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.
Showing posts with label mayawati. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mayawati. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Miracle of Democracy
I am often told by friends and family back in India that I am extremely lucky that my four years as an undergraduate will coincide with the first four years of the Obama Presidency. Certainly, to see an African American man sitting in the White House, talking eloquently about hope and change, fairness and equality, is exciting. One of the reasons it is exciting is that the college student community is emerging from a sustained period of political pessimism and apathy. College going Americans, no matter what their political affiliations may be can finally look an international student in the eye and say without shame or embarrassment that they are proud of their country. Sure, policies have not changed overnight. Sure, American foreign policy remains bad and its economy worse. But the man at the top has changed, and President Obama carries with him the immense weight of symbolism. His electoral success is something that anyone, anywhere, can and should look upon as one of the defining events of our life time. It is one of the increasingly few reasons why we should not ever lose hope in the power of the human race not only to endure but to prevail.
The facts are simple. 40 years ago, in many parts of this country blacks could not vote. Increasingly, in a country built on the backs of immigrants, there is a suspicion of foreigners and indeed new immigrant communities. And yet a black man, the son of an African immigrant has risen to the highest post in the land. It is the stuff that would give anyone, perhaps even Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a private moment, goosebumps.
The question one must ask however, and in fact one that some have already begun asking is, does Barack Obama's ascent to the Presidency mark a realisation of Martin Luther King's dream? Does the fact that an African American has become President mean that policies of affirmative action should end? An opinion piece that appeared in the Yale Daily News approximately a fortnight ago asks this very question and comes up with a resounding 'No!'. Obama's success does not mean that the divide between black and white has been bridged, it does not mean, to paraphrase from King's famous speech, that the son of slave owners and slaves sit today at the table of brotherhood. Could Obama have become President if his mother wasn't white? Sadly, one suspects not. Is racism dead in America? In action perhaps (though some would dispute even that), but in the mind certainly not. America has come a long way, but it has not reached the end of its journey, it has not reached the destination of racial equality, the destination of a society without discrimination.
Meanwhile in India, our national dailies have launched their search for the 'Indian Obama'. The Times of India asks its readers, in an opinion poll, whether Rahul Gandhi can become an 'Obama'. It is at these moments that I think the ToI is fit only to be toilet paper. By promoting such views, it makes the fairly difficult job of dumbing down the Indian middle class look extremely easy. But more on that in another post. Rahul Gandhi and Barack Obama have nothing in common apart from the fact that they are under fifty and probably think in English.
In fact, if I were pressed to name one Indian politician that can be compared to Obama, it is Mayawati. This may sound absurd, but if one were to look beyond her birthday bashes and penchants for diamonds and multi layered cakes, one would find that there is at least some truth in my claim. Mayawati comes from the Dalit community, a community which has been discriminated against for centuries in India, just as blacks have been in America. Moreover she is a woman, and so has fought not one but two biases-caste as well as gender (in this sense she may even be one up on Obama, resembling not just a black politician but a black, female politician). She has also displayed immense amounts of political skill, succeeding in UP, one of the most politically treacherous states in India, just as Obama displayed skill in rising through the murky underworld of Chicago politics. Her success, as Ajoy Bose points out in his biography of her titled 'Behenji', is truly remarkable.
People may point to Obama's eloquence and Mayawati's shrill tone, Obama's Harvard education and Mayawati's BA from DU, but I would argue that these are reflective not of major differences in leaders as much as major differences in political traditions. America has a long history of Ivy League senators, of brilliant orators. India has a history (especially recently) of politicians who rise out of the masses instead of those who impose themselves on them. I am not saying whether this is a good or bad thing. I am merely stating a fact.
Moreover, just as Obama's meteoric rise does not mean that affirmative action should end, Mayawati's rise (which many believe is not yet over) does not mean that reservations in India should end. When Mayawati won in 2006 with a absolute majority of her own, I remember a friend of mine in school, who was from UP, went around chanting, (as a joke), that 'chamar raj' had been imposed on his state. The reality however is probably closer to the opposite. Mayawati may be CM, but crimes against dalits still take place regularly around the country, even in UP, not to mention the fact that they are discriminated against when it comes to both employment and education. This exists despite the fact that reservations are still around, something that many middle class city dwellers are apt to forget. And while reservations are misused, while they do promote a degree of division within society, I believe that the amount of good they do far exceeds the bad.
The two things that set Mayawati apart from Obama are:
1) That she does not appeal, yet, to a broad spectrum of Indians as Obama does to Americans. Until she can do this, she will remain a regional force, not a national one.
2) She is excessively corrupt while Obama has managed to maintain a fairly clean image. Both Mayawati and Obama function in political systems where corruption is rife. The fact that one has an aura of incorruptibility gives him a strong advantage over the other, who will never really be able to rise out of the murky world of bribery, 'gifts' and dubious financial transactions.
Yet, while she may not be an exact copy of Obama, I still believe that out of all our politicians, Mayawati resembles Obama the most. And so when Obama said that his story could only happen in America, I would beg to disagree. Bhimrao Ambedkar led the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution when many black men still didnt have the vote, when the KKK was alive and well. And Mayawati first became CM of UP when a black man becoming President in the US seemed impossible. Barack Obama's story is an amazing one, but I would argue that it can occur in any functioning democracy. As the then PM, Narasimha Rao said when Mayawati first became CM, her success is a miracle of democracy.
The facts are simple. 40 years ago, in many parts of this country blacks could not vote. Increasingly, in a country built on the backs of immigrants, there is a suspicion of foreigners and indeed new immigrant communities. And yet a black man, the son of an African immigrant has risen to the highest post in the land. It is the stuff that would give anyone, perhaps even Mahmoud Ahmedinejad in a private moment, goosebumps.
The question one must ask however, and in fact one that some have already begun asking is, does Barack Obama's ascent to the Presidency mark a realisation of Martin Luther King's dream? Does the fact that an African American has become President mean that policies of affirmative action should end? An opinion piece that appeared in the Yale Daily News approximately a fortnight ago asks this very question and comes up with a resounding 'No!'. Obama's success does not mean that the divide between black and white has been bridged, it does not mean, to paraphrase from King's famous speech, that the son of slave owners and slaves sit today at the table of brotherhood. Could Obama have become President if his mother wasn't white? Sadly, one suspects not. Is racism dead in America? In action perhaps (though some would dispute even that), but in the mind certainly not. America has come a long way, but it has not reached the end of its journey, it has not reached the destination of racial equality, the destination of a society without discrimination.
Meanwhile in India, our national dailies have launched their search for the 'Indian Obama'. The Times of India asks its readers, in an opinion poll, whether Rahul Gandhi can become an 'Obama'. It is at these moments that I think the ToI is fit only to be toilet paper. By promoting such views, it makes the fairly difficult job of dumbing down the Indian middle class look extremely easy. But more on that in another post. Rahul Gandhi and Barack Obama have nothing in common apart from the fact that they are under fifty and probably think in English.
In fact, if I were pressed to name one Indian politician that can be compared to Obama, it is Mayawati. This may sound absurd, but if one were to look beyond her birthday bashes and penchants for diamonds and multi layered cakes, one would find that there is at least some truth in my claim. Mayawati comes from the Dalit community, a community which has been discriminated against for centuries in India, just as blacks have been in America. Moreover she is a woman, and so has fought not one but two biases-caste as well as gender (in this sense she may even be one up on Obama, resembling not just a black politician but a black, female politician). She has also displayed immense amounts of political skill, succeeding in UP, one of the most politically treacherous states in India, just as Obama displayed skill in rising through the murky underworld of Chicago politics. Her success, as Ajoy Bose points out in his biography of her titled 'Behenji', is truly remarkable.
People may point to Obama's eloquence and Mayawati's shrill tone, Obama's Harvard education and Mayawati's BA from DU, but I would argue that these are reflective not of major differences in leaders as much as major differences in political traditions. America has a long history of Ivy League senators, of brilliant orators. India has a history (especially recently) of politicians who rise out of the masses instead of those who impose themselves on them. I am not saying whether this is a good or bad thing. I am merely stating a fact.
Moreover, just as Obama's meteoric rise does not mean that affirmative action should end, Mayawati's rise (which many believe is not yet over) does not mean that reservations in India should end. When Mayawati won in 2006 with a absolute majority of her own, I remember a friend of mine in school, who was from UP, went around chanting, (as a joke), that 'chamar raj' had been imposed on his state. The reality however is probably closer to the opposite. Mayawati may be CM, but crimes against dalits still take place regularly around the country, even in UP, not to mention the fact that they are discriminated against when it comes to both employment and education. This exists despite the fact that reservations are still around, something that many middle class city dwellers are apt to forget. And while reservations are misused, while they do promote a degree of division within society, I believe that the amount of good they do far exceeds the bad.
The two things that set Mayawati apart from Obama are:
1) That she does not appeal, yet, to a broad spectrum of Indians as Obama does to Americans. Until she can do this, she will remain a regional force, not a national one.
2) She is excessively corrupt while Obama has managed to maintain a fairly clean image. Both Mayawati and Obama function in political systems where corruption is rife. The fact that one has an aura of incorruptibility gives him a strong advantage over the other, who will never really be able to rise out of the murky world of bribery, 'gifts' and dubious financial transactions.
Yet, while she may not be an exact copy of Obama, I still believe that out of all our politicians, Mayawati resembles Obama the most. And so when Obama said that his story could only happen in America, I would beg to disagree. Bhimrao Ambedkar led the drafting committee of the Indian Constitution when many black men still didnt have the vote, when the KKK was alive and well. And Mayawati first became CM of UP when a black man becoming President in the US seemed impossible. Barack Obama's story is an amazing one, but I would argue that it can occur in any functioning democracy. As the then PM, Narasimha Rao said when Mayawati first became CM, her success is a miracle of democracy.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)