav spring to mind. True political muscle in India can only be judged by the number of times you survive the test of the voter. Both Soren and especially Bharati will have to work extremely hard to rebuild their status as political heavy weights and generate the respect they were once able to command.
What implications do the respective defeats have for the immediate political scene in the country? Uma Bharati's decline signals a political vacuum at least in the Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh. This is a vacuum that Mayawati especially will be looking to explore, especially as she is strong in the corresponding region of Uttar Pradesh. Although Bharati's support came for the OBC's and Mayawati draws most of her support from SC's, I wouldn't put it past behanji to move into the open space here. If she wants to become a politician with nationwide appeal, she must win at least 5 seats outside UP in the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls. She will most definitely be eyeing the LS seats from Bundelkhand. Shibu Soren's defeat on the other hand does not mean that his party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, is finished. I do believe they will play a strong role in Jharkhand politics. However I feel his loss will diminish his bargaining power in the centre, and will make him more susceptible to prosecution in a number of criminal cases that are filed against him. Indeed, if he is convicted, perhaps other politicians will look at the case of Shibu Soren and think twice before committing a criminal act, though this is probably wishful thinking.
Uma Bharati, one of the darlings of the Hindutva movement that propelled the BJP onto centre stage, is perhaps best remembered for leading the BJP to a historic victory in the 2003 elections in Madhya Pradesh, crushing the incumbent Congress government led by Digvijay Singh. Yet the 'fiery sanyasin' as she came to be known, soon fell out with the BJP high command and formed her own party-the Bharatiya Janshakti Party, along with her trusted lieutenant, Prahlad Patel. There were many who felt that Bharati's absence from the BJP would weaken it considerably, especially as she was perhaps (along with Narendra Modi) the only leader of the generation that is to succeed that of Advani and Vajpayee, that had widespread popular support. Many also believed that the BJS would eat into the BJP's vote share and actually harm the prospects of the ruling party in the state elections that were concluded just over a month ago. What transpired in those elections was that not only was the BJS' influence negligible, but Bharati actually lost her own seat. It remains to be see whether she will honour her promise and retire to Kedarnath.
The case of Shibu Soren is even more interesting than that of Bharati. Soren has led the Jharkhand movement for years and it was felt that at least in Jharkhand, he was invincible. He used this perception to his advantage often, punching well above his weight in the Central Government. It was he who is said to have saved Narasimha Rao's government in the famous trust vote, he who wrangled the coal portfolio for himself in Manmohan Singh's government despite having only five MP's and he who supported the Nuclear Deal only when he was assured of the Jharkhand Chief Minister's Chair. Although Soren was notorious in Delhi for his wheeling and dealing, and was reviled by the English press for his role in the Chirudih massacre case, he remained a central figure in Jharkhand politics. Yet his election defeat, a few weeks ago, to a relatively unknown opponent, will bring his central position into question. While Shibu Soren is still called Guruji by his cadre, one surely must wonder how long he will be able to command respect, especially as he lost his election when he was running as a sitting Chief Minister.
What lessons do the defeats of Shibu Soren and Uma Bharati provide for us? Most obviously they show, if we didn't already know it, that the actions of the Indian voter should never be taken lightly, never be predicted with any level of confidence, never said to be understood. The defeats also draw attention to those politicians who have managed to survive the voter's wrath time and again-Kamal Nath, Sharad Pawar, Laloo Yadav spring to mind. True political muscle in India can only be judged by the number of times you survive the test of the voter. Both Soren and especially Bharati will have to work extremely hard to rebuild their status as political heavy weights and generate the respect they were once able to command.
What implications do the respective defeats have for the immediate political scene in the country? Uma Bharati's decline signals a political vacuum at least in the Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh. This is a vacuum that Mayawati especially will be looking to explore, especially as she is strong in the corresponding region of Uttar Pradesh. Although Bharati's support came for the OBC's and Mayawati draws most of her support from SC's, I wouldn't put it past behanji to move into the open space here. If she wants to become a politician with nationwide appeal, she must win at least 5 seats outside UP in the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls. She will most definitely be eyeing the LS seats from Bundelkhand. Shibu Soren's defeat on the other hand does not mean that his party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, is finished. I do believe they will play a strong role in Jharkhand politics. However I feel his loss will diminish his bargaining power in the centre, and will make him more susceptible to prosecution in a number of criminal cases that are filed against him. Indeed, if he is convicted, perhaps other politicians will look at the case of Shibu Soren and think twice before committing a criminal act, though this is probably wishful thinking.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Aazadi?
Basharat Peer's first book, Curfewed Night, is reportedly flying off racks in bookshops across the country, and I can see why. To be extremely brief, the book is about Kashmir. But it is not a strictly political or military account, nor is it a historical account seeking to determine whether Kashmir really should be a part of India or not. It is instead a book which tells stories, stories of ordinary people, people who are tortured, who are forced to leave their homes, whose lives are ruined; stories of girls who remain unmarried because there are no men left to marry, of parents who wished they had daughters because their sons never came home. As an Indian, it is painful reading Curfewed Night. It is painful because Peer says things that most Indians don't want to hear. Through his stories he says that Kashmirs don't want to be a part of India, that the Indian military has committed human rights abuses on an unparalleled scale in Kashmir. He even talks about how Kashmirs cheer for any team, even England, when they are playing against India. And he writes in a manner in which you feel he is saying nothing but the truth. Curfewed Night is, I believe, compulsory reading for every Indian.
How then do we reconcile Curfewed Night with what happened in Srinagar today. Omar Abdullah was sworn in as Chief Minister after an election in which more than 60% of the electorate braved the sub zero temperatures to come out and vote. A 60% turn out is impressive anywhere in the world. It is unprecedented in Kashmir. The vote threw up, as expected, a hung assembly. In the Jammu region, the BJP, riding on the Amarnath controversy made great gains. The valley remained split between the PDP and Abdullah's NC. And the Congress, playing kingmaker as it did last time round, decided to support the NC. I shall not discuss here why voters voted the way they did or why the Congress acted the way it did. Instead I wish to ask what such a high turnout means for the future of Kashmir.
Here is what I think it does not mean. It does not mean that support for separatism is dead. It does not mean that Kashmirs have given up on their demand for 'aazadi'. It does not mean that Kashmirs like India. A look back at the protests in Srinagar last summer bears testimony to this fact.
But it does mean that India should not get out of Kashmir (despite whatever various journalists might have had to say last summer), that Kashmirs want their basic grievances addressed, that the Abdullahs have genuine support in Kashmir, especially in rural areas, and that the Hurriyat must move quickly if it wants to remain relevant in peoples minds.
And here is why it does mean all of the above:
Why should we not give Kashmir up? Because we have no one to give it up to. The people of Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. They have shown by this vote more than anything else that they have faith in democracy. What democracy will they get in Pakistan? Their Kashmiri brothers in PoK remain controlled by Islamabad. All elections in PoK are an eyewash. To join Pakistan would mean substituting rule from Delhi with rule from Islamabad, and much as Peer may write about Kashmiris cheering Pakistani cricket teams, I think even he would agree that some form of local democracy is better than none at all.
Why do Kashmiris want basic grievances addressed? Because for close on 20 years, they have been systematically ignored as Kashmir has turned into a battleground between the military and the militants. A boycott of elections is useless because the Hurriyat (which calls for it) doesn't talk about development. It only talks of freedom. Talk of freedom is fine, but what happens when you cant find a job, get 2 square meals a day, don't have proper access to health care? The people of Kashmir may desire freedom. But they also desire development, and hence the vote.
The support for the Abdullah's has not diminished, no matter how many times Farooq presses the self destruct button. And the Abdullah's do provide a credible alternative to the Hurriyat. If the Hurriyat were to enter elections, they may not get more seats than the NC and the PDP.
For all these reasons the Hurriyat must move to remain relevant. (By the Hurriyat here I mean the moderate wing). They must enter the Indian political setup and campaign for their demands from within. The voters have already legitimized the Indian system of democracy, even if they haven't reconciled themselves to permanent Indian rule. Yet will the Hurriyat act? I believe that their lack of widespread support outside the major cities like Srinagar, and the fact that many of the Hurriyat leaders have their fingers in the pie, (Kashmir receives huge amounts of money from the centre, certainly this doesn't trickle down to the masses and the Hurriyat leaders live in palaces. Do the arithmetic yourself) prevents them from doing so.
While many Kashmiris may desire their land to become a Switzerland of the East, I think most understand that that is impossible in the near future. An independent Kashmir would have to be guaranteed by at least India, China, Pakistan and the US. When these countries cant agree on anything right now, what hope is there for them to agree on Kashmir. The fact that they have voted in such high number is thus a positive sign. The government must make good on its promises, the army must strive to interfere as little as possible with daily life in Kashmir, and ultimately relations with Pakistan must improve so that the LoC can become an open border and economic ties can strengthen between the two Kashmirs.
How then do we reconcile Curfewed Night with what happened in Srinagar today. Omar Abdullah was sworn in as Chief Minister after an election in which more than 60% of the electorate braved the sub zero temperatures to come out and vote. A 60% turn out is impressive anywhere in the world. It is unprecedented in Kashmir. The vote threw up, as expected, a hung assembly. In the Jammu region, the BJP, riding on the Amarnath controversy made great gains. The valley remained split between the PDP and Abdullah's NC. And the Congress, playing kingmaker as it did last time round, decided to support the NC. I shall not discuss here why voters voted the way they did or why the Congress acted the way it did. Instead I wish to ask what such a high turnout means for the future of Kashmir.
Here is what I think it does not mean. It does not mean that support for separatism is dead. It does not mean that Kashmirs have given up on their demand for 'aazadi'. It does not mean that Kashmirs like India. A look back at the protests in Srinagar last summer bears testimony to this fact.
But it does mean that India should not get out of Kashmir (despite whatever various journalists might have had to say last summer), that Kashmirs want their basic grievances addressed, that the Abdullahs have genuine support in Kashmir, especially in rural areas, and that the Hurriyat must move quickly if it wants to remain relevant in peoples minds.
And here is why it does mean all of the above:
Why should we not give Kashmir up? Because we have no one to give it up to. The people of Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. They have shown by this vote more than anything else that they have faith in democracy. What democracy will they get in Pakistan? Their Kashmiri brothers in PoK remain controlled by Islamabad. All elections in PoK are an eyewash. To join Pakistan would mean substituting rule from Delhi with rule from Islamabad, and much as Peer may write about Kashmiris cheering Pakistani cricket teams, I think even he would agree that some form of local democracy is better than none at all.
Why do Kashmiris want basic grievances addressed? Because for close on 20 years, they have been systematically ignored as Kashmir has turned into a battleground between the military and the militants. A boycott of elections is useless because the Hurriyat (which calls for it) doesn't talk about development. It only talks of freedom. Talk of freedom is fine, but what happens when you cant find a job, get 2 square meals a day, don't have proper access to health care? The people of Kashmir may desire freedom. But they also desire development, and hence the vote.
The support for the Abdullah's has not diminished, no matter how many times Farooq presses the self destruct button. And the Abdullah's do provide a credible alternative to the Hurriyat. If the Hurriyat were to enter elections, they may not get more seats than the NC and the PDP.
For all these reasons the Hurriyat must move to remain relevant. (By the Hurriyat here I mean the moderate wing). They must enter the Indian political setup and campaign for their demands from within. The voters have already legitimized the Indian system of democracy, even if they haven't reconciled themselves to permanent Indian rule. Yet will the Hurriyat act? I believe that their lack of widespread support outside the major cities like Srinagar, and the fact that many of the Hurriyat leaders have their fingers in the pie, (Kashmir receives huge amounts of money from the centre, certainly this doesn't trickle down to the masses and the Hurriyat leaders live in palaces. Do the arithmetic yourself) prevents them from doing so.
While many Kashmiris may desire their land to become a Switzerland of the East, I think most understand that that is impossible in the near future. An independent Kashmir would have to be guaranteed by at least India, China, Pakistan and the US. When these countries cant agree on anything right now, what hope is there for them to agree on Kashmir. The fact that they have voted in such high number is thus a positive sign. The government must make good on its promises, the army must strive to interfere as little as possible with daily life in Kashmir, and ultimately relations with Pakistan must improve so that the LoC can become an open border and economic ties can strengthen between the two Kashmirs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)