NDA vs UPA

In a democracy, comparison between different parties or alliances in government at different times is inevitable and also useful. UPA was in power for 10 years; the present NDA has been governing for the past 3 years.

There are some obvious differences like surfeit of scams during UPA times and initiation of inflammatory issues when NDA is in power. Beyond the obvious, there is one basic difference which may decide if NDA will be voted back to power in the next general elections.

UPA was shrewd (?) or pragmatic (?) or indifferent enough not to attempt any experiment, call it reform or not, that would require widespread co-operation from the public. UPA's major achievement as its leaders are fond of saying was introduction of Right to Information Act. A crucial measure, no doubt, but it was easy to implement and nobody was adversely affected at least initially. When difficulties started, many subterfuges emerged heralding adoption of various dilatory tactics. RTI did not require people's forbearance for its successful implementation.

NDA however has charted a different course. It has embarked on two major missions which require(d) total and unflinching readiness on the part of people to take suffering in their stride. Objectives of Demonetisation were hazy but the problems it created for the people were tangible and crystal-clear. It is a tribute to Modi's shrewdness that he could not only weather this self-created storm but could successfully project it as a mission against all evils, be they terrorism, black money or inflation.

GST is the next big experiment that is bound to create a lot of teething problems. Its introduction is certainly called for. One does not know if UPA deftly avoided belling the cat though it made a lot of noise about it. No doubt, Modi strongly opposed GST when he was a chief minister. If GST is implemented without snafu, Modi will be a little more sure of retaining power post 2019. Would he have the nerve to come up with one more major experiment before 2019?

B.S.Raghavan on Narendra Modi

B.S.Raghavan, one of the oldest former civil servants now amidst us, is an erudite commentator on current happenings, political and others. A clear thinker, his articulation competes with his cogitation. He has worked with three prime ministers and has wide experience  having served in different states and Delhi.

He spoke on Modi's 2-year performance as P.M. and what the future beholds at YMIA, Chennai on June 12. He had fulsome praise for Modi. This is a weighty compliment from a person who admits that he is a fan of Jawaharlal Nehru. In a way, it is most difficult to come across a more incompatible pair than Modi and Nehru. But there you are, Raghavan does not allow his self-diagnosed prejudices to cloud his opinions on men and matters.

BSR said he has become more optimistic about India thanks to Modi's leadership. His comments were on Modi as a person and not as someone belonging to BJP or any other group.

Candid assessment was made on 1)Modi's performance in domestic arena, 2)Modi's phenomenal and unexpected successes in foreign front and 3)what improvements are called for. Jan Dhan Yojana, Skill India, Make-in-India and Clean India projects came in for wholehearted praise. About Modi's misses, he made a few debatable observations.

He wished that Modi, immediately on assumption of power, should have announced a few electrifying steps like "Uniform Civil Code" will be operative from tomorrow" (does our slothful legal system permit this?) and "all non-performing bureaucrats will be sent home forthwith". The Pathankot disaster, in his view, should have let heads like DGP, Army General roll. Modi's tendency to be silent on idiotic comments by some extreme elements was duly disapproved of. Modi ought to learn from Nehru how to squelch rumours and misleading comments firmly and fast. Modi needs to travel more domestically and like Nehru must become visible to all Indians.

BSR felt that Modi should have chosen a more appropriate cabinet of ministers. However, he did not say who could have been included. In his view, some present ministers do not belong to their respective portfolios however capable they are otherwise.

The speaker was sanguine about the future outlook. He hoped that Modi is a learner.

Modi's mojo

Modi's address to the US Congress has deservedly attracted praise from all directions. As usual, he spoke without the assistance of any notes. He traversed an array of subjects. He stressed the significance of both India and America. His emotional involvement was explicit on his face when he referred to terrorism.

Modi could have been more forthright about Pakistan's perfidy. Pakistan sheltered Osama bin Laden while pretending to be unaware of his whereabouts. This was an affront to America. America somehow chose not to confront Pakistan openly and assiduously on this treachery.

Modi praised the American Senate for imposing conditions on Pakistan if they are to avail military aid. Unfortunately, President Obama is trying to remove these conditions. President's intention is an insult to anti-terrorism forces. It is unthinkable that a Nobel laureate in Peace favours a terrorist nation.

Does PM's educational qualification matter?

Did Narendra Modi really study in the Delhi University for his graduation? Modi had declared in his election affidavits that he completed BA in Delhi University and MA in Gujarat University. The latter has confirmed that Modi had passed MA through Gujarat University, but could not confirm his BA degree.

There is no educational requirement in politics. There is no evidence that the educated ones have fared better or served better in politics. There are instances of uneducated leaders exhibiting salutary leadership skills. In Tamilnadu, K.Kamaraj has probably been the most successful Chief Minister so far in promoting alround development including in ensuring higher admissions and stayins in schools through the revolutionary midday meals scheme. He had vision which the more educated lacked.

We are more interested in knowing what the prime minister does than what he has studied. But Arvind Kejriwal has focused the country's attention on Modi's (lack of) connection with the Delhi University. The university has so far been unable to contradict Kejriwal's charge that Modi did not qualify in DU.

What is more disconcerting is that Modi has not spoken on the issue. If he had passed BA, all that he needs to do is to provide some verifiable evidence like Roll Number, Marks Sheet etc. His continuing reticence is neither strengthening his credibility nor enabling the controversy to die down.

If Modi had fibbed about his educational attainment, he would have violated the vishesa dharma relating to political leaders that they ought not to lie and mislead. The question is not whether the country has suffered any damage because of his alleged falsehood. Such mendacity will create grave doubts in people's minds about the credibility of his other claims and utterances.

If Modi had lied, what should he do now? He must quit the prime-ministership and prove that he is a better leader than Manmohan Singh who continued in his post despite popular outrage against his facilitation of various kinds of political skulduggery. True, Modi's lie (if it is proved to be one) is nothing compared to his predecessor's massive deception. If Modi sacrifices his post for what is obviously a non-venal act but nonetheless a misleading one, he would have established a healthy precedent and BJP's stock would rise.

Chidambaram right and wrong

The former Home Minister who was also the Finance Minister for some time has criticised the Modi government for its over-sensitivity to Raghuram Rajan's logical observation about the need to avoid complacency. Chidambaram is right in accusing the government of seeing ghosts where there are none.

His attempts to justify his volte-face in the Ishrat Jahan case are of course pathetic. His indefensible role in the jihad against Modi and unlawful amassing of wealth by his son will come home to roost.

A new controversy has now arisen where Chidambaram as a lawyer can air his views. The public spat between the CJI and the PM is a sad spectacle. Both the government and the judiciary are living in glass houses. The question is not who is more duty-conscious. The question is who is more indolent. Modi himself may be working tirelessly. But this cannot be said of the rest of the government. Chief Justice Thakur may be burning midnight oil daily. Other judges are not known for their indefatigable labour.

Modi and Thakur ought to realise that they are not speaking for themselves. They represent and lead institutions. Claims that government is more efficient than judiciary or vice versa will only attract sarcastic comments. The government that could not bear Raghuram Rajan's balanced observation cannot be expected not to respond to CJI's livid and lachrymose comments. Fun has only begun.

TheGuardian on Narendra Modi: Dr.Jekyll or Mr.Hyde?

Pankaj Mishra in a widely quoted article dated November 9 in TheGuardian refers to Narendra Modi as

" the divisive manipulator who charmed the world".  He also condemns him as an “…opportune manipulator of mass disaffection with uneven and unstable growth, who distracts a fearful and atomised citizenry with the demonisation of minorities, scapegoating of ostensibly liberal, cosmopolitan and ‘rootless’ people, and promises of ‘development’, while facilitating crony capitalism.”

He follows it up with a more balanced assessment. "More importantly, Modi was a symptom, easily identified through his many European and Asian predecessors, of capitalism’s periodic and inevitable dysfunction: he was plainly the opportune manipulator of mass disaffection with uneven and unstable growth, who distracts a fearful and atomised citizenry with the demonisation of minorities, scapegoating of ostensibly liberal, cosmopolitan and “rootless” people, and promises of “development”, while facilitating crony capitalism. To aspiring but thwarted young Indians Modi presented himself as a social revolutionary, the son of a humble tea-seller challenging entrenched dynasties, as well as an economic moderniser. He promised to overturn an old social and political order that they saw, correctly, as dominated by a venal and unresponsive ruling class. His self-packaging as a pious and virtuous man of the people seemed especially persuasive as corruption scandals tainted the media as well as politicians and businessmen in the years leading up to 2014."

The seemingly vitriolic article surprisingly presented in a reliable newspaper is available in the following link:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/narendra-modi-the-divisive-manipulator-who-charmed-the-world

Modiphobia

It is widely known that the Congress party under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi has been rampantly corrupt. Many leaders like P.Chidambaram and Abhishek Manu Singhvi were feathering their own nests taking advantage of Sonia Gandhi's permissiveness and Manmohan Singh's 'look away' policy. The party did not realise that people's patience would run out if the party members became overly venal.

Nevertheless, the party got one thing right. It realised early that Narendra Modi was one person who could hasten the defeat of Congress in national polls. Ever since Manmohan Singh became the Crime Minister, the party had been virulently targetting Modi as the one-man nemesis for the party. CBI was let loose on Modi; several cases were filed against Modi in various courts. Yet, Modi was not found guilty of any misdemeanour by any court.

It was in such a desperate situation that Sanjiv Bhatt came to Congress' rescue in the year 2009. He claimed that he attended the meeting presided over by Modi on Feb'27, 2002 in the wake of the Godhra riots and that Modi advised the police in this meeting  to go easy on the rioters. This was obviously a serious allegation. Congress took it as a godsend and went hammer and tongs after Modi.

SIT which investigated various allegations against Modi and the Gujarat government trashed Sanjiv Bhatt's claim that he attended the said meeting. However, this did not give the quietus to Congress' crusade against Modi. Now comes the Supreme Court's judgment condemning Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt as a schemer and conspirator. This should have come as a crude shock to Congress leaders. But, they are so busy protecting their ill-gotten wealth that they have no time for introspection or repentance.

On Narendra Modi

Very few assessments of Narendra Modi are balanced. There are carping criticisms and enthusiastic encomiums. Even estimates are rare. Therefore, it is refreshing to come across a logical review of Modi in the first year of primeministership by Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of Centre for Policy Research appearing in The Indian Express. Some of his observations:

"There is ambition, and even a hint of liberality that ambition brings. But there is the temptation to knock down all opponents. It has been hard to take his measure, because the man and his measures have become one. And the man, after one year, still remains elusive."

"Prime Minister Narendra Modi provokes unprecedented passion. Both his supporters and his critics fail to keep a steady grip on his vices and virtues. He is hard to grasp because he is the product of a peculiarly contradictory moment in Indian democracy. He is a centraliser who looms large. A sense of his self is infused in every speech. Some yearned for exactly this kind of leader. But his sense of self-legitimation also draws power from democracy: an architect of his own fortune, who represents, in his own way, a deepening vernacularisation of democracy. He is seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the people: the compulsive desire to project an image is in service of this goal. But it also means that he will don different costumes, languages and even headgear when necessary. The script will evolve as he reads the people."

"Modi is, in a strange way, a leader who seems to wants to fold in all the qualities of those he claims to represent. This is, by its very nature, a quixotic enterprise, full of tensions. It is often asked: Who is the real Modi? The one articulating lofty and generous aspirations or the one whose government can have streaks of paranoia and petulance?"

" But institutions that supposedly protect individuals: justice systems, police, bureaucracy, the CBI, the CVC, the RTI are in disrepair. Many of their pathologies were not the creation of this government. But there is an anxiety that this government could match existing pathologies with a new efficiency, to produce even more detrimental outcomes."

"It is hard to take his measure. All the contradictions of India play out in his persona."

Narendra Modi's style: Debilitating control or Enabling oversight?

Shashi Tharoor has told a private gathering at the World Bank that Modi's operating style may stymie India's development. The report is as follows:

"The office of Prime Minister Narendra Modi exercises such an extent of control over policy matters that it could be impeding implementation, suggested  Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram, who is on a brief visit to the U.S.

Speaking at a private event at the World Bank focused on his new book “India Shastra” Mr. Tharoor, who is also the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, said, “Mr. Modi has said a lot of the right things. The challenge is going to be in doing the right thing, which so far, in ten months, we haven’t seen him doing that.”"

Perhaps Tharoor is right. There is an ocean of difference between Modi and his predecessor. Manmohan Singh escaped legal responsibilty for all ministerial scams under his 'able' leadership because he never intervened in any decisions. He was only a 'pass- through prime minister'. (In Finance, pass- through entities do not attract taxes. Similarly, Singh did not attract any culpability for multiple shenanigans.) 

It is sad that Tharoor never commented on Singh's style and thereby lost an opportunity to save the country from a decadent decade. It is ,however, only too naive to expect him to criticise a prime minister who turned a blind eye to his misdeeds in IPL and what all followed over a period of time including the poisoning of his wife.

The Modi government has asked the state Governors to remain in the states atleast for 80% of the time and to seek President's approval for travel outside. It is strange that there was no such guideline so far. It is time that gubernatorial posts ceased to be mere sinecures.

Is Modi = MMS + Execution?

Manmohan Singh was instrumental in formulating the Indo-American pact on nuclear cooperation. But he could not implement it. Now Modi is trying to activate the agreement.

MMS had wanted Jaishankar to be India's Foreign Secretary, but had to oblige Sonia Gandhi and appoint Sujatha Singh instead. And now, Modi has made him the Foreign Secretary.

What will be Modi's next move?

Can Modi deliver on black money?

It is very pleasant to hear Narendra Modi's assurance that every black penny deposited abroad will be brought back. Can he make good on his promise?

His Finance Minister whose affiliation to the Delhi Gang is obvious is hesitant even to share whatever details are available with the government. He is not ashamed of parroting the excuse given by the earlier government which he used to make fun of.

Ram Jethmalani who is carrying on a crusade against black money lying abroad was conveniently removed from the BJP. If Modi had desired, Jethmalani could have been brought back to the party. (But why bring back an inconvenience?) The boisterous lawyer is forced to write letters to Modi and Jaitley because they are unlikely to be serious about the matter.

The irrepressible Subramanian Swamy has penned an open letter to Narendrabhai detailing six ways of bringing back black money. If he did not doubt government's intentions, he would not have written an open letter.

Therefore, all indications are that the tax evaders are too powerful and promiscuously present in all political parties to fear. Honest tax payers who are unwilling or too timid to cheat on tax may continue to revel in masochistic pleasure of doing the nation a good turn by coughing up taxes.

BJP's volte-face on black money

It is shocking that Modi's government has adopted the UPA's argument regarding divulging details of black money stashed abroad. This amounts to going back on an assurance given to the public on the basis of which NDA came back to power.

BJP, hailed as a party with a difference, is only a carbon copy of the Congress party. As time rolls on, we are likely to witness scams and scandals reminiscent of UPA days. The Modi magic also has a shelf-life.

Modi's decision to continue the ailing Arun Jaitley as the cabinet minister in charge of two crucial ministries is not reflective of good governance. This is not to underestimate Jaitley's capacity or credibility both of which are high. Even a healthy person will find the combined demands of two crucial ministries to be taxing. Modi seems to be trading off principled politics for pragmatic economics. He was not voted to power for making this dubious choice.

Politicians of a different kind

It is encouraging to read the following in The Hindu dated 1st June.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/a-train-journey-and-two-names-to-remember/article6070562.ece

Narendra Modi as Fareed Zakaria sees him

Time magazine identifies Congress' bete noire, Narendra Modi as one of the 100 most influential persons in the world. May be, this is stating the obvious. Here is the account by Fareed Zakaria:

"The divisive politician poised to lead the world's largest democracy

Elections are reactions, often negative reactions. That is surely the explanation for the breathtaking rise of Narendra Modi, who — if the opinion polls are accurate — is poised to become India’s next Prime Minister, and thus the world leader chosen by the largest electorate on the planet. India is currently ruled by Manmohan Singh, a mild-mannered 81-year-old technocrat with no political power of his own and a passive leadership style. Reverse every one of those traits and you have Modi, the charismatic, intense, utterly decisive head of Gujarat, one of India’s fastest-growing states. Most Indians believe that their country has lost its way as its growth rate has been almost halved while inflation has soared. Modi has a reputation for quick action, encouraging the private sector, and good governance. He also has a reputation for autocratic rule and a dark Hindu-nationalist streak. But those concerns are waning in a country desperate for change."

Modi on corruption

A PTI report quotes Narendra Modi saying the following:

""My priority will be develop a system by which the scope of corruption is minimised. We have to decide either I should concentrate my efforts on preventing new corruption or to clean up the old mess. My conscience says that my focus should to be ensure that new mess (of corruption) is not created," he said.

"We have to decide whether I should focus my energy on preventing new corruption or waste time on cleaning up old mess," he added."

Modi's choice is perplexing. Condoning past corruption is not necessary to enable Modi to fight future corruption. In fact, being soft on past corruption will send a wrong message that time will absolve the corrupt of their illegality. In case he becomes prime minister, he must fight corruption, past, present and future.

Is Modi saying this only to justify possible inaction against the corrupt in his own party?

Many countries do not go soft on those who had been corrupt in the past. For instance, Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel was recently convicted of bribery while serving as mayor of Jerusalem. Any policy other than zero tolerance towards corruption smacks of suspect political accommodation.

Deep flaws and deep bites

P.Chidambaram has discovered deep character flaws in the personality of Narendra Modi. He is surprised that no BJP leader has tried to correct him.

Character flaws are difficult to identify. Chidambaram should have used all his psychological skills to unearth the flaws.

The doctors who autopsied Sunanda Pushkar did not require such phenomenal skills to spot deep teeth bites in her palm. It is a pity that these doctors did not have the 'Chidambaram sense' to identify the culprit. Shashi Tharoor is lucky that Chidambaram is not a doctor.

Why do we have a tendency to miss the obvious and go after the enigmatic?