Congress needs to understand people's yearning for change

By B.R.P.Bhaskar

Special to IANS

The dismal performance of the Congress in the four Hindi-speaking states which went to the polls recently did not surprise anyone, except perhaps its own leaders. Pollsters have been saying for more than a year that it is on the decline. They have said the popular mood is such that the Bharatiya Janata Party will push it down to the second place and emerge as the largest party in the Lok Sabha in next year's elections.

Congress leaders have offered the self-serving explanation that the party lost because it failed to apprise the people of the good work done by its governments at the Centre and in the states. They should ask themselves if the good things that happened under their watch are sufficient to persuade the people to overlook the bad things such as rampant corruption and spiralling prices.

People form judgments continually on the basis of how governments' actions impinge on their lives.

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government is mired in scams, and its popularity has touched the nadir. Some leaders of the Congress and its allies are fighting graft charges in courts. When acts of malfeasance came to light, the UPA, instead of squarely facing the situation, reflexively went into denial mode and resorted to cover-up.

Corruption has grown enormously in recent years. What's more, it is now an issue high up in people's minds, thanks to Anna Hazare's on-again, off-again Jan Lokpal campaign.

Corruption, as Indira Gandhi famously observed, is a global phenomenon. A historical analysis will bear out that most countries faced corruption when their economy was growing rapidly. The British parliament had hauled up Clive and Warren Hastings on their return home from India with loot. Japan, South Korea and China, which witnessed economic boom ahead of India, also witnessed high corruption. While they sent functionaries like president, prime minister and party bosses to jail, India has had a poor record in dealing with corruption at the top.

Other parties too are affected by corruption. The BJP was forced to act against its chief minister in Karnataka, B.S.Yeddyurappa, following serious allegations, and he broke away and formed a regional party. Now it is trying to get him back to its side before the parliamentary elections. There were corruption charges against a dozen members of the BJP government in Madhya Pradesh but that did not prevent the party from securing a third term in the Assembly elections.

Clearly, the Congress has an image problem it cannot wish away. Corruption charges stick more easily to it than to others since it has been in power longest and is assumed to have been corrupted to a greater extent than the rest.

It is unfair to throw the blame for the party's present plight entirely on Manmohan Singh, as some Congressmen are doing. After all, he had also presided over UPA I, which did well enough to secure a new mandate for the party.

Some of the Congress's problems do not admit of easy solutions. It is saddled with leaders with a record of mishandling issues of import. Telangana is a classic example of a problem complicated by leaders whom the high command had relied upon to sort out difficulties. Such problems are the price the party has to pay for attaching greater value to servitude than to competence.

The party's shrinking vote base presumably still includes many who view it as the party of Gandhi or Nehru or Indira Gandhi, all of whom had forged emotional links with the ordinary people. Having relied upon nominated leaders after the 1969 split, at the state level it lacks leaders and an apparatus capable of ensuring delivery of its votes. This leaves it in a disadvantageous situation, especially in states where it is pitted against cadre parties.

Where the party apparatus is intact, as in Kerala, it faces difficulty of another kind. The supposedly all-powerful high command has to remain a helpless spectator when a leadership which stands discredited, following disclosures about closeness to cheats and communal elements, drags the party down with it.

There are, of course, issues that can be addressed, not to find quick-fix solutions but to refurbish the party's image before the elections. It may be able to regain some lost ground if it can convey the message that it understands the people's yearning for change, reflected in the Assembly elections, and is willing to reinvent itself.

A new Lok Sabha has to be in position before the term of the present one ends in May 2014. Last time, the deadline was June 2 and the long-drawn-out electoral process began with the Election Commission announcing the poll schedule March 2. This time the announcement may have to be advanced to mid-February.

The moment the schedule is announced, the model code comes into force, and the government will not be able to initiate any new programmes or policies. That means the Congress has just two months for any makeover effort. But the party stands paralyzed, caught between a prime minister who has outlived his utility and a fancied successor who is finding it difficult to get rid of the reluctant groom syndrome.

Daunting poll challenge

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is preparing to challenge the Congress party in the 2014 parliamentary elections, has a daunting task ahead.

The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was in power from 1999 to 2004. In Atal Behari Vajpayee it had a popular prime minister and the economy did well. Yet it could not win a second five-year term on the “India Shining” slogan. The electorate rebuffed it again in 2009.

Now it has cause for optimism. As many as 39 per cent of those who participated in a recent opinion poll said they would vote for the NDA if elections were held now. Only 22 per cent said they would vote for the UPA.

The poll also showed that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, frontrunner in the party’s prime ministerial stakes, has a 36 per cent rating. Rahul Gandhi, whom the Congress party recently made its vice-president and is seen as its prime ministerial candidate, is way behind with only 22 per cent.

But the BJP has cause to worry too. The collapse of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s bid to secure for Nitin Gadkari a second three-year term as BJP president indicates the emergence of new dynamics in Parivar politics. This is the first time that the RSS failed to have its way in the choice of the party president.

Gadkari, a former Maharashtra minister, was little known outside the state when the RSS picked him for the top post in 2009. He became a source of acute embarrassment to the party when the media brought to light his connections with some dubious business concerns late last year, leading to an official probe. Yet the RSS pushed for his re-election. Stiff resistance by party leaders like Lal Kishen Advani and Ram Jethmalani forced it to abandon him and agree to the election of former president Rajnath Singh.

The Gadkari fiasco has come on the heels of grave corruption charges against BJP leaders in Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka. In last year’s assembly elections, the Congress wrested power from the BJP in Himachal Pradesh. Chhattisgarh and Karnataka go to the polls this year.

The BJP is in serious trouble in Karnataka, the only southern state where it is in power. Last year it eased out Chief Minister BS Yeddiyurappa, who had led it to victory in the state five years ago, following allegations of corruption. He has now floated a regional party, styled as Karnataka Janata Party, and is posing it a grave challenge.

The party faces dissension also in Rajasthan, another state where elections are due this year. A section of the central leadership wants to bring former chief minister Vijayaraje Scindia to the fore once again but there is strong opposition to her from within the state party.

Modi enjoys wide support among Hindutva elements, but his projection as prime ministerial candidate is sure to meet with strong opposition from sections within the BJP and the NDA in view of his alleged association with the anti-Muslim riots of 2002. The Janata Dal (United), the second largest NDA constituent, has repeatedly said that he is not acceptable.

The opinion poll also offers the BJP cause for despair. While it forecasts a rise in the NDA’s Lok Sabha strength from 159 to 203 and fall in the UPA’s from 259 to 157, the combined strength of other parties will go up from 125 to 183. It is they who will decide who should form the government.

The others are an odd assortment of small national parties with scattered pockets of influence and regional parties which are powerful in their respective areas. The leaders of some of these parties are known to have prime ministerial ambitions but the post-election scenario is likely to reduce their choice to one of going with either the Congress or the BJP. The moot question is who will be the beneficiary of their pragmatic approach. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, January 29, 2013.

The Zen Tiger: India 's Elections And The Magic Of Fareed Zakaria

PUBALI RAY CHAUDHURI
Countercurrents.org

Writing a defence of unfettered capitalism after the economic meltdown that left millions of people in the U.S. and all over the world jobless may seem a daunting task, rather like convincing people mauled by a tiger that the beast is actually a vegetarian and a practising Buddhist, and its latest manifestation of bloodthirstiness is merely an aberration in a life steeped in good works. In short, we need a virtuoso display of smoke and mirrors by skilled wordsmiths, able to perform the linguistic legerdemain to avert the danger that people may begin to question the system or seek to curb its excesses. Fortunately for the system, such commentators are not in short supply. Pay them well, and they will spin your yarns for you. They will lull and soothe. They will numb and dumb. In their hands, words anesthetize us into compliance; they keep us cheering for our oppressors even as we are devoured to the last crumb.

Consider Fareed Zakaria's recent cover essay “The Capitalist Manifesto,” ( Newsweek , June 22, 2009 ). Like other articles of the “everything's OK, relax” school, it unspools line after line of lucid, well-considered prose, all in a bid to convince us, the public, that the system that left so many of us jobless, homeless, uninsured, that gutted our life savings and splintered our dreams, is still the best option we have. If we could only overlook the tiger's unfortunate propensity occasionally to run amok spreading death and destruction in its wake, we would realize that it's really our best friend and how silly we would be to ever think of shackling such an adorable creature. The crisis now upon us, says Mr. Zakaria, is not one of capitalism, but of ethics. A few ethics management classes, and voila! The magician will have produced his miracle. The tiger will fetter and muzzle itself – it's a Buddhist, remember? A cuddly Zen tiger. A tiger you can trust.

or a moment Mr. Zakaria almost had me believing in miracles.
Until, that is, I confronted the following lines:

The simple truth is that with all its flaws, capitalism remains the most productive economic engine we have yet invented. Like Churchill's line about democracy, it is the worst of all economic systems, except for the others. Its chief vindication today has come halfway across the world, in countries like China and India , which have been able to grow and pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by supporting markets and free trade. Last month India held elections during the worst of this crisis. Its powerful left-wing parties campaigned against liberalization and got their worst drubbing at the polls in 40 years.

The Indian elections, in Mr. Zakaria's view, constituted a popular mandate for “free trade” and “liberalization.”

Suddenly I am alert again, skeptical, sullenly refusing to accept Mr. Zakaria's avuncular assurances that uncontrolled capitalism is my ticket to the best of all possible economic worlds. I have breached the cardinal rule of successful magic: do not look too close; do not examine too deeply; allow yourself to be swept up in the moment; accept the illusion and feel its soporific joys stealing over your faculties of reason and logic. Alas, that some of us are born to cavil and to quibble, to peer into hats and to twitch aside curtains, to ask the questions that break the spell and spoil the fun! We are a tribe of heretics and party poopers, and if you decide to stay enchanted, stop reading here. What lies ahead is not pretty, and not prettified.

Others have preceded me in responding to the broader aspects of Mr. Zakaria's essay, notably Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Nick Beams of WSWS . What interests me most, however, is not so much Mr. Zakaria's defence of capitalism, for in this he is by no means alone. There exists a whole constellation of media luminaries, from Thomas Friedman to George F. Will, who constantly remind us of the virtues of the free market. I address Mr. Zakaria's work in particular here not for the claims he makes, which are not new, but for the context – India 's elections – in which he makes them. As Newsweek 's International Editor, Mr. Zakaria's words reach a vast audience, some of whom may not be familiar with the real issues that underlay this year’s election results in India . In fact, it might not be too much to say that many readers will form their opinions of the contemporary political climate in India based on what Mr. Zakaria and other widely known mainstream commentators tell their readers. It is necessary, therefore, to examine more carefully Mr. Zakaria's implied claim of widespread popular support for “free trade,” “capitalism,” “free markets,” liberalization,” call it what you will – a tiger by any other name - in the world's largest democracy – India.

Mr. Zakaria manages a fairly impressive series of rhetorical feats here, which are worth analyzing at some length. Without saying so directly, he succeeds in implying that the “hundreds of millions of people” supposedly pulled out of poverty, arising like so many Lazarii out of their grave-clothes, have recognized and feted the messiah of free trade responsible for their revivification. Such a mandate, if given at all, would apply only to India, for China's newly enriched millions, if they exist at all, never had the pleasure of endorsing their free trade bonanza. All the same, reading Mr. Zakaria's paean, one is left with the distinct impression that had the Chinese been able to vote, they would have supplied such endorsement. Lost in all the rejoicing, however, is one small detail – China is not a democracy in any sense of the word. Its people do not get a chance to say what they think – electorally or otherwise -- and the Chinese government has built up something of a reputation for the swift and brutal crushing of most forms of dissent. These finer points, however, find no mention in Mr. Zakaria's ringing exaltation of the capitalist system. As long as a nation's government embraces capitalism, he seems to be saying, whether or not its citizens live in a participatory democracy is a secondary consideration.

Passing lightly, then, over Mr. Zakaria's personal miracle – that of conflating two such different political systems as those of China and India under the unifying banner of “free trade” -- I approach the second part of his statement: India 's “powerful left-wing parties campaigned against liberalization and got their worst drubbing at the polls in 40 years.” By this point in the argument, one is beginning to appreciate the more subtle nuances of Mr. Zakaria's style. The above statement is not, strictly speaking, a lie – at least the latter part is not, the former being very partially true. Yet the gap between Mr. Zakaria's analysis and the realities on the ground yawns so wide that readers are likely to come away with a staggeringly distorted picture of what really happened.

One must give credit where it is due – Mr. Zakaria is a very fine writer, even if he chooses not to employ his considerable gifts in the service of the truth. Language can be used to clarify as well as to obfuscate; to serve the interests of the rich and powerful or to lend eloquence to the sufferings of the poor and voiceless. It can be used to buttress the status quo or to stoke the fires of revolutionary social change. Mr. Zakaria, it is clear, has chosen the former course. For instance, he makes no mention of the fact that the only “anti-liberalization” plank of the Left was its opposition to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The Left's position in this regard may have displeased those members of the upper and middle class of English-speaking Indians who are enamoured of the idea of India as a “global power,” as Ms. Clinton has recently dubbed a country whose infant mortality rate is worse than that of some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Mr. Zakaria, born in Mumbai, is himself a member of this elite class, and it is perhaps natural that he should share with them the kind of blinkered reality that sees no implausibility in this fabulous monster, no contradiction between some of the worst development indices in the world and a budding superpower identifying one and the same country. But it is hardly to be expected that the people whose misery such indices quantify are going to be very impressed by the mendacious logic of a Zakaria or a Clinton.

In fact, even the Left, and its leading party the CPI(M), did not make much of an effort, beyond a poorly executed public march, to use the nuclear deal as a political hobby-horse. In any case, the Indian Left had a strong presence in only two of the country's 28 states: Kerala and West Bengal. Of the two, Kerala is a swing state, alternating between electing a Congress and a Marxist government. In West Bengal , on the other hand, the CPI(M)-led Left coalition defeated the Congress in 1977 and has since then been returned to power every time for the past 32 years. West Bengal's electoral results thus provide a crucial part of the evidence for Mr. Zakaria's assertion of the Left parties receiving “their worst drubbing in 40 years.”

Responsible for the electoral outcome that humbled the once mighty left were Bengal's humblest themselves, the peasants and sharecroppers whose unwavering support had sustained the coalition for over three decades. Aligned with the Left were big business houses, and the electoral result therefore constituted not only a clear mandate against liberalization, but also a vote for “Ma,” “Mati,” and “Manush,” (Mother, Land and People), the campaign slogan of the TMC, the party that stepped adroitly into the breach that the Left's rightward tilt had providentially opened up in the public goodwill. Even mainstream media outlets attributed the Left's poor showing at the polls to its anti-populist and pro-business policies. Indeed, some news reports went so far as to express anxiety for the party's prospects before the elections had actually taken place, noting that the Party had already been defeated in the local Assembly elections in those places that had been most affected by its unpopular policies: Singur and Nandigram. To talk of the Left receiving a drubbing without mentioning these two names, as Mr. Zakaria has done, is rather like narrating the tale of Napoleon's defeat without once alluding to Waterloo.

The Defeat of the Left: Singur

Singur was the first place to feel the winds of political change ushered in by a “reformist” Left. The government's tactics were rich in Orwellian irony: it used an ancient 1894 British colonial era land acquisition law to tell the farmers of Singur that they were shortly to be dispossessed of their land, where plans were afoot to set up a car manufacturing factory for the “people's car,” the low-cost Nano, by the Indian multinational, Tata, one of the country's richest and most influential business conglomerates. The farmers and sharecroppers at Singur learned, to their shock, that the fertile, multi-crop land where they grew greens and potatoes and which had sustained them for generations was somehow set down in the government's records as “mono-crop.” The government further insulted the farmers by offering them a one-time compensation for the land many regarded not as a mere possession, but as the source of their common identity.
When the tiger is close upon you, and you can feel its hot breath in your face and see the jaws open and the teeth gleam, reality has a way of breaking through the wordspell. Not all Mr. Zakaria's eloquence could have convinced Singur's residents of the benefits of “liberalization” when their lands and livelihoods were the sacrifices demanded. They rose in revolt against the expropriation of their land. The government fought back, using state police and thugs who had long formed the muscle power of the party cadres. A teenage girl, Tapasi Malik, who had been in the forefront of her people's struggle for land preservation, paid a horrific price. She was raped, apparently by a gang, murdered, and her body burnt and thrown in the fields. Others who lost their land committed suicide, acts that the government refused to acknowledge as having anything to do with the forcible dispossession of land – when it acknowledged them at all.

The CPI(M)'s political rivals, the Congress included, were not slow to take advantage of the situation. Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamul Congress, who had long languished in the political wilderness, being the only member of her party to win a parliamentary seat from West Bengal, swiftly cast herself and her party as the new champions of the toiling masses – the very people who had been the Left's staunchest supporters. Banerjee also formed a politically convenient alliance with the Congress. The high-handed attempts of the CPI(M) to suppress the popular resistance created a gap into which the TMC quickly and gleefully stepped. The resistance continued for so long that the Tatas were finally compelled to announce that they were withdrawing from Singur, but by then the seeds of distrust in the Left had already been sown in the popular psyche – and they would bear swifter and bloodier fruit in the next town to be mauled by the Left's new found capitalist sympathies – Nandigram.

The Defeat of the Left: Nandigram

With Singur, it had been a car factory; in Nandigram, the Left Front wished to set up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for the Salim group of Indonesia, which had first risen to prominence during the murderous U.S.-supported dictatorship of Suharto, and which maintains close ties with the Suharto family. Here again the government attempted to dispossess the farmers to make way for the “free trade” saviour, but the residents of Nandigram, like those in Singur, proved curiously disinclined to assist in their own salvation – perhaps because they did not see it as such.
Moreover, they had been alerted by what had happened in Singur and were better prepared to resist. They dug up roads, formed a committee, the Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (Land Expropriation Resistance Committee) or BUPC and blockaded their village, refusing access to outsiders.

This time the government, finding that persuasion was vain, unleashed a series of brutal state terror campaigns. Throughout 2008, on several occasions, government-sponsored death squads, including police, descended on Nandigram and went on a spree of vicious beatings, rapes, lootings, arson and murders. Police refused to register the victims' complaints and the government hospitals refused to provide needed medical care for the injured. Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented the abuses and subsequent government indifference. More than a hundred people had died and Nandigram had become a national flashpoint for workers' rights when the government finally decided to move its SEZ elsewhere. It left behind a people bereaved, traumatized – and a general distrust and seething anger in large sections of the poorest citizens, who had thought of the Left as at least having some concern, however inadequate, for their well-being. Now that faith lay irrevocably shattered.

The Defeat of the Left: The Muslim Angle

Other reasons also contributed to popular disaffection with the Left, though none of them had to do with some newfound enthusiasm for “free trade.” One such incident was the Rizwan Noor case, where Noor, a young Muslim man, was allegedly murdered while in police custody for having a relationship with the daughter of a wealthy Hindu family. Many strongly suspected that government collusion in the cover-up of any investigation into Noor's death, causing widespread resentment among Muslims, who had earlier been largely supportive of the Left because of the latter's secular credentials. The second such blow to the image of the Left fell when the Sachar Committee released its report. The committee found that even though one in four of West Bengal 's population was Muslim, they made up only 4.7% of the nation's workforce. Not unnaturally, many Muslims began to rethink their support for the Left.

Left, Right, Left: The Struggle Continues

At the time of writing, the resistance of West Bengal 's poor against the unholy alliance of big business and a government that calls itself communist still continues apace. The tribal populations of Lalgarh (the name, tellingly, means “Red Fortress”) now face similar dispossession from their land in order to make way for a steel plant, to be built on another such “liberalized” SEZ. The tribals, understandably unwilling to buy into this definition of “liberalization' that threatens to deprive them of their livelihoods and reduce them to a sort of economic slavery, have put up a spirited fight to retain possession of their land. This response has resulted in the usual repression by a government determined not to tolerate stubborn citizens who refuse to participate in their own destitution, who see through the spin and will not be deluded. Zen the tiger, if you can; if you can't, send in the militia.

Beyond West Bengal

Although this article has focused mostly on West Bengal, for reasons that I have already explained, the defeat of the Left Front and the victory of the Congress at the Centre do not constitute, by any means, a popular mandate for “free trade.” As the respected economist Venkatesh Athreya has pointed out, a host of factors, both local and national, have brought about the Congress victory. What has been conspicuously absent is the very thing Mr. Zakaria claims to be largely responsible for the Left's defeat: a public expression of support for big business and its concomitant policies of forced expropriation of land, suppression of dissent by violence, and intended suspension of human rights and environmental protections. On the contrary, the people have rejected strongly the hypocrisy of a Janus-faced party that calls itself “Left,” and “Communist,” yet aligns itself with powerful capitalists against its own constituents.

Mr. Zakaria's analysis Zens the tiger. It perpetuates the lie that the economic hardships we now face are temporary, that though slumps may come, they are merely interruptions in a larger narrative of shared prosperity, that capitalism is inherently a sound system needing no outside control. Myths like this are very comforting, especially in a time of crisis, when people cling all the harder to the ideological absolutes in which they have been taught to put their trust. But tigers are not vegetarian; they are not Buddhists; they are not naturally inclined to pacifism. Not very comforting. Not very reassuring. But the truth.

Pubali Ray Chaudhuri lives and writes in Newark , California . Her articles have appeared in India Currents, Axis of Logic and Online Journal .

Early signs of bipolar trend at national level

B.R.P. BHASKAR
IANS

The story of how the electorate belied political prophesies and made smooth government formation possible after the Lok Sabha elections deserves close scrutiny because it contains early intimations of a new trend.

Even the best scenario visualised by pollsters had left the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), widely acknowledged as the frontrunner, far short of a simple majority in the 545-member house. Some experts suggested the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), a close runner-up, might be in a better position than the UPA to attract support from other parties and raise the tally to 273, needed to chalk up a majority.

As it happened, the UPA was only 10 short of the magic figure. This shortfall was small enough to be made up without placating Prakash Karat, Mayawati, J. Jayalalithaa, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad, not to mention Nitish Kumar, who too turned up at the auction room.

The voters had so exercised their franchise that the so-called third and fourth fronts were left with no bargaining power at all. The worst sufferers were the reunited Yadavs, who had adopted a strategy calculated to enhance their capability by limiting the Congress party's strength.

This is not the first time that the Indian electorate has demonstrated an uncanny ability to brush aside political gibberish and arrive at the best possible verdict in the circumstances. Millions of voters, taking independent decisions in the privacy of their minds, had given expression to a common will when they voted out Indira Gandhi's emergency regime in 1977. They displayed the same determination again when, sickened by the Janata Party squabbles, they recalled Indira Gandhi.

The 1977 and 1980 verdicts can be explained in terms of a wide swing of the pendulum. The Congress party's vote share had dropped from 43.68 percent in 1971 to 34.52 percent in 1977, sweeping it out of office. It climbed to 42.69 percent in 1980 and the party was back in power.

There was no big swing this time. Provisional figures released by the Election Commission show that the Congress party's share increased slightly from 26.53 percent to 28.55 percent and the BJP's declined slightly from 22.16 percent to 18.80 percent. These changes may be sufficient to explain the rise in the Congress' strength from 145 to 206 and the fall in the BJP's from 138 to 116, but not to understand the way the electorate resolved the national conundrum.

It was the rise of regional parties and the vaulting ambitions of their leaders which had raised fears that government formation might not be easy. There was no appreciable change in the popularity of the national parties and the regional parties. In 2004, the national parties (those recognized as such by the Election Commission) together commanded 62.89 percent of the votes. This time their share was 62.32 percent.

The combined vote of the Congress and the BJP declined from 48.69 percent to 47.35 percent. The decline was too small for the Left parties to realise their pet dream of keeping both of them out of power. Communist Party of India (CPI) general secretary A.B. Bardhan's forecast that the Congress and the BJP together would not win even 250 seats went awry. Actually they increased their combined strength from 283 to 312.

The electorate made government formation easy by eliminating the bargaining capacity of the ambitious leaders of the smaller parties. It rebuffed the sponsors of the Third Front, who wanted to hold the major national parties at bay. The Communist Party of India-Marxist lost 27 seats and the CPI six.

The voters meted out harsh punishment to the Yadavs who had cynically indulged in a game of self-aggrandizement. The Rashtriya Janata Dal of Lalu Prasad lost 20 seats and the Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav lost 13 seats. Their ally, Lok Janshakti Party of Ram Vilas Paswan, lost all its four seats.

The election results provide early intimations of a bipolar trend. A tendency towards a bipolar polity is already in evidence in several states. It is the emergence of diverse forces in the different states that has made coalitions at the centre inevitable.

The parties which aligned themselves with either of the major national parties did well. Those ranged on the side of the Congress benefited the most. The Trinamool Congress in West Bengal made a whopping gain of 17 seats. Going by the winner-takes-all pattern witnessed in Tamil Nadu in recent years, Jayalalithaa's AIADMK should have made a clean sweep this time. Anticipating such a development, the well-known electoral weather cocks, Vaiko's Marumalarchi DMK and S. Ramadoss' PMK switched to her side. The results were disastrous: while the PMK lost all its six seats, the MDMK managed to save one of its four seats.

Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's poll eve vacillation notwithstanding, the Janata Dal-United, BJP's partner in the NDA, fared well in Bihar. The only Third Front party to buck the bipolar trend was Orissa's Biju Janata Dal.

Not a mandate against the Left’s social democratic policies

DEEPANKAR BASU
Countercurrents.org

In the recently concluded 2009 general elections to the lower house of the parliament, the Social Democratic Left (SDL henceforth) in India, composed of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPM), the Communist Party of India (CPI) and a bunch of smaller left-wing parties, has witnessed the severest electoral drubbing in a long time.
This year, the CPM won a total of only 16 parliamentary seats; compared to its performance in the last general elections in 2004 this is a whopping decline of 27 seats. The CPI, on the other hand, won four seats in 2009, suffering a net decline of six parliamentary seats from its position in 2004.

Does this mean that the Indian population has rejected even the mildly progressive and social democratic policies that the SDL tried to argue for at the Central level? Is this a mandate for the Congress party and by extension a mandate for neoliberalism? I think not. Rather, a careful analysis shows that this is a mandate against the SDL but not against social democratic policies; on the other hand, just like in 2004 when BJP's "shinning India" slogan was decisively rejected, this is a mandate against neoliberalism and for welfare-oriented policies. To the extent that the Congress was pushed by the SDL to partially implement such pro-people policies, it can possibly be interpreted as an indirect endorsement of Congress's late-in-the day populism.

Dipankar Basu is Assistant Professor of Economics at the Colorado State University. The above lines are taken from a long article in which he few comments on the Lok Sabha election results and tries to understand why the social democrats got such a drubbing in West Bengal, the bastion of the SDL in India. The article can be accessed at Countercurrrents.org

Why Dalits have slammed Mayawati’s Sarvjan formula

S.R.DARAPURI
Countercurrents.org

Kanshi Ram and Mayawati started their politics with “Tilak, Traju aur Talwar- inko maro jute char” (beat the Brahmins, Banias and Thakurs with shoes) and “Vote hamara raj tumhara nahin chalega” (we won’t allow you to rule us with our vote). Besides this, in order to attract Dalits (Scheduled Castes.) they gave the slogans like “Baba tera mission adhura, Kanshi Ram karenge pura” (Kanshi Ram will fulfill the mission left incomplete by Dr. Ambedkar) and “Political power is the key to the entire problem.” Through these slogans they aimed at attracting and agitating the Dalits against the ‘Savarnas’ (higher castes) and they succeeded also to a good extent. This polarization of dalits was further facilitated by the political vacuum created by the division and downfall of Republican Party of India which was established by Dr. Ambedkar himself in 1956.

Since 1995 Mayawati made various experiments to broaden the base of her Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). In the beginning it was known as the party of the Dalits only. Later on Muslims and Other Backward Castes were also co-opted. It fought the 1993 Assembly election jointly with Samajwadi Party (SP), a party of Other Backward Classes and made good gains. It resulted in the formation of the first coalition government of BSP and SP in Uttar Pradesh. This coalition of natural allies became a subject of discussion all over India but a clash of personal ambitions resulted in its fall in June, 1995. Mayawati grabbed the post of Chief Minister by making an unethical and opportunist alliance with Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), a party of orthodox Hindus and the bitterest enemy of Dalits. This put the Dalit movement and Dalit politics on the path of opportunism, bereft of principles. It not only confused the direction of Dalit politics but also fogged the difference between friends and foes of Dalits. This alliance not only gave a lease of life to the dying BJP but also broke the natural alliance of Dalits and Backward Castes for ever. This unprincipled and opportunistic alliance was justified as being essential for getting into power and party workers were misled by this briefing.

This alliance with BJP not only confused the Dalits but also led to Muslims moving away from BSP as they consider BJP their bitterest enemy. During the first BSP rule in 1995 some land was distributed to empower the Dalits because the party workers could exercise some pressure on the party leadership. Later on, in order to please the upper caste people, Dalit interests were given the go by and getting power became the sole motive of the party leadership. After Mayawati’s first tenure as Chief Minister, this process became faster and BSP raced towards ‘Sarvjan’ throwing aside the Bahujan. In every election moneyed, musclemen and mafias were given preference as they were considered winning candidates and Dalits were restricted to reserved seats only. Party mission was overtaken by money power and muscle power. Old missionary party workers and those who were close to Kanshi Ram were made to leave the party unceremoniously. Dalits were marginalized in the party but they continued to be with the party in the hope that one day they may also benefit but their hopes were belied.

Between 1995 and 2003 Mayawati became the Chief Minster of Uttar Pradesh thrice but she always took the help of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). During this period neither any Dalit agenda was chalked out nor was any effort made in that direction. In 1993, this author, during many discussions with Kanshi Ram, suggested chalking out a Dalit agenda but my suggestions were ignored. I think it was done purposely because declaration of an agenda brings up a duty to implement it and if it fails it brings up responsibility and accountability for the failure. It is a matter of regret and sorrow that a party seeking political power in the name of Dalits has not framed any agenda till today as a result of which the Dalits have been deprived of any gain coming from a government run in their name. The result is that the Dalits of UP are the most backward Dalits in whole of India barring those of Bihar and Orissa. During this period the moneyed and the musclemen of upper castes have been managing to get Assembly and Parliament tickets and enjoying the fruits of power whereas Dalits have a meager representation and are deprived of all benefits.

BSP, which is doing politics in the name of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, in its effort to secure power, has totally ignored his warning that “Dalits have two enemies. One is Brahminism and the other is Capitalism and Dalits should never compromise with them.” Mayawati has compromised with both by co-opting Brahmins and the corporate sector. At present Dalit politics has become a tool for power grabbing. It reached its height when before the 2007 Assembly elections Mayawati formed Dalit Brahmin Bhaichara Committees (Dalit Brahmin Brotherhood Committees) with a Brahmin president and a Dalit secretary.

The election success of BSP during 2007 was mainly attributed to the important role played by Brahmins and they got a lion’s share in power which was much disproportionate to their population. Dalits were reduced to the level of second class players in the party and in minister ship. This methodology of co-opting upper caste people was publicized as new “social engineering” and BSP was transformed from the party of Dalits to a party of Sarvjan (all inclusive).

During this period, slogans such as “Haathi nahin Ganesh hai, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh hai” (it is not an elephant but a trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh- all Hindu gods) and “Brahman shankh bajaiga, Haathi dilli jaiga”(Brahmin will blow the conch and elephant will march towards Delhi) were coined to placate the upper caste persons much to the chagrin of Dalits. (Elephant is the election symbol of BSP). The Varna system of graded inequality became fully operative in the party and Dalits were further pushed to the margin.

Even now during the present régime of Mayawati, Dalits have been totally ignored and Sarvjan have occupied the front seats. All important ministerial posts have been given to upper caste people. Mayawati’s personal corruption has percolated to all the branches of administration and UP has been assessed to be “an alarmingly corrupt state”. The various welfare schemes aiming at empowering Dalits and other weaker sections of society have fallen a prey to all pervading corruption thereby depriving the intended beneficiaries of their benefits. Blatant corruption came to light during recruitment to the posts of safai karamcharis (sweepers). Similar complaints surfaced during other recruitments also. It is said that there might be only a few lucky persons who escaped payment of high price for government jobs. The funds intended for development works were spent on installation of statues, including her own, and creating royal memorials and parks.

Since 1990 UP has been deprived of any development and creation of employment opportunities. This lack of development has adversely affected the Dalits and they have become the most backward Dalits in the whole of India. As per 2001 Census their sex ratio, literacy rates and work participation rate are much lower than those of their counterparts in other states. A fall of 13% Dalits from the category of cultivators to the category of landless labourers during the last decade (1991-2001) indicates their disempowerment.

There has been no decrease in atrocities against Dalits during Mayawati’s rule. On the contrary, as a result of written and oral orders of Mayawati, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has become inoperative. This act was intended to prevent atrocities and award stringent punishment to the perpetrators of atrocities on Dalits. Atrocities against Dalits are taking place as before but cases are not being registered by police. As a result of non-registration of cases, Dalits are condemned to suffer atrocities and deprivation from monetary compensation. The intention behind not allowing the registration of cases is to keep the crime figures low, thereby projecting UP as a crimeless state. In spite of this, UP stands first in whole of India in crimes against Dalits. As such Mayawati has totally failed to give even legal protection to Dalits.

The action of Mayawati in ignoring Dalits and giving preference to upper castes has resulted in disillusionment and anguish amongst Dalits. This has been displayed by them during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. Most of the criminals, moneyed men and muscle men fielded by Mayawati were defeated as Dalits did not vote for them. This time, as earlier, Mayawati gave tickets even to those whom she herself had accused of threatening and assaulting her during the Guest House incident of 2nd June, 1995. But Dalits refused to oblige her and almost all of them were defeated.

Mayawati, as before, confined Dalits to 17 reserved seats, and only two of whom were elected. Brahmins, who constitute only 7.5% of the population, were given 20 seats, i.e. 25% of the total, whereas Dalits, who form 21% of the population, were given 17 reserved seats only. Out of the 20 successful BSP candidates, five are Brahmins and only two are Dalits. On account of the hold of Brahmins in the party, the people have started calling BSP Brahmins Samaj Party. From the angle of representation, Dalits are marginalized in the party. This is one of the major grievances of Dalits against Mayawati.

With a view to attract Most Backward Classes, Mayawati sent a recommendation to the Central Government for inclusion of 16 castes in the list of Schedule Castes. Earlier, Mulayam Singh had also made a similar attempt which was opposed by Dalits as it would affect their reservation quota. It was challenged in the court and had to be dropped. This action of Mayawati irritated the Dalits. Whereas Mayawati strongly recommended the case for 10% reservation for the poor among the upper castes, she did not show a similar interest in respect of Dalits. Her declaration of granting 10% reservation to Dalits in private sector has remained on paper only.

Mayawati’s way of ignoring Dalits and treating them as a bonded vote bank has irritated a large section of awakened and oppressed Dalits and has instilled in them a feeling of alienation. But, as before, Mayawati tried to befool them by projecting a possibility of her becoming the Prime Minister of India. But most Dalits refused to be taken in. A big chunk of Chamar and Jatav votes, which is the core vote bank of Mayawati, moved away from her to the Congress fold. The other Dalit sub-castes like Pasi, Dhobi, Khatik and Balmiki had earlier moved towards Samajwadi Party and BJP. The Most Backward Classes also deserted Mayawati. Afraid of Mayawati’s love for BJP, Muslims also walked away from BSP. This resulted in a limited success on 20 seats only as against a projected tally of 50-60 seats whereby she could stake her claim for the Prime Ministership.

The disheartening defeat of BSP during this election has clearly shown that the vote base of BSP has shrunk. Not only Muslims and Most Backward Classes have deserted BSP, even a big chunk of Dalits have moved away from it to Congress. Dalit society has been badly divided on sub-caste lines. Dalit movements and Dalit politics have fallen a prey to opportunism, corruption and immorality. Today it is standing at the crossroads. It is not only a danger signal for Mayawati but for whole of Dalit society. Will Mayawati and Dalit intellectuals think over it with their cool mind? If it is not done immediately it may again result in betrayal of Dalit interests. There is a fear of Dalits again becoming political slaves of Congress. It should be a matter of grave concern and serious introspection by all Ambedkarites.

Going by present signs, Mayawati has refused to learn any lesson from her debacle. As rightly pointed out by B.G. Varghese in Deccan Herald, “the lesson Mayawati requires to learn is that she has been cut to size not on account of conspiracies against Dalit-ki-beti (daughter of a Dalit) but because of her own greed, corruption and authoritarianism that is fast blunting her original appeal as a Dalit leader intent on forging a wider social alliance. People do not want innumerable self-aggrandizing statues and mausoleums at the cost of good governance and welfare. She perhaps still has time to learn and mend her ways.”

The recent election results show that Dalits have rejected Mayawati’s much trumpeted “Sarvjan formula” and she needs to do serious introspection and learn from her mistakes. Otherwise it will prove to be a missed opportunity.

S.R.Darapuri is a retired Indian Police Service officer, based in Lucknow. He can be contacted at srdarapuri@yahoo.co.in