governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Muslims’

Modi: Unassailable at three

Modi parliament 2014

Modi enters Parliament for the first time in 2014 in a characteristic “Indian” manner – prostrating himself at the steps of this very British institution. Stooping to assimilate is the Indian way. Photo courtesy Indian Express 

Three years ago, when Modi’s BJP entered Parliament in May 2014, with a never before majority, the “realtors of Raisina Hill” (policy wonks and public intellectuals in Delhi) were full of doubt about whether a country bumpkin from Gujarat could navigate the gilded and suave avenues of Lutyen’s Delhi –  that part of the city, designed by the British for themselves in the 1930s, where todays rich and powerful elite lives and conspires in self-interest.

Modi does a pincer on Dehi elites

True to his Gujarati heritage and much like Gujarati emigrants to the west have done for ages, Modi made no effort to integrate or ingratiate himself into the elite. He cut his own lonely, furrow going around the established elite. Over time the furrow deepened into a moat which effectively encircled and confined Delhi’s elite to gossiping amongst themselves. Admittedly, his was an easier task than what confronted Gujarati emigrants overseas. But the tactic employed was the same. First, entrench yourself in the eco-ystem – get a job or start a small business; next, deepen your control on resources – build up capital and develop local relationships and finally look for gaps to fill – do what the lazy locals will never do.

Patels

The Patels – intrepid survivors in foreign lands – a smooth blend of modernity and tradition that makes them outstanding achievers and harmonious assimilators. 

There were initial hiccups. The BJP – essentially a north Indian, middle class party till then – first tried the babu approach of distinguishing itself from the previous government by rejecting even the good things the UPA had done – like NREGA and Aadhar. But Gujarati pragmatism and performance orientation won. The approach changed to building on what existed and exponentially expanding the scale and ambition of projects and policies, to shock and awe the public into abject Modi bhakts (followers). Nothing it seemed was impossible.

Modi’s ratings better than the BJPs

Three years on, the mood within the party is upbeat – not surprising after the massive electoral victories in Uttar Pradesh and then in the Delhi municipal elections. In sharp contrast to Trump, Modi’s popularity ratings beat those of his party. The inanities of the BJP’s rant on protecting cows rather than Dalits or projecting Hindu populism rather than political equality and security for the minorities is attributed by the common person to vested interests in the party – vigilantes who use the party’s hard line as a business or “God men” who use the saffron they wear to encroach on government land. Prime Minister Modi stands tall above this desperate fray for the crumbs of political power.

Sour grapes?

Detractors and cynics say it is hype which is keeping Modi in the stratosphere.  This is lazy analysis. There are three reasons why Modi has embedded himself into the public mind as the harbinger of a better future.

India’s Bill Clinton – responsive, charismatic peoples’ person

First, being of humble origins he feels the pulse of the people and responds to it. Demonetization was a temporary set-back for the economy and cost workers their wages or their jobs. But, they saw it as a plan to punish the corrupt and applauded the effort. Modi did not just rest on the laurel of public acclaim. He has successfully pushed the tax bureaucracy to unearth black money and investigate shady deals. Is this sufficient to end corruption? Clearly not. But it is sufficient to establish Modi’s credibility as having the gumption to take on the corrupt, rich and make them pay for their sins.

Neither Right, Left nor Liberal – for Modi, transactions matter, not ideology

Second, the expansion of social insurance schemes for the poor; progressive expansion of crop insurance; the 200 million Jan Dhan accounts opened; the switch to the direct transfer of benefits for the poor to their accounts; kick -starting the moribund highways program; the proposals to reform agriculture by legalizing the leasing out of land; freedom for farmers to market produce outside the clunky and corrupt, public sector Agricultural Marketing System; the boost in coal production by whipping the public sector Coal India; making Indian Rail more efficient with better services; the improved functioning of government offices – all serve to illustrate positive change.

Stellar stabiliser of the economy

Lastly, the Modi government’s biggest achievement has been to stabilize the economy. Wasteful public spending has been restrained by fiscal discipline; the growth momentum has been maintained and consumer price inflation kept low within the targeted 5 percent per year. New institutional mechanisms are in place now, with the Reserve Bank of India specifically charged to deal with the bad loans of public sector banks amounting to over 12 percent of their average assets.

But there are still promises to keep…

Critics of the government point to the unfulfilled promises on new jobs and the linked poor performance of industry and exports; lack of performance on the promised recovery of black money stored overseas and the continuing civil unrest at home in Kashmir and in the tribal belt, even though the BJP is now in power, directly or in an alliance, in these states. To be sure domestic violence – not least the violence injected by self-proclaimed vigilante groups- is worrisome.  The poor performance in exports is partly a function of a strong Rupee which makes exports uncompetitive but keeps imports, particularly oil, cheap – thereby restraining inflation.  High domestic interest rates protect small savings, particularly of pensioners; restrain the creation of yet another realty driven bubble economy and dissuades gold-plated, bank financed, industrial investment.

Talking freely with people, sharing and learning can build long term credibility

Modi in varanasi

Prime Minister Modi greets the people of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh – his parliamentary constituency

Trade-offs between economic priorities are always contentious. The key is to evidence why government acts in a certain way and who benefits. Mere rhetoric will not do. It is here that the Modi government falters because of its irrational stand against spelling out how the outcomes of its policies benefit minorities. Consider that, ironically, Modi’s BJP has probably helped more poor Muslims and Dalits, than ever before, via financial inclusion, higher allocations for NREGA and the new crop and social insurance schemes. Yet, the government does not highlight this. Nor does it share granular data, whilst defending its track record on inclusion, which many regard as its Achilles heel. Talking with, not at the people, in an evidenced manner, about one’s achievements, especially when it can silence critics, is good. Try it.

A version of this blog is also available at http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion-india/modi-unassailable-at-three/

 

BJP dials 100, Bedi to the rescue

(Reposted from the Asian Age January 21- http://www.asianage.com/columnists/bjp-dials-100-bedi-rescue-021)

bedi_kejriwal

(photocredit: sahilonline.org)

The DNA of Kiran Bedi and the Bharatiya Janata Party seem twinned at birth. Bolly-wood films thrive on the “masala” (formula) of twins separated at birth but reunited after an epic struggle with a happily tear-jerking end. The BJP and Ms Bedi finding each other after so long is real life imitating art.

For both, “discipline” comes with a capital D. They share a strong belief in the ability of large, efficient organisations to provide direction and in the efficacy of formal rules and regulations to manage society.

“Crane” Bedi could as well have been known as “danda” Bedi. Armed only with a wooden baton, she single-handedly charged at a bunch of unruly, sword-wielding Akali protesters in Delhi. The BJP is similarly admired for strong leadership and decisive action.

Kiran Didi mesmerises kids just as Mr Modi does. In both these leaders kids see a strong, stern but clear-headed “parent” with a consistent idea of what to do next and the ability to prescribe, what seems to be, a winning game plan. They have a common bias for acronyms (Kiran Didi’s 6Ps — police, prisons, prosecution, people, parents and press — compete with Mr Modi’s 3Ds — democracy, demography and demand) and a shared communication style of keeping the message simple: Hard work, discipline, steadfast goals and an alert mind ready to grab any opportunity being the mantra for advancement.

Business people, Punjabi refugees, professionals, the “sarkari” middle class and all those with a stake in preserving the status quo form the core urban constituency of the BJP in Delhi. They all look on Kiran Didi with approval. She is a Punjabi herself; a self-made professional who strove to excel at whatever she did and ensured that she got recognised for her achievements. Professional aggression, ambition and, above everything else, success, is what this core constituency adores. These attributes Ms Bedi has in plenty.

Given more time, Ms Bedi could have consolidated the woman vote behind her. She is today a mélange of what many young girls dream to be a mother, a successful government officer, an outspoken social activist, a TV personality, a politician and, implicitly, very much part of the Delhi elite.

But time is scarce with barely three weeks to go for the polls on February 7, 2015. Indeed, the fact that time was running out is what induced the unorthodox induction of a “rank outsider” into the BJP, ostensibly to lead the campaign and, possibly, eventually become the chief minister. Galling as it must be for Mr Modi that his name was not enough to pull in votes in Delhi, the fact is that the BJP must look at systematic dispersal of power and responsibility if they are to win in Bihar and later in Uttar Pradesh.

This, in fact, is the way it has been thus far. BJP chief ministers in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh or Maharashtra do not view themselves as subordinate to the Prime Minister, at least not yet and certainly not in the manner the hapless, erstwhile Congress chief ministers were with regard to Sonia Gandhi.

The induction of Kiran Didi should also be read as a sign that Mr Modi is not averse to modernising the BJP and aggressively broad-basing its membership beyond the rather obscure agenda of the Sangh. Mr Modi seems to be working towards reinventing the BJP as a party of the right, committed to small government functioning on the P4S principle of private sector-led growth, security, sustainability, social protection and passive secularism.

Both the BJP and the Aam Aadmi Party have their core support base intact in Delhi. It is the direction of swing in the erstwhile Congress supporters — Poorvanchali migrants, scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and the Muslims which will determine the vote change this time around.

Ms Bedi’s induction into the BJP is a game changer because, first, she has the star appeal and freshness to attract the middle class supporters of the AAP who were disappointed with Arvind Kejriwal’s reluctance to rule in 2013 and in whose eyes Mr Kejriwal became an opportunistic quitter. Many were coming around to the idea of giving him a second chance rather than support a “traditional party” like the BJP. Now they see in Ms Bedi an alternative, the manifestation of a “new” BJP just as AAP was in 2013.

Second, Ms Bedi shall attract the wavering, non-Muslim Congress supporters who are rudderless today with the demise of the Delhi Congress. For aspirational women and the educated professional, Ms Bedi’s BJP seems to be the true inheritor of the Congress’ erstwhile mantle of stability and development which kept it in power for 15 long years (1998-2013).

Third, the BJP’s core base is unlikely to reject the “outsider” Ms Bedi who exudes success and brims with optimism. Too much is made of the disaffection of the old-time Delhi BJP leaders. These are long-term political players, honed in the Sangh’s discipline to never break ranks. In any case, they can easily be assured that Ms Bedi is only “transiting” through Delhi to enter the national government, where she would get more traction. Police, land and housing in Delhi are all dealt with by the Union government. In fact, the Delhi government is more like an empowered metropolitan authority rather that an Indian state.

With the Congress in decline, Delhi elections are a face-off between the BJP and the AAP. The AAP 2013 phenomenon was a unique convergence of the middle class and Delhi’s “underbelly” votes. But even this coalition was not sufficient to get AAP a clear majority. This time around the AAP will be boosted by significant Muslim support which earlier kept the Congress in power. But even within the AAP’s core support base they will have to contend with Ms Bedi attracting women voters.

Ms Bedi is a powerful role model and a convincing administrator to assure the empowerment of women and their protection, not least because of her linkages with the police.

If Kiran Didi can project herself as the “face” of the “new BJP” — forward-looking, effective, gender sensitive, socially progressive, honest and committed to equitable development — she may well nudge the BJP towards forming the government in Delhi.

The Bedi baan (arrow) unleashed by Mr Modi is sure to give sleepless nights to “King Kejriwal” as he trawls the slums of Delhi to keep his flock intact.

Why the BJP will lose- Delhi State elections 2015

sadhu

(photo credit: freepik.com)

There are three reasons why the AAP shall succeed in holding off a BJP government in Delhi.

BICKERING IN THE DELHI BJP

First, the debilitated state of the Delhi BJP unit for which the malfunctioning mike at PM Modi’s election rally on January 10, 2014 was an apt metaphor. PM Modi or his alter ego Amit Shah have not had the mind space to redress what ails it: intra-fighting, lackluster leadership and just sheer inefficiency. These short-comings do not go unnoticed by the demanding and discerning BJP supporters in Delhi. They showed how lukewarm they were during PM Modi’s recent 10th January election rally in sharp contrast to the upbeat mood, way back in March 2014, when Modi first rode into Delhi as the BJPs PM candidate.

In contrast Kejriwal and his team are a chastened lot- apologetic about their earlier blunders; better honed for politics; eager to please and reach out to Delhi voters with a campaign strategy of individualized and personal interaction and long term relationship building which appeals instantly. With the Congress in retreat and tacitly backing AAP-their ideological ally- an AAP surge is certain.

SAFFRON SELF GOAL

Second, the aggressive Hindutva campaign and the indiscipline of the saffron clad BJP ranks, who frankly sound like they belong in the 18th century, with their calls for increasing the production of Hindu babies; a return to the “traditional” subservient role of women in Hindu families and the obsession with religion. India is a religious country and most Indians believe in God and practice a faith. But we do not want to impose our faith on others. Nor do we want others to impose theirs on us. Mutual respect with complete freedom of choice for believers is the Indian social mantra of long standing. All faiths proselytize. But it does not have to be done in a grandstanding and confrontationist manner designed to make headline news. True and efficient Missionaries do not try and get brownie points by advertising what they do.

Departing from the development script immediately risks losing the minority- read Muslim 12% and Christian 1%- vote entirely and alienating intellectuals, secularists and educated, aspirational women and a large segment of the upwardly mobile youth. This is the “self-goal” that the saffron clad leaders of the BJP have scored.

Some also read into this irrational indiscipline of the saffron clad crowd, the invisible hand of the wise men in Nagpur- the RSS.  PM Modi is very much his own man and not the typical RSS acolyte who will allow fuzzy theology to trump real achievements or threaten medium-term National objectives. His agenda is clearly development and this is what got him votes in the 2014 national agenda. He has gone from strength to strength and in the space of a mere one year, has become the sole voice of the BJP/RSS. Nagpur could not have liked that.

More importantly, those, over whose heads PM Modi elevated himself, have an axe to grind and an incentive to undermine him. Ensuring the BJP loses the Delhi poll aligns with this perverse objective.

MISALIGNED AGENDA

Third, the BJP has not reduced its image handicap of being perceived as the party of the rich. The erstwhile refuge of the poor-the Congress- has slipped into oblivion and that mantle has squarely been grabbed by Kejriwal. But it is not just a matter of perception.

The poor-the foot path vendor, small shop keepers, “auto” drivers, retired folk and Dalits (25% population) remember with nostalgia, the short reign of Kejriwal when he cracked down on the widespread petty corruption at the public interface level. In contrast the over 200 days of indirect governance by the BJP Union Government has seen an upsurge in petty corruption and disregard for the poor and the powerless in the Police, the Public Service Departments and the Municipal Corporation.

WHY SHOULD BJP CARE?

How big a blow will it be for the BJP to lose Delhi? Far from bemoaning this outcome the BJP should want to lose this election. There are three reasons for this contrarian view.

First, AAP is likely, at the very least, to be the main and significant opposition. The BJP will be hard put to keep up with the forensic oversight the AAP would unleash on the functioning of a BJP government in Delhi unless the Delhi unit is completely revamped. There is little chance of this happening since too much political capital needs to be invested for this with meagre political returns. This helplessness is best demonstrated by the inability of the BJP to reform the three Municipal Corporations it controls in Delhi. Hence the BJP has very little upside to lose in Delhi.

Second, an AAP government is likely to have the very same limitations it had when it last came to power; an uncooperative National Government controlling both the Police and Urban Development. Delhi is thirsting for more water but with a BJP government in Haryana (the source of additional supply) and a BJP National Government, an AAP government in Delhi will get no help in getting additional supplies. This indicates an AAP government is likely to underperform versus people’s expectations. So best to give them a long rope with which to hang themselves conclusively.

Third, PM Modi’s “A” team (Arun Jaitley-FM and Rajnath Singh-Home Minister) is getting awfully stretched. Big political battles are around the corner; Bihar end 2015 and UP a year later. There is also the job of getting on with routine governance; the nuts and bolts of managing the pipes that deliver public interest outcomes like investment; growth and jobs. Managing Delhi is a distraction the BJP could do without.

Of course the BJP does not have it in its DNA to take the low profile, strategic, sustainable path. Their forte is the “shock and awe” tactic. The focus is very much on glossy, big ticket items: grand new schemes and projects; a “strong Rupee; soaring stock markets; clever IT apps; outstanding oratory and a one-headline-a-day frenetic outreach schedule.

Time for the BJP to do a huddle and think its Delhi election strategy through. Having recently won the war (National Elections), losing a skirmish (Delhi) is ok if it results in winning the battle (Bihar & UP) to follow.

Paris Takeaway: One Culture Is Not a Quick Fix

Indian bus

(Photo Credit: www,m,inmagine.com)

For the French, “culture” is everything. It encompasses the language one speaks –French of course-; the food one eats-mildewed “blue” cheese; the wines one imbibes and the best of fashion. One Just has to compare the tres chic Christine Lagard-Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund with the practical, stodgy Mrs. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, to  visualize why France was so very different from the rest of Europe.

The idea of “one culture, one people” was peddled by France across its colonies, particularly in West and North Africa to create vast populations who, “in their heads”, were French, not African or Arab. Macaulay’s Minute (1835) did the same in India, except that British “Shepherd’s Pie and warm Beer doesn’t have quite the appeal as French cuisine.  No surprise then that in a cruel twist of fate Asian “curry” is the favorite British dish today. This would not have been possible in France.

French culture is emotively attractive. English has to be bit into-like a tough roast- to speak it but one has to swim languorously into French to speak it well. Listen to the French song “je t’aime”; a duet written by Serge Gainsbourg and immortalized by the Goddess of sensuousness- Brigitte Bardot in 1967. Compare this with the somber notes of Don McLean’s “And I love you so” and you will feel the difference between the cold Anglo Saxons and the emotive French.

The French, including the French co-optees- are a warm and loving people with their heads full of wooly, socialist ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. Of course all these ideals are bounded by a narrow regard for “French culture”. Take the case of dress codes. Muslims, who increasingly regard the “hijab” as an Islamic symbol, were not permitted to wear one in public. It is just as difficult to break through the French tradition of a large and inefficient public sector and taciturn trade unions- though we in India could give them a run for their money in this aspect.

Many nations, including the US and India, borrowed the ideals of the French Revolution 1789 but all applied them in a practical manner. Slogans like “we are all one World” sound great in a hippy hangout but are impossible to implement. End goals like Equality are just that. They define a glorious possibility but can never reflect the cruel, everyday reality of power hungry elites, patrimony and dissimilar endowments, as it exists everywhere in world.

The killings in Paris are being explained away as caused by religious, ethnic or economic cleavages. All of the above or any one of these could have been the immediate reason for the killings. But what they have laid bare is that the basic underlying assumption in France that one culture can laminate over all other cleavages is a lie.

A common culture is not enough of a glue to paper over the growing gaps between immigrants and insiders; white and the others; the Muslims (10% of the population) and the majority Christian faith; the educated and aspirational and the hopelessly poor and forgotten. Even Communist China has spectacularly failed in elevating the God of Communist Nationalism as a substitute for religion or ethnicity. This is despite the assistance of State machinery which is at its best in very heavy handed policing.  But a Common Culture is surely anathema alongside a belief in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

Our deepest sympathies are of course with the French for what has come to pass to their beautiful country. But no Indian can resist the deep sense of relief that despite our poverty; our widespread illiteracy; our linguistic, ethnic, cultural and religious heterogeneity we as Indians have hung together fairly well in relative terms.

This is not to say that minority rights are well protected in India. Nor do we hold that India has done well by its marginalized populations. But for a relatively new State and a less developed economy with deep rooted traditional cleavages, it is a remarkable achievement that we are bound ever tighter by our non-traditional beliefs in democracy; equity in access to public opportunities and freedom of choice in all aspects of life.

India has weathered violence more extreme, that seen in France recently, despite it being directly as viciously and specifically at a particular sect; religion or ethnicity. The reasons why we have managed to do so are ironical.

First, a weak State can be an asset. Unlike France we were never able to become a “Nanny State”. Every Indian knows that if she or her extended family does not look after themselves no one else will step in-least of all the State. This lack of an efficient, impersonalized, State provided social protection is cruel for the poor. But the consequential, pervasive, economic pressure of constantly working to make two ends meet keeps us on our toes. The desperation to keep working reduces the availability of idle human fodder to perpetrate the kind of terror in Paris.  The downside is the magnified roles local elites play in shaping opinion due to their economic and political clout.

Second, Indians happily accept that all 1240 million of us we are NOT one big happy family with a common culture. No Indian wants a common, Pan-Indian culture. Indians are used to living and working in an aggressively antagonistic, “non-localized environment”. The French in contrast are more molly coddled and less “internationalized” than us. 25% of Indians do not live in the place they were born and large scale migration is a fact. 2% of Indians live in foreign countries. We have assimilated and adapted to invaders, foreign conquerors and traders over the last 1000 years.

So let’s take heed of what has happened in France and the failure of the “one culture” project of the French. The world is too open; too complex and too integrated today for seeking “autarkic” options.

Culling our traditions to get options for the future is sensible but must have the caution that our greatest tradition has been of keeping our windows open, not tightly shut and making space for anyone wanting to clamber onto the “bus”, which is India.

The new Modi fan club

Image

Hindus, across caste lines, believe that the Modi Sarkar will usher in better times. But there is disquiet amongst the Muslims, in particular, but also amongst Christians. Both religions are of foreign origin and linked to religious regimes located elsewhere. They fear the whip-lash of a possible “India for Hindus” sentiment akin to the “Africa for Africans” sentiment in the 1970s, leading to the exodus of non-Africans. Also a consolidation of Hindu votes can make minorities less politically relevant as a vote bank.

Such fears are understandable. The potential for anti-foreign religious mania builds on the traditional Indian geo-political stance of self-determination and against “domination” by external actors. Nehru, a romantic, shunned geo-political alliances and grew the idea of “non-alignment”. Indira Gandhi, was more practical and whipped up phobia against the “invisible” hand of the West in geo-politics and leaned towards the obliging Soviets.

The BJP view on geo-politics is no different from that of the Congress in the recent past or indeed that of the Chinese; to do everything which builds the domestic economy and secures the country’s interests. However, there is one variation in the BJP strategy, which finds no place in that of the “secular” Congress.

Just as Amma’s geo-political stance is determined by how it affects Tamil interests (in the context of Sri Lanka), the BJP is likely to boldly pursue the cause and interests of Hindus overseas. Is this horribly unsecular?

Those who think so, must consider who else would weigh-in when Hindus are denied human rights in religious States like Pakistan or the Middle East? India is where Hinduism has developed and it is extremely odd that the Indian government should shy away from this duty. Should not a “secular” BJP be similarly proactive in protecting the rights of persecuted Christians in Egypt or South Sudan for instance, or allegedly persecuted Muslims in France or the US?

Whilst siding with a generic commitment to the Human Rights doctrine, the BJP rightfully believes that it is for States (much stronger than India in economic and political clout), which ascribe to these religions, to do this front line job. These nations do so in any case, even in the context of alleged human rights violations of Indian Muslims and Christians. In contrast the Hindus have no one, except India, to bat for them.

“Secularism” has acquired a shrill, hollow, politicized tone in India, which is at variance with our global interests. This is not to say that India should change the Constitution and become a Hindu State. Far from it. Secularism, in so far as the relationship between the State its citizens is concerned, should become even more sanitized of religious dogma to reassure Indian minorities.

The State must disengage totally from all religions, starting with religious rituals at State functions. Multi religious prayers and the construction of temples, mosques or churches in government buildings, especially the defence forces and police establishments, must be shunned. Warships should be launched, not by breaking coconuts on their hulls, but by a secular ritual. At state funerals, a clear distinction must be drawn between the role of the State, the party and the family concerned. The State must withdraw from the function, once religious rituals take over. The display of calendars with gods, goddesses and religious symbols must be banned in public offices and a code of religious conduct introduced for public servants.   

The romantic notion that the State can “adopt” all religions and yet remain secular, is fanciful and lies at the root of competition between religious denominations, for privileges, government funds and political power.

Has Indian “secular double-speak” been conclusively defeated in the 2014 elections? Unfortunately no. The political cleavages between Hindus and Muslims remain as deep as ever. Caste based politics has been papered over but remains a potent political instrument at the sub-national level. 

The BJP remains essentially a Hindu party. The real political conundrum facing it, is whether proactive outreach to secular Muslims and secular Christians, is likely to compromise its appeal to its new pan-Hindu, caste rainbow, voter base?

The longtime BJP supporter; Punjabi refugees from the Partition (now on the demographic wane); the Banias; Pandits and Thakurs of North India and a smattering of in-between castes, no longer constitute the bulk of BJP supporters. The baton has passed to aspiring youth frustrated by the lack of decent jobs; shoddy public facilities and a poor quality of life. These voters increasingly gel along classic, class lines. Kejriwal shrewdly tapped into their frustration but did not have the mind space to lead them. Modi has stepped into this breach and scaled up the strategy nationally.

But one major problem the BJP faces is that it’s “traditional Indian” image does not square with the aspirations of the modern Indian woman. This antediluvian caricature of ‘Indianess” and the role and relative status of a woman, is derived mostly from the BJP’s base in the North, where the status of women is the worst. Under Modi’s leadership, hopefully, the more enlightened, gender neutral cultural norms of Hindus in the West, South and the East of India shall prevail.

After all, unlike other leaders of his generation, Modi encouraged Jashodabehn to get educated and self-actualise, just as he was trying to do. But now the battle is done. Both Modi and Jashodabehn have voluntarily sacrificed their marriage and it is time to acknowledge their unbreakable bond of friendship and mutual respect. Jashodabehn is Modi’s biggest fan. She should not be discouraged from being so publicly.

Finally what of the poor, all 700 million of them, who earn less than US$2 per day. Modi was one of them and they are his primary constituency, irrespective of religion or caste. This must reflect in the government’s policy on reservations and positive affirmation in general, through a poverty criterion.  

There are three things the poor fear most of all; (1) insecurity, (2) inflation and (3) financial shock. They are the least prepared and the most exposed to all three. The Modi agenda already assures that social protection schemes, started by previous governments, will be made more effective, not shut down. If he can kick start domestic manufacturing by systematically cutting red tape and encouraging babus to deliver; boost infrastructure construction through public finance; incentivise tourism and private investment, the poor can be assured of a steady supply of decent jobs.  We need to generate 10 million a year.

One hopes that the false pride, associated with an appreciating exchange rate or hollow but unsettling jingoism, will not scuttle the sustained development of an internationally competitive, Indian economy. Modi is a practical man and a master strategist. He shall not be found wanting. Ache din aa gaye hain.

 

Avoid zero-sum political games

Image

The best thing about democracy is that it provides options to the zero-sum game where the winner takes all. Even the losers, in a democracy, retain their right to participate in decision making and benefit from state actions. We have seen too little democracy in India; the largest and the developing World’s best functioning democracy, and too many zero sum games being played.

One such game revolves around identity. Why is India still stuck in traditional identity models based on religion and caste? Babasahib Ambedkar’s big fear was that decentralization would further deepen these traditional identities by entrenching elite power, whilst centralized democracy, guided by more evolved minds, could pave the way to a more liberal future for the marginalized. The literature suggests that, perversely, centralized democracy has actually strengthened traditional identities across the board, rather than substituted them with more modern identities.

Dravida politics in Tamil Nadu; Dalit and backward caste politics in the North has led to political empowerment, which is welcome. But entrenchment of caste identity runs contrary to the aspirations of modernity, principally since caste is a non-meritocratic classification. One either belongs or does not. It bungs citizens into a static identity framework and denies them the right to choose and develop alternative non-traditional identities.

India inherited the Muslim “identity” issue from the colonial mindset, which used it to its advantage. The acrimony and violence of the partition strengthened the divide. But the “Hindu pride” movement of the BJP/RSS in the 1990’s sharpened the cleavage. Whilst provoking the less liberal it assuaged the guilt of the liberal Hindu and encouraged them to merge their Hindu identity with their politics. The Indian tricolor has both saffron and green. But Hindus rarely don the latter, whilst Muslims rarely use the former.

Sikh identity was just a mix of bravado, large heartedness, the absence of religious bias, a preference for chicken tikka and deliciously hot langar, available for anyone, in Gurudwaras. Till the events leading to 1984, Sikhs were integral to the Hindu tent. Today their children shave their beards to join and the Akali Dal is the dominant party in Punjab.

Focusing on identity, for short term political gain, is a zero sum game. Identity is the last refuge of political mediocrity. Parties, which are bankrupt in ideology and short on demonstrated success, are the ones most likely to use “traditional identity” as a means to gain political support.

Modi is demonstratedly keen to get away from the popular perception of being a “Hindu nationalist” but it is not easy unless the BJP dilutes its links with the RSS. Modi cannot win without the fringe Hindu and Muslim, urban vote. But the fringe voter is unlikely to support a deepening of traditional identity.

Muslims increasingly have an urban presence. They are functionally integrated into the lucrative, crafts based export and machining industry and pervasive in informal, skill-based employment thereby building social capital within urban communities. But outside Gujrat, Muslims view Modi only through the lens of Hindu identity politics.

Modi will, consequently, be denied a significant section of the urban vote, which should naturally have accrued to him since Modinomics is primarily, an urban vision. This illustrates the self-defeating character of identity politics. The decline of the Congress is another example of a self-goal. The Congress built its support based on identity politics since the 1970s. But once Muslims, upper caste Hindus and Dalits were weaned away by more efficient, identity based parties, the Congress floundered.

Unfortunately, India’s newest party; the AAP is also engaged in a zero-sum game. This game is about exposing the corrupt. Kejriwal must appreciate that voicing the demands of the Aam Admi does not have to be done in the shrill, make or break confrontationist form, he has adopted. It may get him media attention to denigrate Najeeb Jung, the courtly, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, but it is unlikely to get him votes. Just as Mani’s diatribe against Modi’s chai serving past, has floored Mani, whilst elevating Modi.

Gandhi stood out as a negotiator by being an accomplished “incrementalist”, not by presenting a zero-sum fait accompli. What distinguished him, from those he led, was his ability to be firm but civil and eager to first explore if incremental change could happen, within the four corners of the existing law. Enacting a law is no assurance that the desired outcomes will follow. Making the enactment of a law as the fulcrum of a government’s achievement is the lazy politician’s route to populism and a zero sum approach to governance. We have lately seen too many such attempts.

Good governance is about problem solving at the margin, using stealth, guile and innovation with an eye out for maximizing value for money. It is not about proclaiming a grand vision of “total revolution”. What citizens value most, is the least disturbance to their daily lives and incremental but steady improvements in the quality of life. Supreme sacrifices by citizens to attain a vision call for conditions to be intolerable. The problem for the politicians of modern India is that life is not insufferable in India even for the poor. Democratic safety valves operate to keep the pot from boiling over. Had it not been so, the Communists and the Maoist would have realized their revolution long ago.

Please Arvind, you don’t need a multi-hull, state-of-the-art catamaran to navigate calm, inland waters. A simple canoe would do as well. Don’t hanker for a nuclear bomb to eliminate a few rodents.

 

 

  

 

 

 

Rahul and Kejriwal; common aspirations

Image

In India, fractured as it is by multiple social divisions, on top of the usual economic distinctions of class, the notion that any one party can appeal to the majority seems far-fetched, especially in the context of an increasingly aware and literate electorate. Intelligent voters seek to maximize their self-interest, which is increasingly defined in a narrow manner.

Despite its divisiveness, India’s electorate can be grouped into three broad segments.

First, the Muslims, the Dalits and the Tribals remain marginalized local groups, comprising around 33% of the vote. This vote remains pretty much transferable in bulk to whichever party they trust. The rise of regional parties is based on this vote. For the marginalized, the primary concern is the security of life, property and social dignity. These immediate concerns are best met practically, by the party which rules the State government, where they live. They also believe that caste/religion cohorts will be less rapacious than others.

The Congress used to be the party of choice for them, but the loss of power at the State level, particularly in North and East India, has severely undercut its usefulness to these marginalized segments.

For none of these, though the BJP has broken through to the Tribal vote, is the BJP a welcome prospect. Its strident Hinduism disadvantages lower castes, whilst its vision of business led growth, paints it as vile, exploitative and people unfriendly. This effectively knocks around one third of the electorate into the arms of regional parties, the Left and the Congress (where it rules a State government).

Second, the urban non-poor, comprising around 20% of voters, remain catchment areas for the BJP and its clones. The urban poor, comprising around 10% of the vote, were solidly with the Congress till 2013 but now may gravitate to AAP clones, if these are scaled up, although this seems unlikely given the past history of such “honesty based” social movements.

The third group is the rural, rich and business community, who are increasingly becoming indistinguishable from the urban rich, since untaxed agricultural income remains an attractive instrument for accounting for unaccounted income. Also agricultural land is a prime speculative asset in a fast urbanizing economy. This group, which hangs its hat on the movements of the Sensex, is firmly with the BJP. But their numbers are woefully insignificant (less than 1% of the vote).

The rural poor (other than scheduled caste and tribes), comprising the residual 36%, are the votes which remain up for grabs by the National and Regional parties. Caste, Clan and Community all play major and enduring roles.

If the Left had a more credible jobs and public services program, this segment would be fertile ground for it. The Congress and the Left have now become virtually indistinguishable. They have similar approaches to gay rights versus traditional values; social protection versus growth; subsidies versus jobs or domestic agendas versus open economy linkages. The only difference is that the Congress is not averse to playing the caste and religion card, as convenient, whilst the Left is still squeamish about departing from its class struggle agenda.

These two parties are likely to cannibalize each other. They could usefully coalesce into a single “Progressive Union” of the rural poor, Muslims, Dalits and Tribals. In doing so they could aggressively combat the Regional parties which are essentially caste and social identify based. They could give a modern, welfare State option to this segment. The AAP is also closely aligned to the philosophy of the Left and the Congress. Strident secularism; worker welfare; self-sufficiency; decentralized rule by mohallah committees/Bhagidari/communes are examples of common thinking.

The BJP is consequently forced to distinguish itself as the Party offering pan-India economic growth, industrialization, rapid urbanization and jobs, whilst minimizing its Welfare State character. It has quite some way to go towards this objective. Its 2013 victories in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh were based on a social welfare program, closely resembling that of the Congress and were aided by poor leadership and in-fighting in the Congress. This cannot be a consistent ground for victory. A combative Congress could swiftly reduce the BJPs advantage at the “efficient government” game.

The BJP has to look to the rural rich and upwardly mobile middle class and the urban voter for long term support. This segment will grow from being 30% today to over 60% of the vote by 2030. This is its natural constituency. In doing so it must distance itself from Hindu fundamentalism; obscurantism and adopt a modern growth and development based agenda. The Nagpur connection has to be severely diluted. Otherwise it will lose ground, which it can ill afford.

There is little scope for Fascism in India, principally due to deep social and regional heterogeneity. The Parties of the next decade will be smaller in size and scope. They will live or die depending on how nimble they can be in reaching out to their voters. Close and consistent interaction with voters, rather than mammoth public rallies, will determine success. Merit based on performance, rather than birth, shall increasingly be the measure of politicians. Governments will be formed by coalitions rather than through block buster electoral support.

Kejriwal has belled the cat. The Congress, which is in search of a leader, could usefully anoint him as its 2014 candidate for Prime Minister.  Rahul and Kejriwal share a lot of common ground; age, social conscience, a thirst for asceticism and a focus on doing the right thing. They should join hands. What could be better than contracting-in the model, Rahul hopes to emulate?  Another, more revolutionary option, would be for Rahul and the progressive section of the Congress to merge with the AAP. Either model can work, in stemming BJPs juggernaut.

Netaji-Mulayam’s 30/30 India (U) Vision

Image

Blame it on Nehru. If it had not been for him, India (U-ndivided) would comprise Pakistan, Azad Kashmir and Bangladesh, though regrettably still not Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandulama are so beautiful!).

Now why couldn’t the man have just made Jinnah the PM, who would have been gone soon enough, anyway. Nehru would have been back in the saddle and the rest of history would have unwound as it did, except:

(1) We would have won more hockey matches.

(2) Our cricket and football teams would be stronger.

(3) Our movie stars would be taller and better looking and Imran Khan would be ours.

(4) Indians (U) would no longer feel compelled to cheer cricket teams on the basis of religion.

(5) The delights of Lahore would still be available to the average Punjabi

(6) We would not have the absurd feet stomping, yelling, in-your-face antics between border guards, every day at Attari.

(7) The refined Dilli culture would not have been overwhelmed by exuberant Punjabi refugees.

(8) Bengali would have been a dominant Indian language spoken by 15% and Urdu would never have declined and be spoken by more than 25% of U-Indians.

(9) India (U)’s river water potential would have been better harnessed

(10) Hydro power would still be a major energy source

(11) Cheap gas, piped from Turkmenistan would fuel household energy needs, industry and electricity in the North

(12) Our forest cover ratio would be much worse but our freshwater availability would increase significantly.

(13) The Soviets would still be there in Afghanistan because we would never have given the US a toehold in Karachi, the Panjab or the NW Frontier areas

(14) The Taliban would never have been born, nor would have Bhindranwale.

(15) India (U) would not be a favourite tourist destination for Israeli backpackers.

(16) We would still get cheap Sardas (a juicy, sugary sweet Afghanistan/NW Frontier melon) and exquisite dry fruit.

(17) We would still have to deal with “Afghani” money lenders and their wayward ways of dealing with defaulters rather than having them live here as pliant refugees.

(18) We would be able to visit Kashmir without bullet proof vests and enjoy its cuisine and natural beauty.

(19) Kashmiris would still opt for business, horticulture, hospitality, handicrafts, poetry and cricket rather than AK 47s and football.

(20) North and East India (U) would have remained competitive versus the West and the South with easy access to the sea via Karachi; undiluted Punjabi prowess in agriculture; Sindhi excellence in trade; Bengali competitiveness in “Kolture”, arts, law and the social sciences.

(21) We would have fathered micro credit and Muhammad Yunus would be ours.

(22) With one third of the electorate and dominance in the North, Muslims would no longer feel like a minority

(23) Under competition from a significant Islamic presence, Hinduism would have tended to consolidate, rather than splinter along caste cleavages, as it has today.

(24) The BJP would have been a dominant party of the right from the 1950s and Zardari and Sheikh Hasina would have been its Muslim leaders today instead of Shahnawaz Hussain.

(25) Nawaz Sharif and Khaleeda Zia would be the Muslim leaders of the Congress party, rather than Khurshid, Kidwai and Rasheed Alvi.(26) We would not spend 20% of our fiscal resources on the army.

(27) It is unlikely, Sikkim would ever have resolved to join the Republic, just as Nepal’s main regret is that it borders tumultuous India, rather than placid Sweden.

(28) China would be even more worried and hence more of an existential threat.

(29) The US would have been become friendlier much earlier.

(30) Najeeb Jung would still be Lt. Governor of Delhi

Wanted Social Reformers

Is Rahul really so wrong in talking of two Indias. There are two Indias. But not the kind that Rahul envisages. He sees the divide in economic terms; the poor and the rich. The real divide is between those who are ready to abandon tradition and social bonds, especially when they impose medieval constraints on human rights and those who are either happy or are benefited by remaining wedded to the past.

In the former category are those who marry outside their caste, religion or class and do not impose caste, religion or class as an initial yes/no basis for choice of life partner by their children; those who shall not support a political party which uses traditional social groups as vote banks; those who speak out for human rights, child protection, protection from marginalization and against gender discrimination and abuse.

In the latter category are all those who support the infamous Khap Panchayats of Haryana; Hindu and Muslim fundamentalism; caste based social interaction and the use of tradition as a lever of social control. The most recent incident from Haryana of “honor killing” illustrates this mindset.

Consider how quickly social cleavages could disappear if by law Indians were required to marry outside their caste or religion and if they had free choice. Of course we have a problem in that for every Muslim there are six Hindus so whilst Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians would have a significant pool of partners in Hindus the reverse is not true. Here the law could strike a blow for social reform by decreeing that marriage between a scheduled caste or tribal Hindu and a general category Hindu would also qualify. There is a parallel from Africa. Tribalism is the bane of Africa but is unknown or marginal in Tanzania. Christians and Muslims inter marry. The change is attributed to the social activism of Julius Nyerere, their first President who ensured intermixing by forcibly requiring children to study away from their home cities, developed mixed communities and encouraged people to marry across tribes and religions. This does not mean that tribalism and religion do not exist. They do but it is not a basis for social segregation as in India.

India is rife with laws. Why not this law which eradicates the scourge of social parochialism and prejudice? Unfortunately anyone suggesting this remedy would be immediately categorized as entirely mad or at best a dreamer. It is unimaginable that people would accept this level of intrusion into their personal life. What about our religious leaders and their followers? Their social and economic power could vanish overnight. What about political parties? How would they now target their voters? “Secularism” would acquire a hollow sound. “Fundamentalism” would similarly lose its force. Politicians would need to start talking about real issues; things which matter like social and individual well-being. All this goes against the grain of India’s incremental approach to change.

The longer route to social integration is via development and urbanization. Enhanced income makes people less willing to risk social unrest and violence. However, rich people can end up being socially more traditional and backward looking than the poor. Superstition is a common failing of the rich. False religiosity and a fetish for rituals is a peculiar character of the wannabe rich, who like all wannabes are more devout than the traditional elite. Rising incomes then is not the route to social integration. Rather the savior is rapid urbanization. Cities break down social barriers and shake up people’s prejudices. They give an equal chance for women to work. This destabilizes the traditional social order within the family. Cities force people of different backgrounds to cluster together on the basis of income or occupation.

Between the two; legislating social integration or urbanization the latter is the non-controversial option. Urbanization is a global trend. It makes economic sense. It is irreversible. By 2050 one half of India will be urban. This is still thirty seven years away; one full generation. It will take India till 2100 to reach a level of 75% urbanization. Well more than double the time since our independence. This is way too long to cut away the false social constraints we live within.

The only near term option is to rely on social reformers. We need a modern day Kabir; Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, the Mahatama;  Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekananda, Babasaheb Amedkar or Maulana Azad. I am not sure how one can find such persons in modern India. We lost one such self-effacing but determined person in the assassination of Narendra Dhabolkar. This illustrates the viciousness of entrenched, fundamentalist elites. Where there was one Dhabolkar there are bound to be countess others who are driven by their passion for rationality, social harmony and the assurance of basic human rights.

A sure way to discover such social forces is by following the well-defined mechanism of truth and reconciliation. This is a standard conflict resolution technique. It encourages the two conflicted parties to engage with each other in a mediated forum at the local level, where the flesh meets the sword and work through their differences…much the same as a warring couple. Through accusation and counter accusation, the often unpleasant truth emerges and is recognized by all. Blame is apportioned, consensually, by the two parties, it is accepted and differences are resolved. Over time people get into the habit of adopting this mechanism for defusing tension. The differences recede. The common bonds become stronger. Life goes on. Since this is an apolitical process and is led by social reformers “political noise” is avoided. The process itself provides incentives for mediators and “social binders” to emerge. In the emergence of such persons lies the salvation of India.

In India, after the partition; after the Hindu-Muslim riots of the late 1970s and early 1980s; the Sikh massacre of 1984; after Babri Masjid and the Bombay riots in 1992, Godhra 2002 and Muzaffarnagar 2013 we have never meticulously tried Truth and Reconciliation, to heal the wound. The approach has always been to “seal” the wound as fast as possible, as if it were a pressurized well, needing to be plugged. Unfortunately, even plugged oil wells explode when pressure builds up.

It is time to change. It is time for social reformers to step in and follow through with healing and reform.  We are obsessed with economic reform, quite ignoring that conflict (the outcome of unresolved social tensions) negatively impacts the GDP by at least 2 to 3%, every time it flares up. Computing the full cost of conflict is a complex exercise.  Africa, it is estimated, loses 15% of its GDP due to conflict. The power of good Economics can be significantly supplemented by social reform. Let us start now. Action is long overdue. ImageImageImageImageImageImage

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: