The path to Race Course Road

If Manmohan Singh sees out the current Parliament, he will be the first person to serve consecutive, uninterrupted terms as Prime Minister since Indira Gandhi. It would be a considerable achievement, even if one has to add the obvious qualifier that Singh has not simultaneously been the leader of his party or of the governing coalition. Yet it is by no means obvious that the Congress/UPA would be more successful, electorally or legislatively, with Sonia Gandhi as PM.

Manmohan Singh is a mild man who, in India at least (the Western media usually depicts him as a wise scholar-statesman), tends to inspire mild opinions ranging from cautious approval to moderate scepticism. Whatever you think of him- and I lean narrowly to the sceptical side- it is evident that he has no viable political future beyond 2014. After that year's election, if not sooner, Singh will retire as PM, for the simple reason of age (he will turn 82 that year; Morarji Desai at 80 is the oldest incoming PM of all time). One of the most fascinating processes of the next few years, then, will be the rat race to succeed him within the Congress (more on this soon, in another post). Thinking of the many prime ministerial hopefuls, however- of whom the present Home Minister is certainly the most openly ambitious- led me to think about the path to the top job that Singh and his predecessors have followed. If one is not a member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, is it necessary to have been a senior cabinet minister (for instance, in the key portfolios of Finance, Home or External Affairs)? To what extent does India have the notion of a political "career" with incremental promotion?

Let us examine, briefly, the path that each previous Prime Minister took:

1) Jawaharlal Nehru: As the first PM, of course, Nehru did not get to the top on the basis of previous ministerial service. Instead, his rise was based on two main factors: closeness to Gandhi and personal charisma. Clearly, this was not a path future leaders could really hope to emulate.
2) Lal Bahadur Shastri: Shastri, on the other hand, was an exemplar of a successful political "career": a consistent rise through the ranks, culminating in his appointment as Home Minister in 1961. It is worth noting that Shastri's main rival for the top job was Finance Minister Morarji Desai: showing that at the time, a void in leadership was resolved between senior members of the Cabinet, rather than by bringing in someone from outside.
3) Indira Gandhi: Like Shastri, the original Mrs. Gandhi came to power by defeating Desai, although this time in a formal rather than informal contest. It would be easy but misguided to see this as the introduction of dynastic politics to India: if Nehru had truly wanted his daughter to succeed him, he would have installed her as his successor before his death. Indira had never served in a senior Cabinet job, although she had been Congress President and Minister of Information & Broadcasting. Her appointment was a political (mis)calculation by the Congress Syndicate: exploit the personal popularity of Nehru while retaining control of the party. Mrs Gandhi's electoral victories in 1971 and 1980 can be attributed in part to her political skill, but her initial appointment was little more than a historical fluke.
4) Morarji Desai- Desai emerged as the leader of the Janata Party both as a consequence of seniority as well as his symbol as one of the two most prominent opponents of Indira Gandhi (the other being Jayaprakash Narayan). It is inconceivable, however, for Morarji to become PM without his long term as Finance Minister, where he established his reputation.
5) Charan Singh- Charan Singh was Home Minister under Desai- until he brought down Desai's government in late 1979- thus establishing a trend whereby, in a situation where the PM did not have the full command of his party/alliance, the Home Ministry was given to his biggest rival/guarantor (think Devi Lal or LK Advani. Rather than seeing the Home Ministry as Charan Singh's path to the top, it is better to see his position as Home Minister (and Deputy Prime Minister) as a reflection of the power that he already held. The source of his power: his status as India's first mass-successful agrarian politician.
6) Rajiv Gandhi- Till date, Rajiv Gandhi is the only case of a purely dynastic rise to the position of Prime Minister. He entered politics and Parliament less than four years before he took office as PM, and held no posts of any consequence (his only official post was Youth Congress President). Indeed, his most visible political achievement was piddling at best- the organization of the 1982 Asian Games. Unlike in 1966, his appointment was no political calculation, nor was it ever in question. It was merely proof that under Indira Gandhi the dynastic principle had become the Congress' governing one (Indira Gandhi remains the last member of the family to face an electoral challenge to her leadership from within the party).
7) VP Singh- VP Singh, in terms of his path to the top, was Morarji Desai Mark II: a well-known Finance Minister who was forced out of his post, first to the Ministry of Defence and then, as a result of his suspicion of the Bofors scandal, out of the Congress altogether. Like Desai, Singh triumphantly returned to office as the leader of an unwieldy coalition with little in common beyond opposition to the Gandhis and the desire for power. Like Desai, he installed his political guarantor- Devi Lal- as Home Minister and Deputy PM, although Tauji, unlike Charan Singh, had little desire for the top job. Like Desai, Singh lost his majority in less than half a term.
8) Chandra Shekhar- But while Charan Singh stabbed Desai in the back, VP Singh was stabbed in the front- by Chandra Shekhar, surely a competitor for the biggest nonentity ever to become PM (his competition is No. 11 on this list). The "Young Turk" intrigued his way to his life's ambition of becoming Prime Minister: something that was only possible in the Indian political climate of 1990, when all major parties were essentially buying time.
9) PV Narasimha Rao- But for their remarkably different characters (especially in terms of integrity) Rao could be seen as the Andhra Shastri. He had served in three of the four most important Cabinet positions (Home, Defence, External Affairs) and had never sought to challenge Gandhi family leadership. With Sonia Gandhi, like Indira Gandhi in 1964, refusing to challenge for the top job, Rao's long record of service made him the best candidate for promotion.
10) While best-known as the "acceptable" half of the BJP leadership in the 1980s and 1990s, Vajpayee had served Cabinet time as Minister of External Affairs in the first Janata government, which meant that by 1996 he had already been in the frontline of national politics for two decades. Yet Vajpayee's path is distinct from any other PM in that (in partnership with Advani) he came to power by leading a coherent, unified and viable single-party opposition to the Congress: even if the actual government was a coalition, the big three cabinet portfolios were retained by the BJP throughout Vajpayee's six years as PM. A more challenging and impressive path, then, than perhaps any other.
11) HD Deve Gowda- These days it is increasingly common to hear Deve Gowda lament that the fact that he is "not accorded the respect due to a former Prime Minister of the country." This has a lot to do with the fact that the rest of us are still confused as to how Deve Gowda became Prime Minister in the first place. Bigger and more distinguished names- such as Jyoti Basu- did the rounds for United Front PM before the little-known Vokkaliga engineered his way from Hassan to Delhi. Deve Gowda benefited from being the only sitting Janata Dal Chief Minister; experienced observers in Karnataka were shocked that the brazenly corrupt and provincial Gowda was elevated above, for instance, his long-time rival Ramakrishna Hegde. Hegde himself was devastated and never recovered, politically or personally.
12) IK Gujral- Once Information & Broadcasting minister under Mrs Gandhi, the widely respected- in some circles at least- Gujral left the Congress in the 1980s and was Minister of External Affairs in both Janata Dal governments. When Deve Gowda's government was brought down by the capricious Sitaram Kesri, Gujral was installed essentially at Kesri's mercy and brought down less than a year later.
13) Manmohan Singh- If Rajiv Gandhi was the first pure dynast, Manmohan Singh is the first pure loyalist to be appointed PM. To be sure, he has other qualifications- a long career of government service, from the RBI to Finance Secretary to the Planning Commission to, most famously, his excessively lionized, but undoubtedly solid stint as Finance Minister under Narasimha Rao (who himself doesn't usually receive enough credit for economic reforms). When Singh was chosen in 2004, however, it was clearly his loyalty to family and party (which come to the same thing) that was his greatest asset. Because Manmohan had never been a politician per se before 2004, he was reliable and unthreatening. That said, it is likely that without his time as Finance Minister he would not have been a prominent or credible enough figure for the job.

13 prime ministers, then, in just over sixty years. What lessons can we draw from their diverse careers, for the various aspirants of 2014? Here are some general conclusions

1) Unless you are a Gandhi or a "fluke" PM (Chandra Shekhar, Deve Gowda), you are likely to need experience in the key positions of Finance, External Affairs or Home. Every single PM that did not fit one of the above two categories served in one of these cabinet posts.
2) The Congress is a good place to start. Vajpayee is the only Prime Minister to have never been a member of the Indian National Congress, and Deve Gowda the only other to not contest an election on a Congress ticket. With the Congress once again in the ascendancy, it is the only safe place to be for a PM aspirant. If things change: never fear, there is a great tradition of Congress-rebel PMs, comprising Desai, Charan Singh, VP Singh, Chandra Shekhar and Gujral.
3) Unless you are a dynast or the leader of a major party, avoid signalling your intentions years ahead. Desai failed in 1964 and 1966 partly because of his overweening ambition, a quality that later felled Ramakrishna Hegde, Sharad Pawar and Mulayam Singh Yadav, all of whom could have been PMs had they shown more discretion. Conversely, the "accidental" PMs Gowda and Gujral benefited from being seen as non-threatening. The present Home Minister would do well to keep this in mind.

Indian politics changes in such quick and unexpected ways that it is often foolish to make predictions on the basis of past events, no matter how accurate the historical analysis (and getting this right is hard enough). If anything, I will be curious to see the extent to which the process by which the next Prime Minister emerges fits in to past patterns.

News from the States

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.

Squabbles over Sovereignty

The Election Commission has been in the news recently for all the wrong reasons. The op-ed pages of all the nation's leading papers have been filled with pieces demanding EC Navin Chawla be dismissed; or pieces censuring CEC Gopalaswami for the timing of his announcement; or more general pieces lamenting the fact that nepotism and scandal have infiltrated what was an increasingly isolated bastion of fairness in the Indian political system. I'm not going to add my voice to the increasingly large number of voices that have clamoured to be heard on this issue, but I do want to look into the question of why this is such a big deal. Here is what I think:

1) Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Indian democracy is that sovereignty lies not in Parliament, but in the voice of the people as enshrined in the Constitution. It is for this reason that no Parliamentary amendment can pass muster if it violates the basic principles of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Without talking too much about the enormous power that the Supreme Court wields, it should be noted that the Supreme Court is one of two bodies that ensures that vested interests as expressed through votes in the Indian Parliament do not hijack the nature of Indian polity. I say one of two bodies because the other one is the Election Commission. Where the Supreme Court ensures that vested interests do not obscure the 'people's voice' from within the Parliament, the EC ensures that demagogues do not sway the people and fill Parliament with voices that represent vested interests instead of the general will. The Model Code of Conduct that the EC publishes before every election is an impressive document. Elections are routinely ruled null and void if the winning candidate has appealed to voters on the basis of vested interests, or (worse) has intimidated voters to vote for him/her. Although the EC does not have judicial authority, it is on the basis of the EC's code that these decisions are taken.
Now the problem with having a CEC who is biased is that he may turn a blind eye to electoral malpractices by certain candidates. This was obvious. But what this means is that it begins the movement of sovereignty away from the 'people' and into the parliament. The moment candidates are not monitored closely, or they are allowed to encourage voters to vote according to passion not reason, we begin to slide down a slippery slope, further and further away from the dreams of our founding fathers.
2)I want to like the Congress-I really do. But it (or rather Mrs Gandhi) has an annoying habit of filling important positions with 'loyalists'-the President, the former Home Minister, and possibly the new CEC. Mrs Gandhi has to realise that she cannot act like the country is not her fiefdom. I think it's a miracle that Indian democracy has survived and remains as vibrant as it is despite the fact that for the best part of 60 years, the Congress has appointed people to a number of positions based on who they are and not how good they are for the position. Appointing Navin Chawla as CEC is another brick thrown at the edifice of Indian democracy. How will it hold up?

Now I don't want to hype the scandal. As I often say when Indian democracy depresses me, 'this too shall pass'. There is an ideal-the ideal of the judiciary and quasi-judicial bodies keeping the legislature in check. And there is the reality-the reality of partisan politics, the reality of judges reading headlines. There is a constant tension between the ideal and the reality and in this tension lies the heart of Indian politics.

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.

Too canny to be a bad gambler

I agree with the majority of Ashish's analysis of Uttar Pradesh politics. Doubtless it is a subject he knows much more about than I do. But I take issue with his harsh criticism of Mulayam Singh Yadav for allying with Kalyan Singh. Mulayam is, after all, a self-made politician who has risen to the top due in no small part to consummate political skill, his only visible weakness or misjudgement being an ill-advised promotion of his unpopular son, a move that weakened his once thriving party. Ashish reckons that this time he has made a brazen error by allying with a figure of hate for UP Muslims, a core part of Mulayam's votebank. He reckons that this spells automatic trouble for Mulayam.

Or does it? Let us after all remind ourselves that Mulayam is doing exactly what he did before the assembly elections of 2003. Kalyan Singh had left the BJP in late 1999, when they were in power in UP and he was ousted as chief minister and replaced with Ram Prakash Gupta. He was something of a political outcast after that and as late as New Year 2003 it was unclear where his political future lay. At this point, he created a new party, the Rashtriya Kranti Party (National Revolution Party) which essentially consisted of himself, his family and his closest personal toadies from his time in the BJP. Mulayam was only too happy to ally with him, Kalyan's sole purpose at the time being revenge on the BJP for throwing him out. The RKP won only four seats (Kalyan Singh, his son, and two associates), but Mulayam did not visibly suffer as a result of the alliance. In fact, he formed the government with the support of the Congress, and served over four years of his term as Chief Minister.

In 2003, why did Muslim voters vote Mulayam in despite his alliance with the hated Kalyan? The answer is not difficult. Mayawati has formed governments in alliance with the BJP not once but twice. She is always a candidate to do so again, having no powerful association with secularism. Mulayam, while like all Indian party leaders being happy to take in powerful dissenters thrown out by rivals, has not and will not touch the BJP. The UP Muslim is still left with a choice between Samajwadi Party and the Congress. Given their alliance, this choice too no longer exists. I think that on the balance of things, given the considerable situational advantages Mayawati has, Mulayam has done fairly well for himself. He won't hold on to 38 seats, or even 28. But he has made an impressive pitch for continued relevance.

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.

(One good man) in Hell

I've taken a two-week leave of absence, due both to overwork and a strange inability to write. Which was remiss of me, because in those two weeks there has been plenty to write about, none of it pleasant.

Where do I begin? How about the fact that in India's greatest city, the vibrant, teeming metropolis celebrated (yes, celebrated, whatever the unsubtle India-shining types have to say) by Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire, the common citizen has no protection from thugs and goons?

How about the fact that when the world agrees on the responsibility of Pakistani actors, non-state or otherwise, for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Narendra Modi casts aspersions on the guilt of Indian Muslims and seeks punishment? Much as I dislike our present government, it behaved admirably in limiting anti-Muslim "retribution" to essentially nil. Under Modi, imagine how different things could be.

How about Rajnath Singh and LK Advani raising the ugly head of Hindutva in its worst form, the Ram temple agitation? The word "pseudo-secularism" is back, as well.

How about the fact that Hindu Taliban wannabes invoke the name of Ram and describe themselves as "the custodians of Indian culture" while beating up women who attend a pub, and are defended by the chief minister of Karnataka, my chief minister, BS Yeddyurappa?

How about the fact that this selfsame chief minister, having taken on a mistress and received a "no" from his wife in response to his request for a bigamous arrangement, murdered his wife by drowning in a water tank?

Living away from India, I miss my country daily and intensely, not only longing for home but feeling unduly nostalgic and positive about everything Indian. As an idealist, I've long shared my father's passionate celebration of Indian democracy in the face of a widespread sentiment in the middle class that we ought to go the Chinese way. I've often taken refuge in the argument that while our politicans are corrupt and worse, while we commit excesses in Kashmir and the North-East and fail to help our poorest citizens, Indians are still free and politically empowered. Things are definitively better than in any alternative system.

Or are they? Reflecting on these pieces of news, I can confess nothing but the deepest gloom. In the land of Gandhi, I can find in our current polity only one resonant legacy of the Mahatma's life- the rise of Mayawati, and that gives me no pleasure. That it is in Gandhi's state- prosperous, educated, Gujarat- that Narendra Modi reigns is as difficult to believe- and live with- as it was seven years ago. In a civilized society, the private citizen has the protection of a functioning police force- for otherwise, all societies descend into the rule of the fist. It is apparent that our police force is intent on ensuring such a descent.

There is so much more to say, so many more crimes and tragedies to report. Many commentators described last December in end-of-term reports 2008 as "possibly our worst year ever", an annus horribilus (to use the Queen's phrase) to rank with 1948, 1965, 1976, 1984, 1992. On the evidence of a month-and-a-bit, 2009 is set to outdo 2008 and all the others.

But in this morass of evil I do find one cause for an admittedly minor optimism. The source of this is not the Congress Party- Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot, for instance, offered implicit moral support to the Ram Sena. There is, however, one politician in this country who has not utterly disgraced himself. The "Congress lackey" Vinod Mehta said of Kumar on his election two years ago that "of all Indian politicians, he leaves behind the cleanest smell", no small praise of a BJP ally. Last week, when Rajnath Singh raised the Ram temple issue, Nitish refused to cooperate with the BJP president. When elected Bihar CM, Nitish had asserted that he had no plans for following the "Gujarat model" of development; unlike Modi, he wanted to include all communities in the resurrection of his state. Now, he made clear that the Ram temple was not in the "common minimum programme" of the BJP and its allies; neither was removing Kashmir's special status or a uniform civil code (while I approve of the latter two measures, there's no question that the BJP intends them only to spite the Muslims). If the NDA is elected, the JD(U) will not be party to the mindless propagation of Hindutva.

I am not saying that Nitish Kumar is perfect. Bihar's development under his watch has been slow, although we cannot count out the difficulties of achieving great things quickly in a state so thoroughly crippled by Laloo Prasad Yadav. I do not know if he is free from corruption; while I would like to think so, I don't assume it. He is an ambitious man with an eye out for his own political future, but these are not faults. What separates Nitish from not just the Yeddyurappas but also the Modis and Pranab Mukherjees of this world is his innate, old-style patriotism, patriotism that involves a respect for the idea of a secular, democratic India and a vision and commitment to its improvement. In its own way, this passion inspired Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, PV Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee. Even Indira Gandhi, much as I hate to admit, was not untouched by it. All these leaders had flaws, great and small. But what I call patriotism clearly separated them from the cynics, rapists, murderers and self-interested businessmen that now rule us. Apart from Nitish Kumar, I can think of no other major politician that carries this flame. May the gods ensure that he is successful. We need him.

Edit: A reader has wisely pointed out that to Nitish's name should be added that of Sheila Dixit. Unquestionably she too represents a politician with good intentions and impressive achievements. Governing Delhi is a far easier job than governing Bihar. But of all Indian Chief Ministers she is is the closest to being an authentic success story.

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.

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.

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.

Gujju Bhai?

In response to Keshava's post 'The Serpent's Kiss' (1/14/2009)

I am no fan of Narendra Modi. I am no fan of his politics, of his economics, of his cultural views. I feel it is a travesty that he has not been brought to book for his role, or lack thereof, in the riots of 2002. It worries me that people are looking to Modi for leadership, that people are pointing to him as a future Prime Minister. And the reason it worries me is that I feel the possibility of his becoming Prime Minister is not the wishful thinking of the middle class, or of Gujrat, or of our industrialists. I think it is a very real possibility. And here's why.

Keshava believes that '(Modi) would do well to ditch his corporate backers in favour of a less vocal but far more important person: the Indian voter'. He also believes that that 'his assertion of Gujrati identity (is) the single biggest factor contributing to his current success'. I disagree with both statements.

Narendra Modi became Chief Minister of Gujrat in 2001. He recently became the first CM of Gujrat to win a third successive term. He is also the longest serving CM of the state ever. His support comes not only from the business class, or the middle class or the cities, but also from the tribal belts of Eastern Gujrat, from the economically backward regions of Kutch. He has survived a large scale rebellion within his own party, survived a revitalised Sonia Gandhi in the 2007 election, survived the most important test of all-the test of the voter. Indeed he has not merely survived, not merely endured. He has triumphed. Modi does not need to ditch his corporate backers in favour of the voter because he is able to cultivate both of them, at the same time.

Narendra Modi has triumphed time and again in his home state not merely because he has appealed to the notion of a masculine sense of Gujrati pride. Sure he uses the Gujrat card often. But the use of this 'Gujrat card' cannot explain his consecutive victories in that state. Indeed if we were to follow the logic that playing the politics of regional pride wins you elections, then the Shiv Sena should defeat anti-incumbency in Maharashtra, the Akalis should do this in Punjab, the AGP in Assam, and so on. After all, these parties too campaign on a plank of a regional pride. But anti-incumbency has got the better of these parties time and again. There is obviously more to Narendra Modi than his Gujrati identity

I would argue that Modi has triumphed because he has made every test a referendum on himself-on his personality and his achievements. He has projected himself as a fiery speaker, as an incorruptible, decisive leader capable of taking risks and trusting in his own judgement. He has also been able to deliver on certain 'development' issues. Many bureaucrats working in 'Modi's Gujrat' feel that they can accomplish more there than in perhaps any other part of the country. The image that Modi has projected of himself has given rise to a personality cult-the cult of Moditva, as symbolised by the popularity of the Modi masks in the elections of 2007.

I have differentiated between Narendra Modi's Gujrati identity and his personality. There are many who would be unwilling to draw this distinction. However I turn again to the election of 2007 to point out that these differences do exist. In that election, we saw Sonia Gandhi and Digvijay Singh launching spirited attacks on Modi, calling him 'Merchant of Death' on the one hand, and accusing him of 'Hindu terrorism' on the other. Modi responded in a brilliant counter-attack, and made the entire election about himself. Sonia Gandhi was projected not as anti-Gujrat, but anti-Modi. Keshubhai Patel and other BJP rebels were attacked on a similar plank. The issue of Gujrat receded into the background and Moditva came to the fore.

The question is whether Narendra Modi's Gujrat model can be replicated in the rest of India. The answer to that question lies in what you feel is central to that model. If you feel that it is the usage of Gujrati identity, then the answer is no. If indeed Narendra Modi is no more than a glorified Raj Thackeray or Shibu Soren then he will remain a phenomenon inside Gujrat and perhaps in some other states like the Gujrati speaking areas of Maharashtra. But if you feel that the Gujrat model has at its core the Modi personality, as I do, then you must admit the potential for Modi to become a leader of considerable national standing. Pratap Bhanu Mehta identifies this in brilliant article written in the aftermath of Modi's last election victory in December 2007. Already Modi has drawn huge crowds at rallies in Mumbai and as far away as Chennai, and although I am not suggesting that the BJP is about to win many seats in Tamil Nadu, I do feel that the Modi factor will be an important part of the elections of 2009. Indeed, these elections offer a chance for Modi to actualise his considerable potential (apologies for the use of Aristotelian language).

Note: In his post, Keshava has consigned the TDP to the dustbin of history, along with the Swatantra Party. I am sure he has good reasons for doing so. However, while Swatantra is well and truly dead, I wouldn't be so sure to write off the TDP yet. The elections this summer may just signal a revival of fortunes for the beleaguered Chandrababu Naidu.

The serpent's kiss

The Hindustan Times reports on the glowing tributes issued in Gujarat CM Narendra Modi's favour by leading industrialists at an investors' summit in Delhi. Anil Ambani, who lost more of his wealth in 2008 than any other individual, wished that "Narendrabhai" be "the next leader of the country", while Sunil Mittal hailed this "CEO" who "can run the nation". Praise even came from less expected quarters, such as Ratan Tata, who is often regarded with Narayana Murthy as a model captain of industry.

Some of Modi's BJP colleagues joined in the gibbering, with an anonymous functionary claiming that the party would win 30% more seats if it declared Modi as its prime ministerial candidate. And the TV-watching middle class have, to a large extent, been calling for this very act for some time.

If one were to go by such media reports, it might seem obvious that Modi is indeed a future Prime Minister. But I'm not quite so sure. Recent history shows us that corporate support is no guarantor of success. If anything, quite the opposite. The first Indian politician to describe himself as a CEO was Chandrababu Naidu, who less than a decade later lies ruined and forgotten, his party machinery destroyed by the Congress' agrarian base. SM Krishna, the man who promised to make Bangalore into Singapore through his partnerships with the IT industry, fared little better. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya is more secure, but his coddling of industrialists did more to hurt the CPM in West Bengal than any previous action of the party. Look further back in history, and the example of Swatantra, a party which had large swathes of corporate backing, is another illuminating one.

Narendra Modi will never be Prime Minister until he can broaden his appeal to include a majority of Indians. His popularity at present is restricted to the aforementioned businessmen and middle-class, Gujarati Hindus, and Hindutvawadis in two of three other states. His assertion of the Gujarati identity, the single biggest contributing factor to his current success, will not take him particularly far. He would do well to ditch his corporate backers in favour of a less vocal but far more important person: the Indian voter. The average voter couldn't care less about FDIs, growth rates or terrorism. In most districts, even Hindutva no longer really cuts it. Until Modi can transcend these differences, he is likely to meet as sticky an end as Swatantra and the TDP. If only those who the gods love die young, then the gods in question here are clearly the men that Indian newspapers delight in calling "India Inc".

The Goan Zuma or the Goan Clinton?

"I can have as many women as I want: Goa minister"

Take your pick.

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.