Few days back, one of my Pilani friends Santosh went through my blogs that I have started writing recently and then appreciating my thoughts on certain political issues he asked me if I can write an article on the role of the leader of opposition in a democracy. I replied to him saying that it’s a pleasure to put my thoughts on such a wonderful topic. When I started putting down my thoughts on this topic, I felt that the roles of the leader of the house and the leader of opposition for the well being of the country can be compared to the roles of both the parents in a family for the well being of their family. Like the way the mother is as much responsible as father for the well being of any family, the leader of opposition is as responsible as the leader of the house for the well being of the country. Let me put forward my detailed thoughts on why I feel that leader of opposition has such a significance in a democracy and the consequences that the nation faces when the leader of opposition is ineffective, inefficient or irresponsible.
Role of the leader of opposition
The term ‘Leader of the Opposition’ was first coined in Britain in 1826 and was officially recognized in 1909 by Queensland parliament. In India, the leader of the biggest opposition party or the coalition of parties in Lok Sabha is designated as the leader of opposition to represent the opposition inside and outside the parliament as its leader and the spokesperson. The Leader of Opposition leads the opposition in making the Government accountable to the public and represents the views of not only the opposition but also the views of the general public in all the policy discussions. It is the responsibility of the opposition to divert the attention of the Government towards the issues that concern the people. The responsibility of the opposition lies not only to an extent of criticizing the policies and the decisions of the Government but also to an extent of suggesting the constructive alternative to the Governments policies and decisions. In Foreign countries, we can observe that the leader of opposition appoints shadow ministers for each portfolio who collectively with the leader of the opposition forms the shadow cabinet. This shadow cabinet presents the alternative policy to the Government and put forward the alternative governance proposal in front of the electorate. That is the reason why the leader of opposition is considered next only to the Prime Minister or the leader of the house. In India, as per the protocol, it is Prime Minister and Leader of opposition who accompanies President, the supreme authority during any parliamentary session.
Significance of the role of the leader of opposition
One may wonder why our system offers such a great significance to the opposition and the leader of the opposition even though they were given a mandate by the people to sit in the opposition. It is because, our system do not deny the expression of views of the minority people who voted for the opposition. Our system provides an equal importance to all the voters whether they have voted for the government or the opposition. Apart from this, by empowering the opposition with certain powers, our system puts checks and balances to the Government in case it adopts an irresponsible behavior or unconstitutional way of functioning or autocratic way of rule. The role of the opposition and the leader of opposition become much more critical in times of crisis like when the Government misuses its powers or when the country faces wars etc. The finest example that I can site at this point is the 1970s emergency where Indira Gandhi has forced emergency on the nation suspending the fundamental rights of the people, suspending the freedom of press and throwing thousands of innocent people into the jail. It is during that time the entire opposition under the leadership of Lok Nayak Shri Jai Prakash Narayanan staged a united fight against the misuse of the provisions and facilitated the common man to get back his rights. In times of national crisis like wars or invasions, the opposition is expected to be behaving much matured and to be loyal to the government. Opposition and its leader are expected to cooperate and stand with the Government in such times and work in the interests of the nation.
Opposition doesn’t mean opposition to everything
But the big questions that have to be discussed and debated are whether leaders of opposition in India discharge their duties as per the expectations or do they behave irresponsible by blindly opposing the Government and its policies and whether the Government respect the role of opposition and the leader of the opposition. There have been enough instances that one would quote to say that the leader of oppositions have been political inspite of being responsible. During Vajpayee regime, the then leader of opposition Shri Manmohan Singh strongly criticized the Government for Phokran tests saying that it’s a big liability forced on the nation by Vajpayee and that the nation would face a big crisis as India would face sanctions by world countries because of nuclear tests. And similarly we have seen Advaniji opposing the nuclear deal for a very technical reason even though it is NDA Government which initiated the nuke deal. Neither the government tried to understand his concern and answer his questions. We have seen number of issues in which oppositions could have utilized the time better without disturbing the proceedings of the house and at the same time there have been numerous occasions when Government ignored to consult the leader of opposition on important matters like foreign policy etc.
A wiser media should assist a responsible opposition
One surprising phenomenon that is observed in the recent past with our media is that any kind of issue that that the leader of opposition raises inside or outside the parliament, the media instead of taking his views to the masses, it started terming that the opposition is politicizing the issue. It is very unfortunate to see media behaving so unwise by saying that leader of opposition has politicized the issue even when leader of opposition raised such an important issue like terrorism. How can raising such an important issue be called as politicizing the issue? Is the media unaware of the fact that it’s the constitutional duty of the leader of the opposition to echo people’s voice in the parliament? Yes, by raising such issues, the opposition may gain a political mileage out of it. So what? Isn’t it a natural phenomenon that when government doesn’t function well, it helps the opposition?
Statesman behavior expected from politicians
Political parties and politicians belonging either to the government or the opposition should rise above the partisan politics and show a statesman behavior when it comes to matters of national significance. One should cooperate with the other. I read in a magazine in my school days where it was mentioned that Vajpayee, one of the opposition leaders then compared Indira Gandhi with ‘Shakthi Mata’ after Indira led India to a success in Bangladesh war. And once it seems that looking at the constructive and responsible approach that Vajpayee adopted in criticizing the Government, Nehru, the then PM once in parliament praised Vajpayee saying that one day he would become the prime minister of the country. Such is the statesman approach that is expected from today’s politicians.
The role of the leader of opposition extends much beyond criticizing the policies and decisions of the government. He has a much more significant role of ensuring better governance by offering a constructive criticism, opposing misuse of power, offering alternative proposals and making the government accountable to the people. There is no doubt that the success of any democracy depends to a greater extent on the kind of role that leader of opposition plays. Therefore the leader of opposition has to rise above partisan politics and offer a responsible opposition for a successful democracy.
Jai Hind.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A Betrayed Telangana Movement
If there is any single movement in Indian history that’s betrayed as much as the independence movement by the British, I think it’s the movement for a separate Telangana. The movement which most of the people wrongly perceive as KCR’s brainchild has taken its birth way back in 1948 after Telangana region became independent from the Nizam of Hyderabad.
First SRC on Telangana
The betrayal of this people’s movement started as early as in 1953 and it has continued till today. In 1953, the then Prime Minister Nehru appointed States Reorganization Committee (SRC) headed by Fazal Ali to recommend the Government on reorganization of states. Releasing the SRC report in 1955, in para 386, the commission pointed out, “"After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification." But, Nehru’s government decided to ignore the SRC recommendations and established a unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956. However, a “Gentleman’s Agreement” was promised by the Central Government.
Jai Telangana Movement and Chenna Reddy's Betrayal
In the following years after the formation of Andhra Pradesh, Telanganites revolted on the way Gentleman’s Agreement was lapsed. Disgruntled Students from Osmania University accused that Telangana is politically ignored, economically being discriminated and culturally unidentified and launched ‘Jai Telangana movement’ for the cause of separate Telangana. The movement led to a widespread violence in which around 400 students lost their lives. But unfortunately, the congress termed Telangana movement as anti national and stood against the demand. In 1971, came the biggest betrayal of Telangana. Marri Chenna Reddy founded Telangana Praja Samithi, a political party to fight for Telangana. After winning all the Telangana lok sabha seats, he has chosen to betray the people of Telangana by falling in to the congress trap of the offer of the chair of Chief Minister for Andhra Pradesh in return to the merger of TPS in congress. In this way, Telangana people and their sentiments were completely cornered and fooled by Congress and Chenna Reddy.
BJP’s Promise of two states for one vote
In 1990s, the movement started gaining momentum with BJP passing resolution favoring a Saperate Telangana in its Kakinada executive meeting. The party which promised Telangana in 1998 in its manifesto could not deliver it because of its alliance with TDP which stood for a United Telangana. Vajpayee, the then prime minister during his tenure said that the party which could carve out three new states Uttaranchal, Jharkand and Chattisgarh could not deliver its promise on Telangana because of its coalition compulsions. BJP could not afford to miss its first chance of creating an alternative government to congress at the center and therefore it had no option but to accept Chandra Babu’s terms and conditions on Telangana.
TRS formation and Congress betrayal
Later in 2004, Telangana Rashtra Samiti was formed by KCR, who walked out of TDP for an unsatisfied offer of a deputy speaker of state assembly given by the then Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu. In subsequent elections, TRS entered into an unholy alliance with congress which always opposed separate Telangana and as expected congress once again betrayed Telangana saying that it would appoint a second SRC committee to take a decision on Telangana. SRCs have become a simple means of fooling the innocent telanganites again and again. TRS, the party that criticized the previous Governments for neglecting Telangana districts did nothing for Telangana in their three years of its tenure and instead it has chosen to praise Congress Sonia Gandhi and YSR who stood as hurdles for the long term demand of a separate state. Speculating that people would revolt against their illogical alliance with congress and their poor performance as ministers being a part of Government, after enjoying ministerial berths in Central and state congress Governments for around 3 years, TRS ministers resigned from State and Central congress Governments.
TRS is ‘Telangana Rakshasa Samiti’
Inspite of an open and a categorical assurance that was given by BJP PM Candidate L K Advani for separate Telangana, KCR once again exposed his true colors of opportunism by announcing a baseless alliance with Mahakutami of which communists who are dead opposed to Separate Telangana are a part. To everyone’s surprise, during the recent party ticket distribution, TRS contestants lashed out at KCR for selling party tickets for the highest bids. Such is the status of a party that formed to lead a movement and such is the hypocrisy of the leader of the movement. Losing its spirit of movement, having exploited the psentiments of people of Telangana for its political gains, TRS has become a ‘Telangana Rakshasa Samiti’ and a liability for Telanganites. Can anyone trust such a party and such a leader any more? One would be reminded of a Gandhiji, a Bhagat Singh and a Potti Sree Ramulu when any body talks of a movement or the leader of movement. KCR, one who is least comparable in any single way to such great personalities, one who has no values in his political life has the least eligibility to lead the movement. A vote for TRS is a vote for one more betrayal. A vote for Congress is a vote for suicide of the movement.
Vote BJP for Telangana in 100 days
Therefore, if people of Telangana are strongly committed for the cause of a separate Telangana and if Telanganites do not want to face any more betrayals, they should choose BJP to vote as BJP alone has the credibility and capability for the formation of separate Telangana. It was and it is in the favor of smaller states and has the track record of forming three separate states. Advaniji during in his Vijaya Sankalp sabha in Hyderabad in the last month said that the one word that he likes the most is ‘trust’ and such a person has promised to carve out Telangana within 100 days of NDA coming into power. It’s the time for people of telangana to choose the right party to vote for. People should trust Advaniji to entrust him with power and to achieve the long term demand Telangana. A vote for BJP is not only a vote for security, development and good governance but it’s also a vote for Telangana.
Jai Hind
(An article written for BJP website)
First SRC on Telangana
The betrayal of this people’s movement started as early as in 1953 and it has continued till today. In 1953, the then Prime Minister Nehru appointed States Reorganization Committee (SRC) headed by Fazal Ali to recommend the Government on reorganization of states. Releasing the SRC report in 1955, in para 386, the commission pointed out, “"After taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana area is to constitute into a separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification." But, Nehru’s government decided to ignore the SRC recommendations and established a unified Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956. However, a “Gentleman’s Agreement” was promised by the Central Government.
Jai Telangana Movement and Chenna Reddy's Betrayal
In the following years after the formation of Andhra Pradesh, Telanganites revolted on the way Gentleman’s Agreement was lapsed. Disgruntled Students from Osmania University accused that Telangana is politically ignored, economically being discriminated and culturally unidentified and launched ‘Jai Telangana movement’ for the cause of separate Telangana. The movement led to a widespread violence in which around 400 students lost their lives. But unfortunately, the congress termed Telangana movement as anti national and stood against the demand. In 1971, came the biggest betrayal of Telangana. Marri Chenna Reddy founded Telangana Praja Samithi, a political party to fight for Telangana. After winning all the Telangana lok sabha seats, he has chosen to betray the people of Telangana by falling in to the congress trap of the offer of the chair of Chief Minister for Andhra Pradesh in return to the merger of TPS in congress. In this way, Telangana people and their sentiments were completely cornered and fooled by Congress and Chenna Reddy.
BJP’s Promise of two states for one vote
In 1990s, the movement started gaining momentum with BJP passing resolution favoring a Saperate Telangana in its Kakinada executive meeting. The party which promised Telangana in 1998 in its manifesto could not deliver it because of its alliance with TDP which stood for a United Telangana. Vajpayee, the then prime minister during his tenure said that the party which could carve out three new states Uttaranchal, Jharkand and Chattisgarh could not deliver its promise on Telangana because of its coalition compulsions. BJP could not afford to miss its first chance of creating an alternative government to congress at the center and therefore it had no option but to accept Chandra Babu’s terms and conditions on Telangana.
TRS formation and Congress betrayal
Later in 2004, Telangana Rashtra Samiti was formed by KCR, who walked out of TDP for an unsatisfied offer of a deputy speaker of state assembly given by the then Chief Minister Chandra Babu Naidu. In subsequent elections, TRS entered into an unholy alliance with congress which always opposed separate Telangana and as expected congress once again betrayed Telangana saying that it would appoint a second SRC committee to take a decision on Telangana. SRCs have become a simple means of fooling the innocent telanganites again and again. TRS, the party that criticized the previous Governments for neglecting Telangana districts did nothing for Telangana in their three years of its tenure and instead it has chosen to praise Congress Sonia Gandhi and YSR who stood as hurdles for the long term demand of a separate state. Speculating that people would revolt against their illogical alliance with congress and their poor performance as ministers being a part of Government, after enjoying ministerial berths in Central and state congress Governments for around 3 years, TRS ministers resigned from State and Central congress Governments.
TRS is ‘Telangana Rakshasa Samiti’
Inspite of an open and a categorical assurance that was given by BJP PM Candidate L K Advani for separate Telangana, KCR once again exposed his true colors of opportunism by announcing a baseless alliance with Mahakutami of which communists who are dead opposed to Separate Telangana are a part. To everyone’s surprise, during the recent party ticket distribution, TRS contestants lashed out at KCR for selling party tickets for the highest bids. Such is the status of a party that formed to lead a movement and such is the hypocrisy of the leader of the movement. Losing its spirit of movement, having exploited the psentiments of people of Telangana for its political gains, TRS has become a ‘Telangana Rakshasa Samiti’ and a liability for Telanganites. Can anyone trust such a party and such a leader any more? One would be reminded of a Gandhiji, a Bhagat Singh and a Potti Sree Ramulu when any body talks of a movement or the leader of movement. KCR, one who is least comparable in any single way to such great personalities, one who has no values in his political life has the least eligibility to lead the movement. A vote for TRS is a vote for one more betrayal. A vote for Congress is a vote for suicide of the movement.
Vote BJP for Telangana in 100 days
Therefore, if people of Telangana are strongly committed for the cause of a separate Telangana and if Telanganites do not want to face any more betrayals, they should choose BJP to vote as BJP alone has the credibility and capability for the formation of separate Telangana. It was and it is in the favor of smaller states and has the track record of forming three separate states. Advaniji during in his Vijaya Sankalp sabha in Hyderabad in the last month said that the one word that he likes the most is ‘trust’ and such a person has promised to carve out Telangana within 100 days of NDA coming into power. It’s the time for people of telangana to choose the right party to vote for. People should trust Advaniji to entrust him with power and to achieve the long term demand Telangana. A vote for BJP is not only a vote for security, development and good governance but it’s also a vote for Telangana.
Jai Hind
(An article written for BJP website)
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Social Entreprenueship, flavour of the season
Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry. - Bill Drayton
(Founder, Ashoka Venture Capitalist)
The world today is witnessing the rise of a nascent cult. A cult which combines the passion of a social mission with business- like discipline, innovation and determination, i.e. a cult of social entrepreneurs.
A social entrepreneur is someone who identifies a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to social change. A list of a few Indians whose work exemplifies social entrepreneurship are Shri Vinobha Bhave (founder of India’s land gift movement ), Dr.M.S.Swaminathan ( the brain behind the Green Revolution), Dr.Verghese Kurien (founder of AMUL) and dairy farmers of Gujarat who started Amul
Social enterprises are more than profit organizations which evaluate its growth not by annual turnovers or dividends but also by the measure of its impact on development of the human society. The more its impact on the society, the more successful the social enterprise is. The greatest advantage of a social enterprise is its capacity to reach the unreached.
For example, the Grameen Bank, a micro finance organization founded by Noble Laurette Dr.Muhammad Yunus ,has access to more than 80% of Bangladesh’s poor, a customer base which traditional business firms can never even dream of.
Also the best part of starting a social business is that even if the project fails economically, the impact it created in the society always leaves us a feeling which no material gain can ever compliment.
In the recent times of economic turbulence, social entrepreneurship is indeed a good career option because it can help in creating more jobs while simultaneously making the world a better place to live. The students must show interest towards such social businesses, not only from a philanthropic point of view but also from a view point of catering to the needs of the rural India which is mostly an untapped sector.
On the other side, it is true that certain amount of risks is involved in taking up social entrepreneurship as a profession. But it has to be remembered that all great things on earth are accomplished by those who see possibilities rather than problems created by a risk.
- Yashasvi and Snehit, Nirmaan Goa Team
(Founder, Ashoka Venture Capitalist)
The world today is witnessing the rise of a nascent cult. A cult which combines the passion of a social mission with business- like discipline, innovation and determination, i.e. a cult of social entrepreneurs.
A social entrepreneur is someone who identifies a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create and manage a venture to social change. A list of a few Indians whose work exemplifies social entrepreneurship are Shri Vinobha Bhave (founder of India’s land gift movement ), Dr.M.S.Swaminathan ( the brain behind the Green Revolution), Dr.Verghese Kurien (founder of AMUL) and dairy farmers of Gujarat who started Amul
Social enterprises are more than profit organizations which evaluate its growth not by annual turnovers or dividends but also by the measure of its impact on development of the human society. The more its impact on the society, the more successful the social enterprise is. The greatest advantage of a social enterprise is its capacity to reach the unreached.
For example, the Grameen Bank, a micro finance organization founded by Noble Laurette Dr.Muhammad Yunus ,has access to more than 80% of Bangladesh’s poor, a customer base which traditional business firms can never even dream of.
Also the best part of starting a social business is that even if the project fails economically, the impact it created in the society always leaves us a feeling which no material gain can ever compliment.
In the recent times of economic turbulence, social entrepreneurship is indeed a good career option because it can help in creating more jobs while simultaneously making the world a better place to live. The students must show interest towards such social businesses, not only from a philanthropic point of view but also from a view point of catering to the needs of the rural India which is mostly an untapped sector.
On the other side, it is true that certain amount of risks is involved in taking up social entrepreneurship as a profession. But it has to be remembered that all great things on earth are accomplished by those who see possibilities rather than problems created by a risk.
- Yashasvi and Snehit, Nirmaan Goa Team
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Has the media become irresponsible and biased?
The four pillars of our democracy are Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and the Media. But, I would say that in today’s advanced world, media is just not one among the four pillars for a successful democracy. But, it is a central pillar and a strength giving pillar for other pillars to support for a successful democracy. The big question to debate is whether such a powerful constituent of the democracy is doing its job or not? Is it behaving responsibly or not?
Few days back, BJP Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani has released an IT vision document for the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections in a BJP election committee meeting. Having heard of this news, I switched on the TV to find out what Advani promised in his vision doc. I changed around five news channels but I found that all five of them broadcasting either the news that Arun Jaitley didn’t attend the meeting or the debating on the alleged rift between Rajnath and Jaitley. I found similar such kind of phenomenon in most of the newspapers the next day. IT vision is something that’s first of its kind in India. Isn’t the media responsible for bringing out that vision, listing out merits and demerits of such vision and putting that in front of the people for a national debate? I am sure that most of you will agree that India needs to take some revolutionary steps to realize 2020 and it won’t happen out of the blue. So, at this juncture, IT vision assumed significance but that has been left out of the news without any kind of discussion around it. Instead of discussing such an important issue, they discuss for hours and hours about the rift between Rajnath and Jaitley. First of all, is it right for the media channels to discuss intra party issues? Should political parties consult media to appoint someone as their campaign incharge for a particular state? Second, aren’t they responsible in letting the people know what a particular party promises to people?
The other day, I saw the chief editor of a popular news channel saying that this election is all about secularism versus communalism. How sick is the media? How can media ignore many other important issues that concern a common man? Aren’t they responsible enough to bring out the right issues for an election debate? How can they ignore important issues like security, inflation, unemployment, economic crisis, poverty, farmer suicides in backward states etc.? On Times now channel, I see Arnab Goswamy conducting a discussion with a Chief Minister and passing judgments and conclusions on every political issue. Is passing judgments the role of media or is it empowering the people with unbiased information to help them pass judgments the role of media? On another channel, I find a lady making conclusions based on SMS polls. Isn’t it funny to decide things just by looking at the number of yes and no SMSs. Let’s say, If they receive 7 yes and 3 no SMSs, they would say that 70% are supporting a particular issue while 30% of the people are rejecting it. How scientific is this kind of analysis?
CNN IBN releases pre-poll surveys before every election. This time, Rajdeep Sardesai released the pre poll results just few days back. I was told by one of my friends recently that CNN IBN has surveyed around 16,000 people across the country and based on that they released their predictions on what is going to happen state wise in a country of around 70 million electorate. Do you think that this is scientific in any manner? Do you think it has any credibility? At least, I as an analyst won’t think so. But unfortunately voters do not understand the science behind it and get swayed by these surveys. As per whatever I studied in my psychology course in the campus, the voter always would like to be on a winning side and therefore he would be influenced to make his choice or change his choice based on the pre poll results. It’s like ‘an election before an election’ to manipulate the public opinion according to their interests and their corporate sponsor’s interest. Such pre-poll surveys have failed to predict the reality as many times as they predicted anywhere around the actual. Is media doing any good to the country by doing all this? I think nation has to thoroughly discuss the issue of whether these pre poll and exit polls have to be banned for a better democracy.
The situation in AP and Tamil Nadu is still worse than in the rest of the country. Alleging that all the newspapers and news channels in the state are writing and talking against YSR government’s corruption, Jagan Mohan Reddy, the son of the Chief Minister of AP launched a news paper and a news channel called ‘Sakshi’ on his own. Sakshi started writing pro government news and gradually it became YSR Government advertisement pamphlet. The paper was distributed in each and every village in AP for free for a long time. Do I need to tell you what impact it would have created on people’s mind? Hasn’t YSR exploited villager’s inability to buy a newspaper and deceived them by distributing the free and biased newspaper? Rest of the media as well is biased if not as biased as Sakshi. They never bring in the merits of the government and only talk about the demerits and fully support the opposition. We all are aware of what is going on in Tamil Nadu. I need not discuss more about it. The two major parties own news channels and they broadcast their own versions of news. Days have come when political parties themselves own channels. What a shameful era we are in? Today, be it English channel or regional channels, people are confused what to believe and what not to believe and time has come for people to interpret the news if it’s biased news or unbiased before actually reading it. As we know, information is power and wealth. When such information is biased, how can a democracy succeed? How can people expect good governance?
Media has seen the new lows in the recent past raising many apprehensions among the people. Successful electoral process and thus a better society are not possible without a responsible media. Media has got more responsibility than even the government in reaching the people with right information. Media should not become opponents to either Government or the opposition parties instead they should choose to become pro-people and pro-democracy for people to get empowered with legitimate information and for people to choose India of their choice.
Jai Hind
Few days back, BJP Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani has released an IT vision document for the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections in a BJP election committee meeting. Having heard of this news, I switched on the TV to find out what Advani promised in his vision doc. I changed around five news channels but I found that all five of them broadcasting either the news that Arun Jaitley didn’t attend the meeting or the debating on the alleged rift between Rajnath and Jaitley. I found similar such kind of phenomenon in most of the newspapers the next day. IT vision is something that’s first of its kind in India. Isn’t the media responsible for bringing out that vision, listing out merits and demerits of such vision and putting that in front of the people for a national debate? I am sure that most of you will agree that India needs to take some revolutionary steps to realize 2020 and it won’t happen out of the blue. So, at this juncture, IT vision assumed significance but that has been left out of the news without any kind of discussion around it. Instead of discussing such an important issue, they discuss for hours and hours about the rift between Rajnath and Jaitley. First of all, is it right for the media channels to discuss intra party issues? Should political parties consult media to appoint someone as their campaign incharge for a particular state? Second, aren’t they responsible in letting the people know what a particular party promises to people?
The other day, I saw the chief editor of a popular news channel saying that this election is all about secularism versus communalism. How sick is the media? How can media ignore many other important issues that concern a common man? Aren’t they responsible enough to bring out the right issues for an election debate? How can they ignore important issues like security, inflation, unemployment, economic crisis, poverty, farmer suicides in backward states etc.? On Times now channel, I see Arnab Goswamy conducting a discussion with a Chief Minister and passing judgments and conclusions on every political issue. Is passing judgments the role of media or is it empowering the people with unbiased information to help them pass judgments the role of media? On another channel, I find a lady making conclusions based on SMS polls. Isn’t it funny to decide things just by looking at the number of yes and no SMSs. Let’s say, If they receive 7 yes and 3 no SMSs, they would say that 70% are supporting a particular issue while 30% of the people are rejecting it. How scientific is this kind of analysis?
CNN IBN releases pre-poll surveys before every election. This time, Rajdeep Sardesai released the pre poll results just few days back. I was told by one of my friends recently that CNN IBN has surveyed around 16,000 people across the country and based on that they released their predictions on what is going to happen state wise in a country of around 70 million electorate. Do you think that this is scientific in any manner? Do you think it has any credibility? At least, I as an analyst won’t think so. But unfortunately voters do not understand the science behind it and get swayed by these surveys. As per whatever I studied in my psychology course in the campus, the voter always would like to be on a winning side and therefore he would be influenced to make his choice or change his choice based on the pre poll results. It’s like ‘an election before an election’ to manipulate the public opinion according to their interests and their corporate sponsor’s interest. Such pre-poll surveys have failed to predict the reality as many times as they predicted anywhere around the actual. Is media doing any good to the country by doing all this? I think nation has to thoroughly discuss the issue of whether these pre poll and exit polls have to be banned for a better democracy.
The situation in AP and Tamil Nadu is still worse than in the rest of the country. Alleging that all the newspapers and news channels in the state are writing and talking against YSR government’s corruption, Jagan Mohan Reddy, the son of the Chief Minister of AP launched a news paper and a news channel called ‘Sakshi’ on his own. Sakshi started writing pro government news and gradually it became YSR Government advertisement pamphlet. The paper was distributed in each and every village in AP for free for a long time. Do I need to tell you what impact it would have created on people’s mind? Hasn’t YSR exploited villager’s inability to buy a newspaper and deceived them by distributing the free and biased newspaper? Rest of the media as well is biased if not as biased as Sakshi. They never bring in the merits of the government and only talk about the demerits and fully support the opposition. We all are aware of what is going on in Tamil Nadu. I need not discuss more about it. The two major parties own news channels and they broadcast their own versions of news. Days have come when political parties themselves own channels. What a shameful era we are in? Today, be it English channel or regional channels, people are confused what to believe and what not to believe and time has come for people to interpret the news if it’s biased news or unbiased before actually reading it. As we know, information is power and wealth. When such information is biased, how can a democracy succeed? How can people expect good governance?
Media has seen the new lows in the recent past raising many apprehensions among the people. Successful electoral process and thus a better society are not possible without a responsible media. Media has got more responsibility than even the government in reaching the people with right information. Media should not become opponents to either Government or the opposition parties instead they should choose to become pro-people and pro-democracy for people to get empowered with legitimate information and for people to choose India of their choice.
Jai Hind
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Stars add glamour and entertainment to polls
I remember my grand father in my village saying that women in Andhra Pradesh used to offer harati (diya used while performing pooja in hindu culture) to N T Rama Rao during his campaign. NTR is well known to the Telugu speaking population for his Shri Krishna role in mythological movies. Even today, people in AP visualize him in Shri Krishna role when they want to pray Lord Krishna. That’s the kind of impact that he created among the masses through his movies. While promoting a new film, he was asked a question by a person in the audience, “Sir, we have treated you like a God but what have you done for us?" He was so moved by this that he formed TDP in 1982, and creating a record, he formed the government in AP within eight months of his entry into politics. NTR used his popularity in a full fledged manner to revolt against congress with pro poor policies and he created a history and set an example that stars have an advantage in politics and that they can defeat stalwarts in politics. We can find similar such stories about MGR in Tamil Nadu.
I often hear my office colleagues saying that people in south are mad about movies and making movie stars as netas. Then I reply to them saying that it is not only we who are mad about it but even people in north are mad about it:) Some of the popular actors like Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra and Shatragnu Sinha from BJP, Govinda from congress, Jaya Prada and Raj Babbar from SP won with huge margins in 2004 elections. In the past we have seen bollywood badhshah Amitabh Bachchan as well actively participating in poll process. The range of bollywood actors whom we have seen campaigning for two major parties include Hema Mailni, Smriti Irani, Yukta Mookhey, Jitendra and Manoj Kumar for BJP and Shakti Kapoor, Om Puri, Sharad Kapoor, Namrata Shirodkar and Bappi Lahari for Congress. So, whether it’s North India or South India, Indian politics has a lot of craze for the glamour world. But if someone says that South Indians are crazy people because they make the film stars as Chief Ministers, I would disagree with their argument and say that probably south Indian actors are intelligent in gauging the regional sentiments of their respective regions and therefore, they are intelligent enough to convert their mass regional popularity into votes.
One of my friends frustratingly says, “Damn politics, nowadays I don’t find even a single good movie in theatres to watch.” That’s the condition of the billion dollar Tollywood. Nowadays, it’s difficult to find a star from tollywood who is not involved with politics. Right from Chiru, BalaKrishna and Vijayashanti to Babu Mohan and Brahmanandam almost the entire industry has jumped into election dhamaka. Some feel that it’s a spoiler of the movie industry and some feel it’s a great entertainment for them in another form.
The stars poll story doesn’t end with filmy stars. Sport stars are not an exception to this and there are a number of sport stars as well in politics. Cricket stars are fully prepared to bat for their parties in the coming polls and earn votes for them. Navjyot Singh Siddu who is a star campaigner for BJP in Punjab and Kirti Azad, a popular cricketer from Bihar are once again ready to enter into poll fray on behalf of BJP. Anil Kumble from BJP and Chethan Sharma from BSP are going to bowl googlies and yorkars to their opponents in these elections. While Azhu bhai has already started his campaign in Hyderabad for congress. Dilip Vensarkar recently joined Shiv Sena while the renowned shooter Jaspal Rana want to give a shot from UP with BJP ticket.
One may say that people just come to see these stars during campaigns and they do not make much impact. I would beg to disagree with them and say that there is much more to it. Indians relate their favorite stars at a personal level and therefore the stars get an opportunity to make their mark. This is observed even in Indian business arena. There have been number of instances where the companies have made huge profits after they launched advertisements with popular stars. The best examples that I can site about the impact that stars can make in polls is the charismatic Vajpayee’s unsuccessful contest in Balrampur in 1962. Then the sitting MP Vajpayee was put to a defeat by the campaign of the legendary Sahni who was brought in by Nehru. So, whether everyone agrees or not, I think that there is a strong link between star status and politics. Most of these stars are not completely aware of the ideologies of their respective parties but the popularity they enjoy offsets all these arguments and the stars make their popularity work for their parties.
2009 elections are going to see the highest number of stars in the poll fray. Entertainment is expected to reach peaks in next few weeks. Would this election make Chiru an NTR and whether Azhar wins in the people’s court if not in judicial court and whether Kumble’s googlies work even in politics, we will have to wait and watch.
Jai Hind
I often hear my office colleagues saying that people in south are mad about movies and making movie stars as netas. Then I reply to them saying that it is not only we who are mad about it but even people in north are mad about it:) Some of the popular actors like Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra and Shatragnu Sinha from BJP, Govinda from congress, Jaya Prada and Raj Babbar from SP won with huge margins in 2004 elections. In the past we have seen bollywood badhshah Amitabh Bachchan as well actively participating in poll process. The range of bollywood actors whom we have seen campaigning for two major parties include Hema Mailni, Smriti Irani, Yukta Mookhey, Jitendra and Manoj Kumar for BJP and Shakti Kapoor, Om Puri, Sharad Kapoor, Namrata Shirodkar and Bappi Lahari for Congress. So, whether it’s North India or South India, Indian politics has a lot of craze for the glamour world. But if someone says that South Indians are crazy people because they make the film stars as Chief Ministers, I would disagree with their argument and say that probably south Indian actors are intelligent in gauging the regional sentiments of their respective regions and therefore, they are intelligent enough to convert their mass regional popularity into votes.
One of my friends frustratingly says, “Damn politics, nowadays I don’t find even a single good movie in theatres to watch.” That’s the condition of the billion dollar Tollywood. Nowadays, it’s difficult to find a star from tollywood who is not involved with politics. Right from Chiru, BalaKrishna and Vijayashanti to Babu Mohan and Brahmanandam almost the entire industry has jumped into election dhamaka. Some feel that it’s a spoiler of the movie industry and some feel it’s a great entertainment for them in another form.
The stars poll story doesn’t end with filmy stars. Sport stars are not an exception to this and there are a number of sport stars as well in politics. Cricket stars are fully prepared to bat for their parties in the coming polls and earn votes for them. Navjyot Singh Siddu who is a star campaigner for BJP in Punjab and Kirti Azad, a popular cricketer from Bihar are once again ready to enter into poll fray on behalf of BJP. Anil Kumble from BJP and Chethan Sharma from BSP are going to bowl googlies and yorkars to their opponents in these elections. While Azhu bhai has already started his campaign in Hyderabad for congress. Dilip Vensarkar recently joined Shiv Sena while the renowned shooter Jaspal Rana want to give a shot from UP with BJP ticket.
One may say that people just come to see these stars during campaigns and they do not make much impact. I would beg to disagree with them and say that there is much more to it. Indians relate their favorite stars at a personal level and therefore the stars get an opportunity to make their mark. This is observed even in Indian business arena. There have been number of instances where the companies have made huge profits after they launched advertisements with popular stars. The best examples that I can site about the impact that stars can make in polls is the charismatic Vajpayee’s unsuccessful contest in Balrampur in 1962. Then the sitting MP Vajpayee was put to a defeat by the campaign of the legendary Sahni who was brought in by Nehru. So, whether everyone agrees or not, I think that there is a strong link between star status and politics. Most of these stars are not completely aware of the ideologies of their respective parties but the popularity they enjoy offsets all these arguments and the stars make their popularity work for their parties.
2009 elections are going to see the highest number of stars in the poll fray. Entertainment is expected to reach peaks in next few weeks. Would this election make Chiru an NTR and whether Azhar wins in the people’s court if not in judicial court and whether Kumble’s googlies work even in politics, we will have to wait and watch.
Jai Hind
Monday, March 16, 2009
Nasty dynasty politics a bane for India
Whenever anyone whom I meet asks me about my ambitions, I gladly take that opportunity to tell them that my ultimate dream is to enter mainstream politics, dedicate myself and selflessly serve the people with good governance as the sole motto. Then, they immediately ask me if my father is a politician or does anyone from my family has a political background. Hearing to such question, I ask them if it is a pre-requisite to enter mainstream politics. Then they ask me if I am sure about my ambitions as they think that it would be close to impossible for anyone to enter and succeed in politics if his/her family doesn’t have any political background. That really makes me feel very bad about our political system. It never brought down my confidence though! But, whenever I hear to such statements, I try to find reasons for them to say so. I think that the live examples that are evident in today’s society are the only reasons because of which people say so. Let’s take a look at few such examples in this blog.
The first and foremost example that one would list when it comes to dynasty politics is Nehru family. After Pandit Nehru, we saw a series of leaders, generation after generation coming from Gandhi’s family and claiming the top position not only in congress but also in Indian Government. India Gandhi, the daughter of Nehru was brought in as a minister after the death of Nehru in 1964 in Shastri’s Government. Then she was made PM in 1966 after the sudden demise of Shastri. It all started from there. That paved the way for dynasty politics. After Indira Gandhi, her son Rajiv Gandhi who knew nothing about governance has entered politics in 1980 and became PM in 1984 and then after his death, we all are aware of what happened and how Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have come into the mainstream politics. Four generations from the same family have been ruling India which adopted democracy as its political model. One of my friends always disagrees with me and says that India has not adopted ‘Democracy’ but an innovative model called “Dynastical Democracy” where people would participate in elections but would finally have no choice but to choose the dynasty rule. I am not sure if our politicians have taken inspiration from this family, but today we have a huge number of people in politics with their families have a political background.
Let’s see a set of leaders around us whose fathers are political bigwigs. Rahul Gandhi, the son of former Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, the son of former cabinet minister Rajesh Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia the son of Madhav Rao Scindia, Deepinder Singh Hooda son of Haryana CM Bhoopinder Singh Hooda, Jitin Prasada son of Jitendra Prasada who was the advisor to two of the congress PMs, Milind Deora the son of Murali Deora who is the current petroleum minister. These are a bunch of political heirs whom the congress claims as their younger generation of leaders. We keep hearing Jayanti Natarajan, the Spokesperson of Congress party claiming that congress is the only party which has a younger generation of leaders. I think people are not all surprised by her claim because it’s not only now that the congress has a younger generation of leaders but it always had in the past and it will always have in the future as they have this ever green mechanism of grooming leaders in their party.
By the way, dynasty politics are not confined to congress alone though it is in this party this phenomenon is highly prevalent. To some extent, it’s present even in BJP which is dead opposed to dynasty politics. Dushyant Singh the son of Vasundara Raje Scindia, Mavendra Singh the son of Jaswant Singh and Varun Gandhi the son of Menaka Gandhi are few BJP leaders who have a political background. But, the primary difference between congress and the BJP as far as this phenomenon is concerned is that the dynasty politics is the primary means for congress to find leaders while it is ground level experience that matters for BJP. BJP doesn’t project people like Manavendra Singh as their future leader while the congress, either for PM or CM post, it does that very well without any kind of hesitation.
This phenomenon is observed across parties. But the only party that i can figure out that is against such politics both in principle and in practice is Lok satha in Andhra. Lok Satha said its against dynasty politics and it contested in Khairatabad bypoll where son of P Janardhan Reddy, P VishuVardhan Reddy has contested after his father's unfortunate death. We don't find many such exceptions today. Some of the well known dynasty politicians from non congress and non BJP are Ajit Singh the son of former PM Charan Singh, Ajay Singh the son of another former PM V P Singh, Chandra Babu Naidu son in law of NTR, Purandeshwari the daughter of NTR, Udhav Thakarey the son of Bal Thakarey, Neveen Patnaik the son of Biju patnaik. Daya Nidhi Maram, the son of Murasoli Maran, Stalin son of Karunanidhi, Kumaraswamy the son of Deve Gowda. I remember reading an article recently in a telugu newspaper which talks about a minister in AP Govt whose wife is an MP. Apart from having an MLA and MP in his family, he wants an extra MLA ticket for his elder sister and an MLA ticket for his son in law and MP ticket for his younger brother. How weird politics have become? What a great disrespect to the people of India! Does he think that no one in his district is capable of becoming a public leader? It looks as if politics and governance have become a kind of personal property for politicians to share to their children.
Nasty dynasty politics not only discourages people with excellent leadership qualities to enter politics but it also hampers the country’s progress and change the fate of every common man as it allows incapable people to govern the country. Leaders like L.B.Shastri, Sardar Patel, P V Narsimha Rao, Vajpayee, etc. without any kind of family background have done an excellent service to this country. So, let’s not emotionally get biased to caste our vote for our favorite leader’s son unless he proves himself of having a good understanding of the challenges in the society and is capable of providing good governance. Merits and capabilities should be the criteria and not the family background. One should adopt “Nation comes first” attitude and not “Family comes first” to make our Nation stand at the forefront of the world countries.
Jai Hind
The first and foremost example that one would list when it comes to dynasty politics is Nehru family. After Pandit Nehru, we saw a series of leaders, generation after generation coming from Gandhi’s family and claiming the top position not only in congress but also in Indian Government. India Gandhi, the daughter of Nehru was brought in as a minister after the death of Nehru in 1964 in Shastri’s Government. Then she was made PM in 1966 after the sudden demise of Shastri. It all started from there. That paved the way for dynasty politics. After Indira Gandhi, her son Rajiv Gandhi who knew nothing about governance has entered politics in 1980 and became PM in 1984 and then after his death, we all are aware of what happened and how Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have come into the mainstream politics. Four generations from the same family have been ruling India which adopted democracy as its political model. One of my friends always disagrees with me and says that India has not adopted ‘Democracy’ but an innovative model called “Dynastical Democracy” where people would participate in elections but would finally have no choice but to choose the dynasty rule. I am not sure if our politicians have taken inspiration from this family, but today we have a huge number of people in politics with their families have a political background.
Let’s see a set of leaders around us whose fathers are political bigwigs. Rahul Gandhi, the son of former Prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, Sachin Pilot, the son of former cabinet minister Rajesh Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia the son of Madhav Rao Scindia, Deepinder Singh Hooda son of Haryana CM Bhoopinder Singh Hooda, Jitin Prasada son of Jitendra Prasada who was the advisor to two of the congress PMs, Milind Deora the son of Murali Deora who is the current petroleum minister. These are a bunch of political heirs whom the congress claims as their younger generation of leaders. We keep hearing Jayanti Natarajan, the Spokesperson of Congress party claiming that congress is the only party which has a younger generation of leaders. I think people are not all surprised by her claim because it’s not only now that the congress has a younger generation of leaders but it always had in the past and it will always have in the future as they have this ever green mechanism of grooming leaders in their party.
By the way, dynasty politics are not confined to congress alone though it is in this party this phenomenon is highly prevalent. To some extent, it’s present even in BJP which is dead opposed to dynasty politics. Dushyant Singh the son of Vasundara Raje Scindia, Mavendra Singh the son of Jaswant Singh and Varun Gandhi the son of Menaka Gandhi are few BJP leaders who have a political background. But, the primary difference between congress and the BJP as far as this phenomenon is concerned is that the dynasty politics is the primary means for congress to find leaders while it is ground level experience that matters for BJP. BJP doesn’t project people like Manavendra Singh as their future leader while the congress, either for PM or CM post, it does that very well without any kind of hesitation.
This phenomenon is observed across parties. But the only party that i can figure out that is against such politics both in principle and in practice is Lok satha in Andhra. Lok Satha said its against dynasty politics and it contested in Khairatabad bypoll where son of P Janardhan Reddy, P VishuVardhan Reddy has contested after his father's unfortunate death. We don't find many such exceptions today. Some of the well known dynasty politicians from non congress and non BJP are Ajit Singh the son of former PM Charan Singh, Ajay Singh the son of another former PM V P Singh, Chandra Babu Naidu son in law of NTR, Purandeshwari the daughter of NTR, Udhav Thakarey the son of Bal Thakarey, Neveen Patnaik the son of Biju patnaik. Daya Nidhi Maram, the son of Murasoli Maran, Stalin son of Karunanidhi, Kumaraswamy the son of Deve Gowda. I remember reading an article recently in a telugu newspaper which talks about a minister in AP Govt whose wife is an MP. Apart from having an MLA and MP in his family, he wants an extra MLA ticket for his elder sister and an MLA ticket for his son in law and MP ticket for his younger brother. How weird politics have become? What a great disrespect to the people of India! Does he think that no one in his district is capable of becoming a public leader? It looks as if politics and governance have become a kind of personal property for politicians to share to their children.
Nasty dynasty politics not only discourages people with excellent leadership qualities to enter politics but it also hampers the country’s progress and change the fate of every common man as it allows incapable people to govern the country. Leaders like L.B.Shastri, Sardar Patel, P V Narsimha Rao, Vajpayee, etc. without any kind of family background have done an excellent service to this country. So, let’s not emotionally get biased to caste our vote for our favorite leader’s son unless he proves himself of having a good understanding of the challenges in the society and is capable of providing good governance. Merits and capabilities should be the criteria and not the family background. One should adopt “Nation comes first” attitude and not “Family comes first” to make our Nation stand at the forefront of the world countries.
Jai Hind
Friday, March 13, 2009
Third front, a no front and a third grade front for the country
Watching the recent developments in national politics, people are reminded of the United Front Governments and they are haunted by the question if the country is destined towards a hung parliament. Yesterday, nine parties including CPI, CPM, BSP, JD(S), TDP, and TRS came together in Tumkur to form a front called third front as an alternative to BJP and Congress. The Driving force behind the front formation is none other than Mr. Gowda who is known for his unpredictability. He claims that the so called third front can offer a stable Government for the nation. How far we can believe in his statement? As I daily do in my office at Citi Bank, tracking the past and predicting the future with some assumptions and considerations, let me see what history says about such fronts and what kind of front we can expect pre and post polls.
Between, 1996 and 1999, India has seen four Governments collapsing in three years time. That’s the time when regional parties gathered more seats pushing the two major national parties, the Congress and the BJP into the back seats. With a great surprise to himself and to everyone, on behalf of United Front, Mr. Gowda took over as PM and his government collapsed within 10 months by the time he and India woke up from a deep sleep. Later Gujral took over as PM and his government lasted for around 11 months after which Vajpayee led a 13 day and a 13 months BJP coalition governments in succession. Never in the history, we have seen such a high political instability in the country. With frequent in fighting, regional aspirations as priority, with no common agenda and with number of power centers, United Front governments could set no direction to the country. India lost a crucial time at a crucial juncture. Most analysts say that it’s during this period, India went way behind China in terms of taking important steps for a stronger nation.
Some time back in last year, Mr Karat, the lead comrade brought some of these regional parties under the banner the name of UNPA which collapsed in no time. And today once again the political atmosphere looks conducive to a hung lok sabha or we can put it in a different form saying that the regional parties pose a great challenge to national parties. Among the nine front parties that launched a grand convention at Tumkur in Karnataka, top leaders of more than half of the front partners were missing at the launch ceremony. BSP, AIADMK, TRS, RSP and the Forward Bloc sent their representatives to the ceremony instead of their top leaders. The party in demand, BJD which moved away from NDA was also missing at the ceremony. And fresh news says that Maya puts a condition of announcing her as third front PM candidate for BSP to join the front. All this convince you and me about Gowda’s claim that third front would offer a stable alternative? What credibility he possess to say so? How can Mr.Gowda, who was not able to offer a stable government in a state like Karnataka with a single coalition partner offer us a stable government at center?
TRS, one of constituents of the third front was once upon a time a part of congress led UPA. As a party that is leading the movement for separate Telangana, having made an unsuccessful experimentation with congress in the past, TRS in all probability is prepared for a post poll tie up with BJP which promised Telangana formation in 100 days after coming to power. AIADMK leader Jaya Lalitha, once upon a time NDA ally and who also shares a cordial relation with BJP leaders like Modi and Advani is also open for post poll alliance with NDA. BJD Naveen is open for choices. Communist parties whose only ideology is to blindly oppose BJP, in all probability are expected to say that they have no option but to support UPA in case NDA gets ready to form Government. So third front which exists today is most likely to be a no front post elections and even if it exists which in no case looks possible for me, it would be a third grade front which would only be detrimental to the progress of the Nation. Let’s analyze the reasons why such fronts would be so volatile in nature. Do we see a possibility in this world for any two parties or for that matter any two indivusals or any two organizations working together for a long time without a common ideology or at least a common agenda or a common minimum program? What else do we expect, except the instability and poor governance when parties without a common agenda come together for power? They would focus more over power sharing than offering good governance. Therefore, regional parties without a strong national party leading the Government or regional parties with the only character of regional aspirations and no national interests leading the government prove to be unsuccessful in offering stable and good governance to the billion people who share a vision of achieving a strong India for a stronger world.
Jai Hind
Between, 1996 and 1999, India has seen four Governments collapsing in three years time. That’s the time when regional parties gathered more seats pushing the two major national parties, the Congress and the BJP into the back seats. With a great surprise to himself and to everyone, on behalf of United Front, Mr. Gowda took over as PM and his government collapsed within 10 months by the time he and India woke up from a deep sleep. Later Gujral took over as PM and his government lasted for around 11 months after which Vajpayee led a 13 day and a 13 months BJP coalition governments in succession. Never in the history, we have seen such a high political instability in the country. With frequent in fighting, regional aspirations as priority, with no common agenda and with number of power centers, United Front governments could set no direction to the country. India lost a crucial time at a crucial juncture. Most analysts say that it’s during this period, India went way behind China in terms of taking important steps for a stronger nation.
Some time back in last year, Mr Karat, the lead comrade brought some of these regional parties under the banner the name of UNPA which collapsed in no time. And today once again the political atmosphere looks conducive to a hung lok sabha or we can put it in a different form saying that the regional parties pose a great challenge to national parties. Among the nine front parties that launched a grand convention at Tumkur in Karnataka, top leaders of more than half of the front partners were missing at the launch ceremony. BSP, AIADMK, TRS, RSP and the Forward Bloc sent their representatives to the ceremony instead of their top leaders. The party in demand, BJD which moved away from NDA was also missing at the ceremony. And fresh news says that Maya puts a condition of announcing her as third front PM candidate for BSP to join the front. All this convince you and me about Gowda’s claim that third front would offer a stable alternative? What credibility he possess to say so? How can Mr.Gowda, who was not able to offer a stable government in a state like Karnataka with a single coalition partner offer us a stable government at center?
TRS, one of constituents of the third front was once upon a time a part of congress led UPA. As a party that is leading the movement for separate Telangana, having made an unsuccessful experimentation with congress in the past, TRS in all probability is prepared for a post poll tie up with BJP which promised Telangana formation in 100 days after coming to power. AIADMK leader Jaya Lalitha, once upon a time NDA ally and who also shares a cordial relation with BJP leaders like Modi and Advani is also open for post poll alliance with NDA. BJD Naveen is open for choices. Communist parties whose only ideology is to blindly oppose BJP, in all probability are expected to say that they have no option but to support UPA in case NDA gets ready to form Government. So third front which exists today is most likely to be a no front post elections and even if it exists which in no case looks possible for me, it would be a third grade front which would only be detrimental to the progress of the Nation. Let’s analyze the reasons why such fronts would be so volatile in nature. Do we see a possibility in this world for any two parties or for that matter any two indivusals or any two organizations working together for a long time without a common ideology or at least a common agenda or a common minimum program? What else do we expect, except the instability and poor governance when parties without a common agenda come together for power? They would focus more over power sharing than offering good governance. Therefore, regional parties without a strong national party leading the Government or regional parties with the only character of regional aspirations and no national interests leading the government prove to be unsuccessful in offering stable and good governance to the billion people who share a vision of achieving a strong India for a stronger world.
Jai Hind
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Are politicians from elite institutions different?
I am sure that most of us have this common opinion in our minds – ‘Had we had politicians from IITs, BITS and other elite institutions, things would have been different.’ Isn’t it? But the question that remains is if this opinion is a myth or is it a fact to believe. When ever we talk of politicians from elite institutions, we can talk about only a very few politicians who actually made a mark in politics. The reasons for such a small number may be because the present day politics doesn’t allow such people to survive or such people do not prefer and do not believe in current politics or it may be because people from elite institutions do not understand the psychology of the common man and therefore they do not succeed. This is a different issue and a complicated issue to be analyzed. But in this blog, I would discuss if politicians from elite institutions are different from others.
You might have come across the recent news that Jai Ram Ramesh was asked to resign to his ministry and to take charge of congress campaign as campaign strategy lead. He is one among the very few politicians from IITs. He did his mechanical engineering from IIT Bombay and later completed his public policy and public management degrees from MIT and Carnegie Mellon Universities. He held the ministry of state for commerce and Industry and also power till last week in Manmohan’s Government. Apart from him, we have one more renowned leader, Manohar Parrikar from IIT Bombay again, the first IIT Chief Minister. He started as a swayasevak from RSS in the campus, gradually grown as a top leader for BJP in Goa and became the Chief Minister for two different terms and is the current leader of opposition in Goa Legislative Assembly.
We have few BITSians as well in politics. Prithvi Raj Chavan, one of the most charismatic leaders for congress who did his engineering from BITS, Pilani, is now holding ministry of state for PMO in UPA Government. I also heard of one more BITSian who contested an unsuccessful election in the interiors of AP. This topic would be incomplete and unjustified if I do not talk about DU which has produced a galaxy of leaders like Manmohan Singh, Arun Jaitley, Madan Lal Khurana, Pradhan etc.. Most of them have started their careers as DU Students’ Union Presidents and General Secretaries. Unlike other Universities, DU is known for producing mass leaders and active politicians for the country. Few other noted politicians from elite institutions include S Jaipal Reddy, a two term President of Osmania University, Hyderabad and now minister in Manmohan’s Government, Murali Manohar Joshi from Allahabad University, an ABVP functionary from college days and now the BJP MP from Rajya Sabha, Jyotiraditya from Stanford and Harvard.
If we observe the political life of any of those whom I have talked about, it’s evident that they are known for their intellect, strategy making and to an extent for their ideological stands. But then, I would neither confidently say that they have done any thing significant for people in their political career nor would I take the risk of saying that they do not adopt any kind of usual stunts that we witness in Indian politics. Every year, we see violence erupting in DU elections, we see the union leaders of IITs and BITS adopting the usual politics, using regionalism to win their elections, grabbing money from the union and treating their friends, benefiting their friends in various ways. Apart from getting good education from these elite institutions, they also inherit parts and pieces of the legacy of Indian politics and therefore they do not stand class apart from the rest. Therefore, it can only be finally concluded that institutions alone do not differentiate the kind of the leaders that they produce, but it’s a combination of the personal ethos, the institution they come from, the ideology they adopt, the understanding that they develop on the needs of a common man, the vision that they have for the country which distinguishes a good and a bad leader.
Jai Hind
You might have come across the recent news that Jai Ram Ramesh was asked to resign to his ministry and to take charge of congress campaign as campaign strategy lead. He is one among the very few politicians from IITs. He did his mechanical engineering from IIT Bombay and later completed his public policy and public management degrees from MIT and Carnegie Mellon Universities. He held the ministry of state for commerce and Industry and also power till last week in Manmohan’s Government. Apart from him, we have one more renowned leader, Manohar Parrikar from IIT Bombay again, the first IIT Chief Minister. He started as a swayasevak from RSS in the campus, gradually grown as a top leader for BJP in Goa and became the Chief Minister for two different terms and is the current leader of opposition in Goa Legislative Assembly.
We have few BITSians as well in politics. Prithvi Raj Chavan, one of the most charismatic leaders for congress who did his engineering from BITS, Pilani, is now holding ministry of state for PMO in UPA Government. I also heard of one more BITSian who contested an unsuccessful election in the interiors of AP. This topic would be incomplete and unjustified if I do not talk about DU which has produced a galaxy of leaders like Manmohan Singh, Arun Jaitley, Madan Lal Khurana, Pradhan etc.. Most of them have started their careers as DU Students’ Union Presidents and General Secretaries. Unlike other Universities, DU is known for producing mass leaders and active politicians for the country. Few other noted politicians from elite institutions include S Jaipal Reddy, a two term President of Osmania University, Hyderabad and now minister in Manmohan’s Government, Murali Manohar Joshi from Allahabad University, an ABVP functionary from college days and now the BJP MP from Rajya Sabha, Jyotiraditya from Stanford and Harvard.
If we observe the political life of any of those whom I have talked about, it’s evident that they are known for their intellect, strategy making and to an extent for their ideological stands. But then, I would neither confidently say that they have done any thing significant for people in their political career nor would I take the risk of saying that they do not adopt any kind of usual stunts that we witness in Indian politics. Every year, we see violence erupting in DU elections, we see the union leaders of IITs and BITS adopting the usual politics, using regionalism to win their elections, grabbing money from the union and treating their friends, benefiting their friends in various ways. Apart from getting good education from these elite institutions, they also inherit parts and pieces of the legacy of Indian politics and therefore they do not stand class apart from the rest. Therefore, it can only be finally concluded that institutions alone do not differentiate the kind of the leaders that they produce, but it’s a combination of the personal ethos, the institution they come from, the ideology they adopt, the understanding that they develop on the needs of a common man, the vision that they have for the country which distinguishes a good and a bad leader.
Jai Hind
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Does the Real India needs colour TVs or the basic needs?
Recent poll promises made by few political parties like TDP and PRP reminds me of 2Rs - kg rice scheme brought in by one of my favorite leaders NTR. I still remember the way NTR reached masses with rice scheme. During that time, poverty and hunger were one of the major concerns of the society. It was very difficult for most of the villagers even to get a square meal per day. I remember a section of media very well supporting it saying this is a welfare scheme for poor and another section of media talking against it saying that it is against the developmental economy. However, nothing could stop NTR going to people with this scheme few more welfare schemes and convincing the electorate. NTR won with a bumper majority leaving congress and the English media to a surprise.
Probably, the NTR's successful rice scheme has started inspiring political parties to bank on populism to gain power. If nothing works, political parties believe in popular schemes. We have seen DMK promising colour TVs in the previous elections and coming into power. In the elections that were held 3 months back in Chattisgarh, BJP won the elections promising Rs 1 per Kg Rice scheme. In 2004 assembly elections in AP, YSR Reddy promised free electricity to farmers and came to power. And now, Babu once known for his hitech measures, promises free distribution of money to people which is described as Cash Transfer Scheme (CTS) by one of my friends. Today, i heard that Chiru also promised free distribution of money in some other form. I am not sure of it though. I have to go through his manifesto.
Most of the times, parties with populist schemes are coming into power. That brings back me to ponder over two questions. 1. Does this mean that parties are catering to the need of the voter? 2. Does this help the country in the long term? Let me take colour TV scheme as an example and see if a common man requires a colour TV or he requires a computer and good education for his child, health facilities for his family, water for his paddy fields? My intuition says that the common will say that he wants basic needs in place of TV. But then, why has he been voting for these schemes? Common man wants something that’s tangible to feel good to caste his vote to a party. It becomes difficult for him to visualize schemes that facilitate long term development. Therefore, he prefers popular schemes to developmental schemes.
Therefore, I ask the political parties if this is not like taking advantage of the plight of the common man to force him to vote for them. Isn’t it an abuse on the poor people? Doesn’t the money distribution makes people lazy and unproductive and isn’t it detrimental to long term progress. It’s the time for people need to judge these gimmicks. I was calculating the other day the amount that Babu has to spend on CTS. If we consider 6 crores as AP population that is either in middle class or below middle class. On an average if we take 6 members a family and on an average if we consider Rs 2000 distributed to 1 crore families per month, in 5 years Babu would spend Rs 1.2 Lakh Crores. If he spends such a huge amount from state ex-chequer, can he spend any amount in developing infrastructure and in providing basic needs to poor? Parties and people need to understand that NTRs rice scheme is different from Karunanidhis colour TV scheme and Babu's CTS scheme. One provides the basic need while the other offers a temporary want/luxury to common man and abuses him. People should strongly question such populist schemes and shouldn't get diverted from main issues in the elections by getting trapped by these populist schemes.
Probably, the NTR's successful rice scheme has started inspiring political parties to bank on populism to gain power. If nothing works, political parties believe in popular schemes. We have seen DMK promising colour TVs in the previous elections and coming into power. In the elections that were held 3 months back in Chattisgarh, BJP won the elections promising Rs 1 per Kg Rice scheme. In 2004 assembly elections in AP, YSR Reddy promised free electricity to farmers and came to power. And now, Babu once known for his hitech measures, promises free distribution of money to people which is described as Cash Transfer Scheme (CTS) by one of my friends. Today, i heard that Chiru also promised free distribution of money in some other form. I am not sure of it though. I have to go through his manifesto.
Most of the times, parties with populist schemes are coming into power. That brings back me to ponder over two questions. 1. Does this mean that parties are catering to the need of the voter? 2. Does this help the country in the long term? Let me take colour TV scheme as an example and see if a common man requires a colour TV or he requires a computer and good education for his child, health facilities for his family, water for his paddy fields? My intuition says that the common will say that he wants basic needs in place of TV. But then, why has he been voting for these schemes? Common man wants something that’s tangible to feel good to caste his vote to a party. It becomes difficult for him to visualize schemes that facilitate long term development. Therefore, he prefers popular schemes to developmental schemes.
Therefore, I ask the political parties if this is not like taking advantage of the plight of the common man to force him to vote for them. Isn’t it an abuse on the poor people? Doesn’t the money distribution makes people lazy and unproductive and isn’t it detrimental to long term progress. It’s the time for people need to judge these gimmicks. I was calculating the other day the amount that Babu has to spend on CTS. If we consider 6 crores as AP population that is either in middle class or below middle class. On an average if we take 6 members a family and on an average if we consider Rs 2000 distributed to 1 crore families per month, in 5 years Babu would spend Rs 1.2 Lakh Crores. If he spends such a huge amount from state ex-chequer, can he spend any amount in developing infrastructure and in providing basic needs to poor? Parties and people need to understand that NTRs rice scheme is different from Karunanidhis colour TV scheme and Babu's CTS scheme. One provides the basic need while the other offers a temporary want/luxury to common man and abuses him. People should strongly question such populist schemes and shouldn't get diverted from main issues in the elections by getting trapped by these populist schemes.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why are 2009 elections so special for you and me?
The much awaited 2009 general elections assume a greater significance and are special in many respects. India in the midst of many challenges and opportunities faces the biggest ever fought elections in April and May. In a road map to the Kalam's vision 2020 and for a smooth transition from a developing nation to a developed nation, in around 8,28,804 polling stations, 715 million voters are going to participate and choose their netas for lok sabha and for legislative assemblies in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Sikkim. This makes it 2009 elections not only the biggest ever fought elections in the world but also the biggest and most complicated elections to be managed by Indian election commission.
Recently, I was watching a program on a TV channel. I was surprised to hear on a news channel that 2009 general elections are going to be much more expensive than the recent presidential elections conducted in US. But later I came to know that considering the black money that our netas spend during these elections, the election expenditures are going to over shoot US election budget by a huge amount. Imagine...what can happen to India if our leaders release black money. One of the reputed economist on another channel was saying that the election expenditure is actually going to circulate more money in the economy as a result of which demand in the economy for products and services would be stimulated. Probably that is the reaosn why our netas dont bother too much about economic recession and the elections would take care of that!!
The Y factor is going to play a crucial role in 2009 elections. With 65 per cent of India’s voters being under the age of 35 (including one hundred million first-time voters), the young make up a sizeable chunk of the electorate. 25% of the electorate are fresh electorate and hence, internet campaign has taken birth in 2009 Indian elections. Any website you open, you see Advaniji calling you on to the banner and taking you to his website and inspiring you to vote for him. But we have to wait and see if this innovation brought in by the few IIM grads and techies who make up Advanijis campaign management team would be successful in convincing the young voters to vote for Advaniji.
These elections are also special because there is going to be a tough fight between the grand old man Advani and the most academically qualified Manmohan. This would be a last chance for the 82 year old but the tech savvy Advani to occupy the PM chair for which he waited so long while it would be an election for Manmohan to prove he is a strong leader and is a winnable choice for congress. One factor which 2009 elections cant ignore is the maya factor. It may become king maker or even the king and decide the fate of you, me and all.....Lets not only wait and watch the elections as usually do but let's participate and choose a strong govt for a strong India.
Jai Hind.
Recently, I was watching a program on a TV channel. I was surprised to hear on a news channel that 2009 general elections are going to be much more expensive than the recent presidential elections conducted in US. But later I came to know that considering the black money that our netas spend during these elections, the election expenditures are going to over shoot US election budget by a huge amount. Imagine...what can happen to India if our leaders release black money. One of the reputed economist on another channel was saying that the election expenditure is actually going to circulate more money in the economy as a result of which demand in the economy for products and services would be stimulated. Probably that is the reaosn why our netas dont bother too much about economic recession and the elections would take care of that!!
The Y factor is going to play a crucial role in 2009 elections. With 65 per cent of India’s voters being under the age of 35 (including one hundred million first-time voters), the young make up a sizeable chunk of the electorate. 25% of the electorate are fresh electorate and hence, internet campaign has taken birth in 2009 Indian elections. Any website you open, you see Advaniji calling you on to the banner and taking you to his website and inspiring you to vote for him. But we have to wait and see if this innovation brought in by the few IIM grads and techies who make up Advanijis campaign management team would be successful in convincing the young voters to vote for Advaniji.
These elections are also special because there is going to be a tough fight between the grand old man Advani and the most academically qualified Manmohan. This would be a last chance for the 82 year old but the tech savvy Advani to occupy the PM chair for which he waited so long while it would be an election for Manmohan to prove he is a strong leader and is a winnable choice for congress. One factor which 2009 elections cant ignore is the maya factor. It may become king maker or even the king and decide the fate of you, me and all.....Lets not only wait and watch the elections as usually do but let's participate and choose a strong govt for a strong India.
Jai Hind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
