Inclusive Nationalism not Regionalism

The pathetic and outrageous display of thuggery by Maharashtra Navnirman Sena cadres on the streets of Mumbai against north Indians marks another shameful chapter in the unending tryst of the ‘senas’ with their understanding of regionalism. Whatever the provocation for the display of brute force, the actions of Raj Thackeray’s party men does not bode well for a country that should be tackling pan-Indian issues like Islamic fundamentalism, secessionism and Naxalism as a strong united country rather than narrow minded regionalists that alienate and isolate people further and become root causes of civil unrest in the country. The role of migrants in Maharashtra and in economically developed states has been raging for decades. Punjab and Delhi are other examples that have witnessed high migrant populations along with development hubs across the country. The approach of regional parties and the upper echelons of civil society has been twin pronged. The regional parties ask for more representation of the “locals” and natural “citizens” of a particular state over the migrants that often claim a lot of jobs in these economic hubs. The other approach is the elitist one, where the migrants, often poor and low on the socio-economic ladder, are treated as eye sores and the root cause of all ills in society. Both arguments are specious and counter productive in the lager national perspective.

While one would not usually agree with the sentiments of the likes of Samajwadi Party’s Amar Singh, however, he made a valid point with regards to the Mumbai unrest. He said that the migrants from Hindi heartland do not come to metropolitans like Mumbai to beg, but to actually earn a decent living and carry an important role in the day to day lives of most middle class homes. While it is also true that mass migration not only puts pressure on the resources and infrastructures of a city or state, it has also led to increased crime by the migrant population. But that is a law and order issue and in no way does it take away from the economic contribution the migrant population contributes to the economy of a state/city. The elitist argument is especially specious. Proponents regard the migrants as an eyesore, these people are willing to use the services of these very migrants to drive their cars or clean their homes and contribute to their economic upliftment, but they do not want them to live in the same city as them! It is proponents of this same argument that also rue about the political class, but seldom realize that they do not even vote while the migrants are a more democratically inclined and aware lot. The other issue the unruly scenes in Mumbai have brought to the fore is the discriminatory nature of our perspective towards migration. Take for instance, an executive in a big corporate firm. If he or she is transferred to another city, he is more than welcome to be part of the culture and ethos of his migrant city. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkatta and Chennai are full of private sector employees who hail from across the country. How is it that outfits like the MNS never raise a hue and cry about these “outsiders”? Is the quest for economic prosperity only the preserve of the rich and middle class and not of those who often leave everything behind to find a better life in the big cities?

Our nation faces numerable challenges in this new century, our young population will increase the workforce but will also require more jobs in the process. Concurrently, the infrastructure and resources are failing to meet the challenges of this promising future. Coupled with the rise of extremism and internal security issues like Naxalism, the challenges are complex and daunting. What is the need of the hour is inclusive nationalism, where every citizen of the country must meaningfully contribute to make India realize her true potential. Issues like regionalism and casteism are an impediment to this potential rise of the country. The leaders of our country need to get over the narrow considerations of caste and coalition compulsions and ensure that the State and state policy does not become an impediment to this enviable future of the country. Regionalism brings with it a deferential attitude towards the nation as a whole. It is only at times of war, like in Kargil, when the nation truly pulls together to fight an external threat. For local issues within the country most citizens are happy to live in the cocooned comfort of their state or region. Most people feel far removed from the threat of Naxalism or even bird flu as long as it doesn’t affect them. These are issues that require a pan-India resolve and change in attitudes and unfortunately for too long have we chosen to look the other way. It is time that we think of the country as a whole and not in bits and pieces. The rising importance of regional parties underlines the rising threat of regionalism. With national governments dependent on regional outfits, a pan-India vision gets myopic to state considerations. While the importance of regional parties will stay for the foreseeable future, we desperately need our national parties – the BJP and the Congress to not shy away from issues of national importance and more importantly not sacrifice issues of national interest at the altar of regional and coalition compulsions. One may take a dim view given the pandering that is on display by both national parties to woo regional allies, but the hope remains that ultimately for the larger good of the country, where the stakes are unmistakably high, the national parties will stand up and guide India to her true potential.

The BJP needs a jumpstart

The Presidential elections proved to be a one sided affair with the ruling coalition’s candidate Pratibha Patil winning the elections with a convincing majority. These elections already being called the most scandalous of all Presidential elections saw both the NDA and the UPA exchange charges on each others candidates and managed to sully the whole the process that was reduced to a mud slinging match. And in doing so, the NDA successfully managed to stick the word ‘tainted’ next to the words Pratibha Patil for all times to come even though the ruling UPA was adamant to ensure that even after embarrassing revelations of misconduct by Patil’s relatives surfaced, she continued her march to Raisina Hill. The UPA, though embarrassed by some of the speeches of Patil and the allegations against her family, could not replace their candidate for it would politically have proved to be the end of the UPA alliance. In such a scenario, they continued with Patil and played up the ‘first woman President’ card to attribute some respectability to a person who was facing pressures from all political denominations. Whether the decision to pursue Pratibha’s candidature will prove politically useful only time can tell, however, in the short term there is no discounting the fact that the elation of having a woman president was thoroughly run to the ground with the allegations that surfaced soon after she was endorsed by the UPA. Now with the elections over and a substantial, though predictable, defeat handed down, it is important for the opposition NDA to analyze where it stands on the political stage with barely two years to go before the general elections in 2009.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, L.K. Advani had appealed just days before the Presidential elections to vote according to their conscience and ensure that the ‘independent’ candidate Bhairon Singh Shekhawat wins the elections. Whether the audience that Advani was addressing took his advice seriously or not is debatable, but what did occur was cross voting in favor of Patil instead of Shekhawat as was originally predicted. This embarrassing reversal speaks volumes of the piquant situation the BJP finds itself in vis-à-vis its NDA allies. Some erstwhile factions of the NDA had already formed a rag tag third front which included ex-NDA constituents like the Asom Gana Parishad, the Telegu Desam Party, the AIADMK and the Indian National Lok Dal. This grouping christened the United National Progressive Alliance was to act as a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative that has long been envisioned by regional parties and the Left front. The UNPA was assumed to vote for the NDA for regional and national political compulsions, but it decided to break up on election day and decided to vote according to their own individual party’s interests. While the NDA could take heart from the fact that the AIADMK and the INLD did vote for Shekhawat, there is trouble for the coalition for some of its key allies including the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and some factions within the JD(U) in Bihar decided to vote according to their own personal interests. This lack of command pales in comparison with the UPA which managed to ensure that all factions voted for their candidate. This not only ensured Patil’s victory it has also reinvigorated the ruling alliance who confidently named their vice-presidential candidate barely twenty four hours after installing Patil at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. The presidential elections should not be seen in isolation and the NDA should avert calling the elections a mere formality to install the ruling dispensations candidate as the president.

There is no doubt that the degree of coalescence between political parties to form an alliance is directly related to the fact whether the dominant party is in power or not. This was amply proved by the united face that was presented by the NDA coalition under the BJP’s leadership. When voted out of power in 2004, the NDA virtually broke up and finger pointing proved to the norm – not only between parties but within parties as well. During the height of the Vajpayee premiership the Congress and other opposition parties were looked upon as has beens and their chances of winning the elections were considered laughable. By sewing up some strategic political alliances the Congress managed to come to power and today the UPA looks like a formidable foe in front of a tattered NDA. However, this perception can soon change if the BJP were to bring to the fore a manifesto of change. There are regional compulsions that can never be adequately addressed for all formations that constitute an alliance at the national level. However, there are policies and issues that can unite the erstwhile NDA constituents to form a united opposition to the UPA. For that to happen the BJP needs a jumpstart to the run up to the 2009 elections. An active and constructive role in the Parliament is the need of the hour. The BJP is perceived as the staller rather than the opposition in the Parliament today. Endless boycotts and walkouts must end and the party must take back the tag of the principle opposition ironically from the Left which props this government up at the moment. The concerted effort that the BJP showed for the Volcker and Office of Profit controversies is required to reinvigorate the party. The electoral victories of Punjab and Uttranchal were soon dimmed with the reverses that the party faced in the UP elections. It must ensure a romp in the Gujarat elections and the coming electoral cycle of 2008. The party has taken encouraging steps to that effect by appointing Arun Jaitely to oversee the Gujarat elections. Also with the Indo-US nuclear deal soon to be completed, the appointment of Yashwant Sinha as their foreign affairs cell chief is a step in the right direction. The BJP must take a cue from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and form a shadow cabinet (however contentious the idea may seem) whereby an individual is given a particular area to concentrate on and offer a critique of the government’s policies. By providing an alternative policy to the one proposed by the government, the electorate will know where the principal opposition party stands on various issues. Merely opposing for the sake of opposing is detrimental not only for the BJP but the entire NDA alike. This mindset of a sore loser must be replaced by that of being a responsible opposition and thereby influencing a large swathe of the electorate to gravitate towards it.

Most importantly though is the need for the famed Next Gen within the BJP to now come of age and decisively take command of the party. For that to happen the old guard in the party will need to step back. The Congress chief to her credit has made a real effort of promoting younger talents even though the Cabinet continues to have an average age well into the seventies. The BJP needs to come out of the ideological doldrums that it finds itself in. The blow hot blow cold approach to Hindutuva and the Ayodhya movement has only smacked of opportunism rather than any substantial policy initiatives on both issues. The BJP also seems to have been deeply wounded by the policies that it had taken during its regime. The India Shining campaign was a feel good campaign that has been blamed for the party’s defeat. The notion gained such currency that many in the party themselves starting believing that the reason they lost was an ad campaign. That is a simplistic argument to the more complex reasons for the loss – primarily the alliances it sought in the run up to the elections. But that aside the party needs to chart a new path on policies that it would doggedly pursue in the years to come. 2009 may seem a long time away but it is just barely long enough to change the perceptions that have crept into the minds of many voters. The time is here to go from the “has been” to the “will be” in 2009. Anyone listening?

Madam President: Masterstroke?

“ I’m always rather nervous about how you talk about women who are active in politics, whether they want to be talked about as women or as politicians”
John F. Kennedy
(Courtesy TOI)

After much political deliberations and consensus building, Sonia Gandhi, the Chairperson of the UPA, finally declared the UPA’s candidate for the post of the 13th President of India. Pratibha Patil emerged as the surprise consensus candidate and the announcement also sounded the end of the Shivraj Patil and Sushil Kumar Shinde presidential campaigns. In doing so, the Congress is claiming the moral high ground – for in the 60th year of the Republic’s independence the country will have a woman President – and it is the Congress that will go down in history as having put her there. The move is tactically smart, as the Congress has pulled a “Kalam” in throwing an option that most political parties will have difficulty opposing. In Governor Patil, you have a North Indian, Maharashtrian, upper caste Thakur, stature (though as compared to Shivraj Patil and Shinde most Governors in the country could beat them on that count), a known loyalist and most of all she is a woman. That this lady existed with such perfect credentials in the national scene and why she was never considered till the day of reckoning is a mystery. It does seem that with her nomination, the brilliant career of Mr. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat seems to have hit the end of the road. There is no doubt that all the talk of cross voting will now come to naught and Mr. Shekhawat will contest as a token opposition candidate.

While the Patil nomination does serve the Congress and its UPA allies well, the fact that the woman president card was brought in so late in the discussions does indicate that the UPA was not keen to have a woman candidate right from the start. Any insinuation that it was a planned move to install a woman at Raisina Hill is specious. As the right wing media and the opposition is claiming that after Sonia Gandhi’s candidate Shivraj Patil was out rightly rejected, the Congress and Gandhi decided to fall back on the relatively safe and non-controversial candidature of the other Patil. And in choosing Patil the Congress ensured that whatever resistance the Left might put up would evaporate. For the Left having put the candidature of Captain Lakhsmi Sehgal in the last presidential elections, rejecting a woman candidate was not an option. The allies, including the DMK, NCP and RJD seem to go along with her candidature and so Patil’s moment in history finally arrived. With the position of the President more or less decided, the fight for the Vice President’s chair will soon hot up. It is highly likely that the DMK will push for their man for the post – for the unwritten understanding is that if the President is from the North, her Vice President should be from the South. While some analysts argue that the Left will stake a claim for the VP’s position, it does seem unlikely, as the Congress would not want the Left to emerge as the kingmaker with having scuttled the Shivraj Patil candidature and then installing one of their comrades in the Vice President’s post. The DMK, having just recovered from the embarrassing family soap opera, will press for their man for the job, but with the Prime Minister facing flak for having ministers thrust upon them form his allies, like in the case of A Raja for the Communications portfolio, it remains to be seen how seriously the DMK candidature is taken within the power circles of the Congress.

The main drawback in installing a woman president seems to be the fate of the Women’s Reservation Bill. With a woman at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, one feels that the call for the bill to be passed will diminish rather than gather pace. It is unlikely that in a male dominated political system the male politician will let go of the Parliament after having seen the all male bastion of the Rashtrapati Bhavan having already being breached. If the political casualty of a woman president is the women’s reservation bill, not many tears will be shed across the political spectrum.

So while many questions will continue to be raised about Pratibha Patil and her candidature, the Congress will feel that they have played a masterstroke in having virtually installed a loyalist in the Rashtrapati Bhavan. In doing so the party has once again elevated itself from the pack by showing “political morality” with respect to their power hungry foes. However, as soon as the Congress takes the moral high ground on issues, some tough questions do arise. Namely, does Pratibha Patil “fit the bill” because she is a woman or because she is Gandhi- Nehru loyalist? Secondly, is loyalty to a political family more than to a political cause the only criteria for selecting a President? Was the NDA for all its tokenism in installing a Muslim as the President, not choose a candidate that made the nation proud and who yet was not a BJP loyalist. If Sonia Gandhi was so keen to give woman their due in the 60th year of India’s independence, why didn’t she show her political resolve and declare only a woman candidate from the start? These questions will find scant answers, especially from the UPA. It is without a doubt though, that when all the talk about the Presidential polls is written and analyzed, having a woman president will make the nation proud. And the UPA knows it.