W’end Links – Politics Special

Start the weekend with this provocative piece by Atany Dey. A brief excerpt from Whistling in the Dark about the Future:

Gurcharan Das writes in the Times of India (10th May) that “The Future Belongs to India.” That’s his argument which I suppose he made in a debate in London on the proposition that “the future belongs to India, not China.” I understand perfectly the need for such an argument because I too feel a lot of distress when I compare what China has achieved relative to India and have to seek comfort in a lot of twisted rationalization to excuse India’s disastrous journey.

Gurcharan Das — like you and I — belongs to a class of Indians who in some sense intellectually recognize that China has got India beat today and perhaps for a century or two going ahead. But that is unacceptable to one’s heart.

Seeking solace, we have to immediately turn to pointing out that Indians have democracy and that disgruntled people in India can speak up against the government. Yes, they do speak up — and most of the speaking is done by comfortably-off middle class leftists. They control the press and other media. But the rulers are fine with that because, as the saying goes, unlike sticks and stones, words really cannot hurt.

…It seems to me that the biggest barrier to moving ahead is the complacency that comes from having convinced oneself that one has already arrived. Indian leaders talk glibly of India being this or that superpower; they talk of “second fastest” this or “second largest” that. They talk glowingly of the “demographic dividend.” I can understand why they do that. If they were to admit that the population has grown beyond what is good for the country (and more importantly for its people), then they will have to admit that they screwed up — just as their hallowed leaders such as Nehru and Gandhi did.

They figure that the best thing to do is to twist this unpalatable fact and make it into something desirable. The easiest way to avoid having to fix is vice is to pretend that it is a virtue.

Read it in full.

.

Next, a short extract from Swapan Dasgupta’s Right awaits its moment. Note that the article was written in May 2007.

In a recent interview to Tehelka on his new book on post-Independence Indian politics, Ram Guha mentioned in passing that whereas liberals and the Left play a meaningful role in the country’s intellectual and political discourse, the Right has been hamstrung by its close association with Hindu nationalism.

…Without going into the merits or otherwise of Guha’s idealisation of party-less intellectuals, the larger issue of a void on the Right needs to be seriously addressed. It is a fact that the boundaries of so-called “respectable” discourse have been shaped by a Left-liberal consensus. This is particularly so on the vexed questions of nationhood and national identity – what is known as the “secularism” debate. Even before the Ram Janmabhoomi movement sharpened the polarisation between India’s intellectual establishment and Hindu assertion, there was a significant mismatch between the Right’s electoral and intellectual influence.

…After it first tasted power at the Centre in 1998, the BJP leadership went out of its way to acquire social respectability and shed its outlander status. Dispelling all fears of India being turned into a Hindu fascist state, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government moulded itself as a conventional Right-of-centre regime. It tried to blend market economics with a foreign policy that incorporated the nationalism of French Gaullism and the realism of Mr Henry Kissinger. In their own ways, both Mr Vajpayee and Mr LK Advani tried to forge the BJP as the party of the Indian establishment.

The article in full here.

Next, a piece on the remarkable turnaround of Bihar by Nitish Kumar. From The Stealth Revolutionary:

…NITISH KUMAR’s success in beginning Bihar’s turnaround in the three-and-a-half years he has been in power is largely credited to three factors, the most important of which is the control of organised crime. For a state whose politicians had long embraced as comrades-in-arms pathological killers and mafia dons running extortion and kidnapping rackets, Nitish Kumar surprised everyone by going after organised crime, no matter how highly connected.

Thousands of criminals were arrested and prosecutions launched. Fast track courts were set up across the state to conduct speedy trials through daily hearings to deliver justice quickly. In just the two years of 2006-08, Bihar’s courts convicted as many as 30,000 criminals — an unprecedented statistic marveled at by even the most hardened cynic in the state. Astonishingly, nearly 6,000 criminals were given life sentences, mostly in cases of murder. Even more stunning is that the courts have ordered nearly 90 death sentences since 2006.

…According to Amanullah, the administration decided to make life difficult for those convicted of crimes, by ensuring that they suffer a “lot of civic disqualifications” such as no passports and no ration cards.

Of course, the best public relations exercise for the Nitish administration was the conviction of Bihar’s five biggest criminal-politicians — Mohammad Shahabuddin, Pappu Yadav, Anand Mohan, Suraj Bhan and Munna Shukla, who were each handed out life sentences in murder cases. “The life of crime in Bihar is a thing of the past,” the Chief Minister grandly declares. “It is never going to come back.”

…The administration has also begun an effort to handle the massive corruption, especially in recruitment, such as in the police forces. According to the home secretary, the processes for selecting more than 11,000 constables and 2,000 sub-inspectors over two years ago were video-recorded to prevent foul play. “Not a single complaint of bribery was made by anyone,” says Amanullah.

Read it in full here.

And finally a not very flattering portait of BJP’s candidate for Prime Minister, Sh L K Advani:

It was a hot afternoon in Faizabad (Ayodhya) in 1997-98 and the choice was between driving back to Lucknow and waiting for Lal Krishna Advani to arrive and address an election meeting. My companion, a minor BJP leader, was insistent on returning. Advani, he said to my surprise, was an over-rated public speaker and was unlikely to say anything of any substance. I decided to stay, curious to hear what the BJP leader had to say on the Ram temple he wanted built at Ayodhya and for which he had got the Babri mosque demolished.

But when the helmsman arrived, finally, he appeared completely lost. Indeed, he seemed to think he was addressing a poll meeting in Bihar as he went on rambling about Lalu Yadav and poor governance. The motley crowd listened stoically but his old and well-circulated jokes about Lalu fell flat. I actually felt sorry for him.

But the very next year the NDA bounced back to power and Advani became the Home Minister and later, the Deputy Prime Minister. Two or three years later I was having lunch in the national capital with a former DIB ( Director, Intelligence Bureau) who was believed to have been close to Mr Advani. “ How do you rate him as a person and an administrator,” I remember asking him. He seemed to have been caught off-guard by the question and the smile vanished from his lips.

He took his time to reply, fiddling with his fork and , like many Intelligence Bureau officers, rehearsing in his mind what he wanted to say. But his reply was astonishing. He began by saying: “Mr Advani is a thorough gentleman, a very well-read person, a warm host and a great friend to have”. After a pause and another prodding from me, he thoughtfully added: “He is a simple person, goes out of his way to help…” and his voice trailed off.

Impatient, I asked: “I sense there is a ‘but’ coming; what is it ?”

“Well,” the former DIB and soon-to-be-made-Governor sighed: “he is a poor judge of men and, unfortunately, he has no clue about administration”.

I was stunned. “ Are you suggesting that the Home Minister of the country is a poor administrator ,” I blurted out but the gentleman, who I had known for 20 years, merely shrugged.

Read it in full.