CONGRESS-BJP GRAND ALLIANCE- WHY NOT ?

The formation of a third front is gaining momentum, given the current state of political affairs in the country. In fact, the very idea of a third front was put forward when the CPI(M) General Secretary, Prakash Karat announced and is gaining strength every day. Though there is no doubt that both the big national parties – Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – cannot form a government on their own, as it has been quite evident over the past few years, for both these parties have seen a sustained erosion of their national appeal and those are the regional parties which have been eating into their share of the pie! The erosion has been so severe that in some states, some regional parties have literally overgrown to challenge the erstwhile supremacy of the big two.

In fact, of all the regional parties, it is Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) which has done the maximum damage for them. Historically, it has often been observed that the party which rules Uttar Pradesh invariably makes Delhi as their next destination; and Mayawati has been successful in routing both the BJP and the Congress from a state which earlier used to be their bastion. Her party has not only marginalised both the Congress and the BJP in UP, but also has started making inroads into other states of critical importance from the perspective of national elections.

Looking at the way things are shaping up, there are three possible outcomes of the forthcoming Parliamentary elections – first, that of Congress forming a government with outside support from Mayawati and CPI(M)and other allies, second, being that of BJP forming a government with support from regional parties: and third, the third front also becoming a formidable alliance to form a government of their own. Now, in both the first and second cases, on account of the nuisance value of BSP, CPI (M), RJD, SP and other regional parties, both Congress and BJP would abstain from partnering a coalition with them, until and unless there is a dying compulsion. This leaves us with the third option, and that is, Prakash Karat’s third front coming together and forming a government. In fact, the very idea of a third front has already been formed including BJD, by BJP’s former ally, Chandrababu Naidu, who would do anything to make good his loss vis-a-vis the Congress in the last state elections. Moreover, other political parties who are partners in the current UPA coalition, like the NCP and RJD, have formed their own alliance and would not mind joining the third front as well, as there has been a clear conflict of interest in their respective states – Maharashtra and Goa for the former and Bihar and Jharkhand for the latter.

The same holds true for JD(S) in Karnataka as well. But irrespective of such a high probability, the biggest challenge that Prakash Karat would face would be in holding them all together to form a viable third front. And an even bigger challenge would be in terms of deciding who would finally lead the front. Looking at the way things are going, Mayawati stands a bigger chance for the same, but this is something that the CPI(M) leadership and NCP would not be able to accept. And this is exactly the point on which the very idea of a probable third front would die a premature death.

Now the question is: What is the solution to this impending imbroglio? Since i was in Delhi recently and happen to meet lot of friends who had deep interest in politics, incidentally, most of them had the same point of view. Though going by convention, it is almost impossible to even imagine that both BJP and Congress can come together and jointly form a government. But then, why not? This is any day a much better alternative than having the aforementioned third front, which would do nothing other than adding nuisance value at the Centre. Moreover, if one closely analyses the NDA and the UPA regimes, it becomes evident that on most policy matters, they have taken an almost identical stance during their respective tenures. Both the parties have been reform oriented with a strong focus on economic growth. Starting from the Golden Quadrilateral to the nuclear deal, both the parties have been maintaining almost a uniform stance. And the economic performance of the country has also seen almost similar trends in their respective tenures. In the given scenario, with so much in common, why can’t the two parties come together to form a government? If they can do so for the larger cause, burying their respective ideological differences, only then can we have a workable coalition, which would then sustain itself for the full five-year tenure. And then who knows, the political chemistry between the two parties could work in such a manner that then why just five years, they could move ahead to more terms.

A few days back, Congress President Sonia Gandhi and BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani were seen sharing a hearty laugh at the Rashtrapati Bhavan – only if they extended the same laughter to the next election and forged a grand alliance!!!

A National Govt. of both Congress and BJP is the need of the hour and they should bury their hatred for the sake of the country. Both have good leaders like Dr Manmohan Singh, P. Chidabaram etc. in Congress and Arun Jaitley, L.K. Advani, Narendra Modi in BJP. All the above leaders have the capacity and the capability to run a nation as they are leaders who do not seem to be corrupt and still have some national values as compared to the loose canon like a third front, which is a hotch-potch combination, only bound together to grab power and ultimately collapse under its own personal interests of their respective leaders.

ELECTIONS- MOCKERY OF A DEMOCRACY

Did we ask for this kind of Nation ? A voting bazar, trading of seats called seat adjustments. All the tainted and corrupt trading in the open market for seats ? It is a mockery of democracy.

The problem is in our vision in trying to see things as what they should be rather than what they currently are. Unless we acknowledge that the current democratic system is not achieving the desired results, we will not think about how to change it. We are still waiting for a future date when the system will give the desired results, and not conceding that the system has been ineffective for the past 60 years. The case is not so much for a dictatorial form of government, as it is for any form of government or leadership that will achieve the desired economic and social progress in the country on a continuous basis. A few pertinent questions are: -

What is the use of giving a mass of people acepower in the form of voting when freedom in the more basic sense does not exist, where daily life is a fight?

What is the sense in having a system that changes its philosophy and track every 5 years and does not ensure uninterrupted progress, with no room for mid course corrections? We all know, we have 2 Indias. One extremely rich. Ambanis etc. and the other, a majority living below poverty line, striving for one meal a day ?

Where is the clarity in tackling real issues by any of our ace elected representatives? Where are the deliverables?

In India, the democratic system has given birth to a band of people who have no national interest in mind and the opportunists have cashed in. It is clear that democracy in the real sense has not existed, unless you consider only the system of voting once in every 5 years as democracy.

When Emperor Asoka ruled India 2500 years ago, every person lived a contented life during his rule. Did that system of dictatorship (called dynastic rule) not work better than our idea of democracy? It is obvious that only the front end is working, but the back end is incomplete.

The past 60 years are proof of the little progress we have made on various fronts. It is mainly because the average Indian still considers himself distant from the entire nation building process, except at election time. Is this the democratic process we are adamantly supporting? Democracy as a system will not work in nation of people with no national interest, unless we admit responsibility for our fate. It also seems that Indian politicians are afraid to progress and become efficient, because as time progresses one may find that they are redundant.

It seems like freedom wars of some sort will continue to happen in India ad infinitum, ad nauseum, whether it was freedom from the Mughals, the British and now, our politicians like Laloo Prasad Yadavs, Mayawatis etc. who are someday aspiring to be PM. There is a saying that goes, If doing a particular thing, does not give the desired result, then stop doing it. The same goes for a system that just does not work. Reinvention is the name of the game.

It is an example of the cargo cult metaphor which is the institution called democracy. Voting every so often to elect representatives that sit in a great big hall to decide matters of national importance is the front end. The deep backend requires an informed public at a minimum. Even under the best of circumstances, aggregating individual preferences is a risky venture as students of public choice theory will appreciate. (See Ken Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.)

In the case of India, we have a cargo cult democracy. It looks like one with electronic voting machines and election speeches and manifestos, with pollsters and pundits, with election commissioners and voting stations. Only the deep backend is missing. There is no understanding of issues of substance among the people who vote. Put up a name which is recognizable, and they would vote for or against that name. Promise enough freebies (free electricity, for instance) and they will vote for you, never mind that it may bankrupt the state and that eventually it will impoverish the same voting public.

For democracy to work, you need accountability — both among those who vote and those who are elected. In an area where the government is seen as a source for endless handouts by the people, and the leaders look upon their stint in the driving seat as an excellent opportunity to steal from the public, democracy is not likely to work. All the talk about the smart voter is so much hogwash that the mind boggles.

Do we want this kind of democracy ? When I see images of political leaders on TV everyday, I feel disgusted. They have no ideology, values. Ethos or national character which an Indian asks for. Maulayam Singh Yadavs, Amar Singhs, Sharad Pawars, Lallus, Mayawatis, Jayalalitas and many more like them are traders in the garb of political parties. Congress and BJP, two main parties trying to make seat adjustments with regional parties, just to grab power, nothing else ? Each one of them want their pound of flesh. We the citizens like dummies watch, listen and read about these wheeler-dealers everyday and do nothing about it ? A full platform of vote trading happens in front of us and we like impotents cant do a thing about it !

I shun this kind of democracy and I want change. It is a mockery of democracy and trading going on, like we see in the stock market or while you are buying your daily vegetables or fruits. Trying to bargain with a vegetable vendor.

I want to change this forever…. This is not my India, I wanted.

ELECTION AFTER 2 YEARS ? WHY NOT ?

In the interest of giving a fillip to the economy, the government should consider the idea of holding general elections every two years. This will serve a dual purpose. Accountibility and implementation of various public welfare programmes will get faster and all the reigning govts. will fast forward to complete the programmes in a time bound manner. If not, they will thrown out after 2 years and the people wont have to crib and wait for long 5 years to get accountibility. Public memory will remain short and economy will get boosters after every 2 years.


Besides countering the anti-incumbency factor by making each term barely longer than the usual honeymoon period, they could also think of the entire election process and campaign as a variant of NREG scheme, guaranteeing a minimum of 90 days of employment to people across India.

There is the poster and banner making industry, not to mention election merchandise like pennants, badges, caps, anga-vastrams. There are tentwallahs and microphone-wallahs, all manner of car and taxi owners, not to mention private jet and helicopter owners who see a spurt in business during that time.

Print and electronic media get a fresh flush of election-related advertising to tide over lean times, advertising professionals make a killing by helping out with election campaign films and ditties, and even out-of-work stand up comedians find employment as “crowd warmers” at election meetings.

Security guards, bulk food suppliers, cooks and cleaners to rustle up meals at rallies for restive crowds and ‘seasonal’ party workers all benefit from the hubbub.

The need for rooms for campaign offices in various parts of every constituency, the staff to man them, furniture and communication equipment also spells opportunity for landlords, furniturewallahs and electronics store owners.

With the Election Commission getting more and more vigilant about violations of the code of conduct, there is plenty of opportunity for videographers and photographers to loan their services as cameras-on-hire, either for government agencies or for pernickety rivals.

Naturally all the various types of technicians who process such tapes, not to mention the CD makers will also see a rise in demand.

Around Rs 10,000 crore is said to be up for grabs to be injected into the economy for the elections. That may be just about half of the NREGA outlay, but surely still enough to be considered as a bi-annual booster-shot?

WE THE FEARFUL, CAN NEVER HAVE GOOD LEADERS

Abraham Lincoln – For his remarkable role in transformation of American mindset and society.

Obama- sold hope and change. Yet to prove himself.

I do not find someone else who has been as effective however good they may have been. So, I will just offer my take on some of the great personalities who have been hailed as leaders.

Napolaon – Partially yes. But he did not have most of the good qualities of a good leader like good behavior, emotional maturity. Probably his Prime Minister Talleyrand was a much better Leader but due to a combination of factors that included his own handicapped status, he could not overtake Napoleon.

Hitler – Not by any stretch of Imagination. He was a possessed individual who can never be classified as a leader.

Lenin – Not even when I stretch my imagination beyond the breaking point. Lenin was a puppet of the Capitalist US to overthrow Tsar rule in USSR. He was financed by Wall Street. He did not have any credentials to be a good leader.

Stalin – Again only partially yes (And by partial I mean only a very small %age).

Most Important behavior-patterns/characteristics of the leader.

A Good Sense of Humor, level headedness, single minded zeal with vision. Yes, in my opinion, these are the first and the foremost qualities. Everything else will fail to materialize if a leader does not have these qualities. No matter how good an orator he is, No Matter how much proud he is of his country, and No matter how much educated he is.

The kind of transformation that a leader can drive.

A leader is as good as his followers. All said and done, still someone needs to channelize the efforts of masses. So, if a leader gets able support of his people he Can derive unrealistic transformations. But all other factors need to fall in place.

Does anyone among the current crop of Indians (somewhat well-known) have the potential to be a great leader (off course no one has the demonstrated but has someone got the inherent potential or has someone shown flashes of brilliance).

APJ Abdul Kalam Azad – Yes, he has what it takes to be a good leader, but then after his retirement from Presidential Bhawan, got lost because no one supported him. Just cutting ribbons here and there.

Tatas, Birla – No way.

Ambanis – Are you crazy. They will sell the nation in stock market.

Narayanmurty – I will prefer not to comment.

Nilekeni – Yes, he has the qualities, but then needs to prove himself at a bigger stage.

Narendra Modi- Yes, the best bet so far..

The Most Important factor that prevents the emergence of good leaders other than the outlined ones like genetics, etc.

Fear Factor:

It is this factor that we need to change. We need to change our thinking patterns. We need to be honest and fearless in voicing opinions as well as arguments. Unless, we can change these aspects, we would not get good leaders. Because, the good leaders won’t emerge unless there is support for their ideology. And in current India, I do not see there will be any support for it.

We Indians basically by nature are a scared lot, may be genitically. Perhaps, thousands of years of slavery by Sultans, Mongolians, Mughals and Britishers had impacted our fore-fathers a lot.

Natives of India were trained to obey orders from the rulers from time to time. That in-depth fear factor has seeped in and gone down to many generations, event the present ones. We love to discuss and criticize our politicians, bureaucrats and the rulers, the people who govern us in the confines of our drawing rooms. But when it comes to real brasstacks, by supporting a cause openly which is in the interest of the people, our nation, we shirk to participate and don’t endorse the cause due to fear factor, backlash and various other reasons. If this is the case, how can we expect to get good leaders ? After all good leaders have to come from the society, which never endorses a good cause.

It results in Mafia, goondas, corrupt and people who want to make politics as a profession to enter politics and they become our representatives in Assembly and the Parliament. These people are familiar with our phyche and they rule over us, breaking all the rules and making a mockery of a so called democracy in India. We create the vaccume and they fill to govern us.

If we want good leaders, we will have to come out openly to support a worthy cause which is in the interest of our nation. We must stand up firmly and listen to our heart to support a cause which demands numbers. Otherwise we are destined to live as we live today. But for God’s sake, stop criticizing the current lot of public servants as they are the people who are ruling over us, whom we never try to question openly.


All Kinds of Comments and Criticism Welcome.

Narendra Modi as Prime Minister? Why Not? PART - I

I am reproducing an article by Bandyopadhyay Arindham on Narendra Modi. I understand that many people have lot of misconceptions about the man. This is the best article i could find On Modi. L.K. Advani is too old to handle things. Congress means Dynastic Rule. Without Sonia Gandhi or may be, without Rahul Gandhi, Congress is a big zero. Rahul Gandhi is yet to prove himself. We want tried and tested leader at the Centre. Regional Parties create chaos and are misfit for Centre. What is the option ? Certainly not, L.K. Advani but for good goverance, we need Narendra Modi. He is the need of the hour. Many of you may not agree with me. This is my personal opinion and the feedback i get from lot of sources in India.

The recent drama that evolved when Anil Ambani, Sunil Mittal, Ratan Tata and other industrialists lauded Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi at the investors" summit in Gujarat, claiming his leadership as "national level material" and wishing that "person like him should be the next leader of the country", was quite interesting and deserves an honest appraisal.


The unsuspecting media was totally unprepared for such accolades from the stalwarts of India Incorporate for the alleged "merchant of death". The next few days saw numerous news and articles popping up as to why Modi cannot be the Prime Minister of this country. Congress spokesperson called him a fascist and compared with Hitler. There were attempts to develop a rift between Modi and the BJP"s Prime Minister Candidate, Mr. L. K. Advani that lasted till Modi himself declared, much to the disappointment of the media, that he is not in the race for PM. An editorial in Times of India went to the extent of disqualifying him on the ridiculous ground that he was denied visa to the USA and thought that to be considered for the Indian PM post, Modi has to be acceptable to foreign countries. Coming from an editor of a national newspaper, it is intriguing how far one can lower one"s self and national esteem.

Narendra Modi and Gujrat Riot 2002

No discussion can happen on Mr. Narendra Modi, without talking about the Gujarat riot of 2002. Communal riots are not new in India or for that matter, in the state of Gujarat itself - it has happened since medieval times. Neither was the Gujarat riot of 2002 the largest in the history of the state - more extensive and more prolonged violence with much higher death tolls had happened in 1969 and 1985, under the rule of Congress governments.

Those who vilify Modi as a representative of Hindutva politicis of the BJP or RSS kind, fail to remember that Hindu - Muslim riots happened even before the RSS was founded in 1925 or the BJP in 1980. Hindus, known for their tolerance and faith in religious pluralism, are never known to be in conflict anywhere else in the world, but the same cannot be said of the followers of the extremist Muslims, not the Muslim community as a whole, involved in religious (against Hindus, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, etc) and sectarian (Shia, Sunnis, Ahmedhias, Kurds, Baloch etc) violence, not only in the subcontinent of India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, but also in Afghanistan, Middle east, Russia, China, Indonesia, Bosnia, Nigeria and other places.

They also conveniently downplay or misrepresent the cause of the 2002 riot, not a few stones thrown on a procession or a petty quarrel or a temple bell interrupting the tranquility of the namaj, but the systematically carried out Godhra Carnage where three bogies of the Ahmedabad bound Sabarmati Express were set on fire by a Muslim mob, on 27th February, 2002, killing over 50 people, mostly women and children, mostly karsevaks, returning from Ayodhya.

Modi has been accused of permitting, if not directly and deliberately commandeering the portrayed selective massacre and genocide of Muslims, ordering his police force to turn a blind eye, delaying Army help and in the process causing the death of anywhere between 1000 to 5000 Muslims.

It is hard to get true accounts of events that erupted on 28th Feb 2002 and beyond, from reported news and stories, almost all of them tainted with a bias against the Hindus and the Gujrat Chief Minister. However certain facts do stand out, even from accounts in the English media, not particularly known to be generous to Narendra Modi.

1. The Congress Union Minister of State for Home, Shriprakash Jaiswal, in Parliament on 11 May 2005, said 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the riots. This is hardly consistent with a Muslim genocide.

2. The entire police force of 70,000 was deployed in Gujarat on 27 February itself in apprehension of riots. (The Hindustan Times Feb 28, 2002). Gujarat police fired more than 4,000 rounds in the first three days alone. Altogether the police arrested more than 27,000 people. National Minorities Commission Chairman John Joseph noted, "As on April 6, 126 persons were killed in police firing, of which 77 were Hindus." (The Telegraph, April 21, 2002.). This does not tally with the accusation of a deliberately inactive police force.

3. "Shoot-at-sight" orders had been given in Godhra on February 27 itself. (Times Of India, Feb 27, 2002). 827 preventive arrests were made on the evening of February 27 itself, on Chief Minister Narendra Modi"s order. The State Government deployed the Rapid Action Force in Ahmedabad and other sensitive areas and the Centre sent in CRPF personnel, on February 27 itself even before a single riot had taken place. (The Indian Express, Feb 28, 2002)

4. Narendra Modi, frantically called the Army units to Ahmedabad on February 28th (The Hindu, March 1, 2002). Army units started arriving in Ahmedabad on the night of February 28th. On 1st and 2nd March 2002, riots took place even in places where the Indian Army was present, i.e. Ahmedabad and Vadodara, and close to 100 people each were killed, despite the presence of the Indian Army.

5. Only 2 deaths were reported on 3rd March in the entire state, and the main violence ended on 3rd March 2002. After 3rd March 2002, riots took place almost entirely in those places where the Army was posted. Subsequently there were 157 riots and all of them were started by Muslim groups (India Today, June 24, 2002).

6. As early as 5 March 2002, out of the 98 relief / refugee camps set up in the state, 85 were for the Muslims and 13 were for the Hindus. As on 17 March 2002, as per The Times of India, 10,000 Hindus were rendered homeless in Ahmedabad alone. As on 25 April 2002, out of the 1 lakh 40 thousand refugees, some 1 lakh were Muslims and 40 thousand were Hindus. Again this is not consistent with the unilateral Muslim sufferings that have been portrayed.

7. India Today weekly in its issue dated 20 May 2002 clearly admits that, far from being anti-Muslim, the Gujarat police did not act speedily against Muslim fanatics and rioters, for fear of being called anti-Muslim by the biased and partisan media

As for the issue of deployment of army, this is what India Today reported on its 18 March 2002 issue .

FEB 27, 2002

8.03 AM: Incident at Godhra claims lives of 57 kar sevaks.
8.30 AM: Modi is informed of the carnage.
4.30 PM: Modi gives shoot-at-sight orders to the police.
10.30 PM: CM orders curfew in sensitive places and pre-emptive arrests.

FEB 28, 2002

8.00 AM: Special control room set up in CM"s house.
12.00 PM: Modi informally contacts Centre for calling in army.
4.00 PM: Modi requests army deployment following consultations with Advani.
7.00 PM: The Gujarat Government"s formal request for army deployment is received in Delhi.
11.30 PM: Airlifting of troops begins

MARCH 1, 2002

2.30 AM: A brigade reaches Ahmedabad.
9.00 AM: Discussions between representatives of the army and the state take place, followed by troop flag march in Ahmedabad."

Thus, contrary to the accusation of the "fiddling Nero", Mr. Modi did act timely, spontaneously and with due importance to the seriousness of the matter. The National Human Rights Commission and the Minorities Commission "accepted the Gujarat government"s contention that it did foresee trouble and took precautionary steps to check it, but was caught by surprise and overwhelmed by the mob fury erupting on February 28."

That the retaliation of the Godhra train carnage was overwhelming for the available resources at his disposal was obvious, but to blame the Chief Minister or his administration for that would be as unjustified as to blame the Prime Minister, Mr. Manmohan Singh, for the recent obvious sloppiness and intelligence failure that one saw during the recent Mumbai terrorist attack of Nov 2008. Yet that has been and is still being done in such vigor that even most Hindus feel that it is the truth and are probably shameful about Mr. Narendra Modi.

Contrast this with the largest riot that happened in recent times, the anti Sikh riot in Delhi in 1984, in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi"s assassination. In that incidence, officially 3,000 Sikhs were killed and may be 10,000 in actual number. Not a single Congressman was killed, not even one person was killed in police firing, and not even a single government relief camp was organized for the Sikhs in 1984. The joint report on the riots, by the People"s Union of Civil Liberties and the People"s Union of Democratic Rights, mentioned the names of 16 important Congressmen and 13 police officers among those accused by survivors and witnesses.

The Army was deployed but was not allowed to act without permission of senior police officers and hence was ineffective. And this was the justification of the then Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, "Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji ... it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little."

So, can one accuse that there was deliberate failure of administration in the anti-Sikh riots? Can one be justified to call it a Congress-sponsored genocide and pogrom? Did anybody dare to challenge or disqualify Mr. Rajiv Gandhi as the Prime Minister then?

Narendra Modi - the person

Mr. Modi has been described as a phenomenon of a kind India has not seen for a long time. Born on 17 September 1950 to a middle class OBC family in northern Gujarat, he has a Masters graduate degree in Political Science from Gujarat University. Having an RSS background, he was a student leader of Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad and played a prominent role in the anticorruption movement in 1974 in Gujarat. He later joined the BJP in 1987 and became a National secretary of the party in 1995. Later in 2001, he became the Chief Minister of Gujarat.

The biggest challenge which Narendra Modi had to face when he took over as the chief minister was the reconstruction of the earthquake affected areas. Bhuj was a city of rubble. People were living in temporary shelters without basic infrastructure. Earthquake recovery became his first priority. His dynamic vision and quick decisions have put Gujarat Reconstruction Program as one of the best reconstruction programs on the global map and set a benchmark for reconstruction and disaster recovery, not only in India, but also in the entire Asia, for which he achieved global recognition.

He is perceived as an honest, capable man who has taken Gujarat to greater heights of prosperity, since then. He was reelected for the third time in 2007 after a hard fought battle of ballots, in which he single handedly fought not only the Congress lead opposition but also the biased and prejudiced media and his own disgruntled party members.

With a reputation revolving around his incorruptible image and ascetic style of living, he is a workaholic, with a no-nonsense attitude who is unafraid to call a spade a spade. A person who cares less for political correctness and social connections, he is a patriotic karmayogi, whose vision is to make Gujarat at par with developed nations. A proud nationalist, on being asked whether it hurt him that he couldn"t get a US visa, he responded, "I take this as an opportunity. I want my India to be so strong and prosperous that Americans will queue up to come to India. A day will come when Americans will yearn to come to Gujarat."

It is this passion that makes Modi different - a passion for developing Gujarat, a passion to uplift the living standards of its people, a passion to place his Bharatmata back to her days of glory again. And this he tries to do with action and not false promises or gimmicks.

After the Gujarat riot, he has been the target of pathological hatred of the leftist, pseudo-secular, sociopolitical crowd and specially the English media and has been ornamented with numerous chosen abuses like a mass murderer, a dictator, a fascist, a Hitler, an ugly Indian, a maut ka saudagar, but all that has increased his resolve and his determination that he took back to his voters, who returned him stronger and triumphant with their love and respect.

He remained untouched by all the filth and unfazed by all the accusation and lies thrown at him. "Do you think the Centre would have left me like this if they had any proof against me? I have a government that is unfavourable at the Centre and their quietness says it all", He once shot back to an interviewer.

"We have a vibrant media, an active judiciary and global human rights groups working in the country. If there was even the slightest evidence that I had committed a crime, I would have been hanged long since", he said to another.

The Gujarati people have probably found in him what they like to see in any Indian politician - leadership, transparency, accountability, incorruptibility. He is unshakable in his commitments, to the extent of being arrogant, yet humble and down to earth. "I didn"t become CM on 07-10-2001. I have always been CM, I am CM today and shall be CM forever. For me CM means not Chief Minister but Common Man." Many can say but not many can act that way.


There are not many leaders in our country that spends his New Years Day with BSF forces at the border and feels and acts for the simple rights of the soldiers to have access to basic amenities like drinking water, electricity and telecommunications services to talk to their families

It is been hitherto a rare combination in the current Indian sociopolitical scene where one denounce a crime but not the powerful criminal, condemns a terror act but delays punishment of the terrorist, criticizes corruption but fails to indict the corrupt, where a politician is selected because of his popularity, even if it is for a wrong cause or because of his families and contacts and where a significant percentage of politician have pending cases against them on charges as varied as briberies, extortions, rapes and even murders.

No doubt he is endorsed by his party senior, Mr. Advani, "I can think of no other example in Indian politics of a leader who, after being subjected to a malicious and prolonged campaign of vilification, has been able to impress even his critics with his determination, single-minded focus, integrity and a wide array of achievements in a relatively short time"

(Contiuned..)

ELECTION FESTIVAL IN THE OFFING

Like death, elections are inevitable in any parliamentary democracy. Only the timing is a matter of suspense. Just like an ordinary mortal with healthy habits & family history of longevity is likely to live for 70-80 years similarly election come every five years (with occasional mid term polls) & are no less colorful than the famous “Kumbh Fair” where sinners & saints gather to better their fortunes by taking a dip in the confluence of holy rivers.

People try their best to get a party ticket to contest elections a stepping stones to riches, fame & power. Those who are left in the race but are influential or stupid or gamblers try their luck as independents.

Months of noise, hustle & bustle is followed by an eerie silence & then the climax is unfolded the victors celebrate like there is no tomorrow & the vanquished vanish like rats just before storm. Graffiti, festoons & placards make the whole country look like a carnival with occasional gun shots & booth rigging.

Money, muscle & mistress are pressed in to service with liquor & sumptuous meal for the foot soldiers depending on the strength of the party. Star campaigners hop across the country like poets in the festival of colors called Holi.

The story does not end after elections there is jockeying for ministerial birth the license to mint money & pay back dividends to the stake holders called supporters. Then follows a game of musical chairs by reshuffling & transfer of civil servants loyal to the person in the seat of power.

The power equation changes over night. The suspense continues in case the ruling party has slim majority & lots of horse trading takes place with sting operation galore duly televised. I feel irritated to see the whole city swimming in a sea of graffiti & traffic jams everywhere.

Frankly, I do not find any one worthy of my vote but dutifully stand in the queue to have the false sense of being god for a moment. Or may be I do not want to be called an idiot.
Would like to know your reaction!

GIVE POWER TO THE PEDESTRIAN

Power to the people, is a slogan now rarely heard. To many, all it means is electrification of homes! Yet, these four words have the force of history behind them.

They connote a philosophy, a system of governance, which has swept across the globe, laying low many a king, feudal lord and dictator. Not all autocrats and despots have disappeared yet, but the idea of people’s power has certainly shaken them.

Democracy is a necessary means of empowering people; however, to the extent it is restricted to voting, it is far from sufficient. Electoral democracy has many limitations — even drawbacks — especially when it degenerates into majoritarianism or unregulated licence. Oppression of the few by the many is, unfortunately, not an unknown by-product of democracy. Ironically, the reverse — small organised groups of hoodlums holding the majority to ransom (as in many bandhs and strikes) — is also facilitated by “democratic freedom” and encouraged by vote-bank politics. If empowerment of every individual is the goal, it is necessary to go beyond mere elections and ensure: participatory democracy; tolerance and encouragement of diversity in life-style and thought; decentralisation of political and economic power; and equitable access to information, communication and education.

Decentralisation — through the creation of a third level of formal governance by constitutional amendments empowering panchayats and urban local bodies —and the Right to Information Act have, together, given a huge boost to grass-roots democracy and accountability. Potentially, these are revolutionary steps in truly transferring power to the people. Yet, the actual realisation of this is stymied by many obstacles and sometimes contradicted by other measures. The rich and powerful continue to enjoy special privileges and wield influence completely disproportionate to their numbers; they also appropriate a far bigger share of public expenditure than is justified. The plight of the pedestrian is a good metaphor for this.

Political netas and corporate leaders are hardly ever seen walking in the streets of our cities (though a few do run on them during marathons). Therefore, pedestrians — mostly the ubiquitous but indefinable “common man” — get short shrift. Over the last few years, the motor car has been getting ever greater precedence over the pedestrian and the cyclist.

Footpaths have been shrinking in a flurry of road-widening projects, and even existing cycle-lanes have disappeared. An attempt in Delhi to give precedence to cycles and buses through dedicated lanes (as part of a bus rapid transit system) has met tremendous resistance from motorists. Fortunately, following its success in Delhi, a “metro” (train) system is now being put in place in major cities. However, one is not sure if this is a genuine recognition of the dire need to create mass public transportation systems, or is merely the flavour of the day.

The doubt about decision-makers’ serious commitment to efficient public mobility arises from the contrast between the hundreds of crores being spent on fly-overs and road-expansion in cities, and the distinct miserliness and lethargy with regard to procurement of buses and facilities for pedestrians. The priority for cars at the cost of pedestrians is evidenced by the “free left turn” at traffic signals. While this facilitates the movement of vehicular traffic, the resulting continuous flow means that a pedestrian wanting to cross the road must either be capable of out-running Usain Bolt, or be a great believer in re-incarnation! Pedestrian over-bridges and sky-walks would be solutions but these, unlike the proliferation of fly-overs, are a rarity. Escalators and lifts to help the aged or differently-abled to use overbridges — where they exist — are, of course, unaffordable, unlike fly-overs! Pedestrian subways are but few; in Delhi, the aspiring world-class city, they are so filthy and unsafe that no one uses them. This, but naturally, does not bother decision-makers.

In contrast, in many cities around the world, the pedestrian is getting increasing importance — and space. In London — a second home to many of India’s rich and powerful — the width of the foot-paths on Oxford Street, for example, is probably double that of the road. Despite the very heavy traffic and constant congestion, no one even thinks of widening the road at the cost of the foot-path. In many other cities, particularly in Europe, large areas are “pedestrian-only” zones. The result, despite adverse weather for many months in the year, is far more walkers. Most people there walk to and from the nearest station or bus-stop. In contrast, our shrinking, uneven and often non-existent footpaths discourage walking. Those who do walk are often left with no option but to use the road — disrupting traffic and risking injury. Little wonder that Indians prefer to use a car even for short distances. On the other hand, London and Singapore, amongst other cities, levy steep congestion charges on cars entering designated parts of the city, thereby discouraging use of private transport while reducing pollution and traffic density.

In most countries, public authorities and vehicle drivers respect pedestrian rights, giving walkers the right-of-way in many situations. In India, cars run on fuel power, but also on feudal power: they assume almost divine right-of-way everywhere. Government’s actions — through its investment policy, priorities and its disdain for pedestrians — reinforce this sense of superiority. Even in Mumbai, a city in which the offspring of the upper-classes too used to travel to school or college by bus or the “local” (train), the change is perceptible; driven, doubtless, by the neglect and decay of a public transport system trying hard to retain its legendary efficiency.

To make “power to the people” beyond mere cliché, what better way than by empowering pedestrians? Here is an opportunity for the central and state governments to work closely with the third tier, the urban body, and initiate a major exercise in pedestrianisation; to put this in the same class, and with similar priority and resources, as building fly-overs or modernising airport terminals. Industry and civil society must play a major role in shaping this new societal architecture and life-style, one that is environment-friendly and empowering.

The article is written by kiran Karnik. I am sharing it with you